Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning
Follow us:
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Comment Letters
  • Calendar
  • Our Work
  • Get Involved
  • Contact Us
  • For MVCSP Members
  • City of Mountain View City Council Agendas & Future Agenda Items
  • City of Mountain View Planning Division Update
  • City of Mountain View Capital Improvement Program
  • City of Mountain View Zoning Map
  • City of Mountain View City Budget
  • City of Mountain View External Roster
  • City of Mountain View Advisory Body Work Plans
  • Safe Parking Community Task Force

Want to know what happened at the 4/26 Council meeting on San Antonio? Read on...

4/27/2011

0 Comments

 
People who were watching item 5.1 (San Antonio Center redevelopment and associated matters) on the Mountain View City Council agenda last night got a special treat listening to our most eloquent MVCSP speakers, of whom we can all be very proud.
 

That said, exactly what will or won't come out of this is unknown.  There was certainly movement toward better design, and things like "wide sidewalks" stand a chance.  While Council did not completely support some of the EPC/ZA recommendations, MVCSP's hard work definitely paid off!

 

For those of you who weren't there, had to leave early, or for some reason were puzzled by the whole thing (that was a joke--this is the closest I've ever seen a Council meeting come to deteriorating into straight farce), here's how the process situation looked to me from the middle of Council Chambers:

 

1. First and foremost, NOTHING having to do with San Antonio Center was voted on last night, after the developer (Merlone Geier) self-destructed and almost no one on Council felt that there was any clarity on what they would be voting on.

 

2. My impression was that the entire agenda item was continued to date uncertain.  Others' impressions may differ, but everyone agrees that next week, May 3, doesn't seem like a possible date given the amount of work to be done before this project is ready for public view again.  (Two other agenda items were continued to May 3, given the appallingly late hour.) In the interim, Staff was ultimately directed to try to pick up the scattered pieces of the developer's application, taking into account Council's comments.

 

3. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (the first item proposed to be voted on, for the entire 56 acres in the Precise Plan): There was a last-minute objection from an attorney for the Carpenters Union, who did not accept the response he'd gotten from City Staff. His list of continuing objections included insufficient mitigations for greenhouse gas emissions, for example. I have no idea what the legal status of this situation is but I doubt we've heard the last of it.

 

4. Precise Plan: As per above, there were greater and lesser objections to the several EPC additions, which objections I think it is fair to say were largely based on their implications for this developer's proposal for 1/3 of the site.

With no resolution at this point, the PP for the 56 acres is still in limbo.

Clearly Staff will need to find a way to deal with this situation too.

 

5. ZA Conditions of Approval: You can look at these as pages 118-148 of the online Staff Report for the item.  As always, they incorporate conditions determined by the EIR analysis (required mitigations); by various City codes; by comments from the DRC (Design Review Committee--architectural review of the project by outside consulting architects); and by the Zoning Administrator's findings based largely on the Environmental Planning Commission's recommendations. Some of them are high-level and some are low-level, like submission of color samples. This is a complicated project and there were a lot of items.  It's impossible to determine from the document when MGP got these (I thought it was supposed to be 10 days after the ZA Hearing, which would be April 17), but apparently a marked-up sheaf of questions and objections was distributed to Council a very short time before the meeting last night, definitely after the official information packet for the item was delivered to them on Friday (?).  It appears that it was just this original packet, minus the later unanticipated feedback from the developer, that Council spent a lot of time trying to understand over the weekend.  When they (but, it emerged, not all the relevant staff members) received this last-minute temper-tantrum on paper, they said that these were things that should have been worked out with Staff ahead of time, and they had no way of dealing with them from the dais.

 

6. Three MGP representatives gave an extremely long presentation, mainly a glowing description of the project and (third segment) a run-through (completely inconsistent with standard procedure) of the above-mentioned list.

The last thing mentioned: Rite-Aid is gone, and MGP has moved that building closer to ECR ("This was always the way we wanted to do it.") One less thing to discuss, except that it wasn't up against the sidewalk, just closer.

