News

Ambitious precise plan wins council approval

Roadmap for 9,850 homes in North Bayshore unanimously approved

After years of analysis, an ambitious plan to transform the tech development in North Bayshore by adding a dense, dynamic residential neighborhood received its final round of approvals from the City Council on Tuesday night.

The strategy known as the North Bayshore Precise Plan calls for a spate of rapid and intense housing development that is ultimately expected to bring 9,850 new apartments to the doorstep of the city's tech behemoth, Google. The plan lays out a vision for a new urban community where corporate tech workers could live, work, dine and shop -- possibly all within the same building.

For many, the plan has ramifications beyond one Mountain View neighborhood. It signified a dramatic shift away from the Bay Area's diffuse office parks and suburban communities. Council members, city staff and public speakers each underscored the North Bayshore plans as a new paradigm for urban development.

"This is a cutting-edge plan that sets a new standard, not just for the Bay Area, but for much of the country," said Councilman Lenny Siegel, upon approving the plan. "We're not just building housing, we're building a new kind of community for our area."

Those high stakes for the precise plan were on full display on Dec. 12 during the City Council's final discussion of the precise plan, which stretched out over five hours, before ending in a unanimous vote of approval. Housing advocates, business leaders and corporate executives made one final push to urge city leaders to give their approval.

"We believe Mountain View will be making a material impact on the imbalance between housing and jobs," said Mark Golan, Google vice president of real estate. "We're proud to call Mountain View our home, and we look forward to working with the city and other stakeholders."

More than any other entity, Google will be the crucial partner in bringing the city's precise plan to fruition. About three years ago, the company came around to the idea of creating thousands of homes near its headquarters. That support was motivated by the company's own needs -- traffic and housing availability had become major problems for Google's growing workforce. In addition, Mountain View city officials made the company's aggressive plans for 3.6 million square feet of new office development contingent on limiting nearby vehicle traffic.

Politically, Mountain View's leadership also went through a similar change of mindset. In 2014, almost three years ago to the day, the City Council signed off on vastly different North Bay Precise Plan that emphasized office growth and transportation improvements. The total lack of housing in that plan spurred fierce community opposition, and it ultimately became the dominant political issue in the city's elections that year. Pat Showalter, Ken Rosenberg and Siegel were all elected to the City Council on the promise they would immediately bring the office-only plan for North Bayshore back to the drawing board.

Following that election, city officials convened a total of 24 public meetings to study how aggressive housing development could be interwoven into a corporate office park. Originally, city officials thought they would have an assortment of developers and landowners to partner with on the plan, but Google's foothold in the North Bayshore continued to grow. Speaking for Google, Golan said at the Dec. 12 meeting that about 58 percent of the land planned for future housing in North Bayshore was owned by his company.

For many observers, the hallmark of the precise plan is its emphasis on creating 9,850 new apartments at a time when a regional housing shortage has reached crisis levels. If built to the maximum allowed density, this housing growth would create about 2,000 new affordable apartments priced at below market rate, nearly doubling the city's subsidized housing supply.

Could the city go farther? Councilwoman Margaret Abe-Koga made a last-ditch effort to persuade some of her colleagues to ask a little more from one of the world's wealthiest companies. In past meetings, she suggested raising the affordable housing requirement as high as 40 percent, pointing to other urban cities with similar rules. On Tuesday night, she tempered that request to just 22 percent.

But even affordable-housing proponents warned that demanding too much could backfire.

"We risk getting nothing because developers will elect to do offices instead of residential development," warned Pilar Lorenzana of the housing advocacy group SV@Home. "Higher across-the-board affordability requirements will have the result of stalling residential development."

In fact, some council members expressed skepticism on whether Google would actually follow through on building the housing, despite the company's support for the precise plan. In October, a Google representative warned city officials that no housing would be built unless the city granted the company an additional 800,000 square feet of office space. Google later disavowed that ultimatum, amid public backlash, but it still overshadowed the council's talks on Tuesday night.

"Google has said they support the plan, but does that mean they'll commit to the plan?" Councilman John McAlister said.

