'FortBay representatives promised they would do everything possible to encourage future residents to avoid driving' - HaHaHaHaHa *whew* good one. Talk about a total crock political platitude statement. We won't even see a shadow of them once they get their money. 'Encourage' HaHaHaHa , what they going to post some person with a sign at the Corner of Shoreline and Middlefiekd that says "Stop Driving"? What a joke.

I also like the bit about the 'nervous' council. Another total line. Were they nervous on the other 80 giant projects they green lighted or they just nervous that someone will audit their bank accounts someday?

Stop building Stop building Stop building Stop building.

My only concern is how can the City enforce that the project will go as planned.

The simple truth is building is not simple. And that the property could be and probably will be resold to another party which will argue that the agreement between Fortbay and the city is void.

This has been a common practice in Mountain View, project get resold before completion, and has inflated the prices in the housing market.

I hope this project can succeed, my objective is that for every below market rate apartment destroyed at least 2 below market apartments are created. In fact, I think it should be a city ordinance because it will provide much more stability in the city of Mountain View. This is the only way that the city can deal with the current apartment crisis.

Smart businessmen can see that by reducing tenant turnover, you greatly reduce costs because every apartment is required to be "Refreshed" between occupants. Smart businessmen can arrange for very cost effective funding to build and especially at this time with record low interest rates that can be locked on.

There is no barrier of achieving the optimal balance of "luxury" and "basic" apartment inventory, it is the fault of those builders that choose to in effect discriminate against the poor, the retired, or the disabled by purposefully not providing any resources to those markets.

We good businessmen have to step up and show that civil planning and addressing needs of the people are not enemies of profit. They are in fact brothers and sister and we must get our family in order.

Traffic is going to be a disaster. Shoreline is already gridlocked during rush hour. How can you inject several hundred more cars right into the bottleneck? A dedicated bus lane is not going to help unless a lot of those tenants happen to work in North Bayshore. The council has been approving an awful lot of apartment projects. What's going to happen when those people want to start families? Are there enough homes available to keep them in Mountain View? Maybe going with the million dollar townhomes would have been the better choice. I agree with the previous poster. Mountain View needs to stop building NOW. Enough is enough. If you want to build, improve the quality of what we have now, not the quantity.

This will be the fate of every middle income apartment building in Mtn View- a direct result of Rent control. Older buildings will fall and replaced with new rent control exempt new buildings

I agree with Albert regarding traffic.

The highways in the area need serious redesign. At least 2 additional lanes, and implementation of the Fast Lane fee lanes in all the highways. This way funds can be used to keep up with traffic demand. And that more balanced use of the highways will make traffic less of a problem.

The fees can also be used to fund a better mass transit plan that also needs a lot of redesign, it cannot be based solely on a county basis because one typically lives in one county and works in another here.

With our computer age, especially "Watson" level AI, we can get a lot better performance and planning done regarding Mass Transit.

I am optimistic the can be done.

...and a development crazy council controlled by a certain company in north shoreline and elected by the apartment lobby will let it happen

And there it is. Punish and overtax only a certain population, and guess what? That population leaves to avid the taxes if they can afford it. Sadly, this will be the fate of many of our older buildings, as middle class landlords are forced to sell and developers have a feeding frenzy. Get it folks?

Sounds like this would be a net increase of 503 new units; something we sorely need to keep up with demand. Any new renters who work in North Bayshore or in Downtown can easily bike or walk to work from there, if they choose. Seems like a good project to me!

@The Business Man

Fee lanes??? No No No No No NO!!! While the council lines their pockets with developers taking advantage of the new rent control era now we have to pay more fees ? So we're not gonna have a class system on public roads? Wasn't that the purpose of rent control in the first place to lower that divide between classes of people who can afford things? And now you want to make it on public utilities? Just like the VTA Government has all the money they need but there apt to spend it on anything except for what it supposed to be spent on and a subset of jobs ( bureaucracy ) who is supposed to control what is spent on . All these extra projects that they benefit from now we got to pay for ? NO!

