|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The City Council on Tuesday approved a 184-unit luxury apartment project for one of the city’s busiest intersections, despite outcry from neighbors who fear increased numbers of cars parking on their streets.
Replacing a Santa Clara County-owned social services office and health clinic at 100 Moffett Boulevard and Central Expressway is another luxury apartment project by Prometheus Real Estate Group. Prometheus officials say it will be similar in its level of luxury to the Madera complex at 455 West Evelyn Ave., where occupancy is near 100 percent and rents are advertised between $3,502 and $8,000 – yes, $8,000 — for one- and two-bedroom apartments. Like Madera, the complex will be built over an underground garage and range from two to four stories in height, with stoops facing the street and public walkways bisecting the site and its courtyards.
Council members voted 5-2 to approve the project, with members Jac Siegel and John McAlister opposed. Both expressed sympathy for neighbors’ parking concerns. Other council members said the complex would be a benefit to the neighborhood.
In their complaints, neighbors noted that there were only 229 parking spaces in the project, one for each bedroom.
“There is no actual guest parking, all their guests will have to park on our streets,” said resident Anne Mahood. “Thirty-four cars can fill up three of our six streets. Events at the Buddhist temple, the Adobe building and the IFES Hall all flood our streets.”
Without adding more garage space, “Prometheus walks away with more profit. We are not asking Prometheus (to) solve our parking problems, we are asking they not make them worse.”
While drivers may not have enough parking, pedestrians and cyclists may benefit from seeing Stierlin Road’s Central Expressway on-ramp closed as part of the project. The former street section will be turned into a two-lane bike path and pedestrian promenade. Having made pedestrian and bicyclist mobility a top goal for the year, council members voted in June to close the on-ramp for the promenade — despite some neighborhood opposition — which bike and pedestrian advocates said would better connect downtown’s train station to North Bayshore and Google headquarters via Stierlin Road and Shoreline Boulevard. A portion of Moffett Boulevard along the site will be widened to allow the city’s first green-painted bike lane to be installed.
“To me, the well-maintained apartment project with the closing of the Stierlin on-ramp is a great thing for the neighborhood,” said council member Bryant. “I know many of you disagree with me, but I’m expressing my opinion right now.” She added that the project “will certainly raise all your property values.”
Bryant said the closure of the on-ramp will prevent cars from “zooming up Stierlin to Central.”
Several residents, including Linda Curtis, complained about the inclusion of stoops in the design, allowing front doors to open onto the street and encourage street parking. Resident Jarrett Mullen responded: “When you eliminate stoops it’s like chopping off someone’s front door, cutting off direct access to the sidewalk.”
Mullen said the stoops provide access to downtown and help activate the street, making the building feel less “alienating.”
Mullen said it was an opportunity for exemplary transit-oriented development. “It’s across the street from our train station, it’s across the street from our downtown. We don’t have a more transit-oriented location than this.”
City’s parking standard debated
The project meets the city’s new model parking standard, which calls for at least one parking space per bedroom and 15 percent of those made available to guests. Madera follows the same formula, and despite a similar outcry from neighbors, there have been no complaints about parking overflow at Madera, where only 75 percent of the garage is used, city officials said. Nevertheless, neighbors said they were convinced that the project’s garage would be inadequate, as residents would have to cross a busy intersection to get to the downtown transit center, making it less likely that they would leave their cars at home than residents of Madera. The Madera project is right across the street from the transit center. “There’s no comparison,” one resident said.
Council member Siegel said the 229 parking spaces put the neighborhood “at risk so the developer could make a few more dollars.”
“I believe we have a very flawed parking standard — it doesn’t look to the future at all,” he said.
Council member Chris Clark said the the model parking standard is not that old, and was created “after extensive study of many, many developments.”
“We have yet to see an instance in which the model parking standard isn’t sufficient. If we have a significant issue of on-street parking, that’s an issue the city needs to resolve through a permit program or whatever we need to do there,” Clark said. Changes to the parking standards should be “based on data instead of fear and conjecture,” he said.
Siegel said that there will be more cars in the future because “techies have discovered communal living. There will now be five or more in a two-bedroom.”
“There’s clearly a divergence of opinion,” said council member Mike Kasperzak. “Statistics show Generation Y people are not getting cars like your generation did, or mine. I really think times are changing. It costs $10,000 a year to own a car. People in semi-urban environments, they don’t want cars anymore.”
