By loosening the rules, they can open parks that are further from the people they're meant to serve and who paid the fees that bought the land. Bad idea which was rejected by the park commission but overridden by the council.

Why not allow developers to build if they have a public space agreement, also why not build parks on the roof of buildings.

Grass, small groupings of shade trees, lighweight playground equipment or lighweight buildings for interior play. Don't forget adults and community based health classes. Why not allow space on buildings for dance studios, wall climbing, or just a place to sit, watch the sunrise or sunsets, a free place to eat lunch and look at the mountains. All has to be opened and maintained.

The city with the developer could joinly run the space.

I'm confused: If the affordable housing project(s) don't have to pay the parks fee, they save $7 million? So parks are not needed by those in affordable housing? We buy and improve parks without the $7 million? Isn't that counter-productive?

I long ago advocated for having an available fund for acquisition and then allow staff to buy when a property becomes available that fits the city policy on needed park space. Good plan was now proposed!

The city council is too late in trying to put a bandaid on the big owie they have made of Mtn. View. How can there be room for parks when we don't have enough housing vs. businesses?

Parks on top of buildings? Really? That's like putting lipstick on a pig.

What they need to do IMHO is build a HUGE wall (or a moat) around Google (and the like) and keep them over there. Put the Google housing on top of their buildings. Or under their buildings. Next they will want to fill in the bay. What about that old town Drawbridge? Give it to them, then they can take the train into work. Google needs to think outside of Mountain View.

Stop the madness!

I think high density infill for housing and more parks and open space are all part of the same equation. And if lipstick on a pig helps, I don't mind. Creative use of rooftops for gardens and recreation makes sense to me. What doesn't make sense is walling off Google or adding ANY housing to North Bayshore. It is an environmentally sensitive area that has already been overdeveloped. Sensitive may not be he right word. It is a critical ecosystem that was badly compromised in the 50's and 60's. Fortunately groups like Save the Bay, Committee for Green Foothills, and the Audubon Society have helped us understand the essential importance of marsh lands to quality of life and economic security (freedom from floods) in our area.

We live in an amazing place with incredible protected natural spaces for all to enjoy. Let's continue to protect all that is special while dealing with the inevitable challenges that come with growth and prosperity.

Parks on buildings is very real and most times gives much needed space with views. I keep hearing about how people like their views. A good size roof of 40,000 square foot can house a playground, small shade trees, some tables and maybe a half court of basketball. The High Line in New York City is a good example of making open space out of old railroad tracks.

The cost per acre is so high that buying land is costly and the fund will take money away from building parks.

The other thing is allowing developers to build down to land above can be be used for parks.

Seems a waste of time and money worrying about parks my son had an appointment to see a small house in Sunnyvale, before he could even get there they called him back that so many people interested they raised the price 500.00 dollars. Sign of the times. Mountain View officials haven't a clue of what they are doing. You can include the MVWSD into that category too.