The General Plan Update and the Precise Plan processes have been an extensive endeavor of community engagement over six years to identify areas where the city could appropriately add both housing and businesses. Back in 2008 when we started the process, few residents seemed concerned about commercial growth while, until recently, many opposed building more housing. We carefully thought through and deliberated upon the question of housing in the North Bayshore (NBS) Planning area multiple times and decided North Bayshore was not the appropriate place.
Though some contend that this last low-voter-turnout election called for North Bayshore housing, we heard residents express many concerns including traffic congestion and even a desire to slow down development. If in fact, residents want more housing, the General Plan Update allows for significant increases in housing in appropriate locations in town.
Our vision for North Bayshore calls for a unique environment where nature meets technological advancement — where we restore the Bay, protect sensitive wildlife and open space, and inspire high-tech innovation with such a unique environment. After work hours and on weekends, the area serves as a quiet place of respite from our increasingly urban environment.
We looked at studying 1,100 housing units in North Bayshore in transit corridors without displacing businesses, but we decided that these units would be better in other parts of town, where they could add to our vibrant and diverse neighborhoods and be close to services such as grocery stores and schools (which do not exist in North Bayshore and require more residents than 1,100 units would provide). The completed El Camino Precise Plan and the San Antonio Precise Plan, which is agendized for Dec. 2,, are such areas that could benefit from increased density to attract enhanced neighborhood services.
The South Whisman Precise Plan is yet to be started, and for that reason the council voted recently to deny a gatekeeper request for office projects in that area until the Precise Plan is underway and a study on adding housing could be conducted. We also looked at a proposal for an enormous office project on 23 acres at 700 East Middlefield Road in the Whisman area; we determined that this site, close as it is to public transit, other residences, a park, and a school, could in fact be ideal for housing that follows smart growth principles.
To oppose housing in North Bayshore has been called NIMBYism; but in fact, the call for housing there has been fueled in part by those who would rather have housing out in North Bayshore than in their neighborhoods.
Proponents argue that housing near jobs in North Bayshore would decrease traffic congestion, yet there is no guarantee that employees would live there. Our Housing Element identifies housing-appropriate parcels that are well within a 20-minute walk or a 10-minute bike commute from North Bayshore. The Precise Plan includes an innovative plan to add bike and transit options to the area.
Other challenges to North Bayshore housing: noise from Shoreline Amphitheatre concerts, lighting from office buildings throughout the night, air quality concerns from the commute traffic congestion, and the interface of humans with sensitive wildlife.
Some think housing in North Bayshore would be more affordable. With land prices around $20 million/acre, concerns about sea level rise and its effects on flooding and landfill as well as necessary toxic cleanup estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, building housing in this location would likely be even more expensive than in other parts of town.
Four companies own 78 percent of the land out in NBS. They want to expand office, not housing. The rest of the land is mostly city-owned, prized open space and landfill. Regulatory agencies have not yet determined that landfill is safe for housing. So realistically, where would the housing be placed?
We have implemented every tool in the toolbox for increasing affordable housing and lead the way in the county with such measures. Mountain View has more housing units in the pipeline per capita than San Jose, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and Palo Alto. We simply cannot solve the affordability and jobs/housing puzzle alone, but must work regionally. All cities need to do their fair share on both sides of the equation. Some cities have chosen to be primarily residential while others allow for employment growth.
Over 19,000 housing units are in the pipeline in the five cities mentioned, adding greatly to the supply, which should in turn help stabilize housing prices. An effort has started to work as a Santa Clara County region to meet ABAG’s RHNA numbers (number of housing units needed to be built by cities to respond to expected job growth).
Some San Jose council members have said that they would be open to building more housing if they could also get more transit dollars. A recent Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) study revealed that 80 percent of commutes start and end in the county. We should really focus on better transit that connects those increasing supplies of housing in the county with the jobs, calling for true investment by our private-sector partners to enhance our transportation infrastructure. Let’s work together on improving transportation rather than be divided over housing in North Bayshore.
The authors are members of the Mountain View City Council.
Mountain View backs contentious plan to allow more housing south of El Camino RealDecember 18, 2025 2:16 pm
Recall effort fails against Mountain View school board member Devon ConleyDecember 19, 2025 12:34 pm