LOL.

LOL again. What frail village Los Altos is that it can't make room for 15 more families.

Housing is needed through out the Bay Area. Los Altos is part of the Bay Area so Los Altos needs to step up and help solve the problem.

WOW,

If this case does get decided in favor of the housing advocates, this will put a lot of burdens on the City of Mountain View. Given that the city has not yet acted in compliance with the new laws as described in this article.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

THe new state laws are in effect being resisted by many cities. Especially the ones made enforceable as of Jan 1, 2019 which include incusionary housing and no "net-loss" affordable housing requirements to all of the cities of California.

THe State of California is tying to fix the problem in steps. The state will if met by further resistance, create even more drastic laws that will further remove city government descretion because all citizens of California must be treated alike no matter where they live. It is long past time that theses cities and developers start cooperating to prevent this.

Mountain View is one of the more progressive cities on the peninsula. Drive along El Camino Real and you see dozens of multi story apartments being built. Sunnyvale has done the same. Now we need Los Altos to step up.

It would be helpful to know what the other components of the contested project were.

If office, how many square feet? Current metrics put one worker for every 150 to 250 square feet (where 250 square feet is rare for new or renovated construction). If the project includes 100,000 square feet of office, then we should expect between 400 - 660 new employees on a parcel that adds 15 new homes.

If the construction mandate petitioner claims “residential parking is residential square footage,” then is the parking area for the other uses counted in the remaining 2/3rds ratio of “non-residential square footage”?

@an opinion, you seem to think a housing law shouldn’t worsen the housing shortage by dragging in hundreds of workers from Tracy and Stockton to fill the excess jobs this sham of a project would bring in? And read the comments, can’t make room for 15 units of housing, people really need to wake up and see an office development for what it is: a developer’s cash cow. And along comes Build Baby Build CaRLa to bumble around suing people when San Francisco drags in 165,000 workers from places far and wide every day...they need to find a fix for their own back yard and stop making it worse while hiding behind sloppy laws which are abused for office builds.

I see SB 35 as State legislation drafted for the specific benefit of the wealthiest global investors and marketed as "housing law".

This article was published on 7/28/2019 at 8:48 am with no details other than the project is "mixed use" with 15 housing units and proposes building heights of 66 feet on a parcel zoned for a maximum building height of 30 feet. As presented here, we have no way of knowing how many jobs will be created relative to the number of housing units.

It's a glaring omission to describe only the housing component of any "mixed use" development proposal. I hope the Mountain View Voice Editorial Board permits the journalist to republish the article with all the facts.

Or, if "Housing Advocates File Suit Against Los Altos for Blocking Project" is a sponsored post, then include the proper disclosures so readers aren't unknowingly investing time trying to make sense of a press release when they are expecting fair and balanced journalism.

They whine and complain about building too much in Los Altos, but they have no problem when they proposed a charter school, that has been fighting for space for years in Los Altos, to set-up shop here in Mountain View. There's already too much construction here, with much of it housing.

Time for NIMBYs in L.A. to start taking on their share of dense, affordable housing and lose the fantasy of Los Altos being a "quaint village" at a time when there are so many homeless who are in that situation by no fault of their own.

"Posted by an opinion
a resident of another community
1 hour ago

I see SB 35 as State legislation drafted for the specific benefit of the wealthiest global investors and marketed as "housing law"."


Then you need to take the blinders off and look at all the families living in motor homes or even in the streets.

The cost of housing is far outrunning that of income. This is no get-rich scheme, but I can see how the well-to-do in exclusive towns with strict development rules might use such an excuse to keep "undesirable" people out....You know those undesirables....People like those with limited incomes.....The poor, to be specific.

Don't want any of THEM around L.A....it would ruin the "quaint, village-like" atmosphere, right?

Nauseating. Forcing towns to build when the resident don't want it. The "progressives" have no problem forcing others to their will, yet complain that every conservative is a "fascist" for doing what the people want. Crazy.

In case you missed it, this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If the people in Los Altos see the hot mess that is now Mountain View, with soulless highrises, overcrowding and traffic, and decide they don't want any part of it, they should be allowed to opt out. That's why we have different towns and states.

Liberals won't be happy until everybody is forced to suffer under their oppressive rules. If one town is ruined by their stupidity, then, by God, all towns should have to suffer. Ignorance and tyranny of the majority.

I suppose once California becomes a complete pit, the liberals will finally be happy. Since anyone with any money and a little common sense will flee eventually, that time should be soon.

@Steved
If you want to be "fair", then you should back building a school in MV. MV and its drive to overbuild the area, especially the area that falls within the LASD borders, should provide another school for the children they are bringing in.

Try putting your money where your mouth is. You want to build housing? Fine, then provide the SERVICES to go with it, and that includes schools.

It's a package. Add 15 homes and some number of jobs (still not specified in this article) in excess of 15 and the demand for housing exceeds what the rejected project would have built. And, with the statewide requirement to build 15% below market rate housing units (and no more than 15%), at best, the project would have added 2 new BMR units to Los Altos.

I don't dispute the 2 new units are needed and necessary for the individuals or families who would have lived in them. But, on balance, any jobs created in excess of the total housing units included in the project make the regional housing shortage worse.

In response to psr you said:

“Nauseating. Forcing towns to build when the resident don't want it. The "progressives" have no problem forcing others to their will, yet complain that every conservative is a "fascist" for doing what the people want. Crazy.”

WOW. You went way overboard claiming progressives call ALL conservatives “fascists”. This just seems like you are trying to provoke a conflict and not discuss the real problems regarding housing. You said:

“In case you missed it, this is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. If the people in Los Altos see the hot mess that is now Mountain View, with soulless highrises, overcrowding and traffic, and decide they don't want any part of it, they should be allowed to opt out. That's why we have different towns and states.”

Unfortunately, if you want to get the benefits regarding the economic power of being a part of Silicon Valley, there is no way to avoid having to provide the affordable housing resources established by the ABAG RHNA study found here (Web Link Los Altos has an unmet need of 169 very low income housing and 99 low income housing. Mountain View is in more serious situation they need 814 very low income housing and 492 low income housing units. So this simply must be done, if not done, the state will be forced to make more drastic laws to force affordability in housing you said:

“Liberals won't be happy until everybody is forced to suffer under their oppressive rules. If one town is ruined by their stupidity, then, by God, all towns should have to suffer. Ignorance and tyranny of the majority.”

No this is just unbelievable to see someone state. Using religion as a weapon and not providing any means to work to resolve the affordability housing problem. The fact is that those cities have exploited the shortage of housing to establish a method to prevent those they consider “undesirable” into their communities. They are against anyone that is not in “their league” it isn’t just “race”. You said:

“I suppose once California becomes a complete pit, the liberals will finally be happy. Since anyone with any money and a little common sense will flee eventually, that time should be soon.”

Again, what an “elitist” attitude. Simply saying you are not even trying to work on the problem. Your opinion, “I win only if I only win. Any situation which allows for all to win means I lose.” This is the mindset of people like Donald Trump.

Why does it have to be like this?