City Council Meeting - September 14, 2021

Video

Transcript

Segment 1

[00:01:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Everyone, thank you for joining us for a closed session. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, and the State of California Executive Order N-08-21 dated June 11, 2021. All members of the City Council are participating in this meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location.

[00:02:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountainview.gov/cc_speakers to enter the Zoom meeting, or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 96795608900.

[00:03:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Any emails received by 4:30 p.m. today were received directly by the City Council. City Attorney Chopra will make remarks, and then the City Council welcomes public comment on the item listed for closed session.

[00:03:25] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you, Mayor. This is the closed session announcement for tonight. The council will meet on one item, item 2.1, Public Employee Performance Evaluation, California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1), title Council Appointee City Attorney, and Conference with Labor Negotiators, California Government Code Section 54957.6(a), Agency Designated Representative Vice Mayor Ramirez, Unrepresented Employee City Attorney, and Public Employee Appointment, California Government Code Section 54957(b)(1), title of position City Attorney. You may now request for public comment, Mayor.

[00:04:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide public comment on this closed session item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. I will display a two-minute timer on the screen if you'd like to give comment.

[00:04:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Alright, I am seeing no public comment. So the Council will now recess to closed session and will return to this meeting at 6:30 for the regular session. Thank you.

Segment 2

[01:16:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Council regular meeting for September 14th, 2021. I'm going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting is being held in accordance with the state of California executive order N-29-20 dated March 17th, 2020. And state of California executive order N-08-21 dated June 11th, 2021. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountainview.legistar.com, on YouTube at mountainview.gov/youtube and on Comcast channel 26.

[01:17:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountainview.gov/cc_speakers to enter the Zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 967-9560-8900. Any emails received by 4:30 PM today were received directly by the city council. And due to some unforeseen circumstances tonight, Spanish translation services will not be available for this meeting, but if they're necessary, I will do the best that I can.

[01:18:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. Now we'd like to move on to the pledge of allegiance. So please join me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

[01:18:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So we'll move on to item two, which is a roll call. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[01:18:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[01:18:54] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[01:18:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[01:18:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[01:18:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Lieber.

Segment 3

[01:30:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Here.

[01:30:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak?

[01:30:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Here.

[01:30:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[01:30:04] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[01:30:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[01:30:06] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[01:30:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[01:30:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Here. Do we have a quorum?

[01:30:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Great, thank you.

[01:30:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So now we'd like to move on to item 3, which is our presentations. We'll now take public comment on all three presentation items. So would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any of the three presentations listed on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. And we'll display a two-minute timer.

[01:30:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, I am not seeing any public comment on our presentations so that means we can move right into them. So let's move on to item 3.1, which is our 2021 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Community Wildfire Safety Program update. Daniel Cedeño with PG&E Government Relations and Kevin Conant with PG&E Senior Public Safety Specialist will present the update. So we'll ask them to come over. Hello.

[01:31:18] Daniel Cedeño: Hi, good evening Mayor and City Council, just checking if you can uh see me and hear me all right?

[01:31:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we see and hear you. And I think we're getting Kevin right now. Hi Kevin.

[01:31:28] Kevin Conant: Hi Mayor. Mayor Kamei.

[01:31:31] Daniel Cedeño: And Heather, just wanted to confirm if you can share uh slides please?

[01:31:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Uh, we're working on that. Give me just a second.

[01:31:40] Daniel Cedeño: No problem. Uh, while we're getting started on that, um thank you uh Mayor, City Council for the opportunity to come and present uh to you this evening. Um again my name is Daniel Cedeño and I oversee PG&E's Government and Community Affairs for Santa Clara County. Uh joining me is my colleague Kevin Conant, who is our Senior Public Safety Specialist uh for the region. Uh Kevin is our emergency management technical professional and Kevin does a great job working directly with uh Santa Clara County uh Office of Emergency Services uh and other uh first responders uh and cities as well too.

[01:32:14] Daniel Cedeño: Uh we're here to talk about our Community Wildfire Safety Program. Uh that is the umbrella term for all of PG&E's safety programs. Uh and so you may have seen some of some of this information in some emails from me or from other webinars or presentations PG&E has had. Uh I understand we have limited time so I'll go through some of the slides fairly quickly and will be available for any questions or any follow-up uh action items uh afterwards as well too. So with that if we can get started. If we can go to the next slide please.

[01:32:50] Daniel Cedeño: Thank you. So at PG&E we start every meeting with a safety moment. So we ask folks to consider uh their exit routes uh in the event of an emergency and to drop, cover and hold in the event of an earthquake. And if we can go to our next slide please. If we can go to the next slide please, that'd be great.

[01:33:13] Daniel Cedeño: Thank you so much. Uh so this slide here I think is really important to highlight because I think it underscores um the state that we're in right now when we talk about wildfires, uh drought, uh and critical infrastructure. Uh if you look at the map on the left, um that highlights a high fire threat district map for California. Uh this map was developed in partnership with with the CPUC and the areas in red are considered extreme and the areas in yellow are considered uh elevated. And over half of PG&E's service territory is now in a high fire threat district.

[01:33:47] Daniel Cedeño: Uh and when folks ask me in one sentence what what is a public safety power shutoff, typically what I say is if you look to a high fire threat map, we look to see what infrastructure is located in the high fire threat areas, uh because if there's dry conditions on the ground uh and high winds that usually kick up around September, October, then a tree branch for instance could snap and fly into the infrastructure and cause an ignition. And so for those reasons PG&E makes um the uh challenging decision to de-energize.

[01:34:20] Daniel Cedeño: Uh and so uh a lot of work has been done since the first public safety power shutoff uh in uh 2019 uh to reduce the scope of impact for the county. Uh and so you can see uh City of Mountain View is um farther away from the high fire threat district um areas, uh but we all we always ask all customers uh to uh maintain situational awareness and to be prepared in the case of any emergency um because the utility does engage very closely with first responders and cities whether it is fires, floods uh or other types of emergency situations as well too. Uh so if we can go to the next slide please.

[01:35:00] Daniel Cedeño: So our Community Wildfire Safety Program has three different buckets uh under them. Uh we have reducing wildfire potential, uh that includes uh asset inspection repairs, uh enhanced vegetation management where PG&E maintains clearances around critical infrastructure, uh system hardening work and our PSPS program. There's also improving situational awareness which includes our 24/7 Wildfire Safety Operations Center where we have uh meteorologists and experts in fire behavior we're constantly gathering new data and information and modeling out what uh weather looks like and what fire behavior would would entail as well.

[01:35:42] Daniel Cedeño: Uh and we have been putting up weather stations and high-definition cameras throughout the service territory and I'll get into that for Santa Clara County. Uh and then if you go down to the reducing impacts of PSPS, that's also a big focus for PG&E this year where we're looking at how can we expand coordination and outreach and support to customers, uh and considering new technologies like microgrids and other types of of uh programs as well too to support customers during a PSPS event. So if we can go down to the next slide please.

[01:36:14] Daniel Cedeño: So I won't spend too much time on this slide here um but it gives some really good data and information around what um has been done for 2021 uh including system hardening on 180 circuit miles, uh the number of weather stations put up, uh high-definition cameras and the amount of vegetation work uh that has been done throughout the service territory as well. Uh if you have any questions on these please feel free to ask and I'll be happy to provide additional information. Uh but if we can go to the next slide please.

[01:36:44] Daniel Cedeño: So this gives an overview uh of some of the Community Wildfire Safety Program work for Santa Clara County in particular from 2020 and what's um being uh worked on in 2021. Uh again system hardening work includes stronger poles, covered power lines, targeted undergrounding which is going to be a major initiative for PG&E moving forward. Uh sectionalizing devices, um and community resource centers are uh locations that PG&E works with the County Office of Emergency Service to put up um and and because of COVID we've uh maintained uh open air community resource centers where if residents uh are impacted by a PSPS event they can go to a CRC and receive uh some information and some resources and support.

[01:37:29] Daniel Cedeño: Uh we also have weather stations again and cameras dotted along the foothills of both the east and west sides of the valley, and I'm happy to provide the location of those um stations and cameras as well. If we can go to the next slide please.

[01:37:44] Daniel Cedeño: So there if you can go down a little bit more on my screen it's a little bit cut off. Thank you. So uh this graphic here I think is really important because uh you know when we had some PSPS events uh in 2019 I had some elected officials call me and say Daniel why is PG&E saying my power might be shut off, there's no high winds taking place. And I think the graphic to the left illustrates that while you may not be experiencing high winds, uh you could be connected to a line that is experiencing those high wind conditions and is in a very dry uh terrain or area.

[01:38:21] Daniel Cedeño: Uh and so if a PSPS is called uh then PG&E will wait for the weather to pass and then uh PG&E will inspect every inch of the line and make any repairs necessary before um restoring power and notifying residents. So if we can go to the next slide please.

[01:38:40] Daniel Cedeño: So these conditions are are uh some of the factors that PG&E looks at when making the decision uh to uh de-energize. Uh humidity levels, forecasted high winds, red flag warning, condition of dry material on the ground, and real-time observations based on those um those uh meteorology tools like weather stations and cameras. Uh if we can go to the next slide please.

[01:39:06] Daniel Cedeño: So this highlights how customers will be notified if there were to be a PSPS event. Uh we will make every effort to notify residents 1 to 2 days before power is turned off, just before, uh and then uh updates and notifications will be given when power is restored. Uh what we'd like to point out new for 2021 is PG&E put up an address alert tool. Uh this is in response to some customer feedback we got where folks said well what if we have um elderly uh grandparents that may live in a high fire threat area, how can we know if they're going to lose power or be de-energized. So there's an address alert um lookup tool now that folks can look at uh to look at um PSPS events uh and other locations throughout the service territory.

[01:39:51] Daniel Cedeño: Uh and when folks ask me how can they uh help support in terms of emergency preparedness and such, one really major piece is we do ask folks to update their contact information with PG&E. Uh whether it's phone calls or emails or addresses may change, and it's really again critical uh that updated contact information is included uh in records uh again PG&E works very closely with all first responders on different types of urgent situations including PSPS. Uh if we can go to the next slide please.

[01:40:23] Daniel Cedeño: Uh I won't get into this slide but it gives some good high-level information of different types of programs PG&E has uh in particular in Santa Clara County we partnered with the county with the health trust for food programs, uh we partnered with the Independent Living Center of Silicon Valley as well, um and then there's other programs listed that PG&E has available for customers. And I believe we have one more final slide.

[01:40:50] Daniel Cedeño: So this here gives uh uh some really great links to uh uh to additional areas of information on PG&E's website. Uh I myself I get uh weather forecast updates as well too and so there's a lot of different good information online for residents whether they're looking for backup power uh information in other languages, PSPS notifications, etc. Uh so we ask folks to uh take a look online to see uh what um kind of information is available for for what they need and such.

[01:41:21] Daniel Cedeño: Uh and so I know I went pretty fast um and there's a lot of different pieces about PG&E's Community Wildfire Safety Program, but we wanted to be sure to give an update and overview uh of the program for Council uh and pause to see if there's any other questions and recognizing time I'm happy to take any follow-up offline as well too. So with that we'll uh we'll pause.

[01:41:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you Daniel. So did you, would you like us to stop sharing the screen or would you like us to have council start asking questions or what works?

[01:41:57] Daniel Cedeño: I think you can keep the screen on in case folks want to scroll to a specific slide.

[01:42:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. So um, would any member of the council like to say a few words or have any questions um for uh Daniel or Kevin?

[01:42:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right, I am not seeing any from my colleagues. So um we'll just thank you for for sharing.

[01:42:27] Daniel Cedeño: Thank you uh very much for the time, we appreciate it. Um if you have any questions feel free to reach out. Um and PG&E will continue to do different types of webinars and public outreach for uh uh customers and residents as well too. So thank you for the time and have a good evening.

[01:42:43] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And I think there's also a Mountain View specific list that you all sent out, right? So we can always um look for updates when you send those as well, right?

[01:42:52] Daniel Cedeño: Uh yes, I I do have uh uh any information that City of Mountain View uh uh staff, council, etc. may have questions uh I'll be your point of contact and Kevin will as well too.

[01:43:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Perfect. Great. Well Daniel and Kevin, thank you so much. We really appreciate the information and I know um that our residents do as well. We'll be able to share this information. So have a great night. Thank you.

[01:43:15] Kevin Conant: Thank you. Have a good evening.

[01:43:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. So we'll move on to item 3.2, which is our Santa Clara Valley Water District update on the drought emergency. Don Rocha, Santa Clara Valley Water District Deputy Administration Officer of Government Relations and Santa Clara Valley Water District Board of Trustees Vice Chair Gary Kremen will present the update. So we'll ask Don and Gary to move on over.

[01:43:52] Don Rocha: Hello.

[01:43:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hi, how are you?

[01:43:54] Don Rocha: Good to see you Mayor and Council. Thank you for having us. I believe we were just allowed to join as a panelist so our Vice Chair Kremen might be in.

[01:44:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I see him too. Wonderful.

[01:44:08] Don Rocha: Thank you. Um, and with that said, as far as the presentation and the PowerPoint, the City Clerk is going to run through that or shall I do that for the Vice Chair? I'm happy with any-

[01:44:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Well we can do that for you. Hang on just a second.

[01:44:34] Don Rocha: Well thank you. Vice Chair?

[01:44:36] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: Oh, thank you uh Don and thank you Mayor, Council, amazing Mountain View City Council I will say my favorite city council of the seven cities I represent. Uh staff and folks, my name is Gary Kremen I think a lot of you know me formally of the 2200 block of Latham Street. Um I'm going to tell you actually not good news, that's actually worse than a PSPS. I'm going to tell you about the drought because usually with a PSPS uh the next day uh the power comes back on but unfortunately with the drought we're talking about a problem that is likely going to last months if not years. So why don't we go on to a slide that I think a lot of you are familiar with but I'm going to go into it really quickly.

[01:45:20] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: What Valley Water does, you know we're about 810 employees, um wow we're really going through this thing fast which is good. Um and uh we do three things if we could go back two slides, we provide drinking water, we do flood protection in places like McKelvey Park and then we do um creek upgrades like you see in Permanente or um Adobe or a bunch of other smaller creeks. Um so why don't we go on because we're really on a time short and I'm told to talk about where Mountain View gets its water and then give that in the context of the um the entire um county.

[01:46:00] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: So Mountain View actually gets water from two sources, ourselves and we're a wholesale provider and we provide it the Cal Water and um Hetch Hetchy. So you Mountain View is one of the rare places that actually has dual sources of water, which is good. And we sell on a wholesale basis like the SFPUC and to retailers, to homes and businesses. So we're really having some trouble and let me explain it in the context of what we talk about on the next slide.

[01:46:33] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: So if we could go to the drought slide, our state as you heard kind of before I've seen this whole uh presentation this drought monitor where it's all white, and right now that there is no part of California that is not in drought. Our county depending on where in the Bay Area, we're between an extreme drought and an exceptional drought. The last two years have been the worst two years from a precipitation point of view in California history. And that is compounded in our county because half of our storage, Anderson Reservoir, is out of service for 10 years being upgraded for seismic reasons.

[01:47:15] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: And the water flowing in our county, whether it be the the territory the part of Mountain View and the rest of the county which is the majority of where we serve, we're only getting 5% of our state water allocation instead of 100%. And on the federal side where there's two big projects we're part of, only getting 25%. And the a combination of that and us having no storage is really putting us in a grim situation that is forcing us to start using the aquifer, the groundwater beneath us.

[01:47:45] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: And there's lots of people who have wells in Mountain View and we're extraordinarily concerned that next year people's wells and not only is that individuals with wells it's people like Cal Water and San Jose Water and Great Oaks and others that pull from the ground, it there there will be no water. Their wells because a lot of wells are pretty shallow are running dry and when you pull a lot from the wells it causes subsidence which breaks power lines in the ground, it breaks fiber optic lines, it breaks gas lines. So it's a pretty grim situation especially next year if we do not have a wet winter. And it's very preliminary but it's unfortunately it's looking pretty dry.

[01:48:32] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: So there's a the good news is there are some things we can do about it. You know we're trying to import if we go onto the next slide, we're trying to import as much water as we can into the county, but it's really tough. And by the way there is talk of cutting the Hetch Hetchy territories which include most of Mountain View by 50% in this drought to keep water in the Tuolumne River, which would be for some cities existential. Um whether it be East Palo Alto which you heard um nice enough to work on giving them some allocation they're still way under or other cities, they're gonna have to kind of start restricting the amount of water probably physically that goes in people's house.

[01:49:13] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: So conservation will totally help. Um we are giving away, we have an Amazon type website but everything's for free so you can get free showerheads and aerators. We'll pay you to rip out your lawn and we just doubled that. Um we'll pay you or give you a rebate towards reusing some of your gray water like the water from your washing machine on your lawn, other technology like smart meters um for you.

[01:49:42] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: We have rebates, if you're in multi-family if you're a small landowner or um landlord we can give you these sub-meters so you can do direct bill back. If you want rainwater cisterns, we have tons of stuff we'll even come to your house and nose around no we won't nose around we'll just look if you're wasting water, we'll also go outside and uh we will survey your land. So yeah, we're in a pretty bad situation in this county. Um we have a website you can go watersavings.org, you can learn more if you can even um you know I don't know rat out your neighbor a little bit if you want to. Although we don't have water police. So that's the that's basically what's going on.

[01:50:25] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: Um if we go onto the next slide, this drought is real, this is probably the worst droughts of most of our lifetimes, and in the county we're in the worst position kind of in the state other than far northern California because of Anderson Reservoir being down for 10 years which is half of the storage. I stand here to answer any questions or try to solve your problems.

[01:50:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you Vice Chair Kremen. Um, would any member of the council like to say a few words or have any questions for our guests from Valley Water?

[01:51:03] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sorry, Councilmember Showalter you're still muted there.

[01:51:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: There you go. There we go. Okay. Uh, I'm a retiree from Valley Water, worked there for um 17 years. And um one of the things and and I also serve on the recycled water committee. And that's one of the things I really wanted to bring up. Um it's it's true that the water supply this year is dire. And we all need to be very, very careful of our water use. Um I urge all of you to really give some thought to how you use water at your own homes and um you know and and take advantage of of uh all the uh the freebies that Gary was talking about. I know the water wise um uh surveys that where people come out and and actually evaluate your um system are are really really popular and and and good.

[01:52:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But I I wanted to bring up the recycled water um plant that we are uh building in coordination with the water district in Palo Alto and um East Palo Alto and Los Altos at at the Palo Alto treatment plant. That is going to, it's an advanced um water purification plant and what it will do is it will take the water that comes out of the treatment plant that's already been tertiary treated and that's currently what we use for recycled water and it is going to put it through um even more purification that makes a just a very very pure kind of water.

[01:52:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And um that water is going to be blended with um the existing recycled water and the outcome is going to be that the recycled water that we have available in the North Bayshore or to use other parts of the city when we get our distribution system there is going to be really high quality. So those complaints that we've heard from people over the years about how it's not good to um uh you know for golf courses or it might not be good for redwoods that's not going to be the case anymore. This is going to be really really high quality water and that's a very good thing. So um I just wanted to bring that up um because it's not you know that's one of the I mean that's one of the things that's really positive. We are as a community um as a city uh being very responsible about creating a long-term drought proof supply. And that's a good thing. So just wanted to mention that and thank you Gary so much for your service and for coming to talk to us today.

[01:53:53] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: And if I may follow up just real quick, um I really want to thank the council here for going ahead with this project. Um Mountain View and Palo Alto I would say are the most innovative cities when it comes to recycled water in the county by far, 76 year arrangement. We've given the city theoretically we've given the city a check and Palo Alto a check for $16 million although I notice it hasn't cleared and $8 million might be in Mayor Kamei's account I know a huge check we don't know where it went, but it's true! So that water can be used in cooling towers and thank you for having an ordinance that people have to use recycled water, it's unique among the cities, selling it to businesses is unique among the 15 cities in the county. Um the salt removal so it can be used that where that 16 million goes towards that project is kind of unique in the county. Cities like San Jose and Gilroy and the rest of the county way behind.

[01:55:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[01:55:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So um maybe this is a question for staff. Um since we do get water from multiple sources but uh was wondering if you could clarify for residents um what we are asking residents to do at this point in terms of uh voluntary reductions of water use.

[01:55:24] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Good evening council, Dawn Cameron, Public Works Director. I invite Elizabeth Flegal, our Water Resources Manager to respond to that question.

[01:55:38] Elizabeth Flegal: Good evening Mayor, members of the council, Director Kremen. Thank you, Councilmember Matichak. Um what the city of Mountain View has been asking from customers right now is to be very mindful and to consider using water wisely. Um we have also been echoing Valley Water's call for limiting irrigation to three days a week. And that is currently what we are what we are doing, we're taking a um a voluntary stance and requesting that customers be very mindful with their water use and guiding them toward all of the various programs that Director Kremen mentioned that are available throughout the county including to all the residents and businesses in Mountain View.

[01:56:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you very much.

[01:56:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[01:56:25] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. And thank you Gary. I uh appreciate your sense of humor as an individual who does not have one. Um I have a quick question about uh the uh the impact of the pandemic on uh water utilization. I intuitively I would guess that because people didn't go to work they used water at home and I'm guessing that in many cases water efficiency in residential buildings is probably not as good as water efficiency in commercial areas so as people hopefully return you know to their offices, especially with the major employers are we expecting uh any change in water use?

[01:57:13] Vice Chair Gary Kremen: Um ye- if if I may answer, um it like everything else in the world it depends like for example if you look at the last month the best water conserver was Stanford and you go why would Stanford be good well there was no students there, so they showed up some pretty good numbers. Um so it really depends on your jobs your your housing balance mix so you can almost look in the numbers and see it um who's done well, who's not done well. Um unfortunately Mountain View while being an awesome city has not done that great in water conservation compared to some of the other cities. I think it was only a 2% savings where there was people like I think Stanford was 15, Palo Alto was 13, Mountain View was only minus two, but I think that might have to do with stay-at-home, not stay-at-home, and then getting the message out. I come across a lot of people who do not know it's a drought. So I think we're going to um feel free to put in your own newsletters to your constituents to tell them to save water. This isn't a joke, a drop saved now could be a drop saved later and if there's a 50% Hetch Hetchy cut and what we're seeing in terms of preliminary the um what the winter looks like, it's going to be super grim. Not grim, and I know we all have disaster overloads, but this makes a PSPS look like a a happy day.

[01:58:48] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fair enough, thank you.

[01:58:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Any other um questions from um colleagues?

[01:59:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. Well uh Vice Chair Kremen and Mr. Rocha I just want to thank you for joining our council meeting for the update, really appreciate it and answering our questions.

[01:59:12] Don Rocha: Thank you for having us.

[01:59:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Have a great night.

