7JFXQPJOU
â– EDITORIAL â– YOUR LETTERS â– GUEST OPINIONS
N EDITORIAL THE OPINION OF THE VOICE Founding Editor, Kate Wakerly
N S TA F F EDITOR & PUBLISHER Tom Gibboney (223-6507) EDITORIAL Managing Editor Andrea Gemmet (223-6537) Staff Writers Daniel DeBolt (223-6536) Nick Veronin (223-6535) Photographer Michelle Le (223-6530) Contributors Dale Bentson, Angela Hey, Sheila Himmel, Ruth Schecter DESIGN & PRODUCTION Design Director Shannon Corey (223-6560) Assistant Design Director Lili Cao (223-6562) Designers Linda Atilano, Rosanna Leung, Paul Llewellyn, Kameron Sawyer ADVERTISING Vice President Sales and Marketing Tom Zahiralis (223-6570) Advertising Representatives Adam Carter (223-6573) Real Estate Account Executive Rosemary Lewkowitz (223-6585) Published every Friday at 450 Cambridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Email news and photos to: editor@MV-Voice.com Email letters to: letters@MV-Voice.com News/Editorial Department (650) 964-6300 fax (650) 964-0294 Display Advertising Sales (650) 964-6300 Classified Advertising Sales t fax (650) 326-0155 Email Classified ads@MV-Voice.com Email Circulation circulation@MV-Voice.com The Voice is published weekly by Embarcadero Media Co. and distributed free to residences and businesses in Mountain View. If you are not currently receiving the paper, you may request free delivery by calling 964-6300. Subscriptions for $60 per year, $100 per 2 years are welcome. Š2014 by Embarcadero Media Company. All rights reserved. Member, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
N WHAT’S YOUR VIEW? All views must include a home address and contact phone number. Published letters will also appear on the web site, www.MountainViewOnline.com, and occasionally on the Town Square forum. Town Square forum Post your views on Town Square at MountainViewOnline.com Email
your views to letters@MV-Voice.com. Indicate if letter is to be published.
to: Editor Mountain View Voice, P.O. Box 405 Mountain View, CA 94042-0405
Call
the Viewpoint desk at 223-6507
12
Council confronting huge challenge
M
embers of the City Council have embarked on a critically important and daunting mission to find room for 3.4 million square feet of new office space in the North Bayshore over the next 15 years. While most cities would welcome the desire of local companies to develop such an influx of commercial space and the approximately 17,000 jobs that will come with it, Mountain View is caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. The Shoreline area is hemmed in by Highway101 and city leaders have vowed to protect the environmentally fragile habitat that is home to a colony of egrets and burrowing owls, even though they are in close proximity to Google’s main campus on Charleston Road. Without adequate safeguards, some officials fear the huge development projects could threaten these protected species of birds. In an earlier debate on the precise plan the council for a second time voted 4-2 to turn down a request by Google to build a private bridge over Stevens Creek to serve pedestrians, bicyclists and shuttle buses and provide access to a 1.1 million-squarefoot campus that is planned for a Moffett Field site. Dissenting council members failed to convince the majority to allow an environmental impact report to assess if the bridge would be harmful to local wildlife. But even without the Moffett building, the council faces the huge task of fitting a mix of tall buildings into the Shoreline property without compromising the environmental integrity of the area, much of which was built over a capped landfill. Perhaps reflecting the sentiments of his colleagues, council member Mike Kasperzak said: “This is so visual. I’m trying to visualize what this could look like over 15 years. It’s really hard to imagine all of this and we’re all struggling with that.� Addressing the urgency of the task, he said: “I know everybody wants to get it done,� referring to the landowners, developers and companies like Google with plans for rapid expansion. “But we’re N LETTERS VOICES FROM THE COMMUNITY
GARDENS FOR ALL It is hardly surprising that there are scores of Mountain View folks who are craving the space to start gardening. The city’s policies in recent years have seen single-family homes on large lots give way to houses crammed together — apartments, condos and commercial developments that permit no room for trees, let alone gardens. These policies have granted maximum profit for developers but left residents longing for greenery and open space. For this reason, it is important to leave the Stieper property at 771 North Rengstorff as a park.
â– Mountain View Voice â– MountainViewOnline.com â– January 24, 2014
Although it is easy to appreciate the desire to grow one’s own food, this 1.22-acre property should be made available for everyone and not just a few lucky individuals who made it to the top of a list. The fruit trees, which were planted over many years by the Stiepers, should remain for the enjoyment of all. There must be homeowners and renters in the city who still have a large yard but are unable to make use of the space due to work demands, disability or age. Maybe it would be possible to open a register of individuals who would be eager to share Continued on next page
talking about a 15-year plan here.� The council’s decision will have to take into account multiple layers of complexity. For example: ■With only 6,000 or so housing units planned during the 15-year window, how will the city deal with the resultant need to house the workers who were left out? ■Will the council or city leaders ever relent in their opposition to building housing in North Bayshore? Dorm-style housing is not acceptable to council members, who do not want to turn the area into a college campus. ■Will the current plan to require major employers to join a new transit management agency — which will administer various alternatives to solo car driving — even make a dent in the traffic that would result after 3.4 million square feet of office space is occupied? ■If, after a council election in November, enough votes are available to approve an environmental impact report on a bridge over Stevens Creek, will it be possible to use it without severely damaging the habitat for egrets, burrowing owls and other fragile wildlife resources in the area? The limit of 3.4 million square feet of new development in North Bayshore came from an economic forecast developed during the general plan process, according to Planning Director Randy Tsuda. It’s not a number set in stone, and council members have the power to place sensible limits on office growth that are more restrictive. Council member Ronit Bryant said she wants the North Bayshore to look like Stanford, where “there is actually a lot of development though it doesn’t feel that way.� “The idea of tall towers in wide open spaces has been tried and has failed because people don’t like living like that,� she said. “...I don’t want to be looking across (Shoreline) lake and see eight-story buildings there,� Bryant said. Whatever decision is made, it will have a lasting impact on the city for many years to come. We urge the council to look for ways to pare down the formulaic development calculation produced by the new general plan. Members should not saddle future residents with an unworkable city that has thousands of jobs and no quality of life.