Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Minutes 04 27 2010 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY COUNCIL MINUTES REGULAR MEETING - TUESDAY, APRIL 27, 2010 CITY HALL - 500 CASTRO STREET 5:00 P.M.-STUDY SESSION 7:00 P.M.-REGULAR SESSION 5:00 P.M.-STUDY SESSION (HELD IN THE PLAZA CONFERENCE ROOM) 1. CALL TO ORDER The Study Session was called to order at 5:00 p.m. with Mayor Bryant presiding. 1.1 ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Abe-Koga, Inks, Kasperzak, Macias, Means, Vice Mayor Siegel and Mayor Bryant. ABSENT: None. 2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS-None. 3. STUDY SESSION 3.1 MODERNIZATION OF TELEPHONE USERS TAX ORDINANCE The Assistant to the City Manager offered brief introductory comments on this item, explaining that staff is recommending to update a potential Telephone Users Tax (TUT) modernization ballot measure to reflect current telecommunications technology, changes in Federal law and to strengthen the ordinance's enforceability. Bryan Godbe, President-Godbe Research, spoke briefly and introduced his colleague, Dr. Davidson. Dr. Amelia Davidson, Senior Research Manager-Godbe Research, explained that Godbe Research was commissioned to conduct a telephone survey to assess potential voter support for the aforementioned ordinance. This survey was designed to prioritize a list of City services and facilities that voters perceive are important to maintain with the funds generated by the TUT; test the influence of supporting and opposing messages on potential voter Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 1 support; and identify any differences in voter support due to demographic and/ or voter behavioral characteristics. She explained that data collection was done via IS-minute telephone interviews conducted from March 29 through April 2, 2010, of 400 voters out of approximately 19,804 registered voters in the City of Mountain View who are likely to vote in the November 2010 election. She then reviewed in detail the results of the telephone survey. Councilmember Inks asked what kind of updated technology language will be in the ordinance, and the Assistant to the City Manager responded that the older, common language only referenced telephones and modernization language mentions newer technologies, such as cell phones, wireless, Voice over Internet, etc. Councilmember Inks asked how they treat certain language to ensure equal treatment of taxpayers, and Mr. Godbe responded that there could be an unequal treatment of taxpayers and that is the reason for the modernization. He explained that they are trying to solve an inequity amongst all of those different technologies. The Assistant to the City Manager clarified to Councilmember Macias that the current ordinance includes intrastate and wireless. Councilmember Macias stated that they need to make very clear in the language that wireless providers and land-line providers pay a TUT, but that all other providers, such as voice, cable or private networks, do not. Mayor Bryant asked whether there is a template they will be working off of or if they are expecting to build whatever tax on their own, compared to what other cities are doing, and staff explained that they do have a template, noting that other cities have tax modernization ordinances. The City Manager clarified that the City just wants to make sure that they can continue to collect what they are already collecting and they are really just expanding the potential universe to interstate and international. He noted that they are already collecting the tax on cell phone providers via bundling, but the old ordinance is not explicit and they just want to include the newer technologies in the ordinance so that if there are any questions regarding what people are being taxed on, it will be covered. The Assistant to the City Manager stated that there are a number of next steps regarding communication with businesses and the community at-large, and the City Manager asked for a general sense from the Council regarding Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 2 proceeding and that any comments or suggestions on general structure would be helpful. Councilmember Macias stated that consumers have a choice of what long- distance providers they use and suggested that staff identify all of the different sources of whom they should be taxing. Councilmember Kasperzak clarified that they think of the big five telecom companies, but there are hundreds of companies and, to some degree, they are already collecting from many of those companies. Councilmember Means expressed concern that, at some point, people are going to ask what they are getting in return for the taxes they are paying. Responding to a question from Vice Mayor Siegel, the Assistant to the City Manager stated that based on how different services are billed to their customers as well as on their previous audit and work in other cities, a very rough estimate of how much they could raise from this could be several hundred thousand dollars. The public input period was opened, and seeing no one wishing to speak, the public input period was closed. Vice Mayor Siegel commented that he is pleased with the survey and given they do the right work, they should pass this ordinance. He also inquired how many other cities have done this expansion. The Assistant to the City Manager stated that four of the seven cities in Santa Clara County with TUTs do tax on interstate and international calls, but he is unsure how many cities State-wide do it and he can bring that information back to the Council. Mayor Bryant stated that updating the ordinance to cover services that were not around years ago makes sense and is fair, and she expressed support to move forward carefully. No formal action was taken. 3.2 DOWNTOWN AFFORDABLE F AMIL Y DEVELOPMENT (135 FRANKLIN STREET) The Associate Planner provided an update on the downtown affordable family development (southeast corner of Evelyn Avenue and Franklin Street) and discussed the project design and the key environmental findings. She Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 3 explained that ROEM Development Corporation (ROEM) is the developer for the project and is also providing architectural design work. The Senior Planner reviewed the proposed budget, designed around the Federal Tax Credit Program, which will provide the bulk of the funding for the project. Based on ROEM's preliminary budget, the total project cost is estimated to be $25.6 million and the City subsidy would be around $7 million. Under the Tax Credit Program, the maximum tenant income is limited to 60 percent AMI. She explained that the Council could choose a different affordability distribution or deeper affordability; however, she noted that the deeper the affordability, the higher the City subsidy would need to be. She also pointed out that based on an initial assessment of the various funding sources that will be used for this project, it appears the project may be exempt from both Federal and State prevailing