Attachment 13
Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
c/o Aaron Grossman
817 Montgomery Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
May 3, 2023
City of Mountain View City Council
City Hall, 500 Castro Street
PO Box 7540
Mountain View, CA 94039-7540
Re: Google North Bayshore Master Plan
Dear Chairperson Dempsey and Environmental Planning Commissioners:
The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning (MVCSP) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Google North Bayshore Master Plan. After over 10 years of advocacy for transforming North Bayshore from a typical auto-oriented suburban business park to a vibrant, walkable mixed use place, MVCSP strongly supports the Google North Bayshore Master Plan (Master Plan) and urges the City Council to expeditiously move forward to implementation as soon as possible. The following are our primary reasons for our strong support:
● Google has done an exemplary job of community outreach over a very long period of time.
MVCSP appreciates the numerous opportunities to review and comment on various iterations of the Master Plan. Our comments, along with those of our affiliated organizations, have been responded to and often incorporated into the product before you tonight. ● The planning process has exceeded the vision of the North Bayshore Precise Plan. Google planners have crafted an outstanding blend of urbanism and ecology into a strong sense of place.
All of the urban design of the planned built environment and connected open space networks with almost 36 acres of integrated public and private open space successfully blend into an “ecology of place.”
● The inclusion of 7,000 new residential units with 15% or approximately 1,050 affordable units will make living and working in North Bayshore a real possibility in three complete neighborhoods.
While we are disappointed that the 5% inclusionary affordable housing is not included in the final Master Plan, we are pleased that Google is planning to dedicate approximately 50% of affordable housing acreage in Phase 1, including the largest parcels. Thanks to staff for including Exhibit 9 which provides an excellent assessment of the Affordable Housing in the Master Plan ● Internally within the North Bayshore Project Area, the active transportation network is very well thought out, and residents and employees can easily walk or ride a bike to the many exciting destinations. The social spine when completed will be an award winning feature of the plan.
As the implementation of Master Plan goes forward with implementation, we would like special attention paid to the following:
● While it is difficult to see the removal of almost 2,900 trees, the fact is that 40% of the trees are not in good health and many are non-native trees. The replanting of trees integrated with the development of the pedestrian and bicycle network provides an opportunity to develop a green street network with significant biodiversity that will be a model throughout the Bay Area. ● In our December 2021 letter to the City Council, we stated: “We have asked the Google development team to consider new lighting standards as provided by the International Dark-Sky Association (https://www.darksky.org/) and others. These new standards are essential to support both wildlife and human health needs. While not required by the North Bayshore Precise Plan, we ask Google to voluntarily adopt these standards as phases are developed. We have found the team to be very open to this direction. Ultimately revisions to North Bayshore and East Whisman Precise Plans should incorporate the new lighting standards ● It is disappointing the Development Agreement has not been included for review by the EPC. We look forward to providing comments on it before the City Council, but EPC members should have been able to provide their comments as part of this review process.
Finally, while the Master Plan was developed during the pandemic, there is not sufficient recognition in the April 2023 update of the current and projected changes to travel patterns that remain after the pandemic. Obviously, Google was able to come in well below the trip cap standards over the past several years primarily due to remote work. While there is significant uncertainty on what the long term impacts will be, it does highlight how effective telecommuting and remote work can have on travel to and from North Bayshore. There is not sufficient discussion in the TDM Plan on flexible work schedules and remote work as a TDM strategy.
Prior to the pandemic, the Google Commuter Shuttle program was utilized by 31.3% of employees. In Condition 264 in Exhibit 2, shuttles to transit hubs are a required TDM measure, but commuter shuttles are NOT included as a required TDM program. A condition on development approval should be included that requires Google to sustain existing 2019 commuter shuttle levels or expand service levels if the trip cap is not met. This free bus service is a principal reason why Google has maintained such a low SOV rate, and there needs to be a condition of approval language added to ensure this important program continues after all entitlements have been granted.
Yes, there are many challenges in moving this master plan into reality. We are confident that both Google and City Staff will continue to provide community input and solutions in overcoming future obstacles.
Our primary message is that the planning process has been very long, and we would like to see this Master Plan vision implemented as expeditiously as possible.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Cliff Chambers
for the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning cc:
Diana Pancholi, Principal Planner
Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager / Community Development Director Martin Alkire, Advanced Planning Manager
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Heather Glaser, City Clerk
About Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
The Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning is a local volunteer-based organization dedicated to making Mountain View as beautiful, economically healthy, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accessible, and affordable as possible. MVCSP member interest and expertise covers areas such as housing, transportation, the environment, the economy, and beyond! For more information, see http://www.mvcsp.org.