[01:59:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right. So we'll move on to item 3.3, which is our Suicide Prevention Month Proclamation. William Blair with the Mountain View Los Altos School District Wellness Coordinator joins us this evening to accept the proclamation. Since 2008, September has been recognized nationally as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. This month is to remember and reach out to those affected by suicide, increase awareness of the signs and availability of mental health resources and express ongoing commitment to supporting those in our community who may be struggling. In 2012, City Council adopted a policy for suicide prevention for the community and city employees, outlining educational opportunities, promoting awareness and resources and collaborating with organizations for the purpose of preventing loss of life by suicide. The Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District, also known as MVLA, is committed to the mental, behavioral and social emotional wealth of their students through mental health promotion, school infrastructure, and mental health intervention services. At MVLA wellness is a way of seeing and making decisions that connect physical health, mental health and learning. Each person associated with MVLA plays a role in student wellness and makes a difference in each other's emotional safety and wellbeing. And I see Mr. Blair has been brought over, thank you for joining us Mr. Blair. So I'm just going to read the proclamation and then turn it over to you maybe for a brief introduction and a couple words. So the proclamation reads: Whereas Suicide Prevention Awareness Month is observed during the month of September; and whereas suicide prevention has been and remains a continuing priority in the City of Mountain View; and whereas in these challenging times, messages of hope and healing are more needed than ever; and whereas suicidal thoughts can affect anyone regardless of age, gender, race, orientation, income level, religion or background; and whereas suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States and the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34; and whereas suicide is a public health issue and every death by suicide impacts hundreds of individuals including family, friends, co-workers, neighbors and community members; and whereas we can all work together as a community to improve the mental health of all Mountain View residents, to raise awareness that prevention is possible, to understand that treatment is effective and to finding hope and recovery; and whereas it is essential that we educate residents about suicide prevention and make high-quality prevention, support, rehabilitation and treatment resources and services available in the community; and whereas we must encourage relatives, friends, co-workers and the community at large to recognize the signs of suicide and guide those in need to appropriate services, resources and support. Whereas the City of Mountain View has recognized the importance of suicide prevention by prioritizing youth mental health, encouraging residents to educate themselves about suicide prevention through a community training course available to residents this month. And whereas we can all help prevent suicide by recognizing the signs of a problem and guiding those in need to appropriate services and support. Now, therefore I, Ellen Kamei, Mayor of the City of Mountain View along with my colleagues on the City Council do hereby proclaim the month of September as Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. And Mr. Blair I'll turn it over to you, would you like to say a few words? I know that we've had the opportunity to virtually meet at least through the Council Youth Services Committee along with council members Hicks and Abe-Koga but would love you for you to have the opportunity to also share with the community and my colleagues.

[02:03:31] William Blair: Thank you Mayor Kamei and City Council members. This proclamation means a great deal to us in the community and we're super grateful that you all are are making it here tonight. Um sadly as as you may know we have suffered several losses in our community over the last few years, you know and we accept this proclamation in honor and in support of those who have lost their lives to suicide, survivors of a suicide attempt, and those who have been bereaved by suicide. I think working in the world of education there is no more devastating loss or more tragic situation than the loss of a young person. And our school and our community are committed to creating a safe, inclusive, supportive environment for all for all of our young folks. We want them to know that they're that they're loved, that they're cared for, that they're valued, and that they're seen in all their beauty and accepted for who they are and what they are. And we want them to know that. We've been working with our MVLA clinical team and our ongoing partnerships with the herd alliance, the City of Mountain View, um Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Suicide Prevention Services, Palo Alto University's Be Sensitive Be Brave trainings to help destigmatize mental health, to help us you know provide training and resources to students and families and community members, as well as for us to foster you know school connectedness and a sense of belonging and a safe space for all of our students. You know on behalf of the entire community we want to thank you for prioritizing the wellbeing of our young folks and for dedicating September to be Suicide Prevention Month. Thank you.

[02:05:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much Mr. Blair. And I think um part of uh what we learned as a city was you know moving youth mental health to calling it youth wellness, right? And I think that's part of the destigmatization that you're talking about. Um would any member of the council like to um say a few words or have any questions for Mr. Blair?

[02:05:44] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. I am not seeing any but would just like to thank you for accepting the proclamation on behalf of the community and thank you for sharing um the resources. Um we appreciate it.

[02:05:56] William Blair: Thank you.

[02:05:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Have a good night.

[02:06:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So uh I'll move on to item four, which is our consent calendar. These items are approved by one motion unless any member of the public wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions and ordinances will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. A motion to approve the consent calendar should include reading the title of the resolution attached to item 4.2. As a reminder, the purpose of the consent calendar is for council to efficiently and quickly consider a high volume of routine or administrative business items with one motion. Although council members may remove items, it is generally not intended for the council to have a lengthy substantive discussion on consent calendar items. At this time would any member of the council like to pull an item?

[02:06:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. um so I have additional questions on item 4.2.

[02:07:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So we'll we'll pull 4.2 so that you can ask those questions then. Great. Okay. Any other council members wanting to pull an item?

[02:07:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Shall we entertain a... Thank you City Attorney Chopra.

[02:07:30] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Oh I uh were you going to ask if you should ask for public comment? You can, you could do that.

[02:07:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, I just uh I was about to um cause I didn't hear I didn't hear a motion for the balance either.

[02:07:44] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I would recommend taking public comment before the motion.

[02:07:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Just wanted to double check. So would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone and we'll display a two-minute timer on the screen.

[02:08:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: All right, I am not seeing any hands raised. So I will um bring it back to council.

[02:08:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I move the remainder of the consent calendar.

[02:08:24] Mayor Ellen Kamei: And I think you need to read 4.2.

[02:08:29] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I thought that was one was pulled.

[02:08:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, sorry about that. Yep.

[02:08:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Second the motion.

[02:08:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we have a motion for the balance of the consent calendar minus 4.2. So that and uh Councilmember Abe-Koga uh seconded it. So we'll have a roll call vote by the City Clerk.

[02:08:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[02:08:50] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:08:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[02:08:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[02:08:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[02:08:55] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:08:56] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Lieber?

[02:08:57] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[02:08:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak?

[02:08:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:09:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[02:09:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:09:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Mayor Kamei?

[02:09:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:09:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:09:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we'll move back to item 4.2 um for Councilmember Matichak to ask her questions.

[02:09:14] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um so I did send in a couple of questions about this but then I had more when I read the answers. And um I guess I'm wondering the six businesses or um residential developments that sort of rely on on-street parking on El Camino, um the last time we talked to them, not the most recent time but the time before, um I'm wondering what their concerns were? Did they have another plan? Did they have another way of providing parking for their customers? Um do you recall what they happen to say?

[02:09:51] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you Councilmember Matichak, Dawn Cameron, Public Works Director. Thinking back to the 2018 parking surveys and coming to council in in 2019, as I recall the only business owner at the time that um specifically came and raised questions, it was actually a a real estate agent because the business uh was vacant and it's this one lot along El Camino, the only lot that has absolutely no on-site parking, it's a very very small restaurant facility that was using about two parking spaces on El Camino, that's all the room it had. And that was one of the concerns that came up and it was one of the reasons staff said well perhaps we would wait for this segment. And for that business what we realized was that it is right up against the new pedes- pedestrian crossing at El Camino Real. So we said a good trigger for that one would be getting that new signalized pedestrian crossing in because that connects that business immediately now to a side street connection to El Camino Real where there is parking just across the street. This project will now build that pedestrian crossing. So that business will now have access to other on-street parking just not on El Camino Real, uh fairly convenient to it.

[02:11:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay so it was really only one of the six that I recall that made a point of contacting the city uh to discuss removal of the on-street parking. Okay. Um, and they didn't respond to um the most recent efforts to contact that property owner?

[02:11:48] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: No, they did not. And I understand the business is still vacant at this time.

[02:11:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks very much.

[02:11:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[02:12:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. I'm going to attempt to read uh the correct uh language for the motion. I'll move item 4.2, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View to remove on-street parking along portions of State Route 82, El Camino Real uh in conjunction with the El Camino Real pedestrian and bicycle improvement project.

[02:12:31] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[02:12:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Second the motion.

[02:12:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. So we have a motion by the Vice Mayor, seconded by Councilmember Abe-Koga. And we'll do a roll call vote by the City Clerk.

[02:12:42] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[02:12:43] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[02:12:44] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[02:12:46] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[02:12:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[02:12:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:12:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Lieber?

[02:12:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[02:12:51] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak?

[02:12:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:12:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[02:12:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:12:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Mayor Kamei?

[02:12:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:12:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:13:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So we'll move on to item five, which is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. And before I begin taking public comment, City Manager McCarthy will make remarks regarding a future agenda item that has generated a large volume of public interest and for which the council has received numerous written public comments. City Manager McCarthy?

[02:13:40] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you Mayor. So yes, as you noted, we are aware of considerable feedback that the public has submitted regarding the Shoreline transit lane and utility improvements project, uh particularly related to the element of the project on Middlefield Road which includes tree removals to construct additional left turn lanes. This project is scheduled to come before council on October the 26th and we want to let the public know that no trees on Middlefield Road or Shoreline Boulevard will be removed prior to any council decision on October 26th. Also as part of that agenda item the staff report will include options for council consideration to modify or remove the left turn element from the construction project. So thank you Mayor that concludes my remarks.

[02:14:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you so much. Appreciate that. So um, if you'd like to um give public comment, please uh raise your hand in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone and we'll display the three-minute timer. So I'll wait for the timer to come forward before calling on someone.

Segment 4

[02:15:00] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Bruce England.

[02:15:16] Bruce England: Thank you mayor. I'll make this very short. Um, after hearing the information from the city manager, um, I just am really pleased to hear that. And it was coming up in the October meeting, but I'm particularly pleased to hear her mention that it's not only the consideration about the trees, which is very important, but also the turn lanes themselves.

[02:15:38] Bruce England: And that both of those considerations are important as we think about where Mountain View is headed in the future. This is really a, to me a, a pivot point steering us into a direction that's going to be very important over the course of really the decades to come. Thank you.

[02:16:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll clear the timer and we'll start with our next speaker. Great, thanks there. Uh, Albert Jeans.

[02:16:19] Albert Jeans: Yeah, thank you. I have some slides please. And am I on the timer too? Okay. Thank you very much. Um, again, I too wish to thank City Manager McCarthy. Um, that really makes a lot of this, I think, best easier.

[02:16:36] Albert Jeans: I'd still like to take this opportunity to share with the public something I found out about this project, um, recently, as a result of it coming before the Parks and Recreation Committee. As we know, we're talking about these trees in the Middlefield median and the left-turn lanes there, next slide please.

[02:16:55] Albert Jeans: Um, one of the justifications staff used or the main justification staff used for suggesting that the left-turn lanes be added was they cited the North Bayshore Precise Plan, um, traffic impact, um, analysis, which concluded that, as we all know that that intersection is really, really jammed up in the morning and as I've outlined in red, the maximum queue length exceeds the left-turn pocket storage length during that time, which is of course the reason why you would add a left-turn lane.

[02:17:26] Albert Jeans: If the existing lanes overflow, you don't want that interfering with the through traffic and so you need a second lane to hold the traffic. But myself and others who have observed these intersections for hours on end for various reasons, um, have rarely seen this happen. And so I decided to go into the traffic impact analysis and see what was actually going on. Next slide please.

[02:17:50] Albert Jeans: This is actually one page from the study which is over 2000 pages long. And this gives the queue length calculations that Fehr & Peers did to figure out how long the queues would be at this intersection. You've out, I've outlined in in the colors, the two lanes of interest, the eastbound left-turn and the westbound left-turn lane.

[02:18:08] Albert Jeans: The blue squares show that about 120 vehicles went through that, those lanes per hour during the peak hour. Since there are about 25 traffic cycles, that's only about five cars per cycle, so we're nowhere near the 10 vehicle limit of the left-turn pockets. If you go down to the green, green and red squares, those are the queue lengths.

[02:18:30] Albert Jeans: And they're given as percentiles. So the 50th percentile is kind of like a median, that is half the queues are going to be shorter, half the queues are going to be longer. And again we see that the queue lengths are only about 100, 120 feet, and so if you've got 20 feet per car, that's only again, five cars. But the important figure is the 95th percentile in red.

[02:18:48] Albert Jeans: And that shows that only the westbound lane had a chance of overflowing. But this is only a 5% chance. This is the 95th percentile. So that means in a, 25 cycles, that lane is only going to overflow once per hour. And since that's the, you know, peak hour it's unlikely to overflow at any other time.

[02:19:12] Albert Jeans: So, the, now the traffic input impact analysis shows that the second turn lane really isn't needed. Now it's a much more complicated issue which I can discuss later, but yeah, I'd just like to leave it at that. Thank you very much.

[02:19:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we'll let's go on to our next speaker. If we could bring the timer back. Great, Vishal Mishra.

[02:19:57] Vishal Mishra: Hi, uh, can you hear me?

[02:19:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[02:20:01] Vishal Mishra: Yeah. Uh, thanks, uh, City Council members for, uh, giving me the opportunity to speak about this topic. Uh, so this is, uh, my topic, I'm going to talk about the proposal to cut down the heritage trees on Middlefield for the Shoreline revamp.

[02:20:18] Vishal Mishra: And I would like to say I'm really saddened by this proposal, uh, where we want to cut down so many of the heritage trees. Uh, this is really, like, not acceptable. And I honestly think the overall plan for revamping Shoreline is flawed in terms that we want to add these additional lanes for really very questionable traffic improvements.

[02:20:43] Vishal Mishra: Uh, and very similar to, uh, what Albert said, uh, with his thorough analysis. So I think this is really a very easy way out for us to say hey, we should cut down these trees because that's a very easy way for us to do that. And I don't think that's the right approach.

[02:21:01] Vishal Mishra: We should be actually more encouraged to live with these trees, with this green community around, and basically, uh, try to live with them so that we don't always go with the easy way of cutting them out at our will.

[02:21:17] Vishal Mishra: And I think, uh, I would also say that over the last many months I have followed a lot of conversations, analysis, and simulations, uh, many of them were shared by Albert and some, some other neighbors as well. And I would say I, I really don't think the traffic pattern would be solved by additional left lane that we are proposing.

[02:21:41] Vishal Mishra: And additionally, I would say keeping the traffic issue aside, I would say we are anyway seeing so many scary effects of climate change and global warming everywhere, especially in California. And then this is another reason why we should not simply cut down the, sacrificing these trees just to add more asphalt and concrete.

[02:22:03] Vishal Mishra: Uh, so I really want to request the City Council members, I really admire and appreciate all the hard work you do for the city. But I really hope you alter, use your responsibility and do the right thing, and please do not cut these trees. Thank you.

[02:22:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. We'll move on to our next speaker. Seema Bhat. Just uh, hold on a second. We're gonna. Have to. There we go.

[02:22:34] Seema Bhat: Hi, uh, can you hear me?

[02:22:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:22:37] Seema Bhat: Yeah. Uh, I agree with uh Vishal and Albert Jeans about uh the topic, about the removal of the heritage trees on Shoreline and uh Middlefield. Uh so I I feel it is really sad that uh this design, uh it's considering removing so mature uh heritage trees that take takes like years and years to grow.

[02:23:02] Seema Bhat: So it's not like we just cut down and replant something, it's going to take a few decades at least to get back to where it was. Um also I feel that uh the current design, it might not really be, um, we need to like uh consider also that the Bay Area companies are going for a hybrid mode or uh remote model of working, so it the traffic might not really be as bad as it was once expected to be.

[02:23:28] Seema Bhat: Um so I really hope that the City Council uh reconsiders this plan and uh stops the trees from getting cut down. Uh that's my request. Thank you.

[02:23:40] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Alright, anyone else wishing to give public comment? Alright, I am not seeing any, so we can bring it back to Council to move on to the next item. So we'll, there we go, stop the screen share. So we'll move on to item six, which is our public hearing. Item 6.1 is a rowhouse development at 570 South Rengstorff Avenue. Before we get started, would any council members like to make any disclosures? Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:24:18] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor, I will disclose that I met with the applicant.

[02:24:22] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[02:24:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I also met with the applicant.

[02:24:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Showalter.

[02:24:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I also met with the applicant.

[02:24:32] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[02:24:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I met with the applicant as well. Thank you.

[02:24:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. And I also met with the applicant. Alright, so I think that gets the disclosures out of the way. Um and we'll have Assistant City Manager and our Community Development Director Aarti Shrivastava will present the report, and then we will have a presentation from the applicants Kevin DeNardi and Albert Wang from DeNardi Wang Homes.

[02:25:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Planning Manager, Zoning Administrator Stephanie Williams, Senior Planner Carolyn Feeney, and Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act Program Manager Anky Vandersyde as well as other members of the applicant team, Robert Lee, Lee Rosenblatt, Megan Alferness, and Eddie Backhusen are also available for questions. But first we'll start with the staff presentation, so we'll turn it over to you, Ms. Shrivastava.

[02:25:29] Aarti Shrivastava: Good evening Council members and members of the public. I'm pleased to present the project tonight. Um, if you give me a minute, I'm going to share my screen. The project before you tonight is located at 570 South Rengstorff Avenue. The approximately four-acre site is located on the west side of South Rengstorff Avenue between Latham and California streets.

[02:26:00] Aarti Shrivastava: The site's general plan designation is medium density residential, allowing up to 35 units to the acre, and the zoning designation is R3-1.25, multiple family residential. The project site contains 70 one, two, and three-bedroom rental units that are subject to the city's CSFRA rent control measure.

[02:26:26] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, there is one detached garage for each unit and 60 guest parking spaces. Um, two outreach meetings were held for the tenants to inform them about the new project, um, and to let them know about tenant relocation assistance that would be available to them in August and October of 2019, when the first notice of intent to vacate was provided.

[02:26:51] Aarti Shrivastava: The relocation consultant has been working for the past several months with the tenants to help them through the tenant relocation of the TRAO process. Additionally, in December of 2019, a neighborhood outreach meeting was held on the overall project, where area residents generally expressed concerns about the proposed tree removals, view of the future project, um, traffic during construction.

[02:27:18] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, attendees also expressed the support of the project to provide additional housing and appreciated the high-quality architecture and design. The project, um, in brief, proposes to redevelop the site with 85 ownership one to three-bedroom rowhouse units, um, with two attached garage spaces per unit and 31 guest parking spaces.

[02:27:44] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, the project is in compliance with various city requirements. Um, in the next few slides, I'm going to focus on a number of questions that were raised um recently about project process and how determinations have been made on the project. Um, there were questions about um how staff assessed whether SB 330 applied to the project.

[02:28:10] Aarti Shrivastava: SB 330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, took effect on January 1st, 2020. SB 330 provisions apply to residential projects with applications that are not deemed complete under the Permit Streamlining Act prior to January 1st, 2020.

[02:28:31] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, just to briefly describe the process, the Permit Streamlining Act lays out timelines for review of projects. Um, after the applicant submits the first formal application, staff has 30 days to review this. It's a multiple department review process and um, where um, the city has to return comments within 30 days.

[02:28:54] Aarti Shrivastava: With each resubmittal, the city again has 30 days. This project has been through several resubmittal and comment processes. Um, in this case, the project review began in 2019 before SB 330 took effect, um, and several letters were sent over a period of um, the project review. However, the October 29th incompleteness letter, one of them, was sent after the 30-day period um, um, of October 4th, 2019.

[02:29:28] Aarti Shrivastava: The letter is dated October 6th and was sent on October 11th. As a result of the late letter, um, the application was deemed complete by law on October 4th, 2019. As a result, the project is not subject to SB 330 and um, this has been also explained in the staff report. Wanted to talk a little bit about incompleteness letters and the process.

[02:30:00] Aarti Shrivastava: Of course, one slide will never suffice, but I'm hoping to kind of bring you into the review process and explain a little bit about what you might have seen in the attachments that were provided as part of the responses to comments tonight.

[02:30:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, prior to SB 330 taking effect, staff, as is typical in many other cities across the state, sent incompleteness letters that included the following categories. These were not specifically identified, and they included incompleteness comments. These are typically comments that are, um, I'm sorry, these are typically items that are on the application checklist, um, and the applicant has not specifically provided.

[02:30:45] Aarti Shrivastava: There are consistency items, for example, um, whether a project meets a setback or not. Um, conditions of approval that might be applied, examples of these could include BMR requirements, in-lieu fee requirements. Um, and process requirements, these might be the beginning of a the TRAO process, for example, or the CEQA process, for example.

[02:31:09] Aarti Shrivastava: All these are not completeness requirements. Um, also we might require fee payments or fund, um, funding for deposits to begin additional studies to do the environmental review or the TRAO process. Multiple departments participate in this review, including building, housing, public works, utilities, and the fire, environmental services, hazardous materials, and the like.

[02:31:37] Aarti Shrivastava: The development review process is not black and white, um, but is iterative and requires several meetings over several months between applicants and departments to resolve issues. Some examples that can involve months of back and forth include meeting design and other refinements in the rowhome guide guidelines, issues that might have been raised by neighbors, um, at meetings where staff might want to work with the applicant to say, save a tree, provide additional setbacks, um, um, and reduce building heights.

[02:32:14] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, or to review strategies to save heritage trees, relocate buildings and other spots, and working with other departments to address issues such as trash hauling, garbage truck circulation, driveway locations, utility placement, and the like. In addition, um, site plan changes can also trigger a re-review of all standards and guidelines to ensure that other standards are still being met.

[02:32:43] Aarti Shrivastava: An example of this is if a site plan were revised to meet a setback standard, say that requires a building to be moved 10 additional feet back. It would affect other standards such as open space, whether a project is able to provide a fire lane, whether the fire lane is the width that the city requires, um, the size of parking spaces, you might have to relocate parking spaces.

[02:33:09] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, and you might have to revise the entire site circulation to meet that setback. Um, so this is just a small example of the iterative process and repeated site plan changes that are required to ensure that all the comments and the resolution to them result in a project that's either compliant or has some exceptions that staff would support and recommend to the Council.

[02:33:41] Aarti Shrivastava: In this case, the applicant continued to work with staff from the October 2019 letter date throughout the application process. Um, these included working with us on design changes to meet rowhome guidelines, several back and forth communication meetings about the CEQA, um, the the, um, MTA or multimodal transportation analysis process, and the like.

[02:34:12] Aarti Shrivastava: The next slide discusses BMR requirements. The project is subject to the city's Below Market Ordinance phase one. As part of the BMR ordinance phase two update, Council discussed grandfathering projects that had submitted applications prior to June 30th, 2019, which is the date of the first reading of the BMR phase two ordinance.

[02:34:38] Aarti Shrivastava: Typically, planning applications are not considered as submitted unless the applicant has provided a comprehensive planning application package, as noted on the city's application form and checklist. However, in this case, staff had some concerns about partial applications being forcibly submitted by applicants who wanted to be grandfathered into the BMR phase one ordinance.

[02:35:05] Aarti Shrivastava: As a result, staff suggested a belt and suspenders approach that allowed us to be able to review that initial package and ensure that a comprehensive package has been submitted. Staff specifically differentiated this from a completeness review under the State Permit Streamlining Act, which involves detailed review of the plan sets by various departments and gives the city 30 days to do so.

[02:35:38] Aarti Shrivastava: The language that was ultimately adopted and agreed upon by the Council was to give applicants time to provide that comprehensive application package um when the ordinance went into effect on August 24th, 2019.

[02:35:51] Aarti Shrivastava: This project provided a comprehensive application package on May 31st, 2019, which was well in advance of the August 24th, 2019 date and was therefore grandfathered and subject to phase one requirements. BMR phase one allows the applicant to choose between the provision of on-site units, 10%.

[02:36:19] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, this would amount to eight units and a fee in the amount of 0.5 units. Or a BMR in-lieu fee amounting to 3% of the sale price of all the units. This is estimated at approximately $3 million using an estimated sale price of $1.2 million per unit.

[02:36:43] Aarti Shrivastava: This number will be refined by the time, um, uh, you know, the project is, is ready for sale. The applicant has come forward just today to offer a 5% on-site requirement instead of paying the in-lieu fee estimated at $3 million.

[02:37:01] Aarti Shrivastava: This would amount to 4.25 units where the applicant would provide four on-site units and a fee payment for the fractional 0.25 unit. It should be noted that the value of this has not been analyzed by staff and the applicant has indicated that it would be somewhat comparable to the $3 million amount.

[02:37:25] Aarti Shrivastava: If the Council wishes to accept this option, we have provided it um in the recommendation slide. Another question we would like to address is the applicant change that happened at the end of 2021. The original applicant changed from Dutchints Development LLC to the new applicant Kevin DeNardi of DeNardi Wang Homes LLC, and was finalized on December 23rd of 2020.

