"Rapid residential growth has been touted the best long-term way for Mountain View to alleviate a host of traffic and housing woes, but"

Said/touted by a true developer!! That is so not true, the more housing and growth = more traffic and will not make a dent in the housing crisis.

If there is a shortage of planners, then by all means stop the massive development. That is only common sense.

@ Resident

That's a totally reasonable point you're raising here. Let me just clarify why I wrote that how I did.

The reason why residential growth is seen as a way to clamp down on traffic is that it would reduce the jobs/housing imbalance. In other words, if more tech workers lived in Mountain View, then fewer drivers would clog Shoreline Boulevard each morning on their way to work, or so the logic goes.

I appreciate the idea that narrowing the jobs/housing gap would reduce traffic, but I think Mark's example of Shoreline is one of the major cases where this is not true-- there are only two roadways into NBS- Rengstorff and Shoreline. Even Mountain View residents who drive to work will rely on these corridors.

The only way this isn't true is if those residents are biking or walking. Biking along Stevens Creek is a nice option, but many people don't want to deal with even a 5 mile bike ride, especially when the days are as short as they are in the winter. My friends who live near Downtown and work at a Big North Bayshore Company mostly drive, it is rather sad really. The only traffic that could improve then is the major 101/280 highways.

For that reason, my major hope for the City in the next several years is to see improved transit to connect our residential and industrial centers-- for example a La Avenida exit off of 101, transit link from Downtown to NBS, etc.

What happens when John Doe, who moved into an apartment near his work, changes employers and is now commuting a long distance anyway? I remember times when it was nearly impossible to find an apartment in Silicon Valley. I don't buy the idea that more housing in MV = less commuting here.

I ride my bicycle a lot for exercise and being in nature. If I could ride five miles to work on the Stevens Creek Trail, oh boy!!!!

"if more tech workers lived in Mountain View, then fewer drivers would clog Shoreline Boulevard each morning on their way to work, or so the logic goes."

Mark,

It is simply fun to prove we have power to revolt against the people more wealthy than us, that can afford to live here, and prove their culture can be destroyed if we are left out of their prosperity.

Only one third of the people living in any south bay city work where they live.

There is no logic to balanced housing at all, except to ram profitable projects though into an overly saturated area, diminishing the local quality of life.

"if more tech workers lived in Mountain View, then fewer drivers would clog Shoreline Boulevard each morning on their way to work, or so the logic goes."

Mark,

It is simply fun to prove we have power to revolt against the people more wealthy than us, that can afford to live here, and prove their culture can be destroyed if we are left out of their prosperity.

Only one third of the people living in any south bay city work where they live. Twice the amount of housing will have twice the number of people living just as they do now, except we will have congestion and all the problems that come along with it. Realistically, it will not bring us better mass transit. Long before our density gets that dense, High Tech will move on to less stressful environments where creative minds produce.

There is no logic to balanced housing at all, except to ram profitable projects though into an overly saturated area, diminishing the local quality of life.

It is pretty silly to assume that putting more housing here will somehow reduce traffic. As others have said, only about 1/3 of us live in the city where we work. Personally, in my years of employment, I never once lived in the city where I worked. The choice of your home is based on different factors than your choice of employer. Where you live depends on many factors such as schools, shopping, doctors, friends, etc. None of those things affects where you work, except if it is close enough to get to when you need to get there. Also, most people don't change homes when they change jobs and it's silly to assume they do.

Also, I don't see one single syllable about ANY infrastructure for all this new building. Until we have enough water storage to support all this building without sacrificing the quality of life of the current residents, NO building should be done. The same can be said about schools, police, fire and other services these new people will need. It is laughable to call any of what they city does "planning" because they never seem to address any of these issues. Their only concern is how many people the can wedge into the space and how many tax dollars that will give them to waste.

Incidentally, Mark, it would be great if you could convince the Voice that Monroe Park is an actual part of the city. It's pretty annoying to have the comment section ask for your neighborhood and not have it on the list.

Lots of good comments here. Some observations:
- the issue is broader than Mountain View so we cannot solve it on our own. I don't know what is going on to coordinate a regional response to the housing crisis but think this should be a higher priority for the CC than purely city wide solutions,
- the point that more MV housing will not solve the problem follows but that does not mean we should ignore the jobs / housing imbalance. The CC should adopt a policy of not approving new office spaces without, each time, addressing the issue of housing for the employees that will fill them,
- I harbor no ill will towards Google etc., their employees, or any others who are chasing their American dreams here. Rather, I proudly see this as a continuation of a long tradition of high-tech innovation and leadership,
- to those who want a return to the less crowed old days, I ask what point in history are you referring to? Do you suggest that everyone is an outsider after the days or the Ohlone, or maybe the later days of Leland Stanford and James Lick? Were you here when this area was known as "The Valley of Heart's Delights" or are you just a selfish opportunist? Take that a step forward and ask Inks and other "libertarians" their view on their right to live here now,
- why is it that our planning department is understaffed? Is it because civilian employees can no longer afford to live here within reasonable commute distances? I don't know, but ask Inks and others if they are willing to pay city employees prevailing wages so that they can,
- whatever the case, I would argue that proposals to convert industrial-zoned areas to residential be given a priority (think JCC at San Antonio / Charleston),
Some of my more conservative friends think I am an extreme liberal. I do not. I think my views fit with those of prior age conservatives like Eisenhower and the first Bush, folks who had conservative economic policies, which I mostly agree with, but a high sense of civic duty and service. We need to work together for everybody.

