// css // javascript

Oct. 28, 2025 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Agenda

Speaker Summary

(41 speakers)
SpeakerWordsTime
Councilmember Ellen Kamei4,87632m
Councilmember Emily Ramos2,72118m
Councilmember Chris Clark3,00317m
Councilmember Pat Showalter2,05312m
Councilmember John McAlister1,72411m
Councilmember Lucas Ramirez9678m
Councilmember Alison Hicks1,0427m
City Manager Kimbra McCarthy79<1m
City Attorney Jennifer Logue5592m
City Clerk Heather Glaser4122m
Assistant City Manager Dawn Cameron58<1m
Housing Director Wayne Chen3,37320m
Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen2,39318m
Community Development Director Christian Murdock6523m
Norman Lopatin5713m
Ileen Kim4953m
Tessa McFarland4723m
Reagan Avery3742m
Albert Jeans5292m
Edie Keating3612m
Raquel4352m
Yaritza3652m
Mina Young2892m
Malia Pires5192m
Ishan Kaushal2651m
Leticia Morales1731m
Maria Marroquin1641m
Nikita Sinha2511m
Anil Babbar2431m
Dylan Rich2801m
Ting Ting Zheng1401m
Maria Cruz Alvarado1551m
Alexis Arica1571m
Interpreter90<1m
Karen Tiedemann81<1m
Danielle Lee104<1m
Public Works Director Jennifer Ing150<1m
Deputy Fire Chief Brian Jones65<1m
Sergeant Chris Vigil51<1m
Hana Kirchner51<1m
Public Speaker2861m

Transcript

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:07:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And we're gonna move on to item 3, which is our presentations. Please note, these are presentations only. The City Council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items.

[00:27:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And we'll move on to our consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration. If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it will be considered separately, following approval of the balance of the consent calendar. If you would like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communication on non-agenda items, in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Councilmember Showalter.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:41:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So now we're on to Item 5, 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 within the City Council subject matter jurisdiction for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the Council from acting on non-agenda items. If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:07:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: If you'd like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now. And, um, for our mayors who kicked off our meeting, we actually have recognition for both of them. So I'm gonna head back down to the lectern.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:41:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, we have public comment, um, in person, and then we'll move to virtual. And each speaker will have three minutes. And the first speaker is Malia.

[00:28:18] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, I don't really want to pull an item, but as is my custom I'd like to make some comments. First on item 4.1, that's a G9 policy. This is a second reading for the zoning code amendments that were discussed on October 14th related to the Gatekeeper program. One change is to not require a complete set of floor plans for Gatekeeper applications anymore, and the second is to exempt zoning changes that are done to achieve consistency with the General Plan. I think these both move in the right direction of making this program move a little more smoothly, so that's good. The next one is I wanted to talk about was item 4.6, the Rengstorff construction acceptance. Boy, this has been a long time coming. The people who have worked on this project know what I'm saying. Kudos to everyone who saw this complex project through. By putting in an all-electric pool of this size, we were really pushing the boundaries of this technology, and we paid some costs for it. It's really a tribute to our sustainability efforts that we did this, but it wasn't easy. It's not often that you see a project that has over 30 change orders. That represents a lot of things that had to be fixed as you went along. And we did, we fixed every single one of them, and now the community is enjoying the pool. And the other thing that I think is so remarkable is that on a project of this magnitude, we did it almost on budget. It was just 300,000 dollars over the original expectation, and on a 22 million dollar project, that is a very good record. So kudos to the staff that are responsible for that. And for the rest of us, we need to get out there and swim. It's good for us, right? And it's heated, so we can do it all year long. And then the final one I wanted to talk about is item 4.7. That's the amendment to our new memorandum of understanding between the City of Mountain View and the City of Sunnyvale relating to the operation of a Materials Recovery and Transfer Station. And I want to talk about this one because we all get trash service. It's an important city service that we all benefit from, and we are all impacted by how well this system works. For years, we've been following our Zero Waste policy, which is designed to get our contributions to the landfill as low as possible. That's why each and every week all of us are putting lawn clippings into one container and trash in another, and then every other week we put our recycling out. We have a collaboration with the City of Sunnyvale to sort our trash and accept our recyclables. We do this at a facility in Sunnyvale that's called the SMaRT Station. This is one of those acronyms that's a little tortured, but fun. It's the Sunnyvale Materials Recovery and Transfer Station. So that's where you get the SMaRT and then the Station, okay, and it accepts garbage and recycling materials from both of our communities. The SMaRT Station though, the original one is 30 years old. So it needs to be rebuilt. And there have been plans have been in the mix for working on this I know for quite a long time. Our staffs of both communities have been working on it. And now we're to the point of figuring out some of the details related to the financing. And that's what this item is here in front of us. Is to approve some of the financing arrangements that have been made. And so I just wanted to bring that to everyone's attention because I think that we sometimes forget about the just background city services that we get like trash and recycling that we all contribute to. So thank you.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:07:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So our Mayor for a Day essay contest ran through the month of September, and elementary and middle school aged Mountain View residents wrote about one problem they would solve if they were mayor for a day.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:42:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And then we have Maan Salgado, Yari Navarro, and then Alexis Arica. So if you want to maybe stand and get in line on the... on the side.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:08:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We decided to do an elementary school and a middle school aged winner that were selected. This is something that I did when I was mayor in the pandemic in 2021, so it's so nice to be able to do this in person.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:42:32] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And then let's see. After Alexis is Leticia Morales, and then Albert Jeans, then Dylan Rich. And that looks like everyone in person.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:08:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And, um, as we had earlier... are happy to have Hannah back to join us as the elementary school winner. She attends Theuerkauf Elementary School and is in the fifth grade.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:42:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. And I think the... the three minutes is here?

[00:42:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Okay, yeah, clock is on.

[00:42:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great.

[00:42:51] Malia Pires: Awesome. Well, good evening, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos, and Councilmembers. My name is Malia Pires. I'm a 19-year resident of the City of Mountain View, Executive Director and Board Member of Reach SV, and Board Member of United Effort Organization. And both organizations serve the most vulnerable residents in the city.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:08:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I know you kicked us off and you told us a little bit about your essay. Did you have anything more you wanted to share with everyone? All right, no?

[00:08:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well then let's take a picture, maybe the two of us, and then we can invite your family. How about that? And we'll invite the whole Council to stand as we present it to you. Awesome. Thanks.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:43:11] Malia Pires: And I'm here today to, um, for two reasons. One to say thank you, um, and two to share a personal testimony and story from my heart. And, um, so thank you. Uh, thank you for the services and exhaustive efforts that the city has made to support our unhoused neighbors.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:02:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And then maybe your family?

