Town Square

Post a New Topic

200 apartments proposed for Castro and El Camino

Original post made on Apr 19, 2013

In a long-sought redevelopment, a four-story apartment building with retail on the ground floor may soon go up at the corner of Castro Street and El Camino Real, replacing a dozen businesses, including the Rose Market and Peet's.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, April 19, 2013, 11:23 AM

Comments (102)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Apr 19, 2013 at 1:05 pm

Because we all know you just can't have enough new apartment complexes! And stadiums!

Who needs road expansion, grocery stores, schools, parking, police and fire, and other infrastructure to support all this new growth?

And you thought Castro was too crowded and lacked sufficient parking!

Build away! Thanks SO much MV City Council! Who paid you off?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mimi
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm

Noooooooo! Those shops are absolute gems. We can't lose them!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by pack 'em in
a resident of another community
on Apr 19, 2013 at 2:30 pm

I agree with you Frank! Why do we keep building homes for people that we cannot support!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Helen
a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 19, 2013 at 2:38 pm

I have lived in Mountain View all my life and love it here. I am not a home owner and since Google has been here the rents have escalated to the point of riciculousness and out of control. What we need is more afforable housing not expensive complexes that the average working person can afford.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rossta
a resident of Waverly Park
on Apr 19, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Rossta is a registered user.

Let's see, we have been focused on trying to calm traffic on this section of Castro after several students were hit by cars, right? Now we want to add 200 apartments here? That is a hugely significant amount of additional traffic! Last time I checked, El Camino Real is no picnic during commute time either, unless you consider that it is stopped so you could get out and have a picnic.

This is a long way from the transportation hub so often cited as where we want our high density housing. This is not the right place for this use. Development here should maintain the current retail use on the ground level, though that won't save those businesses that would be displaced during construction.

On a practical level, much of this site provides the parking for a larger area including Frankie, Johnny, & Luigi's restaurant. And the alleyway provides an important connection for backtracking on El Camino without making two lefts or a left and a u-turn. That needs to be maintained.

Council members, please stop representing ABAG and their desire for Mountain View to house 140,000 or so people. Represent those of us already here, please. Thank you Jac, for opposing this. Ronit, do you think the Rose Market would be allowed back here with their delicious grill if this is redeveloped? Why would you support this?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Dla
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Why, why, why take away a wonderful coffee place, which has a decent amount of room for groups to meet, as well as the Rose Market and one of the best places in town to get a garment altered?? All of this without having to fight or hassle for a parking place! And, you want to take away overflow parking for Frankie, Johnnie & Luigi's which we use all the time because they are so busy. The city is already building living space above retail at the new shopping center on El Camino and San Antonio. Leave this area alone...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OMV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2013 at 3:05 pm

As someone who lives just a few blocks from this site, I welcome this potential development so long as it is done in a smart way. By smart, I mean that it should have at least as much retail space as it is replacing, and it should be required to improve the street corner to make it easier to cross, perhaps by putting in one of those 'curb extensions' we see pictures of in other cities. (The city put in a temporary one on Calderon near Mercy, but I'm not sure why they've been so timid in installing these around the city.)

This is just the kind of development that would create more energy on that corner, with more people walking and supporting the restaurants and businesses nearby. That would certainly be an improvement over the vacant lot that's on the corner now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ella
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 3:25 pm

If we keep making areas denser, we NEED to keep the businesses within walking distance -- and make walking and bike riding safer.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Here we go again
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm

City Council wanting to build on every square inch of land. By the time I die this will be New York city. Such greed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Apr 19, 2013 at 3:55 pm

Has the City Council considered where all these new residents' kids are going to go to SCHOOL?

We have the same problem in Santa Clara - tons of new apartments, and that behemoth Mansion Grove has been adding yet more buildings. The problem is the schools are already overloaded, and with school funding dramatically cut (thank you Sacramento!) they are laying off teachers and cutting programs like music. Class sizes are exploding - like 40-to-one.

So again, City Council - where are these kids going to go to school?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Small business shopper
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 3:56 pm

I cannot believe that the city wants to genericize more of Mountain View. Isn't the project on San Antonio/El Camino enough? Perhaps a better location for this proposed redevelopment would be the empty lot on Phyllis/El Camino, no businesses harmed there. Or the empty car lots? Or the empty ice cream stand? There are other places. I enjoy shopping or dining at all of the places the city wants to redevelop because I think they provide worthwhile services. No one mentions the rug store, it has excellent rugs and friendly service.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Parent of school-aged child
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 4:02 pm

It's obvious that the city of Mountain View has no regard for school capacity. They won't give the Los Altos school district land for a new school, meanwhile, they keep approving more homes/apts/condos north of El Camino without allowing space for a local school for these kids.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Befuddled
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2013 at 4:24 pm

I'm really at a loss to figure out why we need to replace some of the older buildings that cater to local businesses with these complexes that are filled with high end rental units and generic chain stores. Why get rid of Rose Market, the tailor and the sushi place? And this is a nice large Peets that's a great meeting place. The city council seems to have its own agenda. Some commenter said "who paid them off." I used to think such comments were hyperbole but something sure smells funny. This current city council never met a project it didnt like. And Ronit Bryant and all the others that make noises about local businesses actually don't vote in favor of local businesses when the chips are down. Things are rotten in the state of Mountain View.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 19, 2013 at 4:55 pm

A business, especially a long-time business, should merit its existence by economics, not by nostalgia. New business replacing the old, if conducted fairly by market force, is just normal progress. If they can afford the rent in the new building, I'm sure they will be welcome.

That corner of El Camino has been quite a sight. I saw quite a few business went bust there. Last I remember was a dollar shop. People had tried to re-use the old. But it just didn't work. It's time for something new, and better.

As for who will want to live so close to El Camino? Market will decide. Given that so many houses have been built in recent years along the much busier and noisier 101, I think the market says lots of people don't mind.

