I don't believe the Council withdrew the Merlone-Geier Phase 2 project from the Precise Plan. Rather, it exempted it from requirements that the pre-July 1 design did not comply with.

One can only wonder what happened between the July meeting and the October meeting...

Residents should press for a decision to allow our newly elected council members to make the final decisions on the San Antonio Precise Plan. As demonstrated by the study session, just voicing residents' needs and desires is not enough. Residents' need a voting voice!

A shout out to Ronit Bryant for best standing up for the community's vision for the area.

Thank you City Council

Many resident in the Crossings are totally against increasing housing at San Antonio, or a school for that matter, which would just marginalize Crossings' kids for one of the main reason we live in the Crossings: attendance at high quality Los Altos schools. That's what keeps out property value high. A couple thousand more rental apartments doesn't. A vibrant mini-downtown with retail and restaurants that can stay afloat with business from office workers during the day and residents at night also keeps traffic going in both directions, not a scenario whereby everyone rushes out in the morning and is crammed back in at night. Just like the Milk Pail owner, we value our property rights and don't like being pushed around by do-gooders more concerned with people who might want to live (and rent) here in the future.

The majority of Our City Council has its priorities upside down!


Adding offices at San Antonio will make it convenient for employees who live in other cities to commute to Mountain View via Caltrain.
However, it does nothing for those who currently live in Mountain View, or want to live in Mountain View.


The majority of Our City Council has set its priorities as follows:

1. Developers
2. Corporations
3. Residents of other cities who may want to move to Mountain View
4. Those employed in Mountain View who live in other cities
5. Residents of Mountain View

Is this upside down, or what?

Little doubt there will be more housing constructed in San Antonio Center and the surrounding area. There is money to be made in large complex developments, and not all will be oriented so much toward single people like Carmel The Village is. The areas of the precise plan do not include The Crossings, who are only neighbors of the area targeted for ramped up development. There are many other neighbors to be affected. In the general area there are 3800 housing units, and I believe only about 277 are in The Crossings.

Now look at known areas of residential development. The area from the old Firestone Auto Repair to Miller Drive is known to be owned by a very large residential developer with plans for a huge development. The area of the old Safeway already had a project proposed that would stretch clear to San Antonio Road with 3 and 4 story buildings and 400 or so unis of housing. This plan was withdrawn because the council indicated plans to increase the allowable density, with buildings allowed up to 6 stories tall. This plan will come back with more units.

The real story here is not that there won't be significant residential growth in the general area. The story is that the two 8 story office towers are still possible, even though the council requested that 1 of these be switched to residential instead. You can't hold off significant residential growth both in the area and right by The Crossings by fending off apartments in the actual San Antonio Center. They will be even closer to the Crossings, and they will crowd the schools in Los Altos, even if they only yield 1 student per 5 units of apartment. For a 700 unit development along California Street over the old Safeway and strip mall, that will be 140 new elementary school kids. Already in the area there are nearly 600 elementary school kids, split around between 3 LASD schools. The wheels are turning such that without a school dedicated anew to serve the San Antonio Center surroundings, the total of say 900 kids will end up getting shuffled around to 6 or 7 of the LASD elementary schools. The schools with room are Gardner Bullis, Oak, and even Springer. We'll see a 6-way split of the LASD kids on the north side of El Camino Real.... Yes, add a 1000 unit apartment complex actually atop what is now 24 Hour Fitness, and you'd see maybe 150-200 MORE kids, but you still have 900 kids living on that side of El Camino in 5 years or so.

Correction. The residential count around The Crossings is probably more like 500 if you include the Old Mill Condos. But still 500 out of 3500 existing residential units is a small fraction. We can expect easily to see the residential units increase to 5000 or 6000, even without the 1000 unit apartment building inside the old San Antonio Center boundaries. The real impact is going to be on the families who actually live on California Avenue which will see a lot more traffic. We will see some development on both sides of Ortega as well, one side of which is in Mountain View Whisman and one side within. Both are neighbors of San Antonio precise plan areas. The target side is allowed to rise to 8 stories tall just like San Antonio Center proper. The liquor store there is limited to just 6 stories along Cal Avenue. The Del Medio area is outside the plan area, but it borders on the corridor subarea of the new plan. This corridor sub area along San Antonio is allowed to rise to 6 stories tall. There will be big impacts on residents along Del Medio too, which currently totals 750 units.

