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