The concerns of the Commissioners are wholly justified. It is difficult enough to forecast the implications of state-mandated housing on infrastructure, traffic, quality of life, shopping and access to recreational and leisure services alone. Shooting for an additional 4,000 housing units - and a population growth of a whopping 75% - requires significant scrutiny and a clear articulation of trade-offs and benefits to the taxpayers that are anything but self-evident to this reader.

This is madness! Clearly a ploy of lets ask for the moon and take something lesser. How can we build community with inferior infrastructure and apartments that attract tech workers who get Google on their resume and then move on. It appears anything east of El Camino is fair game, excluding Old Mountain View. Indeed in Old MV they are developing a new park where anywhere else in the city it would be more apartments. The haves and have nots!

It's not going to be 15,000 units. The city's analysis is fudged.

"Concerned" raises a good point about growth disparities across Mountain View.

As City grows, we should move away from at-large election towards district ones. This would insure one neighborhood (like Old Mountain View) is not over-represented on the City Council, shielded from most of the growth, hoarding a larger share of investments....

As to the EIR, it seems to be an exercise in documenting impacts that will all be unavoidable anyways, since the State is mandating Mountain View to grow.

Just understand,

Given the current Real Estate situation, many of these permits are likely to go undeveloped. Approving a project versus projects completed tends to be a lot less then promised.

Given that the property values are in correction state, the cost of the building will be highest now, yet sales of the projects are most likely going to be off by as much as 20% of projected sales.

Many projects are already being stopped in CA.

My impression is most of the MV housing growth is targeted for the neighborhoods.
While not putting the greatest density next to the Transit Village (CalTrain/VTA/Bus/Shuttles)

This is backwards.

In fact, most cities put their density near the main transit hubs (e.g BART stations/CalTrain)

Putting density in the neighborhoods also
- makes it harder to upgrade sewer, water, electrical capacity
Makes it harder to get to the Transit Village - first and last mile of a commute is often the hardest.
- we don't have a well developed mass transit system like SF or Berkeley

Is there some other agenda going on here?
This seems so backwards.

Build, baby, build! To those of you concerned about adding 15,000 units, remember that Mountain View added that many units back in the 50s and 60s, and people thought that was a good thing. Why is it bad now in the 2020s? It's not. A growing city is a healthy city. A new wave of technology companies gave Mountain View a large economic opportunity, and it looks like they are stepping up to take that opportunity, although it's a little late.

Not sure why funding for construction of new public schools to support a 40% increase in population did not make this list. Is this issue outside of the scope of the EPC?

@Leslie; the reason we see the current MVWSD superintendent (and Board) tearing their hair out :) at this sort of "analysis" is the city staff is totally unrealistic about the cost of school building!

IF the residential builders - dedicated LAND - and if the Board started to listen to Trustee Chiang (and learned from their own excursions to SF) this school-funding problem might be mitigated.

High density / multi-story urbanized schools AND community open space.

In the '50s this was solved by multi-use suburban density schools/fields. [Bubb, Huff, Landels ...

Otherwise - the MVWSD administration is correct / ALL property taxpayers EXPECT MORE SCHOOL BONDS for paying for this new developer-residential-unit student influx.

@ Steven, thank you. As you point out, if there are insufficient funds to construct new schools, the result will either be overcrowded schools or higher taxes for existing property owners (if voters agree to raise those taxes yet again) . Meanwhile, MV Yimby leaders argue before the city council that legacy developer fees on new construction, which are collected in part to have funds to construct new schools and parks, pose a “hardship” to developers. The net result would be to shift the burden of new school construction entirely onto the backs of ordinary homeowners, rather than being a shared responsibility. Are you aware of this issue? If so, what do you think about it? In my view, a side effect of new construction is additional burden on infrastructure that we all use (our new age “commons”, so to speak). The tragedy of the commons is that we all benefit, but nobody wants to pay for its upkeep. Since new construction directly increases the population, I agree with past lawmakers who established these fees to help pay for new schools. MV Yimby leaders never explain the consequences if developer fees on new construction are not collected. Developers want to maximize their profits, of course they want to minimize their costs. It is children and parents who will suffer if new school construction is defunded.

The MVVoice has become useless since cutting off voting comments.

It's no longer possible to gage the discontent of the populace to the extreme, radical moves by woke leftists who captured the city management and are intent on killing the quality of life for everyone living in Mountain View.

Trust me — folks are OUTRAGED at the city plans to grow the city by 40%.

accidental post, deleted by author