[02:37:57] Aarti Shrivastava: It should be noted that the property owner has not changed and continues to be Todd Spieker of Spieker Companies Inc. Under SB 330, a change in the project scope of 20% or greater, either in units or building area, triggers a new application requirement.

[02:38:17] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, subdivision J1 of the Housing Accountability Act says that the city can only apply standards in place at the time that the application was complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. Except under very limited circumstances. For example, as was added by SB 330, or inactivity over 90 days would qualify as a requirement.

[02:38:40] Aarti Shrivastava: The city continued to work with the applicant over the period, um, and there was no inactivity over 90 days. In addition, the project has not changed by 20%, as noted in SB 330. Additionally, the city did not have any other requirements in BMR phase two, uh, that and any such requirements would have been preempted by state law.

[02:39:05] Aarti Shrivastava: Therefore, the change from the applicant, um, from the original applicant to the new applicant would not qualify as a new application either under our BMR phase two grandfathering or under state law. Um, finally, we wanted to give you a short description of the TRAO process. The project is subject to the CSFRA and was subject to the 2019 TRAO.

[02:39:35] Aarti Shrivastava: However, the applicant has voluntarily offered enhanced 2020 TRAO benefits. This has been communicated to all of the tenants, all of the 70 tenants. Um, 39 applications have been received, um, and deemed eligible and 36 of those applicants have vacated the site.

[02:39:58] Aarti Shrivastava: In addition, 30 households have vacated the site without applying for relocation benefits, but are still tenants at the time that the notice was sent and may still be eligible. Four remain on the site and are eligible for relocation benefits, and um, one has not applied.

[02:40:19] Aarti Shrivastava: In addition, two households have moved to the property after the notice of intent was sent and have signed lease agreements that relocation benefits will not be available to them. Again, the project proposes to redevelop the site with 85 rowhomes.

[02:40:37] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, the site layout is configured to provide an activated street presence along both Latham and Rengstorff avenues, as well as vehicle street access from both these streets, and has looked at reducing driveways. Um, finally, the project is a fully compliant project and meets applicable city standards.

[02:41:04] Aarti Shrivastava: The project proposes a Spanish colonial inspired architectural style and was reviewed by the DRC on April 7th, um, 2021, where the DRC provided a recommendation for approval. All of the changes recommended by the DRC have been incorporated into the plan set.

[02:41:23] Aarti Shrivastava: The project was also reviewed by the Zoning Administrator and the Subdivision Committee, um, on August 11th, um, 2021, where it was recommended, uh, for approval. No one from the public spoke at the meeting, but staff did receive comments that raised questions about the applicability of SB 330 and the city's BMR requirements, which have been addressed both in the staff report and tonight.

[02:41:50] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, 38 heritage trees are proposed to be removed by the project. Most are either in poor health or located in conflict with the proposed site improvements. Um, four of these are native trees. Um, four have been assessed as suitable for relocation, however, the applicant has not proposed to relocate them.

[02:42:10] Aarti Shrivastava: 144 new replacement trees are proposed, which is double the minimum required replacement of a two to one ratio. Um, the existing canopy is 31% and is projected to reach 38% with the inclusion of the retained trees and the new trees at maturity.

[02:42:28] Aarti Shrivastava: The project originally proposed a palette of 24% California natives, but staff has included a condition of approval, condition number 29, requiring that the landscape plan submitted at building permit be revised with a minimum of 75% native planting. Here is a list of all the meetings that have been held and described.

[02:42:49] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, we've had two tenant meetings, a neighborhood meeting, a DRC and a ZA and Subdivision Committee meeting. Um, I'd like to address the Housing Accountability Act as well as it applies to the project. Um, the Housing Accountability Act severely limits the city's discretion over housing projects.

[02:43:12] Aarti Shrivastava: The city cannot deny a code compliant project without making written findings that the project would result in specific quantifiable health and safety impacts in violation of an objective city standard. The Council can address certain aspects of the project with conditions of approval subject to the limitations shown on the screen.

[02:43:33] Aarti Shrivastava: For example, a condition addressing landscaping may be permissible, but the HAA would prohibit a condition that was so onerous that would the project couldn't proceed or would result in a quantifiable reduction in units. Given the HAA standards and the fact that the staff's analysis shows that the project is consistent and would not result in health or safety impacts as narrowly defined in the HAA, staff recommends approval of the project.

[02:44:00] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, and specifically staff recommends that the Council take the following actions. Um, staff recommends approval of the Planned Unit Development, Development Review Permit and Heritage Tree Removal Permit subject to the findings and conditions of approval.

[02:44:19] Aarti Shrivastava: And if Council wishes to accept the onsite offer um of BMR units by the applicant, we would like to note the changes um in condition 64 in yellow font. This change would revise the BMR condition to replace the BMR in-lieu fee requirement 3% of the sale price, currently estimated at $3 million, with um, a four onsite units and 0.25 units worth of in-lieu fees.

[02:44:49] Aarti Shrivastava: In addition, staff also recommends the vesting tentative map, um, approval subject to conditions of approval. We're happy to answer any questions, um, and of course the applicant is here to give a presentation.

[02:45:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, Vice Mayor, I see your hand up, but I think I'm going to let the applicant present and then I'll go to you first. Is that okay with you? Okay, great. Alright, I see you Mr. DeNardi, will you be doing the presentation?

[02:45:17] Kevin DeNardi: Yes, and uh can you... hey it looks like Albert was able to... share his screen. Can you guys hear me?

[02:45:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[02:45:27] Kevin DeNardi: Okay, well thank you uh for hearing us. Um, I'd like to present uh our project at 570 South Rengstorff. Uh, my name is Kevin DeNardi of DeNardi Wang Homes. Um, along with Spieker Company, we are the developers for 570 South Rengstorff.

[02:45:45] Kevin DeNardi: Um, just want to take a quick moment and thank staff um, for all their hard work and guidance to get us to this point of the project. Um, I'm going to just go through some quick slides to the the for some project highlights uh that we would like to point out on our end.

[02:46:03] Kevin DeNardi: Um, our site is located at 570 South Rengstorff. Uh, it uh sits on the corner of South Rengstorff and Latham Street. Um, it is centrally located um, less than a mile from the new San Antonio Center as well as downtown Castro.

[02:46:28] Kevin DeNardi: Um, this is our proposed site. It consists of 85 rowhouse for-sale units. Um, I would like to point out there are two entry points. Um, one off of South Rengstorff and one off of Latham Street.

[02:46:44] Kevin DeNardi: Um, and the main uh thing we would like to point out regarding just the overall site is something that we're very proud of is the central uh park type area that is provided, which we think is a very valuable um, amenity to future residents and families.

[02:47:05] Kevin DeNardi: Uh, I would just like to point out this is a fully compliant project. It meets all development standards within the general plan and zoning code. Um, as you can see, we point out a few FAR and height, um, we are meeting its threshold, as well as going well above and beyond on common open space and private open space.

[02:47:36] Kevin DeNardi: Um, this slide depicts the tree canopy coverage for the site, proposed site. Um, the existing site is roughly 30% tree canopy coverage, whereas we will be achieving at its maturity date roughly around that 40% number. So definitely an increase from a tree canopy standpoint.

[02:47:58] Kevin DeNardi: Um, one other thing I would like to point out is there definitely was an emphasis on um, planting along the Latham and Rengstorff frontage to enhance the pedestrian experience um, for surrounding neighbors and uh the community of Mountain View.

[02:48:19] Kevin DeNardi: A few project highlights I'd like to point out. Um, there has been a significant uh increase in total bedrooms, from the existing 132 bedrooms, we are proposing 266 bedrooms, which is more than double. Um, there also will be more than 70,000 uh more livable net square footage provided uh from our proposal.

[02:48:44] Kevin DeNardi: Um, our project is fully compliant when it goes, comes to parking. So we have two uh car garages for each unit, uh 26 guest parking spaces, as well as bike storage for each unit. Um, the proposed project will approximately uh contribute $3.5 million to the city of Mountain View's housing fund.

[02:49:09] Kevin DeNardi: Um, this slide kinda uh outlines the public outreach uh that's been throughout this process. A couple things I would like to highlight is there's been two community meetings, one in August and one in October. Mainly to update tenants on project timelines and inform them of the TRAO process.

[02:49:33] Kevin DeNardi: Um, this uh, this project has been fully compliant when it comes to noticing of the tenants. Um, three 12-month notices have been sent out that were requested by tenants, and then the rest of them have received 120-day notices.

[02:49:50] Kevin DeNardi: Um, as Aarti uh reflected in her report, this project was grandfathered into the 2008 TRAO program. Um, but Spieker Company has voluntarily willing to wrap the project into the uh 2020 TRAO program, which um, definitely enhances the TRAO package.

[02:50:11] Kevin DeNardi: Um, couple points I just want to point out is the increased income threshold limit by 5000, so it uh will provide more opportunities for people to qualify. And then um, the significant increase in a $5000 payment uh provided to tenants that qualify.

[02:50:32] Kevin DeNardi: Um, lastly I would just want to acknowledge um Spieker Company um went above and beyond their requirement for the relocation process by helping and offering existing tenants to relocate to nearby properties while giving uh significant rent concessions to help ease the burden to uh, to the tenants during this relocation process.

[02:50:57] Kevin DeNardi: Um, that concludes my presentation. Um, thank you for everyone that for listening and my team and I are available for any questions you may have.

[02:51:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so uh if any members of the council have any questions, please feel free to raise your hands and we will start with Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[02:51:22] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you mayor, and then uh thank you to staff for your thoughtful and thorough uh analysis in your presentation. And thanks also to the applicant for walking me through the project uh a little time, some time ago.

[02:51:37] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I have one question for the applicant. Um, the staff report uh indicates that the general plan designation, medium high density residential, allows for a range of 26 to 35 dwelling units per acre. It looks like the project itself uh has a density of 21 units per acre, which is quite low.

[02:52:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'm curious if you had uh considered a higher density proposal at what time or at one time, you know, obviously in the past. Uh, and why why you're not proposing a more dense project on a four-acre site?

[02:52:15] Kevin DeNardi: Yeah, thanks. Thank you Vice Mayor Ramirez. Um, yeah so um, as Aarti reflected, the original developer that had this site uh tried to propose a higher density uh project, but with limitations with the current R3 zoning uh with setbacks and certain development standards, it just became unfeasible for the math to work.

[02:52:42] Kevin DeNardi: And so that's why they originally pivoted to the 85 townhomes that you currently are seeing right now.

[02:52:49] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, just to to to be clear, the the zoning development standards basically preclude more than 85 units?

[02:52:58] Kevin DeNardi: Yes, for from a townhouse standpoint, absolutely.

[02:53:01] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Okay, thank you.

[02:53:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I I have a related question, and I'm going to say uh as background to the question I um I'm familiar with this neighborhood, and it um provides a lot of the the affordable housing, naturally affordable housing um in a a good amount of it in or has in the past in Mountain View.

[02:53:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and so my understanding is that we could be offering more to low-income folks and not just kind of showing them the door except that there was a basically a scheduling snafu. So I'm hoping we can look for a similar to what uh the Vice Mayor said, an another way of of of uh providing more units to those folks.

[02:53:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I wondered if you'd had considered um, you know, two-car garages are maybe more than necessary, but ADUs uh in those spaces. Uh if that would be a way to um basically serve more people and and possibly more low-income people as we have at this, you know, large site in the past.

[02:54:24] Kevin DeNardi: Sorry, Councilmember Hicks, was that question for me?

[02:54:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: It would be for either you or for if you wanna say you'd be willing to do that, I would be that would make me very happy, sure. And also if if um staff could say whether that would be um possible, you know, uh under current zoning and so forth. If if garages could be uh turned to ADU units, yes.

[02:54:51] Aarti Shrivastava: I can respond to that. Um, yes, um, the law allows 25% of the garages to be converted to ADU units, which would amount to about 21 ADUs. We still have to work through the implementation of who would who would own those units because they can't be sold individually, um, and um I I don't think we have the complete analysis today, but the implementation would have to be worked out.

[02:55:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, and and uh Mr. DeNardi if you want to answer that as well, or you can mull it over and either either case.

[02:55:37] Kevin DeNardi: Um, we we've not explored that option so I don't know the legalities of it, um, so I would be uh probably um speaking out of turn if I gave any opinion, but yes, definitely willing to mull it over.

[02:55:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[02:55:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[02:56:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Yeah, I have uh two questions. One, um, how far is it to the nearest park that um uh residents of this new development would have to walk to without having to cross a major street?

[02:56:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I saw on the um you know on the map that that the Rengstorff Regional Park is about a mile, a little over a mile away, but what are the other parks in the area, Mr. DeNardi? Or Aarti? Anyone?

[02:56:30] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I believe I I recall there are two parks. One is Klein Park and one is Rengstorff Park. I don't have the specific um distance, but I do know it's a few blocks. Both are a few blocks away. I Klein probably would would not require...

[02:56:50] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No, Klein Klein Klein would not require crossing the street, okay. It's a small park, but it it is there, yeah. Okay, um because that that's always a major issue with um with in our communities. I don't, I think most people don't think we have quite enough parks, particularly in our the denser sections of our community like this.

[02:57:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, so then the other question I had was um, you talked about how uh many of the people have already been relocated or they've moved one way or the other. Do you have any idea how many of those people have remained in Mountain View?

[02:57:29] Kevin DeNardi: Um, I don't uh... okay, sorry.

[02:57:33] Aarti Shrivastava: No, um Councilmember Showalter, if you could give me a few minutes, I believe we have that information.

[02:57:39] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. Okay.

[02:57:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, we'll get back to your question it looks like, um Councilmember Showalter. Councilmember Lieber.

[02:57:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you mayor. Um, I have several uh questions. Um, and one is related to Councilmember Showalter's question. I have a question of how many of the individuals that left went to other um properties that were under the same ownership.

[02:58:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: You know that Spieker properties is a very large concern in the South Bay, and I I'm wondering how many individuals went more or less seamlessly to other properties under the same owner.

[02:58:23] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, Councilmember, I think that's a question that um maybe Kevin can answer, but I could say that 24 tenants, uh tenant families have um relocated in within Mountain View, and Kevin can specify how many within the Spieker DeNardi properties.

[02:58:43] Kevin DeNardi: Um, I don't have the exact number, but I would say a good chunk of those 24 uh moved to uh neighboring properties owned by Spieker Company.

[02:58:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And was there a formal process to offer them other Spieker DeNardi housing opportunities?

[02:59:03] Aarti Shrivastava: Um Councilmember Lieber, the city doesn't have a a formal process or um requirement um that we've put into place or maybe can put into place, um, but um the we did talk to the applicant to actively volunteer um this and it was coordinated with um you know the tenant relocation services.

[02:59:29] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. And then um my next question, um given that this is some of our uh CSFRA uh housing, and is is currently affordable, do we do we know what the purchase price of the new units will be?

Segment 5

[03:00:00] Aarti Shrivastava: We've estimated it at 1.2 million average per unit. Obviously that number will be refined when they're up for sale.

[03:00:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, so it'll go from from rent controlled to 1.2 million approximately. And then, um, for staff, are there uh, any affirmative uh, determinations or mechanisms that Council has to go through um, when we're removing uh, rent controlled units from the market? Do we have to make any determinations that that we say that um, the removal will not affect uh, the overall supply of of rent controlled units or anything like that?

[03:00:53] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I I probably should refer to our counsel Eric Phillips, but in terms of the land use determination, um, we have to make findings um, that we're not substantially reducing the number of units, but there isn't a specific requirement about affordability and I'll let Eric um speak to the specifics.

[03:01:14] Eric Phillips: No, I'll I'll just uh echo what um Director Shrivastava was just saying that there's no specific findings related to uh the removal of CSFRA units other than the the findings that the city would be making in connection with the approval of the project.

[03:01:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And does the uh, state law forbid us from um, from imposing a necessity on ourselves to make findings related to the housing emergency?

[03:01:48] Eric Phillips: So to comply with um, the state law um, and as was summarized during the staff presentation, the Housing Accountability Act in particular, um, the city can only apply um, objective standards that were in place at the time that the application was legally found to be complete under the Permit Streamlining Act. Um, if the city wanted to adopt um, additional development standards or policies prospectively, um, there are there are findings that could be made, there could be minimum density standards, um, other replacement requirements, um, but those are not things that are currently part of of the city's code. So they would be things that we would look at prospectively rather than applying to this particular project.

[03:02:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes. And then uh, final question, uh, relative to the TRAO, um, I I noted with this project that there were a large number of families who um, left without applying for um, benefits and and so we don't know um, if they were actually income qualified. And um, can you tell us about the process if if we wanted to um, in the future um, adopt a uh, program to exempt um, some income from the income limits, uh, for example the the costs of child care, uh, elder care and home care for families, um, what would be the proper time to do that?

[03:03:41] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, I would imagine it would trigger a TRAO update and we would have to analyze not just the legality of being able to do that, but also the um, the difficulty to implement um, the documentation for such a a thing. Um, so I think we would certainly require a a a quite some time to review both.

[03:04:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[03:04:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Any other council members have uh questions for the applicant or staff? All right. Seeing none, uh, I'd like to open it up for public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide public comment on this item? If so please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. We'll display the uh 2 minute timer on the screen. I'm just waiting for the timer to come up. Okay. Jackie Cashen.

[03:04:56] Jackie Cashen: Can you hear me?

[03:04:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:04:58] Jackie Cashen: Okay. Um, it's disheartening to once again be talking to Council about displacement and to see another group of residents put out of their homes with possibly some plans for where they can go, but not necessarily a full range of options. I've been there and I consider myself one of the lucky ones because I was able to stay in Mountain View after being displaced from my own previous home, but a lot of my neighbors were not and they are now scattered all over the country with families that have actually been separated. There was a recent Nextdoor discussion around the RV issue in Mountain View and one of my neighbors included a statement that no one has a right to live in a given place. Well one might argue about some of the nuances of that statement, it is factually correct. But there's a separate issue of people needing to live in a particular place. This area has always had problems caused by the inability of people who work here to actually afford to live here. Traffic from commuting is one such issue that's been caused by this. The pandemic seems to have made the related issue of businesses being able to find employees even worse. I've been in places, businesses locally where there is one employee to do everything. This is bad for the health and well-being of that employee and it's also bad for the health and well-being of the business. Understaffed businesses are more vulnerable to things like theft and to customers simply walking out. In short, our housing issues are very much linked to the health of our businesses. Don't let any more affordable housing slip through our fingers and make a difficult situation even worse than it already is.

[03:06:51] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. You, we'll restart the timer. Yohan Man, or sorry Jonah Man.

[03:06:56] Jonah Man: Hi, thanks. I'm Jonah. I'm a renter living in Mountain View. Um, you can hear me?

[03:07:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes I hear you. Go ahead.

[03:07:04] Jonah Man: Thanks. Um, I just want to say it's a shame that uh, this project isn't denser. Um, I think this project highlights the urgency of zoning for more density so that future development will be denser. Um, so specifically that's things like reducing setback requirements, eliminating height limits, um, allowing more units per square foot and more FAR, um, and perhaps most importantly removing parking requirements. Um, I think if we're really serious about walkability we should perhaps be establishing parking maximums and even allowing mixed use. Um, there needs to be something to walk to without a car, a reason to to walk, um, and allowing mixed use would help accomplish that. As would building out a network of um, grade separated protected bike lanes that are really a pleasure to use and not scary to use, that would connect this neighborhood with all the other things that Mountain View has to offer. Thanks.

[03:08:02] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay well Emily Ann Ramos.

[03:08:08] Emily Ramos: Can you hear me?

[03:08:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:08:10] Emily Ramos: Perfect. Good evening Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramirez and members of the Council. This is Emily Ann Ramos on behalf of SV@Home with concerns about this project that demolishes 70 rent controlled units for 85 town homes. While both state laws and recent policy changes in the city have sought to address the losses, this project should stand as a reminder that far more must be done. Uh developments like these highlight the desperate need for the upcoming housing initiatives, R3 zoning district updates and housing displacement response strategies. This project like Rock Street and the Montecito projects before are located in R3 zoning areas. We believe that these changes can be crafted in a way that support growth while upholding the city's commitment to being both equitable and inclusive. Finally to be clear SV@Home's intention is to not single out one developer or propose housing type. Rather we seek to call attention to the displacement challenge and encourage the council to take this opportunity to think about how the council initiatives, R3 district zoning update and housing displacement response strategies can provide you with the tools that you do not have today to respond to the pressing housing needs in our city. Thank you for your time.

[03:09:26] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alex Brown.

[03:09:32] Alex Brown: Hey.

[03:09:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Hi.

[03:09:34] Alex Brown: Uh it's it's really sad that the applicant has to rely on technicalities to get approval for their mediocre project that removes rent controlled housing to make generic ugly looking low density row homes. It's really sad. Uh the displacement is bad enough, but the loss of rent controlled affordable units hurts the city as a whole. Uh we need affordable housing and not whatever this is. Uh side note, I didn't realize that the earlier comment period was general public comment and not just about the tree removal and bus lane. So could we uh just get a gallery view for the council members in Zoom so the public can see all your wonderful faces. Thank you.

[03:10:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Salim Damerdji.

[03:10:17] Salim Damerdji: Hi, yeah. uh Salim. Um, I also don't like this project. I normally come to these meetings to support housing projects, uh despite push back from you know neighbors or NIMBYs. Um, but this project is terrible. Uh so you know when you take away homes from people, like naturally affordable homes from people, that means kids might have to change schools, it means that they'll be further away from the friends that they've made in the neighborhood, um or their social network more largely. So, uh, I hope we think really systematically about how we're going to stop projects like this from happening in the future, um, when we think about tenant protections, um, because this is a this is a this is a terrible project right. Um, I I normally, you know, adding supplies a good thing but adding just a paltry number of units does not actually reduce like neighboring rent. So, um, I yeah, I I hope that the developer reconsiders the strategy in the future, um, and uh I'm I'm disappointed that this project is being proposed. Thank you.

[03:11:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Edie Keating.

[03:11:32] Edie Keating: Hello. This is not a project that improves Mountain View. Mountain View will have fewer affordable units when this project is completed. And that's not the right direction. That's not the city that I have a vision for. That I hope you also don't have a vision for a city that's losing affordable units rather than gaining them. The developers offer to add some uh on-site BMR is a step in the right direction, but it's not a big enough step. There is still a big loss of affordable units. Can't you go further? And I was confused at best when the staff report said that May 31 all of the BMR was, you know documentation was in order and in place. But there's a June 30 completeness letter that says please provide the BMR uh specifications how you'll meet the BMR requirements. So at best confused. And this has been a bold Council before. And I hope you look for ways to make this project better than it is and if there's any way to say no to it, that's my where my heart is. Thank you.

[03:12:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Reyna Dominguez.

[03:13:03] Reyna Dominguez: Hello. My name is Reyna Dominguez and I used to live at 2005 Rock Street before those apartments were demolished. Let me tell you how that dismolish was for my family. First, we were very much part of Mountain View. I had been um, been a as a nanny, worked as a nanny here and my children attend school over here and uh at schools at Mountain View. And right now my daughter is a local soccer referee and my husband works um as a janitor for those uh Mountain View um uh Mountain View places. And um, and I applied to many lists for affordable houses. There was always a lottery and we were never lucky. Our next apartment right now, our cost is more than 700 plus our utilities went up too. We will never af never afford to those new town homes uh the ones that they um are building on Rock Street right now. And Mountain View becomes less affordable when you demolish our apartments. We ask you to say no to that demolition. Some of you listened but not enough. Tonight say no to another demolitions that will destroy affordable apartments and replace them with millions dollars homes. The families like mine cannot afford it to, cannot afford afford it. Please say no to demolishing those apartments. Thank you.

