LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SURVEY (ONLINE)
SURVEY SUMMARY
(March 7th to April 6th, 2025)
Attachment 11
PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW
PARTICIPATION OVERVIEW
Total Respondents* 144
Total Responses 607
Total Open Ended Comments 244
*Total Respondents include submitted respondents (those who got to the last page of the questionnaire and clicked Submit) and unsubmitted respondents (who responded to at least one question in the questionnaire but did not click "Submit" at the end).
INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS
INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS
Participants were asked to depict their relationship to the Precise Plan Area using the “home” or the “work/school” icons.
The total responses received (56) indicated that the
respondents lived within or around the Precise Plan
Area.
The total responses received (20) indicated that the
respondents worked or went to school within or
around the Precise Plan Area.
INTRODUCTORY QUESTIONS
EMERGING CONCEPTS: AREA CHARACTER
EMERGING CONCEPTS: AREA CHARACTER
30 30
EMERGING CONCEPTS: AREA CHARACTER
EMERGING CONCEPTS: AREA CHARACTER
EMERGING CONCEPTS: AREA CHARACTER
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
20 EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
EMERGING CONCEPTS: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
Question 12: What other Streetscape Improvements would you like? • Many respondents felt there is a need for improved streetscape elements and pedestrian amenities (e.g., trash cans, bus stops, lighting, art, and landscape).
• Some respondents were concerned about parking and traffic management strategies, given the increased demand due to increased densities.
• Some respondents felt the need for increased traffic calming and safety measures (e.g., pedestrian signals, crosswalks, different road surface pavers).
OTHER STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
LAND USE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE A: MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED-USE
Housing
Density
Up to ~75
Dwelling Units
per Acre
New
Residential
550 to 650
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Uses
50,000 to
74,000
Square Feet
Building Height
Maximums
4 to 5
Stories
Land Use Policy Approach
Applies Medium Intensity Mixed-
Use throughout the area (with
housing densities from the City’s
Adopted Housing Element).
Encourages (but does not require)
ground floor non-residential uses
fronting Moffett Boulevard.
MOFFETT BOULEVARD
PRECISE PLAN
ALTERNATIVE A
Key Features
Question 13: What components of Alternative A do you like? • Respondents were mixed on whether they liked or disliked this alternative. • Some respondents liked the building height maximums included under this alternative (4 to 5 stories) and felt these heights are in character with the existing Moffett area, given its scale and proximity to surrounding neighborhoods and create a more pedestrian-scale environment. • Some respondents liked the density proposed in this alternative (up to 75 dwelling units per acre).
• Some respondents liked the flexibility of ground floor non-residential use.
ALTERNATIVE A: MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED-USE
Question 14: What components of Alternative A do you want to change/modify?
• Many respondents felt that the density proposed in this alternative should be increased.
• Many respondents felt that existing retail businesses and restaurants should be retained.
• Some respondents felt that this alternative should have more gathering spaces for social interaction.
ALTERNATIVE A: MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED-USE
• Some respondents felt that a there should be a required amount of ground floor non-residential use proposed in this alternative, to cater to increased density.
• Some respondents were concerned about how parking and increased traffic would be addressed given increased densities.
ALTERNATIVE A: MEDIUM INTENSITY MIXED-USE
ALTERNATIVE B: HIGHER INTENSITY MIXED-USE
Housing
Density
Up to ~100
Dwelling Units
per Acre
New
Residential
650 to 950
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Uses
66,000 to
95,000
Square Feet
Building Height
Maximums
5 to 7
Stories
Land Use Policy Approach
Applies Higher Intensity Mixed-
Use throughout the area.
Requires ground floor non-
residential uses fronting Moffett
Boulevard.
MOFFETT BOULEVARD
PRECISE PLAN
ALTERNATIVE B
Key Features
Question 15: What components of Alternative B do you like? • Respondents generally liked this alternative.
• Most respondents liked the building height maximums included under this alternative (5 to 7 stories) and felt these heights would promote community building.
• Most respondents also liked the density proposed in this alternative (up to 100 dwelling units per acre).
