Give Bayshore housing a look | February 26, 2010 | Mountain View Voice | Mountain View Online |

Mountain View Voice

Opinion - February 26, 2010

Give Bayshore housing a look

The city's notion of not mixing housing and commercial development in the North Bayshore has run afoul of Google, its major tenant and the company that has done more than any other to put Mountain View on the map.

This story contains 519 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe


Like this comment
Posted by Jeff Segall
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Feb 26, 2010 at 7:28 am

Thanks for taking note of my letter in this editorial. However, in doing so, the editorial significantly understates the risk of flooding. It is incorrect to say that "the Bayshore area possibly vulnerable to flooding if sea levels rise" because substantial portions of that area are in the 100 year flood zone and so are at risk of flooding today. Expected sea level rise makes that risk significantly higher.

Like this comment
Posted by Dazed and Confused
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 1, 2010 at 11:50 am

I generally tend to support Google's positions on these matters, but I think they have gone a little off track on this one. A lack of housing in Mt. View is a complete myth, from what I see. There are numerous half finished developments around town, not to mention the glacier like pace of the Mayfield and Eunice/Grant Rd. projects. Real estate developers are starving for work, and if there were a big demand for housing these projects would be done and filled with proud new homeowners. Retail developers are not in a hurry to put anything new up either. San Antonio Shopping Center didn't get to where it is today by accident. The "If you build it, they will come" theory of land use should be recognized as the unsustainable model that it is. Is Google's housing plan driven by sound economic development principles, or by a utopian vision of their own corporate culture? The reason that the area around the Googleplex was essentially the last to be developed in the city is a function of the fact that it is the least desirable land in the city.

Like this comment
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 4, 2010 at 4:33 pm

Jeff Segall is right - this area is in the 100 year flood zones. It is also somewhat covered by the "sea level rise" maps that have been produced for the Bay Area. PERHAPS Google is, or should be, talking about the Moffett Field potential development area. This area is outside of the city limits - but within a really indistinct type of planning area designated "SOI" (Sphere Of Influence). I happened to be talking to a MV planner - she couldn't really define for me what that meant legally (ie general plan and zoning). But it seems it's just a 'Sunnyvale, NASA and MV need to get together' type of nondescript situation!

Like this comment
Posted by eric
a resident of another community
on Mar 4, 2010 at 11:27 pm

MV residents should demand an end to the Shoreline tax district before a single thing is built there again.

Like this comment
Posted by Kristine
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 15, 2010 at 4:03 pm

I saw their plans in an earlier article I honestly hold no complaints. It'll make visiting shoreline park more fun with more retail close by. By the way Google would not be the only benefactor in housing nearby. I'd agree though if this gets built more of the taxes of that area needs to benefit more of the town.

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