Throwing a new twist into future development plans in North Bayshore, the Mountain View City Council on Tuesday night signaled that more than 100 acres of land could be used to build a new residential neighborhood.
In a 6-1 vote at the April 14 meeting, with John Inks opposed, council members approved studying the feasibility of bringing hundreds of new, tightly packed homes to a cluster of parcels near Shoreline Boulevard north of Highway 101. In doing so, council members challenged developers to present ideas for making the area a model for modern urban design.
"I'm excited about this. We have a great opportunity to create a live-work-play neighborhood in the North Bayshore," said Councilman Lenny Siegel. "If we take all of this together, we can come up with a really exciting urban design plan."
Home to Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft and other tech firms, Mountain View's North Bayshore district has become the main focus for the competing development interests in town. Last December, city officials set a limit of 2.5 million square feet of new development that would be allowed in the area. That cap effectively created a fierce competition between Google and other firms looking to expand in the sought-after office park. The city ended up receiving seven proposals seeking to develop more than five million square feet in the area, with Google proposing to use all 2.5 million square feet for a dramatic new headquarters.
At the time those proposals were submitted, the city had no official plans to allow housing in the North Bayshore area. Under the previous City Council majority, city planning efforts restricted new development in the area to offices and commercial uses.
But that changed following November's election. In February, with three newly elected members creating a new majority, the council changed position and endorsed adding new homes.
On Tuesday, city staff presented their first preliminary study showing areas that could be suitable for residential development. City Principal Planner Martin Alkire flipped through a litany of maps, showing the district's anticipated sea-level rise, highway noise, building-height restrictions, wildlife corridors and other factors. Based on all this, he zeroed in on five parcels suitable for homes in the area, some of which overlapped with the land sought for commercial use.
It became an open question exactly how these two uses would bump against one another as the council begins considering the stack of commercial development proposals next month. City Community Development Director Randy Tsuda advised the council they could penalize projects that don't include housing in the specified areas by removing a density bonus.
Representatives from tech firms and companies seeking to expand in the area gave a mixed reaction to the city's pivot to housing in North Bayshore.
The idea was strongly endorsed by Google's real estate director John Igoe, who had previously recommended a community of 5,000 homes in the area near his company's headquarters. Going beyond the city staff recommendation, Igoe urged city leaders to zone more land for housing, including a swath of property near Huff Avenue and a yard used for parking buses along La Avenida Street. But he was adamant that his support for housing did not mean his company was amending its application for a new headquarters.
Tim Steele, senior director of real estate at The Sobrato Orgnization, pointed out that his company's 700,000-square-foot proposal encompassed two areas the city was now eyeing for housing. Remaining polite, he reminded the city his firm's application was submitted on time and followed the city's stipulations "to the letter." His company has already submitted a new proposal that would split its project between housing and offices, he said.
"We followed the rules completely, however we saw the writing on the wall as far as where residences might be studied," Steele said to the council. "Subsequent to our application we met with staff and submitted an alternative for your consideration."
The fiercest push-back that evening came from LinkedIn as the council discussed the possibility of residential zoning on land the company had intended for a new 10-building campus. LinkedIn representative Jim Morgensen pointed out that much of the area sought for housing was located along a contaminated groundwater plume of toxic trichloroethylene and perchloroethene. While commercial development was possible, any new residences would face enormous liability in a toxic environment, he said.
"When it comes to developing residential, it's never going to happen unless the city or someone else is going to indemnify the parties who are going to build," Morgensen said. "It's an interesting idea, but I don't see it happening in reality."
The council ultimately decided against adding the LinkedIn site to the area being studied for housing.
City Council members were generally very supportive of further investigating housing in the North Bayshore area. The lone person voting against the action was Councilman John Inks, who urged his colleagues to consider the seven submissions for commercial development before switching to demand housing.
"The topic of housing in the North Bayshore has only been alive and kicking for about two months," he said. "I don't support any housing mandate."
The rest of the council members voted to investigate housing for the five sites recommended by staff as well as an additional site between Huff Avenue and Joaquin Road. As part of its action, the council majority agreed to allocate $1.2 million to pay for consultant work to revise the North Bayshore precise plan and the city's general plan to include a new section of the residential zoning. City leaders pointed out that cost would be eventually be reimbursed through development fees for the area.
Going forward, city staff members advised the council that they would schedule eight to 10 public meetings to discuss adding housing to the area. A final revision to city plans to include residential use for the are is expected to take almost two years.
Nevertheless, there was an air of excitement among council members as they discussed someday having a new neighborhood bordering one of the world's tech centers.
"This whole area is going to get a lot of attention, not just nationally, but worldwide, and I hope we can get world-class proposals out of this," said Councilman Chris Clark. "We should make a statement as a council that we're open to new things."
Comments
Monta Loma
on Apr 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
on Apr 16, 2015 at 4:29 pm
This is fantastic and the best way to development for the cities from Sunnyvale to Menlo Park. It has alway been an under-developed hellhole with East Palo Alto at the center of it all.
Developing this strip of land east of Bayshore with responsible housing and communities is the only way to get rid of the blight that we on the other side of the highway have suffered from since the 1950's. And to all the liberal and racist activists that deny this just look back to what happened to Ravenswood High School, banks, and grocery stores: you know this is true, and the facts support it. Only when the bay side of the south bay area is fully developed with new working communities will the nightmare of crime, gangs, and corruption end, and responsible communities grow; so let's start with Mountain View and continue to make it even a greater city than it is.
Registered user
Blossom Valley
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2015 at 5:00 pm
@Dennis,
Thank you!
To add to your point, the best way to alleviate the rising cost of housing in this area is to increase inventory. There's not a ton of empty land on the West side of 101 w/o tearing down existing housing or businesses. We have the opportunity to do something right here....let's not blow it.
Cuesta Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 7:10 pm
on Apr 16, 2015 at 7:10 pm
Putting housing near the high density of jobs is also the best way to address the traffic issues that will come along with another 2.5Million sq. feet of commercial space (or whatever it ends up being). Good for MV City Council for bringing their city planning into the 21st century.
Registered user
Rex Manor
on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:34 pm
Registered user
on Apr 16, 2015 at 10:34 pm
"much of the area sought for housing was located along a contaminated groundwater plume of toxic trichloroethylene and perchloroethene. While commercial development was possible, any new residences would face enormous liability in a toxic environment.."
I guess I read this article differently than the previous commenters, but who really knows the truth. It seems Mountain View Council thinks this is not true or their are extremely naive with our money.
Dennis,
"Developing this strip of land east of Bayshore with responsible housing and communities is the only way to get rid of the blight that we on the other side of the highway...Only when the bay side of the south bay area is fully developed with new working communities will the nightmare of crime, gangs, and corruption end, and responsible communities grow; so let's start with Mountain View and continue to make it even a greater city than it is.
I live on Shoreline and don't see what you are seeing in Mountain View. I don't think this article addresses the land area you think it does.
North Bayshore
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:13 pm
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:13 pm
Hi Dennis,
Throwing Easy Palo Alto into a Mountain View discussion is offbase. If you
look at crimereports.com you will see there is very little crime in
North Bayshore. Less crime than the rest of Mountain View. This refutes
your argument.
Sylvan Park
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:33 pm
on Apr 16, 2015 at 11:33 pm
It takes bravery for Inks to assert the absurd remark that housing in North Shoreline is a new idea. The majority of the prior council did their best to kill the idea, but the council debated it for the past couple of years.
Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2015 at 4:24 pm
on Apr 20, 2015 at 4:24 pm
When we have water restrictions all over, is it wise to build 5000+ units? The greedy developers don't care, then we the people should.