The first three paragraphs of this article brought a smile to my face. You don't usually get excellent imagery like this in a local news article. Nice job in delivering the facts and context in one well-wrapped Christmas package, Mark.

To a perpetual cynic like me, this smacks of Mountain View abusing its permitting process. Isn't this just MV allowing developers to "buy access" to favorable treatment by the city? To me, this smacks of shameless corruption.

Please, council members, learn to say "NO". Every time you work around the general plan, you erode it a little more. You are destroying our city. Really. We are already way out of balance. Transportation infrastructure is probably 50% over capacity and no significant projects at any stage of planning to resolve it. Entertainment options for residents keep being replaced by more housing, but maybe that's okay since we have no time left after commuting.

Thanks Bruce!

As you can tell, I had some fun writing this story.

When did the city council in Mountain View get So much power? Why have a General Plan? Why does just a small group of people get to screw up this city for everyone? If you walk down town in the morning look at how tattered the city is. Dirty sidewalks buildings in disrepair. Maybe we could spend a little money that the building industry SHOULD be giving Mountain View for, Oh I don't know, for power washing and a paint job?

The City Council only has the power the voters give it.

You don't like what the council is doing? Vote for someone else.

Sadly most people don't vote for council. We worry more about President when in reality our City Council has far more control over our day to day lives.

Make Mountain View Great Again!

New I'm thinking the city should stop all new building. Give free permits to homeowners who want to improve or expand their homes. This would give some relief to the housing problem and would benefit residents.

It is a quite struggling for me to buy a house in mountain view. Comparing other people who owns a house, pursing a low density life, I merely want an affordable townhouse or apartment. Please build more.

The city staff is already working on 30 development projects, and the article says they have 2 empty positions. Staff says, "no more now".
Since the City Council decides on the General Plan, they can also use the same judgement to consider changes proposed by the developer or owner. But the main thing to remember is that there are changes coming down the pipeline soon.
Some of those in process are: 650 residences on Pear; 700 residences (double existing) on W. Middlefield; 157 units to replace 71 motel units on El Camino, with another 204 units next door; 583 residents on San Antonio: and next week the Council will consider 644 residences and 20k commercial to replace the Safeway on California.
Lets hope that traffic management can keep up with these changes.

Expand our residences? I would prefer that some new residential units that would be smaller and cheaper (per Zhiyong, above)

This is not a good situation. Here are some ideas:

1) I'm generally very pro-growth, but I'm concerned about the locations of some of these projects. I'm a fan of ABAG's idea of "priority development areas": leave most established neighborhoods alone, and concentrate new development in selected areas.

2) Maybe the developers can give Planning a pay raise so they can fill those vacancies? Specifically, impose a permit fee for gatekeeper projects commensurate with the cost to staff of evaluating them. If it's the same fee for everyone, no risk of corruption.

3) The number of gatekeeper projects points to a deficiency in the general plan. I think it's out of sync with both the real-estate market and Council priorities. Why don't we update it?

4) "the city could investigate 'visioning' for certain neighborhoods to provide a basic template for what city leaders wanted to see developed without the hefty workload of a full-fledged precise plan."
Sounds good to me. Maybe precise plans, are, well, too precise.

1500 rental units along Middlefield between Moffett and Shoreline should be off the table at this time. Not just because of the extra traffic, this city needs more homeownership. You can see it in every report our local realtors send us, condos and townhouses sell at a rapid speed.
Our so called great companies should look at an 'old' concept, have your employees work a couple of days from home. Result: companies need less office space, employees can share desks, employees can live further away, and traffic will be less.
Our neighborhood will be destroyed with all this new development, all we have is one tiny park along Middlefield.
City staff is correct, SLOW down city council, take a deep breath and keep Mtn View livable for us residents.

I wonder what it would take to develop the section of Hetch Hetchy right of way behind the Buddhist temple into a park and bike path.