Hmm, but Google does not appear to agree that it would not reduce traffic in the area to add housing in North Bayshore.

==“[Google] would support the eventual growth of the number of housing units there to approximately 5,000 units, whatever is needed to create a community. There’d be retail there in support of it,” Igoe said. “1,100 units of housing are equivalent to 500,000 square feet of office, from a traffic reduction standpoint,” he said, referring to a June 2012 traffic study that found that amount of housing would reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions by roughly the amount that would be generated by 500,000 square feet of new office space there.== Igoe is Google's real estate manager.

from Web Link

Also, VTA feels that adding housing would be transit friendly.

==“We believe that planning for a wide range of land uses — including a “critical mass” of residential uses — in North Bayshore is one of the best ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and manage auto traffic congestion in this area,” wrote Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Deputy Director of Planning Chris Augenstein in objection to the city council’s decision.==

from: Web Link

Arguments against housing in North Bayshore are based the narrow vision of more traditional housing or luxury townhomes.

Micro-housing for North Bayshore employees reduces pressure on both regional housing demand and car traffic. Micro-housing reduces the carbon footprint of people who would otherwise live elsewhere consuming more and polluting more. Micro-housing can also be built on a smaller square footage, creating an attractive package of lower price rent (than SF), convenience, and proximity and harmony with the beautiful nature of North Bayshore.

I agree that traditional housing in North Bayshore would demand corresponding levels of investment in transportation infrastructure, not to mention schools, and those type of communities are hard to undo, if we change our minds.

Micro-housing as an experiment is by its nature transitory and can be ended easily and quickly if it fails, and has the least impact on our roads and no impact on schools (micro apartments must by state law limit occupancy based their extreme small square footage).

What's not to like about it other than a distaste for that way of life? Why should we view future housing as one size fits all when housing has always been based on ones stage in life. Again, no one would be forcing anyone to live there, and who are we to judge if someone is wanting to live a lifestyle that is more ecological than ours, and if developer are willing to supply that demand? Google is North Bayshore's largest land owner and they support housing. Why do we assume that if we build micro-housing that retail services would not fill in the first floors as they do in other parts of the world?

How often is a development one that would create positive externalities for our region in the form of less consumption and traffic?

If no one is willing to live in them, then this idea will die then, so why stop something from even having a chance, especially something that can be undone if detrimental, unlike a traditional community.

I like the idea of micro housing , the only open minded candidate that is considering this solution is Jim Neal , He gets my vote because I like the fact that he is willing to think out of the box and at least take into consideration a new solution .

Unfortunately, one cannot create a residential neighborhood as an "experiment." Once it is built and people buy them, the city is responsible for their well being. Lots of kids? Need a school. Crime? Step up patrols..build a police substation.

It would be great to do it as an experiment and Google should fully fund it and take responsibility. The city could provide a 10 year lease of land with an option to renew if mutually acceptable. Infrastructure problems? Let the lease lapse. That is an experiment. But Google won't step up--they didn't for a hotel near campus. Not saying it's a bad decision on their part.

The whole appeal of micro housing is that it's private development on private already developed-land that is slated for more commercial development, not public land, not open space, and not via public dollars.

Micro housing/micro apartments while novel in MV is not an experiment by any means, but an established way of life in many parts of the world. California state law has occupancy requirements for housing that would prohibit families in micro housing, if built below a certain square footage. I agree with many that North Bayshore in its current form can not support a traditional community, which why micro housing in coordination with tech is logical.

The reality is those tech workers already exist. There is an unfounded belief that if we don't built housing, they'll disappear. They won't, they'll just be some other city's challenge in our region. They'll just be on our freeways more, they'll just be consuming and polluting more.

If the people are already here, and they already outstrip housing. Anyone who says that supply is not part of the solution, that there isn't a place in this region that needs to provide housing, is ignoring this reality. And those who deny that any new housing should be by our region's largest employers is ignoring a pragmatic solution that brings benefits to both our city and region in lower traffic and lower housing demand.

Set a requirement that any housing in Bayshore could only be micro apartments (small enough to legally limit to 1-2 occupants max) with no parking (other than for shared car services), and if no private developer and residents want it, then the debate is conceded, nothing is lost by the public.

Let the market decide if this rare win win is doable.

North Bayshore is the only part of MV that can get away with no parking for housing since there is little street parking and the companies can deal with any private parking lot problems by these single or double occupancy tech housing.