First they say no housing in north Bayshore because "there aren't enough retail services." Well, this is just about the most service-heavy part of Mountain View. It's a short walk from 5 different supermarkets, numerous restaurants, Walmart, Target, near Caltrain, and a short bike ride from downtown

Justin... You realize that North Bayshore is about 3 MILES away from Walmart, right? It's on the other side of 101, near a large amount of restored (and restoring) wetlands, which is one of the main objections of developing it much further.

@Karl

"A vibrant mini-downtown with retail and restaurants that can stay afloat with business from office workers during the day and residents at night also keeps traffic going in both directions, not a scenario whereby everyone rushes out in the morning and is crammed back in at night."

Don't you have that backwards? With 2 new office towers you'll have hundreds of cars "cramming" into San Antonio in the morning, and "rushing" out at night?

@ Uhhhh
I'm talking about San Antonio Village. I'm fully aware that as of now, the only retail close to Bayshore is Costco.

@Resident:

No I don't have it backwards,

But you are right on this point:

"With 2 new office towers you'll have hundreds of cars "cramming" into San Antonio in the morning, and "rushing" out at night?"

And the direction they are going in, traffic will be a trickle. The opposite traffic is bumper-to-bumper. You'd know that if you ever tried leaving the San Antonio area in the morning and returning in the evening from 101.

@DavidR:

You do a lot of guessing, so doubt is cast on the rest of your numbers and arguments. There are precisely 361 homes and/or condos in the Crossings, to include the 4-story Parc Crossings building next to the San Antonio overpass. The Old Mill has a couple hundred at least, so I don't know for sure.

@Nancy Morimoto:

"Residents should press for a decision to allow our newly elected council members to make the final decisions on the San Antonio Precise Plan."

"Residents' need a voting voice!"

Great points! However, somewhat hypocritical. When is the Greater San Antonio Community Association going to have elections or a meeting for that matter? You and the board have never held an election for the neighborhood group which claims to the council that they represent the residents of the Crossings and the Old Mill. The current board is self appointed and apparently without term limits. There has never been an election or a regular meeting. The association is a farce, hardly democratic, and little more that a handful of people claiming they represent hundreds of residents in the area. Residents of this neighborhood association need a voting voice! So please don't speak for us or claim to represent us without asking us! The Voice would do well to investigate this association and their use of city grants.

Amazing how no one (even the Voice) has called the council out. At the previous meeting they cow-towed to the faux pro-housing mob and suggested that MG include housing. One meeting later they drop the housing requirement. No explanation, just a basic flip flop. Except for a couple of candidates, the current crop does not impress me as being independent. Especially the three EPC candidates.

Again, how can so much building take place with the drought in play?

So, those with the power to ensure meaningful amount and
pace of development have decided that ALL DEVELOPMENT is great
for MV. So what if it encroaches on the peace and tranquility of
the neighboring cities? Tough luck!

There is still hope for MV:
(1) Traffic will choke San Antonio Road in
a few months and result in major gridlock.

(2) Lack of water will be of grave concern.

(3) Lack of school on MV side of LASD will be
a major issue.

(4) Los Altos residents will start speaking
up about MV spilling its out-of-control
development problems on to its quiet and peaceful
neighbors in Los Altos.

For years to come....
Out-of-control development in the San Antonio area
will be studied as development gone awry....
No infrastructure will be adequate to support these
monstrous development.

@there-is-hope-for-MV

Of course all of the items you mentioned were studied and the council went with the advice offered in the reports.

Of course:

