I see on the June 20 City Council agenda the closed session to occur near the end of the meeting. It identifies the corner under negotiation but not the project discussed in the article. What should ORDINARILY happen is the the City Council first consider the project in an open session and then (at the same meeting or a later meeting) consider whether to sell or lease the real property involved and, if so, for what price and with what terms of payment. That way, the project is not discussed secretly in an obscure closed session. Prior approval in open session of such a protect would be subject to reaching a later deal to lease or buy from the City. In this instance, how did the reporter learn about the project? Was it discussed in an earlier meeting or meetings? Is this a case in which the developer wished to know - before spending a lot of money - whether the City might be willing to lease or sell the corner? If so, such a threshold general question should have been placed on the agenda as an open session item.

It is the commenter above, not the process itself, that's confused.

As the article reports, the "closed session" portion was "only to decide on whether to sell or lease the city-owned property." That's standard (required) procedure when negotiating possible sale of city assets.

"Several Old Mountain View residents urged the city to preserve Gateway Park" in public discussion -- BEFORE the closed executive/negotiation portion of the meeting. I don't know about "Another Mountain View Neighborhood," but around the neighborhood most affected (the one where this small park parcel sits), there was advance publicity of this meeting and its comment opportunity on various electronic media, and that's what brought the speakers mentioned in the article above. From one of the advance notices: "As with other closed sessions, there is an opportunity for public comment. The closed session will be held after the open council meeting."

It is very unusual for a closed session item to be publicized. The june 20 agenda contains only the scant information I cited - nothing about the possible or proposed project for the corner. There is always a right by members of the public to address a closed session item before the Council moves to closed sesdion. But in the usual case, the public lacks the information needed to comment usefully. Great that in this one instance there was other notice to some persons.

Nothing re: this project in particular, but I walk by that park often while going from Cuesta Park to downtown and have never once seen anyone (other than a homeless person once) in that park. It's on El Camino and the concrete walls surrounding it seem to make it louder.

What exactly is a "lifestyle hotel"?

This park, whether it is used by the public or not , is a much needed little bit of greenery in what is quickly becoming a town of wall-to-wall construction to the sidewalks. More and more Mountain View is looking like the canyon construction in Redwood City or parts of Sunnyvale.

@MC - Per the article, the developer was going to replace that park with one on a side street. I agree with you in spirit and love our MV parks, but the current park is worthless.

But Cognition Cyclery is not worthless, I am very happy to have them on Castro street. I'm tired of how all our nice buildings and businesses are being razed and replaced with 4- story office bldgs with no amenities at the street level.

Resident: Thank you; I am capable of reading the article in its entirety and understanding what it says. I do not think for one second that the developer replacing the park with one on a side street is in any way equivalent to having a bit of park greenery on El Camino! We all -- drivers, bus riders, pedestrians, bicyclists -- need a break from the relentless expanse of pavement, sidewalks and buildings. Within the last couple of years our city has gone from being a wonderful jewel of a town to one that is seemingly catering to every developer demand. We can never get back what has been lost, but we can make sure that we, not the developers, decide what our city should look like.

@MC: We agree in spirit (and wholeheartedly on changes to MV), I just don't think that green space at Castro & El Camino is worth much. I spent plenty of time at that intersection waiting to cross El Camino and it's loud. There's never anyone sitting there (and why would they?). If there's a more useful space on the other side of the block, then I think it's a good trade.

@Bill: I agree. My comment was expressly limited to that park.

Regardless of the unusual process by which the city council pondered the scenarios of selling or leasing Gateway Park, council members made the absolutely right decision in voting against it. And say what you will about that park in terms of its location and use relative to other downtown parks, but it's been there for decades for those who DO want to use it. It even had a WELCOME TO MOUNTAIN VIEW sign up once -- something one city resident is leading the effort to return to the park. Also, kitty-corner from it, where the new housing is under construction, will be hundreds of new residents who'll want/need some open space, however small, nearby.

Now, the council just needs to apply the same level-headed thinking and foresight to STOP in its tracks the absurd proposal to bulldoze the Tied House and Chez TJ buildings (that would be replaced by an another office building).

City council: Are you listening?

Common Sense: RFC1855 counsels against personal attacks in a thread. Why take the hostility to the Max?