• Most respondents also liked the required ground floor non-residential uses proposed in this alternative.
ALTERNATIVE B: HIGHER INTENSITY MIXED-USE
Question 16: What components of Alternative B do you want to change/modify?
• Many respondents were concerned about how parking and increased traffic would be addressed given the increased densities.
• Some respondents were concerned regarding the feasibility of proposing non- residential uses (particularly retail) along Moffett Boulevard, with many struggling businesses in Downtown Mountain View (Castro Street). • Some respondents felt that this alternative should have more nodes for social interaction and green space, which will cater to the high density.
ALTERNATIVE B: HIGHER INTENSITY MIXED-USE
• Some respondents were concerned about this alternative creating a neighborhood that is “too dense.”
• Some respondents were concerned about the building heights in this alternative being too tall for the neighboring residents. • Some respondents felt that it is essential for new development along Moffett Boulevard to have a unique and interesting architectural character.
ALTERNATIVE B: HIGHER INTENSITY MIXED-USE
ALTERNATIVE C: FOCUSED MIXED-USE
Housing
Density
Up to ~100
Dwelling Units
per Acre
New
Residential
650 to 850
Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
Uses
50,000 to
80,000
Square Feet
Building Height
Maximums
4 to 7
Stories
Land Use Policy Approach
Applies Higher Intensity Mixed-
Use to two “nodes” to create
commercial activity areas that are
more walkable.
Applies Medium Intensity Mixed-
Use to other areas.
MOFFETT BOULEVARD
PRECISE PLAN
ALTERNATIVE C
Key Features
Question 17: What components of Alternative C do you like? • Respondents strongly liked this alternative.
• Many respondents felt that this alternative provided a balanced approach towards building height maximums and liked the concept of higher density “nodes” along Moffett Boulevard. They felt that these nodes would create a hub of community activity and retail.
ALTERNATIVE C: FOCUSED MIXED-USE
Question 18: What components of Alternative C do you want to change/modify?
• Many respondents were concerned about how parking and increased traffic would be addressed given the increased densities. • Many respondents felt like this alternative should include more parks and green spaces.
• Many respondents felt that the density proposed in this alternative should be increased.
• Some respondents felt that the two higher density nodes are unlikely to be redeveloped (100 Moffett Apartments and MVLA School).
ALTERNATIVE C: FOCUSED MIXED-USE
Question 19: Any additional thoughts or comments?
• Some respondents felt that all alternatives should include strategies that consider climate resiliency (higher temperatures, recycled water, stormwater drainage, resilient native plants).
• Some respondents felt that all alternatives should have an element of affordable housing or low-income housing.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS/COMMENTS
APPENDIX A: ALL OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS
APPENDIX A: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
Question 12: Are there other streetscape improvement ideas that you would like to share? More covered public transit and shuttle service stop locations. More evergreen trees with dense foliage and canopies to reduce the heat island effect. More walkability and community friendly streetscape for movement of people/bikes/shuttles
Road diet - remove a car lane for bike/pedestrian use
Consider other surface options (cobblestone, rocks, tiles) I would like to maintain car lanes. I do not work in mountain view and I have to drive to work. I have children where I have to drive them to school. Being able to drive around is how I move my family to school and work.
roundabouts instead of traffic lights and stop signs. pedestrian only crossings/signals that separate cars and bikes from pedestrians —> especially at corner of 100 Moffett (extremely dangerous situation because of cars AND bikes on sidewalk there)
Raised curb bike lanes separated from the street (e.g., like Google Shoreline campus). No on-street parking for roads with high volume/high speeds (parked cars block sight lines).
Public art, native seasonal plants, native trees that support birds, ease of getting to Castro St downtown pedestrian are, want to be easily walk to Stevens Creek Trail heads on Central or Moffet.
Public art and native seasonal planting - not just trees, but layered planting.
Better Street Lighting and Reduce Crossing Distance
APPENDIX A: STREETSCAPE DESIGN
Moffett should be reduced to two vehicular lanes and speed reduced to 25 mph. Intersection at Moffett Blvd and Central Ave is dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists. The CA 85 overpass is unsightly and hostile to bicyclists and pedestrians.
