The solution is simple: let developer add one more floor, in exchange for smaller footprint and more park space.

It's the fault of the city council. You can't have it both ways.

Under the Quimby act, the city can require new park space as part of a new residential development. The amount of new park space depends on the number of new residents. 3 acres per thousand residents.

It doesn't really matter what the developer wants. 375 units is about 750 new residents, which works out to just over 2 acres.

Just reject the project and tell them to come back when they can include a 2 acre park. They'll be back.

Better yet, allow taller buildings and require a 3 acre park. If you can't put density next to Caltrain and a shopping center, where can you put it?

Agreed, taller buildings would leave more space for parks. Low-rise sprawl is the enemy of green open spaces.

Bill Cranston's comment and involvement is highly suspect. He was a terrible steward of the Crossings before he was forced to resign from the boards there. As a homeowners in the area he only stands to benefit from cramming more rentals into this area. He should be advocating for less density and homes for sale!

What is wrong with these people that make up the City Council? They make guidelines for park space, the developers thumb their noses and whine that they can't comply, and the council "gets frustrated" and negotiates with these bullies? Last month the mayor went so far as to *apologize* to Merlone Geier for not approving their outrageous demands to build 2 office towers in the middle of a shopping center! Why can't council act like grown-ups and Just.Say.No to these bullies?! Tell them to go back to the drawing board and come back when they can follow the rules. This reminds me of bad parenting, parents who plead with their children to behave as the children do whatever they want and get whatever they want. Grow a spine, council!

While the Seven Seas Park in Sunnyvale was two decades in the making and Sunnyvale is not meant to be held as a model, the two images do present a stark contrast on what park infrastructure looks like around the new townhouses in north Sunnyvale (where there is a new 5 acre park connected to a greenbelt/protected bike path) and what our parks around our new development look like. It does suggest that bold long term vision and patience can pay great dividends for the community.

Park around our San Antonio Station Development:
Web Link

Seven Seas Park around Sunnyvale's Morse Development:
Web Link

Seven Seas Park and Adjacent New Housing Panorama 1:
Web Link

Seven Seas Park and Adjacent New Housing Panorama 2:
Web Link

Anyone with young children should check out the Seven Seas Park, map directions:
Web Link

God help us if the new City Council is as bad as this one. Who do they think they work for?

Chris--thanks for posting those links!

While the Seven Seas park may be a bit over the top, I have to congratulate the City of Sunnyvale for developing just absolutely gorgeous parks. They put Mountain View's parks to shame, with the possible exception of Cuesta, which I attribute to the fact that the surrounding property is full of wealthy and influential people.

If you haven't toured the Sunnyvale parks, I invite all of MV to do so..and then demand from our city government an effort to bring our parks up to a similar standard.

So far, MV seems focused on building places for people to work and building high density "villages" to maximize profit for developers, but what about the residents? You know, the people that want to LIVE here and enjoy the community.

Chris... Run for city council. What are you waiting for? We need youthful thinking, not all these old farts. And this is coming from an old fart.

@Chris

I have always believed the beauty of Cuesta Park [we lived in the area before it was a park] was that the city ran out of money and didn't build the senior center, swimming pool and lake as was proposed.

Before alcohol was banned, you could scarcely find room to fall down on weekends!

The annex was a panic purchase when the council found out it was sold to a developer who had started building homes.

@Chris - I live near Cuesta Park and I am neither wealthy nor influential, just fortunate.

Hmm...I believe that you are not influential, but most people in the US (and the world) would consider someone living in a million+ dollar house to be wealthy.

Reject the developer and put in more park space.

Once the "park in-lieu fees" money is spent we not only not have the money but "still" do not have a park. After a period of time the developers get their full profit/income. So this is a loose-loose proposition for Mountain View.
It is time to change the regulation and do away with that option for developers. Make the developers include the green belts that we require. Period.