wage requirements. Councilmember Inks asked when they will have the first budget approval presented to them, and the Senior Planner responded that the budget, along with all other project approvals, will come on June 22. Councilmember Macias asked if Development Review Committee (DRC) input is incorporated in the plans for this meeting, and the Associate Planner responded that they are waiting to see if there are any additional comments generated from this meeting before ROEM further revises the plans. Councilmember Macias inquired whether there is a push to incorporate any more green elements in the development, and Jonathan Emami, ROEM, responded that they submitted a Build-it-Green checklist and that this project also meets the standards for the LEED Program. Beyond that, he offered that they are looking into photovoltaic solar panels or passive solar water heating as added benefits based on what they have in the budget and what makes sense. Councilmember Macias suggested that it would be great to have a green roof on an affordable housing project, and Mr. Emami noted that they are looking at that possibility. Councilmember Abe-Koga asked for clarification about the impact this project will have on Caltrain parking, and the Associate Planner responded that there is commuter parking capacity at the VTA lot at Pioneer Way and that there are options the Council could consider taking to protect the neighborhood, such as time restrictions on block forces that are not currently restricted. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 4 The City Manager added that one of the challenges is that there is no doubt that there could be spillover from Caltrain, but that parking is the responsibil- ity of Caltrain, even though the City may have to deal with the ramifications of spillover. Councilmember Macias asked, as part of the prevailing wage requirement, whether they can hire local employees, and the Senior Planner responded that if the Council's preference is to hire local, then they can look into that. Mayor Bryant asked for clarification on who is performing oversight on resident serviCes and what kind of oversight they will have. The Senior Planner responded that ROEM recently identified Project Access as the service provider, so staff has not had an opportunity to look into this organization's background in-depth; however, they will be asking for the location where they are providing their services and checking references. She added that the City will have oversight over the whole development and they can ask for periodic evaluations by the residents of the service provider. ROEM explained that, along with their property management company, they develop their own service program and bring services in-house, which allows them to leverage what they have and to maximize the budget that is set aside for the program. He added that they will have more details and documenta- tion available for review and reassured Council that they are committed to a high-quality service program. The public input period was opened. Doug DeLong, Mountain View, stated that the Advocates for Affordable Housing continue to strongly support this project but expressed reservation that the rents are based on 60 percent AMI, instead of 50 percent, as was originally proposed. He expressed surprise that the budget numbers do not seem to make any reference to funding from the Federal Home Loan Bank or Affordable Housing Program grants which, if brought into play, could offset the budget impact and bring the rent levels back to 50 percent AMI. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, the public input period was closed. Councilmember Kasperzak commented that ROEM has done a great job addressing the issues of concern in terms of moving massing, expanding the back patio area and addressing the parking. Mayor Bryant stated that the design has really improved and looks very attractive but, on the whole, she agrees with the DRC's comments. She added Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 5 that she is happy to move the project forward, with the changes recom- mended by the DRC, and would be interested in hearing about the services being provided. Vice Mayor Siegel remarked that he is happy to move forward with the project as well. Councilmember Macias agreed that it is a good partnership all around but that they need a discussion on the prevailing wage issue. Councilmember Abe-Koga commented that she appreciates the changes that have been made. She concurred that they should discuss the prevailing wage issue because it seems ironic to have a low-income housing project but not pay workers the prevailing wage to build it. Councilmember Kasperzak agreed that he would like to know more about the prevailing wage issue but does not think that the affordable housing project should be tied to the prevailing wage issue and he would not support doing so. Councilmember Means stated that he likes using the below-market-rate (BMR) funds to target housing for people in a way that financially make sense, rather than building large condos and using a huge subsidy for one unit. He expressed concern that the prevailing wage is coming down and remarked that a lot of construction workers come from all over, so he does not think they should put any restrictions on where people come from to do the job. Mayor Bryant noted that she struggled with paying prevailing wage to everyone and is willing to spend as much as they can of the City's BMR funds on housing, but it would be nice if they could focus on Mountain View residents for prevailing wage and she would like to get more information on that issue. No formal action was taken. The Study Session concluded at 6:42 p.m. 7:00 P.M.-REGULAR SESSION (HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS) 1. CALL TO ORDER The Regular Session was called to order at 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Bryant presiding. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 6 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Bryant led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Abe-Koga, Inks, Kasperzak, Macias, Means, Vice Mayor Siegel and Mayor Bryant. ABSENT: None. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR The reading of the full text of all ordinances and resolutions on the agenda was waived by unanimous consent of the Council. Regarding Item 4.1, Mayor Bryant asked some changes be made to the minutes for the February 2 meeting, Item 4.1, Page 5, to remove the entire phrase "the more esoteric parts belong in the vision statement"; on Page 7, to change "admissions" to "emissions"; and, finally, for February 23, Page 20, at the bottom of the bottom paragraph, to change the word "house" to "dangerous house." Councilmember Abe-Koga suggested a modification to the minutes for February 2, Page 9, changing the statement "driving across town" to "not driving across town." Referring to Item 4.5, Councilmember Macias congratulated the Policy Advisory Committee on the work plan. The public input period was opened, and seeing no one wishing to speak, the public input period was closed. Motion-MIS Kasperzak/Siegel-Carried 7-0 (Means voted no on Item 4.5)- Approve. 