A lot depends on the other changes that get made. For example, at the moment I think the sidewalks are plenty wide enough for the use they get, but if the other changes result in significantly heavier pedestrian traffic, then wider sidewalks would be
bike parking, trash receptacles,
also, like that the photos feature benches
Less on- street parking
Please don't make an ugly arch sign across the street. You should have a consistent and unique street style for Moffet Blvd.
Don't allow too high buildings. Minimal distance between buildings should be reasonable. Shade, drinking fountains and maybe public toilets would be great.
Bigger green parks with playgrounds. More spaces for kids and families.
Great trash cans that can also collect recyclables. Fun bus stops with cool design. Safe place for kids to bike through to get to farmers' market. Shade along the pathways for climate resilience.
More parking - people who live here drive to work. They take their kids to school. They shop for groceries with a car. More housing is ok if there is enough parking for people to use. You can't take VTA to Meta and CalTrain doesn't take you Apple.
Keep the parking! There already isn't enough parking for businesses and residents.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE A
Question 13: What components of Alternative A do you like? Encourages ground floor non-residential uses fronting the street None
Flexibility for developers. But least favorite.
It is fine, density is acceptable.
Lower building heights next to single story residential buildings is nice improved density
I like that this is denser than the existing state. However, I would like even higher residential density.
I like the medium intensity mixed-use on the northern stretches of the project area (farther from Caltrain station/downtown). The height seems more likely to preserve light. I'd worry about taller buildings restricting sunlight.
4-5 stories is good for pedestrian environment
4 to 5 stories creates a pleasant, human-scale environment new residential and non-residential space
I like limiting the height of buildings.
Lower density and lower rise buildings
Nothing.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE A
building height maximum of 4-5 stories (it's more human-scale) Higher density is better!
Land use policy
Not a big change compared to the current situation, but it's more realistic.
I don't like it.
Least change, thereby least risk to changing my lifestyle.
Landscaping
I think it's a step in the right direction--an improvement from what we have now.
Lower intensity and building height
I like that there's more housing than currently
Reasonable building height and density that has higher likelihood of providing sufficient parking for residents
Includes more housing near downtown
Maintains nice balance. Doesn't force too much business when Downton is not yet fully leased I do not like this plan at all. There needs to be more consideration for how to improve the lack of parks and green space instead of continuing to increase density.
Increased density fronting the main road protects some SFH neighborhood in the area so that there remains multiple types of housing in MV. E.g. near Jackson Park area.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE A
I don't like anything about Alternative A.
I like "Encourages (but does not require) ground floor non-residential uses fronting Moffett Boulevard." Less destructive than Alternatives B and C.
Would allow more housing than what's there today. Flexibility of ground-floor use is good.
This is fine only because it is required by law.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE A
Question 14: What components of Alternative A do you want to change/modify? Requires ground floor non-residential uses such as public services, food, entertainment, music, and community interaction
Add more housing and ground floor retail
Higher density and ground floor retail.
Don't encourage ground floor retail. If the developer assesses that they can make retail work, that is their choice. If they don't think it will work we shouldn't push them I’m worried about losing the produce market
Higher maximum building heights.
I'd liker higher density near the Caltrain station/downtown area to support downtown restaurants and businesses and encourage mass transit usage.
Places to sit down when walking. Expecting business activity on Castro rather than Moffett Create nodes for social interaction and commercial activity - which may require higher densities at key points
higher
I would like to have more non-residential uses for food related stores and restaurants.
Increased traffic on Moffett boulevard
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE A
Higher density, mixed use, repurpose existing, vacant non-residential space to residential and mixed use.
Make it more like Alternative B. :) Higher housing density, more residential units, higher buildings.
I believe building heights should be increased
Concerned about losing existing restaurants and retail if the area becomes solely residential.
Buildings no higher then 3 stories. Make sure current businesses especially mom and pop shops get to stay there at rates they are paying now. They should not have to go broke trying to stay in business in their town where they have been.
