Insofar as high tech employees work from wherever they live, the traffic and competition of housing will decrease. If you live long enough to see it, Mountain View might be saved yet. No thanks to politicians.

This is not the right project for this area. It is to tall for this area. Right now it’s the parking lot for google, but right now they are working from home. Before the pandemic there was not enough parking. The signs are still there directing to the overflow parking at google on Linda Vista.
This council just approved another google office building in north bay shore. This council works for google and developers and not the residents of Mtn View. Before starting one more project in this area, let’s see how this neighborhood changes with the approved development on Middlefield.

This article spends a great deal of time attacking the developers of this project for dubious practices, but very little on discussing the merits of the project or what exactly it means to alter the "neighborhood character." As far as I know (and feel free to there me here), that part of town is mostly offices, the Scientology building, recology, and the Taco Bell. Without homes and commerce, I usually feel pretty alienated going there. I think a new development would lend the area some warmth. Plus, that the apartments would be so close to offices means that workers can walk to work or take the electric shuttle that runs periodically.

The LEGAL WAY for this Council to stop the large scope of the PROPOSAL is to simply:

VOTE NO on the 2030 GENERAL PLAN change. The Council majority makes the Public Policy. A vote of NO by 4 current council members is legal. A NO vote does not amend Current Law (a General Plan is LAW in California)

I favor multi-story residential construction on former low-density use land near large employment centers (and next to a public transportation corridor). The height/density/DEVELOPER PROFIT is completely under VOTE control. Examine who developer $$ have gone to - and how they vote. I HOPE Hicks votes no for amending the 2030 General Plan (she does have city planning experience).

Interesting read, but I am curious why this article is titled "Housing at any cost". Correct me if I am wrong, but the development in question does not seem to be primarily residential.

I am pro-growth, but it is also my opinion that no neighborhood should be subject to sudden and radical change. I am no expert, but the impression I get is this size of development is the consequence of having, for years, forbidden more gradual, organic, and incremental development throughout the city and having a long, convoluted, and uncertain permitting process that has left us with an oligopoly of deep-pocket developers.

The Terra Bella area probably has the least amount of "character" of any residential neighborhood on the Peninsula or South Bay. I do not see how any sort of residential construction could possibly be detrimental to that, even if it were 20 stories tall.

This is true, we should not build any housing at all, until every single Mountain View residents has a chance to modify it in some godawful way.

This place used to be orange groves and single story buildings. Because that was my childhood, it should only ever be orange groves and single story buildings until I die.

To hell with everyone who makes my life possible here. My kids and their childhood friends should be banished because change makes me feel funny.

Wow, I didn’t know I live in a neighborhood without character. ...
And I remember well how the Monta Lima neighborhood fought housing at the old JCPENNEY site. That was not even as dense as all the developments around our neighborhood. It’s been just built everything around Stierlin Estate. How about moving some of this high density into other neighborhoods like downtown near transportation. Not to many people want to live next door to their work. Plus most employees change jobs every few years. Let’s see how many offices will be empty after the pandemic is over. There is the option to work from home, so employees can live in a lot cheaper area..

Great that this developer has found some ways around the NIMBY hordes. More housing! Yes!

We should kick out all of the tech companies.

Think about it.. if Apple, Google, Facebook, Uber, etc. were unable to put up any offices in the Bay Area.. that would be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of people who are forced to leave.

That should put an end to any housing development arguments... and the traffic problem will go WAY down.

And if you want to get things even better, put a moratorium on reproduction.

If there is anything positive about the current pandemic, it has shown that we need not concentrate workers in crammed offices and housing units stacked on high.
Traffic is now tolerable. People can and should continue to work remotely.

The Stierlin Estates neighborhood is a nice neighborhood, and consists of one and two story residential and commercial buildings. It has two main points of entry and exit, on Shoreline and on Middlefield, both of which get extremely crowded at certain times of the day. The new Google building has already had a noticeable traffic effect on entry and exit on Terra Bella. Seven story condos and apartments will visibly change the character of the neighborhood in a very negative way, and will noticeably impact traffic on Terra Bella, which will spill over to Middlefield, causing a huge impact on all residents when they attempt to enter or leave the neighborhood via either. Given the impact on all residents of the neighborhood, it seems to me that current residents should have been consulted more. It certainly looks like the city cares more about building more housing for new residents than it does about the impact on existing residents. It seems that the city wants to build housing at almost any cost. Adding housing in Stierlin Estates is a good idea. It should be done without changing zoning to allow for seven story buildings, given that the maximum height now is two stories. The city claims that it cannot consider the impact on traffic at all. That should not be recognized as a valid position for the city to claim, since the impact on traffic will obviously be huge.