4.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES-Approve minutes for the City Council Special Meeting of February 2, 2010 and the City Council Regular Meeting of February 23, 2010 with modifications. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 7 4.2 Resolution No. 17490-RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION-RETIREMENT OF MARILYN LOMBARDI, DOCUMENT PROCESSING TECHNICIAN 11- Adopt A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIA nON TO MARILYN LOMBARDI, DOCUMENT PROCESSING TECHNICIAN II, FOR HER 22 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, to be read in title only, further reading waived. 4.3 SET PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR DOWNTOWN PARKING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11-Set date for a public meeting on May 25, 2010 and a public hearing on June 22, 2010 to consider the annual Engineer's Report for the Downtown Parking Maintenance and Operation Assessment District and to establish the amount of the annual assessment for Fiscal Year 2010-11. 4.4 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE 291 EV AND ALE A VENUE PROJECT-Set date for a public hearing on May 11, 2010 for consideration of a Development Review Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit for an existing apartment complex located at 291 Evandale Avenue. 4.5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR OUTSIDE FIRE PLAN CHECKING AND INSPECTION SERVICES 1. Appropriate $60,000 in Building Services Sub fund to augment the fire inspection contract for outside plan check and inspection services. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to increase the contract for outside fire plan check and inspection services with Hughes Associates, Inc. to $180,000. 4.6 APPROVAL OF THE SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S FISCAL YEAR 2010-11 PROPOSED WORK PLAN-Approve the Senior Advisory Committee's Fiscal Year 2010-11 Proposed Work Plan. 4.7 VELARDE STREET, ELSIE AVENUE AND PEACOCK AVENUE RECONSTRUCTION, PROJECT 08-51-ACCEPT CONSTRUCTION-Accept Velarde Street, Elsie Avenue and Peacock Avenue Reconstruction, Project 08-51, and authorize the final contract payment. 4.8 REAUTHORIZE COUNTY-WIDE AB 939 IMPLEMENTATION FEE AND COUNTY-WIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM AGREEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 2010-11-Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to: (1) execute agreements with the County of Santa Clara Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 8 to collect and administer the County-wide AB 939 Implementation Fee and County-Wide Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Program from July 1,2010 through June 30, 2011; and (2) increase the $30,000 augmentation amount if actual participation and costs exceed the projected 4 percent to 5 percent level. 4.9 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT WITH DELTA DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT TO PURSUE FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THE RECYCLED WATER PROJECT-Authorize the City Manager or his designee to enter into a cost-share interagency agreement with the Delta Diablo Sanitation District to secure Federal funding for Mountain View/Palo Alto Recycled Water System Construction, Project 05-39. 4.10 GENERAL PLAN SCHEDULE UPDATE-Endorse the proposed revised General Plan Schedule. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1-AMENDMENTS AND PERMITS FOR 203 APARTMENT UNITS AT 425 AND 455 WEST EVELYN AVENUE Mayor Bryant presented the structure of this item and explained that they have had a considerable amount of discussion on this project over many months, including taking a copious amount of public input at the March 23 Council meeting. She noted that following that meeting, the developer approached the City with amendments, including an affordable housing option, and that she worked with the Vice Mayor and staff to provide time for a robust discussion during this meeting. The Zoning Administrator explained that the City has received a development agreement proposed by the applicant and then reviewed the following proposed alternatives: Alternative A is a proposal which would have 210 units and a fee of 3 percent of the appraised value of the project that would go to affordable housing programs, roughly equivalent to an ownership project. Staff's recommendation is that the total units be at 203, which was established as a baseline at the previous meeting. The Zoning Administrator noted that the applicant would have to agree to that change in terms. Alternatives B1, B2 and B3 have a mix of below-market-rate (BMR) units at Northpark Apartments or at the project site. Alternative B1 has 199 units with 10 BMR units, a majority of which would be at Northpark; Alternative B2 has 302 units with BMR units split 5 and 5; Alternative B3 has 203 units with all of the Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 9 units at Northpark to total 20; and Alternative B4 would place all of the BMR units at the Minton site. The Zoning Administrator continued that if Council is interested in BMR units at Northpark Apartments, it is recommended that they not be at 65 percent of AMI because a BMR unit at Northpark is roughly equivalent to existing market rates right now and, therefore, would not offer much to the City. He noted that if a BMR unit were at 50 percent AMI, then it would be 70 percent market rate. He explained that, in general, staff is recommending approval of the development agreement because the applicant is offering affordable housing options which the City cannot require based on recent case law. He added that the specific choice is up to the Council as to which alternative aligns most with community goals. Councilmember Macias remarked that the project development agreement is focused on affordable housing and wondered whether anything else was offered from staff, and the Zoning Administrator added that the development agreement provides the applicant that the entitlement will be valid for five years, rather than two. In addition, it allows the parking in-lieu fee to be paid when the buildings are occupied and this is viewed as a financial benefit. Responding to a question from Councilmember Macias, the Acting City Attorney explained that the development agreement is constructed so that the Precise Plan amendments would be considered regulatory incentives that provide a basis for the development agreement, which is the massing, the height and the density. She added that because the City cannot require affordable housing, the development agreement is structured to not go against the Costa-Hawkins Act and, in exchange, the developer is willing to provide the community benefit to the City as either a fee or BMR units and there is also land that will be given to the City for a public street. Councilmember Macias