News

Too many office development proposals?

Planning department has reached capacity, staff says

Mountain View's real estate boom has hit a new threshhold: city planning director Randy Tsuda told the City Council that his department has reached its capacity for reviewing development proposals.

On Tuesday, Tsuda asked the City Council to delay a slew of new development proposals, saying, "We've never been at this level of development activity."

The City Council voted unanimously to delay development proposals that have poured in, including seven office projects and one housing project. Most are for North Bayshore and will have to wait for the development of a precise plan, a blueprint for development for the area north of Highway 101 that will take into account the larger needs of the area.

The City Council is hoping to approve the plan by the end of the year.

The delayed projects include the following North Bayshore projects: a 296,000-square-foot, six-story office building for 1625 Plymouth St. by Broadreach Capital Partners; a 200-room, five-story high-tech hotel by the Shashi Grioup for 1625 North Shoreline Blvd.; a three-story, 113,000-square-foot office building at 1040-1060 La Avenida for Berg and Berg Enterprises; and for the north side of Highway 101, "a gateway signature headquarters" for LinkedIn that may go up to eight stories tall, replacing several small buildings near the movie theater that house Togos, Laser Quest, Gold's Gym and others at 1400 N. Shoreline Blvd.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

LinkedIn's 370,000-square-foot headquarters campus on Stierlin Court could also double in size in another project.

Outside of the North Bayshore area, the Sobrato organization has proposed a 151,000-square-foot office building for 465 Fairchild Drive.

"You're going to be busy for a long time, you've got a lot of projects, a lot of people wanting to come to your community," said developer Andy Byde of Braddock and Logan, as he made his pitch for the lone residential project amongst the office development proposals. He called them "city changing projects" compared to his own. He proposes to renovate the entire complex at 777 West Middlefield Road, while demolishing eight units and building 46. The City Council was already familiar with the plan, having deadlocked 3-3 on the project last year, but backed away from it once again, some members saying it was because it is outside "change areas" in the city's new general plan.

The city's 13 planners are busy processing around 80 development applications. Tsuda has said that his department can hire contract planners to handle additional projects, but there are only so many projects that he and his deputy director can oversee.

Earlier in the evening, council members approved a four-story, 140,000-square-foot office building at 600 National Ave., which Environmental Protection Agency officials said would be an opportunity to speed up a cleanup of toxic TCE from the soil and groundwater under the older buildings on the site, possibly through use of new cleanup methods being tested on Evandale Avenue.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Council members wanted to know how close the city is to hitting the cap of 3.4 million square feet the new precise plan is expected to impose on North Bayshore office development. Zoning administrator Gerry Beaudin said all of the development proposed for North Bayshore added up to 1.3 to 1.4 million square feet, in addition to 300,000 square feet already approved for the area, "so you're at 1.7m sq feet."

The council also wanted to know whether a 750,000-square-foot office project at 700 E. Middlefield Road was going to be withdrawn to make room for more proposals. Google is expected to buy the property, putting into question a proposal by developer Sares Regis and previous property owner Deutsche Asset and Wealth Management (also known as the Rreefs project). The sale apparently happened right after the City Council cut the project down in size from the 1 million square feet originally proposed, with some members saying there was too much office in the pipeline and that the site would be better for housing. Google has reportedly agreed to pay an unprecedented amount for the site, $250 million.

"We've been bombarded with (talk of the) jobs-housing imbalance (in Mountain View)," said council member Mike Kasperzak Tuesday, as he tried to persuade the council to allow the apartment project to move through the planning process. "Everything we've talked about is thousands of square feet of office space, and maybe 38 (housing) units."

Kasperzak proposed to allow the housing project to go through if the big office proposal for 700 East Middlefield fell though because of the sale to Google, but a slim majority of the council opposed the idea.

"I'm conflicted there," said Mayor Chris Clark. "If Rreefs drops off and that really does free up staff resources, I'm not sure it has more merit than some others."

