"...for those who have been saying they'd like to see a Santana Row-style development in Mountain View, Santana Row's developer is set to buy most of Mountain View's largest shopping center"

Are you kidding me? I don't think anyone in Mtn. View wants to see this type of development.

Just wait until the next bust, and then what?

Dear God. Can we just hand this area over to Palo Alto so we don't have to claim it?
I would not be surprised at all if that deal with the Milk Pale was either needed to close the sale, or will become null and void when the new owner takes over.
We do not want a Santana row like development!
We do not want a Santana row like development!
We do not want a Santana row like development!
We do not want a Santana row like development!
We do not want a Santana row like development!
We do not want a Santana row like development!

Unacceptable moving into the 21st century. Please make all of MV happy and make the entire block one gigantic Milk Pail store. How dare we try to modernize... For those of you who think developers and council members are blind to traffic issues and don't have to address them, you have no clue how things work.

We don't already have enough of a traffic problem?

@stuck in the dark ages. Thanks, you seem like you really are on top of things. No, really, I mean it.

Santana Row in San Antonio shopping center??
8 story buildings and 1000's more new homes? MV wants to add
all these on top of the San Antonio Phase-2?
Greed is running amuck in Mountain View!!!
Greed is subsuming quality of life for the ordinary people!!!
Greed is running amuck in Mountain View!!!

There is something called physical limitation, i.e., traffic.
ALSO, MV citizens, DEMAND that schools are built first!!!

Already....
Mountain View with its in-your face apartment & office buildings
everywhere with no setbacks... and the city council is going gaga
over developers. All the MV citizens are watching all this and not
taking charge of MV's future.

For example, San Antonio Phase-2 when finished will be the biggest
traffic nightmare ever! Why don't the developers understand?

Developers do the following to maximize profits without any concern for quality of life and livability of the surroundings...

(1) Build with no setbacks.
(2) Build as many stories as possible.
(3) Remove heritage trees and just pay pittance in fines -- even
$5 million won't be enough per heritage tree. But the city is
happy to take a few thousand dollars as fines.
(4) Build high density with no concern for the traffic mess and
destroy livability of a town.
(5) Build cheap with no architectural aesthetics.
(6) Charge high rents because the young recent grads working
for world-class companies are able to afford it.
(7) Don't show any interest in the community and not worry
about schools for the kids living in the 1000 apartment
complexes. Pretend that since the residents today are
20-somethings, there will never be small children ever
in those apartments.
(8) Pave concrete everywhere and not provide ADEQUATE green
space for the 1000's of apartments and offices they build.
(9) Focus only on the returns for the developers themselves
and their far-removed investors.
(10)Add inexpensive glitz and glamour to the development and
pretend that the buildings are upscale.
(11)Present studies that show no traffic increase when the traffic
is already a disaster for everyone to see and experience today.
(12)Lot of people are suffering the traffic congestion
and have to endure the massive out-of-proportion
developments -- however, they are busy raising families,
busy with their careers, etc. Who has the time to attend
meetings on weekday evenings to speak up?
(13) The unsuspecting citizens expect the city council to do
the right thing -- pay attention to traffic mess, etc. when
approving projects. But this city council is gaga over
developers showering them with praises. Do these council
members drive on San Antonio Road or El Camino Real?
(14) Developers have armies of support staff
to go play the necessary roles in the weekday evening
city council meetings and get whatever they want. Quality
of life or the livability of a city be damned.

But are there any checks and balances to ensure the livability of
a town? Yes -- but it is only as good as the citizens that are
willing to elect the right officials for city administration.

Excellent news for densified retail/housing .. let's get traffic solutions, parks, and affordable housing included. Great to see all the new development side-by-side with the small town feel in Mountain View.

I think it is a wonderful idea!
The San Antonio Shopping Center, as it is now, looks trashy and old.
It totally needs a make over!

Why build any more new housing at all? MV already has the highest population density of any city in Santa Clara County. We already have done more than our share. Put a moratorium on new development until other cities ante up to our existing density. Just say NO to any more new housing. That was easy, wasn't it?

Do you suppose that the new owner knows that the main water tunnel lies under that land somewhere? the San Francisco Water Department will not allow buildings over that pipeline. That's why there is some open space between structures.