“I think we are seeing a generational change,” said council member Margaret Abe-Koga. “My kids’ generation, they don’t want to drive when they are 16. I think there really is a change happening.”
Bryant said neighbors should get used to the increasing demand for parking, which may have gotten worse with the elimination of a Caltrain parking lot downtown. Abe-Koga said a Caltrain parking structure is in the works at VTA.
“If you look at Dana Street, where I live, and you try to find parking, good luck,” Bryant said. “People parking on the street, it’s just what people do, and I don’t think we are going to change that.”
She applauded Prometheus for charging a fee to residents who wanted more than one parking space per apartment, calling it “a great model.”
Instead of making a $1.6 million payment to the city, Prometheus opted to build eight below market rate units in the project, which will rent to lower-income residents. Council members agreed to see if Prometheus was “compassionate enough,” as Kasperzak said, to allow the city to pay Prometheus to build a ninth below market rate unit on the site. There will also be parking study done after the project is occupied to see if parking is adequate.
Prometheus must pay a $5.3 million fee towards city parks. The project includes the removal of 14 large heritage trees, including a large “tree of heaven” at one corner of the site, which will be replaced by a large oak tree.
So more unaffordable housing in Mountain View? It saddens me that more and more of these types of apartment complexes are being approved for our beloved city of Mountain View. I honestly don’t know who can really afford to live here unless a)you’re rich b)you work for Google c)your landlord is nice and doesn’t increase your rent to a ridiculous amount d) all of the above. And Prometheus is going to get rid of 14 of our trees? booooooo
The rents here are targeted at the high end. There are plenty of low rent areas in Mtn View. There are even more in San Jose. This is an expensive area to live in. If you cant afford to live in this town, I would suggest moving to a cheaper more affordable area. To those that complain about growth, take a look at Detroit, the poster child for excessive government and no growth policies.
Mtn View is a great pace to live with high quality public services. These services don’t come cheap and require tax revenues to make them sustainable.
PI – Growth is one thing, but if the infrastructure can’t handle it, then it is irresponsible on the part of the city council to allow more housing to be built.
And what quality public services are you praising? Like that useless traffic light on Clark (across from Sizzler), where you can only turn right on El Camino (going south). Yeah, that was genius.
People who’ve lived here for decades are being forced out. I know you don’t fee empathy for them, but it still sad to see people who’ve lived here for decades have to move.
Prometheus’s sock puppet “Political Insider” wants higher tax revenues in the city so that his government pension will continue to be paid without the adjustment that will happen in his beloved Detroit. That explains why he rubber stamps any project that paves over nature and builds high into the sky.
He spouts his so-called republican ideals with “free market”, but it’s all about the fact that he already “has his” and will do anything to protect it. I’m sure when he watched the film “Wall Street”, he thought Gordon Gecko was the protagonist! 🙂
Let’s ignore jerks like he and take back mountain view to the real residents who moved here to be in a quiet, yet diverse and fun city. Next election, let’s install some heart back to MV!
The whole point is to give people a choice? The choice to drive, bike, shuttle, walk, jog or skateboard. Remember train, light rail or public transit but don’t forget carpool.
Temp living. The current tenements in those high priced rentals are corporate workers on 6-12 month visits not your normal Mtn View residence. Who else can afford $8,000 ie $96,000 rents? When real residents move in the normal pkg rules will be needed. Can you add parking space later?
Free Market applies here. Number of jobs out paces housing units. Rents and house prices rise and in the future. Either pay high rent or go cheaper some place else but gas prices will rise. Keep car in good order, spend productive time sitting in traffic while you live in the hinterlands.
Company owners will delight at losing employees to other regions like Texas, cheap housing close to growing or relocated companies from California.
Young college grad choosing to pay high rent, close to action in Silicon Valley, wants to work long hours to be productive employee, gets home at reasonable time and gets a full night sleep. Start over again the next day.
Mountain View stopped being a small quiet town somewhere after 1953 to 19?? One could follow the birth of the Silicon Chip to Silicon Valley or the ever increasing evolution of the internet. Free Market applies here. Start, create, design, build and sell to the public. I am not talking about real estate or any kind of housing.
Mountain View is rapidly becoming indistinguishable from Paramus, NJ. The Milk Pail story really says it all. The developers are going to steamroll over everything of character and charm in this little town and turn it into Potterville on steroids and bath salts.