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:02:08] Malia Pires: Living in the overnight shelter for women and children, which recently opened. Um, for those that live in the safe parking lots at houses of faith and in the larger lots. Um, and then also for providing, um, opportunities for organizations like Hope's Corner and United Effort Organization to, um, work together in the downtown parking lot.

[00:02:22] Malia Pires: So I just wanted to say thank you and also thank you to the City Manager's Office for faithfully gathering the CBO organizations, uh, month after month, uh, to convene us to collaborate together in partnership and to think of innovative ways that we can serve our vulnerable neighbors.

3.1 Hannah Kirschner, Elementary School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:02:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. And for item...

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:02:39] Malia Pires: And on the personal story side, um, I had an opportunity many years ago. Um, you know, I was one of those, uh, residents or persons that really thought that RV dwellers, um, were drug addicts, mentally ill, um, possibly trafficking. Um, and I had the opportunity, um, Sandra Esparza of Cafecito de Aroma con Justicia, she invited me to go out door knocking.

[00:03:05] Malia Pires: And I happened to go with Emily who is sitting here. And she was out there on behalf of Lucas Ramirez. She wanted to get a boots on the ground, bird's eye view of what's really happening. This is before Lucas, uh, was on... I think he was running for Council at that time. And, uh, I was quite shocked.

[00:03:33] Malia Pires: So I have four kids, um, 30 down to 16. And, um, when we went door knocking, uh, Emily and I were at the end of the line. And when the people opened their doors and there were families with children, I said, 'Oh my God, these are kids that my kids go to school with.' This is not what I think, it's not what I thought.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:03:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Good evening everyone. We're honored to welcome this year's elementary school Mayor of the Day winner.

[00:03:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And it's Hana Kirchner. She's going to call our meeting to order. Uh, she has the gavel, she can hit it as many times as she wants. I told her, whatever you want, you're the mayor. So, uh, please call our meeting to order.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:03:56] Malia Pires: Um, and it completely changed the trajectory of Reach's work. Um, we have faithfully been serving our unhoused neighbors, bringing provisions and resources. But not just... we're not doing it. I actually, we formally launched a LEAB this year. So a Lived Experience Advisory Board.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:04:07] Hana Kirchner: I call to order the Mountain View City Council meeting of October 28th, 2025.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:04:12] Malia Pires: We've always worked with them and asked, 'How can we help? What do you need?' They've always gone with us door to door bringing provision. Um, they have been the ones, the voices that we've heard. We don't think we know what anybody needs. But we formally launched a group and some of them are going to be here to share with you. So I want to say thank you and, uh, good evening.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:04:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think before we get to our second Mayor for a Day winner, did you want to share a little bit about the essay that you submitted or... is that... okay? Just talk right into there.

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NONAGENDIZED ITEMS

[00:04:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, uh, next is Maan Salgado. Y te... tu vas a traducir?

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:04:29] Hana Kirchner: When I wrote my essay, I wanted to give a bit of what I felt, um... when I wanted to include everybody and treat them all with kindness. And when I mean everybody, I mean everybody everywhere.

[00:04:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember McAlister.

[00:04:48] Councilmember John McAlister: I just had some questions on 4.2 and 4.5.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:04:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, great. Thank you. Have you sit down. And then, um, we'll do, uh, the Pledge of Allegiance. And I want to, we're honored to welcome our mid- Middle School winner, Ishan Kaushal. Ishan, will you please come up to the lectern and lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[00:04:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Perhaps um you can ask your questions and then the appropriate staff will make their way down.

[00:05:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. On 4.2, um, there was, we were talking about the fees that is collected about the, well on 4.2 the mixed parking in-lieu fees. And there was a comment from the, one of the answers that those in-lieu fees will are to be used to provide new parking, public parking. And that they need to be used particularly within five years. Where's the status of new parking garage in downtown Mountain View?

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:05:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Just talk right into it, 'cause it's on TV too. Okay. So just ask everyone to stand.

[00:05:27] Ishan Kaushal: Uh, could everybody please stand up?

[00:05:32] Ishan Kaushal: 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.

[00:05:55] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: Good evening Mayor and Councilmembers, Jennifer Ng, the Public Works Director. Um, so we are looking at building a new parking structure in Parking Lot 5 in downtown. The beginning phases of that project is starting at the beginning of 2026. So we'll be starting with writing scope of work, putting out RFP to get a consultant on board at the beginning of the new year.

1. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

[00:06:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. We will now...

2. ROLL CALL

[00:06:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: The City Clerk will now take attendance by roll call.

[00:06:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Clark?

[00:06:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here.

[00:06:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Hicks?

[00:06:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:06:16] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember McAlister?

[00:06:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep.

[00:06:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Ramirez?

[00:06:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there funding appropriated for this?

2. ROLL CALL

[00:06:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[00:06:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilmember Showalter?

[00:06:20] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: We do have some parking in-lieu downtown, I think I messed up the order of that, downtown parking in-lieu fees that will be attributed to this project. Yes.

2. ROLL CALL

[00:06:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:06:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Ramos?

[00:06:23] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Here.

[00:06:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Kamei?

[00:06:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here.

[00:06:26] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a quorum.

[00:06:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. All right. Well, thank you everyone. It's such an exciting meeting today and, um, as such, we have an announcement. The City is seeking volunteers to serve for the following upcoming vacancies: one seat on our Parks and Rec Commission, one seat on the Senior Advisory Committee, and three seats on the Downtown Committee.

[00:06:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Will that be sufficient?

[00:06:32] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: It will be augmented, so the overall cost of the new parking garage will be augmented by other funding sources. The total cost of the parking garage exceeds how much parking in-lieu fees that we have in the piggy bank.

2. ROLL CALL

[00:06:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Specifically, applicants who are property owners in the downtown or representatives of businesses in the downtown. Please visit mountainview.gov/bcc to apply by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 6th. Interviews will be held on the evening of November 17th.

[00:06:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Are there other, I mean since we're supposed to use these funds within five years, and I'm sure we're probably running short on some of the already collected in-lieu fees, is once a parking structure is started, does the timeline still considered five years? Or do we have to return the money if there's nothing put up for that?

[00:07:05] Public Works Director Jennifer Ing: I don't know the specific details on that. I'm wondering if Finance knows or Dawn maybe?

[00:07:14] Assistant City Manager Dawn Cameron: Thank you, good evening. Dawn Cameron, Assistant City Manager. Um, so in general, the rule is that the funds need to be used or committed to a project within five years. So as long as the parking in-lieu fees are committed to projects such as a Lot 5 parking structure, we are within, we are meeting the requirements.

[00:07:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. On 4.5, um, professional service agreement. And I apologize for asking these questions, but when you ask a question and they give you an answer then you got to follow up with this one so. Uh, the building division has five in-house staff for plan check. Do, and we're going to reach out to others to help out. Is, is having, how did we come up with five? Because I hear people are talking about delays or system doesn't work. Um, how did we come up with five? Are we fully staffed in that particular department?