It’s not dense enough or tall enough
Lower the maximum building high to four
I'd like to have more quiet and walk zone.
If non-residential is not required for the ground floor, we will lose our small businesses and have no reason to walk around and shop in the neighborhood.
Keep maximum building height at 4.
None
Add low-income housing. Restrict building height to 3-4 stories.
Close down moffett Blvd
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE A
I do not like anything about alternative A
Unsure whether this is enough to entice existing landowners to develop Have a mechanism to ensure that there are certain number of ground floor retail business along Moffett since this is optional in this plan. Otherwise, what is the purpose of the area being walkable if there's no interesting commercial biz to visit
More parking
Add more density for housing.
I would like to see the 100 block of Moffett preserved as commercial, allowing existing businesses and buildings to remain.
Taller residential buildings
Increase the amount of parking and vehicle transportation options.
More ground floor businesses would be good
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE B
Question 15: What components of Alternative B do you like? Requires ground floor non-residential uses that services the community. Good existing examples are JL produce, Las Portales restaurant, and laundry services.
Housing density and preserves non-residential uses.
High density near transit, ground floor non-residential uses, activation of area. This alternative is my top choice.
Greater density is a must near train stations
The streets can not support this level of density. There isn't enough parking and the traffic lights don't move cars fast enough. People live in mountain view because it's nice but they work where they work, which can be far
I do like the ground floor retail requirements, but, currently a lot of the commercial sites in this area are vacant, so, I’m not sure about requiring it.
Of the alternatives, this is my favorite. I like that this one has the highest building height maximum.
I like having higher density near downtown and the Caltrain station.
The sight of empty store or vacant store fronts make a unpleasant pedestrian experience. See the new Sunnyvale downtown area with large highrise but empty ground floor. Only consider if a business is ready and committed to occupy the space. Otherwise
Higher density might be ok if it achieves community building APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE B
Need more character
Better Building Design
Affordable Housing component?
66,000 to 95,000 Square Feet of non-residential uses would be nice for new stores Higher density, less non-residential space, more residential space.
All of it, but most especially the number of new residential units.
I like the higher building heights and more residential units and I like the requirement of commercial units
More ground floor non residential would make the area more vibrant I like that it's trying to build a lot of housing!
I like that a lot of housing can be built.
I love that this is denser
Maximum building height
I like the ground-floor mix use. There is potential for any use, like retail. A neighborhood grocery store would be great!
I like required retail space
Not much
Better density than A
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE B
The ground floor retail is definitely feasible economically. 5-7 stories is still ok for this neighborhood.
I absolutely hate Alternative B.
I love the increased density. It can support vibrant neighborhoods and retail amenities.
I like "Requires ground floor non-residential uses fronting Moffett Boulevard." This alternative is insulting to neighboring residences. If the state density bonus were applied, we could conceivably see 10-14 stories, with little or no parking, across the Otherwise street from 1-story residences.
Density
I do not like this option.
This seems like the best plan to create a vibrant, spread out area. It also seems to do the most toward our goals.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE B
Question 16: What components of Alternative B do you want to change/modify? More specificity on the types of uses for ground floor levels below potential housing units.
To make sure that ground floor non-residential use includes residential amenities like grocery stores.
Potentially break up some of the blocks if possible, or ensure there are bike thru-ways and walk-ways.
Ensure private properties are publicly accessible and offer nice walkable and functional paths.
I do not like mandating ground floor retail. There are many vacant store fronts around the area, including in Castro. Availability is not the issue, it's does the area support it.
I think these maximum heights are potentially too high right next to single story residential This is a good alternative. I like the non-residential uses fronting Moffett.
I'm concerned about taller buildings blocking sunlight.
More parks or sitting areas for the numerous people living there. They should not travel to park but have parks nearby.
Requiring ground floor commercial uses along the entire corridor is unlikely to succeed More privately owned public space connections
More green
Too much commercial and possibly too high
I fear that the area will become too dense
Too crowded, too much traffic, too high buildings
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE B
Paseo's need to be added between Shoreline and Moffett. If development at Central / Moffett proceeds, need to address crossing at Central.