Please, STOP building more ridiculous, overpriced, townhouses and apartments. No one wants to live in them and no one can afford them. There are too many people, too much traffic and we just keep building more! Forget the housing that brings more people and traffic, and put more parks and open space. It takes a ridiculous amount of time to get from one part of Mountain View, to a different part of mountain View. It just keeps getting worse and more overpopulated!

The notion of "in lieu of" anything related to development has always been ridiculous. Why bother having standards if someone can just opt to throw a little money at something and be excused from following those standards. Piece by piece and bit by bit our city leaders (with a big assist by staff) are selling off Mountain View. And the damage that is being done by selling of our open space can never be undone.

Welcome to dystopia people.

Strongly support Greg Perry's last comment. Why not build two 10-12 story buildings for residents who can walk/bike to work, retail, businesses, and CalTrain. Shrink the overall footprint and build 2 buildings, and increase the park size to 2-3 acres. There are many in Mountain View, young, mid-age, and retiring/downsizing who would rent or buy higher density 1000-1500 sq foot condos.

"Please, STOP building more ridiculous, overpriced, townhouses and apartments. No one wants to live in them and no one can afford them."

I'd add the caveat, "except for the people who do, but they don't count" because that's exactly what you're saying.

These same people objecting to the park size , were responsible for destroying housing at the HP site. They gave up 3 acres of park space. Be careful what you wish for.

There is only so much land. If you want more green space, then go vertical. It is so simple. Why the council just don't get it?

It's not that Mountain View is scared of high rises. The Avalon towers are, what, 10 stories, right? Looks fine to me.

Going vertical = more parks = better community.

The area is already slates to allow up to 6 story building. The problem is the construction cost for residential is much greater when you go beyond 4. The issue to the developer is, he paid $10 Million per acre for land on which he can put 4 story buildings. Of course he is going to like a fee for not dedicating park land which is much cheaper than his land cost. Why would he ever pick the costlier option of creating a park? The in-lieu fees are too low.

I love the comment above: "Going vertical = more parks = better community."

If that is true, then please move immediately to downtown San Jose. They built vertical. Isn't it lovely? Such great living!

Please stop trying to destroy our fair city. If you want to live in a concrete jungle, then there are plenty of places that made that mistake. Go move there!

It says park there on the map, but it's more like a parking lot with a couple of park patches on either side.

It would be better to put the parking into an underground garage and have a park above the ground. Makes a difference if you can play in that space without having to cross the parking lot.

The only reason in-lieu fees are on the table is because the City chose to put them on the table. Instead of being irritated with the developer, the City Council should get mad at itself for not maximizing park land dedication throughout all their years on the dais.

@Great Idea, either you have higher buildings and more green parks, or rows of concrete blocks and no green parks. I think the former is better.

100 year ago Mountain View was all green and idyllic. I'm sure in all those years since many people complained about the dramatic changes that has made what Mountain View is today. But there is no going back. That's a fact.

There was a news last week that reported Silicon Valley created 110K jobs last year, but only 8K new housing units. The pressure is high. You tell all these people "go away"? They won't. They will pay "in-lieu fees", a.k.a higher and higher housing prices, to stay.

"either you have higher buildings and more green parks, or rows of concrete blocks and no green parks."

That might be your world view, but it is not necessary the reality. It is possible to have medium density developments and more parks. It is not either-or. The out-of-area developers would love us to believe that is the only choice, but we know better.

"100 year ago Mountain View was all green and idyllic. I'm sure in all those years since many people complained about the dramatic changes that has made what Mountain View is today. But there is no going back. That's a fact."

Oh, you can't go back to 100 years ago, so you must build up 6 story apartment blocks? Really?? Again, that is a very narrow view. We are not obligated to destroy this city in order for property developers to squeeze out every last dollar of profitability.

"There was a news last week that reported Silicon Valley created 110K jobs last year, but only 8K new housing units. The pressure is high. You tell all these people "go away"? They won't. They will pay "in-lieu fees", a.k.a higher and higher housing prices, to stay."