[03:14:56] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. I don't see um, any other hands. So that concludes public comment. So I'd like to bring it back to uh the council for deliberation and action. And note that a motion to approve the recommendation would need to include the reading the title of the resolutions attached to the report. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[03:15:18] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Uh so I'm going to share what I like and then share what I don't like and then talk about what I'm inclined to do. So first, uh, I really appreciate the transparency uh that staff has shown in the preparation of the report and also the uh the material that they've conveyed to the public and to the council. I I think it's it's unfortunate but mistakes happen and we learn from them and we improve our process and we make sure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again. And I know it's it's uh not uh that's not something that I necessarily want to dwell on but I do think that that transparency is important for the public and for the council uh and helping us better understand uh the evolution of this project and um and maybe give us a sense of of how we might how we might want to improve development review procedures uh in the future in the future. Uh and I know that the CDD audit that the council will be reviewing I think next month or or so will will also be illuminating in this regard, and perhaps instructive. So I do appreciate that. And uh uh Mr. DeNardi spoke to this uh in his presentation. I also appreciate uh Mr. Speaker in uh finding ways to accommodate uh tenants who were who are being displaced I'm sorry as a consequence of this project. Uh and I think that's commendable and and uh especially given that the project at this point, or the the apartment complex at this point is largely vacant. It's uh it's an easier thing to do to approve uh the staff recommendation. It's much more challenging when you have a number of people currently living in the complex that's about to be demolished. So uh thank you to the applicant for for being sensitive to that challenge. And doing I think it sounds like a a good job of of attempting attempting to relocate the current tenants in in your other properties, Mr. Speaker if you're on the line, um or or at least trying to keep folks in Mountain View. So I did want to speak to that. Uh members of the public spoke to some of the things I'm not thrilled about. And the two primary concerns are the lack of affordability and the low density. I'm disturbed that the number of units in this project is just slightly more than half what the general plan would allow. And that's because of the development standards that we have in the R3 zoning district. And I hope that the council uses this as an opportunity to think about if we had better development standards what would this project be instead? And we might have different visions for what that would look like, we don't have to agree on what those development standards uh, you know, should be, but I do think there's I would hope that there's unanimity that this is not necessarily what we would want to see on a four acre site. 85 row houses with no on-site affordable units. So that's that's frustrating to me. Um and I think we can do better. So those are the two things that um I'm most concerned by. And I um I'm not supportive of the project as proposed. I'll be supplying what I'm calling a principled no vote um to the staff recommendation. I don't begrudge anybody who votes yes as well, because I think as staff has made clear, we're highly constrained by state law. And so that makes it very challenging for us I think to uh to do things like make findings to justify a denial. I also can't support denying the project. If we find ourselves in some strange liminal space where there are not four votes to approve the staff recommendation and there are not four votes to deny the project, I think there are some interesting ideas that have been proposed to allow the project to move forward with some modification to the to the modifications to the conditions of approval that could address some of those the concerns that I brought up. And uh that's that's an interesting space to explore. But I want to see first if there are in fact four votes to approve the staff recommendation, because if there are then I don't want to waste anybody's time. Thank you.

[03:20:03] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah I'm finding this um project, although I appreciate you know the work that the uh developer has done and and the voluntary um measures they've taken and I actually appreciate WHA architects as I've seen their work in in Santa Barbara actually. Um somewhat similar to this work. Although I wish you would the uh the developments in Santa Barbara didn't have the the Spanish mission did not have the the fake brick and stone which I wish you would remove. But that is not my major concern here. My major concern is that this seems like a a wonderful place, a wonderful opportunity to um go more dense, uh have bigger side setbacks and um and uh retain some of the affordable housing that it that it has offered over the past several decades. Um you know there are taller apartments around it and I think it would be a great space for that. So I also will not be supporting the development as proposed because I'm hoping that we can some of the things that have such as um ADU units, some of those things we can add instead and partially make up for um for uh what I the way that I I wish the project had been proposed. Thank you.

[03:21:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you Mayor. Well um my mom always said if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all. And um I I really want to you know appreciate the intent behind this and um doing something attractive and nice. But I think that this is a a really textbook example of of just gentrification um that is eating our community alive. And at some point um we're going to wake up and not have any more hospital workers or grocery workers, um we're not going to have people to do regular jobs because they just simply cannot be anywhere within three hours of Mountain View. And um I am a person who really hates making very specific campaign pledges because I don't think it's fair to promise people something unless you're really going to come through on it and there are so many extenuating circumstances in government. But um in this past campaign I said that I'm not going to vote for uh replacement of affordable housing that's under rent control with expensive, bloated uh units that are over a million dollars. And um that's that's what this is. So uh like the Vice Mayor, I I don't know where this is going to go or um uh whatever track it's going to be on, but I'm not going to be on that train. And I would like to see us put uh requirements on ourselves that we make affirmative statements when we are doing away with the affordable housing that that we desperately need. And I want to see us make the changes that we need to make to make the TRAO really usable by working families in our communities. Um because if you can afford to live here and pay for child care and etc., you probably make just enough to not qualify. And um that's that's just where I'm at. Uh I I'm not going to be the person who puts my name uh attached uh attached to this this project. So th thank you Mayor.

[03:24:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So um, appreciate the the comments. Looking for um, a motion. Um, it sounds like there's exploration that other colleagues want to make. So if people want to put an exploratory motion out there as well. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[03:25:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you Mayor. So um, I appreciate staff's uh thorough presentation and um thank you for the various comments. Um, I appreciate my colleagues and what they've said. Um you know we have a job, uh we have legal um regulations, requirements that we have to follow. Um you know a lot of everybody looks for consistency and um this project conforms to all of our requirements. Um, you know we can't deny a project just because we don't like it, uh we have some regulations that we have to follow. So maybe it's not a perfect project, um I think the applicant you know has given um quite a bit. Um I I you know and it's unfortunate that the timing just didn't work out. Um, but in light of that the enhanced TRAO, um the BMR units, the fact that um most of the residents have been uh relocated. Um you know I think the applicant has done their part. And um so I I just this is a fairness issue for me. As most everything is. Um fairness is something that I value very highly. And I I just don't think it would be fair to deny this just because you don't like it. Or maybe it's not conforming to the the you know the new rules that we've create we've created and um but if they met the timelines, they met the timelines. So um I think as a body as a governing body we have to be very consistent and you know clear with what our requirements are. And if people follow that then we have to legally approve the project. Um, I understand and you know I appreciate folks and the concern about rent controlled units. Um frankly that was really you know one of my concerns about having rent control is that it incentivizes redevelopment. Um but you know I've also been someone who as um a person who you know came here, was able to buy a home, raise my family here, um you know that's my peer group and I know a lot of folks um who are looking to own a home, raise a family, and we it's just actually an inventory that we don't have very much of. And I know 1.2 sounds like a lot, but um frankly when we're looking at you know some of the, you know some of my colleagues are living in homes that are worth two, three, four million, um 1.2 you know is actually considered a starter home price. And I have um you know younger friends who are actually like government workers, police officers, and um you know looking for homes, they want to buy, they want to own. And you know I I support that. I believe in the American Dream is still about owning your own home and frankly owning your own home provides the highest level of security. And this price range is actually what they're looking at and they're able to afford. So when we talk about middle income or the missing middle, this is really the price range that the missing middle middle is looking at. So um, you know for all of those reasons um, I I am going to go ahead and support this project. Um, and I don't see any other hands, so I will go ahead and make the motion. And um that is to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a planned unit development permit and development review permit to construct an 85 unit row house development to replace 70 apartment units and a heritage tree removal permit to remove 38 heritage trees. And finding the project is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15332, infill development projects at 570 South Rengstorff Avenue. And to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View conditionally approving a vesting tentative map to create 11 lots and seven common lots for condominium purposes, and finding the project to be exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15332, infill development projects at 570 South Rengstorff Avenue.

[03:30:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[03:30:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Uh I will second the motion and um I want to um echo some of the comments that have been made. Um I appreciated the comments by the Vice Mayor about the transparency that uh staff provided on this project. Uh that was great. I I know I appreciated it and um I believe members of the public appreciated hearing the information. Um I also appreciate the applicant um enhancing the TRAO and offering to do some on-site BMR units as well as um working with so many of the folks who are living there to move to other units in Mountain View. Um we often you know don't see that um and so I really appreciate that that happened on this project. Um I would echo a lot of the comments um Councilmember Abe-Koga just made. You know uh when a project is fully compliant, um I'm hard pressed to find a reason to deny it. Um and as was said um not liking a project or wanting greater density or something different is not really um a reason we can use on this. Um so I am supportive of the project and um, you know, I I certainly hope uh others uh take into consideration um the reasons why um we should be supporting this project. Thanks.

[03:32:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. So we have a motion by um, Councilmember Abe-Koga, seconded by Councilmember Matichak. Ms. Shrivastava, you have your hand up.

[03:32:12] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, um, I wanted to confirm whether uh the Councilmember Abe-Koga intended to include the on-site units in the motion. Um, again, I I want to clarify that staff has not done an analysis of a comparison between the 3 million fee and the on-site units, but, um, we I could I could share the screen um, to confirm the motion um that it would replace uh...

[03:32:35] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, sorry, that wasn't in my writeup. So, um, yes, I I was uh, I did want to include the four on-site units. I just wanted to confirm though that the there would be an uh, the fractional unit would be paid in in-lieu fees and then the other five percent because I believe the requirement is ten percent, is that right?

[03:33:27] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, um, the applicant has made it clear that they're only intending to provide four on-site units and provide the fractional 0.25, not the other five units. Or they would pay the in-lieu fee payment.

[03:33:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so they would pay the in-lieu fee payment for the other four?

[03:33:48] Aarti Shrivastava: No, they would not. Um, they would either pay the $3 million that would be 100% in-lieu fees, or they would provide only four on-site units and an in-lieu fee payment of the 0.25. That's it.

[03:34:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, so the applicant said they were paying a 3.5 million.

[03:34:24] Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, yeah, so it's an either or. Either they pay the 3, we've estimated it at 3, the applicant's estimating at 3.5 and we won't know what the um, we won't know what the total is until it gets closer to selling. Um, so they would either pay 100% in-lieu fee, okay, or provide, or, provide just four units and pay the 0.25. This amounts to only 5%.

[03:34:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So that would not sat satisfy our BMR requirement?

[03:34:41] Aarti Shrivastava: No, it would not satisfy the BMR requirement of 10% on-site. But the the 100% in-lieu fee payment would satisfy the BMR requirement.

[03:34:48] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So can we do the 5% that they're offering and then the remainder as an in-lieu fee?

[03:34:55] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, this is something the applicant can address. I had posed the question. Um, maybe maybe the applicant can confirm if that's an option. I'll stop sharing.

[03:35:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I don't know either way, either way I expect them to fulfill the requirement. So um, you know, if it's 10% in-lieu fee, I prefer, and I was going to include the four units and then the remainder could be the an in-lieu fee, but I expect that to include the other 5% that would have been provided with on-site units.

[03:35:25] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, so the applicant is pretty clear that it would either be a cash payment or the four on-site units. But not not the four on-site units and cash payment for the remaining five, or four and a half.

[03:35:33] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So Mr., Ms. Shrivastava, why don't we ask Mr. DeNardi to raise his hand, he's in the attendee box. Mr. DeNardi, if you can raise your hand and you can answer, um and clarify this question for staff. I think that would be, and and Council, that would be great. All right. Okay. Go ahead.

[03:35:52] Kevin DeNardi: Can you hear me?

[03:35:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, we hear you.

[03:35:54] Kevin DeNardi: Yeah, so, um, again we, we are totally willing to follow the 3% in-lieu fee that is, um, required through the the BMR phase one. Um, the 5% BMR offer was our calculations of kind of the impact between providing BMRs, uh, uh BMRs versus market rate and so our our math on our side shows uh either the 3% in-lieu fee or the 5% because the 10% would would be too impactful from an economic standpoint. But again, I just want to reiterate we are totally comfortable to follow the BMR uh phase one guidelines and provide the 3% in-lieu fee that is required by us.

[03:36:54] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, um, Councilmember Abe-Koga, did you have, wanted to follow up with another question to Mr. DeNardi or?

[03:37:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I I can wait till after.

[03:37:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right, Mr. DeNardi, we'll just ask you to, you're in the panel box so I'll just ask you to mute and then we'll see if uh, Council has other questions as we go forward. Uh, Ms. Shrivastava, your hand's still up. Are we, did you have more you wanted to add?

[03:37:20] Aarti Shrivastava: I'll I'll I'll lower my hand, but if um we're we're happy to answer any questions if if asked about how this complies with our BMR requirements.

[03:37:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, okay I saw a hand go down, so I'll go back to you, Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[03:37:37] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so um I just wanted to confirm then the in-lieu fee is the 3 million or 3.5 million that's been mentioned, is that right?

[03:37:47] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, we've estimated it at 3 million at this point and we'll be sharpening our pencil as it gets closer to the sale. Um, you know, uh per the BMR guidelines, they have to either provide the 10% or the BMR in-lieu fee or an alternative that's greater than that requirement. Um in this case we haven't had a chance to analyze whether that alternative is greater.

[03:38:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I guess I just calculating at 1.2 million sale price with 4 units that's 4.8 so it's not greater than the 10% BMR right. But then it's more than the 3 million so that's what I'm a little um you know,

[03:38:28] Aarti Shrivastava: just a back of the envelope calculation shows that in today's dollars it would be close to just 1.8. But in in future dollars, having an on-site, maybe that's where they calculated the encumbrance. Um, I I'm not privy to the calculations made by Mr. DeNardi. Um, but I just looked at the um what a 100% AMI unit would go for as an average um for a three bedroom and four bedroom and that amounts to um, what I'd say is about 1.7 and the 0.25 is another maybe 90,000 for a total of approximately 1.785 in today's dollars.

[03:39:18] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh then I will I'm going to keep the motion um with the in-lieu fee. Um in light of the fact that I think our affordable housing funds getting depleted um with the many projects that we have we could probably use the funds at this time. So I will I will keep the motion with the in-lieu fee. Thanks.

[03:39:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Um, Councilmember Abe-Koga and I guess just to clarify, your motion is the original motion.

[03:39:48] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes.

[03:39:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right, great, thank you. Not with the italicized underline that we saw on the slide. Okay, perfect. I just want to make sure everyone that it's clear before we move forward. Councilmember Showalter.

[03:40:01] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, in addition to that um, uh the problem that other people have mentioned, um I I also was upset about the park fees. I know that they meet kind of the letter of the law, but um uh, if you were to do it on a bedroom improve improvement uh they we would be increasing the number of people here by 50%. Instead of doing it by units where it's only um what 15 unit extras. So um, so the park fee is also um uh a lot smaller than I would like to see it. And as as as I you know I asked the question earlier, is there a park within walking distance? There is Klein Park, it's a very very small park. Um, and uh I uh I really uh feel like the you know the speaker company has been a um uh an active member of our community for many many years. They provided lots of housing in our community. They've prospered. They provided a they've provided a a good service and they've prospered very well in our community. So um you know I think in you know understanding the value of parks and how um important they are and how expensive they are, uh I would really like to ask the applicant if they would be willing to um put in another $2 million for the park fees.

[03:41:36] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Mr. DeNardi, I think that question is for you.

[03:41:43] Kevin DeNardi: Again, we we, um, I have Mr. Speaker here as well, as well as our attorney, um, and uh I would pass it over to Matt, uh, who who represents us on our end to kind of go over kind of our impressions, you know, we want to keep this as a fully compliant project and um so we're kind of wanting to stay in that lane, but I'll pass it over to Matt to speak.

[03:42:31] Matt Francois: Yes, I'm I'm here. Good evening Madam Mayor, members of the Council. Matt Francois with Rutan & Tucker, we're land use counsel for the applicant. I appreciate the staff recommendation and the careful consideration the council is giving to this item tonight. Uh, as Mr. DeNardi mentioned and as uh Director Shrivastava had mentioned as well, this project is fully compliant with all of the Council's uh plans, policies, codes, and regulations. And so under the Housing Accountability Act, again as staff had mentioned earlier, uh it's entitled to approval. There was a recent court decision out of the first District Court of Appeal just yesterday ruling against the City of San Mateo for denying a similar project that was entirely code compliant. Parks are obviously a sensitive issue. I did want to call to the the Council's attention that the applicant is fully prepared to pay the rather substantial park fee of $66,000 a unit that the uh city has in place. We're not shirking from that duty at all. Under your existing codes and regulations, the fee is paid on the delta. So you don't pay fees on the 70 units that already exist, you pay for the 15 additional units. That total fee amount would be $720,000. And in addition, uh Mr. DeNardi showed the site plan that there is a fair amount of on-site uh recreational amenities for the residents.

[03:44:16] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Is that a POPO?

[03:44:22] Aarti Shrivastava: Councilmember Showalter, uh no it is not a POPO. Thank you.

[03:44:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter, did you have more questions um or more comments you'd like to add?

[03:44:37] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Not really.

[03:44:38] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[03:44:39] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you Mayor. Um I I just wanted to ask, in in reference to the BMR um units, uh that would potentially be provided, uh those would be for sale units, uh is is that...

Segment 6

[03:45:00] Aarti Shrivastava: correct.

[03:45:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And what would be the sale price of of those units?

[03:45:09] Aarti Shrivastava: We have an estimate of $1.2 million, um, average sale price per unit.

[03:45:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so to be able to get into the the unit, um, what would be the income level for say two people?

[03:45:30] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, just to give you an idea, if you were, um, 100% AMI and I'm gonna have to look at what that means for a family of four, you could afford a unit that is about $913,000 if it's a four bedroom. That would be a $913,000 for, um, a four bedroom at 100% AMI and $834,000 for a three bedroom at 100% AMI.

[03:46:09] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, so so the the 100% of of AMI, um, do you have a rough idea of how much that would be?

[03:46:24] Aarti Shrivastava: I I do have it, but I'm gonna need a little time to...

[03:46:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Oh, forgive me.

[03:46:30] Aarti Shrivastava: ...income levels. If you just give me a few minutes.

[03:46:33] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, no problem. And and basically what I'm just trying to understand I, um, I would be thinking about, um, is is there program for people to come up with a down payment? Um, how would this how would this realistically, uh, work? Because, um, you know, I agree that prices are going up in our area and yet, um, you know, 913,000, 1.2. Um, you know, I'm not I'm not seeing the connection there.

[03:47:17] Aarti Shrivastava: So the I'm I'm still looking at that information, trying to get the 100% AMI, but these units are not being proposed at 100% AMI. They're being proposed at market rate, which is estimated at 1.2 million. So just providing a comparison of the 830 to maybe 913,000 that a 100% AMI could afford. It's clear that they would not be able to afford the unit, um, unless they paid much more than 30% of their income, um, in in expenses. Um, so I probably don't have the the ability to sort of work backwards and see what level AMI would be able to afford a 1.2, but I would venture a guess that would be definitely more than maybe 120 or so. Um, somewhere between 120 and 150. Um, and I'm I'm gonna go back and search for the income level so I can give it...

[03:48:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yeah, and I could I could also, you know, do try to do the fastest finger and and look it up too. But I I am concerned that the the target, um, target audience for them would not actually be able to to afford them. And, um, so I just I just want us to be to be real about what we're what we're doing with this decision. Thank you, Mayor.

[03:48:46] Aarti Shrivastava: Um, sorry, I I do have the information. Uh, 100% AMI is approximately $106,000 for a one-person household and $151,000 for a four-person household.

[03:49:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, and and what would be the income limitation, um, for the BMR?

[03:49:09] Aarti Shrivastava: Uh, there are no BMR units being proposed on the site. Um, so they're all market rate. The the proposal is to pay in-lieu fees.

[03:49:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Thank you.

[03:49:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[03:49:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, the motion was for the to take the in-lieu fees, but I think the question maybe had to do with the four units that were being offered. So if if there were four units, they would be BMR at 100% AMI, correct?

[03:49:42] Aarti Shrivastava: It would be an average 100% AMI. Um, and yeah. So.

[03:49:48] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, I'm gonna call the question.

[03:49:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Alright, so we have a motion by Councilmember Abe-Koga, which was seconded, uh, by Councilmember Matichak. Um, and just one moment. Just trying to lower the hand, there we go. Um, and so, uh, it's robust conversation from from my colleagues and so I thought I'd like to speak before the question is called. Um, and, uh, I think vote votes like this one are are are tough. They're they're extremely difficult. Um, the council is bold and I think we've made quite a few, um, strides in how to address overall displacement in our city.

[03:50:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: We have, you know, our BMR Phase 2 program, which we put forward. We're looking at our displacement strategies, which will come up at the beginning of of Q1. We've explored, uh, rezoning and, um, kind of addressing our how we've been doing land use, um, when we look at our our R3 zoning. Um, and we also have been getting help from the state through legislation, um, as was mentioned, SB 330. So I think there are are tools in the city's toolkit in which we're trying to address the overall issue of displacement and trying to be as as innovative and forward-thinking as possible.

[03:50:55] Mayor Ellen Kamei: That doesn't mean that nights like tonight don't happen. When a fully compliant project comes forward that still somehow makes it through, um, the the the process, you know, whether that's because they met the old timelines, you know, were grandfathered into Phase 1, didn't it didn't apply to SB 330, I think staff really walked us through all the things that they tried to do to ask for more, right? To to try to to move this, um, in a way that would benefit, you know, the most the most residents. Um, and yet here we are still looking at a at a project that I think all of us wish was a little bit different, you know, may or maybe a lot different.

[03:51:05] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Um, I think that for me when when I'm looking at things like this, I understand wanting to take the, uh, I think the Vice Mayor said, the principal no vote, I think also known as a as a protest vote. But when that is done, it creates risk to the city and ultimately the residents, um, as was as was mentioned. So I think it's not so much that I'm, um, in support of the project so much as I'm in support of the motion, um, given the limitations that we have as as a as a council and it'll be interesting to see how how this goes forward. Um, but I just wanted to to say that before we call the question. So alright, City Clerk Glaser, let's do a roll call vote.

[03:51:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[03:51:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[03:51:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak?

[03:51:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[03:51:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[03:51:24] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm gonna vote no, not to deny it, but because I think we can do a little more work and get to yes later. So that's a no.

[03:51:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Lieber?

[03:51:34] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No.

[03:51:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[03:51:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm gonna vote yes, very reluctantly.

[03:51:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[03:51:45] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: No.

[03:51:47] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[03:51:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[03:51:50] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries 4 to 3.

[03:51:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Thank you to staff. Appreciate, appreciate your time. So we'll move on to item 7, which is Unfinished Business. Item 7.1 is an introduction of an ordinance enacting Mobile Home Rent Stabilization. The City Attorney will make opening remarks, then Eric Phillips from the firm Burke, Williams & Sorensen, the City's Special Counsel for rent stabilization matters, will present the report. City Attorney Chopra?

[03:52:24] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, this item comes before you as follow-through from Council's March, uh, 16th direction for staff to present an ordinance on mobile home stabilization. Rent stabilization. And over the summer we've conducted outreach to both the tenants' groups and park owners' groups, and received detailed feedback from the Rental Housing Committee, and that was all incorporated in the presentation of tonight's ordinance. I'm now very pleased to turn over, uh, the presentation to Eric Phillips, who's the the city's specialist in rent control matters. And he has a brief PowerPoint presentation, and after that we will be able to answer, uh, Council's questions. Thank you.

[03:53:12] Eric Phillips: Great. Thank you, um, City Attorney Chopra and and thank you, uh, Mayor and Councilmembers, um, for, uh, the time this evening. I'm here to share with you, um, the, um, update on the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. Um, as was just mentioned, um, we have prepared an ordinance for your consideration. Um, I have good news and bad news as compared to the last item you were just considering. The good news is that you have discretion on this item to make decisions. The bad news is that there's still hard decisions to make, um, because the policies involve, um, involve a lot of of trade-offs and weighty policy considerations.