I would be happy to see it go even further, allowing for even taller buildings and more residential units.
Potentially not require commercial units on all lots
Concerned about sufficient parking for new residents
Too much high density dwellings. Need to be no taller than 3 stories.
Ground floor need not always be non-residential. If there are cafes or coffee shops on a couple of corners, this provides gathering spaces. As long as there are benches and greenery out front, it can be a nice boulevard.
> 5 stories is too tall
This should extend all the way to 101 and along Fairchild Drive High density mixed-up to low or medium density
A cozy, walkable, and continuous pathway through the neighborhood. go higher if the developer's want to. More housing/more retail is better. I LOVE NYC.
Too high, too dense.
Consideration for traffic and managing traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
Building height allowance to 2-3 stories
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE B
Density too high
Please spread out the density a bit over surrounding neighborhoods Close down moffet road completely plz.
I do not like anything about alternative B. The city should be ashamed of itself for holding itself accountable to Google instead of its homeowners and residents.
Unsure how feasible the non-residential requirement is, as well as whether they'd be easy to fill (see San Antonio for example)
More green spaces will be needed to offset the higher density.
More Parking
Go even bigger. This could be an amazing destination on its own to rival Castro.
Remove this alternative from consideration.
Make non-residential ground-floor use optional with incentives This is California, and the suburbs to be exact. This is not Manhattan, we don't have good public transit around the area to pick up groceries/shop. No one wants to walk a mile with heavy grocery bags.
Might be tool tall for neighboring residents
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE C
Question 17: What components of Alternative C do you like? Densities and building heights may be too high for the community-oriented vision and feeling of open spaces, sunlight, and greenscapes.
Housing density and retail
Walkability, smaller lots
Do not like it. Density is fine but the area doesn't have enough parking and traffic is slow already. People are trying to make the city a gridlocked mess
I like that the taller buildings are not directly next to single family houses.
I like that this has higher density than the existing. However, I prefer Alternative B.
I like the higher intensity near Central Expressway.
More likely to succeed because of the concept of nodes
The node concept has a higher likelihood of success
None
my favorite
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE C
I like this approach the best, seems like a less disruptive option that still moves in the right direction while trying to strike a balance.
Higher density.
Larger number of residential units than Alternative A, and higher buildings.
I like the creation of nodes
Seems like a reasonable balance
I think it strikes the right balance between A and C
Higher density is good
Commercial areas that are more walkable
It's okay.
the parts that are higher intensity.
Good compromises
Good balance
Having two vibrant commercial hubs that can be center of a vibrant business activities for residents, to supplement the Castro St downtown commercial areas. More reason why people would come to MV.
I absolutely hate Alternative C.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE C
I like the added density compared to Alternative A, but Alternative B is better in all ways. "Applies Higher Intensity Mixed-Use to two “nodes” to create commercial activity areas that are more walkable."
Where it is medium density.
Flexibility
I do not like it.
stores and services within walking distance for existing and new residents APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE C
Question 18: What components of Alternative C do you want to change/modify? See above
Ensure walkability and amenities between nodes
Does not meet density appropriate for station area.
I don't think this should be considered at all.
I think this is a good mix of building sizes. I hope if the produce market or local restaurants are forced out for development that they can afford to come back, along with the bicycle facilities they are the nicer parts of this neighborhood.
I would like more higher intensity mixed use.
I'm more skeptical about locating higher intensity past Central. This may no longer may in walking distance to downtown MV/Caltrain. I'd rather see the higher intensity concentrated near Central.
More parks
nothing
High density, increased traffic
Not enough residential.
I would prefer greater intensities in non-node locations Keep current small businesses there. Need to keep a small town look and feeling with view of mountains. Again buildings no taller then 3 stories.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE C
I do not like the nodes. Allow development to happen organically within the area Lower housing density
It's not enough change.
get rid of medium intensity.
Buildings are still too high. Are underground garages requested? What happens to the existing businesses/school/hotel/restaurant?
Consideration for traffic and managing traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods.
