Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 11 24 1998 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING - TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24,1998 6:45 P.M.-CLOSED SESSION 7:30 P.M.-OPEN SESSION 6:45 P.M.-CLOSED SESSION A. CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT (OPEN SESSION) At 6:45 p.m., an announcement was made by the City Attorney, who indicated the Council would now consider the item lIsted on the Closed SessIOn agenda below. All Councilmembers present. B. CLOSED SESSION · Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation (&54956.9(c)) Name of Case: City of Atascadero, City of Mountain View, et al. v. Merrill, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc , et al., Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, Case No. C96-00718 The Closed Session concluded at 7.15 p.m. 7:30 P.M.-OPEN SESSION 1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The meetmg was called to order at 7:30 p m. with Mayor Faravelli presiding. 2. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Ambra, Figueroa, Kleltman, Noe, Stasek, Vice Mayor Zoglin and Mayor Faravelli. ABSENT: None. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 1 3. MINUTES APPROVAL Motion: MIS Ambra/Kleitman Carried 7-0 Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 9,1998 and the Regular Meeting of November 10, 1998. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR The reading of the full text of all resolutions on the agenda was waived by unanimous consent of the Council. Motion: Approve. MIS Zoglin/Figueroa Carried 7-0 4.1 - NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CmES CONGRESSIONAL CITIES CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS 1. Adopt recommended positions regarding National League of Cities Congressional Cities Conference Resolutions. 2. Authorize the City's voting delegate to cast votes at the National League of Cities Congressional Cities Conference to reflect the positions as adopted by the City Council. 4.2 - LEITER OF BEST WISHES-DON BENNINGHOVEN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES Authorize the Mayor to send a letter of best wishes, on behalf of the City Council, to Don Benninghoven, Executive Director of the League of California Cities on his retirement. 4.3 - LEITER OF COMMENT ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF ONIZUKA ANNEX HOUSING PROPERTIES Authorize the Mayor to send a letter of comment to the Headquarters Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence regarding the Draft Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 2 4.4 4.5 Environmental Assessment for the Disposal and Reuse of Onizuka Annex Housing Properties. - ANALYSIS OF FY 1997-98 AUDITED FINANCIAL RESULTS. AND ANALYSIS OF FY 1998-99 FIRST OUARTER BUDGET STATUS Acknowledge and file the analysis of Fiscal Year 1997-98 audited financial results and analysis of Fiscal Year 1998-99 first quarter budget status. - FUNDING REOUEST-POP WARNER CHEERLEADERS Approve Council Finance Committee recommendation to transfer $5,000 from the General Fund operating contingency to support the funding request from Mountain View Pop Warner Football and Cheer Club for travel expenses to the Pop Warner Cheerleaders National Championships in Florida. 4.6 Resolution No. 16292 APPROVE MODlFICA TIONS TO CITY COUNCIL POLICY A-II. FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY 4.7 As recommended by the Council Finance Committee (CFC), adopt A RESOLUTION MODIFYING CITY COUNCIL POLICY A-II, FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY. - SUNNYVALE SMART STATION BILLING REPORT Accept and file the City Auditor's report regarding the billing procedures of the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer (SMaRT) Station. 4.8 - SET PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT AT 1200 CRITTENDEN LANE Set date for a public hearing on December 8,1998 to consider an application to modify an approved Planned Community Permit at 1200 Crittenden Lane. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 3 - AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO FOR JOINT POLICE SERVICES- HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS AND SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS TEAM 4.9 Resolution No. 16293 Adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PARTICIPATION IN THE REGIONAL HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS AND SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS TEAM WITH THE CITY OF PALO ALTO. 4.10 - TRANSIT CENTER ART Authorize the Transit Center Art Subcommittee to ask the artist of the proposed art piece to rework portions of the art. 4.11 - STEVENS CREEK TRAIL. REACH 3. PROTECT 92-15-APPROPRIA TE FUNDING AND AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION CONTINGENCY INCREASE AND CON- TRACT AMENDMENT Approve the following actions regarding Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor, Reach 3, Project 92-15: 1. Appropriate $13,177 in park-in-lieu fees to the Stevens Creek Trail and Wildlife Corridor, Reach 3. 2. Authorize an increase in the construction contingency allowance of $70,000, for a new total of $443,112; and 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the design services agreement with Mark Thomas & Company increasing the additional services allowance by $10,000, for a new contract total not to exceed $433,000. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 4 ~ 4.12 CONTRACT FOR TEMPORARY STAFF SUPPORT-PLAN AND MAP REVIEW SERVICES Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with TRS Consultants, Inc. for temporary staff support to review improvement plans, subdivision and parcel maps, and other Operations Engineering functions as requested. 