[03:53:35] Eric Phillips: Um, however, to help inform the discussion and, uh, the decisions that will be before you tonight, and the recommendations that we've made for you, um, as was also just mentioned, we did, uh, the city has engaged in quite a bit of outreach, um, on the topic, um, both, uh, last year as follow-up to Council's 2020 study session, and then, um, through this year as more, um, specific direction was provided by Council to go forward with the ordinance. And, uh, there are detailed summaries of all of these efforts and the results available, um, in the packet, um, attached to the staff report. So folks who want to, um, go back and and look at the information that we culled through to help shape our recommendations, that's all available for them.

[03:54:00] Eric Phillips: Um, part of, a key part of Council's direction, um, as we were told to begin putting together a mobile home ordinance, was to consider the structure of the CSFRA and to, uh, mirror the structure of that ordinance and to provide an equivalent level of protection that apartment residents have under the CSFRA, um, to residents in mobile homes. And so, as we were drafting the ordinance and coming up with policies to present to you tonight, um, we did, uh, take that to heart and follow, um, topic by topic, the the items that are included in the CSFRA. However, they've been modified and customized for the specific mobile home context and to reflect the limitations and opportunities that the Mobile Home Residency Law provides, um, specifically for mobile homes.

[03:54:25] Eric Phillips: And we'll talk about, um, those specific policies and details in just, uh, one moment as we go through the components of the proposed ordinance. So the first thing is to define what the ordinance would apply to. Um, we're proposing to provide coverage for all residents within mobile homes. That means that, um, there would be coverage for both, uh, residents who own their own mobile homes and rent spaces within a mobile home park, as well as, uh, tenants who rent mobile homes, either from an individual or a park owner who rents mobile homes.

[03:54:45] Eric Phillips: And I do want to acknowledge that, um, this is, uh, one of the policies that has evolved as we were doing initial outreach over the summer. Uh, we were focused on policies around space rent only. And, um, following feedback and further analysis, uh, we've come back with a recommendation to provide more comprehensive coverage for all residents, um, and if this were to pass as proposed, there would then be rent stabilization for apartment, uh, residents, for mobile home residents that own their homes and rent spaces, as well as mobile home residents who rent the homes themselves. So it would be an equivalent level of coverage regardless of the tenancy type.

[03:55:34] Eric Phillips: Um, exemptions, so despite that broad coverage that I was just speaking of, there would be a number of exemptions that apply. Um, first, there are exemptions in state law. The Mobile Home Residency Law specifically carves out, um, spaces from mobile home protections, and the ordinance that's before you reflects those limitations and incorporates them by reference. So for example, vacation homes, uh, would be excluded from, um, the rent stabilization policies in the ordinance. Uh, the other exemption that is proposed that is, uh, additive to what's required by state law, would be an exemption for an accord or essentially just a private agreement between mobile home park owners and tenants.

[03:56:00] Eric Phillips: And we've tried to craft the ordinance so that the, uh, provisions to qualify for this exemption would be objective and as streamlined as possible for staff to determine if the private agreement provided as protective as the ordinance, because it's important to note that the exemption would only be in effect if the private agreement provided an equivalent level or greater level of protection than the ordinance does. Um, so we have tried to streamline that process, but we acknowledge it would take, um, staff review and oversight to confirm, uh, whether or not, um, tenants that chose to enter into a private agreement, uh, were adequately protected and therefore qualified for the exemption.

[03:56:30] Eric Phillips: Um, this is another area where we heard quite a bit of feedback, um, and feedback has continued through written correspondence that I'm sure Council has seen, um, where, um, park owners in particular prefer, um, an MOU or an accord or an alter a private agreement between the city and the park owner, either in place of rent stabilization altogether or as a way of qualifying for the exemption. Um, sometimes that's referred to as as the Sunnyvale model, and I just wanted to point out that in Sunnyvale they did negotiate an MOU that would be entered into between the city and park owners. So as that was adopted, the Council directed, um, staff to prepare a mobile home rent stabilization ordinance to cover anyone that, uh, did not sign up for the MOU. So in a way, there would be a private agreement, um, with the ordinance backstop, which is roughly the equivalent to the policy that we would have here, except the reverse order of preparing it. Here we have an ordinance first, and um, a private agreement could provide an off-ramp from the provisions of that ordinance. Um, this is certainly something that that Council can can look at more closely and, um, we can dive into the mechanics of that if there are questions later.

[03:57:06] Eric Phillips: Um, once we've established what's covered by the, the rent stabilization ordinance, uh, the prime policy is the rent stabilization itself, limiting rent increases. Um, we're proposing to exactly match the rent increases in the CSFRA. 100% of the annual CPI increase with a floor of 2% and a ceiling of 5%. Again, that would be an equivalent level of protection, um, for all tenants throughout the city, um, regardless of tenancy type. Um, though we certainly have heard feedback both from residents who would like to see a lower rent increase, a percentage of CPI, or park owners who might prefer a higher annual adjustment.

[03:57:30] Eric Phillips: The other way rents would be increased, and this is something that's additive as compared to the CSFRA, would be on turnover of a mobile home space when a home owner sells their home and a a new owner then signs a new lease with the park owner, um, to become a tenant in that mobile home park. Uh, we would propose limiting the rent increase at that turnover to no more than 10%. Um, again, this is, um, higher than than some tenants might prefer and lower than some owners might prefer, but we think it's a a good compromise position to both protect the equity, um, that homeowners have in their mobile homes, while allowing, um, the park owners an additional opportunity to, um, keep their rents close to to market levels.

[03:58:00] Eric Phillips: Um, we've proposed including a base rent date in the ordinance. It's important to establish a base rent date, um, both so we know uh, what the annual general adjustments can be added to, but also so that we have a point in time that we can look to see what the park owners and property owners were earning in terms of their operating income, should they need to file a petition for a greater rent increase later. Um, we've also included a provision that would set this uh, base rent date to March 16th, 2021. That's the date that Council provided clear direction to prepare the ordinance, and that would, um, roll back any rent increases that were greater than the annual general adjustment for this year, um, to cap it at the the AGA should this ordinance be passed. And that's an important provision to, uh, make sure that there are no, uh, last minute rent increases trying to squeeze in before the the ordinance gets adopted.

[03:58:23] Eric Phillips: Um, I have just a couple more policies to highlight and then I will I will wrap up my comments. Um, eviction protections, uh, wanted to highlight that state law already has a number of eviction protections. It fully covers and preempts, um, eviction controls for tenants who own their homes and rent spaces. So the ordinance does not apply, um, eviction protections to to those homeowners and tenants in the mobile home parks. Um, however, it would extend uh, just cause for eviction protections to tenants who are renting their mobile homes, um, and not uh renting the spaces. And the protections would be roughly equivalent to what's included in the CSFRA, um, again tailored for the mobile home context. Um, this was something also that was added as we were looking to expand the rent protection, um, to this class of tenants. Uh, we thought it would also be um, appropriate and important to have eviction protections that would um, provide a a safeguard for displacement. And this is an area where where Council may wish to provide further direction for additional protection or refinement.

[03:58:50] Eric Phillips: Um, the second to last uh thing I want to highlight are very important provisions, um, that protect the property owners' rights to a fair return on their investments. Um, in the event that the annual general adjustment does not allow a park owner or a mobile home landlord to earn a fair return, they would have the opportunity to petition for a greater rent increase, either because they weren't able to maintain an equivalent net operating income as to what they had before rent control, or, um, if they needed uh to seek a what's called a Vega adjustment or an adjustment for what had previously been below market rents, and the ordinance has parameters for how those rents could be adjusted.

[03:59:05] Eric Phillips: Um, we also have included um, fairly detailed capital improvement um, provisions. This was something that was requested both by park owners and by residents, so they would have more certainty about how capital improvements could be implemented and how the costs for those could be shared. Um, so we looked at several models um, from other rent stabilization ordinances and, um, tried to craft a program that would allow uh park owners and residents to share the cost of capital improvements and have 50% of those capital improvement costs be passed through to residents, um, on a prorated and amortized basis. Um, but also providing a protest provision. If improvements are ones that are not approved by the residents, it would go to a hearing officer, um, and they would review if the capital improvement were necessary and what costs if any, uh, were appropriate to then pass through to the tenants.

[03:59:19] Eric Phillips: And then finally, I just wanted to highlight how the ordinance would function on a day-to-day basis. Um, we've structured it so that the Rental Housing Committee would be charged with administering the ordinance. They could adopt additional guidelines. There are several places in the ordinance where further detail might help streamline the process and there are calls to specifically adopt additional policies, and we would look to the Rental Housing Committee's subject matter expertise to help do that. Um, the RHC would also be charged with doing a fee study to determine how much the program would cost to operate, what the cost per space would be, um, assessed to recover costs for operating the program. And then finally, the ordinance would include, um, both a private right of action, so residents and park owners could enforce its provisions, as well as enforcement provisions for the city, um, which again are exactly equivalent to the enforcement mechanisms that are included in the CSFRA. Um, I've covered everything fairly quickly, so I'm happy to go back over and anything where there are questions or where Council would like further detail.

[03:59:40] Eric Phillips: Um, but ultimately, uh, our staff recommendation would be to introduce the ordinance that enacts mobile home rent stabilization, um, as you can see here. Um, subject to any further comments and direction that we see received from you tonight. Um, we also specifically would like to hear if Council has direction, um, for us to go forward preparing and introducing any additional tenant protection measures, whether it's another look at the, uh, TRARO program or other measures that might further complement, uh, this ordinance here tonight. So with that, again, I will I will pause and, uh, see if there are are questions that I can help answer.

[04:00:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Eric. So, um, at this time I'll ask, um, if any member of the Council has any questions. And maybe we'll just drop the screen share for now so that we can ask you those questions if possible. Wonderful. Thank you. Alright. I see a hand raised. Councilmember Showalter.

[04:00:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi, thank you. I think that was a very good presentation. I I really appreciate it. Um, and, uh, every time I read through this this information I, you know, I absorb a little bit more, which is good. Um, one question though I do have is, uh, several of the, uh, park owners sounded upset at at what they expect the cost of the annual, um, uh, fee to be. And, um, I I just, you know, I understand that the fee this year was $102 for each apartment. And I I, um, it seems to me that we could expect that the fee for the, um, uh, mobile homes would be similar to that. Might might be a little more, a little less, but it would be similar. Does that make sense to you too?

[04:01:11] Eric Phillips: Yeah. So we would have to do a a an a formal fee study to assess the cost of the program. There are many fewer mobile home spaces, so the cost to operate might be less. However, there are also many because there are many fewer mobile home spaces, the per capita cost then would would could end up being higher. So, um, that fee study is something that the RHC would have to do, um, and we would have then actual data to present to see, um, exactly what that cost would be and and how it would be assessed on an annual basis.

[04:01:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Don't have any information really that says it would be, you know, 10 times or, you know, than what the apartment was. We we don't really expect that. We just haven't done the study yet, right?

[04:02:04] Eric Phillips: That's correct. Yeah, we would expect operating costs, uh, if anything, the program might be able to operate, uh, on a less expensive basis than the the apartment program does. Um, but again, we that study needs to be done to to be able to answer that more determinatively.

[04:02:23] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you.

[04:02:25] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[04:02:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Now part number two of your your last slide, um, talks about, um, urgency measures we could take to prevent evictions, and, um, I think I got an email from staff saying you could provide some details on, you know, we could Council could craft them ourselves tonight, but I thought I got an email saying that you could give us some more details on what you might suggest, um, in terms of, uh, eviction protection and, uh, TRARO enhancements. So if you have those, I would love to hear them.

[04:03:05] Eric Phillips: Sure, and it might be helpful. I could certainly, um, help give more specific suggestions, um, if there were particular protections or areas that you were interested in. But at a at a high level, um, I did want to hi that the tenant relocation assistance ordinance, the TRARO program, currently only applies to apartment renters, not folks who live in mobile home parks. So one, um, change would be to potentially provide relocation benefits, um, especially for those who could be, um, evicted without fault under the just cause provisions. Um, and that would provide again a financial, uh, safety net that's equivalent to what, um, apartment residents have under the the CSFRA. Other, um, types of protections that that could be explored, um, would be uh what would happen if units were removed from the rental market and restrictions around their ability to be re-rented or, um, requiring potentially a right of return for residents that were displaced if those units were to be put back on the market. Um, those are again things that are, uh, similar to the way that, um, apartment rent control works. And that would be focused specifically on those tenants who rent mobile homes, uh, rather than those who own their homes and rent spaces. Um, and yeah, I again if you had other measures that you'd like to explore, have me speak in in further detail on I, I can provide additional detail.

[04:04:46] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so those are the um, making the uh, the TRARO apply to mobile homes as well. Is something I would be interested in. What would be, and right of return and a possible eviction moratorium extension. How would, would we do those tonight or what would the process be to get that rolling?

[04:05:08] Eric Phillips: So, oh, I'm sorry, um, City Attorney Chopra please.

[04:05:11] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Uh, go I was just going to say that those those uh, direction could be taken to explore those those policies but, uh, they wouldn't be uh, acted on tonight. Uh, for example, if there was direction on the TRARO enhancements to include uh, mobile home residents, that would take some time to to bring back, and I believe we answered in the Council questions and the Community Development Director uh, suggested that that could come back in Q1, for example. Uh, the more uh, pressing uh, matters could perhaps come back uh, quicker depending on on what they what they entailed. Uh, you know, for example, if if there was a any extension to uh, eviction moratorium uh, provisions, that could perhaps come back before the the the state uh, expiration at September 30th, perhaps at the September 28th meeting, but it all depends on on what what direction Council is is interested in. And Eric, did you have any, um, things to fill in there?

[04:06:14] Eric Phillips: Uh, no, I I was going to give a a less robust answer than you, and so I'm, thank you for for stepping in.

[04:06:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[04:06:27] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[04:06:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, a few questions. Um, how much outreach was done to mobile home park owners, um, in preparation for tonight?

[04:06:42] Eric Phillips: So the primary method of outreach was, um, a meeting that was held over the summer in June, um, where representatives from each of the mobile home parks attended. Um, we shared information on the, um, policies that were being studied at that time and took feedback, and since then we've certainly received uh quite a bit of correspondence and additional feedback from park owners and and residents alike, um, that we've been monitoring and incorporating into our recommendation.

[04:07:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, um, the meeting with the mobile home park owners, did you discuss at all the, um, as was called in this proposal, um, the accord?

[04:07:29] Eric Phillips: Yes, uh, we we did. We presented uh, similarly to the way that it's included in the ordinance that's before you. We presented that as, um, an alternative uh that could be used uh to provide an exemption from the ordinance as long as the protections provided under it were as a as protective as the ordinance provisions itself.

[04:07:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So how how would you really evaluate um if it's as protective? Um, I guess I'm sort of struggling with that because if you look at the Sunnyvale MOU versus uh rent stabilization, there are um some things that would be included in an MO in the Sunnyvale MOU that are not included in like rent stabilization. So how how do you look at equivalent protection?

[04:08:23] Eric Phillips: So the the way that we've tried to define it for the ordinance is to focus on a a few key terms. Is would the private agreement uh limit rent increases so it was no greater than as what what would be allowed under the ordinance? Um, are there equivalent levels of tenant protections um in terms of eviction controls? And are there no greater numbers of or amounts of pass-throughs um related to capital improvements than would be allowed under the ordinance.

[04:08:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, let's see. And when um we spoke, I think it was last week, I had asked the question about um the data that we received on who's living in um mobile home parks in Mountain View. And I was asking if the city had done that survey. Were you able to find the answer to that?

[04:09:20] Eric Phillips: Yes, um, so that the data that we referenced was a direct result of the city initiated survey, so as part of the City's initial outreach um last year in in January, um it reached out um and surveyed residents, and then um I actually had a screenshot of the survey um in the in the presentation. But that was um what informed the generalizations about who lives in mobile home parks in Mountain View.

[04:09:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and I apologize, um, we got the answers kind of uh shortly before this meeting and I didn't have the usual amount of time to like really absorb all of the responses. So I apologize if I'm asking some questions that were answered in that. Um, we I did see um a question about the number of petitions for upward adjustments that were processed. And I was wondering if you have any more data on that. Like, um, for example, how many were processed? Where 100% of the request was um granted versus a a partial um adjustment?

[04:10:40] Eric Phillips: I don't have that that data. I don't know, do we still have CSFRA staff available to provide additional information tonight?

[04:10:50] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Uh, I don't have that information either. Perhaps um, uh, CDD Director Shrivastava or Wayne Chen might be on the on the meeting. We can try to find that answer for you as as this hearing continues and circle back with you.

[04:11:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and do we have any data on, um, you know we often hear that um people are concerned about the equity in their um mobile home. Do we have any data on the original purchase price of a home and then a sales price later on, um, so that we have data to back up that uh, those statements?

[04:11:35] Eric Phillips: No, not not to my knowledge. I don't think that we've uh, the city has done that sort of survey.

[04:11:43] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and then, uh I think I know the answer to this, but I'm gonna ask it anyway. Um, if somebody has, um, an existing contract if if a resident in a mobile home park has an existing contract um with the park owner, under both um rent stabilization or um, say the Sunnyvale model, does that contract stay in effect until it expires?

[04:12:21] Eric Phillips: Yes. So a a rental agreement would still be in place. Um, however, if the rental agreement had terms that would allow for greater rent increases than were allowed under the ordinance, the ordinance would supersede the the terms of of that rental agreement. Um, in examples like like you said in from Sunnyvale, um, part of that uh, agreement involved a lease addendum that uh park owners would then provide to their tenants for tenants to sign and agree to so that they would incorporate those contractual terms into their into their rental agreements. And that's a step um that doesn't need to be taken when the regulations are adopted via ordinance.

[04:13:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, um, that's it for now. Thanks.

[04:13:18] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Lieber.

[04:13:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had a a question, um, in terms of we've heard a lot from the public about the Sunnyvale model and certainly heard a lot from the park owners about that. Um, and it's my understanding that, um, there is policy coming in Sunnyvale that would, um, create a citywide rent control that would, um, underlay, uh, the MOU that they already have the possibility of. Um, and so it isn't really an an option that's, um, uh, free of rent control, um, at this point, that the the rent control that's proposed there would would underlay that policy. And am I understanding that right?

[04:14:22] Eric Phillips: Yes. That that's correct. So that, um, there the MOU was prepared first, adopted by Council and made available for park owners to sign. Um, Council then directed staff to create a rent a rent stabilization ordinance to cover anyone uh in a park if the park owner didn't sign, um, the the MOU there. Um, but the end result, once that ordinance is drafted and brought to council if they end up adopting it, um, would be that tenants would either be protected via the MOU or via the ordinance.

[04:15:02] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And are there other jurisdictions in California that have, um, rent control as well as a a path for an MOU?

[04:15:14] Eric Phillips: Yes, um, it's not the most common. Um, there's I think close to 100 jurisdictions that have mobile home rent stabilization, um, there's a much smaller number than that that have MOUs. Um, but there are, um, hold on one second. Let me pull, um, the, there's at at least, at least one other uh jurisdiction that has the um ordinance that functions as a backup or an alternative for those who don't enter into an MOU beyond Sunnyvale and if you give me one moment I'll pull up what that jurisdiction is. I think it's I think it's Modesto, um, but I I'll double check that for you. But I think the point is that it's not a uh totally it's not a model that's without precedent.

[04:16:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And, um, in terms of the the text of the ordinance itself, um, somewhere I I saw in here, uh, the wording relative to the CPI, um, and I believe it said that, um, it the increase would be, um, the the CPI, um, and I'm wondering, um, if uh the wording choice could be up to, um, the CPI and if that would accomplish the same thing?

[04:17:29] Eric Phillips: I guess the variation there would be, um, because the Rental Housing Committee is directed to announce what the rent increase is each year, um, it would be, um, that would potentially give them discretion to set an AGA less than 100% of the the CPI increase. Um, if that's your intention or the policy outcome that you want, it certainly can be drafted that way. But the, um, the wording now that it's equal to the 100% uh, takes away that discretion from the the RHC, it just puts them more in a ministerial capacity to announce what it is, so everybody is on notice and has the same information to draw from.

[04:18:30] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And and my reason for raising this is that we have heard from some of the park owners that, um, when they're not given an order of what the the increase will be, that they're free to, um, treat treat homeowners and renters as, you know, family within the park and to give them low increases if if if they wish to. And so that's why I'm asking in I guess it's 46.5B, it says 'shall.' Um, shall be that amount, and, um, so it sounds like we would have the discretion to make it, um, uh, up to that that amount.

[04:19:22] Eric Phillips: Yes, and let me clarify one that the annual general adjustment sets the maximum amount of rent that is allowed to be raised in a year. It doesn't automatically raise rents by that amount. A park owner fully retains discretion to raise rents by a a lower amount, um, based on all the the criteria that that you were just outlining. Uh, this wouldn't affect a park owner's ability independently to raise rents less.

[04:19:55] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay. Okay, thank you.

Segment 7

[04:30:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:30:04] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. So, um, just following along those lines, um, if you can remind me in the CSFRA there is a floor of 2%, I believe, so then so is that the the lowest that, um, a park owner, landlord could go in our in this in your draft ordinance as well?

[04:30:27] Eric Phillips: A park, a park owner could choose, again, choose to not increase rent, but the lowest annual general adjustment that they would receive would be 2%. So even if if we have a negative CPI or a year where CPI grows less than 2%, the park owner would be allowed to raise rent by 2% even in those years, but they wouldn't have to.

[04:30:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But then if they don't, they don't, they can also bank that for future years, is that if I remember CSFRA?

[04:31:00] Eric Phillips: Um, yes, there there are um banking provisions both in the CSFRA and in the mobile home provision. Um, so that rent increases can be rolled forward, uh, within certain parameters. That's correct.

[04:31:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, my other question goes back to, um, Councilmember Matichak's question about the accord, um, and how you evaluate the comparability, I guess if that's the right word, um, between the ordinance and an accord. Um, and you know in a I guess in a easiest scenario it would follow along the ordinance's um guidelines. But I guess I was thinking of a scenario, um, you know, in light of some of the emails that we received about, um, you know, some folks wanting, uh, a lower percent like a percentage, not 100% CPI, but a lower than that, say 75%. So if an accord was, um, achieved between the parties that, um, included a lower percentage of CPI increase but maybe, um, you know, made up, that that difference made up later, um, at the time of sale, so this is part of the vacancy control piece, so instead of a 10%, let's say they decide, you know, 12% or 15%. Um, can you see can you see those types of scenarios, um, and see how would you, I guess, evaluate the comparability of that?

[04:32:35] Eric Phillips: Yeah, no, that's a a a good question. As the ordinance is drafted now, if the the rent, the annual rent increase were lower, but then another provision were higher, that would not count as being equivalent because one of those key protections would be less protective than what's offered in the ordinance. And even though the maybe the parties agreed that they would balance it out and get rough justice through another mechanism, the way that the exemption is structured in the ordinance right now doesn't really account for that level of flexibility. And in part, because uh we wanted to provide some objective standards so that it would make it possible for staff to to make a determination about whether it was equivalent or not. Um, the level of discretion and evaluation that you're talking about, um, would require I think a a higher level of policymaking and determination about whether or not the protections were equivalent. Um, so we could we could look at restructuring the way the exemption works if if that's um the the interest in the council. Um, but to make it more simple and try and and have it be again something that could be evaluated by staff and still still acknowledging that that takes staff time to do, even as we've structured it, it the tradeoff there is that it's a little less flexible.