Lower height allowance to 2-3 stories. Include low income housing Close down moffet road
Unlikely Prometheus or the school district would consider redevelopment Little hub in dark red @corner of Moffett/Central Expy -- can it be bigger? Seems like a very tiny space to into a good hub people want to cross Central Expy to get to.
More Parking.
I dislike the lack of ambition. At least one of the increased density nodes seems unlikely to be redeveloped any time soon.
Remove high density where the shopping plaza is. I am unsure of why 100 Moffett is designated high density, since it was developed only a few years ago.
APPENDIX A: ALTERNATIVE C
I would make the nodes larger, and targeting a 10-year-old apartment building for redevelopment is odd.
Everyone travels by car in CA. We can not survive on bikes and walking. This VTA strike demonstrates that people drive places and public transit is unreliable! There are too many details to keep them all straight -- especially without the table to reference. But option B seemed the best, as "pockets of activity" didn't sound as attractive as the idea of a vibrant commercial area with lots of housing above.
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS/COMMENTS
Question 19: Any additional thoughts or comments?
A major concern is how the city plans to integrate new developments in this planning area prior to the implementation of the Moffett Blvd Precise Plan. How will the city planners incorporate the elements of the community vision in new projects?
It would be great to have higher density in the neighborhood surrounding the project area, especially since it all easily accessible to transit connections and downtown Definitely prefer Alternative B. As a resident I would love to live in a vibrant area that offers many opportunities for its residents and visitors.
I would like to be able to rent a micro apartment with no kitchen.
I like alternative C the best
Alternative B is my favorite.
All three are improvements over existing. But I tend to think that modified version of Alternative C would be the best. The only issue I have with C is locating higher intensity housing past Central Ave. Need closer to downtown.
Access to parks and best pedestrian environment and ease of walking to Castro St Go for option c
Nope
Please, don’t make Moffett the same congested nightmare as Shoreline.
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS/COMMENTS
Circulation in the study area is only 'good' if you are driving a car. Bicyclists and pedestrian circulation and linkage to other parts of Mountain View needs improvement for any higher density development to be effective.
I'm strongly in favor of increasing the number of residential units in Mountain View. I'd like to see some of those units reserved for affordable housing.
I prefer either alternative B or an alternative C with greater residential density and heights in non-node locations
I like the ambition of Alternative B1
Retail has irreversibly moved online, restaurant business is 60? 70? % takeout. Filling ground floor with non-residential is not likely. Having human-scale buildings, great ped/bike facilities, greenery will make the neighborhood attractive.
Alternative B allows developers to make the most use of the scarce land in the city. This is the best options
Please include the plan for fixing the streets. Many are in very poor condition and are getting worse and worse.
B is clearly the best option since it is the only one that meets all our objectives.
Consideration for traffic and managing traffic impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic flow on Moffett between Central Expressway and Middlefield during rush hours need to be considered and managed
I like housing above shops on ground floor but be realistic on what the neighborhood will be able to support
APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS/COMMENTS
5-7stories make sense in big city centers - no current homeowners chose to live in that environment.
There are already many empty storefronts on Castro, why add more? Higher rents are projected, what about more modest options for the non-wealthy?
Close down moffet road.
Too much street noise for the near by housing communities The city should not be laser focused on increasing density despite all the public sentiment against it held at all the public meetings. The city needs to hold itself accountable to its people instead of to corporate google.
Please ensure you consider climate resiliency and plan for higher temperature, hotter summers, wetter winters, potential SLR flooding. Also plant resilient species of trees, use recycled water, create sidewalks landscaping that can absorb rainwater.
If people are coming to live here we need PARKING. I would ask how many of the employees of the City of Mountain View walk to work? How many drive? People use cars to get to work and take their children to school and buy groceries!
Dream big. Let's make this bigger and better than Castro! I understand that the housing element commits to 1.85 density. But let’s be honest about developers applying the density bonus.
Most people utilize vehicles to get around and live. We need vehicle lanes and parking all around! Housing and development is good, if people can live there. Read about the high cost of free parking! (If no req parking, it will just shift the cost)