At the end of the meeting, council member Ronit Bryant suggested that the city come up with ways to "help these older (apartment) complexes," like the one at 777 Middlefield Road. "Had council agreed to let it go through Gatekeeper, we might have found ways to preserve its affordability."

She said preserving such complexes would be preferable to "losing all the older complexes and all the trees and open space that go with that."

Other council members were skeptical, saying that any project renovating older complexes would likely come with higher rents, causing more residents to be displaced from the city.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Mountain View Voice Online on Twitter @mvvoice, Facebook and on Instagram @mvvoice for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Too many office development proposals?

Planning department has reached capacity, staff says

by Daniel DeBolt / Mountain View Voice

Uploaded: Thu, May 29, 2014, 11:05 am

Mountain View's real estate boom has hit a new threshhold: city planning director Randy Tsuda told the City Council that his department has reached its capacity for reviewing development proposals.

On Tuesday, Tsuda asked the City Council to delay a slew of new development proposals, saying, "We've never been at this level of development activity."

The City Council voted unanimously to delay development proposals that have poured in, including seven office projects and one housing project. Most are for North Bayshore and will have to wait for the development of a precise plan, a blueprint for development for the area north of Highway 101 that will take into account the larger needs of the area.

The City Council is hoping to approve the plan by the end of the year.

The delayed projects include the following North Bayshore projects: a 296,000-square-foot, six-story office building for 1625 Plymouth St. by Broadreach Capital Partners; a 200-room, five-story high-tech hotel by the Shashi Grioup for 1625 North Shoreline Blvd.; a three-story, 113,000-square-foot office building at 1040-1060 La Avenida for Berg and Berg Enterprises; and for the north side of Highway 101, "a gateway signature headquarters" for LinkedIn that may go up to eight stories tall, replacing several small buildings near the movie theater that house Togos, Laser Quest, Gold's Gym and others at 1400 N. Shoreline Blvd.

LinkedIn's 370,000-square-foot headquarters campus on Stierlin Court could also double in size in another project.

Outside of the North Bayshore area, the Sobrato organization has proposed a 151,000-square-foot office building for 465 Fairchild Drive.

"You're going to be busy for a long time, you've got a lot of projects, a lot of people wanting to come to your community," said developer Andy Byde of Braddock and Logan, as he made his pitch for the lone residential project amongst the office development proposals. He called them "city changing projects" compared to his own. He proposes to renovate the entire complex at 777 West Middlefield Road, while demolishing eight units and building 46. The City Council was already familiar with the plan, having deadlocked 3-3 on the project last year, but backed away from it once again, some members saying it was because it is outside "change areas" in the city's new general plan.

The city's 13 planners are busy processing around 80 development applications. Tsuda has said that his department can hire contract planners to handle additional projects, but there are only so many projects that he and his deputy director can oversee.

Earlier in the evening, council members approved a four-story, 140,000-square-foot office building at 600 National Ave., which Environmental Protection Agency officials said would be an opportunity to speed up a cleanup of toxic TCE from the soil and groundwater under the older buildings on the site, possibly through use of new cleanup methods being tested on Evandale Avenue.

Council members wanted to know how close the city is to hitting the cap of 3.4 million square feet the new precise plan is expected to impose on North Bayshore office development. Zoning administrator Gerry Beaudin said all of the development proposed for North Bayshore added up to 1.3 to 1.4 million square feet, in addition to 300,000 square feet already approved for the area, "so you're at 1.7m sq feet."

The council also wanted to know whether a 750,000-square-foot office project at 700 E. Middlefield Road was going to be withdrawn to make room for more proposals. Google is expected to buy the property, putting into question a proposal by developer Sares Regis and previous property owner Deutsche Asset and Wealth Management (also known as the Rreefs project). The sale apparently happened right after the City Council cut the project down in size from the 1 million square feet originally proposed, with some members saying there was too much office in the pipeline and that the site would be better for housing. Google has reportedly agreed to pay an unprecedented amount for the site, $250 million.