4.13 MIRAMONTE RESERVOIR EXPANSION DESIGN, PROTECT 97-45-AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard professional services agreement with Montgomery-Watson, Inc. of Walnut Creek in an amount not to exceed $249,700 to provide civil engineering design services in connection with Miramonte Reservoir Expansion Design, Project 97-45. 4.14 CAL TRAIN RAPID RAIL PLAN Authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board UPB) expressing Mountain View's interest in working with the JPB to assess the feasibility of the proposed grade separations at Castro Street and Rengstorff Avenue. 4.15 COMMUNITY CENTER RENOV A TION- DESIGN PHASE, PROTECT 97-28- AUTHORIZE ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Authorize the City Manager to execute an architectural services agreement with Noll & Tam Architects in the amount of $65,945 for basic services and $14,055 for additional services and reimbursables for the Community Center Project Alternatives Evaluation Phase. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT FOR TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS WITH 230 UNITS AT 2400 EL CAMINO REAL WEST The Zoning Administrator (Acting) stated that the proposed project is located in the Ortega-EI Camino Real Precise Plan area. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 5 She explained that a Planned Community Permit was approved in 1985 for a mixed-use project which consisted of one 135,000 square foot, 7-story office building, two 12-story residential towers containing 266 residential units and a shared three-level underground parking garage. The office building and parking garage were constructed; however, the two residential towers were never built and both the building and planning permits lapsed. AvalonBay Communities purchased the existing vacant site in September 1997 and are proposing a project that consists of 230 residential rental units in two towers and an underground parking garage. The appli- cant is proposing to share use as originally intended of approximately 726 parking spaces in the garage. In addition to these spaces, there are 4 spaces on the Dialog site and 12 on-site surface parking spaces proposed for the residential site to total 742 spaces available for office and residential tenants and their guests. With a proposal of 230 units, there should be a surplus of 34 parking spaces at the peak hour of 10 a.m. during the week- days. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) noted that a traffic impact analysis showed that there would not be a significant impact on local and surrounding streets. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) stated that the Council Transportation Committee was asked to review this proposal and came up with the following recommendations: 1. That shared parking is appropriate for this site as proposed; 2. That the parking analysis should use a residential parking ratio of 2.3 spaces per unit; 3. That the garage does not need to be restriped to eliminate a number of existing substandard spaces unless at some time in the future it is demonstrated that people are not using them; 4. That the shared parking agreement should be revised prior to building permit submittal to prohibit residential parking restrictions before 10 a.m.; and 5. That security cameras shall be added to the entrance of each elevator to ensure safety. In addition, they are proposing to build a pool and recreation area between the two towers, and staff is recommending that these facilities be available Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 6 to the office tenants of the Sobrato and Dialog buildings to integrate the functions within the Precise Plan area. The proposed project has the potential to generate up to 52 new elementary school students and 8 high school students. To offset the impact of new student population, the local school distnct will collect a school impact fee of approximately $541,000 from the developers of this project. They are also paying additional funds to cover the cost of building new facilities that are not covered by the school impact fees. The applicant has substantially changed the project since their original submittal in October 1997 to include a reduction of units from 266 to 230 and the overall floor area from 400,900 square feet to 310,754 square feet, a decrease in height of the towers from 153' to 108' and improved architectural design. Notwithstanding the developer's efforts, staff has consistently recommended that the intensity of the development be further reduced so the project is more compatible with the surrounding development. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) stated that staff has developed several alternatives for the Council to consider: 1. Council could conditionally approve the project, finding that it meets all the goals and development standards in the Ortega-El Camino Real Precise Plan as well as responds to what is a strong demand for housing; 2. Council could require that the density be reduced to the minimum established in the Precise Plan, which is 211 residential units, and the total floor area be reduced accordingly, which would be equivalent to one floor in each building or 28,800 square feet. Staff has noted that this alternative could be modified to specify a different amount of units in between 230 and 211; 3. Council may require that the density be reduced to the minimum established in the Precise Plan, which is 211 residential units and the total floor area be reduced to the minimum range of 197,000 square feet. Staff noted that this reduction in floor area would result in studio-sized or SRO-sized units and/ or necessitate that the