This is a premium location. The City did the right thing to encourage build-out there. Mountain View will be much better off.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 19, 2013 at 5:05 pm

Hmmmmm, wondering where the comment I posted last night went? I do not believe the content violated the TOU?

Posted by MVResident67, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, 18 hours ago

It seems like every week I read about yet another apartment development proposal that is up for discussion, and this week it's not different...

A four story, 200 unit development on the west side of El Camino Real seems inappropriate in scale as it relates to the neighborhood around it. Not only will this project take away parking from the always busy Frankie, Johnny & Luigi's but it would also mean the loss of several local businesses, including the very popular Rose Market and Peet's Coffee. Perhaps more importantly, this project appears as if it would sit directly behind single family (and mostly single story) residences, taking away open sky and a fair amount of privacy, while adding parking problems, noise, significantly more traffic and most likely negatively impacting the actual "neighborhood" that currently exists around the site of this proposed development.

Please, PLEASE, City Council, take a breath and don't just rubber stamp this project. While the space along that corner might be zoned for mixed use, look at the neighborhood that this project will be sitting on top of...it's a quiet residential neighborhood.

We might not be big developers, but we are tax payers, too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tommygee54
a resident of Rex Manor
on Apr 19, 2013 at 5:11 pm

This area set aside for those new apartments and retail is a STUPID idea. This area already has lots of traffic. This will add to the existing problems at this spot...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kidding?
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 19, 2013 at 5:26 pm

200 Apartments?!?! Are you kidding? What's that, 400+ more people and 400 more cars? On that corner? And this is where they're talking about reducing a lane?

Someone pinch me...I hope this is a bad dream.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 19, 2013 at 6:21 pm

Looking at the City Council agenda for the April 23rd meeting and I notice the first item on the agenda is a closed session meeting with the developer, Greystar Group, to discuss the terms of sale and/or lease of property, followed by agenda item 4.3:

"Adopt AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW FOR
THE PROPERTIES AT 865 AND 881 EL CAMINO REAL EAST, FROM THE CRA
(COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL-ARTERIAL) DISTRICT TO THE P
(PLANNED COMMUNITY) DISTRICT."

Not only does it look like this project will be getting rubber stamped with ease, it seems as if it's on a fast track.

City Council, please, please, LISTEN to the residents of Mountain View, the people who vote for you, the people who pay your salaries. Where will the driveways accessing this development be located? What happens if/when Castro Street is narrowed down to ONE lane in each direction, which is one proposal being studied right now as a result of THREE children being struck by cars around Graham Middle School this year? How about a traffic impact study? How about a parking study? What about the impact to the surrounding residential neighborhood with many one story, single family homes, homes which will now exist in the shadow of a FOUR story 200 unit apartment development?

City Council seems to either no be hearing what the residents of Mountain View are telling them or, they just don't care...which is it?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Shocked MV Resident
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 6:38 pm

CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS!!!!
DO NOT APPROVE 200 APARTMENTS at the corner of Castro and El Camino!!

What are you doing???
The traffic and congestion would be terrible and the great beloved neighborhood stores will all be gone!!!
Don't sell that piece of land to these developers, PLEASE!!!

That is a terrible idea! I and my neighbors will not vote for any of you who votes for this project!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Observer
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2013 at 6:42 pm

Welcome to Manhattan View.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 19, 2013 at 7:08 pm

"This current city council never met a project it didn't like."
Word is out in the developer community-come to Mountain View and get what you want rubber stamped.

The mess on San Antonio & EC just opened up. Old Safeway site
will be developed with high end\high density apartments. And yes everyone who moves into the apartments will have cars.

Residents/Citizens are powerless to stop it.

Welcome to Mountain View indeed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by High School Way Neighbor
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 19, 2013 at 7:11 pm

Count my protest too. I use the tailor all the time. I love walking to Rosť Market and Peet's. please don't kill these gems. They are part of what makes this a great walking town.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:04 pm

Let's make it a park! With beautiful trees, lawn, bench, kids playground, and maybe a small artsy house for a coffee and convenience store. Wouldn't that be nice?

I'm sure many would have no problem with that idea. That's what happened when Pumpkin Patch was sold. The neighbors had the audacity to propose having it turned into a community park. The problem is, this is America. We respect property rights and free market economy. The tyranny of the majority do not always win.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Doug Pearson
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Wow! There are a LOT of comments on this article. Unlike most of the comments, I have no objection.

I do have a nit to pick with Rossta, who said, "This is a long way from the transportation hub so often cited as where we want our high density housing."

I say it's not great but not that bad as a transportation hub.

The 22 and 522 VTA bus lines operate frequently on El Camino Real from Palo Alto to Eastridge in San Jose and both stop at Castro. The 51 VTA bus line operates some buses DeAnza College to Moffett Field and other buses Mountain View High School to Moffett Field; the 52 line operates Foothill College to Mountain View Transit Center. Both buses stop at Castro/El Camino and the Mountain View Transit Center, but unfortunately both operate infrequently, daylight hours only, Monday through Friday only.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fewer units?
a resident of Rex Manor
on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:18 pm

Housing in that area could be good, but does it have to be so many??? 200 units sounds insane! Maybe 50-60 would be a better use of the space? And the stores there should not be touched, or have the same space as they do now. I love those shops.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nick
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 19, 2013 at 9:47 pm

The Council is very two-faced. They want a "walkable" Mountain View, but are now ready to ditch some of the most walkable and popular businesses we have like Rose and Peet's. And Jac finally admits that no one wants to sit outside on El Camino and breathe the exhaust, yet he wants it to be this "Grand Boulevard"? Can't have it both ways!