To contact us, send email to [email protected].
EPC Agenda Item 5.1
May 2, 2023
1 May 2, 2023
EPC Chairperson Joyce Yin and Commissioners,
I am writing this letter in my personal capacity.
I would like to provide comments on EPC Agenda Item 5.1 Google North Bayshore Master Plan for the Environmental Planning Commission meeting on May 3, 2023. I will not be able to attend this meeting due to a business commitment but will plan to participate virtually.
I have carefully read the Staff Report and scanned Exhibits 1-10.
I specifically would like to comment on the provision for schools and for public park space.
Schools
The proposal provides for the allocation of a 4.1 acre parcel valued a t approximately $43M for potential use as a school. The applicant would dedicate the parcel as a community benefit to mee the Bonus FAR requirements and the City would explore the use of this site for a future school in which case the City would lease the parcel to the school district.
The parcel is small for the size of a typical elementary school in Mountain View of about 500 students. State law will now require that school districts also provide pre-school programs.
The district’s experience with Vargas Elementary School confirms that four acres is inadequate.
The proposed arrangement to have the City lease the land to the district prevents the school district from planning. The future of the an elementary school will be at the discretion of the city. I would like to see the 4 acre parcel be dedicated directly to the district, or at least have clearly defined conditions under which the parcel would be leased to the district.
There has been much discussion about schools in North Bayshore and not just associated with Google but also with the other developments. Some will say that there will be no students, others will say that there will be many, and one can selected a demographer to get the answer one wants. The Mission Bay Development in San Francisco is instructive. See the attached links following this letter.
In short, with UCSF and various biotech firms moving into the area, housing was included. A 2.2 acre parcel was set aside for a school expecting never to be used and any way what few kids there were could take a 30-minute walk to nearby K-5 or K-8 schools. Chase Center got built but no schools. There are currently 300 students living in Mission Bay and the number is expected to rise to about 1,000 over the next few years. The school has not even been finished and there is a waiting list. This makes perfect sense when you think about it. The cost of housing is so expensive that young professionals still cannot afford to move into a condo or house, and will make do with what they can afford and raise a family.
EPC Agenda Item 5.1
May 2, 2023
2 Right now there is perhaps a plan for a single elementary school in North Bayshore. The district expects North Bayshore to generate enough students for 3 elementary schools and 1 middle school. Of course this will not happen over night but during the 20 years of the build out.
If there are very few children then we have nothing to worry about. But if it turns out there will be many students, what are the plans. Where will new schools go. We can’t predict the future, but we can plan for contingencies. We are talking here about the education of our children and the health and well-being of our families.
Parks and Open Space
Google has set aside 35.7 acres of park land of which 26.1 acres will be public parks and opens spaces, which includes 14.8 acres dedicated to the City as public parks, and 11.2 acres as POPAs. Of this 4.1 acres will potentially be used as a school site. Note that this amounts about
1.8 acres of park land per 1,000 residents (26/14) (assuming 7,000 units generates 14,000 residents give or take), which is below the City target of 3 acres/1,000 residents, and means that the city is loosing park and open space with this project.
It is instructive to look at what kind of “parks” the 26.1 acres is use for. This can be understood by referring to the map, above, and Table 3 of the Staff Report.
EPC Agenda Item 5.1
May 2, 2023
3 EPC Agenda Item 5.1
May 2, 2023
5 MISSION BAY
"The neighborhood plan set aside a 2.2-acre parcel for a school, a fenced-in lot bordered by Owens Street, Sixth Street and Nelson Rising Lane."
https://www.sfusd.edu/schools/schools-community/school-mission-bay
Note that the City of SF made the same assumptions Google is for North Bayshore when doing the planning for Mission Bay. Also, did not build enough three bedroom units, just like at North Bayshore. People want that third bedroom for a study or a guest bedroom but the builders don't build a lot of them.
From 2016 when first apartments were opening:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nevius/article/New-kids-on-the-bl ock-weren-t-in-
the-plans-for-6922874.php
"For instance, there’s no elementary school nearby. Two schools — Bessie Carmichael, a K-8, and Daniel Webster, a K-5 — are 30-minute walks away, according to Google Maps."
