Why on earth more commercial space ?

Many Los Altos residents use the San Antonio corridor to go to their jobs. Many parents will be driving their children to school on San Antonio Rd. The number of cars that will be on that corridor at peak traffic hours will be huge! Hopefully the Mountain View city council will add extra fees to Graystar's cost in order to update the traffic flow that will result from all the residents of the many high rise apartments on both sides of San Antonio Rd that will cause massive traffic jams. The MV City Council is getting Google to pay for the traffic problems on Castro St. They should treat the developers the same way.

We keep adding high rise apartments with zero plans for mitigating the massive increase in traffic that results. What's the plan for handling all the increase in cars? Few residents will actually take caltrain... and those who do still need to drive to get groceries, etc.

Traffic Nightmare:

Given this project's location, many of those trips, like groceries and the like, will actually be doable on foot, so the traffic issues may not be as bad.

It should be twice as tall with double the amount of housing units.

Love the ground-floor retail but was surprised to see only 3 to 5 stories - why so short?
For this amount of land, right next to transit, 8 stories would be perfectly reasonable. It would house plenty of customers for those retail businesses. Walk to Milk Pail or TJoe for groceries, walk to the movies, walk to the gym, walk to Caltrain. Tech offices are also close by, or tech shuttles. If they keep enough trees to make a shaded walkable corridor, neighbors would meet each other and build a community.
Why not make a BIGGER dent in our city's housing-to-jobs deficit?

The architect of these buildings are terrible. They could come up with a better design.

If you want lots of tall buildings, there's always San Francisco or better still Los Angeles....

This project seems just about right to me. Remember, it is replacing active retail along San Antonio Road on the same parcel of land. Those tenants are getting kicked out. A strip mall with easy parking. It's also replacing office space built as part of the Old Mill Condominiums Master Association. I wonder if it meets the conditions of those founding documents CC&R's.

The traffic congestion was already horrible during peak commute hours. It will be grid lock, there is no space to increase road width along that stretch to accommodate an additional influx of traffic. Sorry but seems like a horrible idea. Hard to imagine this used to be such a beautiful area to live in.

No way can that area handle the traffic that they are proposing!
This is an insane plan that will lead to absolute gridlock on San Antonio that is already at 130% capacity during commute.

This city council is only after money and will cut down 220 trees to build concrete and asphalt high rises at the cost of our citizens quality of life!

Shame on you Mountain View. First you strangle the Landlords that offer proper affordable housing throughout your city and then you build monolithic, unaffordable structures while tearing down heritage trees, causing horrendous traffic congestion and pollution. The city is only doing this to line their pockets and pay they're current and past employees (Not even working) their promised pensions.

This will never be built and it is time to say, "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH". We demand a reasonable quality of life and you have an obligation to perform Mountain View.

@ @YIMBY

And if you don't want tall buildings there's always Atherton and Saratoga, places that didn't add tons of jobs without the requisite housing.

Well, it looks like the county of Santa Clara is about to become a defendant in a civil case regarding affordable housing as discussed in this article:

Web Link

Also they proposed fees to provide more affordable housing found here:

Web Link

It looks like the fight is just getting started

I'm a bit disappointed to see so many folks here against new development. I've been living in near San Antonio Center for 2.5 years. What I've seen so far is that (a) we need more housing!, and (b) having abandoned shopping centers sit around for long periods doesn't make a neighborhood attractive. I'm very glad to see this project move forward. If only it were taller, had more housing units, and could be built faster...!

Curt, if you've been living here for 2.5 years then you have to have seen the traffic. There are times when San Antonio is backed up from 101 all the way to Central. That's insane!

STOP THE GROWTH. Businesses need to start moving their offices and people to other areas of the country whose resources aren't so heavily burdened. This thoughtless, incessant growth is all about $$$. Where is the outrage from environmentalists? Where is the outrage from climate change proponents? We have TOO MANY PEOPLE living in this area and yet the middle of the country is wide open with TONS of room, not to mention lots of natural resources, for growth.

STOP THE GROWTH

Hey, mvresident2003, why don't you move to the middle of the country, instead? I think you'll fit in better there, and you'll leave the rest of us who are excited to have new neighbors and don't have any desire to pull the ladder up behind us. Win-win situation, if you ask me.