Why approve so many apartment projects, and yet not allow a simple Chick-Fil-A? I don't get their logic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2013 at 12:33 am

There have been several articles coming out recently saying that the number one threat to California's economy is the ridiculous cost of living. This is directly attributable to the NIMBYs (several of them even posting here) which want to stop any new housing from being built. Its an "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" mentality, and they really should be ashamed of themselves.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Right/Wrong
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2013 at 2:10 am

City Council & Staff please exercise: common sense is right but lack of common sense is wrong, at least in my intrpretation of definitions. Lack of common sense seems to have taken the upper hand in most development projects the past few years. More apts. more auto traffic seems to be your plan; more housing, less parking. And, yes, Manhattan View which we now have at ECR & San Antonio with buildings built almost to the curb of traffic. Big fortress types of buildings to block the Mountain View and now more buildings to infringe upon private residences. Narrow the streets, build more high-rise, bring in more traffic at overly congested areas and forget about the parking for customers who will be unable to find parking in order to patronize businesses. Common Sense!! Please exercise common sense rather than just thinking of filling the pocket book with developers $$$$$. For 55 years I have watched this area grow and displace many desirable well appreciated businesses. Are you in a contest to make Mountain View the largest, most congested, and a less desirable place to live? We are already stepping on others toes, racing through parking lots & causing accidents to find a parking spot. We are already losing too many of our children & adults due to street safety with some of it due to the high rise of fortresses.

Plese carefully think and study, using common sense, before you force something upon we taxpayer-citizens who relish safety and the privacy of our space. The developers don't care and it appears that our City Council doesn't care about needs & desires of current residents. Please prove me wrong; prove that you do care by making the right, common sense decision --slow down big apt. developments.
In the next cycle, as in several past years, there will be many vacant apartments, condos and other rentals. At that time the then City Council will wonder how you, the current Council, allowed this to happen--over-building of rentals.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Nice
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Apr 20, 2013 at 8:40 am

Please No Section 8 tenants allowed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Chick-fil-haaay!!!
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2013 at 8:59 am

Yet, the city council won't approve a drive thru fast food chain, because it's environmentally unfriendly. Ridiculous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 9:34 am


I urge EVERYONE who can make it, to attend the next City Council meeting -- which is scheduled for Tuesday, April 23rd @ 6.30PM in Council Chambers -- and voice your opinion on this matter directly to City Council.


From the city government website:

Addressing the Council

"Citizens may address the Council on items included in the agenda or on topics that are not included in the agenda. Items on the "Consent Calendar" are not discussed individually but are approved as a group with one motion. If a citizen wishes to speak on an item on the Consent Calendar, he or she may come to the podium at the time announced by the Mayor and request that the item be pulled. If an item is pulled, it is considered after the Consent Calendar items are voted upon. Anyone wishing to address the Council on a non-agenda item may do so during the "Oral Communications" part of the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak one time on any number of topics for up to three minutes.

In Public Hearings, an oral report is often first presented by City staff followed by questions from the Council. After this, the Mayor opens the hearing.

Speakers are requested to fill out a blue card available at the rear of the Council Chambers and deposit it at the podium when they come forward to speak; this is to assure that names and cities of residence are accurately recorded in the minutes. Remarks should be limited to three minutes. If a large group wishes to express its views, it is more effective to have one spokesperson."

more...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 9:49 am

@ Robert,

I don't know how you could possibly interpret the bulk of the comments here voicing concern over this particular proposed development as "...NIMBYs (several of them even posting here) which want to stop any new housing from being built. Its an "I've got mine, screw the rest of you" mentality, and they really should be ashamed of themselves." ???

If you read thru the comments carefully I think you will find that most of the concerns about this project are over the SIZE and SCOPE of the proposed development, not necessarily the fact of the development.

Peace.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2013 at 10:01 am

Let's build an oversize dense high rent apartment complex in YOUR backyard.
Personal attacks to the city councilaside, the election was the time to throw out the incumbents, they were reelected with ease. So going the city council for public comments is a waste of time.
It's a done deal behind closed doors. Developers have ownage, residents pay the bill.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 10:15 am

@ John,

Regardless of whether or not this development proposal is a "done deal", I think it is important to have the concerns and/or objections noted on the record.

Happily, City Council terms are only 4 years, so come election time not only do we - the residents of Mountain View - have the power to change the complexion of City Council, we can actively campaign against particular Council members if we so desire.

My comments are not "threats" of any kind, rather my comments are meant to remind not only the City Council, but the people who elect the Council members to represent us - the residents of MOUNTAIN VIEW - that we do, in fact, have a voice and the power to change the complexion of City Council, and I believe it's important to remember that fact.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Frank
a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2013 at 10:22 am

Once again, emotions aside - has the City Council talked about what they are doing to support high-density housing? Has anyone discussed the impact on the infrastructure - roads, schools, shopping, parking?

Can the police and fire and other public service support all these new residents?

Where are the kids going to go to school? Where are people going to do their grocery shopping?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 10:23 am


@ John,

I realize you did not say "threats" but rather you said "Personal attacks to the city councilaside". I would go back and edit my post if I could. My bad.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 10:29 am

@ Frank,

I believe all of your questions are good ones. I hope you will consider attending the City Council meeting on Tuesday, April 23rd and asking your questions directly to City Council.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Email Council
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 20, 2013 at 11:05 am

Many are not comfortable (or don't have time) to attend Council meetings. Here's an email to use to express your thoughts:

citycouncil@mountainview.gov


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Apr 20, 2013 at 2:00 pm

@MVResident67

That's a pretty dishonest way of looking at it. I've been reading these comment sections long enough to know that if this development had half the units and was half the height, the reaction would still be exactly the same.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 2:45 pm

@Robert,

Thanks for accusing me of being "pretty dishonest"... it's quite a telling accusation on your part.

Good Saturday to you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2013 at 5:07 pm

I can answer the questions
"Has the City Council talked about what they are doing to support high-density housing? Has anyone discussed the impact on the infrastructure - roads, schools, shopping, parking?"
There is a "study" a "plan"--but as long as the developer says its okay, there will be no impact - the city stamps it okay.

Can the police and fire and other public service support all these new residents? The developer says "no problem" - the city stamps it okay.

