Posted by Doug Pearson, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2012 at 2:54 pm
I thought the original plan (very large, deep basin) was fine and I like the new proposal as well.
I admit I'm not enthusiastic about the History Museum. I think the fake train station, the fake (not really that old) adobe building, and any of several old buildings in the 100 block of Castro St would make better History Museums.
Posted by Chris, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Judging by the article more and more dog owners do not want to use the city dog park, but have their own off leash area in the annex. No wonder the heron has disappeared.
I like both designs a lot, the second one obviously leaves a lot more area for dogs (and kids) to play. The history museum should have never been considered for the Annex, the city has more than one alternate location, I fully agree with Doug Pearson. And Cuesta, looking at the brown unkempt plot of land is really an eye sore most of the year, the water district plan at least puts some thoughts into the natural appearance.
Posted by mimi, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Jan 17, 2012 at 7:00 pm
We have a beautiful area on Shoreline park. It is a walking hazard with geese poop. Dogs are not allowed and geese have taken over . They continue to multiply and very soon there will be more geese than people in the park. My solution to the problem would be to provide homeless, hungry people with recipes for geese that could be simply prepared. There should be no penalty for catching them and dogs definitely should be allowed. I am sure the golfers would approve.
Posted by Next, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 18, 2012 at 2:48 pm
mimi, if we allow off leash dogs to chase geese around, then by default we allow dogs to chase burrowing owls, clapper rails, etc. Besides, they already tried this approached with dogs trained specifically for this task. As you already know, it didn't work.
Posted by PlsRuinMyBackyard, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Once again, the council has chosen to ruin yet another piece of untouched land in Mountain View. Ronit probably would prefer to pave the whole thing over, but unfortunately not able to get that moving.
When will the residents of Mountain View wake up and realize that certain council members want to turn the town into an ultra-high density concrete jungle?
Next election, vote to keep Mountain View beautiful--open space and reasonable density levels.
Posted by father, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2012 at 5:14 pm
I have to agree with Jim Cochran, whose home might be protected downstream? I live near the Park and have not found the vacant lot that important a recreation area for my family. For several decades - it has been an Investment with little Return. ROI is very low. As the Mayor mentioned - this will allow use as a field in the future (but the real city need is 'north of the tracks').
Posted by Ned, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Jan 19, 2012 at 6:08 pm
"To me it's obvious flooding is getting worse, it's getting worse all over the country," said council member Ronit Bryant, expressing concern about climate change. "I don't know why we would be the one place where flooding doesn't occur."
Some one please tell me she didn't actually say that! If she did, what are her sources?
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Jan 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm
I grew up near the annex, i found it to be a open bit of ground with dead or dying trees, kinda of remember trees had fruits I remember stuff that going to built, homes, schools, swimming pool with diving boards, tennis studium, community center and library, a few others i forgot. The Big Lake was something that was kinda of nice that it wasn't build. But this about the annex, large piece of ground, good use as a flood basin, But we neen places for our history, someone walking their do on what I don't know the acres of this ground. I am sure the histroy center doesn't need to build a great big house with halls and etc. A little house closer to the parking lot next to the tennis courts, entry on the side, restroom, place for poop scope bags, water for dogs, dogs can find new stuff to sniff. Not everyone want to walk a dogs, fix some of orchards or have a garden some people will see that and then walk around
Knowing the dogs they would love the attenion that people will give their dogs and the dogs themselfs would love it too
Posted by Rondo, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2012 at 9:06 am
It's time to vote for somebody for City Counsel who actually lives here for longer than ten years and maybe even grew up here. The trend is to convert Mtn. View into a developers dream and pave over any natural landscape. That's why Mtn. View residents are a bunch of carpet baggers or Palo Alto wannabe who can't affortd Palo Alto.
Posted by Ann, a resident of the Blossom Valley neighborhood, on Jan 20, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Congrats and thanks to the 5 council members who voted to plan for the future of more weather extremes, including flooding. The annex is the place for a basin to prevent or reduce damage caused by too much raining coming in too fast. Years ago I attended the early planning design meeting in the event of flooding and was and am a strong supporter for building the basin at the annex.
I was a staffer with the City of San Jose and worked on cleaning up the city after severe flooding back in the early 1990s. That deluge created huge property losses and waste from floodwaters. And had huge financial costs to the city of San Jose and to the people who lived in the way of the flood waters. It is far better to prepare for flooding that to pay money to clean up waterlogged buldings and possessions after a flood. That is a waste of our tax dollars.
Good work and thanks to the Council. This was a long time in coming. Now get it built.