[00:08:16] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. We are currently fully staffed in terms of city staff positions related to plan check and inspection services. Historically the city has not had in-house building permit plan check staff, and so that's actually an innovation within recent years to bring those two building division plan check staff in-house for single family and smaller commercial related improvements. The city has had fire inspection and plan check staff in-house for a number of years. How we resulted at three, I can't speak to based on historic practice, but that has been the number for quite a while.

[00:08:55] Councilmember John McAlister: So are we, uh, how, how is the five handling the projects? Are they coming out in a reasonable amount of time or is there, once somebody submits a plans, are they supposed to be turned over and 30 reviewed within 30 days?

[00:09:14] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: So there are differing timelines depending on the type of project. For example, accessory dwelling units have very short timelines for review and approval, whereas other projects have longer timelines. It is a work in progress, I'll acknowledge that, in terms of our plan review timelines. However, having the augmentation of third-party consultant plan checking services does allow us to prioritize certain reviews and accomplish them in a more efficient manner.

3.2 Ishan Kaushal, Middle School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:09:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: 3.2, we're gonna have Ishan back for the middle school recognition. Ishan attends Graham Middle School and is in the seventh grade. Uh, Ishan if you want to join us at the lectern, and I know you're gonna share a little bit about your essay.

[00:09:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there any plans to augment those five to bring on more on in-house?

[00:09:44] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Not at this time. I think I feel comfortable with our in-house plan check capacity, and having a variety of third-party consultant plan check services allows us to push those plan reviews out to the appropriate consultant services to meet our business needs.

3.2 Ishan Kaushal, Middle School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:09:49] Ishan Kaushal: Uh, yeah. Thank you so much for this honor. Thank you to Mayor Kamei and the members of the City Council. Uh, thank you also to my parents and my brothers, Devan and Jayin, for always supporting me.

[00:09:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

3.2 Ishan Kaushal, Middle School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:10:02] Ishan Kaushal: I am fortunate to have lived in Mountain View for all 12 years of my life. I went to Imai Elementary School and I am now a seventh grader at Graham Middle School.

[00:10:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. All right, I don't see any other hands in the queue. Um, so now we'll move on to public comment. If anyone would like to, from the public joining us virtually or in person would like to provide comment on these items, please raise your hand in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. I think that this is a virtual speaker. Uh, Raquel. You have three minutes.

3.2 Ishan Kaushal, Middle School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:10:13] Ishan Kaushal: This city is a very special place, and even with all the excitement about technology and AI, I think it's still very important to appreciate all the beauty and opportunities in the real world all around us. We are very lucky to live here.

[00:10:28] Ishan Kaushal: If I were Mayor for the day, I would rename our city from Mountain View to Mountain Go. We shouldn't just be viewers of our wonderful city. We should all go out and live it.

[00:10:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we're not on public comment number five yet, public comment. We're on item four, so it's public comment for the consent items. Just in case you were wanting to do general public comment. Did you... okay, I saw the hand lower, so maybe you're wanting to do general public comment under item five. So we'll, we'll circle back with you. Yes, okay. Uh, we'll, we'll circle back.

3.2 Ishan Kaushal, Middle School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:10:39] Ishan Kaushal: We should be present, explore, make new friends. We should look up from our screens and devices and explore all the amazing parks and places our city has to offer, like Cuesta and Rengstorff, Shoreline and Castro, where we can connect with the people we care about.

[00:10:58] Ishan Kaushal: This city is a very special place for me, my family, and my friends, and I am so happy I had the chance to celebrate that in my essay. Thank you.

[00:11:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'll bring the item back for Council action and note that a motion to approve the consent calendar should also include reading the title of the ordinance and resolutions attached to consent calendar items 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Uh, City Attorney Logue.

[00:11:25] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Did you have a statement you wanted to make?

[00:11:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh yes, thank you. Um, before we take our vote, I wanted to share that I am recusing myself from voting on consent calendar item 4.4 due to my employment with the Foothill-De Anza Community College District. Thank you.

[00:11:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, and we have a motion by Councilmember Showalter and a second by Councilmember Hicks.

[00:11:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so I move the approval of the consent calendar. Item 4.1, adopt an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 36 Zoning of the Mountain View City Code to update review procedures for private development applications with legislative amendments to zoning, General Plan, and Precise Plans, and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act, to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.2, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View amending City of Mountain View Resolution No. 18935 approving a mixed-use addition at 194 to 198 Castro Street to modify Condition of Approval No. 65 regarding parking in-lieu fees, to be read in title only, further reading waived. Item 4.3, adopt a resolution of intention of the City Council of the City of Mountain View to vacate public easements at 749 West El Camino Real, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for November 18th, 2025. Item 4.4, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing the City Manager or designee to amend the Below Market Rate Regulatory Agreement between the City of Mountain View, Mountain View Owner LLC, Mountain View Whisman School District, to add Foothill-De Anza Community College District as a party to the agreement, and to make other conforming amendments, to be read in title only, further reading waived.

3.2 Ishan Kaushal, Middle School Mayor for a Day Certificate of Recognition

[00:11:58] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. And thanks to our our Mayors for a day. I think on the Council and I think working in City government, we talk a lot about who we do it for, and hearing from Hana and Ishan, their ideas of what they would do to make our community better really grounds us in our work and reminds us of what we're doing.

[00:12:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And I think whether it's talking about kindness, which we celebrate as part of our Magical Bridge Playground, right? We talk about being kindness ambassadors, we have a kindness ambassador in you. And uh, we talk about how we want to get outside and we want to create all these amazing opportunities, and I think Ishan's essay about Mountain Go, uh, really really touched on that.

[00:12:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And he, his essay talked about, you know, looking up and not looking down, and so, um, connecting. So I want to thank them, I want to thank their families. We're gonna do a couple more presentations and then you are welcome to enjoy the rest of your nights. Okay, just wanna make sure. Um, and so as we move...

3.3 2025 Beacon Leadership and Innovation Award

[00:12:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Moving on to Item 3.3, we have our 2025 Beacon Leadership and Innovation Award. We're happy to be joined via Zoom this evening by Nikita Sinha, Program Manager for the Institute for Local Government to present the 2025 Beacon Leadership and Innovation Award to the City of Mountain View. Think we have a brief presentation.

[00:13:18] Nikita Sinha: Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. I'm going to share my screen just briefly. I have just two slides which hopefully you're able to see this now. My name is Nikita Sinha, I'm a Program Manager for the Institute for Local Government or ILG. ILG is the non-profit education and training affiliate of the League of California Cities, along with the California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association.

[00:13:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, so we have a motion and a second, and I'll be voting and then just recusing from item 4.4. So let's vote. All right, and that passes unanimously.