expressed concern with open space, and the Zoning Administrator responded that the development agreement still includes every- thing in the project and the only thing that is changing is that the City will be collecting the same fee, but at a later date of approximately two years. Councilmember Abe-Koga inquired if they can take that time period to find a parcel to develop into a park or work with the applicant to find land for something like a tot lot, and the Zoning Administrator explained that staff could look at what the fees might be allocated to prior to actually receiving the fee from the developer, but suggested that Council discuss a potential tot lot with the developer. Vice Mayor Siegel asked If staff has any calculation on how much BMR units would cost the developer over the 55 years of the BMR ordinance, and the Zoning Administrator explained that the development agreement is worded to follow the Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 10 55 years and so, depending on which option is chosen, it is a considerable amount of money over time. Mayor Bryant asked what the City could do immediately with the community benefit fee of $2 million that would provide a BMR benefit, and the Administrative and Neighborhood Services Manager explained that there is not a lot they could do immediately because it takes time to get affordable housing off the ground. She remarked that a recent project of 51 units discussed by Council could have one- third of its units built with $2 million. Mayor Bryant questioned if they might be able to pick an apartment complex downtown, rehab it and turn some of the units into BMR units, and the Administrative and Neighborhood Services Manager responded that this could be an option, noting that those projects cost a lot less than new construction and they will be looking at that as part of the affordable housing strategies. She confirmed that this money could go a long way for that kind of a project. Councilmember Kasperzak asked if a parking study is still part of the proposal, and the Zoning Administrator explained that the only proposal with a parking study was the one previously analyzed and the new proposals do not include a parking study. He suggested that Council could bring this issue up again with the developer to see if they would be willing to include a parking study under one of the alternatives as a compromise or a negotiation. Councilmember Macias wondered if there were other items that the City requested which were not included in the developer agreement, and the Zoning Administrator explained that the only issues in the development agreement are affordable-housing issues. He pointed out that if the Council believes the project warrants a parking or traffic study after construction, then they do not need a developer agreement to do that and can make that as a condition of approval of the project. The Acting City Attorney added that the development agreement has been very carefully constructed to conform to existing law, so under State law, the City can impose a rent-limitation requirement on a developer, provided certain regulatory incentives have been provided. She noted that the agreement in this particular instance is a development agreement, but the City is following the density bonus law approach. Vice Mayor Siegel questioned whether there are any projects that could be constructed which would benefit the neighborhood, and the Zoning Administrator explained that during the project review, prior to the March Council meeting, there was a lot of discussion regarding what the project could provide to the neighborhood. He noted that there will be an unrestricted paseo that will be Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 11 opened to the public and some discussions have surrounded whether the neighborhood could have access to the pool. He added that the money the developer is providing could potentially pay for buying land in the neighborhood to be developed. Jonathan Moss of Prometheus Real Estate, the applicant, explained that originally they proposed 213 apartments, but as a result of resident and City feedback, in addition to the recent change in the interpretation of the inclusionary zoning ordinance with the City, they have reduced the unit count to 203. In addition, they are providing alternatives that include BMR options. He added that in an effort to address parking concerns, they have reduced the units, but not the size of the parking garage, which results in an additional 14 parking stalls and an increase in the effective parking supply, at a cost of half-million dollars. He noted that the reduction of 10 units represents a significant reduction in revenue from the project and negatively affects the net value of the project to about $2 million. Finally, he remarked that it is their opinion that because of the significant design improve- ments made, the project design is now compatible with the neighborhood. Councilmember Kasperzak asked for a response regarding the proposal to add seven units at the project site, and the applicant responded that this option was not ever considered and is not one of their preferred options; however, should the Council be interested in this option, they would be amenable to that. Mayor Bryant concurred that 203 units is where they are currently at and com- mented that the fee is very attractive to her because the City can really do some- thing interesting downtown with it. She then asked the applicant if they are all right with all of the permutations. The applicant responded that they are fine with all of the permutations that were proposed to the City; however, they cannot agree with mixing the two alternative proposals, which would remove 7 units beyond the 203 units and impose an in-lieu fee. Councilmember Abe-Koga spoke to open space and parks and questioned whether the applicant is open to a concept which would allow neighborhood residents to use their facilities. The applicant responded that they would be open to discussing this, but the logistics of opening the pool or gym to the public would be very complicated; however, they are happy to look into other parcels of land where they could use the park fees and create a pocket park in the neighborhood. