Town Square

Post a New Topic

Parking at 100 Moffett Project

Original post made by Peter Spitzer on Nov 29, 2013

(Letter to the editor published in the 11/29/13 print edition)

On Dec. 3, the City Council will consider final approval of the Prometheus development at 100 Moffett. The proposal includes 229 parking spaces for 228 bedrooms, adhering to the controversial "Model Parking Standard" of one space per bedroom. Planning and developers are fond of this standard, but to anyone who cares to look closely, it should be obvious that this will be inadequate, and will push project residents' parking into neighborhood streets.

One significant issue is the high percentage of large 1-BR apartments at 100 Moffett - 76%, compared to 54% at 1984 El Camino, and 40% average in the four complexes studied for the Model Parking Standard. 1-BR apartments at 100 Moffett will average 820 sf. Under Mountain View's previous parking regulations, 1-BR units over 650 sf required 2 spaces, reflecting the likelihood that these apartments will be shared. At Prometheus' Madera project, the cheapest 1-BR units rent for $3500/month. It will not take renters long to figure out that if two people share, each could save $21,000/year.

Prometheus has presented a "study" of parking at Madera, that appears to show a low percentage of garage parking usage. This study was paid for by the developer, and is not impartial. Questionable practices include overcounting "available" spaces by including EV charging, Zipcar, and motorcycle spaces; ignoring offsite parking by residents; undercounting the number of parked cars (failing to include "unassigned" spaces in tabulating usage by 1-BR tenants), and failing to consider unoccupied units. This is not an objective study, and is not a proper guide for 100 Moffett, or for any other future project.

Many more developments will be coming our way. Allowing inadequate parking would not just negatively impact the Moffett neighborhood, but would set a destructive precedent. For those interested, the Madera parking report and the "Model Parking Standard" staff report can be viewed at www.moffettneighborhood.org.

Comments (44)

Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 30, 2013 at 8:44 am

Why is it so obvious that parking will be inadequate. If the developer is charging $3500/mth, he has a strong financial incentive to provide adequate parking on site. Cant imagine someone renting a bedroom and being told he has to park a half mile away.

The developer always pays for the parking study but staff chooses the consultant. You dismiss the only independent facts of the study to support your subjective and biased opinion. The same claims were made during the Madera project and were found to be untrue. I live in the neighborhood and in fact there is more public parking available.


Posted by Peter Spitzer, a resident of Willowgate
on Dec 1, 2013 at 12:00 am

First, Let me explain the possible undercounting. There are two versions of the Madera parking report, which you can view at www.moffettneighborhood.org. The 9/18/13 version has a note on page 1 reading, "There is no way of knowing which residents were parked in the guest/unassigned spaces. Therefore, cars in unassigned spaces were not included in the cars/occupant analysis by bedroom type." And on page 2, "Parking breakdown by room type (does not include unassigned spaces)." These notes were deleted in the 11/4/13 version. There may be a reason for these deletions - leaving out 1-BR renters parked in "guest/unassigned" spaces produces a 1-BR parking count that is artificially low, and irrelevant.

At 100 Moffett, 1-BR units are proposed at 76% of the total number of units, while at Madera, the figure is 56%. Future apartment sharing is likely, for the reasons listed in my letter above. Then consider the worsening housing/jobs imbalance. Then consider existing parking problems in our neighborhood. A congested garage will drive renters to park on the street.

That's why I think parking will be inadequate, if this project is approved without changes.

As to why the developer would allow what I consider inadequate parking, I think it is basically to save on construction costs. If renters require more space they can just make "other arrangements."

I'm sorry to say that I do not share your faith that an unregulated marketplace always produces socially responsible results.

As for who paid for the Hexagon "Madera parking study," If you read the staff report in the packet that Council received for the Dec. 3 meeting, there is every indication that in this case, it was the developer. Please also note that the cover letter to the 11/4/13 version is addressed to Prometheus, not to any City official or department.