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

Typical response from LOL, snide comment with no content specific to my comment. @LOL, what about the environment? Do you not care? What about the lack of resources? Do you not care?

The best thing for the environment is to have people live more density. Sprawl creates more carbon emissions. You'd know this if you were actually concerned about the environment, but you're just using it as a cudgel to push for your preferred policy of keeping newcomers away. Again, though, why don't you walk the walk and move out to the middle of the country?

@The Business Man> the civil in civil grand jury means that this is only an independent government report (I read your first link). There is no issue of prosecution or a civil law court case.

Here again @LOL you are not answering my question directly and you are twisting my words. I’m not arguing against density, I am very firmly saying that it should not be here where our resources are already extremely overtaxed. There is NO REASON industry and businesses can’t open up more offices/spaces in areas that can support them. Period.

Honey, the only resource being taxed here is my patience. There's plenty of land, air, and water. On the other hand, if you're so worried, you can help the world by putting your money where your mouth is and moving to the middle of the country. Something tells me you'll be sticking around...

Can I ask you a question[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]?


Why do you want to pile on and densify this area so badly? What's wrong with suggesting that we stop encouraging more and more people to come here? People who haven't ever even been here and who very well would be just as happy living in that "middle of the country" that you scorn so much?

In response to keep it "civil" you said:

“@The Business Man> the civil in civil grand jury means that this is only an independent government report (I read your first link). There is no issue of prosecution or a civil law court case.”

You are not aware that there are new laws that apply to the city because of the “gerand Jury” they were referenced in the following article (Web Link

Specifically:

“Forcing cities to plan for more housing

Every eight years, cities and counties have to plan for enough new homes to meet state projections of population growth. This process, however, has not led to sufficient housing production to meet demand.

Three new laws expand requirements for cities to plan for housing. Assembly Bill 1397 forces local governments to zone land for housing where it could actually go, instead of putting sites they don’t intend to approve in their housing plan. In one example, La Cañada Flintridge rezoned a big box commercial property for apartments or condominiums, but city officials later told residents any new homes on the site would be almost impossible to build.

Senate Bill 166 makes cities add additional sites to their housing plans if they approve projects at densities lower than what local elected officials had anticipated in their proposals. The goal is to make up for the housing units that weren’t built.

Assembly Bill 879 instructs cities to analyze how long it takes developers to actually build their projects once they’ve been approved, and then take steps to shorten that time.

Penalizing cities that say no to housing

The Housing Accountability Act passed in 1982 prohibits cities from saying no to housing projects that meet zoning requirements simply because they don’t like them. But such cases are hard to prove. Three measures, Senate Bill 167, Assembly Bill 678 and Assembly Bill 1515, will beef up the existing law by making it easier for developers to prove a city acted in bad faith when denying a project, and by upping a city’s penalty to $10,000 per unit they rejected.

Assembly Bill 72 gives the state housing department more authority to investigate cities that don’t follow through with their housing plans and refer cases to California’s attorney general for possible legal action.”

So maybe you should reconsider your claim. Anyone can prosecute the City under the private prosecution laws of California now that the Santa Clara Grand Jury found good cause for the Cities of Santa Clara for failure to comply with these new laws.

That’s all I ask?

Sweetie, I have no scorn for the middle of the country; did you forget that you're the one who brought it up as a place to move to? It does raise the question, why don't you take your own advice? "Do as I say, not as I do," huh? People want to live here, we should accommodate them rather than Build The Wall like you want.

Odd that there are so many critical comments about this development of 8.6 acres of land with 70 residences per acre. It's not enough for YIMBY. That's a very weak position. LOL wants more density too. Why? Where's the data? This isn't Omaha. If the same density were imposed on all 7500 acres within the city, the number of residences could be 500,000 and the population could reach 1 Million.

What's the earthly point of pushing for 2 Million instead of 1 Million people living in Mountain View? Both are absurdly high populations. Even if you could convert 1/2 the city into a giant park area, that's still 500,000 people without pushing for 1,000,000 by going to 140 units per acre instead of 70 on the developed half of the city's land.

This is a perfectly fine dense housing development.