"This deal appears to improve the chances of both revitalizing retail..."

C'mon Lenny. Are you serious? People are already avoiding that area due to traffic. 1000 new homes? Multi-thousands of incremental car-trips. Yikes.

I guess there's a side benefit...this type of development will make MV more unlivable, drive away current residents, and reduce home prices.

And by the way, what will MV be doing with this windfall to make life better for the people who live here now?

Santana Row is only 3 stories tall. Somebody said 8. Nope. Woodframe construction housing for 2 stories on top of ground floor retail. Not such a bad idea for above Walmart, except for the customers.

Quoting from this article:

"What exactly the whole San Antonio shopping center of the future might look like is uncertain, but the area Federal Realty is purchasing is zoned for six stories of housing above retail space, and up to eight stories if significant public benefits are proposed, said planning director Tsuda. It may be possible to achieve a density commonly seen in Paris -- 100 dwelling units per acre -- under the city's zoning for the shopping center, or as many as 3,300 homes.

Such intense development would require an an update to the environmental impact report, which studied the impact of only 1,200 homes for the San Antonio Precise Plan area."

Drought and the horrendous traffic will not stop the greed!!!

If I want Santana Row, I will go to Santana Row. Gentrification much?
Maybe no new schools are proposed because the only ppl that can afford this great new housing can also afford private schools?
Sounds like greedy bum deal for the long term residents of mountain view.

Well Mountain View is about to go nuts, I hope the newly elected city council members will put a stop to all of this high density nonsense. This not San Francisco, this is Mountain View a suburban village with a calm not crowded life. There must be some way for the people to rise up and call a halt to the never ending high rise horrible highdensity nonsense.

Good urban design is one of the things that made this area so desirable. Most unfortunately, the best urban planning was done in 1950s Palo Alto. Then, things were done to benefit normal people: tons of public schools, tons of parks, and wide streets. Now our city councils believe that growth = progress, even when it means changing the character of the area to something so much less pleasant.
Our city councils are failing to protect the cities from developers that wish to profit off the fortune of Silicon Valley. Everyone who has posted to complain about the traffic is absolutely correct: there is NO WAY to ease the traffic - there is NOTHING that can be done to solve it. You know why? Because it is NOT possible to widen EVERY major road and add lanes. That's why. Don't bother mentioning Cal-Train, because it really doesn't get most people to where they need to go!
It would be ideal if a few of the tech companies would pack up and move out into less prosperous towns, spreading out the wealth and hopefully the density. We need our city councils to grow a backbone and say NO to new office space and most new housing. This area has developed into a place where it is stressful to drive after 2:30pm and you can forget about bicycling unless you are already a pro!

The city council and the developers must think the
citizens are gullible.

Here is the modus operandi of Mountain View...
Keep building offices.
Then under the guise of "balancing jobs and housing",
Keep building apartments and fill them with residents.

Encourage these new residents to keep electing city council members
that will support building more apartments.

Traffic congestion and gridlock? Who cares?
The long term livability of Mountain View? Who cares?

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 most congested city with greed written everywhere!!
__________________

This is great news. This area will get a much needed improvement and will improve Mtn View as a whole. Lets hope the council ignores all of the no-growth doom and gloom types that complain about every good development project. They have been on the wrong side of every project.

I find all of the development in Mountain View very depressing. Having relocated from SoCal I have lived here for almost 20 years. I loved the small town feel of Mountain View but that is slowly being lost to all of the stack and pack development the city council keeps approving. I avoid the El Camino & San Antonio corner now because of the traffic. And just like I avoid Santana Row in SJ, I will also avoid any similar type of development in MV. What use to be simple has now become difficult. A 4-mile drive to Sunnyvale to meet a friend for dinner took 45 minutes. That's Los Angeles, not MV! People call it progress, but I have no desire to live someplace that feels like LA. I left that area for a reason. Sadly it looks like it's now time to leave MV.

@Curious Observer
"A 4-mile drive to Sunnyvale to meet a friend for dinner took 45 minutes. "

Interesting. A 4-mile bike ride to Sunnyvale takes me 15-20 minutes including parking. Maybe you're not physically able to do so, but you don't have to be super fit for cycling to be a feasible option.

