POLL: Should There be Housing in North Bayshore?

Editor's Note: The following is the text of a public memo Mayor Mike Kasperzak sent members of the City Council and which Patch received. The text is also available as a .pdf with this post.

The City Council will vote on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 whether the General Plan should leave open the possibility for housing in North Bayshore. In a straw vote on July 3, 2012, four out of seven councilmembers opposed this option. A 'no' vote by the Council would put the brakes on a 1,100 unit housing development project by Google.

To: City Council
From: Mike Kasperzak
Date: July 8, 2012
Re: Possible Transportation "Condition" in North Bayshore Change Area of General Plan to preserve housing flexibility.

After the Straw Vote last Tuesday, and the continuing calls for flexibility in the General Plan (GP) that I have received, it occurred to me there might be another way to provide housing flexibility in the future while ensuring the City continues to grow in the manner the community envisions. I thought that rather then take a lot of valuable time explaining the concept at what will be a busy meeting, I would provide you with the concept and rationale in advance of the meeting. I can respond to questions, should they exist, at the meeting. This Memo will also be made available to the public.

Brown Act
I have confirmed that sending this Memo to the Members of the City Council is permissible under the Brown Act provided that Councilmembers do not reply to the author or each other about the contents or otherwise discuss the contents except at the Council Meeting.

Solving the Transportation Problem
It’s clear that the question of housing in the North Bayshore (NBS) has evolved over the life of the General Plan update. Staff was first directed to include the study of housing as a possibility at the June 28, 2010 Joint Council-EPC Study Session. Also a staff analysis of public comments made during Neighborhoods Area Workshop in 2009 indicated that about 71 percent favored the possibility of housing in the NBS.

During our meeting on April 21, it became apparent that interest in housing in NBS was no longer shared by a majority of the Council. There are no doubt numerous reasons for this shift, but it appeared as if there was some concern for the actual development patterns of housing, the types of housing that might be proposed, a potential for haphazard development which would not fulfill the original vision and the isolation of NBS residents from the rest of the City. It is also clear that transportation issues in the area are of grave concern to virtually everyone.

We all know how important this document is. If the past plan is an indicator, this General Plan could be in place for 20 years. Given the pace of change in the economy, technology and the region, we have heard repeatedly how important it is to maintain as much flexibility as possible without sacrificing the vision for the future of Mountain View.

While any General Plan can be amended, a fact we all know only too well, it is unlikely that General Plan amendments will be well received by this and future Councils for some time to come. Furthermore, a future requested amendment to add housing would, if I understand correctly, require an entirely new CEQA process to study the issue, despite the fact that housing has been studied under the current process. If housing flexibility were maintained in this General Plan, valuable time and resources would not have to be wasted to study something which has already been studied if and when a possible project were to emerge.

Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly with the concerns about lack of control over the development pattern of the area and of housing specifically and with the stubborn issues of transportation, traffic and geographic isolation. While we are conducting a transportation study, it bears remembering that the Stanford TDM program allowing development with no net increase in traffic assumed a significant amount of residential development would occur on campus to alleviate the need for students, staff and faculty to commute.

The Proposal

I would suggest that as a way to maintain some flexibility in the new GP regarding housing in the NBS that we impose two conditions precedent to any such development:

1. That prior to the development of any new housing, there be in operation some kind of fully functioning, high frequency, financially and environmentally sustainable transportation system that will connect workers and residents of the NBS with retail and transit centers and downtown Mountain View. For lack of a better concept, we could essentially require some form of PRT that would not just be a shuttle system. (Staff could provide appropriate wording.) And,
2. That any proposal for housing must be part of a Master Planned project.

If both of these "conditions" were added to this General Plan, issues of traffic, isolation, lack of residential services, haphazard development and loss of the Vision would be eliminated.

In fact, the transportation "condition" may actually serve to spur investment and development of a PRT type system which very well could solve many if not most of the traffic, parking and circulation problems that already exist in the area.

If you do not believe such a transportation system will ever be realized in the NBS, the practical effect is that there could be no housing during the life of this GP absent a Council approved General Plan amendment.

Of course, these conditions will not be persuasive to members of the Council who believe that housing under any circumstance is not appropriate in the NBS. But, if the major objection to providing housing flexibility relates to traffic, isolation and how the area ultimately gets developed over time, these two conditions, taken together, would provide flexibility for the future, not require costly and time consuming work to amend the new General Plan in the future in the wake of technological and societal changes, and could at least make a dent in the jobs-housing balance.