To paraphrase Merlone Geier "My responsibility is to my investors". What that means it to make the most money at the expense of the community. Developers are worse than used car sales man as they can have a negative impact on a community for generations.

McAlister is worried about corners, and the aesthetics of the proposal??? He should be more worried about the density and traffic. So should all the council members.

Oh no... space for high paying jobs. The kind every community should want. What will we do? Building it in Mountain View means I won't have the chance to take long drives on 101 or 237.

This isn't a problem. It's good.

How can the City Council continue to add more business space without requiring at least the same amount of affordable and below-market housing? Also, they need to require creation of more and better public transportation to prevent greater traffic which is already heavy in the San Antonio Area.

I'm glad to see the Council members be 'all over the place', because city planning to allow development is REALLY, REALLY HARD. I can't myself hold the members who voted on either side up for criticism. This is a very nuanced judgement call - a very hard balancing act. I am however very, very glad that they voted down the first proposal - and forced the developer to come back with 'something better'. That is what a legislative body compromise gets - a close majority vote.
-Here is One for Civic Compromise, done well-

E.S., not to sound crass (this time) or insulting, but to many of us building space for jobs that support good wages is the best way to solve affordability issues.

Did you read the other story on the Voice? Many millions in public funds to save only 44 units or so. What a waste! When was the last time anyone has said, that public housing project has been wonderful? And I'm not against public projects, but I am against repeating ideas with public funds that seemingly have low probability of genuinely solving problems.

Another hideous building dictated by an out-of-town builder and sanctioned by a city council that values dollars signs over quality of life. Yet these are the same people who have the gall to attempt to dictate how LASD can use the site they are purchasing.

This city council creates problems, then pats themselves on the back for coming up another lousy decision to "fix" the problem they caused. Nauseating.

There is a simple word to describe this proposed building: STUPID; and another simple word to describe the rendering: UGLY. The entire city council is being outsmarted by this developer; Mountain View does not NEED ONE MORE SQUARE FOOT OF OFFICE SPACE at this time. It is unbelievably shortsighted to continue building offices when there is such a housing shortage EVERYWHERE in the Bay Area.

Many of us have chosen to live in Mountain View because of the type/size of town it was; if we wanted to live/work in high density high rise buildings we would move to one of thousands of cities around the world, likewise we are not interested in living in a rural area. Why are we being forced to live like rats just because some are greedy (developers) or selfish (more jobs, more jobs = solving affordability issues)??

Why not give our town a bit of time to integrate all the new buildings (both office & residential), traffic, and population demands on city services (water, schools, police, fire, etc) BEFORE adding any more buildings?

Wait, Mountain View gives LASD extremely valuable development rights so they can purchase this San Antonio/California/Showers property for a school, then they turn around and buy back one acre at $20M for a park!? Am I missing something here? Even Trump makes better real estate deals than this.

And as far as the Milk Pail property, I hope Steve Rasmussen got a good retirement out of this, for all the battles over it. I assumed it would eventually be offices, but seven stories and close to 200K sq feet!? The aesthetics of it to bother me too much, as it was run-down before, and I don't understand the complaints about it not being pedestrian-friendly - that ship sailed long ago. It's the density and traffic in the whole area that is a problem. Just wait 'til those apartments going up on Fayette Drive come online.

And yeah, traffic. The City doesn't worry themselves too much about that. And if/when they pretend to care, it's disingenuous, because their actions prove otherwise, again and again. The San Antonio/El Camino area will be total gridlock by the time they're done. I keep thinking none of the council members must live over here or they wouldn't be burdening this already congested area with more density. I was wrong, Ramirez evidently does, but since he recused himself, he can't help block any of this.

Does the MV Council read the news?!!! There were community engagement workshops to vote on what do with Bullis Charter school, and LASD President Jessica Speiser allowed her boss Sangeeth Peruri to ENTER the workshop and pass out Voter Guides INTRUCTING the voters to vote for having Bullis go to the new school at San Antonio.

If LASD has their way, then this means MV Council is giving LASD $100M+ to educate Bullis students, 80% of who reside in Los Altos.

You think the office buildings will cause gridlock?!!! It will pale in comparison to the gridlock that will be caused by the 800+ Bullis students living in Los ALtos - all trying to drive to school at the hours of 8:00 to 8:25. I think we can all forget about using San Antonio as an onramp once the school opens.

I hope they add at least 80 parking spots.....for RV's.

The artist's rendering is deceptive. It would appear to have the sun rising in the north the way the shadows surrounding buildings' shadows are depicted. The council are fools to allow such a large building there. It wall cast a huge shadows across the street on the site of the housing being built on the old Safeway site.

It is ridiculous that Ramirez recused himself. Totally irresponsible! The "conflict of interest" recusal is supposed to be for FINANCIAL conflict of interest! Not because you live nearby to a project!

This idea of a school would be good if LASD were serious about it,
but they are not. It's just a park that is being built on the land
they are buying.

It's pretty good for Mountain View to trick LASD into giving
them $27 Million to pay for a park for the area.....
LASD isn't treating it seriously as a school at all. They
really should relocate the Covington Elementary School
there because half of the kids in that attendance area live
right across the street from the park site, or they will
once the new Greystar project is built and occupied. It's going
to really beef up the number of kids from the Crossings who
currently make up a large portion of Covington.

But LASD still plans to force all 300 of these kids to travel
3 miles away to a school on Foothill Expressway which otherwise
doesn't have enough kids to operate.

I wish the city council would TELL LASD how to use the school.

I look at the illustration and wonder how accurate it is. It seems that the sidewalks and area around trees are far larger in the illustration in comparision to the buildings than in real life. It seems they might even be more than 15 feet wide if this is to scale. At least the streets and sidewalks seems wider, cleaner and more pleasant than any real street corner with such a building ever looks to me in real life.

The size of things should be accurate and typical traffic should be shown along with the current smog and dirt and other things. Real sunlight levels and views would be nice too. And be from a place people would safely and actually stand on the ground.

Just saying...

The article says "Councilwoman Alison Hicks said she was uncomfortable with the amount of office space in the face of the regional housing shortage, as well as with the appearance of the building, but she wasn't ready to deny a project so integral to the school district's plans."

So, MV Council let a monstrosity be built so that LASD can build a school in the former shopping mall that few, if any, parent would want to send their kids to?!

Did LASD threaten to write a nasty letter to MV Council and then cc multiple people in the California legislature if they didn't get their way? You know, just like how they wrote a nasty letter to Santa Clara County about Bullis, making outrageous accusations without close to zero evidence?!

MV Council - please wake up - this is not an entity that negotiates fairly. If you don't do what they say EXACTLY, they will treat you like they have treated Santa Clara County and Bullis. Wouldn't be at all surprised if they end up DEMANDING that MV Council retract the requirement that the new school serve MV students.

One would think it's a fair requirement that contribution of $100M by MV for a school built in Mountain View would serve Mountain View students. One would be wrong. Very wrong. LASD has no intention of serving MV students - check out the news on the Los Altos engagement workshops.

The new school is just a weapon that LASD can use in their never-ending war against Bullis. Sad that MV Council enabled them.

Looks better than some of our buildings on University here in Palo Alto. Just be sure it has enough parking. And nice landscaping.

Why not have some green requirements for whatever is built there- solar panels, roof garden or vertical plant walls, energy efficiency, etc.? So much concrete only adds to the heat in the area, and cities need to start thinking differently about building . How about policies that help the environment, not harm it?