@Christopher Chiang You are making the argument more complicated than need be. There's no reason to make this restriction on housing in the area. It can support more residences incrementally, with as little as 50 units constructed at a time. Certainly a larger group is more likely, and you could 500 per development/building. Luxury is in the eye of the beholder. Trying to keep kids from being residents is illegal under federal housing laws. The typical yield in apartment complexes of 2-3 bedrooms is around 1 child per 10 units. That's not going to overload the school district. There is even a bike path up there that leads directly from North Bayshore to Crittenden Middle School. Unfortunately, at present, even the kids from just on the El Camino side of the freeway are sent long distances away to school. There aren't enough to open the public school at Middlefield and N. Whisman Road (Slater School) or the one on Easy Street also near 85 and Middlefield Road (Whisman School). If those reopen these are the locations that for decades served children of miltary families resident on base at the former N.A.S. Moffet Field when it was still operating. It's ludicrous to say that the kids cannot be bused across a freeway to a school a short distance away.

Councilmember Jac Siegel's arguments against housing in North Bayshore don't hold water. To read my point-by-point rebuttal to his September 19, 2014 column, go to
Web Link

Lenny

Dear Lenny,

In your Siegel vs Siegel document you wrote:

"Even if most of the new housing itself is unaffordable, the contribution to supply would help slow the explosive growth of rents and prices for existing dwellings."

We don't know that for certain. The "Law of Supply and Demand" is both compelling and simple to understand, but they are not guaranteed predictors of specific scenarios. There are (at least) two problems:

1) Adding residential units to an area COULD actually make the city more appealing to live in, which would increase demand beyond the current trajectories. So, let's assume we have 50,000 residents that would like to move into MV, but currently cannot find an appropriate residential unit. 5,000 units are developed in the range of the aforementioned "appropriate residential unit" and 5,000 residents move in. So, now we have "only" 45,000 residents wishing to move in...demand is lower. There's a new neighborhood created and a lot of publicity. Now, 15,000 more people wish to move in! So, now demand is at 60,000 units. Had nothing been done, the demand would have been lower at 50,000.

2) The 5,000 unit addition may not be enough to significantly affect "the explosive growth". In fact you went on to write, "One might argue that 5,000 homes in North Bayshore are not enough, but does that mean we should do nothing to address our housing crisis?"

Nobody is saying we should do nothing to address the "housing crisis", but E. Bayshore is not an ideal place to develop, so why take the risk of damaging a sensitive bayshore environment when we all have a pretty good idea that this 5,000 units is insufficient to have a significant positive impact? High risk, small reward. Seems pretty simple.

Your comments would be appreciated.

I do not like the idea of adding much of any housing north of Bayshore for two main reasons:

1) Although this will help the big corps reach the % of the vehicle caps that will allow them to go forward with even more office space, I also do not like that! But worse: With housing over there, at all hours of the day and night, and on weekends too, vehicles will flow out of the housing by the business park and increasingly gridlock our streets and parking all over MV. Have you lately tried to take 880 on the weekend over to Santa Cruz? It's already a parking lot!

2) Do we really want to dilute the power of our votes even more? The more people we add to MV, the less each of us count politically. And if we allow sufficient housing built north of 101 to actually be a community, we have then totally made "Google" the boss of our town. If anyone has felt that Google has been calling the shots around here already, wait 'til we create for them and their employees the most massive voter black in town! MV will be Googleville for real then!

Read what the other Siegel has to say about this: JAC SIEGEL, especially his LAST PARAGRAPH in his letter in the Voice. If you do not care about your voting power in MV, then you do not care about MV, since it doesn't matter to you that you cannot much affect its course henceforth. Think deeply about everything that will be affected.

Quit maxing out MV!

Let pubic transit, like some new hybrid public buses on 101, haul tech workers in and out of MV for their work. They can start working on their phones/computers as they roll, and arrive home in the distant destinations they prefer for the square feet of their homes and yards. More links on light rail, in & out of town, more shuttles, more car pools, etc., etc., but not more residents here.

Of course, the Voice left out the third side to this debate. The choices aren't just 3.4 million square feet of office vs 5000 new housing units. I have been talking about the need for more affordable housing for over a year, and in January spoke about the need to take a "Balanced and smart" approach to growth in the Mountain View.

My view is that all new office projects that have not yet been approved, should be put on hold until they can be reviewed to determine the impact on housing and traffic. I would also call for the General Plan to be amended to allow for housing in the North Bayshore area, and then I would ask staff to review the plan for the original 1100 units that was being considered two years ago and determine if the plan is still viable today, and if so, what changes need to be made.

I would ask staff to look at all types of housing from micro-housing to apartments to ownership housing to determine the best use for the area.

I also disagree with the argument that there are no services or not enough services in the area. Some people are already living there and seem to be doing just fine. The larger employers already provide many of the services needed by their employees, so I think that would be a mitigating factor.

Although my position hasn't been as well publicized as those of the candidates chosen to be regularly featured here in the Voice, I think that my approach is reasonable and well-considered since it is based on research that has already been done, and does not exacerbate that jobs/housing imbalance.


Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
https://electneal.org (Campaign Website)

Folks -- Please note, you're posting comments to an early online version that, despite its title, inadvertently carried only one of the two opposing op-ed pieces from the printed paper.

