Increasing office space will only lead to more congestion on 101, 237, and 85. I agree with Matichak's concern about the ability of Light Rail to solve the problem. I can't see most people riding bicycles to work either. Instead of 10,000 apartments, how about more homes to establish a long-term community and give apartment dwellers somewhere to move when they outgrow their apartments?

Mountain View as in view mountains is gone. What a shame!

Light Rail to the beach? To get kids to activities? Let's face it, at some point people will want cars. I agree with Albert's comment about the desirability of establishing a long term commitment as well.

Albert is right that we need owner-occupied housing, rather than rented apartments. Unfortunately, there is not enough acreage in any precise plan area to build the number of single-family detached homes (10,000, say) needed. If we don't start building high-rise condos (more than 8 stories) Mountain View will never have enough owner-occupied residences, and those that exist will continue to be priced in the millions of dollars, even though they originally (before Prop 13) sold for less than $20,000.

Mountain View does not have enough land area to hold everyone who wants to live here, plus all the businesses that want to be located here, unless all the "change areas" from the Mountain View 2030 General Plan are built UPWARD, with many high-rise buildings both commercial and residential. Even that General Plan did not contemplate buildings as high as I think we need. The 5-story building going up at Castro And El Camino Real is the very site where the Plan called for "up to 5 stories".

The article says that the LASD was somehow involved in the Whisman discussion but that's very far from LASD boundary. Is LASD looking to put a school in Whisman and bus kids there?? Or is it just opening schools outside its boundaries like El Camino opened a hospital in Los Gatos outside the El Camino district boundaries?

Grow up, and be civilized adults!

The transferring of development rights would occur if a parcel in the LASD territory (near San Antonio Center) had development rights that could be transferred to a parcel in East Whisman. That would mean "moving" some of the density from San Antonio over to increase whatever is acceptable otherwise in East Whisman. The city already has some flexibility defined to transfer development rights within a precise plan area, but this would be a case of moving between distant areas of the city. Normally certain specific areas are designated as having the right to RECEIVE transferred development rights and others are designated as having the right to SEND them. This is quite a departure and amounts to a zoning subsidy from the city to LASD. The East Whisman area won't benefit at all from the reduced density of the San Antonio area having a site used for an elementary school, but nearby areas will so benefit.

To explain further, LASD could pay less for a parcel in San Antonio if the current owner could also get some value from selling his existing development rights separately. So the owner of land in East Whisman which could house a 200,000 sq foot building might pay money to the LASD seller and then gain the right to build a 300,000 or 400,000 sq foot building on the East Whisman property.

I like what I see so far. I agree that light rail is wimpy, but it's just a short ride to Caltrain or to the big office parks in north Sunnyvale, so some people will ride it. I'm also looking forward to seeing what bicycle trails they propose.

"I can't see most people riding bicycles to work either."

Google already has > 20% of their HQ employees biking to work who live within 9 miles. Someone who lives and works in this area will be at most a few miles away. The south bay has nearly perfect weather for biking, it's a shame it's not better used.

"Instead of 10,000 apartments, how about more homes to establish a long-term community"

Apartments ARE homes. The American obsession with detached single-family houses is counterproductive, especially in an area with sky-high demand like the bay area. People need a place to live, and single-family homes would provide only a small fraction of what's needed.

"give apartment dwellers somewhere to move when they outgrow their apartments?"

Some people indeed outgrow apartments, but many (especially those without kids) do not need the extra space. Most land in the south bay is already used for detached single-family homes; more balance means more apartments, especially since that's the only way to fulfill housing demand.

Light rail/biking is not a realistic solution to transit in the Mt View today, in 2017. Maybe it will be in a decade, but that doesn't help us today.

That only 20% of Googlers bike to work supports this point. Googlers are highly paid and are the most likely to be able to afford a home near where they work. Even still, the vast majority of them do not bike to work. At my office (in Mt View), many people commute from Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, etc., and I know that many of my neighbors commute to neighboring cities. A 45 minute bike ride from Mt View to Palo Alto is not realistic for many. Caltrain is also time consuming and inconvenient.

Like it or not, a car is the most realistic to navigate Mt View and the South Bay. When people say "biking/public transit is the solution to south bay traffic," it is a polite way of saying "this problem is not important."

@Neil - Single-family residences enable owners to build equity. Apartments just siphon off money to the developer/owners, and the renters are left with no lasting benefit.

Apartments work best for those who are not planning to stay long, or for those who cannot afford to buy. Single-family homes are expensive because they are in short supply - ask any realtor about inventory in the last few years.

Ownership not only builds equity, but gives the homeowner a stake in the community, and a reason to stay.

What are you talking about? People purchase and live in apartments, condos, and townhouses all the time. The single-family home obsession is ridiculous and short-sighted.

California law doesn't allow for purchasing an apartment. You're think of New York. In California that apartment like dwelling needs to be structured as a condominium, which is different.

Sure, substitute an apartment co-op for "apartment" there. The point being that there are plenty of ways to have ownership/equity/long-term communities for dense housing, not just single-family homes.

My statements were about single-family ownership properties. That, of course, includes condos and townhouses.

Ownership units - in the current situation, that means condos and townhouses - enable owners to build equity. Apartments just siphon off money to the developer/owners, and the renters are left with no lasting benefit.

My point was about the desirability of building ownership units vs. rental units. Density is another question entirely. We obviously need new residential space, but roads only have so much capacity. It's delusional to think that overbuilding will be OK because everyone will change "mode" to bikes or light rail. Unfortunately, that's the line we are hearing from some high-density advocates.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?