"Of course all of the items you mentioned were studied and the council went with the advice offered in the reports."

~~~~~~~~~~

Of course.

Sheep.

Who is driving the bus down at city hall anyway? ;)

It's called greed...by all involved in the miasma...we were squeezed out of the area because of the Recession for the Ages...and I am sooooooooo grateful now that I see what is happening to Mountain View...been happening for years but has been excelerating at the speed of the technology that it hosts...and the people (City Council) that approve all this boom have knuckled under to greed...do any of those idiots have an Urban Planning degree or any common Sense?...as mentioned before...nary a soul has broached our dwindling supply of WATER...you know...one of the basic necessities of LIFE? Sorry...guess you guys don't have one...

QUOTE: "The majority of Our City Council has set its priorities as follows:

1. Developers
2. Corporations
3. Residents of other cities who may want to move to Mountain View
4. Those employed in Mountain View who live in other cities
5. Residents of Mountain View"


Truly, I don't think we residents are that high up on the list. I'm sure there are others to add to it. The city council is more interested in building more offices and more grossly overpriced homes than they are at improving the quality of life for current residents.


I always heard excuses that to get rents and home prices down, more homes must be built. I've lived here for over half a century....Homes have always been built to the point of there being no open space left now, and during that time the rents and prices have NEVER stabilized, much less be reduced. That alibi is simply steaming bull....

"and during that time the rents and prices have NEVER stabilized, much less be reduced."

Well its easy to dismiss a claim that's never actually been made. The question is what housing options were available, and what were their prices relative to the salaries in the area, have you bothered to look at that?

Any update on the Milkpail?

@DavidR IMO actually makes some very good and detailed observations on city (urbanizing) growth in a denser "urban village". Councilwoman Bryant supported (and Voted) for this concept for El Camino dense corners. If the 50 year resident wanted "open space" they could have joined with a majority of past voters, elected a council that vastly raised property taxes (Bonds to buy 20% of the city for "open space") and then supported those councils as they used 'eminent domain' to force property owners to sell to the city for "open space". That, obviously, has not been the direction that the majority of Voters desired over the past 50 or 40 or even 8 years! (Bye Bye Punkin Patch on Grant)
Move to Merced if you do not like the comming clustered urban density that the Majority of Voters of Mountain View are now supporting. Majority rule - representative democracy. VOTE Nov 4 (you can still register! Monday deadline?) Web Link

Steven Nelson:

"Move to Merced if you do not like the comming clustered urban density that the Majority of Voters of Mountain View are now supporting. Majority rule - representative democracy. "

~~~~~~~~~~

And yet another example of the disdain shown for those who may have reservations about the frenetic pace of development in Mountain View. Always nice to know that there are people who would like to usher me to the door simply because my opinion may differ from theirs. Way to be inclusive and respectful.

If you believe that if the present city council members - when campaigning - had stated that they would support:

1) Reducing El Camino Real (a state highway) from three lanes each direction to two lanes plus a "dedicated bus lane" which would replace the left lane in each direction - along with everything else that comes with dedicated bus lanes, including numerous additional stop light for each mile of the dedicated bus lanes...

2) Planning for and approving high-density & costly (mostly) rental units which would result in the loss of numerous small independent businesses - Rose Market, Milk Pail, Gochi, etc. ...

3) Planning for and approving a 164 unit, four story high-density (1.84 FAR) apartment buildings which share property lines with one story (R-1) single family homes and small two story apartments...

4) Reducing an arterial route (Castro Street) from two lanes each direction to one lane each direction, purely as a means to qualify for a $500,000 grant, as a means to grab money in order to pay for getting rid of a "free" right turn lane and change the signal at an intersection, while simultaneously approving a 164 unit apartment development with primary egress to (the grossly under parked) garage which has cars exiting the development and making a right turn on to Castro Street and then making a U-turn (on the one lane each direction Castro street) to get back to El Camino Real...

5) Having 70 active development projects in the works simultaneously...

6) Poised to develop over 5 MILLION square feet of office space...

7) All while having NO coherent strategy in place to mitigate the cumulative impact of the massive and frenetic pace of all this development -- infrastructure, schools, police, fire, water, sewer, traffic, transportation, parks...

8) And the list goes on...


-- that the majority of Mountain View voters would have voted for our current council members?

Mountain View Residents...send a message to the city with your vote on November 4th. There's still time. Every vote matters.