3.3 2025 Beacon Leadership and Innovation Award

[00:13:48] Nikita Sinha: In 2010, ILG launched the Beacon Program as a recognition program focused on acknowledging the many steps local governments were proactively taking to address energy efficiency, climate change, greenhouse gas reduction, and so much more.

[00:14:04] Nikita Sinha: In 2021, Beacon introduced new award categories to celebrate the efforts of local governments to implement collaborative, inclusive, and equitable climate resilience and adaptation programming in their communities. The Leadership and Innovation Award recognizes local governments for leadership in climate resilience and adaptation, cross-agency collaboration and climate adaptation, equity and engagement in sustainability and climate, innovation in clean transportation, and innovation in clean energy.

[00:14:33] Nikita Sinha: We're so excited to celebrate Mountain View as the 2025 awardee for innovation in clean energy for the Day Worker Center Zero Emission Landscaping Training and Tool Lending Program. We were really impressed in reading the application that the City, by providing trainings and incentives to help day workers transition to zero emission landscaping tools, have advanced both climate goals and community health. So on behalf of the Institute for Local Government, I'd like to congratulate the City of Mountain View.

[00:15:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. And hopefully you can see us, the the award traveled safely from Long Beach. So thank you to Vice Mayor Ramos and I don't know if we should thank Councilmember McAlister. I think probably the Vice Mayor brought it back safely. Is that right? Um, but we do have our um sustainability, Chief Sustainability Officer Danielle Lee and we have the Executive Director of our Day Worker Center Maria Marroquin um here as well to join us and say a few words. So invite you to the lectern.

[00:15:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You have to come this side so they can see you. Or else your back...

[00:15:54] Danielle Lee: Good evening Mayor and Honorable Councilmembers. I'm so pleased to be here this evening alongside Maria Marroquin, the Executive Director of the Day Worker Center of Mountain View for this recognition of Mountain View's climate leadership.

[00:16:11] Danielle Lee: The Zero Emission Landscaping Training and Tool Lending Library truly represents the best of how we are addressing sustainability at the local level. We're working collaboratively across sectors to make improvements in everyday life while keeping our eyes on the long-term, ambitious goals the City has set for sustainability. We're excited to be building on this partnership with the Day Worker Center and look forward to future collaboration.

[00:16:38] Maria Marroquin: Hi everybody. Thank you so much for having me here, for honors and be next to you Danielle and for the wonderful work that the City is doing and the opportunity to join in this effort. So besides all the benefits that you already mentioned and we have been enjoying, uh is behind uh the idea to create jobs for the workers that is really important in our community.

[00:17:08] Maria Marroquin: We have been working in the Day Worker Center for the last 29 years and we have been building a really solid uh community and we thank you a lot for that. So from my personal uh my grateful my gratitude and also from the workers and their families, uh thank you so much. It's really an honor and just strength our commitment that I I call you to join us because everybody needs to contribute to the betterment of our world. Thank you so much again and thank you so much for your support.

[00:18:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: This was presented to the City at the uh League of California Cities Annual Conference so that's why we talked about um it uh coming safely. Thank you Nikita for joining us virtually.

3.4 Breast Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation

[00:18:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Move on to our last presentation item. It's item 3.4, Breast Cancer Awareness Month Proclamation.

[00:18:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: We're happy to be joined this evening by Sergeant Chris Vigil, Community Services Officer Jody Pierce, Deputy Fire Chief Brian Jones, and the personnel from Fire Station 1 to accept this proclamation. So why don't, um, why doesn't everyone come and then we'll have our our speakers join us at the lectern.

[00:19:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think the people who are receiving if you want to come here and then I can read the proclamation. Is that all right? So we're fortunate to have members of both our Police Department and our Fire Fire Department here to accept the proclamation. And it reads, Whereas breast cancer is the second most common cancer in women and one of the leading causes of cancer-related death, and breast cancer is about 100 times more common in women than men. And whereas early detection through regular screenings and increased public awareness significantly improves survival rates and outcomes, making education and access to care essential components in the fight against breast cancer.

[00:19:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And whereas during the month of October with bold pink ribbons displayed proudly in the community, family, friends, and neighbors stand in solidarity with breast cancer survivors and reaffirm our commitment to raising awareness of this disease. And whereas Breast Cancer Awareness Month serves as an opportunity to increase awareness of the disease and to encourage individuals to have a plan to detect the disease in its early stages. It is vital that those affected by breast cancer have access to quality affordable care and that research of all forms of breast cancer continues to be vigorously supported.

[00:20:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Now therefore I, Ellen Kamei, and my Mayors for a Day, of the City of Mountain View along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the City of Mountain View, and invite the community to participate in activities that raise awareness of breast cancer prevention. And I'll let you both say a few words and then we'll present the proclamation.

[00:20:45] Deputy Fire Chief Brian Jones: Thank you Council. On behalf of the Fire Department, I'd just like to thank the Council for joining our effort in in participating in National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. And everyone in this room has probably been touched by cancer or breast cancer in one form or another. And we hope that these efforts help raise awareness for the importance of early breast cancer detection.

[00:21:10] Sergeant Chris Vigil: Hello everyone. Mayor, Council. Everybody here that uh took the time to come out and support this cause. Uh future leaders of Mountain View, it's great to see you here at an event like this. Um we're just very grateful uh to be able to share this day with everyone here.

[00:21:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. So I'll invite my colleagues from the council to maybe come around a a front. I know we all uh wore our shirts today and I think this is um an opportunity where we can congratulate Chief Jones, right? Um and have an not had the opportunity to see you in person yet. Um and to also celebrate I believe this is the first time that our Mountain View Police Department, while we have participated in the Pink Patch Project where you'll see on uniforms, I think it's the first time that you're actually able to wear the entire uniform which is um really great and helps spread awareness and I think um is a conversation starter in our community about what's going on. All right. So Andrew you dictate how you'd like us to arrange ourselves.

[00:23:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Wonderful. Thank you everyone. Thank you for joining us. That concludes our presentation items.

[00:25:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So that concludes our presentation items. Would any member of the council like to say a few words? Councilmember Showalter.

[00:25:59] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes. I uh I really enjoyed all of these presentations. They're for such wonderful causes. But one thing that I want to bring to everyone's attention is the program for um uh zero uh emission uh landscaping equipment. This is something that um is so important on so many levels. For one thing, uh the emissions that come out of gas leaf blowers blow right into the face of the people that are operating those leaf blowers. So it's really an environmental justice issue to make sure that um our residents who are doing lawn work in our area have safe equipment.

[00:26:53] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And of course those emissions, while they don't um you know generally harm people personally who aren't using it so much, they raise our emission rate and collectively they're um they're negative. So I just want to say how important this is for the health of the um people who use that that equipment. And I'm really really glad to see that uh that we're making this transition because um it it requires some extra money and some extra training and learning to change is always a little difficult. But um this is really for a good cause. Thank you.