Despite those concerns, the City Council supported the 20-percent affordable housing plan. In relatively short order, the council approved other major components of the precise plan, although members found plenty of new issues to debate.

The hardest choice of the night was a city staff proposal to create so-called "master plans" that would guide development along specific blocks or neighborhoods in North Bayshore. Council members would draft these master plans, but then the city's zoning administrator would be in charge of reviewing and granting approvals for proposed developments.

McAlister, Abe Koga and Councilwoman Lisa Matichak opposed ceding their authority, saying it could harm public input by removing elected leaders from the review process. However, a four-person majority of the council argued that the council would be overburdened and should delegate the role.

In the end, the final precise plan was unanimously approved by the City Council just after the stroke of midnight. Soon afterward, a fatigued group of Mountain View's civic leaders popped a bottle of champagne to celebrate the long-awaited plan years in the making.

"There's been an evolution in our thought because there's been an evolution in the reality," said Mayor Ken Rosenberg. "We're only getting started; the next phase is implementation."

Mountain View would be delighted to share the lessons from this process with any other nearby cities, he said.

Development proposals for new offices and housing will likely be submitted in a matter of months. The precise plan set a hard deadline of Dec. 1, 2018 for projects with extra allocated space to submit developments or request an extension. Granting extra time would be up to the discretion of the City Council.

Comments

29 people like this
Posted by Jeremy Hoffman
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Dec 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm

Jeremy Hoffman is a registered user.

I'm so proud of my city for tackling the regional housing crisis and the jobs-housing imbalance head-on.

North Bayshore is going to be a gem of a vibrant mixed-use walking-friendly neighborhood. 9,850 units (including 20% affordable below-market-rate units -- which will something like double Mountain View's current total) is a landmark achievement. That's ten thousand more Mountain View community members who can stay in their town. Ten thousand more homes to slow down the skyrocketing cost of housing. Hopefully, ten thousand people who can walk to work instead of drive, reducing rush hour traffic.

California has a massive housing deficit. A study from the Governor's office found that the state would need 180,000 units of housing construction per year to keep up with population growth. In a typical year, we build half that. So that's about a hundred thousand Californians denied housing opportunities every year. Another hundred thousand the year after that. It's a game of "cruel musical chairs."

Adding ten thousand "chairs" in a single stroke -- wow!

I thank all the city staff for their years of work on revising this plan, and I look forward to seeing it enacted.


17 people like this
Posted by MtViewResident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 13, 2017 at 7:55 pm

Although the City Council should be applauded for making affordable below-market units available, overall this plan is terrible for the already congested Mountain View area. The plan calls for 9850 units, but with 20% reserved for below-market, which most Google employees certainly don't qualify to get, that leaves at most 80% of the 9850 units, or 7880 units for Google employees. This would be the most possible units for Google employees because as stated Google will open up the apartments to non-Google employees. The new allowance for more office space, according to the plan, will yield up to 11000 more jobs. So do the math - more Google jobs (11000) in Mountain View than the plan will provide housing to support (best possible scenario around 7900), leading to even more congestion and traffic delays.


10 people like this
Posted by Kacey Carpenter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 14, 2017 at 10:28 am

Congratulations to Mountain View City Council for this important initiative to add housing and most importantly affordable housing to our region. So much work still to be done with public transportation, safe routes to schools, telework mandates, additional housing and services for underserved and more!

Many have already been forced out and with the horrific traffic congestion, the quality of life is suffering and will continue to worsen unless more is done!

But celebrate this victory today and continue to push for progress.

Kacey Carpenter


21 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 14, 2017 at 10:42 am

I have a vision. North Bayshore will sink faster than the Titanic with the upcoming quake. Get the lifeboats ready - or not.