"We've been bombarded with (talk of the) jobs-housing imbalance (in Mountain View)," said council member Mike Kasperzak Tuesday, as he tried to persuade the council to allow the apartment project to move through the planning process. "Everything we've talked about is thousands of square feet of office space, and maybe 38 (housing) units."

Kasperzak proposed to allow the housing project to go through if the big office proposal for 700 East Middlefield fell though because of the sale to Google, but a slim majority of the council opposed the idea.

"I'm conflicted there," said Mayor Chris Clark. "If Rreefs drops off and that really does free up staff resources, I'm not sure it has more merit than some others."

At the end of the meeting, council member Ronit Bryant suggested that the city come up with ways to "help these older (apartment) complexes," like the one at 777 Middlefield Road. "Had council agreed to let it go through Gatekeeper, we might have found ways to preserve its affordability."

She said preserving such complexes would be preferable to "losing all the older complexes and all the trees and open space that go with that."

Other council members were skeptical, saying that any project renovating older complexes would likely come with higher rents, causing more residents to be displaced from the city.

Comments

Of course
Monta Loma
on May 29, 2014 at 2:19 pm
Of course, Monta Loma
on May 29, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Of course, anything for the googlites and their developers. The people that live here, who cares about you.


Konrad M.Sosnow
Cuesta Park
on May 29, 2014 at 2:20 pm
Konrad M.Sosnow, Cuesta Park
on May 29, 2014 at 2:20 pm

Mountain View cannot afford to have 40,000 additional jobs and 20,000 additional housing units, unless we want skyscrapers.

We have General Plan 2030, why doesn't City Council stick to it?


Garrett
another community
on May 29, 2014 at 2:34 pm
Garrett , another community
on May 29, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Mixed use both Whisman and North Bayshore is needed, hosing units need to be clusted around VTA or a retail/entertainment center.

Retail/Entertainment Center. Supermarket, restaurants, shops to serve both resident and businesses. Large enough to attract residents living near, attractive and
24/7.

Not everything is Google, WhatsApp is expanding.


Voice of reason
Cuesta Park
on May 29, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Voice of reason, Cuesta Park
on May 29, 2014 at 3:13 pm

Thank you Randy Tsuda for telling the City Council that his department has reached its capacity for reviewing development proposals! Better late than never.


Patrick
Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2014 at 3:47 pm
Patrick, Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2014 at 3:47 pm

God! I'd give anything for these damn tech companies to go somewhere else! I'm so sick of all the tech snobs! They have ruined Mountain View. The only people that want to see them come are the ones profiting from it. One of these days the botttome will fall out, and this place will be a ghost town. Also, if you're gonna import all your workers, make sure they learn how to drive their new $250,000.00 car. I've never seen so many entitled idiots on the road. Mountain View is quickly becoming the new "suck".

Yea, that's right. I said what everyone else is thinking.

Go somewhere else!!!!


Robert
another community
on May 29, 2014 at 3:57 pm
Robert, another community
on May 29, 2014 at 3:57 pm

The best way to reduce the pressure for offices and new housing is to not live or work in Mountain View. I'm assuming most folks complaining though want the *other* guy to make that choice...


nikonbob
Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2014 at 4:18 pm
nikonbob, Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2014 at 4:18 pm

What? Has the planning department worn out their rubber stamp?


Unfortunately
Cuernavaca
on May 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm
Unfortunately, Cuernavaca
on May 29, 2014 at 4:30 pm

The sad part is that this is being driven by the Planning Dept saying they're overloaded. That certainly works for me. However, it would've been much more satisfying to see the decision made on the basis of Council (and Staff) saying enough is enough.

And for those who've forgotten, business happens in cycles. Within 3-5 years there will likely be another downturn. Vacancies will reappear, rents will go back down.


Garrett
another community
on May 29, 2014 at 4:31 pm
Garrett , another community
on May 29, 2014 at 4:31 pm

Don't have to approve every project that comes along, this is why we hire planners and have planning and zoning boards.

No wonder why Texas and other states are getting California companies, jobs and the businesses.