[00:27:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Councilmember Hicks.

[00:27:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well we always have wonderful opening uh ceremonies, but this one particularly touched me all three of them. I have to say the uh Mayors for the Day, uh particularly the Mayor who talked about Mountain View Go and putting down your screens and and getting out in the real world. I say that all the time. He said it much better than I do. Um I I won't go into detail in the the second one because uh Councilmember Showalter did such a great job, you know it's but it encompasses a little bit of everything, right? Uh jobs, environmental justice, um sustainability, and maybe most important to me, quiet in the the neighborhood.

[00:28:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And um and then the last one I have to say uh I really appreciate because uh my members of my family and myself have had breast cancer and early detection is really important. So I value bringing that up. So thank you everyone.

[00:28:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you so much. All right. Well that um I don't see any other members in the queue. So we'll now uh take public comment if there is any. Uh would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda? If so please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. I'm not seeing in person but I am seeing virtual. So we'll take virtual public comment and each speaker will have uh three minutes. And Ting Ting Zheng?

[00:29:16] Ting Ting Zheng: Hi, good evening. Uh, I'm against uh pickleball courts in Cuesta Park...

[00:29:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we're on the presentation items. Um, maybe you want to speak on item five when we do public comment?

[00:29:34] Ting Ting Zheng: Uh, okay. Okay, no problem.

[00:29:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, no problem. We'll call on you um shortly. Thank you. All right. So I'm not seeing any other hands in the queue. So we'll close public comment.

6.1 Downtown Business Improvement Area No. 1 and Allocation of 2026 Business Improvement Area No. 1 Revenues

[00:45:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Para ella? Okay. So nosotros vamos a poner seis minutos aqui. So we'll just uh we'll put up the six minutes 'cause uh we'll have the translation. So hay tiempo, so. Muchisimas gracias.

[00:46:09] Maria Cruz Alvarado: Buenas noches Concilio. Mi nombre es Maria Cruz Alvarado. Tengo viviendo aqui como treinta años, que ya me siento en casa aqui en Mountain View. Y por cuestiones de renta, muy alta, me tuve que ir a a Crisanto a vivir en las calles. Pero doy gracias, ah, doy gracias de estar viviendo en un lote seguro, de tener todos los servicios.

[00:46:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Disculpe. ¿Puedo te, ah, puedo hablar muy cerca aqui? Si, por favor.

[00:46:40] Maria Cruz Alvarado: Doy gracias a la ciudad por tener este un lote seguro. Antes yo vivia en la calle por la Crisanto, pero doy gracias a la ciudad por darnos un lote seguro para mi y estoy muy agradecida de vivir ahi, de darnos todos los servicios que tenemos. Nosotros tenemos agua, tenemos baños, tenemos lavanderia, y estoy muy contenta y muy agradecida con ustedes. Gracias. Es todo lo que puedo. Para mi es para que sigan las mas personas. Eso es lo mas lo que queria yo decir. Que estoy, doy muchisimas gracias.

[00:47:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Usted tambien.

[00:47:21] Public Speaker: Good evening, my name is Maria Cruz. I have been living here for 30 years. I used to be um homeless because of and also because of the augmentation in rents. I went to live in Crisanto in the streets, but thank thanks thanks to all of you right now I have the opportunity to live in the sa- in a safe parking lot. I just want to say that I am thankful uh to the city 'cause as I mentioned before I used to live in the streets and now I receive services such as water, such as restrooms, we have restrooms and laundry rooms. And again I just want to thank all of you for your help on this.

[00:48:05] Maria Cruz Alvarado: Gracias.

[00:48:06] Public Speaker: Thank you.

[00:48:07] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yari Navarro?

[00:48:17] Yaritza: Um, good afternoon everyone. Um, my name's oh, you honorable Councilor and Mayors and Mayor and Councilors. It's I'm a little nervous, I'm sorry. Um, my name's Yaritza and I've been li- I've been living in Mountain View for around fi- for around nine to eight years. Um, before I was in the safe parking lot, I was living in Rengstorff uh in the street uh next to Rengstorff Park. Um, I wou- I I'm really grateful with you guys for providing me with the uh essential necessities like bathroom, uh a place to shower, a place to where I could feel safe with my mom. And I'm really grateful for this because my mom uh has been suffering from epilepsy for around five years. And it's been really hard on me and on her to be able my mom for my mom to be able to provide me with a de- a decent space. My mom's probably the most har- the most hardest wor- hard working woman I've seen in my life. She even though she has been through a lot, she's here and even though she's sick, she's she has provided me with the essentials. And I she's I would really like to thank her a lot and she's act- she's actually in the audience. Um, uh, my mom uh lived in a van for around two years before we got an RV. And you know it's it's a journey that as a as a teenager has really affected me because I've always asked myself, why can I have what other people have? But then I remember that this is life is a journey and in the journey there's gonna be hard there's gonna be things that you have to overcome and and I I really like um I would really okay. And I'm just grateful, you know. And I would like to give back to my community in a few years. Um, you might you guys might see me maybe in El Camino Hospital. Um, and if you if you guys see me and you guys want to say hi then it would be an honor to have you guys. Thank you.

[00:50:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Alexis Arica?

[00:50:59] Alexis Arica: Good afternoon everyone. Hi, my name is Alexis Arica. I have been living in Mountain View for almost three years. I would like to say that living in a safe parking lot is better than living outside in the road because as I was growing up in a trailer, me and my family was finding ways to get into a lot and we met this one police officer who helped who helped us get into a safe safe RV parking lot. We moved from Hayward to Mountain View and I would like to say that I am very grateful that me and my family got into that safe RV parking lot. And I am also very grateful because it in that lot it provides showers for us to use, laundry, and gives us lot of food. And we already met a lot of people in that lot and they feel like family to us already. Thank you.

[00:51:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, next is Leticia Morales. So we'll just put uh six minutes up just in case. Thanks.

[00:52:09] Leticia Morales: Hello. Hola, buenas noches. Este, mi nombre es Leticia Morales. Ah, yo vengo aqui a darle gracias a ustedes, a la ciudad de Mountain View.

[00:52:26] Public Speaker: Good evening. My name is Leticia Morales.

6.2 Downtown Business Improvement Area No. 2 and Allocation of 2026 Business Improvement Area No. 2 Revenues

[00:52:28] Public Speaker: Hi, my name is Leticia Morales and I am here to thank the City of Mountain View.

[00:52:34] Leticia Morales: Yo vivo aquí hace 20 años. Este... yo trabajé por una compañía 13 años. Y muy fuerte. Pero sin excusa ni razón perdí mi trabajo. Y este... por esa razón yo... mi hijo no terminó la universidad. Y en el apartamento donde vivíamos, por no tener renta para pagar, nos corrieron.