Web Link

@MVResident67

I know it may come as a shock, but there are people out there who actually appreciate having jobs and places to live. Some people seem to have the idea that cities are inappropriate places to build housing and offices (the description of "full" however seems to only pop up AFTER they've moved here though)

Robert:

"I know it may come as a shock, but there are people out there who actually appreciate having jobs and places to live."

~~~~~~~~~~

Hmmm, I suppose you are implying that I neither appreciate having a job nor having a place to live. Painting with broad brushstrokes.

Once again, an example of the disdain, animus even, for those who may have a different opinion than one's own. Ironic, really.

I'm sorry for mischaracterizing you, I'm sure you appreciate people having jobs and houses, so long as they do it somewhere else.

Mountain View...
Keep building apartments and fill them with residents.
Encourage the new residents to keep electing city council members
that will support building more apartments.

Builders are finding that MV is the builders paradise.
Traffic congestion and gridlock? Who cares?
The long term livability of Mountain View? Who cares?

The one thing that is even more annoying is that there
is absolutely no setback from the roads when these
new buildings go up.
Dilapidated 1 to 2 story buildings are far more appealing
than these new multistory glass and concrete buildings
hitting your face while driving through these roads.

San Antonio phase-1 ... these 330 apartments... where
is the aesthetics? MV residents and visitors not only
have to sit in the traffic, but they have to stare at
these new glass and concrete devoid of any aesthetics while
sitting in that traffic.

Why would any city want to self-destruct with this type
of "development"? MV city council needs to stop adding any
more jobs to this already congested city.

Drowning in traffic, pollution, new apartment buildings with
no aesthetics, over-crowding, etc. etc. Welcome to MV,
the developer's paradise!

Developers! Developers!! Developers!!!
Please rain apartments and office buildings on MV!!!
You won't be suffering the traffic congestion... so carry on!!!!
__________________

Robert- You criticize MVResident67 who is telling the truth about adding housing not giving us more places to live. That is unless you can afford rents of $7000 per month for the new stuff, instead of saving other complexes that offer reasonable rents.

You could get on a waiting list and end a commute to MV when there is an opening. Instead, you want lots of new stuff that will drive the rents ever higher as are the rents at the new stuff. New stuff cannot be built with less quality finishes, and therefore rented for less, because the cost of land is so high. The developers have to go for all the bells & whistles to make the most profitable use of this extremely expensive land. So leave existing stuff alone, do not push for new high end stuff, bide your time, and you'll find something affordable. That's how I got into the neighborhood.

MVResident67:

"...If you believe that if the present city council members - when campaigning - had stated that they would support..."


Yes that's an excellent point!

I campaigned for Margaret Abe-Koga, Ronit Bryant and (god help me) Jac Siegal, as well as Mike Kasperzak and John McAlister, and I don't recall a single one of them promising to add 6-story office towers and $5,000/month condo towers that obliterate our view of the mountains (hence the name "Mountain View" remember?) nor did they say that long-established, small local businesses like The Milk Pail, Rose Market, and the bagel store next to Rite Aid were going to be left on their own to deal with developers that are trying to bully them off their property.

All the above council members live either in old downtown Mountain View or south of El Camino, very close to the Los Altos border. I'm sure they've seen their property values rise considerably, as long-time renters are packing up and moving away. Sometimes I really have to wonder when did they last drive on Grant Road or El Camino during the afternoon or early evening.

Seriously, are they getting paid under the table by developers? Why else would they be relentlessly pushing for yet more office space in MV?

@not who - In fairness, Jac Siegel and John McAlister have shown some sense in the last couple of years in questions of development. The pro-developer participants on this forum have consistently tried to label them as anti-growth. In reality, they have simply been willing to question some of the worst proposals, and I thank them for that.

But you're right in saying,

"I don't recall a single one of them promising to add 6-story office towers and $5,000/month condo towers that obliterate our view of the mountains (hence the name "Mountain View" remember?) nor did they say that long-established, small local businesses like The Milk Pail, Rose Market, and the bagel store next to Rite Aid were going to be left on their own to deal with developers that are trying to bully them off their property."

Last election, I voted for Kasperzak and for Chris Clark. What a mistake that was. I've been paying closer attention this time. I'll be voting for Matichak, Salem, and Neal. No guarantees, but they are less likely to drink the developers' Kool-aid.

Robert:

"I'm sorry for mischaracterizing you, I'm sure you appreciate people having jobs and houses, so long as they do it somewhere else."

~~~~~~~~~~

Wow, you just can't seem to stop yourself, can you? Why the apparent compulsion to make derisive comments about myself, or anyone else who may have an opinion that differs from yours? Perhaps the air is a little thin way up on that high horse of yours.

Get some air, then try getting a grip. Bully.