So where are the low rents in MV? I didn’t know there was such a thing.
I agree emphatically with the comment about the new traffic light on Clark at El Camino – maybe a small issue but it says it all about the total incompetence of government…the whole point about this intersection is that it was not safe to turn LEFT from Clark onto El Camino – so instead of a light that provided a left turn they stupidly chose an only turn right light – turning right was NEVER a problem! I will never understand why people in charge of making these decision have absolutely NO common sense.
Not only is it completely useless for the purpose needed it also causes an already horrible section of traffic to be much worse. Driving on El Camino from Clark to Grant road is one big clogged artery, right up there with Grant road…which was terrible before they put in more huge homes on our beloved farm…
I can see the future of this new development causing more of the same, because out city keeps making the same mistakes over and over with regards to growth, traffic & parking.
A great old black & white movie that everyone should watch, especially politicians, is Meet John Doe – staring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck – I watch it every Christmas and wish we had a John Doe to run our city / country! It is all about common sense and being fair, why is that so hard for people?
Happy holidays to all ~
It is sad that five members of our City Council are straw people for the Developers and always rubber stamp what the develops want. They don’t give a flying f___ for the residents of Mountain View.
“Political Insider” only cares about higher tax revenues in the city so that his government pension will continue to be paid without the adjustment that will happen in his beloved Detroit. He is a puppet for the devlope5rs and could care less about ten residents of Mountain View.
EAST SEGREGATED NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE WEST. MANHATTAN LIKE BUILDING IN MV. AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY DEVELOPERS IN HIGH DEMAND. RICHEST DEVELOPERS INDUSTRY IN THE COUNTRY. NO POLITICS RUN THIS COUNTRY BUT DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, …ETC
The light at Clark was added by Caltrans (state route 82) over the city’s objections, so don’t blame the city for that one.
Sad to see that our Council does not recall the problems for the citizens that City Manager made when he had the city hall built without finishing the interior of the building, and then went off on vacation to Europe while fires burned under Shoreline Park, and then, after “leaving” the City, went to work for Promithius….. HUMMM… familiar stuff ? and now Promithius still has the city in its pocket after all these years… HEY… anyone remember Dog City… Times don’t change.
@ Political Outsider
“Growth is one thing, but if the infrastructure can’t handle it, then it is irresponsible on the part of the city council to allow more housing to be built.”
Really. Whats youe basis for saying the infrastructure cant handle it. Police, Fire, Sewer, Parks. Parking. I dont see these departments complaining.
“And what quality public services are you praising? Like that useless traffic light on Clark (across from Sizzler), where you can only turn right on El Camino (going south). Yeah, that was genius.”
See above. That was CAlTRANS. In any case the local public was involved. This intersection was one of the most dangerous in Mtn View. So you want more people to die? That shows a lot of empathy.
@ born and raised in MV,
“So where are the low rents in MV? I didn’t know there was such a thing.”
Its all relative but if you were really born and raised here, you should know where lower rents are.
@ konrad M. Sosnow
“It is sad that five members of our City Council are straw people for the Developers and always rubber stamp what the develops want. They don’t give a flying f___ for the residents of Mountain View.”
Whats not sad is that no one has responded to your silly claims from your own blog. Somewhat dishonest to try and push your blog onto another one.
@ CorpGreed,
“but it’s all about the fact that he already “has his” and will do anything to protect it.”
Totally silly comment. Its the no growthers that do not want more people moving into Mtn View. They have theirs and do not want others to have a chance. I do have mine and want to share it with others by allowing them the chance to live in Mtn View by providing more jobs and housing.
Politician Insider claims to want to “share it” with others. Pi we know what you’re really about. You are spineless and specialize in kissing up to the big developers and counting what’s in your wallet. You should be ashamed.
Regarding the light on Clark I did talk to the city and yes it’s Caltrans great work. It’s like the light on El Camino and Grant. El Camino is always blocked with people coming from Sunnyvale area and turning left onto Grant. Intersection is always blocked to traffic going straight. Took me 15 minutes to cross intersection because it was blocked.
2svsportz,
So how does opposing growth help share with others?
2svsport claims to want to “share it” with others but we know what you’re really about. You are spineless and specialize in kissing up to no growthers and counting what’s in your wallet. You should be ashamed.
Why do I feel like I am dealing with high schoolers?