[00:53:07] Public Speaker: I've been living in Mountain View for 20 years and I worked 13 years really hard at a company. And for no reason or explanation, I lost my job without any excuse. And that's why my son couldn't finish college. And due to rent, we...

[00:53:28] Leticia Morales: Por esa razón nos... perdimos el lugar donde vivir. Y nos fuimos a vivir a la calle. Estuvimos aquí en Castro... en la calle de Castro. Después este... gracias a la comunidad pusieron un shelter. Yo fui ahí, estuve toda la temporada de octubre a abril. Y la otra oportunidad que yo he recibido es que estoy en un shelter ahora. Segura. Porque cuando vivía en las calles, yo sufrí de un ataque. En mero enfrente de la policía llegaron ahí a atacarme unas personas. Y gracias por todo eso y ahora estoy en un lugar seguro.

[00:54:13] Public Speaker: And due to the high cost of rents, we lost the apartment where we lived and we ended up living on the streets on Castro. And thanks to the community, they had a community shelter that I've been there... I was there for October and through April. Now I am in another shelter, safe. Because before when I used to live in the streets, I suffered from an attack or an assault from even in front of the police station... from some people. And now I feel safe in the shelter.

[00:54:55] Public Speaker: Gracias. Thank you.

[00:54:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[00:54:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Our next in-person speaker is Albert Jeans and then Dylan Rich.

[00:55:12] Albert Jeans: Yeah. I'd just like to ask a favor of you guys. When you're speaking in the microphone, try to get close to it. I don't know what's wrong with these, they're not that sensitive. When you're listening online, a lot of times you can't hear what you're saying if you're like speaking off to the side like this or something like that.

[00:55:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I do my best, Albert, to remind people.

[00:55:33] Albert Jeans: Yeah, yours is actually pretty good. I won't name names, but some people are difficult to hear.

[00:55:38] Albert Jeans: Um, yeah, I'm actually speaking on the RV issue as well. They're not... they're talking about the safe parking. I'm just talking about RVs on the street. Um, which is a little different. Um... So yeah, this morning I took another count because they temporarily disallowed parking on part of Terra Bella, so I thought I'd see what happened. Next slide please.

[00:56:00] Albert Jeans: And to my surprise, the total number of RVs was the highest it's ever been: 297 on our streets. And so maybe it would have been even higher if Terra Bella was, you know, kind of fully parked. Maybe some of those people temporarily left for some other area. But yeah, this number keeps growing. Next slide please.

[00:56:17] Albert Jeans: And you might have heard that Cupertino recently just enacted a ban on street parking for RVs overnight.

6.3 Code Amendment to Chapter 36 (Zoning)-Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (First reading)

[00:56:25] Albert Jeans: This is round... their problem was around the Target store there which I go to almost weekly. And all of a sudden, you know, this week when I went there were gone. So I looked around and yeah, sure enough, a month ago they decided to ban overnight parking RVs. They took about a month to implement it and it happened. And so, next slide please. We have to think about what's going to happen. I mean, Mountain View has about 300 RVs, San Francisco and San Jose each have about a thousand, but their population is over about 10 times Mountain View's. So Mountain View is just carrying an oversized load it seems. I mean this is a regional problem. Everybody has to chip in and do something. I, you know, I really feel for these people. This is no way to live. And I kind of feel bad that Mountain View is in a way enabling that and letting them live under these conditions for years and years. Um I actually happened to talk to somebody this morning in Palo Alto, one near one of their um RV areas. And he had lived in a, uh I guess a condo there for several years and also worked nearby. And he said he had been there for, he had seen one RV there for eight years. He saw the kids grow up from elementary school to high school. I mean that's just no way to grow up. And this is in Palo Alto of all places. And so, you know, I we do have to find figure out some way to get these people off the streets into proper housing. Um and it's and the businesses and stuff are suffering too. It's just no way to run a city and allowing people to live on the streets. Thank you very much.

[00:58:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Dylan?

[00:58:19] Dylan Rich: Uh thank you Council members. Um I'd also just like to publicly, I know the other previous speakers are not here but I'd like to thank them. It's not easy to come up here and speak and uh I'd like to thank uh Mountain View again for um the uh safe parking lot. I am in support of that. Um it definitely has helped quite a few people. Um I'm the Dylan Rich, I'm the Director at Palo Alto Prep. Um I just wanted to continue, we I was here two weeks ago, but give reminders about um the sight line difficulties that we're having at Palo Alto Prep. Um uh you have to walk about 10 feet into the street before on uh Independence before you can start seeing traffic. Uh within the last two weeks I personally had a close call um and I know what to look for um in terms of just looking for cars. It just happened to be someone was speeding and someone was on their cell phone and they ran the stop sign. Um it's uh something where a student would uh just have to be uh on their cell phone uh not paying attention while they're crossing the street and not being able to see that car who's not paying attention to them. Um uh so just a reminder. I please take action on this issue. Uh you're the only ones who can uh make change here. Um I might we've said it before but it's not a matter of there will be an or if there will be an accident but uh when there will be an accident. Uh thank you.

[00:59:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, that concludes our in-person public comment. We'll move on to virtual. Raquel?

[00:59:48] Raquel: Hi, um, I actually um I was trying to speak on uh 4.4 but then I was booted off of Zoom, so that's the topic that I want to discuss.

[00:59:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. We tried to have you unmute and then your hand went down so we thought it was the other item. Let me just turn to the um City Attorney um and just make sure that... It's okay. If you want to let her speak? Yeah. Sure. Okay, you can speak now.

[01:00:13] Raquel: I get okay. Uh so my name is Raquel and I'm well, good evening Mayor, Council members and staff. My name is Raquel and I'm speaking on behalf of the Los Altos Affordable Housing Support Network. We support adding Foothill-De Anza Community College District to the eligible employee groups. However, before expanding outward, it is important to ensure the program is functioning equitably for the city's own workforce. When Council when Council approved the BMR agreement in 2022, the agreement stated that city reserved units are for income-qualified households with at least one city employee. It also states that if any administrative guidelines conflict with the agreement, the agreement itself controls. However, after approval, Human Resources created an internal eligibility definition that excludes the part-time under 1,000 hour uh city staff from qualifying. Again, it's an internal document that the HR created excluding um uh under 1,000 hour city staff employees. This definition does not appear in the agreement, was not included in the Council staff report, and has never been reviewed publicly. There is no record of of Council directing staff to limit eligibility in this way. These employees are part of the city workforce. Under 1,000 hour staff support community events, recreational programs, building operations, and help staff city uh help staff city facilities year after year including um this City Council meeting. Yet there are being excluded from the workforce housing intended to support the people who actually work here. Before expanding eligibility to additional agencies, it's important to ensure that the city staff are not being excluded from a program designed to support the city workforce. Expanding outward while continuing to exclude positions of our own workforce sends an unintended message and I believe this can be corrected. There is also concerns about outreach. The third party administrator HouseKeys has closed its main office and routes call through a call center. The public rental listings have not been updated on the website with some still dated from 2024. This makes it difficult for city employees and the public to know what units are actually available. So I request tonight uh so the request tonight is please direct staff to apply the eligibility criteria to all city staff including under 1,000 hour employees as intended. Workforce housing only works if the workforce can actually access it. City staff should be considered first. All city staff. Exactly as the agreement intended. Thank you.