[04:34:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So should we Council if we wanted to move in the direction of more flexibility set the parameters of you know what those tradeoffs could be if

[04:34:17] Eric Phillips: That would be that would be very helpful direction to include, that if there is agreement on the council for what parameters should be eligible to qualify for an exemption, we can certainly help incorporate that, um, based on on direction that you provide.

[04:34:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[04:34:39] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Uh, I appreciate that last question from Councilmember Abe-Koga because I I hadn't even thought about that. So that's an an interesting point. Um, so I have a few questions, uh, and my apologies if you've answered some of these and I just missed it. So to clarify, if the council did include an MOU exemption, would the parks subject to the MOU also be exempt from paying the fee to administer the rent control program?

[04:35:07] Eric Phillips: Yes, that's correct. So if if the spaces were exempt or the entire park were exempt because there were an equivalent level of protection provided through the MOU, then, uh, they would also be exempt from, um, the RHC and the the space, the administrative fee for spaces.

[04:35:26] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Uh, and that includes also whatever costs is associated with the staff analysis to determine whether an MOU is comparable to Okay, so so the city would absorb that.

[04:35:39] Eric Phillips: Yeah, or I mean, potentially under Prop 218, you know the city could charge a fee recovery for that one particular service. Um, you know to evaluate an application for opt-out there could be a fee for for that one service, but that would uh take the place of the ongoing fee for the annual administration of the program.

[04:36:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Okay. And that that would also have the effect of increasing the per cap sorry per capita cost or fee for parks subject to the rent control program.

[04:36:14] Eric Phillips: That's that's correct. It wouldn't necessarily be a dollar for dollar increase because there would also be fewer spaces subject to the program and less administration required, but it would increase the per capita responsibility because there would be fewer spaces left in the program.

[04:36:30] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Got it. Okay. And then not to belabor the point, but let's say a park ceases to be subject to an MOU, then the rent control program would apply and then that park would have to pay fees, right? So there would have to be some evaluation of the fees again at that point?

[04:36:50] Eric Phillips: That's that's correct.

[04:36:53] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Great. Thank you. Um, in uh the briefing that you had provided, which was very helpful, um, I think either you or the City Attorney had uh referenced some relationship between uh how low the CPI or the the AGA is and uh the frequency with which a park owner may require uh an upward petition for an upward adjustment of rent in order to uh to uh guarantee a a fair rate of return. Uh can you help me understand that a little bit better? So I and I asked for this in the the questions to staff in advance of the meeting. I know it was short notice, but if you happen to have at least anecdotal data from other jurisdictions that have lower C the percentage of CPI for instance, do those jurisdictions tend also to see an increased number in petitions for an upward adjustment of rent?

[04:38:01] Eric Phillips: Yeah, so the I unfortunately don't have a good database answer for for the question. Um, though I I do think that the the concern would be that the lower the um annual general adjustment the more difficult it could be for a park owner to maintain their net operating income and continue to earn a fair return, so the more likely it would be um that that park owner would have to petition for a greater rent adjustment. Um, and that was um we also heard that comment while we were meeting with with park owners. Um, the again concern that the if rent increases are too low it forces them into the petition process. Um, again, I I don't have the specific data or experiences to point to to to answer the second part of your question. But that is um that's the relationship that uh we're trying to correct for I guess when we're looking to to pick the right number for the AGA.

[04:39:13] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Got it. That's helpful. Thank you. Uh, I think staff had also provided at least preliminary analysis in your responses. Um, but if you happen to have any more information about whether any of the parks are subdivided and each home resides on an individual parcel, have you been able to provide or find any additional information about that?

[04:39:34] Eric Phillips: Yeah, so we reviewed with staff the assessor parcels for the parks and um previous uh subdivisions that had been approved for those um properties. And it does not appear that that they've been subdivided or that there's individual um spaces that include individual mobile homes within the parks themselves. Um, it would probably it would take a a title report to fully run that down and and rule it out. But uh based on the uh material we've been able to review to date, it does not appear that that they're subdivided um within the parks themselves.

[04:40:15] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And to clarify that's significant because if a uh park owner wanted to exit the market under the Ellis Act, they would have to cease operations for all units on a parcel, right?

[04:40:31] Eric Phillips: And that that's correct. And the way that we have um drafted the the just cause for eviction regulations in the ordinance is that it it includes those provisions that um a park owner does have the ability to remove rental units from the rental market but they have to remove all units on an individual parcel at once. It it can't be a a catch as catch can. Um and then the other limiting factor there would be that uh potentially at some point you could cross a threshold into triggering a change of use of the park and then state regulations uh governing um notice, which there has to be a 12-month notice period, um, you have to do a a displacement study, um, and there's several protections and safeguards that kick in um if changes were so significant that it was determined that it was actually a change of use of the park.

[04:41:34] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Um, and then uh one of the things I'm struggling to understand, I'll give you a scenario and you can tell me how it would play out. So what would happen if uh a park owner opts into an MOU and a resident in the park refuses to sign uh the lease that I guess the model lease associated with the MOU. Is that resident still protected from the rent control law or are they not protected?

[04:42:09] Eric Phillips: So under the way that we've structured the ordinance that person would be protected. Um, that the accords would be entered into um individually to give the residents kind of that autonomy to either opt in or out um to the alternative or to be covered by the city's program. Uh that's not the only way to structure it. Um, like for example the Sunnyvale model, the MOU is between the city and the park owner, and then um those uh protections are offered to tenants both prospectively and via an addendum um that's attached to the lease and has to be accepted by the individual tenant. Um, they haven't drafted their ordinance yet so I don't know how they would handle um the scenario that you post in the hypothetical.

[04:43:07] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, um, I may have more comments about that later then, but I appreciate the response. So so in our model or in the draft ordinance, uh it's it is truly a voluntary agreement that both the park owner and every individual resident would have to agree voluntarily in order to be subject to the MOU exemption.

[04:43:30] Eric Phillips: That's correct.

[04:43:34] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. And then the final question, um, I think uh Councilmember Matichak had had asked this in a substantially similar way but just for my benefit, uh the council had previously provided direction uh I think in June sorry January 2020 to explore the MOU concept. And I'm curious to know so so what came out of that it sounds like it has to be essentially identical to the underlying ordinance. But I think my my guess was the council wasn't necessarily thinking of it that way, but thinking more about an opportunity to craft an agreement in very much the manner that Sunnyvale has, right. So did were there ever discussions where you worked with the park owners to come up with terms that would be included in an MOU similar to the Sunnyvale, it doesn't have to be the same terms obviously, but was that an approach that you took when conducting that stakeholder outreach?

[04:44:40] Eric Phillips: No, um because the direction, the most recent direction from Council in March of this year was to prepare an ordinance that would have an option for an opt-out. So we took that direction to create the ordinance and that's what was presented both to residents and to park owners. That um based on that direction, the way that we understood it was that we were to create an ordinance, um but that it would have the alternative mechanism for uh to get feedback on and for Council to consider, um where a private agreement could create an opt-out from the protections of the ordinance. Um, so yeah, so so that was how we we presented it to stakeholders.

[04:45:26] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I see. And and in the stakeholder meetings that followed the January 2020 meeting, the what what was the nature of the MOU discussion with park owners then?

[04:45:37] Eric Phillips: Yeah, there it was I think more of an exploration and the the feedback was exactly similar to what we got even when we presented it the way I'm describing it now, is that park owners continue to prefer an MOU without an ordinance. Like they their preference is to go through a process where they would negotiate terms um with residents and city stakeholders and come up with an agreement and have that take the place of the ordinance all together. And we've received that feedback consistently throughout the process.

[04:46:14] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: But in in the year and 8 months, 9 months or so, no such negotiation ever occurred.

[04:46:22] Eric Phillips: Correct.

[04:46:24] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Great. Thank you very much. That's all I've got.

[04:46:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, Councilmember Matichak.

[04:46:33] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, I have a couple more questions based upon some of the discussion that's been occurring. Um, I'm curious if you know what direction the Sunnyvale City Council gave in terms of the key parameters for a rent stabilization ordinance and did they mirror the MOU or were they different than the MOU?

[04:46:59] Eric Phillips: I I actually need to double check that. I don't I don't want to speak off the cuff so I don't I don't have the answer to that at my fingertips.

[04:47:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Would would it be possible to get that tonight or is that something that you need to follow up later with?

[04:47:14] Eric Phillips: Um, might need I might need to follow up after.

[04:47:19] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: You know, I I my our our anticipation is that that it would be very similar to the MOU. And we we will verify that but it it would surprise me if if there were different materially different uh provisions in in an ordinance and and the MOU.

[04:47:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And um when we were talking about um these annual fees um and you said a study would have to be done to determine the fee per unit for mobile home parks, um what what would that study look like?

[04:48:00] Eric Phillips: Yeah, so um the city frequently will do those sorts of um fee studies to assess the cost of providing service. They would estimate the percentage of staff time that was allocated um to overseeing and administering the program, um cost associated with processing petitions and hearing officers, um and then um basically project those costs out for the the year that the program would operate and prorate them based on the the number of spaces in the program.

[04:48:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, so that sounds uh similar to what was done for the apartments. Is that correct?

[04:48:44] Eric Phillips: Yeah, the the intent would would be that it would be a a very similar structure and type of study that was prepared.

[04:48:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks. That's it for now.

[04:48:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[04:49:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I've also developed additional questions during this conversation. Um, so I'm I've become a little more curious about how the accord or the side agreements would would operate. Um, so what would be the, let's say I um enter, I'm living in a mobile home park and I enter into one of those, what would be my enforcement mechanism if I think that the um park owner is not following what we agreed to because it seems like I'm not paying the fee anymore and I don't have access to the city staff, so what do I do?

[04:49:48] Eric Phillips: Sure, so then the the private agreement would be enforced like a private agreement um in other context that the um there they would have judicial remedies basically that a a tenant or a group of tenants could uh challenge a rent increase or potentially use those terms to protect against an eviction um if the park owner were not complying with the terms of the agreement that they'd entered into. It would be more akin to like a a lease violation at that point.

[04:50:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I hire a lawyer and go to court, basically?

[04:50:26] Eric Phillips: That's correct.

[04:50:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, um, okay. And then also uh okay, that sounds scary to me. It sounds like the I might agree naively not knowing I don't get that support. I also wonder what um what happens uh over time if if more and more people do that. The fee goes up for the people, it sounds kind of like when I've done union organizing and there's that whole sort of right to work thing and everybody drops out of the union and then there's no coverage anymore. Is it is it kind of a similar scenario to that in terms of people can drop out and for the few who are remaining the fees get very high?

[04:51:18] Eric Phillips: Yes, if there were if there were fewer spaces within the program, there would be more spaces that the fee were assessed to, the administration costs would also be lower. So it's again it's not a full dollar for dollar, but um I think that that the relationship that you're assuming is correct, that um it's likely that you would see the fee assessed to the remaining spaces go up.

[04:51:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then I also as there's more and more as we've been talking about more and more sort of creative flexibility with this MOU, does that that increases the staff time evaluating those I imagine? I mean for our staff, evaluating as we as Council may increase the flexibility of the I had originally thought that the side agreement might be just like pretty much the same. But as we make it more flexible it seems like it takes more time for staff to evaluate. Is that true?

[04:52:31] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, it depends on what the changes would be. But we we really were striving to make the the review for equivalency as objectively verifiable as possible. So any flexibility that's added to that that that introduces a subjective analysis will make it more more uh time consuming for staff and uh it it's hard to say without knowing the the exact um proposal, but it it would increase the the time.

[04:53:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And possibly more expensive for me again as a mobile home owner if I'm trying to defend it.

[04:53:14] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Possibly, yes.

[04:53:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[04:53:19] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[04:53:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Sorry to have to do a second round but this conversation triggered another question. Um, so I guess I I'm uh my question is about the accord. If, you know, both parties um come to an agreement, I guess I'm trying to figure out who would um object to that that you know that we would have to put in staff time to be so precise, I guess like, you know, an accord is exactly that, it's an agreement between two parties, so if they mutually agree upon the terms, like how much of that do we really need to oversee I guess or worry about?

[04:54:04] Eric Phillips: Yeah, and I guess the concern um that we would try and guard against would be to protect parties with unequal bargaining power where tenants who might fear retaliation or be willing to make concessions due to the power imbalance that they have with with a park owner, um might give away protections that the city otherwise looks to provide for them. So um that's the that's the counter argument I guess to the, well, both parties agreed so it's it's fine. Um there could be certain rights that the city wants to make non-waivable. But ultimately that's a policy decision for the City Council to decide um how to to weigh that and how much oversight um you want the city to have in that process because what what you outlined is certainly a valid policy response and it it could be drafted that way.

[04:55:05] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So then is the difference with the Sunnyvale process the fact that it was um an accord between the city and the park owners because you know there they I've heard from folks who were part of that process including tenants, um mobile home uh residents, tenants, um you know, and they are satisfied, that's what I've heard. So, yeah, so I guess you know why would this question not come up in that process?

[04:55:38] Eric Phillips: Sure, yeah, and I think that that is the the key difference was ultimately the city decided what terms went into the MOU. They heard feedback from residents, they heard feedback from park owners, and the city didn't necessarily put in there were areas where everyone agreed, um there were areas of disagreement and in those areas of disagreement, the city made its own policy choice about what would go into the MOU. Um and so that there it wasn't left to um an individual tenant or group of tenants to negotiate with the the park owner, the city made the final determination about what policies to include in the MOU, the same way that the city ultimately decides what policies to include in in an ordinance.

[04:56:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So if we were to essentially we we could Council we could make those policy calls and do the same.

[04:56:37] Eric Phillips: Yes, for sure. That's that is the council's prerogative.

[04:56:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you.

[04:56:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thanks everyone. Are there any other questions before we get to public comment? Alright. Okay. So um thank you to staff for answering all our questions. Now well move on to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. And we will display the two-minute timer on the screen.

[04:57:23] Cory Wolbach: Good evening, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramirez, and Councilmembers. I'm speaking on behalf of Silicon Valley at Home. We support adoption tonight. I'll speak briefly to the context, the importance, and a few policy recommendations. On the context, Mountain View is an outlier in California having rent stabilization for apartment tenants but not for mobile home owners who are of course also tenants. Many voters expected mobile homes to be covered by Measure V when they approved it in 2016. And in our county alone, Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, and San Jose all have rent stabilization ordinances for mobile home parks. On the importance, mobile homes are a source of naturally affordable housing. As with any rental property, mobile home residents are vulnerable to rent spikes. And mobile home rent stabilization decreases displacement risk. A couple of policy details. We recommend against an MOU opt-out. MOUs will create additional staff burden and also additional risk and uncertainty for residents who are at a disadvantage in negotiations. We also recommend capping annual rent hikes, the AGA, either at or below CPI. San Jose and Sunnyvale have a limit of 75% of CPI or 3%, whichever is higher. Milpitas limits annual rent increases to only 50% of CPI. We recommend limiting how much a park owner can raise space rent between owners to 10% or less. This is important to prevent predatory practices that make it harder for a resident to sell when they're trying to move. We also recommend a base date of 2019 or earlier. Um, that was when the council said they wanted to make this a priority, and so of course a priority again now. Again, uh to the urgency, the most important thing uh in all these discussions is to pass this tonight. It's time. Thank you very much.

[04:59:21] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[04:59:24] Tim McKenzie: Thanks Councilors. Tim McKenzie, he him pronouns, Monta Loma neighborhood. Uh, I'm just really happy that my neighbors in mobile homes are going to have rent control protections soon. Uh, so thanks for bringing this forward, looking forward to it passing. Bye.

[04:59:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[04:59:56] Doug Johnson: Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers. This is Doug Johnson with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association. WMA is a non-profit trade association representing the owners and operators of mobile home communities throughout the state of California. WMA is firmly opposed to rent control. We believe it tears communities apart, diminishes affordable housing stock, invites costly litigation, and can rapidly deplete precious city resources. A better, fairer, and more cost-effective alternative to rent control is an MOU. Next door, the Sunnyvale City Council unanimously approved a comprehensive MOU for its mobile home parks in July. Councilmembers, park owners, park residents, city staff, professional consultants all worked together on this groundbreaking agreement that will protect mobile home park affordability and sustainability for decades. The MOU is legally binding, recorded to the land, and will be enforced by the city attorney. MOU stakeholder meetings were facilitated by the managing partner of BAE, an award-winning urban economics consulting group that has completed thousands of projects for local governments across the country. BAE provided services to the city of Mountain View in 2014. The well-known law firm of Goldfarb and Lipman provided legal services to the stakeholder group and drafted the language of the Sunnyvale MOU agreement. The MOU worked just completely in Sunnyvale could be easily and quickly replicated in Mountain View. An MOU can be tailor-made for the unique and specific needs of Mountain View's six mobile home communities, but we don't have to start from scratch or reinvent the wheel. The cities of Rancho Cucamonga and San Dimas also administer two highly successful MOUs that were both recently renewed by their city council. WMA respectfully urges the Mountain View City Council to authorize the development of an MOU and its collaborative approach, rather than impose a one-sided rent control ordinance. And I should add here that the Sunnyvale City Council has not drafted a rent control ordinance, uh, and they do not expect to since all the park owners will be signing that agreement. Thank you, and good night.

[05:02:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:02:13] Chris Cheng: Honorable City Council, one of the most compelling reasons for new regulations is to protect people from exploitative environments, especially those that the market on its own cannot correct. Unlike other rental situations where people can move if rent increases are too high, for mobile home owners, moving mobile homes are nearly impossible. If they sell, the very space rent increases that pushes the resident to sell also reduces the sell price, with neighbors I know losing much of their life savings to this double bind. The exploitative setup is the reason why mobile home parks are recommended to investors as a lucrative investment built on the premise of getting rich off the poorest residents who cannot move. For many of my neighbors with disabilities, needing wide space entries and ramps, mobile homes are often the only form of housing. For those with growing families, this is often the only way to keep families together. This is Mountain View's largest stock of homes owned by working class residents. I for one want landlords to make a profit. Their profit continues this relationship which I depend on. I believe staff's proposal exactly as presented balances providing assurances to landlords can earn a profit, all the while addressing the exploitative elements of mobile homes. We pay property tax. We own, we pay homeowners insurance. We upkeep our homes and landscaping. Most of the costs associated with being a landlord, we pay for. Nearly all the inflationary expenses, we pay for. The park faces very stable, low overhead. Rent control makes the most sense for mobile home parks. It would be tragic for a city to protect apartments and not protect systematically vulnerable mobile homes. Thank you.

[05:04:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:04:06] Tim Larson: Hi, this is Tim Larson. Um, I just wanted to add my support to everything that has been said tonight. I also know that many mobile home residents have sent in emails, uh, because they could not stay up till 10:00 to to give their voice in support of a rent stabilization ordinance. Um, I want to echo all of the comments and questions by the Council when they were exploring the topic of the MOU. Ultimately, everyone could identify problems and challenges and ways an MOU offered no additional protections, seemed to have no benefit to a mobile home resident, uh, would lead to increased fees on people who were part of the RSO. It would also cause increased workload on city staff having to evaluate uh whether an MOU was equivalent. I think trying to equal to Sunnyvale doesn't make sense. Sunnyvale doesn't have a rent stabilization ordinance. In fact, the MOU that was adopted in Sunnyvale was in part because of park owners who were able to influence the City Council in Sunnyvale to avoid the full protections that an RSO would provide. Uh, so for all of these reasons and others that have been spoken, uh obviously I am strongly in support of pursuing a rent stabilization ordinance. I know you also got an email about the long history that we have been in. I know that some of the City Council has been involved in this for going back two decades. I have been involved in it for more than six years. Uh, and I am looking forward to the City Council who support the mobile home residents and want to pursue uh protecting us tonight and moving forward. Thank you.

[05:06:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:06:14] B Liah: Hi. Um, I sent you a long, slightly long email myself, but I wanted to address one particular point that I didn't emphasize as much in the item. Um, I had a long discussion with a former Councilmember McAlister, uh, some time ago, uh, about the fact that not all landlords and our park owners in this case, uh, are equivalent. Uh, in this case we have five park owners. Uh, one of whom is able to bring in a lot more return on his investment by doing rentals. Uh, and uh that really reflects us uh even those parks that have rentals uh because that 2% um requirement and uh 2% floor uh would affect us much more than it would the other parks, um, because our owner already has a fair rate of return. Uh, other landlords may not, and should have that 2% floor. Uh, that's really why we proposed that we have a fraction of CPI uh with no floor, uh, which we feel is more fair. It's it makes sense because it's uh comparable to the Fremont, Milpitas, Concord, San Jose, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, um, that's what we would like to see. Uh, and I know that the seniors and the disabled people I know in our parks are going to see that as uh not a good um option for us. Thank you.

[05:08:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:08:15] Salim Damerdji: Hi, yeah, I'm Salim. Uh, I'm really glad to see the council act on this. It's been an issue for a while. Um, it doesn't make sense to have a two-tiered rent stabilization system. Uh, people who live in mobile homes are often, you know, in greater levels of economic exploitation with this relationship. Um, so I'm excited to see the council act on this. Thank you.

[05:08:46] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:08:48] Kevin Ma: Good evening Council, my name is Kevin Ma. I'm representing Mountain View YIMBY. Our attendance, one of our tenants is to increase housing stability, and mobile home residents are a particularly vulnerable community. From the 2020 Mobile Home Park Resident Survey Insights, 48% of respondents rely on fixed income, and 49% of them make less than 50K. And that's compared to 17% of the city overall. We are pleased to see the City Attorney has taken input from residents and owners of sites so that renters are included. For renters in the mobile home parks who are actually excluded from many of the state tenant protection topics that were going on in previous years, only getting some this year, of which the mobile home park resorted to sending a threatening letter pulling out their side of the agreement for their you know pseudo accord. We additionally concur with the points brought up by the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliances letter on the second. Given that the CPI is tied to inflation, but fixed income as in Social Security COLA does not grow as fast as inflation, especially these days. So that we are in danger of losing residents because of the mismatch in these percentage increases. We additionally support shifting the base date, given that mobile home dispatch protection subject has been discussed as early as 2017, and much like AB 1482's weird period between enactment and enforcement in 2019, for every city that wasn't Mountain View, we saw a lot of landlords decide to race for the clock and just raise rents as high as they could before the deadline. So that was the danger that mobile home residents had in this time while we keep discussing it in RC and City Council and courts, that you know in the meantime, the charges go up. We agree with staff recommendation that to remove the exemption on voluntary accords. The RHC is an experienced body that can handle these things, and you know in other cities, it's basically just a private action, and we all know how legal aid is very tied. Thank you.

[05:10:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[05:10:55] Alex Brown: You really don't need to hear from me again, but since I'm here. Uh, first, thank you. Also, took you long enough. Uh, second best time to plant a tree and all that jazz. Uh, special thanks to Eric, Krishan, and Artie, uh, and anyone else who worked on the ordinance. It was very nice. Not too many changes I'd like to see. I'd love to have a lower AGA to accommodate the needs of our residents on fixed incomes. I'd also like to see proper vacancy control to maintain affordability of the parks as a whole and the equity of homeowners. The higher the vacancy control adjustment, the more incentive the park owners have to incentivize turnover, and the less power individuals have to sell their homes. March of this year will fail to catch many rent increases implemented in the last few years while the city has been exploring rent control. We started organizing in 2015 and first came to council asking for this in 2016. I think the accord loophole just adds complexity and spends staff time without adding value to either homeowners, renters, or park owners. At best, it would lead to individuals being forced into private arbitration or litigation instead of being able to avail themselves of the city's robust existing programs and services. It's not even what the park owners are asking for. Finally, I'd like to ask that you ensure that fees are not able to be passed on to the renters. The point of this ordinance is to balance scales that are right now tilted very much in favor of park owners. If they're unable to competently manage their parks such that they can afford to run them and pay their fair share, the petition process will be there to help them out. But on the whole, I like the ordinance and would like to see it passed tonight with a second reading in two weeks. Then we can move on to additional anti-displacement protections to ensure the safety and security of my neighbors now that they don't have to stress out as much about potentially being priced out. And uh, I yeah I've got time. Having followed Sunnyvale's residents' attempts to get rent control, I know how disappointed many of them are in the MOU and how painful the process really was, unlike how the lobbyists and managers are presenting it. I really wish we were doing this in person so I could do a celebratory lap at the end of tonight's meeting. And I almost used up all my time. Damn. Uh, alright, thanks.