Since Google dominates most of Mountain View with all their building, the very least they could do it freshly pave Steve's Creek Trail that runs all through Shoreline Park. At a minimum, give something good back to the Mountain View community.

1 housing unit is built for every 7 new arrivals in Silicon Valley.
Can we please stop pretending this is anything other than an attempt by current home owners to keep their housing prices artificially inflated in order to massively transfer wealth from the have nots to the haves.
You want to know why young people are rioting and looting and burning? Why shouldn't they? Your greed has left them with no hope for the future.

1 housing unit built for every 7 new arrivals in Silicon Valley.

Can we please stop pretending that this problem is ANYTHING besides too many people crowding into an already built-up area (in the interest of the high-tech "gorilla" rapid-growth firms, but the detriment of everyone else -- existing residents -- the majority population who do NOT work for those few firms) -- and cut out the contrived, developer-written fictions that seek to distract everyone from this basic reality?

Meanwhile back to this article, about a project actually proposing to do something positive in this messed-up picture: I'm unsure why Albert Jeans fears "overall degradation in the quality of life" by a project (now approved: Web Link ) blocks away from Albert's own street. And "public noticing" of the proposal didn't reach Albert because it's hardly in his "back yard." Moreover, residents concerned about new developments within their wider neighborhood don't have to rely passively on "public noticing," they can watch the Council and Zoning-Administrator agendas, publicized on the City website. In my experience, that's how many people end up attending and being heard at the decision meetings described in this complaining essay.

I understand people's concerns but it seems to me like there is a lot more political will to block new housing than new offices. Mayfield is a perfect example. And the Google office at Terra Bella is already built.

The morally proper thing to do is to balance our development. I don't care how people do that. I don't care if it's with single story neighborhoods or 7 story neighborhoods. But the ship has already sailed on letting Google build whatever they want, which to me leaves only the option of "housing at any cost" to catch up. The city's growth is a mess but you are complaining about the wrong project at the wrong time.

Our city's, our region's, and our state's continuing inexplicable ability to name and address the core problem seems increasingly to leave Alex's cynical view as the only viable explanation. Especially with Prop 13, those allowing Google to redevelop every commercial plot in the city largely get to bank the benefits of that while dumping the costs onto others. And there's a lot of cognitive dissonance over our responsibility for the situation, what we're doing or not doing to address it, and the failures of local control.

I wonder if the funding will hold up in the current economy. This is huge
bet that growth will continue, because these are going to be some of the least
desirable housing units in the city. It's a very unpleasant location to live
right by a freeway and the ramps thereto. Put it into a pair of 7 story buildings
and no outdoor space to speak of. Weren't they going to build a bike ramp
to cross the freeway to reach Google HQ? Otherwise, walk to work is not going
to happen. This going to be kind of living in an Airport Marriott. It's a nice
thought but it won't be pleasant. I certainly wouldn't want to invest in owning
a condo in a location like this.

People always discount the reason Google workers live far away, as in
Saratoga and Los Gatos. The don't want to live close to work. And imagine
the Covid-19 risk in the elevators of these new buildings. I don't think
these buildings will work with the remote work option available. Maybe
consider turning it into a hotel. I could see Google workers coming together
at HQ a few times a year and needing a place to stay. Maybe Google will lease a lot of units and use it for short term housing for out of town visiting employees. There might be more of that going forward.

LongResident, I would ask you to consider that the tens of thousands of Google employees in the Bay Area are a diverse group with diverse desires that can't be accurately described with absolutes like that they "don't want to live close to work."

Some Googlers want to live close to work in Mountain View or Sunnyvale.
There isn't enough housing in Mountain View or Sunnyvale.

Some Googlers want to live in SF or SJ.
There isn't enough housing in SF or SJ.

Some Googlers want to live in far away places like Saratoga and Los Gatos, as you said.
There isn't enough housing in most far away places, either. The Bay Area's housing deficit is large and growing.

And of course, the less fortunate who get outbid for the limited supply of homes are forced to move even farther out, even into wildfire territory, and suffer for hours of commuting a day, filling our air with pollution. Or they're forced to move out of the region altogether.