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 12 Councilmember Macias asked the applicant to acknowledge the number of units they are requesting is a substantial increase over what the Precise Plan allows and the applicant conceded. The public input period was opened. Aaron Grossman, speaking on behalf of a number of people in the audience, stated that it looks like parking stackers are not being seriously considered and the pro- ponents agree that this is not a good use of money. He also expressed support for 203 units and regarding BMR units, he would like the Council to get the best deal they can. Maddie Scott, Mountain View, agreed that they do leave the BMR units to Council's discretion, but she would support putting BMR units at the Minton site to create diversity in that area of the community. Melanie Kaye, Mountain View, was upset that $2 million is to be given to fix up something in the City but not anything in the neighborhood. She noted that they are selling out an old established neighborhood and to not use that money in the neighborhood is not a very fair thought process. She also asked if when they are referring to "staff recommends" whether it is just one person on the staff. She does not agree with the project and believes it has not been reduced enough. Mayor Bryant clarified that the $2 million will certainly be for use in the neighborhood. John Carpenter, Mountain View, stated that he supports the Sierra Club Sustainable Land Use Committee's recommendation to unbundle the parking in the project because that offers some people a 30 percent reduction in rent if they do not own a car and some of the fee that benefits the neighborhood could support a residential parking permit zone. He expressed support for Option A. Carter Coleman, Treasurer-Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association, remarked that what has not been adequately discussed is a public-benefit project that mitigates the negative impact of the development and suggested that the Council should consider this more closely. He then discussed a way to calculate the public benefit in terms of the revenues the City forgoes by enacting a change in the zoning law. He explained that their group reviewed the property tax revenue from the proposed apartment building, versus building condos within the current zoning law, and found that over the life of the lease, apartment buildings generate significantly less revenue. He also mentioned the resulting impact on school revenues given that 43 percent of property taxes go towards schools. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 13 Frank Clohan, counsel for Eaton Family and Trustee for the owner of 455 Evelyn Avenue, indicated their strong support for any of the proposals that the developer put forward. He responded that the property is not for sale and there is no oppor- tunity to make the difference in property tax revenue. He added that they believe that if the City is to continue to prosper and grow, it needs to provide new apartment housing near transit for younger people who work in industry. He spoke on behalf of Debbie Eaton, stating that it is the strong preference of their family to keep the property in the family and that they support this wonderful, diverse project which they believe will provide significant economic vitality to the growing downtown. Doug DeLong, Advocates for Affordable Housing, Mountain View, referenced the discussion regarding ways in which a community-benefit fee might be utilized, including rehabbing existing properties to become affordable apartment com- plexes. He stated that while they support this concept, it can only be applied when the opportunity presents itself and they cannot force a property owner to agree to this and their expectation is that there will likely not be many opportunities to do so. He also spoke to the suggestion to buy down rents with interest on the endow- ment, but also could not support this because it will be extremely difficult from an administrative standpoint. He noted that the primary vehicle that they have today, whereby the City facilitates affordable housing developments that other people build, is a much better use of the City's resources. In response to a question from Councilmember Macias, Mr. DeLong explained that Advocates for Affordable Housing would prefer for the complex to go back to the original apartment count, which was a reduction of 10 more units, but admitted that it is difficult to choose between the alternatives because there are pluses and minuses to each one and because they like the idea of density near transit and would not oppose the project in general. Seeing no one further wishing to speak, the public input period was closed. Mayor Bryant stated that this project has important implications for the City and that one of the key concepts is to look at neighborhood preservation. She discussed what neighborhood preservation means and commented that she finds that this will fit very well into the neighborhood and will not impinge on the current neighborhood's privacy and will protect them from the impending high- speed rail project. She also spoke to increasing the density in the Evelyn Corridor Precise Plan. She believes that the Prometheus project will certainly support the vibrancy and diversity of the neighborhood and downtown and believes that a walkable downtown with services and public transportation is a good place for affordable housing. She also expressed support for a focused parking study of the entire downtown area to figure out solutions. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 14 Councilmember Kasperzak noted that while this is not an affordable project, it is affordable in context with how much homes cost in the City. He agreed that Mountain View does have a need for new, modern, higher-density apartments along transit corridors and that this is the perfect location for one. Speaking to the make-up of the neighborhood, he pointed out the mix of uses in the area and the fact that they are tearing down a lumber yard to build a residential complex. He explained that, almost unanimously, people say they want a grocery store in the downtown area; however, there is not the density downtown to support one, so this is another step to get through a critical mass of people who might support a market. He noted, however, that there are no guarantees that a grocery store will come because of this project. He believes that this project has adequate parking given where it is located and that, given the City is looking at doing a parking study, it is one of the more manageable issues should problems arise. He remarked that the developer has done a good job to minimize the visual impact that this project will have on neighbors across the street and questioned where they would put this kind of project if not at this location. Councilmember Macias remarked that everyone wants to be in Mountain View and so the City can afford to be picky as to what they want and where it fits. She questioned what the benefit is to the City to change the rules for the developer and current property owner and commented that it is not the responsibility of the City to help them achieve the greatest profit. She noted that there is no park space and no use for individuals who make less than $100,000 per year and what they really need is more affordable housing. She clarified in reference to the Prometheus Development letter in Attachment I, that Prometheus denies that they did not do weekly rentals at the Metropolitan, but noted that she and Vice Mayor Siegel saw weekly rentals there. She stated that it is the City's responsibility to do something about the parking issues, traffic and putting in a park and that they should require t a lower density. Vice Mayor Siegel commented that regardless of the outcome of this session, they