This project approval is unreal, this council needs to be recalled by the current homeowners in Mtn View. The bus lane on Shoreline will help the traffic congestion, dream on council. None of you live in our area, maybe you should visit once in a while.
I bet all of you live in a one story home, just think if your neighbor wants to build a three or four story building next to you lovely home. This is what will happen to the two story condos next this monster project.

I thought we have a water shortage, the drought is still not over. I guess these extra units will not use any services, don't need any water and will the sewer and storm drain systems keep up with all this development. If you pave all dirt and grass areas it will take forever to replace the groundwater, since all the rainwater will run off. Some countries in Europe charge an extra tax for paved areas on your property. Maybe it's time to do that here, do not pave every inch of land. And can the schools keep up with all the new students. By the way next big project will be at Moffet and Shoreline, anough is anough...Stop building, there is something called quality of live, but I guess we live on the wrong side of the tracks.
Thanks for nothing Mtn View Council.

This is a great project. Many of these so called middle income tenants will qualify for the subsidized units if they build and price them at 50-100% of median family income.

NO on FEE LANES! Fee lanes provide increased misery for the masses while encouraging the already priveleged wealthy to drive that much more.

The well off already can afford any rent amount, as seen in the up scale, large scale buildings that will replace the older apartments (all that regular folks can afford) at a much faster rate now that Measure V will financially strangle and perplexingly complicate their management. It's just not worth staying in business for pre-1995 housing any more, so there will increasingly rapidly be less and less to have rent control on! We will have less and less that regular folks and families can afford. Top paid people get their way: MV becomes THEIR city almost exclusively. City Councilmember most responsible for this shift: Lenny Siegel. Vote him out for sure in two years!

Some of us actually voted for Siegel (and Rosenberg and Showalter) and are happy to see all of the new construction. And this project actually has a pretty good location for traffic demand management, with proximity to downtown, Bailey Park, and bus routes to North Bayshore. That said, City Council will need to make sure that the developers make good on their promise to reduce car use. I want to see a specific plan before any permits are issued.

I'd also like to see more two-bedroom and three-bedroom apartments for families. This notion that starting a family requires a house is an American aberration.

And the proposed bus lane (singular) on Shoreline will help.
1) A bunch of MV residents do, in fact, work in North Bayshore, and would be more willing to take the bus if it were faster than driving.
2) North Bayshore employees who don't live in MV will also consider taking Caltrain if there's a shuttle bus that crosses the freeway without sitting in traffic for ten minutes.

This project combined with the left wing members (not all) of the council combined to make me move out of MtnView, after fifty good years...

I am moving to Reno, Nv. No State income tax, lower property taxes, good 2nd amendment beliefs and plenty of room to grow.

New houses in nice areas run in the high 200s to mid 400s..

Why in heck stay in MtnView, or any other left wing pro tax areas of Calif.

Check it out.

ByeGeorge

Build more more more. Good news! Why not let them build an extra story or two? I'm less concerned about displacing residents. More supply = downward pressure on rents. I care about the long term.

It's within walking distance of Castro and the Safeway. I don't think cars will be as big of an issue.

You are not alone George. We saw what I call 'by design lower qualityof life' coming a few years ago, and decided to hedge our bets by purchasing some property just over the state line. We own a couple of acres with insfrastructre in place, in a nice community in a tax friendly state. Now we're just biding our time.

It's not the high cost of living that is driving us out, per se, it's the crush of humanity, the diminished quality of life and the endless taxes. I know, don't let the door hit me on the way out. I won't, and neither will my half dozen friends currently living in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Woodside, Los Altos and Portla Valley who are all also taking leave of this area in the next 2-3 years. A couple of them already have homes under construction in these more tax friendly states close by. Incidentally all but one family are natives of California.

The writing is on the wall, get used to it & get used or get out...we're getting out.

Sad thing is this is such a beautiful, wonderful place to live. Great hiking, wonderful bike paths, close to beach, phenomenal weather. And we're being taxed out. Something not right about that.

Help me understand: how are homeowners being taxed out? If you sell your house and move to Reno, the taxable value of your new house probably won't be less than the one you sold (prop 13).