I am sooooo disappointed that our city council ignored the pleas of the neighborhood. By closing the Stierlin ramp and by allowing 1 car per bedroom they are changing our neighborhood forever. This is really tragic. One can only hope that people who pay $8000/month for an apartment won’t be able to afford to buy a car….
Daniel- thanks for reiterating the $8,000 figure… I thought I was misreading. That is crazy. As a homeowner, It’s good to know I could cover the mortgage if I had to rent out my place… but that is so high it makes me think we’re on the edge of yet another bubble.
I have no objection to the development, per se, but I can’t help commenting that it’s hard to reconcile “luxury apartment” with “right next to Central Expressway and CalTrain”.
Where are the Social Services and Health Clinic being relocated to?
Most everything built after both World War and the Korean War, developers or home builders. Built for those working in industry or some kind of job. If you were some one who had to save up, guess what you rented. You do need somewhere to sleep, eat and get pregnant. After all this was the 1950’s.
At one point in history, Mountain View was a out laying suburb for workers in San Francisco.
Shame on you city council for approving this and using the word “techies” as a derisive term. “Techies will be living 4-5 per bedroom.” How is that affordable. Are there no fire codes to prevent this?
Health Clinic is being relocated over near El Camino Real. Social Service Dept. is being relocated over on Shoreline Blvd. and Terra Bella.
If people can afford these apartments you might only get 1 to 2 people per unit. Lived in a rural community or low income area where you found 10 people per unit.
“If people can afford these apartments you might only get 1 to 2 people per unit.”
I don’t think you are fully aware of the current situation in Mountain View. While you won’t get 10 people in a 2 person apartment (the draconian Prometheus leasing office will evict situations like these), you will commonly see 4 in a 2 bedroom (2 couples). While there are certainly many people with high salaries that can afford living alone in a one bedroom, there are many more hi-tech workers at startups or struggling companies that cannot. So, they share. Even workers with decent incomes may have education or other debt to pay off.
It’s also sad to see Political Insider being frustrated from, once again, being on the wrong side of the argument having to resort to the most disgusting of name calling. Thanks to the editors for keeping their tabs on this!
Yes people will share, for reason to either pay down or save money. Don’t really or if anyone understand the reason of why anyone decides to share. I use manage a apartment building, 3 story build with underground parking. The parking spaces were never, we made it secured meaning locked points of entry. Demand for apartments jumped. Improvement outdoor spaces, rooftop patio, laundry rooms, internet service, clean new looking apartments. Dish washers, garbage disposals and updated fixtures. We also told the tenants the rules and regulations of the building, good tenants behave and having a really good owner is greater.
In 6 years, 1 bedroom unit went from 525.00 a month to 1250.00 a month. We went from empty apartments to a waiting list, hard work but was worth it.
People in the neighbor were delighted so were other building owners. Former tenant worked for Prometheus.
I am complaining about the parking overflow from Madera right now, the guy who frequently parked his blue Ford Focus on our street lives at Madera, maybe he is that 25% that didn’t park at the garage?
There is a lot of ignorance here in this city. People think that adding units will lead to lower rents. Supply and Demand. Increase supply to meet demand and prices will lower. There is truth in it, but like all rules, formulas and theories, you have to plug in the right data into the right variables.
The problem with this thinking here in MV is that the Demand so far outpaces Supply that in order to significantly meet Demand, the city will need to approve many thousands of units in the next few years. This would destroy the beauty and livability of the city and turn it into a paved-over work ghetto.
In my opinion and I hope in the opinion of other homeowners, our desire is not to simply increase the monetary value of our own property, but to live here long term–perhaps the rest of our lives!
First step is to get some council members that are interested in keeping MV livable (and not just minimally livable). Because councils come and go, we then need laws on the books that will protect our city. The ones we have now are primarily safety-related. The livability ones are too easily thrown under the bus by granting exceptions.
Let’s take our city back!
@ NotSmart
“It’s also sad to see Political Insider being frustrated from, once again, being on the wrong side of the argument having to resort to the most disgusting of name calling. Thanks to the editors for keeping their tabs on this!”
Not at all frustrated. I copied svsprts’s insults to me, which is why both of our posts were deleted. Sticks and stones…. But apparently imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery
@ SupplyAndDemand,
“The problem with this thinking here in MV is that the Demand so far outpaces Supply that in order to significantly meet Demand, the city will need to approve many thousands of units in the next few years.”