all want the best for Mountain View, albeit in different ways, and that no one will hold a grudge on the Council and asked that those in the neighborhood do the same. It is his belief that they should have high density in this area of town, but that the challenges to develop a project that does no harm to the surrounding neighborhood and that this project does not meet that criterion. He stated that the massing is out of context with everything surrounding it and that it will increase traffic and will cause problems with parking. He commented that the Precise Plans have been in place and are based on smart growth, which is to build when there is infrastructure to support it and that to change the whole idea is going to break it and he does not see a justification to do such a massive rezoning. Regarding parks and open space, he pointed out that the goal is 1 acre per 1,000 residents. He also commented that this is not a property rights issue and, in fact, this is a huge entitlement that is being granted to the owner and the developer Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 15 and, if anything, the property rights are to those of the residents of the Old Mountain View Neighborhood. Finally, he recommended that if they want to green the City, then they should change the environmental rules and require green roofs or photovoltaics, etc., and resize this project to a somewhat lower density and then go forward with it. Councilmember Inks pointed out that rule changes do go through an extensive process and there are a lot of opportunities for public input and he feels that design, function and utility are more important than an absolute density. He remarked that results from two traffic studies indicated that the impact from this project is nil as a result of the capacities of streets to handle a certain number of cars. In terms of parking, he noted that there are many tools for the City to use to work on related issues and they intend to address the parking issues, but that they are separated from this project. Councilmember Abe-Koga indicated that she has spoken to many people in the neighborhood and community and she found a whole range of perspectives, both in support of and against this project, and she cannot voice a majority either way. She did discover that what people want most is something like the live/work environment that is provided in this development and that in concept, this is the right way to go. She pointed out that they have to be flexible and adjust the General and Precise Plans according to the times and that this development has one step in each world, between the vibrancy of downtown and the character of the Old Mountain View Neighborhood. She noted that she is committed to neighborhood preservation and housing fit-in and she looks at issues of height, setbacks, parking and traffic and is mindful that having open space around the development would help. She noted that even though this is lower than the Tech Farm building and the higher building is on Evelyn Avenue, she actually is concerned that it will feel like going down a tunnel on Evelyn Avenue. She suggested that they might need to look at removing some units from the fourth floor to provide a bit of airiness to the project and would recommend looking,at various options to deal with the parking issues. She stated that she believes strongly in looking at making an investment in transit as a community but that all developments are looked at carefully by City staff and Council on a case-by-case basis, so she does not believe that they are setting any precedents by approving this. Regarding BMR units, she is leaning towards seven units, although a fee might be a second option. Councilmember Means focused on the process, noting that when he was first presented with this project and its high-density, he was not sure if it would work, but then they went through the gatekeeper process and held a Study Session and no one suggested that they come back with lower densities at that time. He stated that he wishes they could be a little more forthright prior to getting to this point in a project. Regarding traffic, he stated that the only hypothetical is the number of Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 16 cars coming out of the development and staff went to great lengths to determine that there was no serious impact. He suggested that anyone who disagrees with this should present a credible alternative and some real data supporting their statements. He then spoke to the parking concerns and also found that what he observed over many visits to the area at all times of the day supports staff's conclusion and that if the neighborhood thinks that the parking issue is that serious, then he will leave it to them to figure out a way to ration parking. He addressed the concerns with changing the Precise Plan by explaining that they do this a lot of the time. With reference to the BMR option, his preference is for the fees because he believes that they can help more people. THE COUNCIL RECESSED FOR 15 MINUTES. Following recess, the Council continued its discussion. Councilmember Kasperzak commented that he is disappointed with the Court of Appeals with the State of California not requiring developers to include a BMR component and that a development agreement is probably the only way to get some kind of an affordable housing component in the project. He noted that he is less inclined to take the BMR in-lieu fee and supports going for seven BMR units. With respect to the park in-lieu fee, he suggested that maybe it can be fashioned to do a land purchase within a certain distance of the project. Mayor Bryant noted that 60 percent to 70 percent of Mountain View residents do not have children and the majority are in their 20s to early 40s and the City needs to provide housing for those younger professionals, particularly those residents who do not want to drive their cars as much. She remarked that she would like to see the BMR units downtown and, regarding the park, she suggested the idea of combining Mozart's park in-lieu fees with this project. She noted that they do need to review the Parks and Open Space Plan because she does not know what the needs of the neighborhood are. Vice Mayor Siegel stated that he believes a lot of assumptions are questionable in the parking and traffic studies and he would like to modify this project a little to provide adequate parking. In response to Mayor Bryant, he clarified that the project would be more acceptable if it was in the 1.8 range for parking and that parking is his biggest concern. Councilmember Abe-Koga asked staff how they incorporate the other suggestions that have come about regarding parking issues, and the Zoning Administrator responded that they have tried to study the parking situation as much as possible because that was a major issue of the immediate neighborhood's concern. He explained that the project meets the Precise Plan requirement of one space per bedroom but that if Council is concerned about parking, then