Can someone please translate this plan into something a civilian can understand?

can we speed up the construction somehow? I want to cash out and move to the real world

The public strongly voices their desire for more housing in the Phase 2 project and the majority of the council ignores that totally in the very next meeting on the subject? Was there fear among them that MG would pull out of the project if they lost their client for the double office tower deal? I can't believe there would not be another developer to step right up and take over and maybe go for a twin housing tower idea instead! And without the double cross to the Mail Pail a mere week after taking credit for striking a deal with them!

Kudos to Ronit for remembering what the public had voiced they wanted. Very scary to find out that no matter what people say or how many of them say it, the council majority feels fine to totally disregard them all!

San Antonio is the best place for more housing as it would not tower over their neighbors as it does along El Camino Real, and create a concrete canyon. Nor would it form the mega-powerful voting block that building a company town beside Google would create. Talk about losing our voting power!

I say Lisa Matichak, Mercedes Salem, and Jim Neal can be trusted to represent us in council. Give them all your votes. I know each of them them very well. Aside from John McAlister, who honestly cares for the people of this city, we have only Clark, Inks, & Kasperzak left on council, which well yield extremely more damage to our quality of life should we not succeed in getting a majority that cares about this in the council next year.

Don't just vote for them; help campaign for them: Lisa Matichak, Mercedes Salem, & Jim Neal. The quality of our futures in MV depends upon this.

To Linda: "adding housing not giving us more places to live. That is unless you can afford rents of $7000 per month for the new stuff, instead of saving other complexes that offer reasonable rents.

You could get on a waiting list and end a commute to MV when there is an opening. So leave existing stuff alone, do not push for new high end stuff, bide your time, and you'll find something affordable. That's how I got into the neighborhood." Adding jobs with no housing just adds congestion. We have a jobs/housing imbalance. The reason that rents are so high is that there is not enough housing. Let's fix this imbalance and vote for balanced housing in the upcoming election. The MV Voice Palo Alto Daily have endorsed/recommended Lenny, Pat, and Ken. Less housing or housing away from jobs does not solve anything!

Juanita-

You are falling for the fallacy Lenny is pushing.

First let me say I agree with Lenny that MV must curtail the building of more office space immediately and for some time, but not forever. I also believe that some housing can be built in locations that do not remove current lower priced rentals or ruin existing housing by towering over it and crowding out all parking near it.

But building as big as the candidates you support want to will drive rents way higher. It is not simple supply and demand. The more new housing is supplied, the more people want to move to MV with all its beautiful new housing. So increase supply = increase demand = increase the cost of rents, too!

Focus on limiting additional office and extending light rail to the Shoreline Business Park, also adding more shuttles, and work with the large corporations to hire locally and also to offer incentives to their employees to car pool, use the company shuttles and other mass transit options,etc. Solve the traffic gridlock as a regional problem and ramp up public transit instead of over building MV and pushing rents ever higher, just like in Manhattan, for example. The more new stuff they build, the more people will pay for it. We should instead keep older, cheaper places to live.

@Linda Curtis

Please refrain from advocating more apartments in the San Antonio
shopping center. This attitude screams NIMBYism :-(
All this reasoning about how suitable San Antonio shopping center
is (for adding more congested apartments) is fallacious.

The 330 apartment Carmel is bad enough. It is so devoid of any
aesthetics that it is hard to look at those buildings.
It looks congested. Crowded. Over-built. Unappealing. In-your-face.

San Antonio shopping center is not fit for any office buildings or
apartments. Just 2 story retail. Nothing more. Hope the traffic
congestion gets out-of-control and results in moratorium on any
further development in San Antonio shopping center.

Moratorium on development in MV along San Antonio Road.
Hope this happens soon before all traffic comes to a standstill.

Since so many people on this page are interested in housing issues in our town, you should consider attending the next Civility Roundtable: Can housing in Mountain View be affordable? It's a free community forum on Thursday, November 6, from 6-8:30 p.m. at the City of Mountain View Senior Center on 266 Escuela Ave.
The roundtable participants will be Supervisor Joe Simitian, attorney Louise Katz, Shiloh Ballard of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Joshua Howard of the California Apartment Association Tri-County Division, Mark Kroll of Sares Regis Northern California, and Aracely Mondragon of San Francisco Organizing Project/Peninsula Interfaith Action. American Leadership Forum - Silicon Valley CEO Chris Block will be the moderator.