If we were to put in 10,000 housing units into Mountain View over the next 5 years, it would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce the average housing costs in Mountain View. Not too long ago, even the silicon valley was hit with high unemployment. Mountain View allowed one of the most successful companies on the planet to rapidly expand and decrease unemployment. And, what did the city get for it's generosity? Pressure to destroy the livability for it's residents. Housing is a REGIONAL problem. Employment is a REGIONAL problem. Only a very few of our neighbors have done anything to address the employment problem and are now getting punished for that. Meanwhile, the cities like Los Altos, Atherton, Woodside, etc.. get to enjoy all the benefits of being in the silicon valley (high $ employment) without paying any costs (forced by ABAG to destroy their city livability).

Sorry if I offend you, but you sound like one of these outside developers that is pressuring the city to rubber-stamp developments. Perhaps you are also funneling money into one of the soft-money laundering operations like Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition to influence the Council elections? We are on to you...

> If we were to put in 10,000 housing units into Mountain View over the next 5 years, it would do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce the average housing costs in Mountain View.

True. The theory of supply/demand doesn't apply here. See
Web Link

Our city council needs to get a backbone and stand up to protect the character of our city. Adding housing without adding the park space to go along with it is just so wrong. And in this area, it compounds an existing problem. Don't they know what their job is? They are supposed to be representing the people, not the developers. Between these rubber stamps for developers and changes to zoning, we keep losing the things that make the town livable. There is more to life than jobs and home. Parks are one dimension of that, but so are certain other forms of entertainment, like bowling alleys, that cannot compete with current land prices. That is where zoning comes in to equalize and protect the diversity of businesses. It is also about protecting businesses providing services. I thought the DotCom boom would have woken people up to the threat of allowing the highest bidder to take everything, but I guess since that ended so abruptly, too many forgot.
Do you want to live where it is only high density housing and office buildings? I don't. And that is the trajectory we are on. Consider that before you vote on Tuesday.

We already have more than enough residents in MT. View.

There is a ton of new buildings being built in san jose, next to train stations, so there is no need to build more here.

Population density
Palo Alto: 2,500/sq mi
Mountain View: 6,000/sq mi

I do not understand people that want to solve the housing crisis in Bay Area by building more houses in Mountain View.

I agree that MV shouldered more than its fair share of the burden to provide new housing. I'd rather see new offices than new housing units on that parcel of land. Offices pay more taxes than the resources they consume. Offices are the perpetual milkable cows.

But, isn't there a large group of people who protested fiercely and demanded city council to replace offices with more housing units for the San Antonio project? And council gave in to their demand?

If you are angry that too many housing units are being built, at the expense of quality of life, green space, etc., you need to organize. If you don't, then those who want more housing will win.

And the demand for rent control probably comes from the same group of people, by the way.

"If you don't, then those who want more housing will win."

Yes, when Google is behind it with it's money to sway the counsil and developers and whoever with there money, then yes, the city will be no longer what it is, it will be like NYC.

That's a good example, NYC keeps on building up, yet there is still a shortage of housing. Is that what we really want, to look like NYC, where the sun doesn't shine till high noon?

I really struggle to understand these discussions, people talk like somehow housing creates people, and without it people wouldn't exist, or wouldn't move here?

I would like to add to my post above (and to support @m2gr comment)
Population density
East Palo Alto: 11,000/sq mi

Do we want Mountain View to be more like Palo Alto or we want it to be more like East Palo Alto?

More houses, and nowhere to play. Pretty sad picture

Time to get signatures to block all development and demand more parks.

Money is speaking so loud in MV that it is deafening.
And the traffic, pollution ... already unbearable.

Builders are doing their job namely squeeze everything they
can to make most money for themselves (at the expense of
quality of life in MV). The city council is saying, go ahead and
destroy the city... just pay a couple of bucks as fine.

The residents are not standing up for themselves to save
their city.