This estimate of traffic and parking problems doesn't make sense even on the face of it.

Is there some way to look at the report? -- the article says to look under "News Items", but there is no such link on the site.

There in no parking at the new Dana and Calderon Town home development. What did the study think about using 2.3 as being sufficient there? People have more than ONE car because this is not the big city with great transit as everyone might think. People also have "visitors". I

I have several questions and am a bit suspicious of the motives for allowing this project in its current proposal, it "smells" like tax revenue may be the "carrot":

(1) Why is the city allowing a 40% decrease in parking density, because of public transit, was this compared to other similar cities with public transit nearby, e.g. Sunnyvale or Palo Alto?
(2) Why are we allowing such high density housing? Currently areound that area, there is not much landscaping, having such high density may not allow for attractive landscaping and keeping Mountain View green.
(3)What is the basis for the outbound traffic study, it sounds nonsensical that 213 apartments, with on average 1.2 people (256 occupants - assuming approx 80% single occupancy -- which is ludriculous)will only have an outbound increase of 47 outbound trips; are you suggesting that the other 209 occupants work at home, take public transit, or bike to work? Why don't you be straight forward with the Mountain View community and tell us that you want the tax dollars at the expense of creating a beautiful complex with less density?

There in no parking at the new Dana and Calderon Town home development. What did the study think about using 2.3 as being sufficient there? People have more than ONE car because this is not the big city with great transit as everyone might think. People also have "visitors". I have been to many places without Visitor parking space.

As for Minton Lumber having 1720 trips? That would be an ave of 215 visitors per hour? Minton would not be closing if that amount of traffic came in. Some ones study needs to be looked at.

Yes, the numbers sound questionable - need to see the whole report. But as for tax implications - the city will LOSE tax revenue by adding housing and replacing a store. What's more, there are costs for providing city services to residents, so it is likely the costs will be higher.

Thus from a city finance perspective, this is a lower revenue and higher costs, so that is not the motivation. The key point is to add housing in the city at a location that has the potential (due to access to transport and downtown) to have a smaller overall effect on the community.