Downturn might happen but the upturn might happen someplace else other then here.

Property and Sales tax might crash yet with new upturn, recovery will be slow and hard. Who would want to work in a ghost town.

Be careful what you wish for.


Texas Can Have it
Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2014 at 4:39 pm
Texas Can Have it, Old Mountain View
on May 29, 2014 at 4:39 pm

More than happy for Texas to get new companies and new high-tech jobs. Texas is attracting employers by letting them come in with low taxes. Guess how they pay for their infrastructure? By passing the financial burden onto the less fortunate! When the people wake up and take back the state from the corporations, those companies will then look for other places to expand to.

That's the way it works.

It doesn't mean that we have to cave into developers and companies on some sort of "ghost town" fantasy/nightmare. In fact, Garrett, is that your campaign slogan? "Cave and Pave Mountain View"


Kgirl
Rex Manor
on May 29, 2014 at 7:38 pm
Kgirl, Rex Manor
on May 29, 2014 at 7:38 pm

Maybe I am missing something but no where do I see or hear any concern for how many projects the city can really take on at once without impacting traffic, pollution levels, and overall quality of life for its residents. I am not surprised that the city planners office is overwhelmed with project requests. I am for forward motion but I do think there has to be a balance. I don't think hiring more contractors to review proposals is the answer. I suggest that the powers that be take an overall look at all projects, timing, and impact to the community and decide how many are truly sustainable. I think everyone needs to step back a little and look at this for the long term.


NIMBY
Whisman Station
on May 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm
NIMBY, Whisman Station
on May 29, 2014 at 8:55 pm

I'll be a NIMBY as long as the current planning is all commercial density without any real residential expansion. The zoning laws are already nonsense. Whatever character this town has had, it is losing rapidly as the congestion associated with loads of commercial occupancy goes up. Every day I see a close call accident at the intersection of Whisman and Middlefield.

Mr. Texas up there, is way off. Lack of affordable housing will cause much more damaging long-term effects than any amount of rejected commercial construction. As it gets worse, companies will have to keep paying more out on payroll to compensate for a constrained housing market and nightmare commutes. At some point people will burn out and quit.

FACT: People will make the tradeoff of going somewhere else in the country for less money and a nice, affordable house with more disposable income and a better life. It's not either/or.

Apple is in Cupertino but it's also in Texas. Dell is in Texas, but it's also in Santa Clara. Large cap companies will hedge in secondary labor markets. Texas is a nightmare state in my opinion, but if people can go there and have a real house, and they don't mind the heat, chiggers, ants the size of rats, water moccasins, climate change deniers, good for them. It's not the Bay Area. Do understand that it's the potential worker opting for a place with better housing, not because company XYZ decided to go there to avoid some tax.

Someday, my guess is, there will be a commercial vacancy rate of 35-40% and people will be standing around pointing the fingers of how & why that happened.


Garrett
another community
on May 30, 2014 at 6:32 am
Garrett , another community
on May 30, 2014 at 6:32 am

I am for housing in general, affordable or not so affordable. People will decided what is the right place and what kind of housing style suits their income. Demand and supply is very lopsided, 80's, 90's and 00's and guess what? We are talking about the same thing.

Mixed use office/housing and retail projects are needed, currently there is one planned.

Companies want to expand in California but costs are high. Land, materials, labour, housing for their workforce. Not all companies are willing to pay super high wages to remain.

In time the only operations to remain are upper level management, CEO and boardroom positions.


Been there, done that
Old Mountain View
on May 30, 2014 at 6:49 am
Been there, done that, Old Mountain View
on May 30, 2014 at 6:49 am

Anyone who thinks the tech boom and housing crunch is a newer issue might as well scream "I don't have any historical knowledge of this issue or trends that have been happening in MV for decades"

This has been a discussion for multiple decades going back into 70's that I can attest to, maybe earlier but I wasn't around then.
I take comfort in seeing this cycle play out again and again, without the doom foretold by those with less real life experience here in MV.
It is also clear many have no clue about the tech industry here, except that they hate them and their snobbery. For those people I have this Webster dictionary definition:

BIGOT:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)


Garrett
another community
on May 30, 2014 at 7:37 am
Garrett , another community
on May 30, 2014 at 7:37 am

I have watched boom, bust, boom and bust. Then boom again, jobs created, lost and created.