22 people like this
Posted by How can we make it better?
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 14, 2017 at 12:56 pm

Now that this horrible decision has been made and there's no going back, how can we make it better? How do we make this into a great neighborhood in Mountain View that improves the lives of those living here instead of making it worse? I hear a lot of pipe dreams about what this could look like, but almost nothing about the practical, day to day things that are needed to make this a livable, pleasant neighborhood and not a slum. This area will need a grocery store, a post office, park space, schools, maybe even a library and many other things that will not necessarily be easy to do with the cost of land (even the swamp land out there) what it is. It's not practical and the traffic would be nightmarish to make 20,000 people drive over 101 for every little shopping trip.

Flood maps put the whole area underwater very quickly with expected sea level rise within one generation. How do we build a thriving neighborhood with all these challenges? What does Mountain View need to start doing right now to make this a success? Since other local cities will benefit from this plan, but not have the burden and cost associated with providing all this housing, how can Mountain View get help and support from other (especially wealthier) cities so the burden is shared? The plan is still missing so much and I have no faith in our City Council to make good decisions.


5 people like this
Posted by MV Neighbor
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2017 at 2:18 pm

I just hope they make a proper bike path and/or bridge leading there and if they do, as well as rebuild the movie theatre like the original proposals, then I'm there!! Sounds like the newest and coolest place for a MV resident to hangout. Traffic could get worse though not only during M-F but also weekends as well as this place will attract many out-of-towners.


27 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 14, 2017 at 2:44 pm

What does Mountain View need to start doing right now to make this a success? "

Convince Google that they've outgrown Mountain View like they figured out for themselves about Menlo Park?


"The plan is still missing so much and I have no faith in our City Council to make good decisions."

me neither :-(


15 people like this
Posted by Lenny Siegel
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 14, 2017 at 3:05 pm

Lenny Siegel is a registered user.

Commenters are making good points about the need for parks, bike bridges, schools, grocery stores, etc. We are planning for those, and we are expecting that amenities and infrastructure will be paid for from the value added through development. We are also considering placing a tax on employers on the November 2018 to pay for the additional costs of transportation improvements.

The flood maps show that the planned residential neighborhoods are at low risk, but we're still investing money - generated from development in North Bayshore - in flood protection.

I welcome input, but I wish people would read the plan first.

Vice-Mayor Lenny Siegel


19 people like this
Posted by MtnViewResident2
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Dec 14, 2017 at 3:10 pm

with MtnViewResident: I agree the traffic will be horrendous. Already in many places it is at a standstill. It takes several green lights just to make a left turn. We will all be forced into public transportation and/or pay a high price to use the roads that we paid for already. Even Mtn. View council members will want to move.

With Anke: Google has outgrown Mtn. View. If they were smart, they would move south to Gilroy, for example, and buy a huge piece of inexpensive land and make their own Google community. However they like.


9 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 14, 2017 at 3:49 pm

"We are also considering placing a tax on employers on the November 2018 to pay for the additional costs of transportation improvements."

Thank you, Lenny. It is long overdue for Google and the other Big Tech siblings to start contributing a little instead of just making monumentally enormous profits at the expense of us regular folks. Clearly these companies do not need those profits - they simply sock them away unused in countries that offer them tax shelters.


7 people like this
Posted by PAmom
a resident of another community
on Dec 14, 2017 at 7:01 pm

Google should build a campus in Fremont or someplace in the East Bay. So should Facebook and Apple.


3 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2017 at 7:31 pm

[Post removed; debate the issue without attacking other posters.]


17 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 14, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Moderators, what's there to debate? PAMom thinks newcomers should leave. I think NIMBYs who don't care about the housing crisis should leave. If you delete my post, you should delete theirs as well.


10 people like this
Posted by How can we make it better?
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 15, 2017 at 9:05 am

@ Lenny

Thank you for your response. I must say I do have a lot of respect for you, even if I don't always agree with your views. I'm glad to hear at least one member of the Council understands the grave challenges the city now faces with trying to build a nice neighborhood out there that won't spiral into a slum. But with all do respect, your comment:

"We are planning for those, and we are expecting that amenities and infrastructure will be paid for from the value added through development."

sounds a lot to me like Trump's argument for his terrible tax plan. They expect the resulting economic growth from tax cuts to pay for themselves. Needless to say, I'm skeptical of both plans. Development does not always pay for itself, and tax cuts don't either. The council now has the responsibility to work hard to ensure this is not a gross negative for Mountain View.