developer build below the minimum in the Precise Plan; or Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 7 4. Council could deny the project as proposed, finding that it is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) further stated that staff is recommend- ing Alternative 2, to reduce the density to 211 residential units and reduce the floor area equivalent to one floor in each building or 28,800 square feet. In doing this, the project could be improved as follows: 1. The density of the project would be reduced to 48 units per acre; 2. The bulk of the building could be further reduced, which would result in a floor area ratio of 3.4; and 3. It would increase the parking supply to a surplus of 78 parking spaces during the peak hour. A Councilmember asked what measures would be in place to prevent people from parking within the shared turnaround. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that it would be striped yellow because it is a drop-off zone. A Councilmember asked how guest access would work to the parking garage and whether there is a sense as to which driveway is going to be utilized the most. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that cars would queue up to the right of the entrance and that the entrances are split 50/50. A Councilmember asked how the parking data that was collected was validated. The parking consultant responded that the shared parking analysis was conducted on two fronts: OKS conducted separate studies of residential developments in Mountain View and the environmental analysis conducted surveys of office developments in Mountain View. He added that they focused their efforts on what the appropriate parking ratio is for residential development. The data from the environmental analysis was provided to OKS, reviewed, found to be consistent with other projects in Mountain View and incorporated into the analysis. He explained that the reason the Dialog site was selected as the primary survey site was because the anticipa- tion is that the way Dialog is functioning now can be projected into the Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 8 future. He noted that the idea of the surveys is to survey like facihties to the one that is currently in existence. A Councilmember asked if reducing the density to 48 units per acre and the floor area ratio to 3.4 would compare to the density of Domizile and to make it more compatible. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that they are making the project more compatible but are not sure whether it 1S fair to bring it to the exact size of DomizIle because they would be asking them to build a project that is below the standards in the Precise Plan. She added that their comparison points are the adjacent bUIldings in the Precise Plan area. A Councilmember asked whether it is possible that at some point the owners of the office buildings could restrict the number of cars their employees have or the management of the residential towers could restrict the number of cars the renters have. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that they are limited to modifying the parking management plan as it relates to the residential development in restricting the number of cars that they can have per their lease agreements. The City Attorney added that although there is no direct control, because they have a parking agreement, they do have greater controls than on any other project in the C1ty. The same Councilmember asked if they would need to make those controls explicit now or whether it is something that could be written in such a way that it would come back before the Councll as problems arose. The City Attorney responded that they have explored the idea of develop- ing some scenarios, and it was the collective judgment of the staff to have the broad power to solve the problem when it arose and have the building owners work on it. The Councilmember asked that if there were a problem that was not being addressed sufficiently by the property owners, how 1t would be addressed. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) answered that they have a condition that notes specifically if there is a parking shortage at the site that is not Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 9 adequately addressed by the property owners, the Zoning Administrator may hold a public hearing to review the parking situation. A Council member asked what the City standards are for condominiums versus apartments, if these apartments were to be sold at a future date. The Senior Planner responded that from a development criteria standpoint, they are the same. A Councilmember asked how the City would enforce any decision that is made about parking problems at the site. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that they have the tenancy- in-common agreement, which is a legal document that could be modified to place restrictions on the parking. The City Attorney added that the conditions which are imposed on an approval are required to be complied with and if they are not complied with, they are in violation of condition of permit, which is the same as violating the Municipal Code, which can be enforced civilly or criminally. A Councilmember asked if there is any way at this time to restrict the com- mercial use to a certain number of cars per thousand. The City Attorney responded that it is already restricted. The same Councilmember asked if this were approved tonight, whether they could add a requirement for parking analysis in the event of a use change on the commercial building. The City Attorney responded that if there is any change in use other than general office that it could be brought before Council. A Councilmember stated that she thought that the parking management agreement included all of these issues that are being brought up and wondered if all of these elements would be in something that they are approvmg. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that the parking manage- ment agreement would be submitted when they apply for a building permit and typically covers the scenario that exists at that point in time, which in this case is the proposed residential project with the existing office tenant, Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 10 Dialog. She added that a parking management plan does not typically take into consideration If there is a completely different kind of office use in the future that has different parking demands. She noted that this issue could be addressed in the agreement if desired; however, the property manager of the Dialog building is concerned with keeping his property rights. A Councilmember asked what full occupancy of the commercial building would be. The Senior Planner responded that it fluctuates, but during the peak hours, there would be a demand of 438 parking spaces on the site. The public hearing was opened. Shelby Campbell, AvalonBay Communities, stated that they are requesting Council's approval for a Planned Community Permit for the Skyview hous- ing proposal. She explained that over the past year, they initiated a collaborative planning and design process which included 25 neighborhood meetings, a combination of 17 Zoning Administrator hearings and SPAR sessions, and Council meetings and hearings. They have contacted over 350 residents in the community and through their outreach have received direct input from 178 residents and community members. Through this extensive process, significant changes were made to the plan, including substantial height, density and floor area reductions as well as numerous site plan and architectural changes. These reVisions were made in direct response to specific comments and concerns raised. She concluded that Skyview is consistent with the General and Precise Plans, all zoning, planning and environmental requirements; that there are no significant impacts; and that there are no variances required. Dan Murphy, AvalonBay Communities, reviewed the significant changes made to the proposal and stated that they have worked hard to address the issues and have successfully integrated all of the different issues in a way that allows this proposal to go forward. He noted that they are requesting that the Council approve the staff recommendations with the following modifications: 1. That the density remain at 230 units; 2. That the height be consistent with their current application, which is 98' at the plate line and 108' at the peak of the barrel vault; Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 11 3. That the building area be reduced up to 18,000 square feet; and 4. That Condition No.9 be modified to eliminate the shared use of those facilities with the other buildings in the neighborhood and to provide a range of 2,100 square feet to 5,980 square feet. The following citizens expressed concern with the project, specifically the impact of high-rise buildings and parking on neighborhood: Mark Anderson, Mountain View, also stated that it is his under- standing that Councilmember Noe is a member of the board of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group and since they support this project, he feels that there could be a conflict of interest. Abraham Eshel, Mountain View Michael Corner, Los Altos Donald Gardner, Mountain View Gary Wesley, Mountain View Pat Parks, Mountain View, also encouraged Council to take water supplies and wastewater facilities into consideration in this project. Jerry David, Mountain View, asked how many handicap spaces would be provided. Al Larsen, Mountain View Matt Pear, Mountain View Janet Belton, Mountain View The following citizens spoke in support of this project: Harold Davis, Palo Alto, President of Mountain View Housing Council Kathy Thibodeaux, Mountain View Steve Blanton, Government Affairs Director, Peninsula West Valley Association of Realtors Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 12 David and Jenniffer Bras, Mountain View David Kramer, Mountain View Terry Feinberg, Gilroy, Tri-County Apartment Association Vicki Moore, Policy Director with Greenbelt Alliance Dennis Young, Los Altos Ellen Sally Probst, Housing Action Coalition of Santa Clara County Tami Roddy, Mountain View David Leonlauf, Mountain View Irvin Dawid, Sierra Club, Loma Prieta Chapter David Heacock, Mountain View Cynthia James, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group's Land Use and Housing Committee Darren Seuten, Campaign Manager for Affordable Housing Initiative Chris Elias, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group William Nack, Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building and Construction Trades Council Richard Meyer, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce Bill Burns, Sobrato Development, Cupertino William Stoesser, Mountam View Bill Michel, Mountain View Kristen Garcia-Duyont, President of Domizile Homeowners Association Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 13 Paul Krensky, Mountain View Dan Murphy, AvalonBay Communities, addressed some of the questions raised in the public hearing. He first clarified the for-sale versus rental issue by stating that staff had included, as a condition of approval, a requirement that the property be remapped, and he explained that their intention is to move forward with this project as a rental community. Second, in regard to the tenancy-in-common agreement, he noted that it would allow office employees to park in the garage on a shared basis prior to 9:30 a.m. He added that there is one handicap stall around the perimeter of the building out of the 12 that exist on the property. Finally, addressing the concern that parking demands may increase, he noted that Mountain View has one of the highest parking ratios for a multi-family project within Santa Clara County. The Council received one call, one letter and one petition with 12 names in opposition to this item. The Council received two letters in support of this item. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:35 P.M. TO 9:50 P.M. Councilmember Noe clarified that she does not receive compensation from being a board member of the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group. In response to a Councilmember question, the City Attorney explained that his experience with condominium conversion is that even if you were completely unregulated, it takes somewhere between 18 and 24 months to convert, and there is a huge notice time, so it is not a situation where anybody is ever thrown out into the street. He added that the No.1 buyer in this circumstance is usually the existing resident. A Councilmember asked the City Attorney whether it is possible to invoke a rezoning process for this Precise Plan at the same time they approve the project. The City Attorney answered that the rezoning would not be invoked at this meeting; however, Council could give direction either as part of a follow-up to a denial, or an approval, to have staff bring back the Precise Plan Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 14 amendment. He added that when you are studying a possible revision of a precise plan, you could deal legislatively with any permit that is approved. A Council member asked if the City could put a hme frame on the approval other than the usual two years. The City Attorney responded that they would have the abihty to approve a permit that goes with a map for less than the map period. A Councilmember stated that when and if this project is approved, he would like the Council to do whatever they can to put the applicant on notice that although they want to protect them and their rights, they also want them to proceed diligently. He asked that this suggestion be included in the motion. The City Attorney suggested that the developer have the opportunity to react to that recommendation because they may have some issues With timing that they would like to share with the Council. A Councilmember asked the applicant about a letter that AvalonBay Communities distributed dealing with a solution to the concern of people parking on the Target property. She also asked for a comment on the approval time period issue. Dan Murphy, AvalonBay Communities, responded that the letter was intended to address the specific concern that residents and employees would park in the Target store parking lot. He stated that they are con- fident that there is adequate parking on the site and offered a multi-tiered program to address this issue. First, they have agreed to go to a sticker system where all residents and employees have to register their vehicles with the management at the garage. Second, they will have security personnel who will monitor the Target lot. Finally, if there is an incident where someone IS illegally parking there, they would pay for the towing and would be Willing to pay the Pear family the equivalent of what a citation for illegal parking would be in the City of Mountain View. In regard to the approval time period issue, he stated that the current conditions of approval allow them two years to implement the Planned Community Permit and Tentative Map, and they are comfortable with that time frame. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 15 A Councilmember stated that it was her understanding that the issues of whether or not the traffic impacts were included in consideration of full occupancy of the Sobrato and Dialog buildings and whether the water and wastewater impacts were considered, were fully taken into account in the environmental impact assessment. The Senior Planner stated that they were taken into consideration and added that since the first project was not considered to have a significant impact, then the scaled-down project would not either. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) noted that both existing and proposed projects were taken into consideration in the traffic analysis. A Council member stated that she is prepared to support the project because she thinks there is adequate parking and the issues with the schools have been addressed. A Councilmember asked if they are approving a condominium project or just cleaning up a map. The City Attorney responded that they are approving a project that would qualify to be developed as condominiums. A Councilmember stated that in the environmental document, it talks about the fact that the site had previously paid a recreation in-lieu fee for 133 units, so they would be required to pay a recreation in-lieu fee for whatever the difference then is in the approved number of units. She wondered then if any of the recreation mitigation level was predicated upon them having a certain amount of recreational amenities on-site. The Zoning Administrator (Acting) responded that the on-site recreational facilities were not counted in that manner. The same Councilmember then stated that she could not support building a wall along Latham Street to mitigate a parking situation. She added that she could support initiating a Precise Plan review and because they are asking for a map that would allow for a condominium conversion in the future, she would support explicitly requiring the developer to provide