Yeah, it's absurdly difficult to build in 94043 and city council members don't care. I'm looking at you, Lisa Matichak.

FAR ratios are absurdly low (2300 sqft, including garage on a 5400sqft lot). You can only build into 12.5% of your required rear yard. So if you want to add square footage in Monta Loma and actually raise a family here... You have to tear down your Eichler from scratch.

Sunnyvale lets you build into 25% of the rear area. Other cities let you trade rear yard area with open spaces elsewhere in the backyard.

But city council members like Lisa Matichak don't care about making life easier. She even acted insulted that I'd reach out to her about this issue.

And also consider Los Angeles, the original pioneers of the suburbs. You can have a 5000 sqft house on a 5000sqft lot.

But here? If you want a decent house with your family, too bad. 94043 is a prison.

Why don't you sell your prison cell in Monta Loma and move to one of these wonderful cities where you can fill up every inch of green space with your McMansion? I think you'll be much happier there.

I for one am glad that council members are defending the historic nature of our homes and green spaces. I don't need a ton of space to raise my kids and neither do you, and I definitely don't want a giant home looming over my lovely little Eichler.

"consider Los Angeles, the original pioneers of the suburbs. You can have a 5000 sqft house on a 5000sqft lot."

Yes, those infamous Los-Angeles-area building options allowing absentee owners, or buyers newly arrived from distant places (I've been to) where concepts like greenery and privacy were almost unheard-of, and who lacked any concern for the history or sensibilities of the community they were joining, to replace little cottages in quiet beach towns with cubes built to the edge of the property. Eyesores of their neighborhood; extreme square footage; maximal rental return from future tenants who didn't mind living in a blockhouse on a spot that once had front and back yards. I saw it happen many years ago; existing residents there were very reasonably outraged to see the longtime character of their towns savaged for someone's crude crass opportunism.

No one (or almost no one) proposes doing that in Mountain View, but the point is, some restraint is necessary, experience having proven the very real hazards of relying just on decency and taste.

You Love your little Eichler, but you also know there is a nick name for that called Honey Mooner. When the Honey moon is over, families had to move away.

Is forcing families away really the solution, it is close to jobs, the area has lots of potential. Be able to grow it benefit everybody in the community. You have the option to keep your little Eichler if you want but for others should be able to transform the land they own here. This area is not what it use to be in the 50's, simply want to keep it that way is selfish, not considering the dynamic of the economy, and leaving families behind. We don't want monta loma to be a dying community, we want to welcome young and new blood to the area.

I agree some regulation is necessary, but here we are ranked top 3rd toughest place to build. It is more than just some regulations. I urge the city council go with the bigger trends, loosen the regulation, make it simple for people to live and grow in the city.

I'm from a large, dense urban area and the attitude here that you "need" a couple thousand square feet to have a family seems so entitled and dumb.

There are lots and lots of happy families, with 2 or more kids, living in Monta Loma, Rex Manor, etc. in their 1200 square foot houses. No one is being "left behind." Kids share a room, play in the parks, and everyone buys less stuff. The houses use less natural resources, there's more vegetation to absorb the heat, the community has a friendly and uniform look and feel, and nobody has an outsize McMansion blocking out the sun next door.

To me, it's the McMansion proponents who are selfish.

Sounds like he was doing his small part to try and turn MV into Cupertino. I'm VERY glad for MV's building regulations. I'll vote for tighter ones given any chance at all!

The old people seems to have nothing better to do other than troll people on the internet. You've made this place unlivable and forced your kids, and all their childhood friends, to move to Portland.

Fact is, lots of the neighbors in Monta Loma and Rex Manor are noticing that there's a drastic decline in the number of kids. It doesn't matter if you think 1200 sqft is enough, or whatever nonsense. Apparently families have decided that these small homes aren't sufficient. People can decide for themselves what sort of home to build. There's an architectural review committee that can prevent McMansions just fine.

There is a 1.2 million total tear down for sale on Farley. Add a decent house for another million! Yikes! While I am glad I own my house at 94043 I also think it is sad that with 9 dollar toll bridges, more gas taxes, and state that never saw another tax they did not like that I will be forced to retire far away. The traffic is terrible and Mountain View city council keeps building micro apartments. So, let people build what they want to build and need to build for their families... hey if they have the money!