To the author -
I'm quite disappointed by the quality of this article, and your apparent lack of awareness of the changes that this project has undergone since it went to the Environmental Planning Commission in February.

If you had checked the city Staff Report for tomorrow's Council hearing, you would have noticed the following changes:

1. The number of units has been reduced to 203, 10 fewer than the previous proposal (p. 4 of Staff Report). The units have been removed in strategic locations to reduce the visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood (p. 8).
2. The new project density is 58 units per acre - 203 units on 3.5 acres, not 3.3 acres as your article states (p. 4).
3. While the developer has reduced the number of units in the project, they have not reduced the number of parking spaces. Therefore, the project now provides 10 to 20 extra parking spaces beyond the Precise Plan requirement. In addition, there are 12 tandem parking spaces that are not being counted in the total but will be available for two-bedroom units (p. 15).
4. The developer has volunteered to fund a parking study 6 months after the project is occupied, and if the study finds that the parking garage does not have sufficient spaces for apartment residents, the developer has committed to installing 20 car lifts/stackers to create an additional 20 spaces (p. 16).
5. The City's consultant performed additional traffic analysis after the EPC hearing to address the concerns raised by neighhbors about the methodology of the original study. For context, the consultant studied the traffic increases from the housing project compared to a vacant site and the project still did not result in a significant traffic impact based on VTA or City standards (p. 14).

The Staff Report containing all of these updates can be found on the City's website here:
Web Link

I would like to see a correction to the article to for at least items 1 and 2 above (number of units and density) since they are factual inaccuracies. It's up to you whether to include the other items, which your article does not misstate but simply overlooks.

The staff report featuring these changes was released Thursday, and our story was written earlier in the week. So we could not have known about these changes in time for print. However, the changes have been incorporated into the online version of this story, and will be used in future reports. This process is typical in news stories like these, where facts and figures can change over time.

"The developer has volunteered to fund a parking study 6 months after the project is 95% occupied".

Will a Prometheus-run property *ever* be 95% occupied? People move in & out all the time. Also, I'd like to see the survey done on the city's timeline and leave it outside of the control of the landlord. Finally, do the survey not once, but maybe twice over 5 years. I'm concerned that Prometheus will manipulate it somehow.

", and if the study finds that the parking garage does not have sufficient spaces for apartment residents,"

What does sufficient mean?

" the developer has committed to installing 20 car lifts/stackers to create an additional 20 spaces (p. 16). "

What it goes on to say is: "Car lifts are apparatus that could be placed in parking garages that allow one vehicle to be parked above another in a parking space. Most often these lifts are mechanically operated."

Do you really think residents are going to use some contraption like this to stack their cards? This is not Manhattan, thanks goodness, although it seems like there are people in the city that want to turn the city into a concrete jungle.

I love the fact that "Fact Checker" is happy that the parking keeps with the precise plan. What about the density? The plan calls for 15-25 and the developer wants 53. Sorry guys--that is really way too many people in that spot. I'm sorry if you can't get financing. Maybe you can leverage one of your other properties to make the investment?








2.

If this were 100 units I would still be against it. This is old Mtn. View, not a large City. This will ruin the charm of Mtn. View, cause traffic congestion for years to come and it seems like it's done all in the name of greed.