The lower density is why Google elected to occupy the city of Mountain View rather than San Jose in the first place. They wouldn't like it if Mountain View outpaced
San Jose in density. You don't want to irk Google, do you?

What data are you looking for? The clearest signal is that houses sell for over $1000 / sq ft. You're right that this isn't Omaha, since it's 1/10th as expensive there, at only $100 / sq ft.

Were this development across the entirety of Mountain View, you might have a point that it's enough. Instead of 500000 residences, though, it's only going to have 623, but thank you for the crash course in "lying with statistics."

Finally, I don't give a whit what Google wants, although I suspect they'd be much happier if they didn't have to pay people so much to live here. I live in Mountain View, and I want people to stop being forced to live on the streets or spend all of their money just to put a roof over their heads.

No one is being forced to live in the streets. Nor does one have to spend all their money to put a roof over their head. Life is about choices. You can choose exactly what you’re suggesting or you can choose to make a choice that might improve your lifestyle. Your choice.

Speaking of choices, sugar, why haven't you made the choice to live in the middle of the country? You think it's great advice for everyone else, but you yourself won't do it. There's a word for people like that...

I’m glad you think I’m so sweet :). I choose not to live in the Midwest because I have a job and can afford to live here. But if my job didn’t pay enough I would certainly make that choice. How about you?

Ah, so it's that you believe living in Mountain View should be a luxury reserved for only the wealthy. Adding to that the fact that you want to keep it that way by "stopping the growth," it sounds like you're the one that has scorn for the middle of the country. After all, it's where you think all the people who can't afford to live here should go, but you, with the wealth and choice, would not choose to go there unless forced to by circumstance. Thank you for clarifying, darling.

What difference does it make that land costs mean houses sell for high prices. Denser development depends both on land cost and on construction costs. Construction costs have nothing to do with scarcity. Construction costs account for the bulk of that $1000 per square foot figure. In a dense development there is a cost for the extra fortification needed in a multistory building due to earthquakes.

When land goes for $10 Million per acre, a single family home on 5,000 sq ft of land starts off with a $1.1 Million floor to its cost, because of the land cost. But land in some areas goes for $20 Million per acre, so that becomes $2.2 Million for the land cost component. Construction costs are lower for wood frame single story construction, and a lot of the local supply has only 1500 sq ft of construction on the property. As often as not, new houses squeeze townhouses onto a smaller foot print, but that then increases the construction cost. But the cost of houses bears not so much correlation to the cost of apartment creation. Take the Greystar project. 8.6 acres of land are worth $150 Million according to the school district. That's low due to their posturing. It's really worth more. Even at that value though, each of those apartments has a land cost of $240,000 with probably under 1000 sq ft, so $240 per ft of land cost, figuring on the low side.

Those are expensive buildings they are constructing. It's easy to believe that the cost fully loaded with all the soft costs is $600 per foot. Keep in mind that the units have gas ranges! There are tons of amenities like rooftop decks, gyms, pool, pet areas, etc. All of these costs have to be loaded onto the cost of the rentable square footage that can generate revenue. The remainder is the developer's profit. Scarcity could be what allows the developer to make a 15% profit, but you won't affect the cost much more than by squeezing that small part. And if the profit gets too low, there will be no development.

There's a lot of ignorance that goes into arguing for increasing density as a way of reducing costs. Say you increase the density and spread the cost across more units. You'd be really pushing it to double the unit count. So then the land cost would go down by $120 per foot. You'd have a 14 story set of buildings. Can you really say that the cost to construct would not go up by more than $120 per rsf if you go from a 7 story building to a 14 story building? You're going to have lots of added steel in such a building to support the extra stories. You have no hope of using wood frame construction in any of the buildings. The whole construction period is going to be way longer, with more skilled engineers and construction workers.

Then there's the fact that the land across California Avenue which allows for 25% more rsf per acre goes for 20% more. The land cost would be higher if this location was zoned for more units.

It's pure ignorance to argue that the density should increase to cut the rental price of the apartments.

I didn't realize you thought we were dating HONEY, sorry but I'm definitely not interested. But yes, if I couldn't afford to live here I'd make the smart choice to move somewhere more affordable.