9 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2017 at 9:07 am

The people advocating that Google leave, that no more housing be built, that Mountain View and the surrounding area be frozen in time, are essentially attempting to deny a middle-class existence to the generation after theirs. It's sociopathic behavior.


19 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 15, 2017 at 9:17 am

"The people advocating that Google leave, that no more housing be built, that Mountain View and the surrounding area be frozen in time, are essentially attempting to deny a middle-class existence to the generation after theirs. It's sociopathic behavior."

If it even were possible to build housing in the Bay Area at the pace at which Big Tech is increasing the population, no one at all would have a middle-class existence. If, however, Big Tech would choose locations where the population has been drained out, places that would benefit from increased population, _then_ both today's and tomorrow's generations could have that middle-class standard of living.


13 people like this
Posted by Tina Fay
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 15, 2017 at 9:27 am

Great news for the city and people who life and work at MTV. Finally there is a vision that is catching up with 21st century. Look everywhere else in the world has been living pass us long before, look at Europe and Asian. The city of Beijing can accommodate 40 million people ! and keep up with the economic growth. How? BUILD UP BUILD UP! This is simply the solution to solve house and job imbalance, subsequently offer job diversity and culture diversity. Imagine one day we can all walk to work and shop and live in this happy community.

Those who said apple and google should move to fremont are the ones denying their next generation a middle class life, or denying a future for all of us. Truly selfish and short sighted, and cancer for the society.


11 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:06 am

@Anke

You and others keep propping up this delusion that Google should go build a campus out in the middle of nowhere and draw engineers there, rather than accept that these companies are going to build where engineers exist now.

There's no reason for this to happen. There's no reason that this should happen. The housing crisis is entirely a political problem created by people like you who already got theirs in life, and are now hurrying to pull the ladder up and deny others the same opportunity. You're pushing people into financial hardship all so you can maintain an ambience of suburbia in a rapidly growing region. You should be ashamed.


14 people like this
Posted by Home prices
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 15, 2017 at 10:13 am

I don't see this bringing down the prices of MV homes, as some have suggested. These are all apartments, yes? Once thousands of workers get enmeshed in the community many of them are going to want to buy a single-family home and raise a family. These are in such short supply that I don't see a downside for current MV homeowners.

I think the integrated work/live idea is interesting and look forward to seeing how it plays out. I do hope the beautiful natural surroundings are integrated into the plan as much as possible.


5 people like this
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 16, 2017 at 12:20 pm

Lenny and others - the new developments will generate a total $0.00 per year in local general property tax for the General Fund (operations) of the MVWSD schools. Sunset on Shoreline's 1969 quasi-redevelopment agency to end this travesty of oppressive tax diversions to our local K-8th public school system,

A year-to-yet revokable contract with a JPA, restoring only a fraction of the diverted school operations taxes is not a permanent solution.

[this is distance from facilities building and facilities bond repayment taxes]


12 people like this
Posted by Juan
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Dec 16, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Juan is a registered user.

This is gentrification, pure and simple. Out with long-time residents, in with tech workers. The city council should be ashamed.


5 people like this
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Dec 16, 2017 at 7:35 pm

SRB is a registered user.

@Steven Nelson

I'm not a fan of that Special District but my understanding is that new developments will generate additional revenues for our schools' operations (vs. building):

1. The current sharing formula will allocate more revenues to schools once the sharing floor is reached (most likely this year?)
2. It took some prodding but the new precise plan has language requiring the City to work with the Districts to share more of the tax revenues from residential properties (since those will generate additional students/costs).

I seriously doubt the sharing agreement will be revoked any time soon but I'm sure public school supporters will be vigilant (I will be).


18 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 17, 2017 at 9:36 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

@YIMBY you and others keep propping up this illusion that the Bay Area has inexhaustible resources and you refuse to answer why moving to other areas that haven't been as taxed and drained as California shouldn't be considered and encouraged.

