TLDR: "If building slightly more housing only helps—but doesn't completely solve—the problem, why bother doing it? Let's instead focus our efforts on making the problem worse by building more office space."

I am counting down the days until Jac Siegel, and his ridiculous statements and positions, terms out of the City Council.

@Resident -- Agree with your sentiments, except that even when Siegel is out of office, there will be someone who is just as clueless as he is sitting in his chair. This, after all, is Mountain View, home of clueless city council members...

Resident... why are numbers laid out clearly combined with ground toxins ridiculous statements? Facts are facts even if they don't support your view.

Jac Siegel thank you very much for this editorial.

I don't see where Jac is against housing, just housing in North Bayshore.

I have heard estimates that Lenny Siegel and his plan wants to use "just" 100 acres for housing. For comparison Great America is 100 acres. I still have not gotten an answer to question about the relationship between Prometheus and "A Balanced Mountain View." Read a report on Lenny's own website. The area is subject to liquefaction.

Let's find another place for high density housing.

Who pays for the dikes when sea levels rise during the next decades?

To state the obvious, the reason "[t]here are no services for residents located in North Bayshore, such as grocery stores, medical and dental offices, pharmacies, schools, libraries, and general retail" is because most of the land there is zoned solely for sprawling office buildings and parking lots.

Mr. Siegel rightly points out that merely adding giant residential complexes to the equation would not yield a significant reduction in car trips, let alone a livable community. People need dentist's offices and grocery stores. Other people recognize that need and would open dentist's offices and grocery stores, if only the zoning laws let them.

One hopes that the bright minds on the City Council can imagine possibilities beyond vast swaths of 3 primary colors when they look at a zoning map.

“There are no services for residents located in North Bayshore, such as grocery stores, medical and dental offices, pharmacies, schools, libraries, and general retail. Therefore, residents would need to make trips across Highway 101 to get these services, impacting both GHG and quality of life.” There are none of those services in North Whisman either (the two schools not currently available as they are leased and have been extensively remodeled.) North Whisman residents have to travel for all these services; their children go to public elementary schools as far away as five miles.
“Commercial lighting of buildings all night is another example of commercial and residential use conflict.” North Whisman has Google, Symantec and many other businesses. Why doesn’t this logic apply to North Whisman?
“ North Bayshore has toxics in the ground left over from prior dirty industrial uses. Identified mitigation approaches support light industrial uses, but are questionable for residential uses, given possible health effects.” North Whisman has the MEW plume, the recently discovered hot spots on Evandale and spots on Leong Drive. There is TCE vapor intrusion in North Whisman. Why is it “better” than North Bayshore?
“Bay wetlands wildlife will be impacted by housing. There will be no time for rest or quiet time for the area, and pets will roam and kill wildlife.” I don’t see how housing along 101 impacts wildlife any more than the new athletic field which the city okayed. There are already residents in North Bayshore and there is not data to support this claim.

Jac has clearly delineated the major reasons why housing in North Bayshore is a bad idea. Please note that neither the pro or the con Op Ed are against housing per se, just new housing in North Bayshore. I personally would like to see a better transportation network connecting across hwy 101. Walt Disney built a successful monorail at Disneyland back in 1955, what's stopping us? Another North Bayshore traffic solution is even easier, simply build two or more bridges across Stevens Creek onto NASA. This would double the entrance and exit options currently available to North Bayshore users, opening up the Moffett Blvd., Ellis Street and Hwy 237 access points.

Where is the benefit in steam-rolling the North-Bayshore area and populating it with high priced housing, even worse congestion, and over-priviledged-I-got-mine-clueless-neo-yuppie-scum-ain't-it-great-that-we-can't-differentiate-between-work-and-leisure types who are already in overabundance throughout the community due to the already unregulated high tech in-breeding we've allowed to perpetuate as of late?

"This will in no way lower the cost of housing anywhere in Mountain View."

I believe that is wrong. The people who move to North Bayshore have to move from somewhere. As a result, there will be lower pressure on rents and real estate prices in those places.

