Google relents on bid for more office space | News | Mountain View Online |


Google relents on bid for more office space

Company pledges commitment to 9,850-home goal in MV

An expanded version of an earlier story

If Mountain View's tense standoff with Google over North Bayshore last week was like a game of chicken, it was Google that swerved.

This week, Google officials backpedaled on demands for more office space as a condition for building 9,850 new housing units in North Bayshore. In a contrite letter sent Monday afternoon to the Mountain View City Council, the company's real estate team apologized for comments made last Tuesday, Sept. 26, that were widely interpreted as an ultimatum demanding an additional 800,000 square feet of office development rights.

In the letter, David Radcliffe, Google's vice president of real estate, emphasized that his team was wholeheartedly on board for seeing housing built near the company's North Bayshore headquarters.

"During the Council's study session, we voiced the idea that adding office space could be a way to offset housing costs. We apologize that this came out as a demand, when the intent was to open a conversation to address a potential issue," he wrote."We remain unequivocally committed to (North Bayshore housing) and strongly support the creation of the full 9,850 new housing units."

The company's tone was very different one week ago as a grueling City Council study session on the North Bayshore precise plan stretched past midnight and into the early morning hours. At the time, council members were suggesting a series of new requirements for the company's future housing development, including calls for union hiring, environmental monitoring, ownership housing and up to 40 percent of new apartments to be priced as affordable.

As the night wore on and the list of potential public concessions grew, Google's lead representative, Senior Design Director Joe Van Belleghem, came back to the lectern and spoke bluntly. There would be no housing built by Google, he said, unless the city agreed to allocate 800,000 square feet of additional office space.

"Just to be clear: no new office, no new residential," Van Belleghem told the council. "We've been very clear all along that we needed this extra office space to make this work."

By a thin margin, the council opted not to budge, and declined to consider any additional office development rights. It was a harrowing end for the meeting, leaving housing advocates concerned that after so many years of work, a partnership to bring in thousands of new homes now seemed to be headed off a cliff.

Less than a week later, the company's real-estate team signaled a change of heart, making overtures to repair the damage. Speaking on background, a Google spokeswoman insisted that the Van Belleghem's comments last week were an aberration, inconsistent with the company longstanding support for housing.

"Nothing has changed -- some of the things that were said, they're not our stance," she said. "We've always been vocal supporters of housing, and we want to make sure the public understands where we're coming from."

The spokeswoman confirmed there was some pressure from the company's own employees in recent days, highlighting the severe need for housing. Similarly, council members say Google employees contacted them following the meeting to encourage them to press the company on the 9,850-housing-unit goal.

Others outside the company theorized that other motives were at play. Some city officials suggested Google came to the conclusion they had more to lose if the housing deal fell apart.

"I think Google realized they would take a hit in public opinion," said Councilman Lenny Siegel. "It's not just the substance of the meeting, but also the idea of a city getting pushed around by a big corporation."

Google officials may attain additional office space in North Bayshore through other avenues. City planning staff pointed out that the company can still file a so-called gatekeeper project, which if approved would provide a special-case exemption from normal growth limits.

The council this week approved plans to allow Google or any other private party to purchase development rights in the San Antonio neighborhood and transfer them elsewhere in the city. That system is intended to help the Los Altos School District acquire land for a new school campus.

Other concerns

It wasn't just the comments by Google at the Sept. 26 meeting. Behind the scenes, there were other signs from Google leading up to the meeting that alarmed city officials.

A few days before the meeting, Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga said she met with Google's real estate team to discuss the North Bayshore vision. They showed her plans to add 3,000 apartments along Pear Avenue and the gateway property off Shoreline Boulevard. Another 3,400 units would go along Shorebird Avenue. It wasn't clear where the remainder would go, she said.

Van Belleghem and other Google reps then detailed their need for 800,000 square feet more of office space. Doing the math in her head, Abe-Koga calculated that increase would mean about 2,700 more homes would be needed to house all those employees.

"I told them this changes the whole conversation," Abe-Koga said later. "Our whole impetus for doing the housing in North Bayshore was to make the jobs-housing imbalance better. You put down almost another 1 million square feet, that exacerbates the problem."

Google officials floated some other controversial ideas in a letter authored by Van Belleghem and sent in advance of the Sept. 26 meeting. Through years of previous North Bayshore meetings, Google officials have routinely sent formal letters to the city, and usually this correspondence outlines the company's high-level priorities.

But this Sept. 22 letter from Google was different: It contained six pages of new policy language authored by the company that it wanted inserted into the precise plan. The language detailed a process for adding new office space, in effect creating a system for circumventing the 3.6 million-square-foot cap in the precise plan.

Mountain View planning officials were most alarmed at the proposed language for affordable housing. Google proposed to price 15 to 20 percent of new housing as "affordable," but called for it to be subsidized through "property tax abatement, tax credit programs, office affordable housing impact fees and/or any office bonus (FAR) community benefit contributions."