I agree with Garrett. We need to get rid of all the 50's stuff like cars and parking lots. Oh, they had bicycles too. Gone. And restaurants...bye bye! Grocery stores? Parks? Sidewalks? That's SO 50's!!! Out with it all.

Hmm...you know..maybe the motive behind selectively getting rid of certain things that our parents enjoyed is simply profit motivated? Doesn't that make more sense than some sort of drive to improve the "aesthetics" of MV?

Personally, I'm happy that the Santana Row folks bought up the rest of San Antonio Center. Those guys know how to design. While I think most of the stores on Santana Row are useless to most people, it's really nice to walk around and enjoy the city squares. I love that it only goes up 3 stories. Of course, that is because San Jose cares more about livability than MV. I'm sure our council will INSIST on 6+ story buildings. Prove me wrong Lenny!

Whether you think Federal Realty's purchase of the rest of San Antonio Center is a good thing or a bad thing, let's base our discussion of it on facts.

Two posters above have stated that Santana Row is only 3 stories tall. This is far from true. The shortest buildings at Santana Row are generally 4 stories - 3 stories of housing on top of one story of retail/parking. 300 Santana Row, the office building facing Valley Fair Mall, is 5 stories (yes, it was developed by Federal and is considered part of Santana Row). The Hotel Valencia at 355 Santana Row is at least 6 stories (might be 7 - hard to tell whether there's another level squeezed above the retail). The 377 block of Santana Row, where Left Bank is located, is at least 6 stories - in the middle of the block, there are 3-story townhomes and 5-story apartments built on top of the parking level (you can see this on Google Maps here: Web Link And Federal recently broke ground on a 6-story office building on Olin Avenue that's also part of Santana Row:Web Link

The fact that people think Santana Row is only 3 or 4 stories when much of it is actually 5 or 6 stories, to me, shows how much design matters. Santana Row has been so popular because it's pleasant to walk around in and the buildings and streets are designed well - to the point that you don't even notice some of the taller heights.

And on another topic, 'Jay ess' suggests that Federal may not have been aware of the Hetch Hetchy pipeline running under the land before buying it. Are you serious? Do you think a firm like Federal would plunk down $60M without being aware of something that you can see plainly on a Google Maps aerial? Please. And by the way, the recently-adopted Precise Plan for San Antonio Center calls for that stretch to become a linear park, like the one that Merlone Geier developed next door.

Can we just all agree that whatever happens to this site, we need a bigger Trader Joe's?

The new development will have 6 to 8 stories as quoted in this article:

6 to 8 stories!!!!!! Traffic gridlock? Congestion? Absolutely!!!
But why bother with theses little details... Keep building!

Begin QUOTE
What exactly the whole San Antonio shopping center of the future might look like is uncertain, but the area Federal Realty is purchasing is zoned for six stories of housing above retail space, and up to eight stories if significant public benefits are proposed, said planning director Tsuda. It may be possible to achieve a density commonly seen in Paris -- 100 dwelling units per acre -- under the city's zoning for the shopping center, or as many as 3,300 homes.

Such intense development would require an an update to the environmental impact report, which studied the impact of only 1,200 homes for the San Antonio Precise Plan area.
End QUOTE

I am surprised why Google did not buy this property... it would have been
a great opportunity to turn the whole area into a park... The Google Park.
If it only cost $60Million, Google could have easily picked it up!

The Google Park... how wonderful that would have been...

[Post removed; don't attack other posters.]

Where have folks been? The whole San Antonio Precise Plan approved is designed to allowing for a Santana Row like development with stores, residences, services and offices all working together. If the plan allowed 8 story buildings packed together everywhere right up to the street I'd worry but it doesn't (and nether does Santana Row). It requires open spaces, ample sidewalks and buildings to be set back from the streets (not like Merlone Geier Phase 1). The plan does not allow all 8 story buildings because that would far, far exceed the maximum density allowed. It definitely allows something like Avalon Towers where the building is tall but it is not right on top of you. As OMV Resident said, if the design is right, it will be a people friendly area that I, for one, will love to explore.