Project Sentinel will provide facilitators for small group discussions. This event is organized jointly by the Mountain View Human Relations Commission and the American Leadership Forum. You can reserve your seat at: Web Link

Since when did building hundreds or thousands of rental apartments equate with affordable housing. To me affordable housing means making homes available for sale in a community and from which families can sink roots and add to a community. It also means an investment for families who don't want to never see a return on their housing situation. Home ownership is/was once the American dream. All I see on these blogs is talk about rental housing, even BMR rental housing. Are we all resigned to the fact that this town will me nothing more than a rental market with a few individuals profiting off the misery of the rest? Whatever. I've always questioned the ethics of landlords in that regard.

@no-more-sanantonio-apartments:

I'll side with you on opposing any proposed development that will drop down on you like the District 9 space ship from the same named movie. In other words: You know your neighborhood better than anybody else, the aspects of it that you love, and what will be compromised/wrecked if big plans for the big developers go through. What looks good from a distant view, will be know by those who live there, to suck totally!

We need a city council than is responsive and do something about our concerns like these. That is we, the residents of these communities that stand to be wrecked, know better than anyone. Like those living on my street behind the massive 3 FOUR STORY buildings proposed at 801 ECR (at Castro) plus that at what is now Harv's (so useful & handy) Car Wash at 1101 ECR. It is also to be turned into 4 STORIES, almost straight up, next to one story homes, where the small children play in their backyards, which will be under observant eyes after the highrise is built. No retail is in the plan. And at 801 ECR, we all are trading 15 useful and handy retail properties for only 4.5 places & tons of crowded housing units instead. We will preserve only half of Peet's, + Li's Alterations, Tanya's Hair Design, Sufi Coffee and Rose Market (if they can survive after 2 yrs. out of business). But Gochi's Japanese Fusion Tapas Restaurant (unique & outstanding) and all the rest are gone.

Jac Siegel said that such housing (stack & pack apts.) have an average turnover of half the residents in only one year! There goes the sense of community, and up goes the crime rate correspondingly!

These new units in place of our handy Harv's car wash are predicted to run $1.1 million for a small one bedroom and $1.2 million for a 2 bedroom. And you know it will be much higher, as always, once done, just like Madera was! (Check those figures: The finalized prices went three times the projected cost! Outrageous,)

If you want candidates who really care about these issues to fill the 3 city council seats, vote for Lisa Matichak, Mercedes Salem, and Jim Neal. I have vetted them and all the other 6 candidates to nail down if they are ready to roll over existing residents and their rights & are ready to gridlock all of MV traffic in the process.

It's crunch time to get them in, instead of those who only give lip service or openly promote the fallacy that bringing down rental rates is a simple "supply and demand" issue, which it isn't. It is actually the reverse: The more housing supplied (always at the adjacent neighbors' expense), the more demand arises! People see the new, shiny, stylistic stuff, and they want to live in MV, too. It's a hoax that we could ever supply enough housing to catch up with the insane amount of office space we keep having thrust upon us.

So do not vote for candidates who promise this.

Vote for the three candidates who know what's really up: Lisa Matichak, Mercedes, Salem, and Jim Neal.

Please vote on November 4th. All of this conversation is useless if we don't go to the polls. I have been looking through the posts for information on The Milk Pail. We were all so vocal a few months ago about the right of this small business to remain intact on its own land. I was so happy to see that MG had made a deal, only to backtrack a mere week later. I have not seen anything to show that Milk Pail is safe from the MG threat. I want people on the MV City Council who will fight to keep the existing residents in mind. The city is vastly different from when I was a child here, and I am quite frankly frightened by how zoning rules are falling by the wayside for the sake of a few developers. When I see buildings going 4+ stories up right on the sidewalk, I wonder how long it will be before Mountain View looks more like San Francisco...or Manhattan? Look at the North Bayshore now, with all the green lawns and redwood trees. And then look at the proposed precise plan for that area - 8 story buildings. Will the greenery be sacrificed for progress? And bear in mind that the MV City Council ENFORCED those greenbelts. I'm going to vote for people who DON'T give me the same old story. I want people who will not just capitulate to the developers. I want people who will shake up the Council, and take up the mantle of critical thinking. I want people who look after the interests of the people of Mountain View, not the people who rape our resources and live elsewhere.