2019 - Chase center but no school
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/As-Warriors-Chas e-Center-opens-Mission-
Bay-14376639.php
"Currently, about 300 SFUSD students live in Mission Bay, and the district expects that number to rise to 764 to 1,100 over the next five years, according to a study by Lapkoff & Gobalet Demographic Research."
From 2019 as the number of families increased:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/In-SF-s-Mission-Bay- the-surprise-and-
draw-13657106.php
Excellent example of what North Bayshore should not do: assume families won't live there.
Dear Environmental Planning Commissioners
I am wri ng to express the Los Altos Mountain View Community Founda on’s concern with Alphabet’s decision to revise its plan for the North Bayshore project, par cularly its reduced contribu on of affordable housing. The original plan proposed a contribu on of 20% affordable housing, with a quarter of that being constructed as inclusionary units. However, the revised plan only includes a 15% contribu on for affordable housing, which does not include actual building construc on, but rather only deeds land.
As you know, Mountain View is in dire need of affordable housing, a need that has been exacerbated by the presence of Google in our city. The proposed 15% contribu on may meet the minimum legal obliga on for the new development, but it does not fulfill the city's actual need for affordable housing stock. Furthermore, it does not compensate the city for the significant concessions it has made to this development, including the 30-year development agreement.
We don't feel it's appropriate for 5% inclusionary units, which had been promised as part of the Public Benefits Package in the 30-year Development Agreement, to just evaporate. Rather, we suggest that the City of Mountain View and Alphabet con nue to explore ways to meet this goal - either par ally or in its en rety. We recognize that Alphabet faces con nued financial pressures. However, stepping away from the commitment to provide 5% inclusionary housing - approximately valued at $50M - at the last moment, means the City will have to address this gap on its own.
We urge the Commission to con nue to work with Alphabet in mee ng its original commitment to affordable housing. Thank you for your a en on to this ma er.
Sincerely,
Adin Miller
CEO
Los Altos Mountain View Community Founda on
May 2, 2023
Re: Item 5.1 – Google North Bayshore Master Plan
Dear Chair Yin and Members of the Environmental Planning Commission:
The LWV supports increasing the stock of affordable housing to reduce the number of residents at risk of becoming homeless.
While we are supportive of faster timelines for housing projects and affordable housing land dedications, we are concerned about the removal of the inclusionary units (previously proposed) in the public benefit package. The removal reduces the opportunity to integrate people of different income levels in the project.
The City has already made a strong effort, through the Housing Element, to streamline and reduce costs to meet its RHNA goals. A critical factor in achieving the low income RHNA targets is that the developer selected can secure additional funding (through State grants or tax credits) in time to build the project by 2030 and avoid an additional financial impact on the City.
Funding and timelines are uncertain, but the inclusionary units are critical to make this an equitable project. We ask the applicant and the City to find a way to restore some of the inclusionary units.
Thank you for your consideration.
(Please send any questions about this email to Kevin Ma at [email protected]) Karin Bricker, President of the LWV of Los Altos-Mountain View Area cc: Diana Pancholi Aarti Shrivastava
1 Pancholi, Diana
Subject: FW: Agenda item 5.1
From: Kristina Pereyra
Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2023 8:09 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda item 5.1
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL ‐ Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
With kind regards to the Environmental Planning Council:
My family and I have lived in the Shoreline West neighborhood of Mountain View since before 2000. We've witnessed our neighborhood lose many working‐class families as the rents and housing prices escalated. We only barely managed to stay in our home, thanks to rent control enacted in 2015.
When Google presented its plan for addi
tional housing, it seemed it was finally taking responsibility for the jobs‐housing imbalance that it helped create. City government was also responsible for the lack of housing. The project gave both an opportunity to correct their mistakes. Now we learn that Google is revising its plan and recinding the affordable ‐ inclusionary housing contribution they had promised.
The city has two options here. 1) Continue the mistakes of the past which drive out working families, or 2) hold fast to their duty and provide homes for their residents. Some of my former neighbors are still in Mountain View, sleeping on couches or in vehicles, kee
ping their jobs and friends and support system. Our city just needs to provide housing ‐ as required by state law. If Google wants city‐provided concessions for its project, it should be required to provide the affordable‐inclusionary housing the city needs.
Kristina Pereyra
Shoreline West resident