Regarding your statement that there is more parking available now that you have the Madera project - I don't live there, so I can't agree or disagree. I can only speak for our neighborhood, where parking is already tight.


Posted by David, a resident of another community
on Dec 1, 2013 at 1:31 pm

I agree with the concern about the number of spaces. Look at other complexes in the city. Look at Park Place and Park Place South which regularly fill the street on High School Way, Franklin Street and Church Street with their cars. Besides the residents, there is the issue of visitors. These areas being developed now do not have the kind of spaces available nearby such as are found for Park Place. The overflow will be to nearby residential SFR homes which depend on it for themselves. It really does matter that so many more of the 100 Moffett development will be 1 space per unit. They will get shared. It's silly to think that in this area those residents, even if they happen to use CalTrain to get to work, won't also have their own car. As I understand it, Madera is 25% leased to Google for temporary duty employees which are provided with shuttle service. Perhaps 100 Moffett will see the same type of arrangement. That certainly cuts down on cars being parked, but it is not something to depend on. Put that into the contract.


Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 2, 2013 at 2:01 pm

Peter,

You really didn't address my criticisms of your comments. If the developer reduces costs of the project by providing inadequate parking, (or reduces other quality items) renters will not pay as much for the units, so how does the developer gain here? This argument has nothing to do with an unregulated market since the govt is telling the developer how much parking is necessary.

Also, the report may be addressed to the developer since he paid for it, but the consultants are picked by city staff. The only reason staff would not be involved is if the study was deemed unnecessary for the project and the developer decided to provide one, which I doubt is the case here.

Bottom line is that the traffic/parking results will provide direct evidence of the impact of the project. You can ignore them but i doubt most members of council will.


Posted by NotSmart, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 2, 2013 at 5:45 pm

Political Insider has gotten it wrong again: "If the developer is charging $3500/mth, he has a strong financial incentive to provide adequate parking on site."

That's BS. These rentals do not care about their tenants long-term. They prefer to provide shorter term housing because they can charge high rent and do not need to provide things that a longer term tenant might need like parking for all the residents and guests.

I live near the Madera develop and can tell you that street parking is much more difficult since they redeveloped that lot.


Posted by Max Hauser, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 2, 2013 at 6:41 pm

Max Hauser is a registered user.

Peter, if you're new to parking-planning discussions on this forum, you may not be aware of the ritual: someone who will only sign themselves "Political Insider" automatically dismisses any concerns expressed about parking provisioning, as reliably as the night follows the day, unmoved by any evidence.
From all the accountability implied by a pseudonym, this might even be another of the questionable paid initiatives such as Prometheus was observed using when seeking support during the Madera controversy.

"The same claims were made during the Madera project and were found to be untrue" -- by "Political Insider." Never mind that Madera is barely occupied yet, with scant actual history to observe. Never mind contradictory testimony from other nearby residents. Never mind that Google has optioned a large portion of Madera for Google employees, who receive transportation assistance. (An informed _Google_ insider I know cited a figure well over 25%.) And never mind recent years' history of underprovisioned developments around the Bay Area, including Palo Alto, which led to after-the-fact community activism and legislation there and prompted some of the reasoned concern over Madera from residents who have otherwise generally supported local development.


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 2, 2013 at 9:15 pm

Promo will approve the development as is.
Prometheus wants less parking and more apartments, plus they got a street!
Of course parking will spill into the neighborhoods!
It doesn't take a political insider to figure that out.
Greed wins and the residents lose.


Posted by GL, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 2, 2013 at 9:59 pm

How come it seems like every project has a problem with the number of parking spaces to be built, but still the City Council ignores what the neighbors want? The planned complex on Castro and El Camino has the same parking problem. Neighbors are concerned that parking challenges will eventually rival that of Berkeley. I only moved here a few months ago, but it seems to me that development isn't the issue... It's either that the City Council ignores the people, which means they should be voted out, or the minority is awfully vocal.