for condominium conversion protection. She noted that she is interested in Alternative 3, which reduces the floor area ratio to the minimum range in the Precise Plan of 197,250 square feet. She added that she would like to allow the developer to work within that floor area ratio by including a Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 16 variance In the motion allowing them to fall below what is required in the Precise Plan. The City Attorney stated that the developer legally disagrees that this is possible; however, the City thinks that there is precedence in the Precise Plan for development below the minimum number of units allowed. Motion: MIS Stasekl Ambra (Voted on after further Council deliberations) Resolution No. 16294 Not approve the construction of a wall on Latham Street; approve initiation of a Precise Plan review with protection to the applicant; require mandatory inclusion of the condominium conversIOn protection should that occur; approve the 197,250 square foot floor area, allowing the developer to work within that FAR for a mix of units that make the project economically feasible, and a variance to allow for the number of units to fall below what is required in the Precise Plan; approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and adopt A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 1.9-ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE LOT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT AT 2400 EL CAMINO REAL WEST. A Councilmember stated that she could not support this motion because she is not prepared to redesign the Precise Plan so that they go at a level that is at the minimum range. She added that she does not want to see this project with the types of units that will need to be developed for a reduced FAR. Another Council member clarified that since they would be requesting that the developer cut almost 30 percent of the FAR, she cannot support this motion because it is too drastic of a reduction. The City Attorney suggested that some language be incorporated in the motion in regard to the condominium conversion protection. A Councilmember asked the City Attorney if they overly restrict the land use by reducing the FAR to the minimum. A Councilmember stated that although this project does provide a lot of needed housing, it is not a project that she would normally approve because Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24, 1998 Page 17 it does not deal with a lot of things that they want housing to do in the City. It does not provide for any low-income housing, does not improve the owner-renter ratio, is not close to the light rail and does not do anything to maintain or enhance the suburban feel of Mountain View. However, she noted that AvalonBay does have the right to develop this site. She then expressed support for the staff recommendation for a FAR of 282,000 square feet. She added that the height is desirable but would like the mass to be reduced. In terms of parking, she thinks that any suggestions that can be included in the motion to be sure that they are able to deal with unforeseen circumstances in the future would be desirable. A Councilmember stated that the motion would solve some of the problems Council has been grappling with, including the traffic, density and garage issues. Motion: M/S Stasek/ Ambra Carried 4-3; Figueroa, Noe, Zoglin no Not approve the construction of a wall on Latham Street; approve initiation of a Precise Plan review with protection to the applicant; require mandatory inclusion of the condominium conversion protection should that occur; approve the 197,250 square foot floor area, allowing the developer to work within that FAR for a mix of units that make the project economically feasible, and a variance to allow for the number of units to fall below what is required in the Precise Plan; approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and adopt A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING A TENTATIVE MAP TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 1.9-ACRE PARCEL INTO ONE LOT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT AT 2400 EL CAMINO REAL WEST. The City Attorney suggested the following language for the condominium conversion protection: "Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall enter into an agreement and/or execute a covenant with the City, incorporating notice and tenant protection provisions similar to those set forth in the City's condominium conversion law. Said agreement andlor covenant shall be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director and City Attorney." The City Attorney also recommended that Council direct staff to return to the Council with the initiation of Precise Plan amendment and staff would then bring it back as an agenda item. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 18 The Community Development Director asked that the motion be clarified and also noted that this motion would require a redesign of the project and, therefore, asked what role the Council would like to play in the redesign. A Council member made a point of order that they should not be discussing the redesign here and thinks that because it was a presented alternative, he does not understand why they are discussing it now. The Community Development Director responded that the Council did not speak to Recommendation 2.c. in the motion, so it was not clear to staff what direction to take. Another Councilmember suggested that rather than trying to determine the details tonight, this could come back to Council at the next meeting for clarifica tion. A Council member asked if there was interest in bringing the project back to the Council rather than the Site Plan and Architectural Review Committee. All Councilmembers concurred that this should be decided at the next Council meeting. Motion: MIS Stasekl Ambra Carried 7-0 Direct staff to bring this item back to the Regular Council meeting of December 8,1998 for administrative and procedural details and to include the language of the City Attorney on the condominium conversion. Motion; MIS Figueroa/Kleitman Carried 7-0 Continue this matter on open hearing basis to the Regular Council meeting of December 8, 1998. 