Basically, Google seemed to be seeking various public subsidies to help pay for the required affordable housing for their future market-rate developments, according to city officials. Normally, a housing project's market-rate apartments subsidize a smaller portion of affordable units. Other funding sources -- like government tax-credit programs or the city's pool of affordable-housing fees -- are typically reserved for dedicated affordable-housing projects.

Exactly how much funding Google was seeking remains unclear, but the notion of this request disturbed city officials, said Community Development Director Randy Tsuda.

"There's an incredible level of detail there that we couldn't do," he said. "To ask for an abatement of any sort in the precise plan without any details, that would be very unusual."

Council members also echoed concern. Abe-Koga pointed out that tech offices contribute little in the way of ongoing revenues for city government. The one surefire revenue source they do produce is property taxes, she said.

"Why would we give them that?" Abe-Koga said. "If they want that back as a rebate, then there's no point in us allowing any office development."

At the Sept. 26 meeting, council members pointedly ignored any discussion of the suggested language in Google's letter.

Asked about what the company was intending, the Google spokeswoman, who declined to be named, said the public funding would have been used only for building more affordable housing beyond the criteria in the precise plan.

"This wasn't a back door. It would be a further way to go above the 15 to 20 percent goal," she said. "This was just a way to get a conversation started about it."

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.


19 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Oct 5, 2017 at 2:44 pm

Several thank-you's are in order:

- Thank you to Mark Noack and the Voice for this informative updated version of the earlier article.

- Thank you to our City Council for finally standing up to Google and considering the people of Mountain View.

- And in particular, thank you to Margaret Abe-Koge for noticing that while the Google-driven population explosion in our city has inflicted endless pain on the people and local businesses of Mountain View, the city gets little if anything in return.

"Abe-Koga pointed out that tech offices contribute little in the way of ongoing revenues for city government. The one surefire revenue source they do produce is property taxes, she said.

"Why would we give them that?" Abe-Koga said. "If they want that back as a rebate, then there's no point in us allowing any office development.""

23 people like this
Posted by Details matter
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 5, 2017 at 3:53 pm

Wow! Thank you for this updated story. The details definitely matter, because cleary Google was/is(?) trying to hose the city and it's residents.

Google is a multi-billion dollar corporation that reporedly keeps over 52 billion dollars of it's over 83 billion dollars in profit offshore - and now it wants the city/taxpayers to subsidize it's affordable income units because they can't afford it?


23 people like this
Posted by Leopards and their spots
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Oct 5, 2017 at 9:38 pm

I just read the letter Google sent to the city, including the suggested revisions to the North Bayshore precise plan, and was dumbfounded! That takes a big set of cajones to basically suggest that the city:

a) fund the affordable housing units via tax subsidies/abatements

b) in essence turn over a large portion of control of land use and development policy in North Bayshore to Google

Holy smokes, in what world does Google think this would be okay? I suppose in their world it's great, but this is STILL the city of Mountain View, and and as far as I know the city has not relinquished all control of North Bayshore to Google, yet.

Please, do yourselves a favor and read the initial letter Google sent the city. It is eye popping! That letter may be a bigger wake up call than Van Belleghem's blunt comments to council.

Web Link

9 people like this
Posted by MV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Oct 5, 2017 at 11:04 pm

@"Leopards" - Thanks so much for the link!

Eye-popping is right. Stunningly arrogant, with red flag after red flag.

"Exclude residential uses from the NB Precise Plan trip cap" - WOW.

Google should apologize for this document too, and fire Joe Van Belleghem immediately, as a gesture of future good faith.

3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Oct 5, 2017 at 11:14 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

I remember stating earlier:

“In response to It's new so I'm afraid:

I just wonder what Google is saying in secret to the City, if that is what they say in public, I can only imagine the threats being made to the City in private?"

Then the response was:

by It's new so I'm afraid:

"Precisely. Its only between your ears, what you have imagined. The problem is you take that and run with it.

I think I imagine something different than you but I'm not here to throw shade on what ever you want to dream up at home. It'll all work out, you'll see. My undies are not yet bunched on this one."


Why do people not surprise me when I figure out something before it is disclosed?

Why do people not ask the questions I ask?


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


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

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Umami Burger calls it quits in downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 15 comments | 9,075 views

Couples and Premarital : "Who we are . . . depends in part . . . on who we love."
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 2,435 views

Flying: How much is enough? It's personal.
By Sherry Listgarten | 8 comments | 1,993 views

Wait, wait – we’re working on it
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 1,057 views

My Pet Peeves
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 6 comments | 1,008 views


Short story writers wanted!

The 34th Annual Palo Alto Weekly Short Story Contest is now accepting entries for Adult, Young Adult and Teen categories. Send us your short story (2,500 words or less) and entry form by March 27, 2020. First, Second and Third Place prizes awarded in each category.

View Details