Ivg,

I'm not sure I read a comment that said homeowners specifically were being taxed out 'because' they were homeowners. My comment above in reference to taxes was about the ridiculous amount of taxes we pay in CA in general - personal income tax in CA ranks #1 in the nation @12.3 % (On avg, earning less than 1mm) and when it comes to state and local tax burden, CA ranks #4 in the nation with a tax burden on avg @11.2%. That's state average, we are a bit higher than average in Santa Clara county with our local tax burdens.

Relocating to a state, Nevada for example, with no state income tax saves you 12.3% of your annual income right off the top. If one happens to be employed with a large corporation s/he may still be able to remain employed with your current employer in many cases, just need to report into a business unit out of Nevada, or Arizona or Texas, etc.

"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

Guess what, your not in Mountain View anymore either.

Take a drive through your city, I do when I go down there and I can't even remember what was on that corner of El Camino, when I grew up there or where that open field was on that street.
Mountain View is being reshaped at an alarming rate that is driven by Google's money.
Forget the community history charm, open streets with plenty of parking and people knowing one another.
Your living in the Emerald City and Google is going to cash in on all those Emeralds. There is going to be high density housing, traffic, noise, more crime and high costs through taxes or fees and probably both.
Every inch of dirt is going to be developed to its full potential no matter how many stories they go and the city council is going to do it for the tax dollars.
Their going to rezone to higher density over and over again.
That's your future.

City council is making yet another mistake by displacing so many people among those that are families, young and old who will not be able to find affordable places to call home. You who applaud this decision should be ashamed of yourselves. Your greed and heartlessness makes me ill For once, please put yourselves in their shoes and then ask yourselves, where Would you be able to go and how far away will you be from those that take care of you, other family?
City council, have you not learned anything from your recent past mistakes. Just look at the grotesque bulidings/housing that you approved on the corner of Central Expressway and Moffet? Have you seen this same towering monstrosity from Stierlin Rd.
It looks like a huge tidal wave about to plunder on the homes directly underneath it on Jackson street. If this is progress it is ugly and nothing to be proud of.
In fact, the whole legacy of this council is a failure.
Mountain View is my home and always will be but.. I wish I had more respect for our leaders.

Surely Mountain View is moving into the number one lesson plan in economics. There is no such thing as "affordable housing" just subsidized housing. Because of the very high cost of land in Silicon Valley the developer wants to pack his project with low profit "affordable housing" and make every body happy. The cost: crowded housing with no offsets. The number one lesson plan: rent control landing right in the middle of Google. Rent control is the most studied subject in economics and involves free loading and parasitic behavior. That is why at Google where most all of the employees have had a couple of college level classes in economics there is disgust. A tale of two cities. An snowball in a furnace.
George Drysdale social studies teacher

George,

They need to learn that lesson. I saw it taught in other cities that no one wants to call home now.

The voters thought the tenants coalition had a great idea that will preserve their town but that was just a dream filled with lies. The only way to preserve Mountain View with all the economic boom is to leave it alone and let the market decide. Sorry, but not everyone can afford to live there. That's called preservation.
I moved away from there a long time ago because I wanted a 5000 sq. ft. house with acreage and views. I pay the price of commuting. Never did I think someone else should pay for what I wanted.

@The Donald:
"The only way to preserve Mountain View with all the economic boom is to leave it alone and let the market decide."
The market says that there shall be 5-story apartment buildings on Middlefield. Your namesake would approve (although he might prefer 15 stories or 45 stories).

In any case, if there were no new construction at all, prices would increase so much that only lawyers and executives would be able to afford this place. I call this situation "Palo Atherton".

@Long time resident:
Some of us actually like the way the new developments look. As to your other point...

"City council is making yet another mistake by displacing so many people among those that are families, young and old who will not be able to find affordable places to call home."
That's why the developer is pledging to let them move back in at today's rental rate. They do still need a place to live during construction, which is where the buyouts come in. If construction takes three years (like the one at Moffett and Central), the $15,000 maximum buyout comes to $420 a month for the duration, which should be enough to cover the difference between interim housing and current rent. Now over to another one of our friends for an important caveat...

@George Drysdale:
I agree. Rent control will hurt the people moving out of Village Lake. Because of rent control, landlords will set rents higher for new tenants in case they stay a long time during a rising market.