Where are the kids going to go to school? Where are people going to do their grocery shopping? The developer says "no problem" - the city stamps it okay.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by housingprices
a resident of The Crossings
on Apr 20, 2013 at 7:28 pm

Will these apartments also be $2100/mo for a studio like the San Antonio development?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by DC
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Apr 20, 2013 at 7:29 pm

Parking, stores and apt in that space?

Sounds like a great tale the builder has.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2013 at 9:35 pm

At the construction areas just north of San Antonio on El Camino the developers are digging down a few stories for parking garages and then build up from there. Lots of dirt trucks going back and forth.

The developers fully except all the tenants of the $2100 and up apartments to have cars even though they talk "transit oriented".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 20, 2013 at 9:38 pm

The developers fully expect...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by BvP
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:54 am

Only four stories? Why stop there? The arrogance the keepers of the city display is disgusting.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ed
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm

To those who don't seem to understand why these projects keep receiving approval, the economics are simple. You and your kin have probably voted repeatedly for every bond measure that has been floated on the ballot in the last 10 years, and you probably support the unsustainable pensions and benefits that municipal employees receive. Well, if you make those choices, someone has to pay. The only way to cover them, even in part, is to increase density, permitting the authorities to reset the tax basis out of Prop 13 limits, to collect higher property taxes, and impose fees and assessments on the owners and residents. Get a clue! Vote NO on ALL NEW BOND MEASURES and vote YES on PENSION REFORM. If you don't, you are receiving the government and the community that you've asked for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by An
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:21 pm

I do not use Peet's and I probably can survive without kubideh, but as a parent that waits for the left turn from El Camino to Castro every weekday morning I would like to get understand how traffic situation is going to be resolved with 400+ people from these apartments trying to get to work.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MV the Sardine City
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:27 pm

NOOOOOO!!! For so many reasons, where do I start?

1. There would be too much traffic on a street with Graham middle school. If you vote yes on the new development, you WILL be responsible for a child's death. It is only a matter of time.

2. No wonder they are proposing two story additions to our schools.

3. I like Rose's and Pete's. The alteration shop did a great job on my wedding dress.

4. There-are-just-too-many-people. Don't forget the appt complex that replaced Minton's Lumber on Evelyn and the multi unit housing that is going up on Caulderon. I have lived here for 50 years, MV was a nice community. When is enough enough?

5. I think Ed is right. Vote NO on all new bond measures.

6. Also, remember who is approving these high rise appts in city hall. Vote them out of office next time around.

7. @ Fred - You are a member of another community, so stay out if you don't agree and keep your opinions to yourself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 4:36 pm

I agree 200 units seems way too much, but we keep approval office building and increasing job growth. I know a many people who eat and shop at Rose Market, don't want to see this go away.

Armchair developer in me would keep this much added benefit, great little market. We need to keep small businesses like the Rose and the tailor shop in place or the new development.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:05 pm


Completed my letter to city council. I hope others will either send a letter or attend the city council meeting tomorrow (4/23) night @6:30PM in council chambers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sanity
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 7:06 pm

If you think about it,selling the city owned parking lot to these people is a very bad idea. The business along El Camino all use this parking, especially Frankie Johnny and Luigi's. They are to be deprived of their parking to enable the developer to make more profit? Why?

The total retail space in the buildings to be demolished is around 20,000 sq ft. The Rose Market alone is in a building nearly 7000 square feet. An obvious correction to this plan is to preserve more space for retail as a public interest. The 400,000 sq ft of apartments are going to be driving around elsewhere otherwise. This could be a nice complex if it were more balanced. I say preserve the city parking lot as parking and make the developer build in more retailg round level, and let them count half the city lot toward parking requirements.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 8:52 pm

I agree would like to see more of balance in this project, I would agree 200 units are a bit much, the shrinking retail part of the project I don't think is wise.

I don't mind the park closest to El Camino being 4 stories, would rather see 2 building built with a plaza in between the buildings. Parking underground. The building closes to the homes on Castro St should be smaller.

Would like to see more business space on the upper floor, you know that most businesses don't have anything to do with tech, they need space.

Just would like to see more creative design other then just apartments stacked on stores or single story building with parking lots.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:30 pm

Ed as a great point. And Prop 13 plays a big part too.

All of you who claim to be long time MV residents, you probably are paying miniscule property taxes while getting all the benefits of police, fire, road and other civil services.

Who are supporting the benefits you enjoy??? The newcomers. This is a pyramid scheme. Without newcomers paying high taxes the city will go broke.

For all of you who are against new development and high density, will you support repealing Prop 13? If the answer is no, then just shut up. Because the city has to expand its revenue base to service YOU!



 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:45 pm

@Fred,

I am pretty certain the city of Mountain View is not now, nor in the forseeable future, in any real jeopardy of going broke.

See you tomorrow night at the City Council meeting?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 9:46 pm

To Fred and Ed:

The biggest source of city revenue is not Property tax. Sales taxes are a much bigger source of funding. That's why Los Altos has such a problem with city activities. Mountain View gets lots of Sales Tax revenue and it is much better off PER CAPITA than the high value territory in Los Altos.

By cutting the retail space down from 20,000 to 6,000 square feet, Mountain View should see a reduction in sales tax revenue from this project. Peets is certainly going to do less volume in the new smaller space than previously (they have 2200 sq feet now). Probably they will squeeze into 800 sq ft and some businesses that can fit in small quarters will take the rest-- cell phone store, tiny bank branch with ATM's., nail salon, stuff like that.

As for Property tax revenue, rest assured these parcels will be held under a business entity so that they do not have their land re-assessed for valuation purposes. The new construction will be taxed, but not the increase in land values. So long as the same nominal corporate entity continues to own 51% of the properties, this is the way it works. It's a rip off far worse than holding values for residential homeowners, and it's why the revenues from business property as a percentage have declined markedly over time. So, yes reidential owners are paying more property tax, but this is a business owned by an LLC or some such.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 10:12 pm

Taxpayer, according to Mountain View city budget report, which you can download from web, property tax revenue, at $28M, is its biggest revenue source. Sales tax is $16M. You are wrong.