"It is better to be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Mr. Siegel has a very bad habit of making unfounded claims as though they were tablets handed down from above. There is no evidence that "pets will roam and kill wildlife", a claim he's made elsewhere when demanding an ordinance based on such fantasies.

I too am counting the days until MV can elect someone who at least argues with supportable facts rather confusing an opinion for a fact...and doesn't simply parrot talking points from the eco-fanatic handbook.

@Face Palm: There is ample evidence to support Mr. Siegel's concern that pets will roam and kill wildlife. Though exact numbers of wildlife deaths are subject to debate, there are many studies confirming that cats, at least, do kill wildlife, including birds. See, e.g., information about a study that used cameras to record the hunting habits of cats. Web Link I love cats but apparently there is a concern over some rare owls and other wildlife in North Bayshore, so it seems that it is a legitimate fear about pets having an adverse impact on wildlife if housing were to be approved in North Bayshore. While I can't verify that Mr. Siegel's calculations are all accurate, this type of analysis of the actual numbers and cost of planned housing is what needs to happen before such far-reaching planning decisions are made.

Martin,
I'm not against housing in general. I believe we should be encouraging ownership instead of rental units, though.

It's a mistake to think all supply coming onto the market is equal. Developers do not need to be at full capacity to cover their short term costs. In the early days a project may only need to cover interest expense and then, if markets are functioning normally, it's very easy to roll over the debt. This is what finance people structure for businesses. Any developer could and should hold out for the higher rental prices necessary to generate the returns on invested capital (couple with real estate appreciation). If it's completely equity funded, the ongoing costs are even lower as there's no interest expense.

Ultimately, a new costly development in that area makes Mountain View even more expensive. Drawing hundreds of millions of dollars of net worth to an area is not a way to cause prices to come down. Areas around the expensive development go up because the gap between rental prices will be filled to the benefit of both the landlord and the tenant. The benefits do not exclusively go to the renter. It will be within a generation that the areas around 101 become expensive then

@Rational Thinking
City Council put the only MV dog park right next to the shoreline wildlife area.
Google lets their employees bring their dogs to work and there was always housing in this area. PLEASE do not use pets as an argument against housing. Feral cats show up everywhere people can drive their cars to drop them off. Basically anywhere along the shoreline. The good news, nature will take care of this fast, Coyotes have made their way all the way to San Antonio and ECR, so they will soon reach the Shoreline Park area. Unless they are already there, rangers could confirm this.

What I'm hearing from Jac Siegel is, "My fellow councilmembers and I have already dug a hole so deep that no single thing we do can get us out of the hole, so we might as well keep digging deeper." His arguments don't hold water. Housing prices are skyrocketing because Mountain View keeps adding offices and retail (which increases demand) while zoning against housing (which reduces supply). Of course when you first turn the housing spigot back on, the price will blast upwards at first, just like when you pinch a hose and then release it, the water surges out. You're still relieving the pressure that's built up. Every resident north of 101 is one person who isn't bidding on housing south of 101.

I hear there is plenty of space in San Jose to build, which they are doing. Best to let the places that have room handle the housing needs, rather than to try and cram every little building into Mt.View.

The company town effect is real - when thousands of people in micro apartments decide to turn Shoreline into a shopping mall, or otherwise divert community assets to the land of the rich, all they will need to do is vote as one
and there goes the City o the "creative class" -
new housing in North Bayshore will not solve problems.

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, with no housing.

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 between 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.

They permit "company housing" near Facebook. In this case North Bayshore still has many other commercial business office complexes. However, the obstacles facebook had in making housing near its location make North Bayshore look like a walk in the park for housing. Yet, Mountain View probably has many of the same issues as does Menlo Park regarding lack of affordable housing for very low income residents. Menlo Park was sued. Maybe someone should sue Mountain View.

In any event, Facebook is way smaller than Google.

See this story: Web Link about the Facebook housing development in its area north of the Bayshore 101 freeway in an environmentally sensitive area. Strange, no one mentioned that damage of cats to the wildlife.

@Rational Thinking- about the cats:

There is ample evidence about the cats.