@Peace Out and Geoge: Do not move out of MV! You are right about the decreased quality of life we've been inflicted with of late, but stay put because the sleepy, not usually political residents of MV have been awakened to amass to improve things around here. We have already made strides with our city council and can clinch the majority there in just two years with your help! Take heart and seize your power. There are more of us than there are of them = those who don't realize what their proposed changes do to ruin things, like the shallow thinker who said in this blog that: "This notion that starting a family requires a house is an American aberration" sure has no depth of thought to realize that once you have children, they need a playspace, the more spacious = the rowdier = the healthier as it is more exercise. So the dim thinkers conceptualize a public park. But heck no. Only a home with a view of the safely fenced in backyard will do so a parent can supervise their play OFTEN & adequately while preparing their meal or cleaning up from their last one. Anything less limits their free playime severely. Not acceptable. Nor is crowding all the Castro Street traffic onto the already over burdened Shoreline! Get real! If anyone wants less, move to Europe and leave us alone.

Discussed,

I have spent the last several years being pretty involved around here, which included trying to awaken "the sleepy not usually political residents of MV". I have attended numerous planning sessions, various precise plan meetings, general plan meetings, and city council meetings. I have read and responded to more than one environmental impact reports. I have sent letters to city staff. I have sent letters to council. I have sent letters to county supervisors. I have spoken at various city council meetings. I have asked questions at neighborhood meetings. I have walked through my neighborhood, going door to door, making sure neighbors were informed and aware about important projects that we're going in front of council, and providing important summary handouts as needed.

I am the proverbial canary in a coal mine. I now have black lung disease, and I am gasping my last breath here.

It's too late for Mountain View, the City council and developers will not be happy until every available square inch of property is re-developed with multi story apartment blocks and office space. These are not 'homes', they are housing for people who will stay a few years, these complexes and multi story office buildings (now taking over downtown; even adjacent to the 100+ year old St Joseph's Church) have ruined the character of our downtown and surrounding areas. Why bother getting involved at this point? There is nothing left to preserve, just re-name the City to 'Googleville' and be done with it.

Google is wonderful bringing all the prosperity to Mountain View. Much of old Mountain View needed to be replaced. Earthquakes. But wait, there are those who want the old buildings with the old rents. Evil business interests are out to thwart the humane. Stay tuned.
George Drysdale social studies teacher

I am glad to see council members hesitant to approve this. Unfortunately, they still have not learned to say NO. We worry about jobs/homes balance, but what about all the other balance? We are way out of whack now, by trying to build our way out of the jobs/homes imbalance, we have thrown off the balance of people to infrastructure. Our roads are over capacity and we have no plan for transit that might alleviate that. Our schools are reaching capacity even though most of the new developments have families without kids yet. Our entertainment options have systematically been torn down and turned into housing and offices. Yes, too, California is using water beyond our climate's ability, so we are committed to being in a drought, even with average rainfall.

Council, please, you need to learn to say NO. What is the picture of our ideal Mountain View? Are we heading in the right direction? We did some good things in the past - I moved here because of the Shoreline Park options for recreation and entertainment, but that was built 30 years ago and we have only lost facilities since.

My daughter, 14, commented the other day "seems like the only thing to do in Mountain View is eat out". Sad.

Ross Heitkamp,

That's why I moved out to the Danville area 25 years ago. Mountains in our backyard, 1/3 acre parcels are standard and east bay regional open space all over.
The writing was on the wall for Mountain View back then.
My policy is to invest on the peninsula and live in the garden of Eden.

@Discussed:
"Only a home with a view of the safely fenced in backyard will do so a parent can supervise their play OFTEN & adequately while preparing their meal or cleaning up from their last one."
There was a time when kids were allowed to go to the park unsupervised, with friends. I'm afraid that this insistence on constant supervision is also an American aberration, or at least a quirk of this generation.

@Ross Heitkamp:
Let me take this one point at a time.
"Our roads are over capacity and we have no plan for transit that might alleviate that."
Simply not true. Just in MV, we have Caltrain modernization, the Shoreline bus lane, and the free shuttle that may be expanded in the future if there is demand. There's also BRT on El Camino -- not that it was ever a good idea, but I give VTA points for effort.