I agree but the housing market will still clear at higher prices because we will never build enough units. But higher prices make it cheaper to live somewhere else.
I agree with “Supply and Demand”. Building more housing in order to lower prices and is like trying to empty the ocean with a teacup. A futile effort that will only resort in changing M.V. into a highly congested city but not bring down housing prices or arrest their increase. Progress is not always a good thing, although there are people out there who blindly worship progress as a god of some type. I don’t agree with the notion that everything new, modern, and representing change is an improvement. I’m all for progress but I’m selective about what I choose to implement. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
This approved apartment building will not make a dent into rental housing prices or home prices. In the scheme of things, 188 units here, 350 here and 150 there, not even a drop in the bucket.
Why? Tally up the number of office buildings approved that will house a set number of workers. Not planned, that is another set of numbers, also take in account of baby boomers who will retire.
We have lots of older buildings that can be re.figured to the 100 square foot per worker.
Now add the numbers together plus the cities that make up the.Golden Triangle, then add up the present day Silicon Valley.
Forget San Francisco.
Also want to point other key jobs, industry, sectors, public workers, vital service workers both public.and PRIVATE. Low income, medium income and upper income all eying apartments and houses
I think it is time to look into the City Councils links to Promethus. Arrests may be in order! I smell Agenda 21!
Guess Mountain View residents aren’t the only ones disgusted with some large high-tech employers and the impact these employers are having on their community.
Please read the linked article for full details…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/09/us-google-protest-idUSBRE9B818J20131209
snipped from the linked article:
>”A Google Inc commuter bus was blocked in San Francisco’s Mission district for about a half hour Monday morning, highlighting many residents’ growing concern that an influx of affluent technology workers is driving up costs in the city.”<
…
>”Don’t hate on me for my job,” tweeted @FashionistaLab, whose Twitter description identifies her as a style editor at Google Shopping. “You think I LIKE commuting to Mountain View? This protest is dumb.”<
…
>”The commuter-bus situation “has become very symbolic of what’s happening to the city in terms of gentrification,” said McElroy in a phone interview. “It’s creating a system where San Francisco is being flooded with capital, and creating a technology class where other people can’t compete.”<
…
>”The median rent on a two-bedroom apartment rose 10 percent over the last year to $3,250, more than any other city in the country, according to online real-estate company Trulia. Rents in greater New York rose just 2.8 percent.”<
Well, despite the publicity stunt that MVResident67 cites in the post above, I for one appreciate living in a city with a robust economy, with incredibly successful companies employing thousands of well-educated, creative workers. There are SO many cities all around the US – not to mention the rest of the world – that would give anything to have these companies in their city. We need to work to create a better balance of housing and jobs in our city, and strive to maintain our excellent quality of life as we grow – not pull up the drawbridges and stick our heads in the sand, as if we can freeze the Mountain View of 1970 in time forever.
@OMV Resident
I saw some news coverage of this protest on the news this evening and was struck by what one of the people on the bus hollered at the protestors “if you can’t afford to live here, then move somewhere else” … sound familiar?
“Plus, at what point do we start requiring less cars in developments? Today, in 10 years, 50 years? Should we not start near train stations – particularly ones as well served as downtown MV?”
The development under discussion is not near the train station. It is across downtown on the other side of El Camino.
It’s interesting that you choose to park your car overnight on the streets to take the train. How much did that cost? It’s free, right? Pretty nice, right? Enjoy it while you can, because at the rate of this high density growth curve we are on, you will either be completely prevented from doing this or have to pay big bucks. Do we really want to turn downtown MV into downtown SJ or SF? Not me!
NotSmart, look again at the address in the story. It’s kitty-corner to the train station
Perhaps NotSmart was thinking of 801 El Camino (the “Peet’s/Rose Market” project). It’s the next one in the parade of overdevelopment, slated for rubber-stamping.
Mountain View’s appetite for development is suspiciously similar to a crackhead’s appetite for crack. I suspect the end result will be quite similar, as well.
Whoops..my bad.
Yes, I mixed up the developments.
“Plus, you really think people want to park their cars outside, so they can’t walk to them in the cold or rain. ”
You know this is california, right? Rains don’t start until december *someday* and end in feb when it is blue skies again. You know that parking garages are cold, too, right?
You know that parking garages are dangerous, right? I know some women who refuse to go into them alone, because of the risk of assault.
