"For the environmental planning commissioner, the biggest point of contention through the three-hour meeting was a suggestion by staff to create an expedited review process for new developments. If approved, this idea would allow new housing and office projects to reviewed and approved mostly by city staff, speeding up the process and saving money."

~~~~~~~

Sure, let's allow staff simply run wild, reviewing and approving all new housing & office developments with little to no oversight...what could possibly be wrong with or, go wrong with that scenario?

WHAT?!?


Processes are in place for a reason.

I am guessing these mini neighborhoods are aimed at residences without family, meaning apartment housings for young people in the tech industry. I suppose that makes sense and it could reduce some of the traffic. But I assume they will have mediocre-at-best public schools, and further siphon already paper thin budget from other schools.

I appreciate the green space and residential densities, but there is a depressing lack of mixed-use zoning in this proposal. It is a sad waste of ground-floor space. Mixed-use makes walking more interesting; provides amenities for everyone who lives and works in the area; and helps provide affordable retail rents, which is a problem just like affordable housing (and affordable office for that matter).

I would also urge the City to consider having more "park and ride" options into NBS. We don't need cars driving all the way up to office buildings, instead they can take a shuttle or self driving car that travels regularly, so they can skip the hunt for the best spot in the lot.

This is a huge opportunity for the City and I hope we do it well!

Link to the full report: Web Link

Mr Levy has a blog about this. Please read that before discussing this issue.

Posted by the_punnisher:


"Mr Levy has a blog about this. Please read that before discussing this issue."

A link to the blog and particular blog post you are referencing above would be helpful.

Reading the EPC study probably gives you something interesting to comment on. But sure, please link to the blog post as well.

Why can't the Voice publish illustrations with higher resolution? Every single drawing you have on this site is practically useless when it comes to details.

For example, the only barely legible street name on the map is "Highway 101". The whole point of a map is to allow someone to read it.

Seriously, don't bother posting a drawing next time unless it is legible. It is 2016 after all, enough of these low resolution jpg files.

Did anybody discuss how we will supply water, police, fireand other services to this area?

Didn't think so.

Again, here is a link to the EPC agenda, which in turn has a link to the staff report: Web Link

"For the environmental planning commissioner(s), the biggest point of contention through the three-hour meeting was a suggestion by staff to create an expedited review process for new developments. If approved, this idea would allow new housing and office projects to be reviewed and approved mostly by city staff, speeding up the process and saving money."

If I understand the staff report correctly, it appears that this proposal to "streamline" would cut the Environmental Planning Commission out of the planning process. Perhaps the planning department staff and City Council find the EPC's input to be a nuisance. However, Council is free to ignore the EPC's comments, since legally the EPC is just an advisory body. This seems like a completely unnecessary power play. What's the rush? With this gung-ho pro-developer Council and a compliant planning department, this over-the-top development will go through anyway, regardless of any cautionary EPC input.

Another interesting feature in the report is the proposal to eliminate the "trip cap." The trip cap, you may recall, was an effort to justify development of North Bayshore by requiring developers to manage transportation in such a way as to limit the worsening of already-unacceptable congestion. Now they want to add over 10,000 units...and get rid of trip caps? Unbelievable.

I'm convinced that this vision of a North Bayshore mini-city, if it's really followed through, will be a disaster. If I were a developer, I'm not sure I would consider it a smart investment.

Right now the whole project is in the planning stages and ideas are being tossed out to be discussed. It will be a number of years before these projects are approved but nothing wrong with planning.

I think open space created from tops of buildings and parking garages is great. Remember open space means recreation spaces also like volleyball or a place to walk.

Public Facilities - there already is a new permanent fire station (#5) [ Web Link ] out at Shoreline Ave. opposite the Shoreline Amphitheater. Public school buildings will be paid off by new taxes collected for paying off school bonds more quickly. Increased property value results in increased General Obligation bonding ability (facilities).

The ELEPHANT - for school district - absolutely not one cent of new operational revenue is assured to MVWSD. The "quasi-redevelopment district"* Shoreline Community legally sucks all the "tax increment" to the City (RDA). If the RDA chooses to "share" - then MVWSD gets "a fraction" of the new operational money it would be legally entitled to, if Shoreline RDA was sunseted.