[01:02:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, the next uh public comment speaker is Ting Ting Zheng.

[01:02:53] Ting Ting Zheng: Hi, good evening. I am against the pickleball courts in Cuesta Park. Cuesta Park is a peaceful place not only for residents nearby but also for all the residents in Mountain View and as well as all the wild animals, birds, plants. It's their home. If we bring pickleball courts there, they will no longer be peaceful. Uh so recently I read an article from uh Palo Alto Online about the pickleball courts in Mitchell Park in Mountain in Palo Alto. And uh in this article uh community member said, 'You go in the park, you hear click click click all the time. It doesn't feel like a park anymore.' I hope uh Cuesta Park's future won't be like that. Okay, thank you.

[01:03:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, that concludes public comment. So we'll move on to item 6... public uh hearings. Item 6.1 is our Downtown Business Improvement Area Number 1 and allocation of 2026 Business Improvement Area Number 1 revenues. Councilmember Clark, do you have an announcement to make?

[01:04:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes. I am recusing myself from participating in any discussion or determination about the Downtown Business Improvement Area Number 1, due to the proximity of my personal residence to the improvement area.

[01:04:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Councilmember Hicks, do you have an announcement to make?

[01:04:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes. I'm also recusing myself from participating uh and uh in any discussion or determination about the Downtown Business Improvement Area Number 1 because my personal residence is um close to the improvement area.

[01:04:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you.

[01:04:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Economic Vitality Manager Amanda Rotella and Community Development Director Christian Murdock will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

[01:05:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All right, thank you. Good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council. Uh tonight we're holding the second public hearing for the annual renewal process for the Downtown Business Improvement Area Number 1. The first meeting on September 23rd, 2025 was to review and preliminarily approve BIA number 1. As a reminder, BIA 1 includes all businesses along Castro Street and side streets. And the BIA assessments are used for specific programming and services and promotion to support downtown businesses. In the annual report prepared by the Downtown Business Association, the 2026 projected revenues for BIA 1 are approximately $38,700. There are two recommendations for City Council consideration. First, adopt a resolution confirming the annual report and levying an annual assessment in BIA 1 for calendar year 2026. And second to authorize the City Manager or designee to allocate the 2026 revenues from Business Improvement Area Number 1 to the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce to fund a disbursement agreement with the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce to accomplish the purposes of the area. Uh that concludes staff's comments. Thank you.

[01:06:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Does any member of the Council have any questions? Councilmember McAlister.

[01:06:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, thank you. I'm going to I had a couple of questions that uh Council questions and I just like to follow up on clarity on them. Um well the question is what do we do with the funds? And one of my questions was concerning the uh could the funds be used for the downtown parking garage electronic signage? Because that's a very important part of the downtown and you say that's covered under the parking management operation assessment district. Who runs that assessment district?

[01:07:09] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Good evening Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members. Christian Murdock, Community Development Director. Uh the city uh operates that district.

[01:07:18] Councilmember John McAlister: And whose district is uh what department is that under?

[01:07:23] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um so responsibilities uh cut across uh two primary departments. Uh Community Development from the administrative side and Public Works Department for um operational and maintenance related issues.

[01:07:38] Councilmember John McAlister: And how is this district, does it have collect fees?

[01:07:43] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: It does. It uh operates on an assessment basis for businesses located uh or properties rather located within the um district boundaries.

[01:07:54] Councilmember John McAlister: And how much do they collect each year and what are their fees?

[01:07:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yeah, that's it's approximately 156,000 a year.

[01:08:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Much better than our business district, isn't it? Okay. So that being said, and then it says, okay, I'm concerned that this this parking signage which is uh I think a very important part of keeping people coming to Mountain View to find parking and if they don't find it they keep moving along. Why is that that some of these funds can't be used for this specific purpose? Because when I asked about this it says this is going to be repaired or replaced as part of the implementation of the 2021 Downtown Parking Strategy. We're almost in '26. Why is this taking so long to get resolved because it's very important, it's a vital part of vitality of downtown of people finding parking and go. So what's taking so long?

[01:08:55] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Um I think uh a number of competing priorities for the staff assigned to uh implement these is probably the the simple version of that. What I can say is that we've engaged um a parking uh management uh expert who we are working through the implementation actions identified in the the Downtown Parking Strategy. And we are prioritizing those uh among the prioritized work items include wayfinding signage. And so um I would anticipate in the course of that work uh what we ultimately bring to Council in terms of a recommendation would reflect uh current best practice in terms of parking supply, uh signage, wayfinding uh and the like. Um it hasn't been um you know certainly my recommendation internally to staff to simply uh redo the existing signage we have without knowing what the state of the art is and what would best serve our community and our visitors.

[01:09:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Could any of the funds from the Parking Management Operation Assessment District be used for this?

[01:09:50] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Uh most likely yes uh in terms of um upkeep and operation of the facilities. Yes.

[01:09:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. And then my next follow-up question is we collect funds for the business district. Why is it that we do not charge a fee for this service?

[01:10:10] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think your question relates to the administrative fee that the city might opt to charge um or recover. Um I can't speak to why this district wasn't uh formed um with that sort of administrative uh fee structure in place. What I can say is at this point in time all these years later in 2025, uh the amount of money that's collected already is insufficient for the intended primary purpose. And so all we would be doing by collecting an administrative fee is reducing that collection further potentially. And so um rather than investigate how to do that, I think we're looking at new funding structures that potentially could include uh a realistic administrative uh assessment fee.

[01:10:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[01:10:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Does any other member of the Council have any questions? All right. Uh not seeing any, we'll open up public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? All right. I am not seeing any speakers in person or virtually. So I'll bring the item back for Council questions and deliberation. Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report.

[01:11:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Vice Mayor Ramos has made the motion and it's been seconded by Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:11:35] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. Do I just read the resolution? All right. Um I move the staff's recommendation to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View approving the Annual Report of the Downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area Number 1 and declaring its intention to levy assessments for 2026 to be read in title only, further reading waived, and to set a public hearing date of October 28, 2025.

[01:12:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Let's vote.

[01:12:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. And that passes unanimously with those present. So we'll invite Councilmember Clark and Hicks uh to return to chambers. And we'll move to item 6.2 our Downtown Business Improvement Area Number 2 and allocation of 2026 Business Improvement Area Number 2 revenues. We'll wait till they return.