Oh, and if they did anything like a Santana Row, they would be providing Below Market Rate Housing or Fees (now the highest in the area as the Voice reported), Open Space or Fees, School District Fees and have to make big "Public Benefit" improvements/contributions on top of all those. (I think Merlone Geier will pay for almost $10M just in the Public Benefit part of their project). And even with all those potential fees, Federal Realty is buying the property. These are smart guys, they will make it work.

Please give us open space. Developer can save the fees.
We need open space.

This whole notion of paying fees and building everywhere
is horrible, horrible.

Similarly stop cutting down heritage trees and just pay fees.
What nonsense!!!

"Fees" is the most unacceptable mechanism invented to let
developers destroy livability and get away with it.

I agree every word with Observer. I have posted 5 years ago that urbanization will happen in MV. This is Silicon Valley, wheel that never stops turning, capitalism at its best with humongous money behind. Like it or not, that is a way it is. People who like it will stay, people who do not will leave. But folks, life goes on.

60 million dollars for a 33 acre shopping center that will now pay a higher property tax which is good fot thr LASD. The 33 acres will now fall under 2015 tax rates which means the new owner will have to charge more then the former owners.

Open space, mot much open space expect parking lots, interior sidewalks and roofs. Most of the trees are landscaping trees that were most likely required by the city.

Santana Row, Valley Fair and Stanford are successful because of how much money people make and willing spend. People want Santana Row or really nice elegant movie set like center not some rundown strip mall.

On the subject of public benefits, the city of Mountain View has the opportunity to insist on a REAL public benefit: space set aside for a new public school. Too often, cities in our area give away all sorts of huge building variances to developers in exchange for small things that offer little substantive benefit to the public (like statues of "art" that are located within the new development). What the public desperately needs in this area is a school. With creativity, a new public school can and should be included within this 33 acre development. It can be an urban design so that it needn't take up much acreage.

I think you'll find that the limited partnership which owns the land is what was purchased for $60 Million. No rise in property taxes will occur as a result of the sale. Future development will increase the tax paid on the improvements portion of the tax bill though, quite a lot.

As for schools, how many kids do you think live in Santana Row projects? There are 3 residential buildings there. Likely, they have very few school age kids.

Some commenters here have suggested that they would prefer to contend with more traffic, because the "strip mall" is ugly and unattractive. That's quite laughable! As someone who lives very near this site, I must prefer function over aesthetics - as in, I would like for my commute to work to not include 1,000 - 3,000 more people on the road!
I completely agree that Silicon Valley will continue to grow and this is important, but I think the wealth, the jobs, and the new residents: should and can be spread out into other towns that can use the economic boost more than we can.
Some people seem to have the perception that the developer is coming to make everything new and pretty for them to enjoy viewing. Sure and yes, but the real reason the developer is interested is MONEY. Yes, a few below market rate units are required, but how many? Very few and they will benefit very few people. Meanwhile, I constantly see "Now Renting!" signs on older apartments all along California Ave, M.V. and other locations. Perhaps the city council could ease the housing crisis by requiring that all units must be rented out within a month or the rent must be lowered by a certain percentage. Just an idea of something to assist the less wealthy residents who bag your groceries, take your orders, and wipe your grandparents bottoms.
I disapprove of the comment stating that biking takes less time than driving, as it suggests biking as a solution to congested road woes. It completely dismisses the disabled, much of the elderly, those of us whose jobs do not permit us to turn up sweaty to work, and those of us who wish not to be killed on way to work and play. Biking is great for tall/big men who are more easily visible, but many people are not tall, broad shouldered, and in tip-top shape.

It is no coincidence that this announcement was made now, 6 weeks after the City Council election.

The damage that a "Santana Row" scale development will do to the traffic situation is ten times the damage from controversial projects like 801 El Camino. The intersection of San Antonio and ECR, as bad as it is now, is fully expected to go to "Level of Service F" after Merlone Geier Phase 2 is built. The council approved it with this understanding, clearly stated in the EIR. It's going to be awful.

Lenny, Ken, and Pat will have a chance to show their colors on this latest development question.