The housing problems aren't getting solved, far from it. Companies have left the bay area for years and different reason. Changes have been part of the bay area.

The housing issue, 35 plus years it has been a problem.


Last gasps
Bailey Park
on May 30, 2014 at 9:14 am
Last gasps, Bailey Park
on May 30, 2014 at 9:14 am

I think the developers are trying to get their last chance efforts in before we vote in a council who does not rubber stamp everything.
Somewhat like refugees trying to get into the US embassy in the last days of the Vietnam war


Bob
Blossom Valley
on May 30, 2014 at 9:25 am
Bob, Blossom Valley
on May 30, 2014 at 9:25 am

Council should put a hold on ALL new multi-story buildings, (office and housing). Lets stop focusing on growth and focusing on the beauty and tranquility of the existing residential areas. Not all of us want to live in a high rise urban or Asian type of community.
At one time the city had a policy encouraging single family homes. And that is why many moved here and made it a desirable place to raise a family in a suburban setting.
Start with a new planning department policy that would favor the residents concerns over wealthy developers.


Garrett
another community
on May 30, 2014 at 11:36 am
Garrett , another community
on May 30, 2014 at 11:36 am

One of the reason why Japan is built up. Protecting farm, been reading how cities of world are protecting farmlands.

If we keep building a sea of suburbs, thousands of single family homes, low rise office buildings, single story shopping centers and miles of freeways.

Not much beauty or farms left.


Not in denial
North Whisman
on May 30, 2014 at 1:57 pm
Not in denial, North Whisman
on May 30, 2014 at 1:57 pm

Any comparison to what's going on now vs. 10-20-30 years ago is delusional. Population has doubled and our traffic is considered among the worst in the nation (e.g. southbound 101).

Here are some facts for you BeenThereSeenThat crowd: there are 5.5 million square feet of office space in the pipeline through 2017. CREDA projects that the square footage per employee will drop to 151. So if you run those numbers, by 2017 we will have an additional 36,423 jobs in this city. Drive through Mountain View (anywhere) at lunch time and try to imagine adding another 36,423 workers on top of that.

GOOD LUCK. As if anything from decades ago means anything in the face of that. Wake up, people.


incognito
Waverly Park
on May 30, 2014 at 2:13 pm
incognito, Waverly Park
on May 30, 2014 at 2:13 pm

Suggestion to Randy Tsuda and his 13 planners - leave the 80 development proposals on your desks and take the summer off! Go on a nice long vacation, someplace far away, so those of us back home can take a reprieve from worrying about how you are destroying our city.


Solved?
Old Mountain View
on May 30, 2014 at 2:14 pm
Solved?, Old Mountain View
on May 30, 2014 at 2:14 pm

Where in the world has the housing problem been "solved?"


SB
St. Francis Acres
on May 31, 2014 at 7:59 am
SB, St. Francis Acres
on May 31, 2014 at 7:59 am

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that while council voted to deny the gatekeeper requests, council also voted to let the developers submit "informal applications" -which one council member described as an opportunity for "schmoozing"-.

It's also concerning that the main driver to pace Mountain View's office growth is the workload of a 15 people City department .... not our shortage of infrastructure (schools, transportation, bike network, parks...) and not the growing impact on residents (housing imbalance, housing costs, loss of open space, traffic/congestion, loss of small & local stores/services...).


Garrett
another community
on May 31, 2014 at 9:39 am
Garrett, another community
on May 31, 2014 at 9:39 am

Some of these proposals will work their way through the planning process, which changes and other redesigns will happen.

Seeing that light rail goes throught Whisman, housing could be placed along Ferguson Dr which I know was planned at one stage. A park would work as a divider from office to residential.

