First, can I suggest that all the Council members start SimCity games to see the rippling effects of 10,000+ additional residents in such a tight space. Water, sewer, power, transportation, schools, fire (we'll need new equipment for 12 story buildings!) police, entertainment? Next, do two scenarios - a 6ish earthquake on that land fill, and what it looks like with 2050 estimates on the bay level.

Finally, lets think about the political aspect of this. Currently, we're about 75K residents, and apparently 61K voters (that sounds high...) Anyway, this housing will certainly add at least 10K potential voters, so at least a 17% increase in the voter base - more than enough to have swung any of the recent city, school, or proposition results.

Of course, there is also the architectural aspects. This has gone from 4-6 stories, to 10, now to 12. Has anyone asked Google how they feel about 12 story buildings to their south blocking all that solar power they expect to get from the frame over their campus?

Or the economic - what happens when the cycle shifts and Google/LinkedIn have to do a 10% or more staff reduction?

Relative to people working here, we obviously have a big housing problem. But in the rush to add more housing, let's make sure we are thinking about the unexpected consequences of all this, that may get magnified when things change.

Doing some more numbers, we would also be talking about needing a 15% increase in potable water, sewer, and power (residential, not commercial) within a few years. Is that feasible?

NIMBY tears and more housing make me smile!

Mark Noack - Thanks, it's a well-written article.

@Concerned - Some of your points are well taken. For others, Planning and developers have "no problem" answers ready. They will say that buildings will follow code requirements that are calculated to be adequate for earthquakes or water level rise; they will say that few children will be living in these buildings and that they can be bused; they will say that water, power, and sewer are easily provided; they will say that fire and police are adequate, or that substations can be built.

The things in your list that most concern me are transportation and political power.

I do not think that the transportation/congestion problem is solvable. Adding 10,250 units of housing could easily mean 15,000+ new residents just in North Bayshore alone. Add to that the 3.4 million square feet of new office space that has been approved in North Bayshore. What will this do to congestion on Shoreline, Rengstorff, and San Antonio, which are already at a low level of service? Add to that the 2,000 units or so that are already approved or under construction elsewhere in MV. Then add to that the 6,000 units that are proposed for the government land at Moffett and Middlefield. I don't think there is any conceivable Transportation Demand Management program that could prevent horrific traffic congestion at that end of town. The council, and Planning, are simply out of touch with reality on this issue.

According to a Voice article from the last election, there were about 8,200 ballots cast, out of a little over 30,000 registered voters in MV. New developments are likely to be almost all apartments, and residents will be heavily weighted towards young tech employees. Google itself will be one of the two major builders of housing in North Bayshore. The last City Council election was won by pro-developer candidates with the help of about $90,000 in dark money from developers (Voice article: Web Link with the help of endorsements by the Voice and the Mercury, and with the false promise that over-the-top development would lower rental prices. New renters are likely to be similarly persuadable, and are likely to add to the political power of the big companies and developers.