Posted by Peter Spitzer, a resident of Willowgate
on Dec 3, 2013 at 12:00 am

I'm sorry that I don't have the time right now for a complete reply to "Political Insider," but let me address a couple of items.

Hexagon did the study. They have done a lot of work for both Planning and Prometheus. It doesn't much matter who chose them; the bias in the report is really blatant. Anyone who is interested can take a look at two versions of the report, at www.moffettneighborhood.com.

There's the undercounting of parked cars that I mentioned above. Then there's the overcounting of "available spaces" by including spaces reserved for USPS, Zipcars, EV charging, and motorcycles. Then there is the cover letter on the 11/4/13 version from the president of Hexagon to Prometheus, phrased as if that (somewhat "edited") version is the first one sent - although obviously Prometheus had received the 9/18/13 version at least 6 weeks earlier. The new version deleted the notes stating that "unassigned" spaces were left out of the "usage by apartment type" count. It was created for the eyes of EPC and Council. Then there is "Table 1," featured prominently on the first page of the 11/4/13 version, which omits to mention that it includes corporate apartments, which may not always have occupants. How much evidence of bias do you need?


Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 7:21 am

I live in the OMVN and the Madera project is sold out and there is no parking problem. Most of you are making excuses and claiming bias in the parking/traffic report because you disagree with its conclusions. It is the only objective report completed by an independent consultant. My bet is that most of the council will accept the conclusions of the report.

@ NotSmart


"That's BS. These rentals do not care about their tenants long-term.

I live near the Madera develop and can tell you that street parking is much more difficult since they redeveloped that lot."

More BS. You still didnt address my argument. If the offer less value, then rents decline.


Posted by NotSmart, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 7:54 am

Political Insider, Your argument is, "If the offer less value, then rents decline."????

That "argument" makes no sense. What does "the offer less value" even mean?

Ridiculous.

Peter has this right. I did take a look at the draft and final version of the study. The first one shows problem with the parking model based on the room types, so it was obviously re-drafted to omit the problematic data. That second version was the one submitted to council and the planning dept.

Sure, the city had to approve the traffic study consultant, but they are working for the consultant. That doesn't make the study automatically wrong, but if you read both versions of the study with an open mind, then you can see the "cover up". I would equate this natural "bias" to what we saw during the housing bubble. Property appraisers would come in and inspect the house prior to sale. They were supposed to ensure that the homes were truly worth the money that was being loaned against them. However, if an appraiser would come in with a number that was significantly lower than a certain target number, then that would mess up the deal. No deal, means no profits for the banks and real estate agents. So, that appraiser would not be hired again!!! I'm sure the same works for these Developer-hired traffic/parking study consultants.


Posted by Max Hauser, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 8:39 am

Max Hauser is a registered user.

NotSmart: Before Madera was approved for construction, a consultants' parking study done for it had such gross methodological errors as to raise real questions about its conclusions, regardless of what they were. For example, it concluded that no Caltrain commuters were parking their cars in residential streets, on the basis that its field workers did not bother to check for them. The error was immediately documented by local residents (and since then, the measured phenomenon of Caltrain commuters impacting nearby streets has become a routine element in the city's planning). That, and other gaffes, were all visible to anyone who cared to check for themselves. I understand that the particular consultant lost credibility with City staff as a result.

Yet that study's conclusions were still cited by some on Council (and inevitably, "Political Insider") to rationalize rejecting public concern over parking and traffic, which, once again, have only begun to be tested in reality. It will be years before Madera's impact on traffic and parking are clear in reality (not rhetoric) and I hope they prove light, but whatever they are, they're here to stay.

I recently attended an unrelated community meeting where several downtown-area residents, even those favoring high-density construction, voiced concerns over the town's development direction, citing 100 Moffett among many examples. One longtime resident argued that the Council has yet to see a project it didn't like and that Mountain View is in the early stages of a situation now past crisis point in Palo Alto, where "residents are up in arms and talking about kicking out the entire city council."