Office and retail would work along Middlefield.


Martin Pilling
St. Francis Acres
on May 31, 2014 at 11:44 am
Martin Pilling, St. Francis Acres
on May 31, 2014 at 11:44 am

Let's us not forget Merlone Geier's "Public Benefit" of a bicycle lane "going nowhere" between the the San Antonio Road intersections with California Street and El Camino Real ("F" Level of Service rating). This was approved by the Planning Commission last Wednesday. Great place for our school children to ride their bikes!


Garrett
another community
on May 31, 2014 at 11:55 am
Garrett , another community
on May 31, 2014 at 11:55 am

Not all bike riders are school aged children and bike lanes need to start and finish. Transit and bike networks need to thrive with many places to beside schools and parks. Yes the office is good, but stopping off at places along the way.


greghume
Old Mountain View
on May 31, 2014 at 12:32 pm
greghume, Old Mountain View
on May 31, 2014 at 12:32 pm

Maybe we can get the Cuesta Annex people to adopt all of Mountain View and then we won't have to worry about 'growth' any more.


Breathe
Old Mountain View
on Jun 2, 2014 at 9:55 am
Breathe, Old Mountain View
on Jun 2, 2014 at 9:55 am

Just like we need national parks in our states as breathing spaces, we need refuges in our communities as breathing spaces. For example, the corner of El Camino and Castro, where Sufi Coffee, the Rug Store, Pete's Coffee and the Rose market are. This should be declared a Mountain View Refuge, and keep the damn developer's mits off of it. Business thrives there. People love all the venues and the charm of this corner. Heck, I've even seen City Planner Muckety-Mucks scheming, probably on what to do with this very corner, sitting peacefully outside of Pete's drinking their latte's and looking at blueprints. City of Mountain View, are you paying attention? We like this corner the way it is. It's a REFUGE. It's a breathing space away from all the crazy change and development you've been foisting upon us. We are tired of the rapid pace of change in this town and need a place to take a break from it all, sort of like the rest of Castro Street. LEAVE IT THE HELL ALONE.


Breathe freely
Castro City
on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:17 am
Breathe freely, Castro City
on Jun 2, 2014 at 10:17 am

Talk to the landowners at Castro and ECR. They are the one pushing to sell their land and have it developed.


OMV Resident
Old Mountain View
on Jun 2, 2014 at 11:35 am
OMV Resident, Old Mountain View
on Jun 2, 2014 at 11:35 am

@Breathe -
"City of Mountain View, are you paying attention? We like this corner the way it is."

Your are entitled to your opinion on this, but please do not assume to speak for all your neighbors or all the residents of Mountain View on this.

I am not a fan of the way this corner looks or how it works right now. I find it kind of embarrassing that one of the key gateway corners in our city has the remnants of a burned-down building, with makeshift fencing and random rugs from the neighboring business on display there. I also think that much could be done to improve that corner - and the entire ECR/Castro intersection - for pedestrians and cyclists. It's a really long distance to cross, and the corners are designed for cars to make fast, sweeping turns. I would like to see something happen to improve that corner (not necessarily what Greystar is proposing), and I'd like to see the whole intersection rebuilt to make it safer and more pleasant to cross when not in a car.


comment7
North Whisman
on Jun 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm
comment7, North Whisman
on Jun 2, 2014 at 2:11 pm

Patrick - I sooo agree with you. Wish Google would go to the East Coast. Anyone ever thought of what would happen if one of those terrorist countries decided to attack us here in Silicon Valley? All the high-tech companies are here ... Yahoo, google, ebay, microsoft, paypal. We basically are the e-hub to the world. They seriously need to rethink their position here, the tech companies. Don't put all your eggs in one basket, so to speak. And Google's free wifi is so undependable in Mtn. View. Rents have gone up as greedy landlords are salivating at the bit.


