Why would this city council think that they know anything about developing a hotel, or developing anything for that matter. Look at the history of projects in the area where cities have picked "master developers" to build out areas in the manner dictated in minute detail by the planning department. Delays, bankruptcies, massive change from the original plans, extra expense and lost revenues.
Zone the property and sell to the highest bidder.

Neither of these options fit what the citizens chose in the plan for our city. If neither suitor wants to build according to what we have already decided, it is time to look for another.

If the city retains control of the property, which it should, it ought to produce the following:

* living wages for employees and the opportunity to have unions represent the people working there
* parking that is below ground.. and not another "walled off" sidewalk like the new office buildings built downtown
* instead of new office space nextdoor, how about "low income" housing which really means 'normal' rents like $2k for a 2BR instead of $5k
* retail on the sidewalk level so that the sidewalk is inclusive of pedestrians and the rest of the city
* no amplified sound on the roof in order that the neighborhood is not intruded upon.. we have Shoreline AMPatheater for AMPlified sound and plenty of parking over there for that
* an integrated hotel with the rest of the city, where people of all incomes benefit

The current design in the photo looks like a fortress, and doesn't work on a human and walking level. The city should work for residents not for some developer who doesn't live here or care about what resident's lives are like.

" living wages for employees and the opportunity to have unions represent the people working there"

This will send costs through the roof. Best not to use Unions.

If you want normal rents, I suggest you build it yourself Mary. And see how much your ROI will be.

The developer should have insurance or a bond that guarantees they'll finish what they start. Don't end up like Sunnyvale.

Mark/Mountain View Voice:

Did the presentations disclose how much revenue the City would collect from ground leasing the parking lots? And how it compares with the market rate?

In what world do we pay private businesses to take our incredibly valuable land? I'm fine with raising height limits, but these guys are laying out ridiculous starting positions on the bargaining board, and they can spin on it. There are dozens (housing) of better (housing) uses (housing) for that land (housing) if they don't want to take the (housing) deal they're offered (housing).

@ SRB

The land lease for the hotels wasn't a big topic of discussion, but it did come up a couple times. City staff made clear that Mountain View would offer the property for a 55-year ground lease, but I don't recall any dollar amounts being mentioned.
R.D. Olson didn't ever bring up the lease details. The Robert Green Company indicated they wanted a 4-year extensions on top of the 55-year lease with any increases tied to the CPI.
I've got to ask my landlord for a similar deal...

I love the concept of a rooftop patio that is open to the public. Bring the mountain view back to Mountain View.

I'm not convinced we need so much office space along with the plan, but I appreciate both of these visions. Good luck with your decision City Council.

@ Mark Noack

Refreshing to know that some developers support rent control in Mountain View .... when they're the beneficiaries.

So how do I become an arrogant, self-entitled millennial, tech-savvy traveler?

Should we save this space for a parking structure in the future?

If California High Speed Rail is built, and if Mountain View is chosen as the train stop, there will be no enough parking for the train station.

The site is ideal for building a fee-collecting parking structure. The return on investment may be much better than a hotel. It looks like that the City has to pitch in to help the developer to build a hotel. But the tax it will collect is not that great.

The value of the land is in the tens of millions. The net revenue, minus subsidies and other running costs, from a hotel project is only low-single digit percentage point return on the asset, for the next 55 years. That is abhorrent from investment point of view.

I think they asked for 4 ten year extensions, not a four year extension.

Reading next week's city council agenda, it looks like the City has chosen Robert P. Green and its 50,000 square feet of office on one of the public lots.

The city council should not foist an unwanted union on the contractors. No employee should be forced to pay dues to an unwanted union despite California not being a right to work state.

Thanks to the unions, most all of our manufacturing jobs went over seas.

So I agree, they were much needed in the early 1900, but today no.