Apart from the added traffic, not to forget our water shortages, why do these new multifloor complexes lack set-backs on upper floors? Why do they creep out to sidewalks. It's going to be like driving through tunnels around here. I feel that is already happening on El Camino, and it is very unattractive.

The reduction in traffic comes from those who live in cities NEARBY to where they work compared to longer commutes. If someone living in North Bayshore shifts from working for Google to working for Linkedin, then they still live close by. Living in San Jose is a much longer trip. But Google has so many locations in Mountain View and soon in Palo Alto, that they will be traveling around the city, even if Google just moves them to Mayfield Mall from North Bayshore.

It's a question of the AVERAGE distance to work. People living in Los Altos (between 1/3 and 1/2 the size of the number living in Mountain View) are essentially living in the same place. Many areas of San Jose are further apart.

It is madness to keep adding more and more development in Mountain View, Mountain View is over crowded with cars and people now.

It is madness to reject these development projects and not add more housing in Mountain View,

Mountain View is not crowded with cars and people.

@Rodger

Of course, when new employees hired by Google have only the option of living in Gilroy (or one of the few other cities that actually allow a non-negligible amount of housing construction), then they will certainly stop contributing to traffic in Mountain View.

"The council is also expected to approve a unique project being proposed by the U.S. Army to transform a cluster of military townhomes at 500 Moffett Boulevard into a much denser apartment community with as many as 1,143 housing units. That project is being proposed for a unincorporated parcel not in the city's boundaries that would need to be eventually annexed."

A win-win for Mountain View and a big Bronx Cheer to the money intensive developers.

Remember, always follow the money and see who's pockets it ends up in.

Mark Noack - Thanks for participating in the discussion. Question - Will 500 Moffett be reserved for military families? 1143 units seems like a lot for just local military. Can you find out, and let us know? Thanks!

What we definately don't need in Mountain View is more development. To even consider additional development until full adjustments and accommodations are complete for existing population is just plain greed. Look around at the out of control building, massive traffic on what used to be quiet residential streets, electrical wires everywhere, take a look down Whisman- the most prominant neighborhood fixture is the miles of electrical cable, strung willy nilly everywhere. More building? No way.
No benefit whatsoever to the community.

The plans for 500 Moffett don't specify if the housing is solely for military families.

My hunch is that it's open for any tenants, but I'll let you know if they say otherwise at the meeting tonight.

Yes, that's right. The 1,100 new homes would be available for anyone to rent. Once the entitlements are in hand, the U.S. Army and its partners plan to sell off the land to a private developer.

Sorry for the typos in my last post. I meant to question whether city employees can still afford to work here and live within reasonable commute distances. That would include police & fire workers, teachers and the like. We probably cannot easily address the question of service people who work in our stores, restaurants, homes and yards but we should be able to provide either salaries or subsidized housing for our essential city employees.

Like many posters here, I do not want a lot of new construction or congestion. I just think we have to deal with reality and that wishing for the old days is like swimming upstream.

We live in one of the most desirable places on earth, partly because we have kept it desirable by protecting our nearby open spaces and partly because we have a unique economy. Our challenge is to adapt to constant change ... and growth ... in a smart way. To me this means dense infill that will allow for other opportunities like efficient public transit.

I guess I am also swimming upstream. I think that North Bayshore is an important, environmentally sensitive area that is already overdeveloped and that no new development should occur there -- offices or housing. There are also good arguments that protecting the marshlands is a huge economic benefit to the area in times of natural disaster. I don't expect to win on this issue but wish others saw it the way I do.

Why is it that the city planners are always complaining about being over worked? You never hear them complain about their guaranteed pay raises and their guaranteed retirement benefits.

They suckle the teet of home owner paid taxes to complain for a lack of chocolate milk.

@Lazy Govt Workers

I am also a home owner and find your post incredibly offensive.

The taxes you pay mean nothing if you do not guide their use and the community we live in.

Where is your sense of fair play? Why post such a hateful, divisive message when we have so many challenges before us?

It is easy to zing. What is your constructive solution?

Mark, thanks for the clarification about the Army property at 500 Moffett. The report to the council from Planning (linked to at the end of the article) said nothing about a sale to a private developer, so it's understandable that you did not explain this in your article.

The Planning report is worded in a way that conceals "California Military Communities LLC's" plan to sell the property and project to a private developer. Perhaps the authors of the report thought the public should not know about this. Or perhaps it was just a poor choice of words.

So, just to be clear: Approval of this project has absolutely nothing to do with housing for military families. After this 1,143-unit project is approved by the council, the land with its entitlements will be sold to a developer who is yet to be named. The developer will add 1,100 high-end rentals to the housing supply, with a token few below-market-rate units.