"Our schools are reaching capacity even though most of the new developments have families without kids yet."
Slater.

"Our entertainment options have systematically been torn down and turned into housing and offices. .... My daughter, 14, commented the other day 'seems like the only thing to do in Mountain View is eat out'."
Maybe I haven't been around here long enough to know, but what entertainment are you talking about? We have a cineplex and two live-action theaters. I can think of a couple of places that have gone out of business (sadly), but none that have been torn down.
Can you point me to a city that has more entertainment than MV does? I was in one today: Berkeley. Much denser than here. An institution like Berkeley Rep can't exist without lots of patrons.

"Yes, too, California is using water beyond our climate's ability, so we are committed to being in a drought, even with average rainfall."
This is very true, but it does not make a case against high-density development. Our friend @The Donald with his 1/3-acre lot uses far more water than I do in my apartment. And so does @Discussed with his lawn for his kids to play on. And in any case, agriculture uses TEN times as much water in California as housing does. I reckon we could cut our water use in half by ending the most wasteful uses (particularly pasture irrigation and hay farming) and installing drip irrigation.

Also...

@Peace Out:
If you don't like the new development, what is your plan to make MV better? And thank you for your consistently respectful posts.

IVG,

I'm going to continue to irrigate my 1/3 acre and fill my pool and Jacuzzi and flush my 4 toilets and take 30 minute showers to eternity. That's the point.
East Bay Mud has a pipe going North that keeps my pristine reservoirs topped off.
You can continue to conserve your polluted well water in Mountain View, its ok with me.

IVG you sound as though you are either a developer, helped design one of then newer developments or work in the North Bayshore area.
Without becoming too defensive, please understand that there are others that do not like the way the newer developments look in our communities and really do not want Mountain View council to close their eyes and automatically approve of deals for Google and other businesses in the North Shoreline area every time they want something. Let Google and developers look to the other surrounding communities for their needs. Mountain View has done its part.

Please be patient with the Donald.

First, I don't think he lives in Mountain View. His posts seems to indicate this.

Second, he is under the impression that Mountain View is stealing from landlords. I believe his term was transference of wealth.

This is not so. There is no transference of wealth in Mountain View. Yes the market values are changing, but market values are not wealth. They are opinions used to facilitate real estate transactions and nothing more.

In fact, there is no "market value" in the bank except for when you borrowed the money to make a purchase. In reality a market value is a debt that the landlord must repay. It is in fact not an asset in the business sense.

And if the landlord claims it can be used to finance improvements as collateral, again this is in fact a debt. A landlord cannot just take the market value and deposit it into their account without paying it back. This would result in prosecution for embezzlement.

There has been a lot of misinformation that since the market value drops, the landlord is being stolen. As you can see, this is not true.

The fact is that denial is not just a river in Egypt. Real Estate investors were conned into believing that they are entitled to profit in this situation. Unfortunately, this is going to be a very painful awakening.

@The Donald:
If you think the East Bay has a special water source that's drought-free, you are sorely mistaken. It's called the Mokelumne River, and it's under the same drought stress as everyone else's water. Please educate yourself about what it means to be in a statewide drought. If you and your neighbors continue wasting water, mud will indeed be all that's left of EBMUD.

@Resident:
"you sound as though you are either a developer, helped design one of then newer developments or work in the North Bayshore area."
I'm none of the above. I work in tech in San Jose (used to be Sunnyvale, which is why I moved here). Since I live on Shoreline, I have to deal with the same Google traffic as everyone else (mostly by going around it). I spend time on this message board to keep it from being an echo chamber for middle-aged preservationist homeowners. A lot of people voted for the pro-growth Council slate in 2014, but by reading Town Square you'd never know it.

I admit that architecturally, much of the new housing built in MV since I moved in has left something to be desired. But it usually looks better than what was there before, and in any case, curb appeal is not at the top of my priority list. When I go to San Antonio Center today, for instance, I feel like I've arrived somewhere. It's a bustling place. People live and work there (or will, once the new towers open). And if that means the traffic is a little worse, I'm okay with it. Maybe if it gets really bad, I'll buy panniers and bike two miles to buy groceries, but I won't miss the Sears with its sea of parking one bit.