@Bored M- I totally agree with you that the more building of housing in MV, the higher the rents will continue to climb. It is not simple "supply and demand." Developers invest little more to go very high end after spending so much money on the land alone. And every new, nice, expensive place stimulates more interest in more folks to want to live in MV.

or as you said it:

"Ultimately, a new costly development in that area makes Mountain View even more expensive. Drawing hundreds of millions of dollars of net worth to an area is not a way to cause prices to come down. Areas around the expensive development go up because the gap between rental prices will be filled to the benefit of both the landlord and the tenant. The benefits do not exclusively go to the renter."

Jac Segiel has been a good councilman for his time. A "Company Town" councilman, for the old, Cold War era employer that brought him here. The "only one very unique company" that could bring us the Blue Cube, and bring us an important Soviet "Ground Zero" to the corner of 237 and 101. Jac, of course, was a management employee of the largest employer in Santa Clara County at the time. (30,000 peak) The one, the only Lockheed Missiles and Space Co. Jac was (and is) smart. He invested in local real-estate. He rents out at least one residence within walking distance of my home and Cuesta Park.
Still, his arguments are good at points, but to my mind not at all convincing. His 'spirit of a cold-war era thinker' will live on, in our council, for years to come. I think Lisa is the smartest and best example of Jac's version of a future Mt. View. I will appreciate her reasoned argument - but I have utterly no intention of voting for her! The future debates in Council will be utterly fascinating!

Excellent observations by Mr. Nelson. The same would apply to MacAlister. They like the Mountain View of the 1960's. New technology and growth is fearsome to them which is why they reject new ideas and growth out of hand. The same will apply to Matichek. She and MacAlister will be consistent no voters on high density housing development.

@Concerned Citizen:

I agree with you on what you stated:

"All the candidates have acknowledged the need for new housing in Mountain View. The difference is between 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."

You are right about the high density advocates you listed. And you also are right about choosing Lisa Matichak and for the reasons you stated. Absolutely.

For your other two votes go for Mercedes Salem and Jim Neal. They want to take care to not gentrify the city further. They care about families and preserving neighborhoods. Neither took money from any developers, as you can research and verify on the fast growth candidates.

Both these candidates, Mercedes and Jim have lots of dedication to, and love o,f MV to bring to the table, and their talents are diverse. Mercedes is a family law attorney and is great at catching the fine print, and Jim stays on top of everything the city does & speaks up about it.

@Steve Nelson and @Nelson Supporter - So, anyone who doesn't want to turn the city over to developers and build high-density to the max, is just stuck in the past? Just driven by fear of an unknown, beautiful, high-rise future, where everyone lives in $3,000/month 1-BR apartments and rides bikes to work?

Please.

You do make one good point - the council we elect will determine the direction development goes in Mountain View.

Voters have to consider: Do we want people packed in like sardines, and ever more congested streets, or do we want more careful growth?

Yes, so Steven Nelson & your supporter, yow want to build really high as fast as possible and tough if you don't like the results? Why isn't it worth more careful consideration to perfect a plan beyond as many faults that we can determine beforehand? If it is a mess, we are struck with it. New isn't always better, it is just more expensive, and thus the gentrification of MV.

Also Jac Siegel knows what adds up. Beware creating a "Company town." They'll just vote you down for sure, and do everything their way ONLY! ONLY what good for Google and those of Goole.

Mountain View...
Keep building apartments and fill them with residents.
Encourage the new residents to keep electing city council members
that will support building more apartments.

Builders are finding that MV is the builders paradise.
Traffic congestion and gridlock? Who cares?
The long term livability of Mountain View? Who cares?

The one thing that is even more annoying is that there
is absolutely no setback from the roads when these
new buildings go up.
Dilapidated 1 to 2 story buildings are far more appealing
than these new multistory glass and concrete buildings
hitting your face while driving through these roads.

San Antonio phase-1 ... these 330 apartments... where
is the aesthetics? MV residents and visitors not only
have to sit in the traffic, but they have to stare at
these new glass and concrete devoid of any aesthetics while
sitting in that traffic.

Why would any city want to self-destruct with this type
of "development"? MV city council needs to stop adding any
more jobs to this already congested city.