You know that cars get dinged all the time in garages from other users, right?
No? Never mind then. 🙂
The point is that if you think there is going to be more available street parking AFTER building an apartment complex to house several hundred people, you are being foolish. In fact, there will be LESS street parking as they put in more fire and loading zones. Was that taken into account in this project? Probably not….
My objections to front stoops was countered in the meeting with a comment about no stoops making it less walkable downtown for residents. Actually, to walk in-doors down a warm, dry hallway to the end of the building that puts you right by the sidewalk that you then walk on out-of-doors to the downtown area allows you a more quiet and comfortable walk, with either heat or AC depending on the season and it keeps options open for other people who need a place to park to walk from there to downtown. So this encourages even more people to use the downtown, not less! Those living there will tend to more likely park in their own covered parking spot when their front door opens internally to the building, and that is what allows others looking for someplace to park to do business downtown more hope of finding a parking spot. The developer making $8,000.00 per month for a two bedroom at Madera will certainly make enough here to go ahead and build another entire level of parking to start with so it does not make parking downtown a worse nightmare than it already is! Too bad they don’t care. Not even about that most gorgeous “Tree of Heaven” which is certainly so heavenly and took so long to grow that big. It will be replaced with an Oak? We have tons of Oaks, but no other Tree of Heaven. Think of the years a stickiery leaved Oak will take to grow to be big. I say the Tree of Heaven must be saved!
NotSmart – Planning said 20 street parking spaces would be lost to this project. So yes, it was taken into account by Planning and City Council. However, Planning and City Council were listening to Prometheus on this one, and Prometheus did not want to build another level of parking, or cut back on density.
We need to remember that stoops lead to parking on the street in front of them rather than in the spaces the tenant is given in the building, thereby leaving less parking spaces for everyone else. This will make it hard for Tanya’s Hair Design customers in the 801 ECR Proposed Project as very handicapped, elderly customers are regular customers of that hair salon and look forward to it as the highlight of their week. Currently they are dropped immediately in front of the door by a cab or a car from El Camino Hospital. And they know when their pick up has arrived, because they see it pull up. Tanya’s will remain situated on Castro when rebuilt. If stoops are allowed along Castro Street, those who live inside of those front stoops will park in front of their own stoop as if they own the road and those needing drop off service won’t quite manage when there is no curb space at all along Castro Street any more. This will affect anyone wanting to do quick shopping using Castro Street to park on.
Last night I discovered at the City Council meeting that the North Bayshore Project has had all housing removed from that plan, but not the 17000 new jobs. So instead of helping to solve some of the housing need created by that exact area, more employment and no housing will be created thereby making it worse and more necessary for more neighborhoods to be overshadowed and crowded into undesireableness by the influx of stack-and-pack-to-the-hilt housing. It makes the 40 years I’ve spent making my little property ecological, beautiful, wonderful, affordable and pleasant for my tenants and myself a complete waste of my time. I have no place to go because I’ve put all my money into natural, organic stuff for my building plus the 96 solar panels on top for clean fuel for electric cars that my tenants may have for free to help the environment. That what California can do. We don’t need The United Nations European solution imposed on us and ruining our fair little (but not for long) city. Read “UN Agenda 21: Environmental Piracy” by Dr. I. J. Paugh and “Behind the Green Mask” by Rosa Koire of Santa Rosa. Then let’s organize to do things our own way, not lead like sheep by a dictatorship that makes money for developers who pay their way into opportunities for builds for which they need not even submit bids!
PI-
How dare you throw down Detroit without mentioning corruption–that being the single reason for Detroit being in the dire straights it finds itself in right now! The city didn’t–or couldn’t I should say–grow because the politicians (Democrats for the last 40-yes) lined their pockets (and those of their peers) every chance they got.
You don’t think Kwame Kilpatrick started what he did, do you? Nope, he saw what the others before him were doing and decided he wanted a piece of the action. (He was in the MI House before he became Mayor, remember, and had a first hand account of all the shenanigans going on).
So no growth plan? Nah, the greedy politicians and lack of Detroits citizens speaking up caused the growth plan to not be implemented. 🙁
You can’t talk / mention Detroit without mentioning the many, many years of corruption. It is my opinion that the State should have acted much sooner. Maybe growth could have occurred and bankruptcy avoided.
Jus’ sayin’.