JIM G
Old Mountain View
on Jun 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm
JIM G, Old Mountain View
on Jun 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm

The once nice and pleasant city of Mountain View is turning in to a clutterd jungle of steel. A lot of you people who live here voted for these people to wreck, destroy are once great little city.


DEVELOPER
Bailey Park
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm
DEVELOPER, Bailey Park
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:08 pm

Developers need not only to keep CITY happy, but City needs to keep DEPARTMENTS Happy, by Changings Streets to promote Delays in Traffic, for Pedestrians, etc, TWO Important People needs to be HAPPY THE MVCity and the MV Police Department, who thinks in Middle Class? Even worst who is thinking WORKING CLASS?
Developers are happy when lots of a building means lots of traffic lots of congestion then everybody is happy and laugh all the way to the bank at expense of the working class peace and stability!


Linda Curtis
Cuesta Park
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Linda Curtis, Cuesta Park
on Jun 4, 2014 at 3:33 pm

I agree with Breathe about the corner of Castro and ECR, known as the 801 ECR Project. I always thought the strip along ECR would be rebuilt for the retailers there, after the fire. But why would we want to kill everything at the South end of Castro? It had developed organically, just like the opposite end of Castro, and was just as popular for us! Half of Peet's and maybe Rose, if it can endure being out of business for 2+ years, will get placed on stinky, loud, unpleasant ECR, with only apts. taking all floors along South Castro. That is where we loved sitting in the morning sun, enjoying eating and drinking stuff from Peet's and Rose. ECR doesn't cut it for this.


Sparty
another community
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:48 pm
Sparty, another community
on Jun 5, 2014 at 2:48 pm

Yep that horrible tech sector that brought the very houses people who complain abut the new tech sector live in.

If only Fairchild et al went some other place, then we could have our orchards and empty dirt lots in peace.

Personally I'm glad to see some changes. I plan on sticking around, and don't care for a bunch of Grandpa Simpsons with selective memory trying to run every discussion.


CodeRed
another community
on Jun 6, 2014 at 9:18 am
CodeRed, another community
on Jun 6, 2014 at 9:18 am

@Sparty,


Clearly you don't care for opinions which do not align with your own opinions. And evidently the concept of free speech is overrated by some on these forums.

Noted.


TQ
Monta Loma
on May 13, 2015 at 3:38 pm
TQ, Monta Loma
on May 13, 2015 at 3:38 pm

Google has done nothing to the community of mountain view. They build no community housing, no shopping. They run mountain view like an industrial complex, work here and live somewhere else. They all have free food, hair salon, therefore local business benefit nothing from them either.

Facebook build new office in menlo park, they are committed to $1m a year donation to the city every year. What has google done, their wifi is not even dependable. True they are good to their employee, but as a neighbor, they are bad neighbor, they do not give back to the community

Google X is just moved into our neighborhood, took up the whole thing. Going to congest the traffic, but they build no support function for it. If google wants to keep expanding in mountain view, we will definitely need to see more community/neighborhood benefit.


Donnybrook
another community
on May 13, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Donnybrook, another community
on May 13, 2015 at 5:55 pm

The problem is that Google's whole design with concentrating office activities around Mountain View is inherently terribly destructive. Some day they'll wake up and realize that. They're obviously having problems growing, and they think if they just put everyone in the same city, that will smooth the way to more of the successes of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. It accelerates the economic divide to have no room left for smaller business to do less well paid work. No more auto shops. No more light manufacturing. Google bid up the price on all the land and buildings. Screw the middle class, let alone the low income.

How many low income jobs does Google create? How many sub $90K jobs? They hire contractors to drive buses for them, basing the buses miles and miles away. It's a perversion of the American Dream. It's the Rich Employee Only dream.


Rent Control
another community
on May 13, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Rent Control, another community
on May 13, 2015 at 5:58 pm

San Jose contemplates beefing up existing rent control protections in their city. Average rent up to $2600 per month down there.

Web Link

Web Link

Mountain View doesn't need rent control because soon everyone will work for Google anyway, or not be allowed to rent.


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

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.