More residents means more property tax AND more sales tax AND other fees and taxes. The city has to attract more people to cover all of you long timers (and their pensions). So don't complain, unless you want to repeal Prop 13 and are willing to pay more tax yourself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 10:17 pm

To Taxpayer, and as for reassessment of tax basis for new constructions, my experience has shown all new single family houses, with the same owner, are assessed at close to market value for the new house. I don't see how multi-family can be anything different.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 22, 2013 at 10:28 pm

How much will the tenants of the 200 apartments proposed for the corner of El Camino and Castro be paying to the city in property taxes?

What makes you believe that residents who have lived in Mountain view for a long time are all drawing pensions from the city? And, what makes you think that there aren't plenty of long time residents who would like nothing more than to see prop 13 repealed?

You seem to want to lump all long time residents into your paradigm, which is painting using awfully broad brushstrokes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 11:09 pm

Oh Fred, Fred, business do indeed escape taxes. See this web link: Web Link

When you see a new home constructed, the benefit of holding the land value frozen under Prop 39 is only followed if certain constraints are followed. Some small corner of the building has to remain from the original home. If that is followed, then only the value of the new construction is used in re-assessing. For someone who bought the land long ago, this value is significant.... even if only 5 to 10 years.

It's not unusal for business property to have the same legal owner for 50 years or more. The use of the property can change completely during that time, as in the proposed construction here.

ALso of course, businesses get taxed on personal/business as well as real property. So fixtures and equipment generate a lot of property tax revenue too.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 22, 2013 at 11:42 pm

MVResident67, you mixed things up. I said "their pensions", meaning the pensions of the city government employees. How could anyone think a resident is entitled to a pension from the city?

New constructions means new tax revenue, new "fringe benefits" from developers e.g. road repairs, power/sewer line improvements, etc., and subsequently less maintenance need, since the properties are new and are high-density. The city will have "net revenue" to apply for other purposes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 23, 2013 at 1:16 am

Don't worry everyone! All these new tenants won't drive cars. They will take the 22 shame train to work in the new El Camino bus lanes. That or they will walk a mile to take Caltrain to work. Don't worry. They will walk to Safeway a half mile away and lug all their groceries home in reusable, recyclable, non-toxic grocery bags. Don't worry. Just don't worry. Don't worry about the fact you can count on Ronit and Margaret to vote in favor of this.

Oh wait. You voted for them.

Don't worry.


There's nothing to see here. Stay calm and carry on.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Luca
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Apr 23, 2013 at 9:22 am

There are quite a few vacant lots and run down businesses alongside El Camino in Mountain View, so I don't mind renovation, as long as sufficient money is then spent to make serious efforts at making bike and pedestrian life easier. By serious, I mean building over/underpasses at all main El Camino intersections.
As it is, from St Francis Acres, I take the car even to go to Castro, just because crossing El Camino is so unsafe and unpleasant. Give us better alternatives, and traffic will decrease. But give us REAL alternatives -- even if they cost money to be built. We have built next to zero infrastructure for pedestrians; this has to change.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Disgusted
a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2013 at 2:33 pm

If you look from the air, it stands out that the WaMu building on the opposite corner is on 3 acres of land that is most laid out as parking which is rarely used. How many customers can one bank branch serve at a time? This is the site that should be developed.

The plan for the Rose Market/801-819 El Camino areas are too dense and badly designed. The developer proposes a public benefit of an open air plaza ON THE CORNER. This is right by the RED LIGHT that keeps traffic idling there most of the day. Not a nice place for an outdoor plaza. This is a decoration and a waste of land. Much better to have the place back away from El Camino, say where the Peet's outdoor seating is now.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Darin
a resident of another community
on Apr 23, 2013 at 2:57 pm

Darin is a registered user.

Re: "a resident of another community"

Just because you are listed as "a resident of another community" doesn't mean that you aren't a resident of Mountain View. It just means that you live in one of the areas of Mountain View that isn't a defined community, one of the areas of the map that isn't colored and labeled.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Development Watch
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 1:23 pm

The corner of Castro and El Camino which has the Wamu changed hands in 2010 too. This is a sign some development might be in the offing. That is two parcels, one entirely parking. Total is 3 acres. You could build some massive residential tower there too. It would be consistent with the Grand Plan. More and more people. Pretending they won't have cars. Scary.

The 4 parcels with the Rose Market and the Peet's also changed hands in 2010, and look what is happening with them..... and of course the 4 parcels at the front along El Camino are pending sale right now, for the current project. They belong to the estate of a man from Salinas who died in the last 5 years or so.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 24, 2013 at 2:42 pm

Who keeps voting in these buffoons to council... Oh wait YOU do.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by tommygee54
a resident of Rex Manor
on Apr 24, 2013 at 3:47 pm

The former WaMu building, which used to be Home Savings of America for over 30 years, but now is a Chase, that building is so large because 30+ years ago there was no internet for people to take care of online banking. This was back when each teller window had long lines of people waiting for a teller window to open up. No long lines these days. I guess HSoA was thinking of making the building even larger back then.

Since our fair city wants to build more apartments/condos, how about tearing down the shopping center at Grant and El Camino, the center that houses Smart and Final, Walgreens, Burger King and the rest. The city council may go for that. Then with these new apartments/condos, then watch the traffic in this part of town skyrocket up, up and away. This area is already congested with cars.

Now isn't this retail at El Camino at Castro a busy area. Why knock it down...?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 4:54 pm

El Camino and Castro in the day was more busy, car lots, super markets, drugs and garages. I think today it much more quiet, most people just drive, some will bank, get a coffee and maybe do something more.