This massive project will most likely sail through, with no thought to congestion or infrastructure.

Am I a pessimist? With this city council, yes.

Please, please, please keep building more and more and more. The mass transit bus cannot even move without dedicated lanes! The traffic means I can just sleep in my self driving Google Car because my commute will take all night! I want my old Mountain View back because now I simply stay at home now because it take too long to get anywhere anymore. And my property taxes just keep going up and up... GROWTH need URBAN PLANNING - Roads, schools, hospitals, and better Government - when will the smart people run governments?

building more housing in Mountain View will mean that people working in North Bayshore will be commuting from Mountain View (instead of San Jose, Gilroy, Tracey etc), and will reduce commute traffic through all the cities in between. And it works both ways - if more housing was available near Apple, Cisco and Facebook, there would be fewer of their employees traveling through Mountain View.

@Steve

Unfortunately though, we still have far too many voters who think that people have been or will be drawn to Mountain View based on the availability of housing...

pdview,

Your ad hominem attack is just as silly as the idea that the CC has that they can keep stuffing more and more people into Mt View with any thought to what that means regarding ANY of the other services those people need other than a housing unit or what effect that has on the people who already live here.

Did it occur to you that cities have a character and, when you start overbuilding, that ruins the character for the current residents when you don't do any PLANNING other than figuring out where you will build the next huge complex?

Being concerned about what the CC does to our city doesn't make me a "selfish opportunist". It makes me a rational individual. Also, FYI, my family has lived in the South SF bay area for about 110 years, so I'm not a fly-by-night resident who is here to cash in on the tech and then run for greener pastures. I would think that you would understand that, by catering to the needs of the short-term residents, you sacrifice the needs of the long-term one when you don't think about what you are doing.

I don't expect time to stand still, but I do expect the people given authority to oversee growth think about more than their own pockets and the amount of money they will have access to in order to fund pet projects. I don't think that's too much to ask, considering the amount of my tax dollars they feel free to play with recklessly.

You are making the assumption that only homeowners are "long-term residents" and should be catered to above all else. That is simply not true. There are many-many long term residents who are renters, in fact, growing up in Mtn. View from Slater-Graham-Mtn. View high the majority of people were renters. Looking out for them is important as well. Having rental housing stock is just as important for folks who don't want to own.

The sad part is many have been forced out by transplants and the lack of rental housing stock. It always seems like it's NIMBY homeowners who want to suspend (selfishly might I add) time to suite them while calling everyone selfish/greedy/outsiders while attempting to disenfranchise their voice. When the other side gets a voice and some traction then the homeowners switch to the "victims".

I would think all renters have had enough of the traffic and everything else as well that comes with overpopulation. But the beauty of renting is that they are not stuck in one place. Because of that, they can pick up an leave when things are not to their liking. Or if they get a new job with a new company across the bay, they can move closer to their place of work. I've also grew up here and went to school here, but decided to buy, since i know that rents normally head in one direction and that is up. I think the people that own here like their quality of life, and adding a few thousand units here and there, then we will soon live in traffic hell. And yes everything that involves more people here will increase the crimes, traffic accidents, bike injuries, pedestrian injuries, lines at the stores, etc.... Not as bad as NYC yet, but that should not be what we want to look like, or detroit. Seeing how everyone has abandoned detroit, right now is a great time to buy there.

" But the beauty of renting is that they are not stuck in one place. Because of that, they can pick up an leave when things are not to their liking. Or if they get a new job with a new company across the bay, they can move closer to their place of work."

You have a talent for writing fiction. Something factual? Not so much.

psr, @par, @@psr

I am a little confused about who is who but someone is right that my choice of words -- selfish opportunists -- was poor. Apologies.

The point I was trying to make, and I don't think it was directed at psr, is that there always has been growth and it is probably inevitable -- that what one thinks about optimum density often depends on when they arrived here.

Of course, communities have character but that too changes over time. I remember renting a few blocks off Castro Street some 30 years ago and downtown was dead. I prefer the more vibrant community we have today.

Homeowners can move even easier than renters! If you don't like a city you can sell your house and buy another. In this case, you can usually make a tidy profit and/or upgrade for free! That is a bonus that homeowners have over renters.

It's funny that it's always the NIMBY homeowners who insist that renters automatically should be the ones to leave as if they see themselves as some exalted class and self-righteous rulers of a town/city just because they decide to buy what amounts to a land use title from the government.

Many also arrogantly assume that they are somehow more financially astute in doing so as a matter of course. Nothing could be further from the truth and everybody has different needs/wants as far as responsibility/liabilities/investment return ratio/debt load ect.
Deciding you are morally superior due to your personal fiscal decision to buy a land use title is ridiculous as homeowners are, for all intents and purposes, renters as well in the long run. Many just don't realize it because they don't understand the financial long game as well as they think. The industry (realtor and banking lobby) works hard keep it that way!

Houses can be like boats for many people and the two happiest days are the day you get it and the day you sell it!

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?