This is a political problem created by our tax revenue dependent governments (local and state) who will NEVER come clean on doing the right thing as it would take away their money pot.

Besides being political it's obviously a very personal problem for those who think they have the right to live anywhere, damned the consequences to the environment. Shame on you on being so selfish.


8 people like this
Posted by Kyle
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 17, 2017 at 9:45 am

@Juan That... that’s not what gentrification means. Building a new structure on empty land is not gentrification. It’s actually the opposite: increasing housing stock to reduce inflation means more people can live where they are.

@mvresident: people have the right to live anywhere. It’s a fundamental right of this country. No, you don’t get to lock in your place here and deny others the right to a good life in a good area.


7 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2017 at 9:51 am

@mvresident

You know what's taxing on the environment? Suburban sprawl. Horizontal development eats up more wilderness, necessitates commuting, and suburban homes are less efficient when it comes to energy consumption and water recycling. You're not actually concerned about resource consumption and environmental impact, you're just clinging to whatever argument you can to justify to yourself the necessity of you pulling up the drawbridge to the Bay Area now that you made it inside.

You want to encourage people move to other areas than California? Alright, you go first.


11 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:02 am

"Those who said apple and google should move to fremont are the ones denying their next generation a middle class life, or denying a future for all of us. Truly selfish and short sighted, and cancer for the society."

@Tina Fay, if google, apple, facebook etc move from the peninsula to Fremont, that would have zero but zero effect (plus _or_ minus) on housing costs in the Bay Area, and only minor if any effect on traffic congestion.

It also would have zero effect on your ability to have a middle class life - it would make it neither less possible nor more possible. Whether people are commuting to Mountain View or to Fremont makes no difference to the overall picture. For the minority of google employees who live in Mountain View, the vast majority of them moved in recent years to Mountain View from out of state or overseas. If they wanted to continue to work at google and continue to live in the city where they work, they would have no trouble moving to Fremont.


9 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:07 am

"I do hope the beautiful natural surroundings are integrated into the plan as much as possible. "

They'll be filled up with buildings. That's the whole point of development.


10 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2017 at 10:35 am

@Anke

If only there was some way to build a wall around Mountain View to keep out all of those new people trying to immigrate here, eh Anke?


19 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 17, 2017 at 11:52 am

"@mvresident: people have the right to live anywhere. It’s a fundamental right of this country."

That's fantastic news, @Kyle. Where can I find information about exerting my fundamental right to live in Atherton?


11 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2017 at 3:01 pm

@Anke

Way to display the same mentality that brought us Sundown Towns.


15 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 17, 2017 at 3:08 pm

Anke, I thought you loved Mountain View. Why do you want to leave the city for Atherton? Strange how the most vocal people "defending" Mountain View from the incoming hordes are the quickest to want to climb that ladder to a wealthier city.


12 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 18, 2017 at 10:10 am

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

has nothing to do with being a wealthier city, everything to do with a city that limits growth and keeps the character that people know it for and the whole reason people bought in that specific area.

YIMBY I'm not recommending people move anywhere else in CA, this whole state is overburdened, not only with natural resources but with taxes and a whole host of things that are pertinent in a different conversation. I'm suggesting that companies be encouraged to move to other states, other areas, that have greater resources.

And again, we know that won't happen, CA has socialized itself to the extent that it now relies on big companies to sustain all it's programs. People here are pawns of their own government, being manipulated into micro-units, forced into mass, poorly run transportation and being told it's their new wonderful world. You've bought it hook line and sinker.....perhaps you should change your moniker to "Robot YIMBY"


10 people like this
Posted by MVNeighbor
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 18, 2017 at 2:54 pm

How many jobs will be added based on the office space expansion? Someone above says 11,000. That would likely be more than living in the new housing. So this plan would not improve the housing imbalance. Likely, with some moving here but not working here and others moving jobs to other sites, this is going to greatly overburden what is already a highly congested dead-end section of the city. Seems like a bad plan.