Let's insist that any new development make Mountain View's jobs-housing imbalance better, not worse. Regardless of our preferred level of density, we should all be able to agree that forcing thousands of our workers to drive into town from far away creates more traffic, puts more pollution in our air, and robs our community of diversity. And if we do some smart dense development, we can make it possible for more people in our community to live full lives without cars, with mixed use land, good bike routes, and so on.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Please use some logic... We are still an intelligent
species here in MV...

Don't build any more offices in MV.
MV is a congested, polluted, traffic-gridlocked,
noisy, city already. Not to mention the burden being put on
unsuspecting neighbors in bordering cities.

It is disingenous to keep harping about jobs-housing
imbalance while adding more office buildings in MV.

Once you stop adding office buildings, you don't have
to keep crying about the housing imbalance.
This is common sense!!! Hope MV gets it!!!

Also, MV needs to be a good neighbor... How about building
a schools and park for the San Antonio Area.

Mountsin View is a bad neighbor????

Los Altos and Los Altos Hills relies on our stores and our jobs while sitting back and complaining that we don't build enough, Why not go pick on them?

Mountain View has the highest density of all Santa Clara cities, yet is being yelled at to become much more dense.

It is ridiculous to demand job-housing balance at the small city level. It is a regional problem.

The bay area is growing. In a country generally mired in recession and decreasing living standards, we are lucky enough to live in an island of wealth supported by several strong industries, though mainly tech. This opportunity means that people are moving to the bay area for the chance at a better life. Like it or not, these people are coming, and they have to live somewhere. Every city has to build more housing, infrastructure, and shops to support them. Actually, it's not the cities doing the building, the cities just have to get out of the way and allow developers and individuals to build homes and shops, but that's really hard to do, since, as these posts show, people are very meddlesome when it comes to allowing others to build on their own land!

I'm a fairly long time Mountain View resident, 17 years now, and I've seen the city grow a lot. All that I hope is that the development is tasteful, and not sabotaged too much by the city council and zoning. I'd love to see some variety, as opposed to these cookie cutter developments springing up everywhere.

Not in favor of another Santana Row. How about some people space with broad walking boulevards lined with trees so people can sit, play, roller blade and relate? We don't need to look like San Jose. We don't need to have large building imposing building that has cast large shadows and be like a wind tunnel. How about soften up with GREEN roof + trees and make the development LEED certification buildings?

Feb 13, 2009

With 16 shopping center owners and Walmart in the mix, a Santana Row-like development is not possible, Thoits says

Web Link

History Buff's historical reference is spot on and amusing. When you look at how diverse Santa Row is and how many different kinds of thing it includes, you wonder about Wal-Mart being a show stopper at San Antonio Center. When you go on to realize that Santana Row with all of the Federal Realty development included is only 20 acres, some lights should go on. Who cares if the neighbor is Wal-Mart? There are other neighbors that match Santana Row in density, namely the Merlone Geier past and future developments. Even with Wal-Mart remaining, you could develop 20 acres more in Santana Row style. You'd be hard pressed to fill an entire 60 acres with Santana Row.

And of course, none of this would be possible if alongside Wal-Mart there was a Home Depot. So, I'd say that not having Home Depot there is a good thing.

Sunnyvale has a 10 year jump on Mtn View at making a Santana row like center Hows is that working? There is only one Santana row, Mtn View needs to do alot more (hint it has Valley Fair next to it not Walmart)

Sunnyvales center is a disaster, but the developers of Santana Row know what they are doing. They created s very walkable place where it is both fun and comfortable to hang out. People come from all over the Bay Area to visit. Contrast this to the Merlone Grier development where one takes their own life in their hands walking around. No sidewalks. Camouflaged-marked crosswalks. Terrible!

One of the problems at present with the San Antonio Center is parking.

What on earth constitutes Car Pool or Car Share. I recently went with my kids for lunch and since there was a car full of us, we felt it was OK to park in a car pool spot since it was all we could find.

On another occasion, my family went to Chilis and found all the spots for Chilis only, but we wanted to walk to do other shopping. Did we have to move our car for that?

The parking lot is designed for cars, not pedestrians. Even outside Safeway what looks like a plaza to stand and chat is in fact a roadway.

Who designs these things? Why can't we find a central spot to park and then walk around to several locations. At Santana Row, the parking makes sense. At San Antonio, it is dangerous, confusing, and downright bad.