Since someone mentioned rain in this Post, I thought I’d chime in about that silly old fact about Bay Area winters too, and how it relates to living and traveling from here:
Who’s bright idea was it to build a new parking garage at the San Jose International Airport (to go with the new Terminal), but have no covered walkway??? Hell, no walkway for that matter!
Am I the only one who thinks this is silly / dumb? So even if you are lucky enough to get inside of the garage (first floor only, the rental companies own the other floors) you still have to walk in the rain just like everyone else parking at the new Terminal outside!
The old Terminal still has covered parking, thank goodness. And I guess there’s always SFO and Oakland. Lol
So it not just MVs Council or PAs…or Mayor Reed in San Jose…it’s all of Santa Clara County.
If anyone has any insight on this, I’d love to hear it.
Jus’ sayin’.
@Linda Curtis — “more employment and no housing will be created thereby making it worse and more necessary for more neighborhoods to be overshadowed and crowded into undesireableness by the influx of stack-and-pack-to-the-hilt housing. It makes the 40 years I’ve spent making my little property ecological, beautiful, wonderful, affordable and pleasant for my tenants and myself a complete waste of my time.”
You must have a pretty sad outlook on life if you truly believe that 40 years of dedication to improving your property can somehow be completely negated by the construction of a (gasp!) 3 or 4-story building somewhere in your neighborhood. Will that building bring locusts? pestilence? death to firstborn children? What is it that scares you so much?
Oh – right – you’re one of those Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists. That explains it. At least you identified yourself as such. Thank you.
@Linda Curtis — re: the 801 ECR project — “Tanya’s will remain situated on Castro when rebuilt. If stoops are allowed along Castro Street, those who live inside of those front stoops will park in front of their own stoop as if they own the road and those needing drop off service won’t quite manage when there is no curb space at all along Castro Street any more.”
Hmmm… we need to save some space for people to be picked up and dropped off in front of the businesses in the new development. And it would be good to save some spots for patrons to park there rather than residents…
Ever hear of parking time limits? Or loading zones? Or, heaven forbid – parking meters?
Wow. It’s interesting to watch Palo Alto wrestle with similar growth issues that Mtn View has been dealing with. Here are some excerpts from an article that seems rather on point. They are talking about traffic and not specifically parking, but it seems very relevant.
“Over the past several years, residents have expressed suspicions that city staff aren’t adequately predicting how much added traffic will come with new developments when they are proposed.”
“Either planners are using faulty numbers and analyses, or they are failing to take into account the cumulative traffic impact of numerous small developments, residents have asserted.”
The city is working hard to come up with new models that more accurately reflect the worsening situation in Palo Alto and what it can mean for future developments:
“But if a new development’s traffic increases the delay, the change is considered “significant,” and the developer would be required to take steps to prevent the problem, Rodriguez’s report states. ”
Are MV City Planners working on similar projects to increase accuracy of parking/traffic studies? If not, perhaps they should be directed by our Council to go work with PA and leverage their work?
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/11/commissioners-push-for-more-traffic-data
@paloaltoidea – Thanks for the link. I’ve reposted it here: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/11/commissioners-push-for-more-traffic-data. Check the comments below the article, regarding the company that PA is using to run the study.
On a more hopeful note, here is the PA Weekly story on the recent withdrawal of an ill-advised development proposal in PA, due to what the developer called the “political climate” in PA: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/12/19/jay-paul-withdraws-plan-for-office-complex-police-hq
As the spouse of a Googler, I can tell you that we are on the verge of leaving, too. We have LOVED living here for the past four years and it’s simply becoming unaffordable–to rent. Forget buying. In fact, we may leave the Bay Area altogether. It’s depressing. If we can’t afford it (I also work full-time out of tech), how can those who earn less than us afford it?
We could continue writing tonnes of comments, but where is an actual result???!!!
I wish everyone on the Earth could have own places to live luxury!!! It is 21 century, and it is shame for humanity, that we still have hungry and homeless people!!! Moreover, people with low income discriminated of locations. How it’s possible for low income to move from lovely places to cheapest ones? Why the money take over humanity’s mind and soul? The best part of soviet times was that every family has had an own condo to live, that was given by the government for FREE, there were no jobless people at all! Education and medical services were FREE! So sad that someone wanted it to collapse, but people privatised those condos for ridiculously little money! Socialism is a good thing! I wish all it could happen in the US, not in China. I wish US citizens could have local jobs, but not H1B workers!!! Globalisation is good, but the US first must think about comfortable life of own civilians !!!