Mixed use these 2 corners, office, retail and housing right off downtown. Still people want to live, work and get by without having a car if given the chance. Why not talk about different kind of live/work space. Not just lofts.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get Real
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm

No way Garrett. The traffic at El Camino and Castro has steadily increased over the years. A lot of it now is headed for 85 and 237. Back in the day you are talking about, 237 wasn't a freeway, and 85 didn't intersect El Camino near the Sunnyvale border. These days El Camino from Castro to Grant has not only patrons of businesses but also feeder traffic to these two freeways. A casual observation at various times of the day will see loads of traffic backing up at the Grant/237 intersection with El Camino and reaching back to Castro street at many times of the day, and at the peak times reaching clear back to Shoreline Blvd. There's a myth that mass transit on El Camino can help, but when you consider the traffic is making a left or right onto 237 and 85, then you see traffic isn't ultimately headed where El Camino goes!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get Real
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm

And of course, when 85 was first built, it was much quieter than it was today. It ended at Stevens Creek Blvd so it did not lead to San Jose, Gilroy or any point South of Cupertino. It only had 2 lanes per direction. I can remember getting on 85 headed toward Cupertino from Mofett Blvd and being the only car on the road, at 10am on a workday. This was back in 1992.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm

@Greg David

Has anyone made the claim that new residents won't drive cars? I'm sure plenty of them will but at least they will have access to transportation if they don't. Would you rather have these units built in a place that doesn't have public transportation? Or would you rather just nothing get built anywhere ever?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Get Real
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 5:36 pm

@Robert

I think the point is that this so-called "mixed use" development is really almost entirely residential. 200 apartments at what, 1200-1500 sq feet each? Say 250,000 sq ft MINIMUM. Displaces 20,000 low density retail space. Includes only 6,000 sq feet of retail? The public transit on El Camino will always be lacking. The problem is there are no perpendicular cross-connections to get ANYWHERE but along El Camino. The only thing that makes sense is to keep retail on El Camino as well. There should at least be 20,000 sq feet of retail in the mixture with these 200 apartments. If that means there are only 180 apartments, then fine, so much the better.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Neighborhood Wise
a resident of another community
on Apr 24, 2013 at 8:51 pm

This intersection is a prime place for retail. The 6 buildings being replaced plus the burned down Postal Express building have consistently house prosperous businesses. The idea of increasing residential is fine, but it makes no sense in this location to replace all these stores and businesses with almost entirely apartments and only a token few businesses. So many apartments will cause lots of traffic, and in fact putting residential on a corner helps reduce the need for internal driveways. But there should be entirely ground floor retail on this site. This is the best way to reduce traffic load for the apartments, by giving them useful businesses below. Rose Market would be a wonderful business to have in a well planned mixed use apartment complex. Look at Two Worlds on the corner of Calderon and El Camino. There are many small businesses integrated into that complex. It does a good service to the community. It's much nicer than what is being discussed for this Castro Corner.

Mountain View bent itself all out of shape to get the only other downtown market installed on Castro street, and now this long established popular successful business is being axed. This plaza thing on the corner is a LOUSY public benefit. Look at the plazas on the other two corners. They get hardly any use. It's too noisy and there is too much traffic exhaust.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 24, 2013 at 11:00 pm

Like Robert, I agree that most of these comments represent the NIMBY attitude. All projects study the impact of a project in terms of noise, parking, and traffic. When people say a project doesn't fit, they need to get beyond personal feelings. People make a lot of claims and city staff study them and in most cases the impacts are minimal.

The area in question is an eyesore of run down buildings. Credit the developer for seeing a vision to improve the corner and create more value to all residents


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 6:09 am

OK I will admit peak time traffic is bad, but what about non peak times. Two Worlds are nice, good example of mixed use, lots of nice businesses and services.

I am not saying we need to build 200 units, 100 units will be OK, but can we think of getting away from the need of strip malls.

I could go on about housing types that could be built, retail and offices mixed in. This corner is the front door to Downtown Mountain View.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 25, 2013 at 9:09 am


Made the left turn from (N) El Camino on to Castro 3x yesterday. Once at about 10:30AM, and it took two light cycles to make the turn. The 2nd time was around 3PM and it took three light cycles to make the turn. the third time was just after 6PM and it took FOUR light cycles to make the turn -- over 7 minutes.

Yeah, adding 200 apartments on that corner should definitely improve pedestrian safety around that intersection and help with traffic flow. Excellent idea!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:10 am

@ MVResident67,

Why are you such a poor driver. I use this intersection all of the time and it never takes more than one light. Maybe you went durng the day of the Art and Wine festival when Castro is shut down?

The city has stats on these intersections and would easily show your claim to be unfounded.






 +   Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:16 am

While we are at it, I dig a bit more into city budget. What I find is quite amazing. Here is a comparison of salaries of city departments in 2 years (2010-2011 and 2012-2013). Note, these are only salary numbers.

Mayor and Council: $0.14M => $0.20M, 43% increase
City Clerk Office: $0.4M => $0.51M, 27% increase
City Attorney Office: $1.26M => $1.47M, 17% increase
City Manager Office: $2.1M => $2.37M, 13% increase
Finance and Admin: $5.6M => $6.7M, 20% increase
Community Development: $4.07M => $4.85M, 19% increase
Public Works: $12.78M => $15.60M, 22% increase
Community Service: $11.58M => $11.37M, -10% decrease
Library: $3.78M => $4.1M, 8.5% increase
Fire: $18.4M => $19.5M, 6.5% increase
Police: $24.8M => $27.1M, 9.3% increase

Total: $84.91M => $93.77M, 10.4% increase, or 8.86M

During the same period property tax revenue grew from $25.1M to $28M, or 11.3%, while sales tax grew from $15.5M to $16.2M, or only 4.3%. The other higher growth categories are building permits and transient tax. But they are much smaller in absolute dollar numbers.

So you see, property tax is important because it is the one large category of revenue that grows faster than salary. Sadly even that cannot cover the increase in salaries.