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 10:36 am

Nothing anyone can do about it.
Prometheus gets what prometheus wants.
And yes, obviously, city council is owned by the deveolpers.
No money in representing the residents.

Drive around town and see all the "proposed development" signs!
Old Mountain View is getting wiped out.


Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 11:59 am

@NotSmart,

"That "argument" makes no sense. What does "the offer less value" even mean?"

Exactly what it states. Prospective tenants will not be willing to pay higher rents for less value offered by the landlord. Learn some economics and why people exchange for mutual benefits and maybe we can have a better discussion.


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 1:20 pm

Everyone who has ever rented knows the game--political insider can't be more wrong, as usual a spokeperson for developrs.
Extra cars get street parking. Rent is whatever the market demands.


Posted by NotSmart, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 2:17 pm

Political Insider's sole argument is that if we allow the Developers to do anything they wish, then that is what is best for the community.

"Prospective tenants will not be willing to pay higher rents for less value offered by the landlord."

Again, he's got it wrong, but at least this time it is a complete sentence and can be read. He assumes that if there is insufficient parking on-site for all their residents, then they won't pay the higher rent. This shows a cluelessness about how short term residents make decisions in a high-rent area like Mtn View.

"Learn some economics and why people exchange for mutual benefits and maybe we can have a better discussion. "

Wow, an insult. How surprising when he's backed to the wall. I guess if we don't want to allow developers to destroy our city, then we must not know anything about economics.

I hope the council will overrule the planning staff and force Prometheus to put in some more parking spots.


Posted by Konrad M. Sosnow, a resident of Bailey Park
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:04 pm

Couple rents an apartment. Female works for Google so takes bus to work. However, she is an avid sailor and has a car to get back and forth to Sausalito to sail. Male works in Fremont and needs a car to go too work as VTA takes 3 to 4 times as long as driving.

Question: Who gets the parking space and who parks on they street?


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:10 pm

She gets the parking space, he gets the street.
Prediction for this development = there will be 228 cars looking for street parking.
Prometheus changed the rules for parking and Prometheus will approve this development tonight


Posted by simpleton, a resident of Castro City
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:23 pm

I haven't delved into this subject to much but it seems to me the current parking ratio is inadequate. People will double/perhaps triple up in these apartments, so you could easily have 300 cars that need parking. This will spill over into the surrounding neighborhood and have an impact on residents who depend on street parking. This also assumes renters are going to always park in their assigned spots when it may just be more convenient to park on the streets, especially if they score a prime spot.

If I am not mistaken, in San Francisco you need a permit to park in a given neighborhood, or you get towed. Permits will not be issued to apartment renters since they have space provided.

Would Mountain View ever do anything like this? Seems to me it would be a revenue generator for the city.

Thanks


Posted by unparked, a resident of Rex Manor
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:36 pm

I live in a complex that provides two spots for a two-bedroom unit. We have no guest parking so the street is always lined with both residents and guests. Residents use at least one of their spots (i.e., the garage) for storage and they still have at least two cars that need to be parked. The City needs to require more parking to avoid all the on-street parking being occupied by residents.


Posted by OMV Resident, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:44 pm

@Peter Spitzer --

I've looked carefully at the two versions of the Madera parking study that are posted on the neighborhood group website, and I have to say you are really grasping at straws to say that the report is somehow biased (not to mention, impugning the ethics of the consultants who prepared the report and the City staff who oversaw the process).

The consultants clearly DID count all the parked cars when they did the study -- all the data are there for anyone to see, broken down by many factors, like unassigned vs. assigned spaces, number of bedrooms, conventional vs. corporate rentals, etc. It is simply a fact that you cannot tell how many cars parked in an unassigned space belong to a 1-bedroom vs. a 2-bedroom unit (that's the nature of an unassigned space). However, even if you take all the cars parked in 'rentable (unassigned)' spaces and assume they were for 1-bedroom units, you still end up with only 95 occupied spaces (89 + 6) for 116 1-bedroom units on the first count date, and 93 occupied spaces (88 + 5) for 116 units on the second date.

