At first blush, this one seems like a good one.

I always worry about creating traffic when density ratchets up. With Castro Street closed, this part of Moffett (and its access to Central Expressway, SR-85 and US-101; as well as to the Stevens Creek Trail for biking/walking) seems to be a good candidate for development. From what I can tell, anyway.

I walk by this property every day. The currently abandoned auto shop is an eyesore. This apartment building will be perfect for people who want a small apartment and don't need a car. It's a short walk to downtown restaurants and train station and the Steven's Creek bike trail is just to the east at the end of Central Ave. I look forward to the city approving this an getting some more housing in MV.

Rents starting at $3999/mo.

Not mentioned: Will there be problems building on the site of an auto garage--oil and gas in the soil, problems digging underground parking, etc.?

Only 3 affordable units? And the others rent for $4000--for a one-bedroom? Who can afford to live there?

More to the point, who would rent a $4K apartment like that when they could group with housemates and rent a house that is 3 times the size for $6K/mo in Los Gatos? Not for everyone.

This project sounds wrong in so many ways.
This adds nothing but problems to the existing neighborhood. 21 units on the corner of two busy streets that already has a lot of jaywalkers. Built on a lot that would normally only fit 1 or 2 single family homes. No new open space. Only 1 parking spot for every 2 units, so we can expect everyone to be parking in shopping center behind the building.
This is the wrong project for that tiny space.

Excited for the new neighbors. Can’t happen fast enough. Would love to see this section of Moffet see a lot more development with space for restaurants, shops, and apartments.

I call this the "50 pounds of manure in a 5-pound bag" syndrome. More housing, more congestion. Gridlock. It never ends -- unless voters become adamant about "showing the door" to Mountain View's pro-growth council. We must change the revolving door of the same folks returning (e.g., Inks, Kasperzak, Abe-Koga, Lieber). You know what I mean. Mountain View needs fresh faces with new ideas. What a concept...

I also oppose this plan if indeed the rents will be $4k for 900 sq ft, and only 3 affordable units - not helpful at all. When I first read of 1 bedroom, 900 sq ft apartments, I thought all 21 units would be at affordable or low-income rents. Not having 1 parking space per unit is unrealistic. As much as we might think people will bike/walk to where they need to be, that's not reality, especially if they can afford $4k/mo for rent. Parking will spill over onto the street or into the shopping center.

Beautiful, a local NIMBY posts obvious false information on the article, and the rest of the folks of... a certain generation... eat up the fake news as usual and start complaining about not enough homes for cars, too. Why does the Voice allow people to outright lie here?

Just wait. Someone will say the abandoned auto shop is "neighborhood character." When was the last time someone fixed a car there?

I can't wait for that abandoned, eyesore property to be developed. We need as much density as we can get near downtown and the train station. There is plenty of street parking available on Central Ave so I don't think that will be a problem. And btw, I never thought the $3999/month comment was a lie. I thought it was a joke as that is obviously too much for a small, 1bed/bath apartment around here.

The comment was serious. Locate any new construction 1 bd apartment of 600-700sf in the city. They all cost just under $4K per month. Why would any owner rent for less than the market rate? It could be a test of the idea that omitting parking would reduce rents. But living in a smaller project has some charm to it, and that might offset the potential discount from the lack of parking. It seems like the accurate estimate would be the rents would equal those elsewhere in the city with more traffic and so forth nearby.

But, these are NOT 900 sf units--they are all under 700sf per the article, same as in large Prometheus projects on San Antonio and others along El Camino Real. You could quibble, but what's the difference if the rate might be a mere $3750 per month?

Example, Elan Apartments ECR at Castro. 716sf $3900. Different units will be priced differently and the dovetailing with a departure might get you some discount if you commit in advance.

LongResident gets called out for lying, responds with "Source: I made it up" and thinks it helps his case.

Forecasting the prices does not connote a NIMBY. Naive guessers that 650sf means a lower rent might want to check out the prices and sizes of available units in any new project. It would be a public service to i.d. places for say a $3K rent of such a new unit. New costs more. That's just the way it is. What's ironic is that this developer might be able to build units for $500K apiece. That's 1/2 the cost or less as seen by new all affordable projects elsewhere. It's more like YIMBY to say that such privileges of zoning variances (conditional use permits) ought to be reserved for all affordable projects. Too bad the city can't snap up these cheap land prices and then convert use to increase density and reduce cost per unit, but that doesn't seem to happen.

Keep packing those poor people into cheap housing. It's good for the economy.

I think this sounds like a fantastic project. One of the reasons I like it is the small plaza behind the site could really use a few more regular customers to justify a couple more long term storefronts. The small market there would definitely benefit from the additional foot traffic, as would the taqueria and pizza shop. The traffic would be minimal since it's at the opening of the neighborhood and many of the folks who might live there will likely work remotely, or want to live somewhere they can easily jump on the train to head to work elsewhere in the area. Sounds like a fantastic project. Let's do it!

These apartments won't be cheap. Where does that come from? How could they be less costly than the competition? Using the train to get to work? Pretty much anywhere you might take the train to work, apartments in that city are already cheaper than in Mountain View? So they work in Santa Clara and they want to live in Mountain View because they can take the train there and pay more? I'm not following that logic. Taking the train to work every day is expensive. Why not build housing that serves people who want to work in Mountain View?