"Let Google and developers look to the other surrounding communities for their needs. Mountain View has done its part."
That's called "beggar thy neighbor". The preservationists in Sunnyvale, Saratoga or South San Jose don't want new development any more than you do. You're right that Mountain View has done its part over the last few years by approving all of these new projects. My goal as a voter is to make sure that we continue to do our part.

@The Business Man:
"There is no transference of wealth in Mountain View. Yes the market values are changing, but market values are not wealth. They are opinions used to facilitate real estate transactions and nothing more."
By that logic, how does any wealth exist at all? I have a lot of money in securities right now. It's not "in the bank", but I could liquidate most of it tomorrow if I felt like it.

I assume you're talking about rent control? I don't see the comment you're referring to; must have been in a different thread. What frustrates me about rent control is that tenants were told that it would be an unalloyed benefit for them, which is not true. I voted against it even though it will save me money.

Ivg,

I don't know that I have a plan - at this point - that would make Mountain View better. I do know that what we are witnessing presently is really just the beginning of the implementation of SB 375 which was passed in 2008. And the resultant Plan Bay Area was put in place to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15% by 2040, as mandated by SB 375. Then in 2013, the amended Plan Bay Area blueprint was passed by MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) & ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments). ABAG is guided by a 'Sustainable Community Strategy' (SCS) which includes land use strategies, transportation investment plans as well as RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) which establishes housing goals and housing allocations consistent with a Sustainable Community Strategy, such that the housing and zoning of municipalities must accommodate the plans set out by the RHNA. ...

And the drill down at county and city level gets even better, or worse, depending on your paradigm.

Confused yet?

Admittedly it's confusing stuff. For the vast majority of us who were not following the bouncing ball in Sacramento when SB375 was in Assembly in August of 2008, or did not really understand just how far reaching ramifications of SB375 would ultimately be...well, here we are.


Regional housing targets. Regional land use maps. Incentives for developers who help meet emissions targets. CEQA incentives and exceptions for particular development projects that parallel the SCS.

And what has this lead to... here and now: gentrification > displacement > rent control.
Incidentally I'm not a fan of rent control. I believe it's a blunt tool (bad policy) that ultimately does little to ensure the requisite help is getting to the people who are most in need. Another conversation.

Gist of it is, we really don't have much say in what is happening here. Not land use or policy. Perhaps small details like size or scope of a project, but 'the fact' of most of these projects ... done deeds, imho. Only a matter of time.

AB375

Sorry, should read:

SB375

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment/personal attack]

I do know that the state has deliberately enacted pro-growth policies. As far as I can tell, this was done to counteract the disproportionate influence of preservationist lobbies on city governments. When faced with unmet demand for housing and a lack of available land (i.e., just another day in California), preservationists' usual answer is to kick the can down the road and hope that people will find somewhere else to live. Meanwhile, pro-growth constituencies are less organized politically. The upshot is that cities can't be trusted to make regional planning decisions, so the state has come in to force their hand.

Here is a pair of recent reports from the CA Legislative Analyst's Office backing up the state's position. Their political tack is not what you would expect from bureaucrats in California.
Web Link
Web Link

And here is an article in a national magazine about how activists representing poor people support preservationist policies against their actual self-interest.
Web Link

"And what has this lead to... here and now: gentrification -- displacement -- rent control. Incidentally I'm not a fan of rent control. I believe it's a blunt tool (bad policy) ..."
As far as rent control goes, I agree completely. Rent control is a misguided overreaction to development activity. However, I don't think it's fair to blame the development activity for the overreaction.

My external links address displacement at length, but I want to add one more thing. The only way new development causes displacement is by actually demolishing people's homes. Of course, the proposed development is doing exactly that, which does give me pause. However, the displacement effect is largely negated by the large BMR allocation and the other promised benefits.

Cheers,
IVG

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

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

Uh oh. It looks like someone is being very naughty.

Make sure he gets coal in his stocking this christmas.

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