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC 6.1 CASTRO STREET AND HIGH SCHOOL WAY Jerry David, Mountain View, stated that he is having problems with cement trucks running over the curb and destroying the gutter and curb at the corner of Castro Street and High School Way. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 19 7. ITEMS INITIATED BY COUNCIL 7.1 BUDGET AND EXPENDITURE POLICY The Finance and Administrative Services Director stated that the Council Ad Hoc Budget Committee reviewed the Council budget and expenditure policy and is recommending a new policy that will consolidate two existing Council expense policies and will clarify existing policy regarding Council expenses. The new policy will modify existing policy and practices regard- ing Council expenses in the following ways: 1. It will create a separate travel budget for each Councilmember; 2. It will clarify authority for approving Council reimbursements and interpreting Council expense policy by authority of the Mayor or Vice Mayor; 3. It permits reimbursements and modifies telephone line and related expenses but will cap the amount of monthly long-distance charges that may be reimbursed; and 4. It clarifies the types of local expenses that will be reimbursable. The proposed policy would replace existing Council Travel Policy A2 and also consolidate Council Travel Policy A18 regarding reimbursement for communication and computing equipment of Councilmembers, with the exception of some modification permitting the additional installation and monthly service charge for an additional telephone line. A Councilmember suggested that the telephone communication costs vary and thinks that the number might be low. He also stated that he has a problem with creating an approval process with the Mayor or Vice Mayor because the Councilmembers should not have to ask for permission. A Councilmember responded that the spirit of the policy coming from the Committee is that there is a necessity to determine if a Councilmember is making expenditures that fit the policy. She added that staff was uncomfortable being put in the situation to make these determinations; therefore, the Committee established that the Mayor and Vice Mayor be responsible for these determinations. She also noted that on Page 4 of 8 of the policy, the second to the last bullet should include pager. Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 20 A Councilmember stated that although she likes the Idea of there being a budget within which Councilmembers should work, she is concerned about how they should handle going to meals together, shared parking, shared gas, etc. The Finance and Administrative Services Director responded that it is not a burden on them to split costs when they are doing the accounting. The same Councilmember added that she has mixed feelings about the Mayoral review because although she hkes the idea that a question comes to the Mayor for interpretation or if there is a budget overage, she is not sure about the idea to ask the Mayor to review every single expense report. Another Council member suggested alternative language for the bottom of Page 7 of 8, to say: "The Mayor shall review and make a determination on questions of interpretation that arise, regarding reimbursements." In other words, it would be reviewed by exception. One Councilmember suggested that they eliminate 6.b. because it is redundant and modify 6.d. She added that she does not have any problem with the amount of money that is allocated under any of the line items. A Councilmernber asked that the cell phone budget be increased. Another Councilmember concurred and added that he would like to see the Mayor review section changed and would rather see this back in the purview of the Policy and Procedures Committee. Motion: MIS FigueroalZoglin Carried 5-2; Ambra, Kleitman no Resolution No. 16295 As recommended by the Council Ad Hoc Budget Committee, adopt A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET, as modified, to add the word pager to 2.c., eliminate 6.b., and modify 6.d. to read: .....shall interpret any questions of policy, legislative intent and interpretation of expenditure regardmg this policy." 8. COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, COMMITTEE REPORTS The Finance and Admmistrative Services Director announced that the City will be visited by a delegation of 13 elected French offiCials on Monday, November 30, Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 21 1998, who will be attending the tree lighting ceremony at 6:00 p.m. He added that Vice Mayor Zoglin will be introducing them to the community, and staff is putting together a reception on the second floor of City Hall at approximately 7:00 p.m. 9. CLOSED SESSION REPORT-None. 10. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 11:09 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, December 8, 1998, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 500 Castro Street. lOA. Resolutions enacted at this meeting are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. ATTEST: APPROVED: ANGELITA M. SALVADOR DEPUTY CITY CLERK ~~~~, MAYOR AMS/4/CLK 402-11-24-98mn^ Adjourned Regular Meeting - November 24,1998 Page 22