Here are links to the two, which appeared online today. These are the "News" versions, which means that they (and not this older one you're now reading) are the versions to which the public and its future comments will be steered, via "Express" email alerts and the Voice's online headlines.

Jac Siegel opinion piece: Web Link

Jane Horton opinion piece: Web Link

The main issue is not about animals. It's about humans, too many of them crowding us out by over extending our services like police and fire, schools, libraries, hospitals, water, electricity, roads, and parking, etc., etc.!

And the shift in voting power that creation of a huge new voting block north of Bayshore will bring guarantees that what Google and their employees, and all the other big companies over there, get their way with everything from now on. Don't you feel pushed around enough already? The don't dilute your vote!

The more new housing is constructed, the more the rents have climbed. Don't you see it? Every new apartment or condo building with less space, less parking, less quiet around it, but with all the premium finishes, the more the average rent in MV goes up. These guys set the pace, and every time one opens and rents/sells out, most all landlords in town see how much more they are getting and justify increasing what they charge. The last one is going for $7000 per month.

The more people moving here, especially into the new stuff, the more people want to move here. It is not simple "supply and demand." (As "ToLenny" said above.)

And MV will absolutely never add enough housing to "balance MV" sufficiently for any of the rents/prices to come down at all. Not even a little bit. Only a really major recession or a depression could do that.

The City Council is presently working on a North Bayshore Precise Plan, with a council majority opposed to putting any housing there. This precise plan is projected to be finished before the next City Council takes office. The proposal currently is for 3.4 million square feet of new office space.

A couple of points:

(1.) These “pro” and “con” articles and comments are not going to change the majority’s direction in writing and approving a North Bayshore Precise Plan. After the election, however, new council members could vote to reverse and rewrite it to allow 1100 new units, or 5000, or whatever.

If that kind of council is elected, North Bayshore will not be the end of it. The general plan and any other local precise plans could be rewritten to permit even greater density, anywhere in the city. All it would take would be a pro-density, pro-developer majority.

All the candidates have acknowledged the need for new housing in Mountain View. The difference is in a relative emphasis on neighborhood preservation, preserving existing affordable housing, and preserving quality of life, versus an emphasis on building as much housing as possible, as fast as possible.

I’ll be voting for Lisa Matichak. She has a track record on the EPC of listening to residents’ input on proposed developments, and when necessary, standing up to developers who put profits first, and ignore the public interest. I won’t be voting for Lenny Siegel, Ken Rosenberg, Pat Showalter, or Greg Unangst, who all appear to be high-density advocates.

I’m still considering who gets my other two votes.

(2.) The 3.4 million sf figure was not arrived at in any rational way. As I understand it, this figure was proposed at the time of the 2012 General Plan; it was supposed to represent the amount of new space that industry would want by the year 2030. That figure was obsolete just about immediately. Now, it’s clear that Google and other companies will expand into as much space as they are permitted.

The premise was wrong to begin with. The starting point should have been, “How much office space can we provide without compromising the livability of the city?”

The 3.4 million sf figure needs to be cut in half, at least - and not by replacing it with housing. In a sensible world, the council would add park space.

Let’s look beyond the North Bayshore issue when it comes to choosing the next council. Your neighborhood may be next.

I hope that anyone truly concerned about the idea of preserving neighborhoods will consider me for City Council. For the last two years I have fought for keeping the Milk Pail and Rose Market right where they are, spoken out against over-development and projects incompatible with the neighborhoods at Council meetings, and have also written several articles on the subject in the Voice.

I have no ties to any special interest groups. All my endorsements are from residents who live in Mountain View, or those who own small businesses here. I am also very proud to say that my campaign is the only one that is 100% Mountain View financed. Everyone who has donated is also Mountain View resident. Lastly, every volunteer for my campaign is a Mountain View resident.

These were all conscious decisions on my part because I want to represent the interests of the residents and local businesses and not special interests. If that is the kind of representation that you want, then please vote for me. Thank you!


Jim Neal
Candidate, Mountain View City Council
https://electneal.org (Campaign Website)

Note that we already have a fire station in the North Bayshore area. There would be no added strain on city resources in that department if a small portion of the land were permitted for housing development.

The most likely development would be some of the 6 story or so apartment towers which otherwise will be built right next to many existing one story single family housing behind El Camino Real or to the Palo Alto side of San Antonio Road... North Bayshore business properties are not adversely affected by having 6 story apartments nearby, with air conditioning and sound proofing. Outdoor cats in such a building are going to be a rarity. This isn't some one floor garden apartment with a patio and a cat door.... The dogs will be on leashes and the cats will be indoor. Well the dogs at the city's existing off leash area by Shoreline park will still be off-leash, but presumably they will be kept away from wildlife.

Every property owner who opts for housing is one less property owner devoted his land entirely to dense business development going forward.