RETURNING TO THE CURRENT THREAD:
FYI Everybody- The City Council of MV approved a reduced parking formula years ago as our city plan. Their public outreach to be included on this decision was insufficient and the motivation was questionable, but still it stands. The intended outcome of requiring less parking in each new construction project is to more and more crowd out parking over time so as to make driving one’s own vehicle (even electric cars & car pools) more and more hassle. And as more cars circle the area searching for parking, traffic gridlock also increases.
ALL BY PLAN.
The intended outcome of this plan is to get people to give up driving here and ride the bus. More money and power for VTA, as if they don’t have enough already to do whatever they decide irrespective of how each city votes on their proposed projects.
And before the trolls start with their “conspiracy theorist” criticisms of me personally, know that I was told about what’s driving this “reduced parking/intensional traffic gridlock” plan personally by more than one city official admitting this, council members included.
If you don’t like it, change it. Vote wisely and vet candidates for their support of killing our convenience of cars.
The problem is all the greedy landlords that are jacking up rents, forcing more people to live in tighter spaces. A lot of these older buildings in Cuesta don’t provide enough parking, so it spills out on the street. Money is scarce to build better transit, due to these same landlords playing tricks with the tax code.
If every apartment building would be assessed properly, the tax revenues would handle this. Auditors need to locate these tax cheats and fix it.
Don’t you agree, Linda?
@@Linda Curtis, no tax code tricks are needed under Prop13.
The entire country is seeing rising housing prices and increased occupancy in existing residences. It’s got nothing to do with our local situation and/or Prop 13. New construction will be priced even higher. So there.
Now you could talk about the ineptitude of VTA which gets just 10% farebox recovery and plans routes in just about the least effective way possible. Give them more revenue?
No way! They need to clean up their act first.
The following comments were posted on a duplicate thread, which has now been closed:
Finally some sanity: “Changes to the parking standards should be “based on data instead of fear and conjecture,” he said.” Especially after all the neighbors forced Madera to build extra parking which is now only 75% occupied despite full occupancy of the building. Data seems to indicate that parking requirements could be further relaxed. Given the housing crunch, squeezing a few more units is a better use of land than saving it for a nonexisting car
by Martin Dec 9, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Martin doesn’t seem to understand that the parking in that area is worse now than before the project. It doesn’t matter that the parking lot is ***only*** 75 percent full, according to the study paid for by the developer. A lot of residents prefer to park on the street because Prometheus typically builds dark, dingy and unsafe garages. A good portion of Madera is corporate leased to google, who tends to only have either zero or one car per unit and the units are not always occupied. That is not a reasonable model for other developments and it doesn’t guarantee that this model will continue. Prometheus may choose not to renew the leases with google in order to raise the rents sky-high. Then, you can expect two cars for each of those one bedroom units and an even worse downtown parking situation. On the plus side, Prometheus will be making money hand over fist, so I guess that means it was a good decision for the city. Uh, what?
by NotSmart Dec 9, 2013 at 3:46 pm
I don’t think the parking is worse. Many times a month, I need to spend a night in SF, so I park my car on Evelyn across from the Caltrain station overnight. Yes, that is about 1 block away from the apartment complex, but I can tell you that the ability to find parking right near the station (between 6pm – 10pm depending on which train I take) has not changed since the complex opened. Perhaps it’s worse during the day or some other hours. Perhaps it’s worse on View street or other streets near the complex. I don’t need a developer study to tell that parking availability around the complex hasn’t changed. Plus, you really think people want to park their cars outside, so they can’t walk to them in the cold or rain. Or come to them after they’ve been sitting in the sun? Plus, at what point do we start requiring less cars in developments? Today, in 10 years, 50 years? Should we not start near train stations – particularly ones as well served as downtown MV?
by Martin Dec 10, 2013 at 9:02 am
Well, I guessed it would be a cold day in Hell if Prometheus got to alter the city’s original view to the mountains…..Or should you just rename the City to Hell or Hell’s Gates..The name of Hell has been available for some time and just reflects the views of some of the original ( and former ) residents.
So when is the statue of MAMMON going to be erected next to City Hall? You have plenty of room where my former High School was….
Yep, a cold day in Hell, CA..formerly named Mountain View, CA