I like the plan for mixed use development. Yeah for the EPC process. I (still) hate the RDA*, "quasi"* or not! (* the State Controller and the Finance Agency for Santa Clara County/Tax Collector use this term, so do I)

SN is a 28 yr resident and a Trustee of the MVWSD, these are only his opinions

Steven Nelson raises an important point re: NBS' funding for public schools. it really ought to be a top policy concern for the EPC and the City when considering housing in North Bayshore.

At a minimum, the City should consider letting school taxes (property tax, parcel taxes, bond measures...) flow directly to the public education agencies (MVWSD, MVLA High School District and FootHill College).

Also the City should clarify if housing developments in NBS are subject to the relevant school impact fees
(see: Web Link )

I am happy to see the City considering unbundled parking here. Recent research suggests that too much parking actually *causes* more driving (Web Link Let the developers and residents find the right balance of parking in the area, and the residents can pay for a spot if they are so inclined. Cities like Seattle sometimes have minimums for bike parking, that could work well here.

Parking is quite costly to build-- I hope the City can recapture some of the value rather than having it all flow back to the developers. In our supply-constrained market, developers will pocket the difference otherwise.

@bjd - Interesting article in your link. Drawing a parallel between parking and lung cancer suggests that the article is starting from a position of extreme anti-car bias, wouldn't you agree?

Certainly one way to look at it is that if you provide more parking, people are more likely to own cars, while with less parking, people will be less likely to use cars.

Another way to look at it, more unpleasant, is that intentionally providing inadequate parking will force people out of auto use, and they can/will just deal with it. That doesn't sound as good. "Social engineering" tends to arouse resentment.

But, you know, the agendas of anti-car fanatics and developers intersect very nicely here.

You wrote, "Parking is quite costly to build-- I hope the City can recapture some of the value rather than having it all flow back to the developers. In our supply-constrained market, developers will pocket the difference otherwise."

Let's be real. Of course the developers will pocket the difference. You know that, right?

@MV Resident, if you find the science in that article to be biased, there are loads of other resources that are worth reading on the subject. Probably the most cited is "The High Cost of Free Parking" (Web Link My personal favorite is Jeff Speck's Walkable City, it is a very accessible and entertaining read, and paints a really nice picture of how a city center can be built to support cars, pedestrians, and bikers alike (Web Link

With respect to reclaiming the value from parking, one idea is to require the usual amount of parking per unit (1-1.5 spots), but allow the developer to pay in-lieu fees as an attractive alternative. For example an underground parking spot costs ~$40,000 per spot; an above-grade spot costs ~$20,000, but eats into the developers allotted building space. So setting in-lieu fees at something between $15,000-$25,000 per spot would result in the developer choosing the right amount of parking to support their tenants while splitting the savings with the City. The City might allocate the funds for improved transit or more affordable housing.

And just to be perfectly clear, I am not anti-car by any means. I do own a car myself, although I am very, very lucky to get to walk to work, the grocery store, and a great mix of bars and restaurants. When I graduated college, I lived in Philadelphia for a number of years and would not have considered owning a car there. But when I moved back to the Bay Area, I needed a car to get around, which was just fine.

My hope is that many recent college grads can postpone their need to own a car without sacrificing their quality of life.

Having lived without a car for for over 4 years now, I can tell you that there is no way go carless without sacrificing your quality of life. You waste tons of time waiting for trains and buses that are late and then take circuitous routes that take 5 times longer that if you drove yourself directly. You also are surrounded by people that have colds, flu, and other health issues and have no problem sharing them with other people instead of staying home until they are no longer contagious. Then there are those who insist on bringing their unruly pets onto public transportation ( and yes I am sure the pit bull that was on the bus one week ago was not a service animal ).

Many of the Government leaders are refusing to get out of their cars and lead by example, while at the same time telling everyone else to get out of their cars! Their hypocrisy is not lost on me, and I hope that everyone else will begin to question it as well. We are being directed to a society where driving will be a privilege only for those rich enough to pay all the taxes, tolls, and fees that are being raised and imposed upon us year after year.