 

7. At some point, the developer, seeing that he'd created an impasse, decided to offer to withdraw the objections he'd just spent at least 20 minutes talking about and just ask Council to pass his proposal, with Staff's recommendations intact, then and there. He wanted to work out any problems later by talking to Staff.  Council still declined to vote on anything, and finally the Mayor said the item would be continued.

 

8. Somewhere in there there was public input: MVCSP's presentation, regarding desired changes to the design, with a request for continuation of the project approval process until these could be considered; from Safeway managers and employees, who asked that the project be approved because this would guarantee that the 65,000-square-foot Safeway would be there for everyone to enjoy; from several residents who supported various things the developer was proposing; from VTA, supporting wide sidewalks and transit passes, and several residents supporting bike/ped-friendliness; from one (very good) affordable housing advocate, plus a field rep from the Carpenters Union who said that the Emperor has no clothes, something like this: "The reason the developer wants you to approve his project right now has nothing to do with a need to know that the color samples are OK, which is the reason he gave you.  The real reason is that there are affordable housing requirements for rental housing development coming down the pike and he wants to avoid them."  



9. A number of Councilmembers supported the inclusion of BMR units on-site in this project, and at this point knew that there is a legally and economically feasible way to get this result.  The developer had (earlier) volunteered 3% BMR units, which is about 10.  The standard in our currently-unenforceable BMR ordinance is 10%, not 3%, which would get a little farther toward meeting the obvious demand, starting with the needs of San Antonio Center lower-wage workers.  (Some communities specify appreciably more than 10%.)  Council briefly discussed ways and means, including a Development Agreement; this matter is also pending.

 

 

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Action Minutes
    Affordable Housing
    Agenda
    Bicycling
    B/PAC
    Bus Rapid Transit
    Caltrain
    Capital Improvement Projects
    CCE
    City Council
    City Council Goals
    City Of Mountain View
    Climate Action Plan
    Climate Collaborative
    Comment Letters
    Community Development
    Community Gardens
    Complete Streets
    Conservation
    Council Environmental Sustainability Committee
    Council Transportation Committee
    CSP Retreats
    Drive Less Challenge
    Drive Thrus
    Ecodistricts
    El Camino Real
    Elected Officials
    Elections
    Electric Vehicles
    Endorsements
    Energy
    Energy Upgrade Mountain View
    Environmental Impact Reports
    Environmental Planning Commission
    Environmental Sustainability
    Events
    Friends Of Caltrain
    Friends Of Stevens Creek Trail
    General Plan
    Grand Boulevard Initiative
    Great Ideas
    Great Streets Rengstorff Park
    Green Action
    Green Building
    Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program
    Health
    High Speed Rail
    Historical Resources
    Homeless
    Home Retrofits
    Housing
    Housing Impact Fees
    Jobs
    Livable Communities Forum
    Minimum Wage
    Mixed Use Development
    Monthly Meeting
    North Bayshore
    North Whisman
    Palo Alto
    Parking
    Parks
    Parks And Recreation Commission
    Pedestrian Issues
    Pedestrian Master Plan
    Plan Bay Area
    Planning Division
    Planning For Change
    Precise Plans
    Preservation
    Public Transportation
    Rental Housing Committee
    Resources
    Safe Parking
    San Antonio
    San Jose
    Santa Clara
    Schools
    Senior Advisory Committee
    SFPUC
    Silicon Valley Leadership Group
    Social Networking
    Soil & Water
    Staff Reports
    Sunnyvale
    Talking Points
    Technology
    Trails
    Transportation
    Trees
    Urban Gardens
    Vision Zero
    Volunteers Needed
    Water
    Workshop
    World Centric
    Youth Advisory Committee
    ZA Hearings

    Archives

    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    September 2016
    June 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    July 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    December 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010

    RSS Feed

Services

Service One
Service Two
Service Three

Company

About
The Company
Menu

Support

Contact
FAQ
Terms of Use
© COPYRIGHT 2015. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.