So the supposed 'shortage' of spaces for 1-bedroom units that you're claiming doesn't exist.

Furthermore, the study shows that only 65 to 66% of the total parking spaces on site were used on the nights studied. Even if you discount the EV, motorcycle and Zipcar spaces (another complaint of yours), the studies show occupancy of 67%. And this is what really matters - if there happens to be a crunch in a certain category of parking (e.g., assigned spaces for 1-bedroom apartments), the property manager/owner can re-allocate spaces accordingly.

And to address another claim of yours, 'failing to consider unoccupied units', Madera has been fully occupied since the early spring, shortly after it opened, and the study even separated out 'corporate' units rented by Google from 'conventional' units, and still showed NO category of parking to be close to full.

Bottom line? The study you criticize actually proves the point that a development parked at the 'Model Parking Ratio' is WELL OVERSUPPLIED with parking, to the tune of 30%. To require the developer of 100 Moffett to revise their development at this point to add parking is simply alarmist and NIMBY. I look forward to the Council seeing past your false claims and approving a solid development this evening.


Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:46 pm

@ NotSmart,

"Prospective tenants will not be willing to pay higher rents for less value offered by the landlord."

Maybe you are the exception and stupid enough to pay more for something that offers less value. But speak for yourself and not for others. You lack a basic understanding of how people engage in voluntary exchange. Makes no difference if they are ST or LT.


"Wow, an insult. How surprising when he's backed to the wall."

Right, you cant handle a simple economic argument so I am backed to the wall. How silly. You feel insulted because you lack common economic sense.








Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 3:49 pm

@ OMV Resident,

Best post of the day,


Posted by hmm, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 4:39 pm

"How come it seems like every project has a problem with the number of parking spaces to be built, but still the City Council ignores what the neighbors want?"

The answer to all these questions lie in the fact that the city wants to do away with cars. The more trouble it is for people that drive the more they will leave their cars to walk or take mass transit. That is the ignorant philosophy of not only our city council, but also other city as well. I guess that is why they have their meetings with other cities, to push this type of trash agenda on us.


Posted by hmm, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 4:49 pm

"It is simply a fact that you cannot tell how many cars parked in an unassigned space belong to a 1-bedroom vs. a 2-bedroom unit (that's the nature of an unassigned space)"

That is the only logical part OMv Resident said. The rest is just statistical garbage that can be manipulated any way the person creating it wants.

One thing that statistic fails to mention is that there will not only be one person living in a 1 bedroom apartment, but rather 4 or 5 people will live there, with each one having a car.


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 4:49 pm

The "studies" say whatever Prometheus wants them to say. then the Prometheus spokemen get on these message boards spouting the word.

Of course Prometheus will approve the development tonight. the fix is in.


Posted by OMV Resident, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 5:00 pm

@hmmm - "That is the only logical part OMv Resident said. The rest is just statistical garbage that can be manipulated any way the person creating it wants."

Have you even bothered to read the study that I'm referencing? Resorting to name-calling and insults only weakens your position. The facts speak for themselves, and no one on this board has presented any data or anything concrete to prove the contrary.


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 5:17 pm

All the data we need is what our eyes are telling us as we sit in traffic at central/moffet rengstorff etc, and el camino et al and can't find a parking spot downtown, because apartment dwellers are taking up all the parking.

It will be the same for 100 Moffet too

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. That's our "data"


Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community
on Dec 3, 2013 at 7:39 pm

Even with all the parking space you build, you won't stop traffic. Stop adding jobs, stop adding business growth. Still got a parking ticket in a half empty downtown, closed down businesses, plenty of parking.


Posted by Political Insider, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 3, 2013 at 9:22 pm

As expected, the project was approved by a vote of 5-2. As VM Clark stated we have to make our decision based on facts and rules and not base them on fear and conjecture. Several people spoke on the parking issue. Council listened very carefully to their concerns and ignored them because without providing sufficient counter evidence, council supported the parking standard. As CM Bryant stated, free public parking will always create issues, but this project will not contribute to that problem. It will raise land values.