[05:12:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thanks Alex.

[05:12:55] Frank Kalsick: Good evening honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers. The issue before you this evening is an extraordinarily complicated matter. Only illustrated by the number of half truths I've heard. Using the mechanism of a rent control ordinance as a form of community stability is a failed approach. Dressing up an old concept with new packaging and referring to it as a rent stabilization ordinance doesn't make it any less regressive. Rent control is a single-sided process that places no value on relationships, no value on communication, or any value on peaceful living or quality of life. It cannot take into account the character of a community, and it cannot produce an environment for long-term decision making. Rent control is a punitive process that only serves as a wedge, or a line in the sand, reinforcing an 'us and them' viewpoint. I would purport enough of that tonight. We have enough of this in medium politics. I think Mountain View can do better. If stability and long-term viability are the council's goals for Mountain View mobile home communities, I urge the council to refocus your efforts in a more positive way. The City of Sunnyvale has recently faced similar issues and their approach has been far more progressive, and in the end, created a very successful outcome. Our neighboring city was able to bring residents and community owners together with the guidance of city selected consultants to produce an MOU within 7 months. The MOU is an enforceable stabilization agreement that outlines all of the critical elements found in a rent control ordinance but does so in a way that is transparent at the outset and promotes greater understanding from all perspectives. By being comprehensive, the MOU removes the adversarial and legal filled process inherent in rent control. Gone are vague adjustments, gone are fair rate of return filings and lawsuits, also gone would be the million dollar annual administration budget needed to support rent control. That is nearly $1500

Segment 8

[05:15:00] Public Speaker: $74 per month for each and every parking space.

[05:15:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sorry about that, that's time. Thank you. Yoho?

[05:15:16] Yoho: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Yoho. Pronouns, they and them. I'm a member of Silicon Valley DSA. A robust rent stabilization ordinance for mobile home residents in Mountain View is necessary and overdue. I urge you to pass such an ordinance, crafted to meet the needs of current residents including residents on a fixed income, without obvious loopholes like the MOU option. Thank you.

[05:15:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right. That concludes public comment. So I'll now bring the... Oh, we have one more. Sorry about that. Okay. Anna Marie?

[05:15:57] Anna Marie: Hi, yes, thank you. Um, hi, I'm Anna Marie, she/her. I'd really like to thank council members and city staff for all of the hard work that has gone into protecting the vulnerable mobile home community. Tonight I'm speaking on behalf of myself and my senior disabled mother. It's been a long road to get us here, and I am very hopeful that a mobile home rent ordinance will be passed tonight. Please do not implement an MOU opt-out. It will put many mobile home residents at a disadvantage. Also, some sort of emergency displacement protections must be put in place, especially in light of the threatening letters that have been received by Sahara and Santiago Villa residents. Many of my neighbors are scared. It is clear that an ordinance is needed to provide real and lasting protections, and I urge council members to act on that tonight. Thank you so much for your time, and I look forward to seeing this ordinance pass tonight. Take care.

[05:16:57] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay, last call for public comment. Okay. All right, so I'm gonna close public comment and bring it back to the council for deliberation and action. And if, prior to a motion, any council member would like to discuss specific aspects of the ordinance, staff will display the slides containing the ordinance's proposed policies and framework so they may be referred to during the discussion. I'll also note that a motion to approve the recommendation should include a reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report. So, Eric, did you want to pull up that slide, maybe? City Attorney Chopra, I see your hand up.

[05:17:52] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I just wanted to take this opportunity. I did have a follow-up answer for Councilmember Matichak's question about how many requests have there been, individual adjustments have there been, how many have been approved, how many denied. We did find the question, six in the council questions which I know came out late today, but I can just read quickly the answer. Since November 2017, 17 MNOI rent increase petitions have been filed with the city. 11 were awarded an increase, one was denied, three were withdrawn by the petitioner. One was not accepted by the city due to code violations on the property. And one is in the hearing process and on hold as of July 2021. I just wanted to provide that answer.

[05:18:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. And I see Councilmember Matichak with her hand up, so I'm gonna, Councilmember Matichak, since this is in response to your question, I'll just go to you.

[05:18:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, so I had a, I think I had more of a follow-up question on that, and that was of the increases that were allowed, how many of those were for 100% of what was asked versus just a portion of what was asked for? And I don't know if you have that data.

[05:19:14] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, apologies for not zeroing in on that. We will try to get you that answer. I didn't have that data from the answer I was given, but we'll find that for you.

[05:19:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you.

[05:19:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. And then Councilmember Matichak, I saw your hand, so why don't we just start with you and then we'll go... I know we have many hands up right now, so...

[05:19:38] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, I appreciate the more robust conversation that and questions that we've had tonight. I feel like it's more than we've often had on this topic. And for me, I would like to find a solution that addresses the concerns of residents of mobile home parks and also one that's acceptable to the park owners. And I would also like to find one that the seven of us can agree to. And I'm hopeful about that. I think the CSFRA is still somewhat controversial and has been somewhat divisive in the community. And it has created at times a lot of angst for both renters as well as landlords, especially when you talk about the petition process, where you're sort of pitting one party against the other. And, you know, I just, I don't think that's a good way to approach this, and I don't think it's good for our community to continue that. It really, you know, can create a lot of ill will. I'd rather have something that parties can agree to, something that's less contentious than that, and there's fewer opportunities for disagreement. And frankly, I'd also like to find a way to reduce administrative fees and lower the chance of litigation. And I think we do have that opportunity tonight. While there is no perfect solution, I think people have to accept that nothing we come up with is gonna be perfect for all parties, and that everyone has to do a little bit of compromising. I think there's pros and cons to rent stabilization, and there's pros and cons to an MOU. And I don't think the two are comparable. And I don't think it's fair to just look at a few aspects of the agreements and compare those, because I think there are pros and cons of the different aspects of an MOU versus a rent stabilization ordinance. I actually do think what Sunnyvale did is interesting to me. And I am under the impression that their council directed staff to create the rent stabilization ordinance for those park members, sorry, park owners who have not signed the MOU. And so they would have both. I thought it was interesting to hear the statistics or the data about, you know, some cities have one, some cities have just the other, and some cities have both. And from my perspective, I'm thinking both. But I am not thinking the MOU as proposed in the, tonight here by staff. I'm thinking more the Sunnyvale approach to the MOU. And while I think it would be great to sort of start in with the mobile home park owners in Mountain View to hammer out an MOU, I also appreciate that we want to move quickly. And while we could probably get an MOU together faster than Sunnyvale did because we could leverage a lot of the work they've done... As was mentioned, you know, there was consultants, there were attorneys, actually the same attorney that supports our Rental Housing Committee. And there was a lot of thought that went into that. And so we would have a head start, I guess I would say. And I think they did theirs in seven months. Maybe we could do it in half the time. But then again, there's also just the option of saying we're gonna go with the Sunnyvale MOU and have that as the option to our rent stabilization ordinance. I also think that, you know, there's lots of opportunities to tweak what's been proposed, and I'm kind of reluctant to do that in terms of like the different elements of the rent stabilization ordinance or the Sunnyvale MOU. You know, we're not experts on this. We have experts that we rely on. And I'm concerned that if we tweak one thing, we don't necessarily know the impact on something else. And we often say, you know, those unintended consequences, I'm a little bit nervous about ending up with some of those. So I feel like I'm ready to get the ball rolling and have the discussion. And I would move that we adopt the rent stabilization ordinance that staff has proposed, but the exception is the Sunnyvale MOU. And I would also say that for the MOU, it would also apply to renters of mobile homes. Ones they don't own, because that's a group that is not covered by the Sunnyvale MOU. Whereas I think we do want to cover folks who are renting mobile homes. So that would be where I propose we start and that's my motion.

[05:26:08] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you, Councilmember Matichak. So just to recap, Councilmember Matichak is putting forward a motion which includes the staff recommendation for the rent stabilization ordinance and includes the exemption modeled after the Sunnyvale MOU and would also apply to the renters of the mobile home units. Okay, so we have a motion. All right, so I'll move on to Councilmember Showalter.

[05:26:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, first of all, I really want to commend the staff and all the people who have been working on this. This is a tremendous amount of work that's been going on. Our community's been asking for it for many years. And we have a system that works, the CSFRA. And I think that initially it got off to sort of a rocky start. But over the last few years, they are really running smoothly. So it is logical that we build this mobile home protection into the system that we already have. It makes good sense. And the community has supported that system two times at the ballot box. We don't have too many things in Mountain View we can say that about. But we can say that about our CSFRA. People supported it. So I would like, and I think the other thing is we've heard again and again is that this MOU really that is suggested, it's questionable. It's questionable the kind of protection it would provide because of who enforces it. We want to be fair and we want to protect our most vulnerable citizens. And I think that providing this MOU is potentially providing kind of a second tier of protection that just isn't as good. Having to hire your own attorney and go to court is just not as good as being able to file a petition with the rent control board. It's just much more difficult, or go to Project Sentinel and get counseling. It's just not as good. So I am gonna ask for a little assistance from the city attorney to make a motion. I would like to move the staff recommendation which is for the ordinance, the city of Mountain View enacting mobile home rent stabilization, but I would like it to be that ordinance without the MOU provision that is included in attachment one. So, can you help me with that wording?

[05:29:26] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, it's possible to just delete the MOU exemption section. The motion you made would cover that, and we can take care of that by editing the ordinance to remove that section altogether.

[05:29:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you. That's my motion.

[05:29:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so I just need a point of clarity. So, City Attorney Chopra, we have a motion by Councilmember Matichak, then we had a motion by Councilmember Showalter. I was giving the opportunity to see if there was a second. It sounds like there's a separate motion. So...

[05:30:09] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Go ahead.

[05:30:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, so I just need a procedural point of order before we go forward.

[05:30:13] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, the Councilmember Matichak's motion is still on the floor, and you could see if there is a second for that. I will say that it may take us time to evaluate whether that's viable to have the Sunnyvale alternative. We haven't fully evaluated that MOU in detail, so we can see if there is a second for that initial motion.

[05:31:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I see Councilmember Abe-Koga's hand up, I believe that's going to be the second. So we have a motion by Councilmember Matichak, seconded by Councilmember Abe-Koga. But then will we need a substitute motion then? Can you just provide a point of clarity, please?

[05:31:19] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, if I could just have one minute to evaluate the procedure for the substitute motion, I will get you some clarity on that in one second.

[05:31:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. So colleagues, we'll give City Attorney Chopra a minute to get back to us. Okay. Thanks everyone for your patience.

[05:33:24] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Thank you, council members. I apologize for that delay. I wanted to make sure I evaluated this correctly. The motion by Councilmember Showalter is treated as a substitute motion, even though there is a second, I believe, coming in from Councilmember Abe-Koga on Councilmember Matichak's motion. So the substitute motion now, if that has a second, that would be disposed of first.

[05:34:30] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I'm seeing lots of hands raised. So everyone, if we could just take a beat. So let me give City Attorney Chopra a second. So just to recap, I think from what I'm hearing is there was a motion by Councilmember Matichak. It was seconded by Councilmember Abe-Koga. Councilmember Showalter made a substitute motion, which will override the existing motion. So right now we need to talk about if there's a second for the substitute motion from Councilmember Showalter.

[05:35:03] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Correct.

[05:35:04] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Okay. I just wanted to do a point of order because hands were flying both manually and physically.

[05:35:10] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, I'm glad you did. And I'm sorry for the delay in getting you an answer on that. I just wanted to get it right. So.

[05:35:16] Mayor Ellen Kamei: No problem. It's the unique challenges of being in a Zoom world. So appreciate everyone's patience 'cause I see you, but I'm trying to make sure that we understand what's going on, as well as the public viewing at home. Wonderful. Okay, so the next person that I have is Councilmember Hicks.

[05:35:34] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I second that motion.

[05:35:37] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. That would be Pat's motion, in case that's not clear.

[05:35:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: It's clear.

[05:35:45] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter, your hand is still up, are you good? Okay. And Councilmember Hicks, you're the second. Councilmember Lieber.

[05:35:53] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I actually made really extra double sure to be the first person with my hand up after public comment was closed, so that clearly didn't work so well. But, you know, this has been a really long time coming. And I think it is important that we get it done tonight, and that we get it done in the right way. There are things that I can agree with and things that I really don't agree with but can accept that are in the staff recommendation. I think that I would put in that column the idea of an MOU. There is just a very great power differential here. And the power is entirely slanted towards the park owners and away from the residents of the park, some of whom, many of whom have the largest investment in their lives in an asset that someone else controls. I also from the discussion earlier can count to four. And I can say that it is extremely unlikely that something will pass tonight that doesn't have an MOU as part of it. And so what I would like to see, and I don't know if it would add much to the discussion to do it as a motion at this point, would be to adopt staff's recommendation and to direct staff to prepare additional measures for council to consider on an urgency basis. One, to protect our community members from eviction until the effective date of an ordinance. Two, to amend the TRAO process to provide for needed relocation assistance to mobile home residents who are evicted without fault. And three, to provide for a right to return if units that have been removed from the market are brought back to the market. And I think that those are all conditions that are very reasonable. And I want to thank staff for everything that they've been through. It's kind of overwhelming. This is definitely the policy process that has sucked all the oxygen out of the room over the past months. And the community members who have had such an impact on their lives from this. And you know, this really has been under discussion for over 20 years. And that's why I think we need to come out of tonight's process with a product, because all of the sides involved in this discussion need some kind of solid ground to stand on, even if it's not exactly what they wanted. And so I know that Councilmember Showalter's motion has a second. I was trying to second it myself for purposes of discussion, but I would like to really ask her and ask the maker of the second if they would accept adopting staff's recommendation as a product that is, you know, hard fought out, maybe not optimum for all of us, and to add those three protections that are so critical for our community members right now. They are the ones that are vulnerable. And we can't progress to a vote on that motion. I can say with just about 100% clarity that it's not gonna pass. And I would like to see if we can not be in danger of the primary motion that was on the floor passing. Because I think that that would be much more deleterious to the community members that we are trying to help. It is fair to give people the protections that have been approved by the voters now twice overwhelmingly. Overwhelmingly the voters that elected us have voted for the content of our rent control. And many, many people that I talked to when those votes were on the ballot believed that it would apply to mobile homes in our community too. It only makes sense. And so it's time tonight, and I don't want us to stay in a posture of stuckness. So I'd like to ask the maker and seconder of the secondary motion to please amend your motion to go with the staff recommendation, as much as it's not what I like or what you like, and to add three vital protections for our community.

[05:42:34] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, before we... I'm sorry, Councilmember Showalter, I see Vice Mayor Ramirez has his hand up, so I'll go to him and then I'll go to you. Sorry, I try to as best as I can manage it on the screen.

[05:42:49] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And I don't envy you. This is a tough subject and I am actually a little confused about what's happening. So I'll just share some thoughts about several of the policy items under consideration. I'm actually not comfortable with the staff recommendation for a variety of reasons. And I'll do my best to be coherent and structured in what I say so that way everybody can follow along, because I'm struggling personally. So first, I do think that there are some tweaks to the, what I'll call the top-line numbers that I would like to see. For instance, I'm open to modifying the AGA. I think we have to be nuanced in our evaluation because, you know, I live in a rent-controlled unit. I think the CSFRA has largely worked, as Councilmember Showalter had alluded to, there have been some challenges, but by and large, it's been protective. I've never had to deal with a petition for an upward adjustment of rent. I think that CPI seems to be working quite well for people who live in apartments. But maybe we have to be a little bit more nuanced and thoughtful because folks who own mobile homes and rent the space have a different set of considerations. There's an equity component that I don't have to contend with because I don't own anything associated with the apartment complex I live in. I'm also open to an earlier base date in the briefing that the city attorney had provided. We talked a lot about this. I'm actually quite comfortable with, I don't remember what the precise date is, but June 2019, when the council added to its work plan consideration of mobile home protections. I couldn't support anything earlier than that. But I think that is a very strong indication to community owners that we're going to implement a regulation. And an unscrupulous owner may decide to use that as an opportunity to raise rents unreasonably in anticipation of an action by the council. I think it's interesting that the October 2015 date that the CSFRA uses as a base date is actually the date that the city council at the time decided not to pursue rent control. I think Councilmember Showalter was the only member of the council who was on the council at that time. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it's interesting that that was a defensible date when the council had said explicitly, 'No, we're not comfortable with this route.' So the fact that that's defensible and the fact that June 2019 is when the council said we want to consider regulations tells me that that is a fairly reasonable date and I think could address any, you know, unscrupulous action taken by an owner who I think was trying to get ahead of a regulation. And then I'm also open to looking at the vacancy control rate. I think that's another tricky one. 10% feels a little high. I don't know what vacancy rent increases or rent increases imposed when a vacancy occurs has looked like. But I think we all are sensitive again to the equity that a homeowner has and the impact that a rent increase on the space rent could have on that equity. And the math is more complex than I can understand, but I do feel that 10% seems a little high, where, you know, again with apartment rent control, vacancy decontrol is essential because that's the way we can ensure that an apartment owner is able to get rents back up to market. So I think those are some considerations that we should be thoughtful about. I don't have, aside from the base date, I don't really have good ideas for the others. I'm open to your considerations. I'm really struggling with the MOU concept. And here's where I'm landing on that. I think the MOU works when it's truly voluntary. And I think we dropped the ball when we didn't begin the negotiations in the manner that Sunnyvale had. I think the Sunnyvale MOU actually looks pretty darn good. But it's built on thought and negotiation and considerations that the Sunnyvale community owners and residents, stakeholders, the city worked together to form. And it may not necessarily make sense for our park owners. The only park owner in Mountain View who participated in the Sunnyvale discussion is also the only park owner in Sunnyvale who has not signed on. At least that's the information I've gotten from a couple of Sunnyvale council members as of today. So that tells me that our considerations may be a little bit different. I think the Sunnyvale MOU is very thoughtfully structured and probably essential to make the math work for park operations in Sunnyvale, but it doesn't include the input that I would like to see from Mountain View community owners. So I want to be thoughtful about how we craft terms that actually make sense for community owners here. And then I also feel uncomfortable imposing what is supposed to be a voluntary agreement on community owners and residents. And so I think that if there is an MOU exemption, we have to be really thoughtful about how do we ensure that it's actually a voluntary one that would include terms that make sense to keep a community operational and also provide meaningful protections for the residents. And one of the ideas that I think would be interesting to explore is where, what are possible protections that an MOU uniquely can deliver that no matter how strong our ordinance is, we are incapable of delivering. And the one protection I could think of that that would again be interesting to explore is, we can't prohibit a community owner or a landlord, a rental property owner, from exiting the market. The Ellis Act provides for an allowance to exit because they don't want to keep in business, right? That's something an MOU could provide, you know, a protection against. Although somebody did ask me the question, well, what happens if a park is financially unfeasible and not able to remain in operation within the timeframe of the MOU? I don't have a good answer to that. So I think that's another thing that we would want to consider. So I didn't mean to confuse things further. I think what I mean to say is the staff recommendation is not sufficient for me. I do think that sort of the three topline things are important to explore. I think if there are satisfactory answers to the MOU concerns, I'd love to hear them, but right now I'm very uncomfortable with imposing an MOU involuntarily onto owners who did not have any input on that, on the terms, and potentially on tenants. Depending on how exactly this works in practice. Mr. Phillips had I think said that there was some uncertainty about the hypothetical situation I asked about in the questions. If we could address for that, then that would be very helpful too. So I'll stop there. I'd love to hear other thoughts. I didn't mean for this conversation to go on much longer than it already has, but those are some of the things I'm looking for.

[05:51:28] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So I'd like to go to Councilmember Showalter as the substitute motion maker, which is the motion that is on the floor now. And then Councilmember Lieber, I may need some help. I tried to take notes and need you to clarify the three items that you added. So it sounded like Councilmember Showalter's original motion was the staff recommendation without an exemption, that was Councilmember Showalter's original recommendation, staff recommendation, no exemption. And then the friendly amendments we're hearing from Councilmember Lieber are to include emergency protections, eviction protections, amend the TRAO process, and provide the right of return to units that are brought back into the market. Did I get that right? Okay, I see a thumbs up. Okay, good. I try to keep it all straight. Okay, Councilmember Showalter, your response to these friendly amendments?

[05:52:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, my question is to the attorneys. So, if...

[05:52:41] Mayor Ellen Kamei: So you're a yes? Councilmember Hicks, are you a yes to the friendly amendments?

[05:52:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Is it okay if I ask a question to the attorney first before I make my answer?

[05:52:53] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Sure. But I need to see if Councilmember Hicks seconds the amendments. And then you can ask your question.

[05:53:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The amendment has to be seconded as well?

[05:53:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah.

[05:53:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so it's the TRAO, the eviction moratorium, and the vacancy control, yes. I accept those.

[05:53:11] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Okay, Councilmember Hicks, back to you... or sorry, Councilmember Showalter, back to you.

[05:53:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, my question is about timing. City Attorney Chopra or Mr. Phillips, if we were to add those three things, would you be able to, would we be able to pass it tonight? And then have the second reading on the 28th?

[05:53:39] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: You know, there are some different things at play. The most immediate concern would be the eviction protections before the effective date of the ordinance. And the timing for the ordinance would be, assuming an ordinance passes tonight, there's a second reading on September 28th. And then for a regular ordinance such as this, it goes into effect 30 days after, which would be October 28th. The emergency protections could come back on September 28th, and they would cover the period from the second reading until the ordinance goes into effect on the 28th, so for a short period of time, that window where the ordinance is not in effect, that could be done. The amendments to the TRAO as we discussed earlier in the evening, the Community Development Department is would need time to bring that back, and our office as well. And I believe in the council questions we said that the soonest we could bring that back would be Q1 or Q2 because that's gonna be part of a more comprehensive effort to amend the TRAO. And then finally, with the right of tenants to return, I think we would have to find out where where that would live. I might look to Eric for some guidance on that, if that would be where where that regulation would live and how what the timing would be on on that.

[05:55:15] Eric Phillips: It would potentially be either something that would be an amendment and could be added in to this ordinance if it were adopted, or there could be a standalone ordinance, and it could apply more broadly also to, like for example, apartment rental units that were removed from the market. So, ultimately, it would depend on the scope of the the protections that council directs to be included. But yeah, I don't know that I can make commitments on behalf of staff in terms of when we would be able to deliver that task.

[05:55:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, then just to just to summarize what this my understanding would this would mean is, we would pass the ordinance tonight as we discussed. But, and then you would come back to us on September 28th with the emergency eviction protection. Then the TRAO could be done in the winter, I think you said Q1 or Q2 '22, and then the right of return could be done as a future amendment. Is that what you're telling me?

[05:56:33] Eric Phillips: That's all correct, yes.

[05:56:35] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, that's fine. Is that fine with everybody? Sally and Alison, that's fine. Yes, I accept that.

[05:56:48] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, anything else, Councilmember Showalter? You good? Okay. Councilmember Hicks.

[05:56:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Didn't Councilmember Lieber also add that she wanted the whether we would accept putting the voluntary accord back in? Did I mishear that? That's what I thought she said the majority of people she thought wanted a voluntary accord of some sort, so she put that back in.

[05:57:19] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes, that's part of it.

[05:57:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, great. So I understand that.