they can make it a Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 17 condition of approval to require a parking study and noted that they are working to include surrounding neighborhoods in the downtown parking study. He warned that doing another study now will not provide any new results and it would need to be done after the project is built, but questioned whether the developer would still propose a development agreement for the affordable housing options if the City makes the condition about the parking. Councilmember Abe-Koga commented that she would like to engage in a discussion about a proposed parking study. She pointed out that the City does have a lot of funds and can use them for rehab and she would like to be aggressive to find a parcel in the neighborhood to build a park and she also would prefer including the seven BMR units within the development. She questioned where the 10 units would be removed from so they might be able to lower the four-story height. The Zoning Administrator explained that there are 38 units on the fourth floor, so removing 10 units would not eliminate the fourth story. He continued that staff prefers to receive some level of direction on the fourth floor and Councilmember Abe-Koga reported that feedback from the community is that they want as much of the fourth story eliminated as possible. Councilmember Inks commented that this development could actually have more parking than needed and he is not sure of the value of a study but they should go into this feeling comfortable with the parking that is allocated. He added that he does support the first four recommendations and regarding the BMR units, he explained that he has never advocated inclusionary zoning but that their housing policy should mitigate pressure on upward rents at all levels and that he can go with whatever is selected, whether it be in-lieu fees or BMR units. Councilmember Macias stated that if they can move towards removing the fourth floor, it would reduce the impact of the mass of the development, although she does support height density in this transition area. She also supports having an in-lieu fee for parks and open space. She stated that there is going to be need for both parking and traffic studies after the development is built and she would like to figure out a way to require, as a condition of approval, that the developer be responsible for implementation mitigation. She expressed support for 21 afford- able housing units given all the benefits being afforded to the developer. Councilmember Means stated that the conclusions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration do not support problems with parking and overall survey results show that an adequate number of parking spaces are being provided. He reiterated that if people had problems with the developer, it should have been brought up sooner and they should be more respectful of the work that staff has done, which is way beyond what they usually do for these types of projects. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 18 Councilmember Kasperzak concurred and noted that the project complies with the existing Precise Plan. He also spoke to the challenges of unbundling parking. He commented that while they talk about being a green City, adding more parking makes it possible to have more cars and, instead, they should be restricting parking to encourage carpooling and public transportation. Mayor Bryant responded that she used to park in her garage, but many years ago the downtown neighborhood decided to slow traffic down by parking their cars on the street. She added that she cannot approve small modifications of time limits, street by street, but is looking forward to a large study of parking down- town and hopes that they will approve the funding for that quickly. The Zoning Administrator explained that staff's recommendation is consistent with the March recommendation, that all of the actions should be approved subject to all of the conditions that have been discussed. He stated that staff is recom- mending that the CEQA document be adopted, but wanted to verify that the Council believes that it is complete and adequate. Regarding the General Plan land use amendments, he clarified that it is amending the land use map and is making the site high-density residential, whereas it is now at medium-density residential, so an action to approve or deny is needed. Regarding the Precise Plan amendments, he stated that the keys are density and height and there is also the setback reduction on Evelyn Avenue. He added that all the other setbacks on the perimeter are met. He pointed out that a fourth issue is the recommendation for a common building entrance every 12 units, which staff believes is outdated and so, in this development, each ground-floor unit has a front door leading into it. He pointed out that if Council wants to put in a parking study, then it should go into the development project itself and also highlighted the number of units which are up for discussion based on the development agreement. Lastly, in the staff report, there is also the introduction of an ordinance approving a development agreement which staff has not provided yet and so they are asking that Council do a straw vote on the terms and staff will take that and put together the development agree- ment and bring it back to Council on May 11. He noted that a continuance of the ordinance to May 11 is also required, if the Council chooses to do a development agreement. Other caveats in the process include that if a development agreement is approved, then staff is recommending that the resolution for the Precise Plan amendments and development project include language that make the effective date of those resolutions the same date that the ordinance ends up being effective. He explained that this provides them the ability to make sure the development agreement actually happens if it is approved. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 19 He pointed out that currently, the development project resolutions and conditions include a condition about the parking study and stackers, so if Council decides they want to have a parking study and stackers, then they do not need to change anything in the conditions. He noted that if the developer is not willing to do the parking and BMR, and Council prefers the BMR, then Condition No. 34, at Action 4, on the development project needs to be removed. The Zoning Administrator requested feedback on whether the potential for car lifts is still preferred, whether all 10 units should be removed from the fourth story and what process should that be handled through, whether Council wants BMR units or in-lieu fees and whether to make searching for a park parcel in the neighborhood a priority. Straw Motion-MIS Kasperzak/Means-Carried 5-2; Macias, Siegel no- Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 425-455 West Evelyn Avenue development project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); waive readings and adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL and adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE P(18) EVELYN AVENUE CORRIDOR PRECISE PLAN FOR DENSITY, HEIGHTS, SETBACKS AND BUILDING ENTRANCES IN THE MIXED-UNIT RESIDENTIAL AREA, with the additional language to read: "That the Council hereby finds and determines that the effective date of this resolution shall be the same date as the effective date of that certain ordinance approving the development agreement for the Prometheus apartment project at 425 and 455 West Evelyn Avenue." Councilmember Macias commented that she has good instincts about what makes a good development project and she has to honor the integrity of neighborhood preservation and the City regarding what the City needs to stand for in terms of what they want rather than what an individual wants. Mayor Bryant responded that neighborhood preservation means something different to each person and she is not making her decision to please the developer and to her it seems like a good project for the City. Councilmember Macias clarified that she was explaining how she is voting but that her comments have nothing to do with other people's motives. , Vice Mayor Siegel stated that he will not support the motion because this project is not adequate and does not meet the challenges for the area. Straw Motion-MIS Means/Kasperzak-Carried 5-2; Macias, Siegel no-Waive reading and adopt A RESOLUTION CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 20 PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR 203 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, with the additional language to read: "that the Council hereby finds and determines that the effective date of this resolution shall be the same date as the effective date of that certain ordinance approving the development agreement for the Prometheus apartment project at 425 and 455 West Evelyn Avenue"; modify the project's conditions, deleting Condition No. 33, regarding car lifts, removing 10 units from fourth story with zoning hearing and DRC, if deemed necessary, and adding a new condition requiring a parking management plan that will be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit; and approve a Development Agreement term for seven below-market-rate units at the project site and continue the introduction of AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROMETHEUS APARTMENT PROJECT AT 425 AND 455 WEST EVELYN AVENUE to May 11, 2010. Resolution No. 17491, Resolution No. 17492, Resolution No. 17493- MIS Kasperzak/Means-Carried 5-2; Macias, Siegel no-Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 425-455 West Evelyn Avenue development project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); waive readings and adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TO HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL and adopt A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE P(18) EVELYN AVENUE CORRIDOR PRECISE PLAN FOR DENSITY, HEIGHTS, SETBACKS AND BUILDING ENTRANCES IN THE MIXED-UNIT RESIDENTIAL AREA, with the additional language to read: "that the Council hereby finds and determines that the effective date of this resolution shall be the same date as the effective date of that certain ordinance approving the development agreement for the Prometheus apartment project at 425 and 455 West Evelyn Avenue"; waive reading and adopt A RESOLUTION CONDmONALLY APPROVING THE PLANNED COMMUNITY PERMIT, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND HERITAGE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR 203 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, with the additional language to read: "that the Council hereby finds and determines that the effective date of this resolution shall be the same date as the effective date of that certain ordinance approving the development agreement for the Prometheus apartment project at 425 and 455 West Evelyn Avenue"; modify the project's conditions, deleting Condition No. 33, regarding car lifts, removing 10 units from fourth story with zoning hearing and DRC, if deemed necessary, and adding a new condition requiring a parking management plan that will be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit; and approve a Development Agreement term for seven below-market-rate units at the project site and continue the introduction of AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE PROMETHEUS APARTMENT PROJECT AT 425 AND 455 WEST EVELYN AVENUE to May 11, 2010. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 21 6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS Roger Petersen, Mountain View, stated that if they will be seeing viaduct structures north of Rengstorff Avenue and south of the downtown station, then he would like for the City to design these structures so they will be more of an asset to the City. He suggested that these types of structures can be designed to the City's architectural style and as a colonnade for bicyclists and pedestrians along with solar lighting and with noise mitigation. 7. COUNCIL, ST AFF/COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilmember Kasperzak reported that there is a bill on the floor, AB 155, which would prohibit a city from filing bankruptcy until it has gone to a to-be-newly- formed commission of the Legislature that would be able to pass or impose restrictions on the bankruptcy. He indicated he will bring an item to the Council under the one-hour rule to encourage the Governor to veto this because it does impact local control. Councilmember Macias said that they had a successful meeting of the Council Neighborhoods Committee last Wednesday, April 20, with approximately 30 residents in attendance, as well as staff, and the Committee resolved a lot of Issues. Councilmember Abe-Koga reported that she recently attended a Local Area Formation Committee (LAFCO) meeting and that one of the things that they do is comprehensive studies of services, such as water, fire, etc., and they looked at the adequacy of the services that cities provide and they will be providing recommen- dations to each of the cities at the end of the year. Mayor Bryant announced a community meeting on Monday, May 3, on the draft alternatives analysis for high-speed rail. She also reported that she recently attended the Santa Clara Water District Board meeting and described the process of redistricting, noting that they had a commission work for three months to figure out what the districts were and that the districting is not what was originally proposed by the committee. 8. CLOSED SESSION REPORT-None. 9. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 10:53 p.m. The next Regular Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 11, 2010, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 500 Castro Street. Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 Page 22 9A. Resolutions enacted at this meeting are on file in the' Office of the City Clerk. ATTEST: AMS/7/CLK 402-04-27-10mn^ Regular Meeting - April 27, 2010 APPROVED: 1~~ eVr RO TBRYANT. ~ MAYOR Page 23