7 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2017 at 7:30 pm

@mvresident2003

Call me what you want. You're trying to build a wall to keep people out, force them into financial hardship, all for entirely selfish and sociopathic motivations. California has plenty of resources. You don't get to move here and pull the drawbridge up. You don't get to stamp your foot on others. You can either grow with the rest of society or you can go find a rural area to get your suburban fix.


12 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 18, 2017 at 7:49 pm

I know, right? Those selfish and sociopathic people who live in Atherton did the same thing to me. They moved there and pulled the drawbridge up! They built a wall to keep people out, force them into financial hardship. They need to tear down those 6-bedroom mansions and build 30-story high-rises so everyone can afford to live there. They owe us!!


11 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2017 at 8:22 pm

Anke, I'll pose it to you again: I thought you loved Mountain View? Why do you want to live in Atherton so badly?


9 people like this
Posted by mvresident2003
a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 18, 2017 at 8:27 pm

mvresident2003 is a registered user.

You call it sociopathic, I call it living within my means, working hard to get better and being content with what I achieved. Do I live in Atherton, or even for that matter the "better" part of Mountain View? No. But I am appreciate of what I do have and I also don't harbor ill will to those who have more.


7 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2017 at 10:30 pm

@mvresident2003

No one is harboring ill will towards what you have! They're harboring ill will toward you preventing others the same opportunity. Restrictive zoning and protests by home owner groups preventing high-density housing has utterly exacerbated the housing crisis and created a generation of renters. The dream is a middle class existence is dying along with any hope of property ownership. All so you can enjoy suburbia for a couple more decades and not suffer tall buildings being near you.


7 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 18, 2017 at 10:35 pm

@Anke

If ever there was an individual who was most undeserving of having their property taxes subsidized by the rest of us, it's you. You shield yourself from the housing crisis behind Prop 13 and have the audacity to mock everyone left outside.


9 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2017 at 6:18 am

"preventing high-density housing has utterly exacerbated the housing crisis and created a generation of renters. The dream [of] a middle class existence is dying along with any hope of property ownership."

In a 30-story high-density building you do not own any property, only at best the unit you live in. By its very definition, the hypothetical of filling Mountain View with a forest of high rises denies everyone a middle class existence.


10 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2017 at 6:20 am

"@Anke

If ever there was an individual who was most undeserving of having their property taxes subsidized by the rest of us, it's you. You shield yourself from the housing crisis behind Prop 13 and have the audacity to mock everyone left outside. "

Thank you so much for this priceless little gem, YIYBY. This one's going on my fridge.


5 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2017 at 9:09 am

@Anke

"In a 30-story high-density building you do not own any property, only at best the unit you live in. By its very definition, the hypothetical of filling Mountain View with a forest of high rises denies everyone a middle class existence."

[Portion removed] A condo is property! If you own it you pay property taxes and exit the renter pool. Are you under the impression that the only property that matters for a middle class existence is a detached single family home?


4 people like this
Posted by dgv
a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 19, 2017 at 4:20 pm

@Anke: LOL! At expense of you? What did YOU do today to help google's profits?


3 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2017 at 5:15 pm

"@Anke: LOL! At expense of you? What did YOU do today to help google's profits?"

Your point being???


3 people like this
Posted by MVNeighbor
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2017 at 6:04 pm

If only ideas would come in place to completely shut-down Shoreline to car traffic and allow only monorail and/or carpooling only. The busses are a good idea but they cause traffic as well. Perhaps a remote parking area should be designated for Silicon Valley workers and then be transported to work from there.

There have been some ideas about creating a pod service that would transport workers to and from work. Come on, it's already 2017 and transportation still hasn't innovated in that direction? I would like to see something like this in my lifetime to fulfill my Jetson's type of world.

Web Link


5 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2017 at 7:37 pm

[Post removed; stick to the topic and stop taunting other posters]


15 people like this
Posted by LOL
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 19, 2017 at 10:07 pm

Moderators, how on Earth was my comment "taunting?" Anke posts things like "Thank you so much for this priceless little gem, YIYBY. This one's going on my fridge," yet their posts remain up.