Prop 13 shields all you long term residents from the appetites of city government. Your property tax only grew a miniscule amount in two years, less than 4%. Where did the 11.3% growth come from? Newcomers, for both old and new houses. The City has every incentive to encourage new builds to expand the tax basis. After all, it is consistent with their own self-interest, as well as your long timers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:32 am

@Political Insider,

As I stated in my previous comment, I was making the left turn from Northbound El Camino on to Castro heading towards Graham middle School yesterday, Wednesday 4/24. I make this left turn daily, and it regularly takes 2-3 light cycles, sometimes more. There are plenty of people who run the red light so they don't have to sit thru another light cycle, I am not one of those people.

I have no doubt that any data the city has collected/traffic study of that intersection covering the hours of say, 6AM to 9PM will support my daily experience.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Taxed
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 1:34 pm

The Real Property tax is mainly paid by residences in most cities. In Mountain View which is heavily weight already with apartments, this may be different since they count as commercial property. What keeps the commercial property taxes down is the very long ownership times where the values are limited in rise by Prop 13. It may be counter intuitive. Residences change owners much more frequently than commercial property. Business personal property taxes (non real estate) is a component which does rise over time. For example: compare two local markets – the Menlo Park Trader Joe's, which leases the land from a family trust with an address in Cape Cod who pay a measly $11,200 in property taxes while the landlord of a Trader Joe's just miles away in San Carlos pays almost five times as much.

County wide, the share of property taxes from residences has gone from 50% in 1975 to 70% today. Commercial property is only shouldering 30% of the burden, and that includes rental Apartments. So in Mountain View, the main revenue contribution from business is the sales tax which is double what they contribute overall in Property taxes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 2:17 pm

You could spend a lifetime going on about taxes. This property has changed hands and the value has gone up.

Off topic but important to point out, rents have gone up, home prices have gone so has the need of higher wages. Public or Private Sector


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Densificator
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 25, 2013 at 2:46 pm

School capacity is not a factor considered by any City Council about anything. School is for School Districts to worry about. Parents can not make a dent of change about anything in the window of time they care about. By the time they get upset about our schools after a year or two being in them, it takes a few years to understand how things work, then they change schools... repeat cycle.

You must accept the fact that we are going to choke your cities with people until you give up your car lifestyles. We are going to dismantle your car networks reducing there effectiveness and worth until riding a bike is the only option standing.

We are going to price water to where you can not afford to have a lot full of landscape. We are going to kill the old American Dream of owning a house, and a car and replace it with a dream of a rent controlled apartment, with enough space for you bike.

Get over it! YOUR DREAMS MUST CHANGE! Mother earth can not sustain your old dreams and we have the upper hand on things. Get over it!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by KP
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 25, 2013 at 4:12 pm

200 apts where a studio or 1 br. costs $2500/month? Yay, my rent can go up even more now. Do we need more housing? Really? So many empties and all the over priced dumps trying to keep their rents in line with the new luxury apts. Like Helen wrote on the 19th: "the rents have escalated to the point of ridiculousness and out of control. What we need is more affordable housing not expensive complexes that the average working person can afford." I'm educated (Masters), work for the greater community (ie, public sector job benefiting the whole county)and I'm being priced out of the community I love and volunteer for.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by KP
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 25, 2013 at 4:14 pm

correction: 'average working person CANNOT afford'


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 5:26 pm

We aren't building affordable housing fast enough, while market rate housing gets built, this will take 2 to 3 years just to get to the approval stage.

Senior, low income, very low income all have to be built be someone. Go and check out the Palo Alto Weekly about the latest in Senior Housing by PAHC on Maybell Ave.

We can build offices and other kind of job benefits, bit if you make 10.00 an hour you will be priced out, no chance of commuting. Gas prices will rise, traffic will get worse.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sensible Growth
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 5:42 pm

It is an excellent point that having a density designation for the El Camino corridor shouldn't mean that the entire thing gets developed with dense housing. Some targets or thresholds for restraint should exist that catch the case were all at once a huge amount of housing growth gets locked in. Not everywhere is good for retail. I object to the 3 office towers proposed to add to San Antonio Center along California street, and also to the Hotel there. This is just too much development, period. It makes no sense and the quality of life will suffer. Similarly, cutting back to so little retail on this corner of Castro is a bad idea. Worse still it is likely that similar development will be proposed for the Chase office corner. It has 3 little used acres. It all adds up. It's just too much, and it's too costly for people to move there. Better to keep a higher mix of retail on these desirable intersections. They aren't especially desirable for housing, but they are valued for retail exposure to customers.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 25, 2013 at 7:14 pm

I wouldn't want El Camino to be a wall of apartment building, would rather see a nice mix with housing, offices and retail. Also want to point out, retail, housing and offices will not work in some places or together. Hotels are great, you have restaurants near or around.

Not all retail you want to have with housing, noise, trucks and hours of businesses. Others are fine.

Offices can be built to fit in small places or stacked on retail units.

So much can be looked into, planned and created other then just boring old dull buildings.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OMV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 26, 2013 at 12:26 pm

I find the comments on this thread about housing affordability particularly interesting. While I am disappointed to see that pretty much all of the new apartment developments in Mountain View (Madera, San Antonio Center) are really high-end, I don't see how opposing more apartment construction or pushing for fewer units will help the problem.

Yes, there is the possibility that in a hot real estate like we have right now in MV, luxury rentals coming on the market at $2500+ for a 1-bedroom and $3000+ for a 2-bedroom may cause smaller or older developments to consider raising rents as well. But in the longer run, basic economics tells us that the increase in supply of apartments in MV should actually lessen pressure on rents. Those older apartment complexes without all the amenities will eventually find it harder to compete and rents on those will stabilize or even go down.