So much for Johns, "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics. That's our "data"". For those that claim the council ignores issues, they need to look themselves in the mirror and honestly ask why council ignores them.

A great carefully made decision by the council.


Posted by SAM, a resident of North Whisman
on Dec 3, 2013 at 9:39 pm

How come no one is addressing the elephant in the room. Since when is Mtn View a $3500 for 800 sq feet? That has to be some fancy apt. And fancy apt owners have fancy cars (probably 2)


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 3, 2013 at 10:07 pm

Surprise Surprise! An over built, dense, Prometheus project gets council approval! Stop the presses!
They even get a city street thrown in!

Council ignores us because Prometheus owns them. At least two council members agree with the concerns.


Posted by 43 Degrees, a resident of Jackson Park
on Dec 3, 2013 at 11:48 pm

My general rule for margins is 30%. For parking, for instance, if 100 spaces are needed, provide 130.

In an apartment situation, you will need room for social visitors, roommates, repairers, deliverers, general mobility, etc., in addition to those for the residents.

In a business situation, as we're seeing with Milk Pale, you need places for arriving visitors and those who are already there. Having sufficient nearby parking reduces the need to drive around looking for spaces, or being trapped in a space by those who are driving around looking for one.


Posted by David, a resident of another community
on Dec 4, 2013 at 12:04 am

So then, that's the solution for Milk Pail. Cut the parking standard down to the point that they can stay open. If the customers care to shop, they will squeeze in somewhere. Why be so picky about Milk Pail and then let so few spaces be built for 100 Moffett?

If you really want to be sure you have a good standard, require post-construction parking surveys every year, and reduce the number of units the owner can rent if there is too much parking overflow. That then might motivate the construction of sufficient parking. After all, if the standard is so good, then what harm is there in a condition like this?


Posted by Petiton, a resident of Cuesta Park
on Dec 4, 2013 at 12:38 am

There's an online petition requesting an increase to the number of planned parking spaces at the El Camino and Castro development. The neighbors trying to get the council to require more parking spots in all development plans should consider supporting each other's cause to spur results.

Web Link


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 4, 2013 at 9:04 am

"Why be so picky about Milk Pail and then let so few spaces be built for 100 Moffett?"

The answer is that the Milk pail is supported by the ordinary residents of the city who are suppossed to be represented by their elected officials.

Instead the elected officials represent the out of town developers who come into town with their carny shows (studies) and 'jewels of silicon valley"
and as said before there isn't a development they don't like.

I don't see any fighting back by the citizens -- see Palo Alto.
The petition for more parking at Castro/El Camino will go no where.
Council already sold the parking lot off.


Posted by Old Ben, a resident of Shoreline West
on Dec 4, 2013 at 11:13 am

I really enjoyed PROMETHEUS, I though it was a great movie. I especially liked the part where the alien Engineer ripped the CEO guy's head off. That was great.


Posted by paloaltoidea, a resident of Old Mountain View
on Dec 4, 2013 at 2:02 pm

John has a good point-Palo Alto residents are fighting back against the developers who have made parts of their town miserable to travel around in. Recently, they passed an initiative on the November ballot to cancel approval of a development that was right up against single family homes.

I would suggest if that there are enough residents who feel that the 1 car per bedroom rule is too damaging to our community, we should push a ballot initiative next time around.

Increase the ratio to something like 1.4 spots per bedroom?
"No new or significantly remodeled rental or condo development above 8 units in size shall have fewer than 1.4 off-street parking spots per bedroom."


Posted by Henry, a resident of Gemello
on Dec 4, 2013 at 2:30 pm

Anything that's free is overused. Putting in parking meters would allow those who need parking to pay those who provide it (either the city on the streets or private lots). If apartment dwellers need parking they should be able to buy it, just like they do for water or electricity. I would rather have parking meters in front of my house so that the taxes I pay go to parks or something I use, rather than maintaining parking I don't use.