[05:57:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Wait, I want to clarify that. I did 'cause 'cause Councilmember Showalter's original motion did not include it. So now it's back in?

[05:57:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I am I am accepting the friendly amendment, and that was part of the friendly amendment. Before I wanted to do that, I wanted to clarify with the attorney about the timeline for those three other things, but we've done that, so yes, I'm satisfied.

[05:57:49] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so let's before we go forward, I just wanna make sure we all understand. So it is the staff recommendation related to the ordinance for including the voluntary exemption... voluntary exemption. And we're including the three items that we just reviewed, which are the eviction moratorium, amend the TRAO process, and the right of return. So now that that is the current motion that is on the table. Yes. Okay, perfectly. Councilmember Hicks, was that your question? You just wanted to further clarify or did you have more to add? It sounds like you just wanted to verify that that all of the amendments that Councilmember Lieber had made were acknowledged because I wasn't sure that they were.

[05:58:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And so our Councilmember Showalter and Councilmember Hicks are fine with those friendly amendments from Councilmember Lieber. Got it. Okay. And those are, I guess I would say four things that are now in. Okay. Okay, Councilmember Matichak and then Councilmember Lieber.

[05:59:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. So, my concern with the exemption that's in the staff recommendation is that it does place the burden on the mobile home residents to do the enforcement of the MOU, and as Councilmember Hicks said, you mean they have to hire an attorney, and it's like, yeah, which is why that's not the type of MOU that I was thinking when we first started talking about this. So the Sunnyvale model puts the burden on the city. And, you know, I think it's one MOU that the city has evaluated that park owners have the option of using versus the rent stabilization ordinance, but it's the agreement between the city and the park owners.

Segment 9

[06:00:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And so the burden is not on the residents in mobile home parks, which is why I think that's an advantage of the Sunnyvale model. And I certainly think there are some things that are added protections in the MOU versus the RSO. You know, while some of the numbers, like 75% -- I'm sorry, 2% max for rent control versus 3% max for the MOU. There's other things like the MOU has a covenant on the property, and it's an agreement to stay in business for 20 years. And I think that provides a level of assurance to folks living in mobile home parks and kind of takes away the threat that we've heard about 'I'm going out of business.' Well, they're agreeing to stay in business for a long period of time.

[06:00:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I actually am okay with the three additions that Councilmember Lieber proposed and would modify the original motion to include those. I should have done that originally because I think they make a lot of sense. But the current -- the substitute motion, I think really concerns me because of the way the MOU has been proposed, and I can't support that. Thanks.

[06:01:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Lieber.

[06:01:54] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I obviously very much appreciate the comity shown by Councilmember Showalter and Councilmember Hicks as the makers and seconders. And I'm hopeful that other council members will join this -- join in with us. I don't think that this is set in stone. And I think that possibly a way to give some consideration to that would be to schedule a review of the MOU process. And I also wanted to show support for the Vice Mayor's comments in reference to June of 2019.

[06:02:51] Councilmember Sally Lieber: But I think that we have to come out with a product tonight, just because our community members have really been on tenterhooks around what is going to happen. And I know that the park owners -- the MOU that we have and the staff recommendation may not be perfect. But if it's a choice between just the CSFRA and paying the fee, and an agreement, a private agreement with their community members where they do not pay a fee, they're going to run all the way to City Hall to get that going. And that is going to be very motivational to not have money going out the door for a fee. But I think the biggest thing to me is making progress on this tonight, because this has really taken over people's lives within the parks. And many of the people who have been the most impacted by it are seniors and people with disabilities. And we just need some solid ground to stand on for right now. And then we can always come back and make changes and adjustments. So I'd like to ask our other council members to join us in this one.

[06:04:35] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[06:04:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate all the comments of my colleagues, and I appreciate the attempts for us to come up with some consensus. I support that attempt. I think we really do need to make some decisions and move forward. I supported Councilmember Matichak's motion because, one, I looked at the Sunnyvale MOU, and I thought it was actually much simpler and that it eliminates this having to go through the hearing process for our Vega adjustment and fair return, which has been, I think, what's complicated a lot of the issues with our CSFRA. And which is not perfect, and I think we all, most of us who have been on council for the last several years, have seen the challenges and the impediments of CSFRA, especially when it comes to things like seismic retrofits. So, you know, I want something that's actually improved, and so I think, frankly, it would take more time to do that. I think what staff has brought forward is pretty good.

[06:06:09] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: But the other issue, and this is what the Vice Mayor brought up too, in a perfect world, I wish we could rewind time and go back to the beginning and do what Sunnyvale did and bringing everyone together to come up with an accord that, you know, maybe it's not perfect for them either, but seems like I was told by one of the tenants, mobile home tenants who was on the committee, they spent 300 hours. But you know, overall, maybe they didn't get everything, but they were pretty satisfied. And it was collaborative. What I've seen over the years here, unfortunately, this issue has been divisive. And I really want us to go in a different direction of collaboration. And so that is absolutely where, and you know, I appreciate the substitute motion including the voluntary accord. I could support that as long as we can flesh out more flexibility. I don't see if it's just going to follow the ordinance, I don't see a whole lot of benefit to it. But you know, this is where I thought having heard from the various emails we got, you know, those who might want a lower monthly rent, maybe they can give somewhere else and vice versa. And that would be a way for both parties to work together to see if they can come up with something that they could agree upon. And that's what I'm really looking for is us going back to a place where we could talk things out and learn, you know, go back to I think the Mountain View way, which was collaboration and compromise.

[06:08:00] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I could support this motion if we could have, and you know, and I appreciate Councilmember Lieber's comment about revisiting it. But, and I, you know, I guess I'll ask the City Attorney about this, rather than revisiting it, could we flesh out the details of the parameters of a compact or accord, what that could look like? And then, and what I would look for is just guardrails or, you know, I don't want to set exactly, even with the CSFRA and what we have here, the two to five percent, like I don't necessarily want to set those, we could put a cap perhaps, but those are the areas where I would like to see some flexibility so folks, the parties can work things out. But is that something we could do where we could bring this back to flesh out the parameters of what a compact or accord could look like?

[06:09:04] Eric Phillips: One way to potentially amend that right now, the way the ordinance is structured, the accord is defined as a written agreement between the park owner and the tenants who live there. But that could be amended to be an agreement between the park owner and the city. And then the exemption that's in section 46.4D, which currently defines the parameters, one way to handle it could be that that could be replaced that to qualify for the exemption, the accord must be in a form approved by the City Council. And that would give you further opportunity to define a process for what would go in an accord, set those guardrails and decide what you wanted to enter into while still moving forward on this ordinance and defining what, leaving the place for the exemption once an accord were in place, and giving yourselves the authority to adopt the accord that would satisfy that at a future date. In the meantime, there wouldn't be that exemption, but it would allow the ordinance to go forward.

[06:10:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, and then, City Attorney, how soon do you think we could bring this back to flesh out the accord?

[06:10:35] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, I think that was gonna be my -- obviously gonna jump in and provide some comments on timing. You know, I think it would, it would take some time. I would like to be realistic. I think it would probably be in the same time frame as the TREO Q1 really at the earliest. I don't think it's something we would want to rush if council wants a careful look at the parameters and guardrails of that MOU. And assuming that council wants to make the change to have the agreement be between the city and the park owner, I would just want to be realistic. I think it would be Q1 would be realistic in my mind.

[06:11:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Would the maker of the motion and the seconder be willing to accept that friendly amendment of coming back to flesh out the details of the parameters of the accord, the voluntary accord?

[06:11:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, Pat, as the maker, do you go first? Because I'm willing to reply.

[06:11:51] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yeah, Councilmember Showalter.

[06:11:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I mean, we could, we could draw this out for the next two decades by coming back with, you know, one thing after another. I personally think it normally works better to have something work for a while and then evaluate how that's functioning, and then, you know, and then make a change. To me, we're not going to have that experience in two months. It would be better to have a review of the situation, I think, in a year. But you know, I don't know what other people feel about it. I don't think that this is a particularly helpful -- I don't see that as workable, based on my experience in watching government processes work. I mean, you can theorize things for a long, long time, but there's always unintended consequences and things that don't work quite the way you thought they should, that you need to come back and review them. So I think that is actually more effective. But if it's what we need to do to get it passed tonight, I mean, I guess, you know, we could do that.

[06:13:20] Councilmember Pat Showalter: The other thing I would like to bring up is, you know, the lack of collaboration. I really have been impressed with the collaboration between the mobile home parks. I mean, at the beginning of 2016, when the rent control discussion blew up in Mountain View, the mobile home parks were, you know, were not talking to each other at all. They didn't see each other as, you know, a group that they had a lot in common. And since then, the Mobile Park, the Mobile Home Tenants Association has gotten to be a very cohesive group that brings people together and provides information and, you know, so there's been a lot of collaboration in that community that didn't exist before. So I just want to, you know, I want to bring that up as something that has, you know, has been good and, and healthy. So to say that we haven't had any collaboration on this, I don't think that's, that's not how I see it at all. But I'm seeing a lot of nodding heads for saying we want to go ahead this way, and we do want to get it done tonight. I mean, I really think it's time to get these protections. So let's, let's do it and let's call for the question.

[06:14:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so as the seconder... Yeah, so what I heard was a reluctant yes, and then I'll make, I'll allow it as well so that we can get through tonight.

[06:14:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. So, it sounds like Councilmember Abe-Koga's friendly amendment was also accepted by our motion maker, Councilmember Showalter, and Councilmember Hicks. So now our motion incorporates our friendly amendments from Councilmember Lieber and Councilmember Abe-Koga. Yes, City Attorney Chopra.

[06:15:19] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, I just, I want to allow the other council members to continue speaking, but I just want to make sure that we build in a pause before any vote so I can read back into the record exactly what the motion is. And I know you have a very accurate tracking of it, but we need to be very clear about what exactly the motion is.

[06:15:39] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. I wouldn't do that to you, Krishan. Don't worry. Okay, so I see Vice Mayor Ramirez and then Councilmember Matichak.

[06:15:48] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And actually, I apologize because I was going to seek clarification on the motion on the floor since I'm a little confused. And depending on what that motion is, I may ask for a few amendments. So would it be possible to summarize the motion so far?

[06:16:09] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Sure, I can, I can do that. We have a motion by Councilmember Showalter, which was seconded by Councilmember Hicks, and incorporates a friendly amendment from Councilmember Lieber for the staff recommendation, meaning the ordinance as drafted with the MOU provision in it with an additional three bring back items: an eviction protection to cover the period of time from the second reading till the effective date of the ordinance on October 28th, a bring back of TREO protections for mobile home residents, which will be brought back in Q1 or Q2 of 2022, and also a first right of refusal for units which are taken off the market to be re-offered to the tenants, and that would be brought back likely in Q1 as well when there's time, probably synchronized with the TREO efforts. An additional friendly amendment from Councilmember Abe-Koga to amend the MOU provision to be an accord between the city and the park owners, and that would be the exemption would only apply if the accord reached was in a, that is, a council action coming to council in Q1 with a model accord, so to speak, which would be approved by council then. So I believe that captures it, but please, Eric or Mayor, jump in if I missed anything.

[06:18:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: You have a thumbs up, I think, from both of us. I think you captured it. Okay. All right, Vice Mayor, is the motion clearer now to you?

[06:18:13] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes it is. Thank you for clarifying. I would like to ask the maker for three amendments. The first is, I looked up the date, that the base date be May 21st, 2019, because that appears to be the date when the council approved the fiscal year 2019 to 21 City Council Major Goals Work Plan in which we included a project to implement mobile home regulations. The first request.

[06:18:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, Vice Mayor, why don't you just do all three first, actually, and then we can, you know, just to try to move our meeting along, why don't you put all three out on the table and we'll see what the motion maker and the seconder feel.

[06:19:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, fair enough. So that's the first. The second is that the rent increase allowed when a vacancy occurs be reduced from 10% to CPI. And then the third would be a modification to the MOU exemption. I think the voluntary component is really important, and I also think that it's impractical to have different homes in one park subject to different regulations. So all of the homeowners in the park would have to sign on to that model lease produced by the MOU. So there'd be buy-in from all of the residents in a park in order for the exemption to apply.

[06:19:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, if I go? All right. Yeah, I agree to the second and the third one. I think that when I look back on the issues related to the CSFRA that created the most angst, one of them was the rollback date. And we have had a lot of outreach to both the mobile home community and the park owners. And this is a number that was come up with that kind of maybe nobody's that happy with. But I think that by creating, by putting in a date that's further back, we are going to create many more hard feelings in the park owner community that will be transferred onto the, their residents. So I think the idea of changing the rent vacancy to the CPI and requiring that each park be covered by the same kind of measure is fine.

[06:21:09] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay.

[06:21:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I agree to those changes.

[06:21:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: City Attorney Chopra and Mr. Phillips, you got those?

[06:21:18] Eric Phillips: The second and the third change, not the roll back date. That's correct. So the for the sake of clarity, the vacancy control would be amended to be reduced from 10% to be equal to the CPI. And then the accord amended definition, which is an accord shall mean a written agreement between a park owner and the city, the form of which has been adopted by the City Council, and then the amendment would be to, and ratified by each of the residents in a mobile home park.

[06:21:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Is that what you meant, Lucas? Or did you mean that that the City Council would decide that it applies to the whole mobile home park?

[06:22:11] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Well, I'm personally, I'm uncomfortable with imposing what's supposed to be a voluntary agreement on the stakeholders it regulates. So I would much rather have the homeowners say, 'We agree to the terms of the MOU, which are basically approved by signing a model lease', right? That's how the MOU works as I understand it. So if all of the residents say we're comfortable with this, that's okay. And I think that's better than a scenario where half of the folks opt into the MOU, the other half don't, and so they're subject to the CSFRA or the ordinance, and then the park owner has to figure out which homes are subject to which agreement.

[06:22:57] Councilmember Pat Showalter: That's okay with me.

[06:23:02] Eric Phillips: So then to, to clarify, I just want to make sure that I'm writing it down correctly, if one resident didn't agree to the MOU form that council approved, the exemption would be inapplicable to the whole park.

[06:23:20] Eric Phillips: Did I, is that correct?

[06:23:21] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Because I mean, this is what I've gotten from one of the park owners who I asked about it. It is really impractical to apply two different regulatory frameworks to different homes in the same park.

[06:23:36] Eric Phillips: No, let me, I just want to make sure I'm capturing the concept correctly. Thanks.

[06:23:40] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: And Eric, while we have the opportunity, can you address how this, how this applies to the mobile home renters only and not the space rent? Could you clarify that?

[06:23:55] Eric Phillips: I believe the intention is that it would cover all residents in the park, that we would have to -- and even earlier when Councilmember Matichak was talking about the Sunnyvale model, I heard her say that the one gap in that was that it didn't extend to individuals who rent mobile homes and that that model would need to be expanded to serve Mountain View. So the understanding is that the accord... ultimately it would be council's decision since council would be adopting the form of the accord, but it would be to apply to residents who rent spaces and residents who rent individual homes.

[06:24:43] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: And all of that universe in one, one park.

[06:24:46] Eric Phillips: Correct. However, for the accord to take effect under the most recent amendment, after council approves it, all residents would also have to ratify or sign on to the accord for the exemption to be effective.

[06:25:06] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Okay, thank you, Eric.

[06:25:12] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Councilmember Showalter, are you okay with those two items then as Mr. Phillips laid out now?

[06:25:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah.

[06:25:23] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. Councilmember Matichak.

[06:25:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, question, did I hear someone, I can't remember who say that the rent stabilization ordinance would be in effect for all parks until the City Council approved an MOU that could be used as the exemption? So I'm sort of struggling to see how that would work. So you are a park owner and you for I don't know six months are subject to rent control and you roll back rents and you might have I don't know if you'd be also in the cycle of doing an annual increase but probably not. And then you switch to an MOU if all of your folks who live there agree to it. Is that how it works?

[06:26:50] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I think that's a question. Yeah, I think that's a question for staff.

[06:26:53] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, I believe we'd have to think through the mechanics of that, but I think the intent was for the ordinance to take effect on October 28th. And then once the accord is ready, then present that as an option. I agree there may be some details to work out in terms of mechanics about arrangements that park owners may have already undertaken. We would need to give some thought to that, but the intent was for the ordinance to take effect on the effective date. Eric, do you have some additional thoughts on the mechanics of this?

[06:27:36] Eric Phillips: No, I think exactly what you just said. The ordinance would take effect, you couldn't increase rents above what the ordinance allows unless and until an MOU that said something different was adopted by council and approved by the individuals who lived in the park.

[06:27:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks.

[06:28:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. So, we've had robust conversation. Three people have added amendments. So I think at this point we should just review what the motion is and call the question. So City Attorney Chopra, would you like to read through the final motion at hand?

[06:28:20] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Sure. And I'll go quickly. There was an initial motion by Councilmember Showalter, seconded by Councilmember Hicks, with the staff recommendation with the MOU option, which was subsequently accepted a friendly amendment for changing it to an accord between the park owner and the city. There are also additional protections accepted from Councilmember Lieber's suggestion for eviction protections brought back on September 28th to cover the short window of time before the ordinance goes into effect. Then also TREO protections brought back in Q1, right of return brought back in that same time frame. And in addition, there were recently two friendly amendments accepted from Councilmember Ramirez, which would limit vacancy rent increases from 10% to CPI. And then also a requirement that in order for the MOU option to be valid, it would have to apply to all units, all residents in a given mobile home park.

[06:29:52] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Mr. Phillips, is that what you have as well?

[06:29:55] Eric Phillips: Yes, the only clarifying edit would be that in addition to the last amendment where we redefine accord as was just expressed by the City Attorney, we would also make an amendment to the exemption provision in section 46.4D to strike all of the existing text and just replace it with a mobile home park that is subject to an accord shall be temporarily exempt from the provisions of this chapter so long as the accord is in effect. And the definition of accord would have been amended to mean a written agreement between the park owner and the city, the form of which has been adopted by the city council and approved by all residents in a mobile home park.

[06:30:50] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, that's correct. And I did leave out the timing, I believe, for the accord. That would come back to council in Q1 for approval of that form.

[06:30:59] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. All right, thank you both. I think that it's clear what the motion is now. Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[06:31:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I'm sorry. I don't mean to drag this, but I was hoping to ask for an amendment to the amendment. I just don't think it's... I don't know how feasible it is to get all the park residents to agree to one accord. I don't know if that's how it happened in Sunnyvale. I highly doubt it. And it just seems like it gives one individual in that park a lot of power. And so I would ask that we can even just say a super majority of, you know, 66% rather than all residents. Could I... would the maker of the motion be willing to make that change?

[06:31:58] Mayor Ellen Kamei: How about 80%?

[06:32:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: That's fine. I'll take it.

[06:32:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'll take it. I'm really getting exhausted now, so I'll take it.

[06:32:11] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'll go with 80, but not with 66.

[06:32:14] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. All right. So... there was that slight little change there. Is everybody comfortable with that slight change and staff has made that note? So I think Mr. Phillips, instead of saying what is it, 'unless all... all residents agree', I think it would be an 80% majority agree. Or you could finesse that language better than I.

[06:32:43] Eric Phillips: They all, exactly what you said, that it would be required to be approved by at least 80% of residents in a park. And then I just wanted to clarify, I think when I was saying the exemption before, I said a mobile home space subject to an accord, but we want the mobile home park would be subject to the accord for the exemption to function. It would be a park wide exemption. So I wanted to clarify that text I misspoke when I read it earlier.

[06:33:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you, thank you. Okay, so thanks everyone. I just want to make sure I'm going to call the question. I'm going to have the City Clerk take a roll call vote. I just want to make sure I know that there's been a lot going on. And I want to make sure that everybody is comfortable with understanding the motion at hand. Okay, great. Thank you. Thanks colleagues for your patience in this sausage making and now we'll call the question. Councilmember Showalter.

[06:33:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter.

[06:33:40] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:33:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks.

[06:33:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[06:33:45] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[06:33:48] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[06:33:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Lieber.

[06:33:50] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[06:33:52] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak.

[06:33:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Another John McAlister, no.

[06:34:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramirez.

[06:34:03] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[06:34:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei.

[06:34:07] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Motion carries 6-1.

[06:34:10] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, thank you colleagues. Thank you to staff and thank you to the public who is probably trying to keep notes and track with us. Before we move on to item eight, I do need a motion to continue our meeting past 10:30 p.m. Would anyone like to make that motion?

[06:34:28] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So moved.

[06:34:29] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay, so moved by Vice Mayor Ramirez and seconded by Councilmember Showalter. City Clerk Glaser, can we take that roll call, please?

[06:34:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramirez?

[06:34:41] Vice Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[06:34:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[06:34:44] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:34:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Abe-Koga?

[06:34:47] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Aye.

[06:34:48] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[06:34:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm going to do a John McAlister and say no.

[06:34:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Lieber?

[06:34:56] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Aye.

[06:34:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Matichak?

[06:34:58] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Another John McAlister, no.

[06:35:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: And Mayor Kamei?

[06:35:01] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Motion carries.

[06:35:03] Mayor Ellen Kamei: I hope that means John gets his ice cream. Alright. So we'll move on to item eight, which is our council staff committee reports. Does any member of council or staff have anything to report? Councilmember Abe-Koga.

[06:35:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Couple of reports, and let me try to just pull one up. I guess I'll just report off the top of my head. Clean Energy passed its annual budget, and we've had some challenges over the years. As folks may know, a lot of our rates and then our budget is related to PG&E and their rates and how they increase or decrease their rates. We have always maintained at least a 1% lower rate than PG&E. We're able to continue to do that. The financial outlook actually improved over the year, and so we will maintain that 1% discount and also be able to increase our reserves, which helps in terms of being able to put out more programs for the community. So we're in a positive financial situation, and I'm pleased to report that. In terms of the Cities Association, we've had, over actually the year, we've had quite a bit of conversation, discussion about the Cities Association being the fiscal sponsor of the Airport Roundtable. And there's been some challenges. There's actually some legal challenges at this time. At the meeting, the association voted to discontinue being the fiscal sponsor at the end of this year and will be recommending that the roundtable find a different fiscal agent. Thank you.

[06:37:13] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Anyone have any other announcements? Councilmember Showalter.

[06:37:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Today, the National League of Cities Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Committee, and we always put together our resolutions, and today that will be passed at the City Summit, and today we finalized those, and I was just really delighted to see that we got some stuff about carbon sequestration added that I was happy about, and we also added a resolution about the utilization of dredge materials for habitat restoration and sea level rise protection. And if you're a water geek, you know that's a really big deal, and I'm a water geek, so I was very excited about it. And I just wanted to share that with you. If anyone is interested in the texts of those resolutions, it's about 30 pages, but it's not too long, I'd be glad to share it with you. So that's my report, and oh, and then the other thing, the recall! The recall, the governor was not recalled. So it's a good happy thing for today.

[06:38:47] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thanks, Councilmember Showalter. So I have a couple items to report. Our VTA PAC meeting, we had last Thursday. We also had our Cities Association LAC Committee also met on the 9th. And then wanna remind everyone that September is Transit Month. So let's try to make sure, and VTA is back and it's wonderful to hear their chimes going through our downtown again. But just wanted to share that it is Transit Month. And the last concert on the plaza is gonna be this Friday, so just want our public to know that. Anyone else have any other thing to report? All right. We'll move on to item nine, which is close session. City Attorney Chopra, do we have a close session report?

[06:39:38] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No close session report tonight, Mayor. Thank you.

[06:39:42] Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, so that means we get to move on to item 10, which is adjournment. Thank you so much for joining us and our next regular City Council meeting will be on September 28th, 2021. Until then, stay healthy. And our meeting is adjourned at 11:43 p.m. Thanks everyone. Have a great night.

• ← Previous
• Next →