That is, unless you believe that the basic laws of economics do not apply in MV, and that what goes up can never come down. If that's the case, I've got some stock in Pets.com and Silicon Graphics to sell you...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Many of the residents of Mountain View apartments without amenities as you call them are residents with lower incomes. By focusing on construction of apartments with rents that are 50% higher than they can afford they are affected. It's not that their rent will simply be raised (I am sure that is already happening). What will happens is there apartments will be seen as obsolete, will be torn down, and also replaced with denser housing that also rents for 50% more than they can afford.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OMV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 26, 2013 at 3:44 pm

@Joe - So remind me again... how will constraining the supply of apartments (for instance, by opposing this development) help the situation?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by With all the people coming
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 26, 2013 at 4:14 pm

With all the people coming from Detroit and all the other ghost towns, I don't think there will be a decrease in rent anytime soon. And if there is a decrease, guess what, those new apartments will be the first to feel it since rent is so high. Then the developers will start hurting, trying to recoup their money.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2013 at 4:30 pm

@OMV

Don't oppose the development. MODIFY it. Don't sell the city parking lot depended on by Frankie Johnny and Luigi plus the other businesses. That lot was used for general parking before the city owned it. The El Camino row depends on it, and if the remaining business are to be redeveloped, they will need this extra space.

Keep the same 25,000 square feet dedicate to business even if another 200,000 sq feet of apartment are constructed, especially on the corner like this.

Cut the number of apartments once there is less parking available (no longer stolen and dedicated solely to the new development.)

Drop this idiotic policy Mtn View has about not requiring BMR units.

It should be part of any future development that business space is preserved and BMR units are included.

Most likely this will cut the land value the seller along El Camino will receive from the speculator who already snapped up the land along Castro, figuring he could pull the wool over the community's eyes. Good. The land value will still be astronomical, just not inflated still further by the city's gift of one of its parking lots and permission to cut back on available business space.

Want more housing on El Camino. Fine, there are tons of other parcels ready to undergo development. Don't count on them remaining as is to subsidize the whims and greed of the developer of this corner parcel. The public benefit plaza on the corner is a joke. The developer needs to leave this corner somewhat free for turning visibility anyway!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of another community
on Apr 26, 2013 at 4:35 pm

The city is making a mistake due to its insecurity following the long development lull until a few years ago. It's similar to people who set their thermostat to 60 degrees because they are hot at 75. They really only want 70, but they put it at 60, as if this helps.

The city will get what it has asked for, if it does not reverse course and enforce more reasonable criteria on the developments. The extra density is not really required to motivate the development. Certainly concessions like provided city owned land are not. This parking lot is off center and barely connects to the parcel to be developed. The parking historically is more aligned with the business areas that as of yet still remain on El Camino further North than 819. It's really a land grab. Don't give it to the first requestor but give it to the one with the best case that it is needed to make the development work.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by old resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 26, 2013 at 5:25 pm

parking and traffic never seems to be a problem for the city council but i think that the increase in both parking, traffic, pedestrian safety is something that the city of mountain view infrastructure is not keeping up with...more apartments in old mountain view...no problem...except that little loreto street has now become a pass through street...the city said that that wouldn't happen but it has...cars don't stop at stop signs any more...if you walk every morning in mountain view like i do you see lots of traffic violations and i don't use the cross walks on shoreline any more (i cross in the middle of the street) since the 2 times i was at the cross walks and cars were actually running into each other when 1 car stopped for me to walk across the street...there is a lot of anxiety living in mountain view...old time resident


 +   Like this comment
Posted by econonomicon
a resident of The Crossings
on Apr 27, 2013 at 3:28 pm

@OMV
>But in the longer run, basic economics tells us that the increase in supply of apartments in MV should actually lessen pressure on rents.

Basic economics does not model reality-- that's what makes it basic. Housing is essentially inelastic, so the inverse relationship between supply and demand will not be observable in market prices.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 27, 2013 at 7:45 pm

Finding a apartment within your means is getting harder while more college grads come here and rent for the first time. I know the market is looking for the highest income earner. A fast food worker won't live in the village for reason of price, but a tech worker will live in a rundown apartment due to the lack of space.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Questioner
a resident of another community
on May 3, 2013 at 1:28 pm

This plan is really bad. In the recent airing of the One Bay Area plan by ABAG, they cite the need for more housing near transit corridors, but they clearly include Below Market Rate Housing in with the mix. Mountain View is not planning for reasonable retail OR for BMR housing in this project.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Speculator Critic
a resident of another community
on May 3, 2013 at 6:53 pm

The development should include BMR and more retail. No doubt this would cut back on the value of the development, but it's fair. The permission to build the dense development even so reduced is very valuable. It increases the sale value of the land. If there are BMR units required and if larger retail and accomodations for small local business are also required, the value of the land just goes down. It's still a through the roof profit for the landowner.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kevin
a resident of Sylvan Park
on May 28, 2013 at 5:55 pm

Dont blame the city for being greedy. They are just trying to do what all like minded people do together. The real culprit is Google, Facebook and many other companies that love mt view and surrounding cities. The 20 somethings working in these places cant afford homes in Palo alto and menlo park so everyone is looking to move into mountain view. If you really care for the city then we should be asking these companies to stop hiring and growing.

This is simple economics. Supply and demand. No amount of crying and whining is going to change that. Its been this way for years and will be for centuries to come.

One thing is for certain. When Facebook is taken down by its new competitor (in the works in some dorm as we speak) this part of the bay area will be in for a real shock.

To close out with another shocking truth: a 2bed/2ba apartmemt in the newly built madera aptms in downtown mt view goes for over $5000/mth. Beat that!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by petition petition!
a resident of another community
on Jun 17, 2013 at 3:17 pm

If anyone is against the current plans for re-development, you can make a difference here: Web Link

at change.org, you can sign the petition to save one of the businesses in jeopardy on that block which would force the developers to rethink their design and ideas for the land.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Aug 2, 2013 at 9:26 am

Interesting to see what is going on with our neighbor to the north, Palo Alto, when it comes to high density developments. This article is just the latest in a series of articles, clearly there are many citizens of Palo Alto who have had it with City Council with regard to how council has been approving any/all high-density residential development projects.

This is a good read:

Web Link


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Best High Dives to Watch the Game
By Laura Stec | 14 comments | 2,526 views

Flirtation
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,404 views