As the VTA ha proven year after year, more money for transit is basically throwing money into the VTA retirement fund Black Hole. ( It certainly doesn't seem to be going to improving service by adding routes that make sense)

With Crude Oil at less than $30 a barrel, where it was once over $100 a barrel just a few years ago, does anyone think that the cost of public transportation will go down? Of course not! Yet we have seen the cost of gasoline drop over 40% in the last year. That is the real reason that the Government wants to add a whole hot of new taxes and tolls for drivers; Because public sector can never compete with the private sector unless the Government punishes those that use and supply the private sector.

My hope is that college grads will wake up and realize that it is the Government that is lowering their quality of life, killing their job prospects, eviscerating their 401k, and sowing the seeds of division and hate, while this who are in charge laugh all the way to their 8 bedroom mansions and drive cars that cost more than 3 years at a California State college!


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

the article literally never draws a parallel between lung cancer and parking. You should read more closely before tainting a conversation. welcome to the internet I guess

I knew when it came down to it, those endangered species would be toast.

The article linked to by bjd does indeed attempt, literally, to draw a parallel between "excessive" parking/congestion and smoking/lung cancer. The author continues the parallel throughout the article. His purpose is to demonstrate that "excessive" parking is a major causative factor in urban congestion, just as smoking is a major causative factor in lung cancer. Here is a quote from the beginning of the article:

"Long after it was painfully clear that cigarettes caused cancer, big tobacco companies maintained that no such link existed, on the grounds that it’s incredibly hard for scientists to prove causation. The “no causality” stance appeared in 89 percent of lawsuits before 1997, according to one review. That fell to just 25 percent in 2003, but even then you could find an R.J. Reynolds chemist testifying that “the rigorous scientific proof of causation is not complete.”

"In the urban planning world, a parallel to the smoking-cancer connection is the tie between parking and driving. Cheap, excessive parking has been linked to more drive-alone commutes, worse traffic congestion, higher rents, and all the other social costs of over-reliance on cars for urban mobility..."

My problem with this article is that it is more advocacy than science, and that the author's choice to use a "smoking/lung cancer" parallel in asserting causation shows his bias.

It doesn't take tables and statistics to prove to me that providing minimal (some would say "inadequate") parking will push people out of auto use. Obviously, if policymakers and planners punish auto use sufficiently, fewer people will drive.

But what is meant by "excessive" parking, exactly?

The "unbundled" parking concept, now being considered for North Bayshore developments, means that the developer/landlord provides some unspecified minimal number of spaces (again, who decides?), and charges tenants rent for them. If demand exceeds supply, the landlord will then raise the rent for the spaces, until the supply/demand evens out.

What's wrong with this? For one thing, if renting a space becomes too expensive, tenants will use street parking in other neighborhoods. For another, it privileges wealthier tenants. Another problem I have with this is that as bjd points out, providing minimal spaces will benefit the developers financially, with no guarantee that the savings will be passed back to the City. There is no assurance that the "minimal" parking provided will be adequate. In addition, many of us see this as very heavy-handed social engineering.

Improving transit is a better way to limit congestion. Offer people a better commuting experience, don't go out of your way to punish them.

The city council's vision for North Bayshore will not end well. 10,000 new housing units, 15-story buildings, no trip caps required from developers? All this plus 3.4 million square feet of new office space? Just watch what this will do to 101, Rengstorff, Shoreline, and San Antonio.

@bjd - Thanks for your civil reply, and thanks for the reading suggestions.

people love there cars. Whether it be hybred or electric or gas, peoples love for cars will never go away. So best to build with 1 car per residence, minimum, otherwise it will make those sardine places worthless.

Article in today's SJ Mercury - "Mr. Roadshow" discusses readers' complaints that residents of new high-density apartments are jamming up street parking because developers failed to provide adequate parking for their residents: Web Link

Yes Monte Loma, the SJ Mercury roadshow article is something the Mtn View Council should take to heart. Everyone wants a car. If you are thinking different, you only kid yourself. North of bayshore should be a planned community, not just dormstyle tiny apartments with no parking spaces. By the way millennials are bying cars and homes, just google it.