Second, my post was completely on-topic, insofar as any of Anke's posts are on-topic. I'm asking them a simple question, and I'll ask it again, since they refuse to address it. Anke claims to love our city, yet they seem to desperately want to leave it for Atherton. Why is that?


5 people like this
Posted by Anke
a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 19, 2017 at 10:17 pm

From @MVNeoghbor's link:

"Estimates are that the cost could run $7 to $8 million dollars and more 5,000 people per hour. Development may take 5 to 10 years."

I think they lost a few zero's. Or perhaps they meant "per pod" or "per mile", although that still seems low. More recent reports indicated that the idea has been abandoned as impracticable and cost prohibitive.

Something really appealing about the Jetsons' world is that there doesn't seem to be overpopulation or overcrowding.


Meet George Jetson
Jane his wife...


6 people like this
Posted by anthodyd
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Dec 20, 2017 at 9:32 pm

I arrived in MV in 1977 (40 years ago!) from SJ, loved the place because it represented a quiet, laid-back bedroom community so quiet I could commute by bicycle to Ford Aerospace. Easy then- look out, now! I still occupy the same 1-BR apartment; rent was $175/mo, utilities paid- for the same place, I now spend $1900/mo.with utilities extra ($68/mo) plus $84/mo. for PG&E. I feel fortunate in that I get a break rent-wise as a long-term resident.
None of the above comments mention the local spectacle of whole streets full of parked RV's and the strain on civic resources they represent. These are not homeless people, but lack an postal address or credit rating that endow them with residential/financial status. Step back and take a look, good people- they are a microcosm of real hardship amongst us. Some actually work to meet expenses, and there is a concurrent social problem regarding their children attending school, trying valiantly to stay out of trouble. This is in the midst of relative prosperity, now- does it take much thought what might happen if "hard times" revisit us?
I have been in this storied neighborhood long enough to recognize a potential problem arising. We are fortunate to be located here where we have few of the environmental problems that arise elsewhere, but worry enough to wonder how we would cope with a major storm or earthquake. 'Nuff said.


11 people like this
Posted by Tina
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Dec 21, 2017 at 6:30 pm

What is low income housing in Mtn View exactly???
How much is a one bedroom and studio?
Can anyone give me the hard numbers?
I ask because:

A good friend won the lottery in Los Altos for an affordable studio Apt. She is a teacher in a local school. She made $22 hr to qualify for a rent of $1100. She moved in the apartment in August. In September of the same year she got a $3 an hour raise to $25 hr. The low income housing rules stated that she made $900 a year too much. She got kicked out the next month.

So much for that asinine low income housing fallderall!


5 people like this
Posted by cc-r
a resident of North Bayshore
on Dec 28, 2017 at 9:46 pm

cc-r is a registered user.

In the 1980's I was dating a Geologist who worked at USGS in Menlo Park. It was his information given to me then, that the land North of Middlefield in Palo Alto and Mountain View was all land-fill. In other words, no buildings more than two storied should be built on that land....it would be similar to Mexico City, which is on a dried lake bed...our land would be like jello in a large earthquake. So, how many of you, stating that the city should be building high-rise apartments out in North Bayshore area want to be there during an earthquake??? In 1989 Loma Prieta quake many of the one story mobile homes out in Santiago Villa were shaken off their foundations/broken in half if they were double-wide homes...want to be on the 15th floor of a building out here in North Bayshore during a major earthquake?? Not only are we a flood zone, with a base of land-fill...we are "land-locked" if there is an earthquake that topples the overpasses at Shoreline, Rengstorff, and San Antonio, as those are our only way out of the area. Just a thought to all those saying, BUILD UP, BUILD UP.


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

Facing economic pressures, Ada's Cafe makes plea for donations
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 3,121 views

Grant Money for Small Farmers
By Laura Stec | 3 comments | 906 views

Couples: "The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work" by John Gottman
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 832 views

Thought and Matter: A Young Man's Search for Interest and Meaning
By Aldis Petriceks | 0 comments | 227 views