ResidentSince1982, thanks again for showing us how lying with statistics works. Let's do a thought experiment to expose your nonsense: if increasing density will increase prices, why won't decreasing density lower prices? If we increase minimum lot sizes to 1 acre, would housing in Mountain View become more affordable? Are we just so lucky to be in the global minimum of density vs price?

mvresident2003, my dear, why can't you say outright that you believe the only people who should be allowed to live in Mountain View are the wealthy? As you say, anyone too poor should move out, and we shouldn't reduce housing prices. Rather than pretending you have some environmental concern, just be honest with us.

Why haven't you EVER been able to explain why it's OK to overtax our resources? Explain why we should encourage more people to live here when we're rationing water and sitting in traffic spewing fumes in the air because there's no infrastructure here for the amount of people and businesses that keep coming?

Why is that OK?

I pointed out that the best you can do is to squeeze the developers' profits, and that there is a limit on how far that can go while still keeping them interested. I didn't say that increases to density increase costs overall. Specifically I illustrated how the land cost goes down as a fraction of total cost with increased density. However, I pointed out that construction costs increase and asked the question about how much that destroys the savings from land cost. It's all a fine balancing act, but substantially that figure of a cost of $1000 per foot is not much affected by changing the density. It's a question of not much change rather than one of having the opposite of the desired effect. Construction costs go up as land costs go down on a per unit basis with respect to increasing density. Developers have a much harder time raising construction financing for the larger projects. The finance rate will be higher and that's another increase to the cost for the larger projects. There are a host of other factors that vary cost-wise between 70 units per acre and 100 units per acre too.

What I said was that people who simple mindedly say increase density to cut prices are ignorant of all these factors. Questioning a project that adds 623 units on 8.5 acres of land is indeed the classic case of looking the gift horse in the mouth. This is the type of project that should be welcomed by those seeking more units, not pessimistically greeted with a "coulda been bigger" response.

mvresident2003, if you let a few moments of critical thought to go through your head, you'd realize sitting in traffic is a direct result of our sprawl. Reducing sprawl reduces traffic, which is why environmentalists are in favor of density. But you don't really care about that, it's just a useful talking point for you to make Mountain View into your own private country club. As was said earlier, really the only thing overtaxed here is my patience.

Reducing sprawl reduces traffic? Really? Been to manhattan lately? Hong Kong? That’s a lame argument and you STILL have not answered my question. What is wrong with encouraging growth in other areas that would welcome the prosperity, the work opportunities? Areas where they haven’t had opportunity or growth? Why is California so selfish to keep all this here?

Follow the $. It’s all about the $

Yet again, if you put that silly brain of yours to work for a second, or just listened to environmentalists, you'd be able to figure this out. Vehicle Miles Travelled per person per day in NYC and HK is about 9 and 13, respectively, less than half of those in the Bay Area metros.

It is really cute to see you try to cast your pulling up the ladder behind you as some sort of selflessness, "encouraging growth in other areas." I do like the idea of following the money, though. How much has the value of your house increased thanks to the housing crisis? Money that's been put into your pocket due to nothing you did. Preventing high density housing will put even more into your pockets. Thanks for the hint, seems pretty clear now that I've followed the money. I didn't quite realize that you were speaking personally when you said "it's all about the $."

Ever answer a direct question much?

Yeh, didn't think so

I'm glad to see you've reached the last resort of someone unprepared to face logic and reason: close your eyes and wish away the arguments.

But we all can follow the money, as you requested, and it points right at you :)

Re: "Why is California so selfish to keep all this here?"

Well, the state government does seem to be trying pretty hard to drive businesses out of California. Texas seems to be the main beneficiary, but businesses are also fleeing to Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and a number of other states.

Is that supposed to be a good thing?

@LOL I know, right? I keep closing my eyes thinking this is worse than trying to rationalize with a toddler but it keeps coming back!

@Darin, yes, there are definitely a lot of businesses leaving due to State policy however we need more than that. We need controlled and planned growth, we need politicians that aren't just thinking of $ from developers but how do we rally move forward as a community, as a viable, enjoyable place to live and we need people who can make hard decisions and not just "feel good everyone gets what they want" promises.