Posted by John, a resident of Monta Loma
on Dec 4, 2013 at 2:43 pm

Notice how there is a predetermined outcome to every "study" for these dense apartment buildings that are going up?

There's always no impact: no traffic impact, no parking shortage or intrusions into nearby neighborhoods, no impacts on schools, no infrastructure shortages, not one impact!

In fact listening to the prometheus, there is a REDUCTION in the impact!

And council and staff repeat the mantra.

Like a prometheus executive said, developing in Mountain View is "a walk in the park".


Posted by konrad M. Sosnow, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 4, 2013 at 3:00 pm

@paloaltoidea,

Count me in on your idea for a ballot initiative next time around.

Increase the ratio to something like 1.4 spots per bedroom?
"No new or significantly remodeled rental or condo development above 8 units in size shall have fewer than 1.4 off-street parking spots per bedroom."


Posted by konrad M. Sosnow, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 4, 2013 at 3:10 pm

@ John,

I have ordered, as holiday presents, a set of five rubber stamps for the City Council members (except for Jac Siegel and John McAllister. I have also ordered 5 plaques stating: "What is good for the developers is good for Mountain View".

Jac and John get plaques stating:

"One person can make a difference, and everyone should try."

― John F. Kennedy


Posted by konrad M. Sosnow, a resident of Blossom Valley
on Dec 4, 2013 at 3:15 pm

@Political Insider,

Of course "As expected, the project was approved by a vote of 5-2".
If the Developers proposed a 100 story building with no parking in downtown Mountain View, it would be approved 5-2.

We have 5 Council members who are only puppets for the developers and have not had an original thought in years.


Posted by Peter Spitzer, a resident of Willowgate
on Dec 4, 2013 at 4:49 pm

"OMV Resident" - I think you may have misread the charts. Let's just look at the first day of the count, 6/25/13. The figures for 6/25 do not show 89 parked "conventional" spaces. That's the total of parked and unparked; the chart shows "parked conventional" as 74. Adding in the 6 occupied "rentable unassigned" spaces, that would have meant only 80 parked cars for 116 1-BR units. That doesn't sound so bad.

But for your total number of 1-BR apartments (116), you have included 30 corporate rentals, and three that were not listed on the chart for some reason (cover letter showed 116, chart showed 113). Since we are counting only occupied "conventional" apartments, the total should be 80 parked cars for 83 1-BR apartments. Not as good.

It actually gets worse. We have to count at least some of the cars parked in the guest (secured) and guest (unsecured) spaces. These could be 1-BR renters who park there for convenience, or because they do not want to pay the fee for reserving a second parking space; or they could be guests of 1-BR renters. There are 31 of these spaces. Let's say that 15 of them are occupied by 1-BR renters or their guests. Now we have 95 parked cars for 83 conventional 1-BR apartments.

The model parking standard of one space per bedroom may not be adequate for 1-BR renters. Again, 100 Moffett will have 76% 1-BR, not 57% as at Madera.

I hope you'll forgive me for keeping this going, but I can't help doing the math. Please let me know if I am missing something.

As for the "NIMBY" label, please let me note that I am in favor of putting density near public transit, and absolutely want to see Moffett Blvd. upgraded. However, I would have preferred to see a somewhat less dense development here, 3 stories rather than 4, with enough parking to take care of its residents.

"Well oversupplied?" I guess we will find out.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

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

Acai bowls, headed to downtown Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 4 comments | 2,535 views

Freshman Blues Don't Mean Wrong College
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 2 comments | 1,079 views

Background and Ideas for the Comp Plan
By Steve Levy | 21 comments | 1,014 views

Give me a moment
By Jessica T | 0 comments | 651 views

My Experience Using Tugg.com To Host A Movie At Shoreline
By Angela Hey | 0 comments | 501 views