[01:13:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Economic Vitality Manager Amanda Rotella and Community Development Director Christian Murdock will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

[01:13:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: All right. Thank you. Uh good evening again Mayor, Vice Mayor and uh Council returning to chambers Council. Uh tonight we are holding the second public hearing in the annual renewal process for Downtown Improvement uh Area Number 2. The first meeting on September 23rd, 2025 was to review and preliminarily approve BIA Number 1. BIA Number 1 includes businesses in the 100, 200 and 300 blocks of Castro Street. And the assessments are used for programming, services and promotion to support downtown businesses. In the annual report provided by the Downtown Business Association, the 2026 projected revenues for BIA Number 2 are approximately $12,000. And tonight there are two recommendations for City Council consideration. First, to adopt a resolution confirming the annual report and levying an annual assessment in BIA Number 2 for calendar year 2026. And second to authorize the City Manager or designee to allocate the 2026 revenues from Business Improvement Area Number 2 to the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce to fund a disbursement agreement with the Mountain View Chamber of Commerce to accomplish the purposes of the area. Uh that that includes staff's comments. Thank you.

[01:14:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Does any member of the Council have any questions? All right. I am not seeing any. So we'll open up public comment. Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? I don't see any speakers. So I'll bring the item back for Council questions and deliberation. Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolution attached to the report. Would anyone like to make a motion?

[01:15:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. It looks like we have our our duo again. Uh Vice Mayor Ramos and Councilmember Ramirez. So we'll turn it over to you Vice Mayor.

[01:15:15] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you Mayor. Uh I move staff's recommendation and it is, here we go. Um to adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View confirming the Annual Report of the Downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area Number 2 and levying an annual benefit assessments for calendar year 2026 to be read in title only, further reading waived.

[01:15:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. Let's vote.

[01:16:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right. And that passes unanimously. Thank you to our staff. We'll move on to item 6.3, our Code Amendment to Chapter 36 Zoning. Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance first reading. Spanish translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreter.

[01:16:40] Interpreter: Muy buenas noches para las personas que necesitan interpretación en persona. Tenemos auriculares disponibles. Hoy ofreceremos interpretación en persona y de manera virtual. Para aquellos que necesitan interpretación mediante Zoom, favor de hacer clic en el botón de interpretación y después elige el idioma de su preferencia. También estaremos ofreciendo interpretación durante los comentarios públicos en persona y virtuales. Las personas que necesiten interpretación consecutiva, por favor hablen en bloques de tres oraciones. Luego tomen una pausa para nosotros interpretar y así consecutivamente poder interpretar todos sus ideas. Muchas gracias.

[01:17:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen and Housing Director Wayne Chen will present the item. If you'd like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk now.

[01:17:45] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Uh good evening Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council members. Uh Anke van Deursen, Rent Stabilization Manager uh from the Housing Department. Tonight we're presenting the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance amendments or TRAO amendments for the first reading. And these amendments are part of the Housing Element Program 3.2 which directs um the city to review the efficacy of the TRAO. Staff recommends introducing an ordinance to repeal the existing TRAO in Chapter 36 Article 13, add a new Tenant Relocation Assistance Article to Chapter 46 and find the amendments exempt from the CEQA. And if introduced tonight, the second reading will be scheduled for December the 9th of this year. The 2023-31 Housing Element includes program 3.2 which calls for reviewing the efficacy of the TRAO by the end of 2024. Here's a quick overview of the process to date. In July '24 we had stakeholder outreach to landlords, tenants and developers. In November 14 of last year we had a Rental Housing Committee study session. Uh on December 17th of '24 we had the first City Council study session. We then uh had a September 17, 2025 EPC meeting. Um EPC reviews Chapter 36 amendments. And then on October 28 tonight it's this public hearing for City Council. The EPC unanimously supported the amendments and added three additional considerations which I'll touch on later. Uh the TRAO amendments align with several key state laws. Senate Bill uh 330 or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 which governs tenant relocation benefits and noticing requirements. The Ellis Act which regulates withdrawal of rental units from the market and relevant sections of the Health and Safety Code for tenant notices and habitability standards. During the December '23 study session, staff identified six main considerations in the current TRAO along with recommendations uh summarized here. Um the first one is no specific move out date is mentioned for redevelopment projects. The second one is the notice of intent is issued too early. The third one is temporary and permanent displacements were treated the same. The fourth point is city enforced displacements were exempt from benefits. The fifth item is that there is no right of first refusal for tenants in redeveloped units. And the sixth item is increasing the efficacy of the TRAO by increasing the relocation benefits. Each issue has a corresponding amendment that I'll go through now. Um here's an illustrative example comparing the current TRAO uh in the second column with the recommended uh amendments in the third column. Um and the dates uh of a typical development process are mentioned in the first column. Under SB 330 tenants can remain in their homes until six months before construction begins. Adding this timeline in the TRAO prevents tenants from being asked to leave earlier than necessary and creates consistency with state requirements. Uh the date of demolition permit issuance will serve as an objective standard for when construction starts. As you can see on the green arrow, uh the the the timing goes from uh July June in '27 to uh May in '28 from 4A to 4B. Amendment 2 um uh has a later notice of intent. This chart shows the shift of notice of intent um sorry. Currently the landlords are required to issue a notice of intent within 30 days of filing an application. This may prompt tenants to move prematurely. And the amendment shifts that notice to one year before the required vacate date aligning with SB 330 and other cities' practices. To keep tenants informed earlier, the city and not the landlord will send an informational notice when a development application is filed including instructions to sign up for proj project specific email notifications. Um this chart shows the shift of the notice intent from within 30 days of filing an application to one year before the required vacate date. And it also shows the city informational notice be handed out uh at the time of the application submittal. The third amendment is to add the temporary displacement section. Tenants who are temporarily displaced under the current ordinance receive the same relocation benefits as tenants who are permanently displaced. However, these are different types of impact. The amendment adds a new section defining temporary displacement at 90 days or less requiring landlords to provide one of three options as modeled on our 660 uh Mariposa project. The first option is a per diem payment or a hotel or motel within 5 miles or comparable housing in Mountain View. Tenants also receive moving or storage costs coverage and a right of return to the same unit at the same rent once work is complete. If the displacement exceeds 90 days due to unforeseen circumstances, income eligible tenants may opt to remain in their temporary replacement location or move out uh permanently and forgo the right of return to the remodeled unit. An income eligible tenants can then uh receive permanent relocation benefits under the TRAO in addition to the temporary benefits they have already received. Moving to amendment 4, city en enforcement uh not exempt. Um the current TRAO exempts landlords from paying relocation benefits um if tenants are displaced due to city enforcement such as the red tagging of units which could cause unintended consequences. The amendment removes that exemption except when the damage or destruction is not caused or contributed to by the landlord. The fifth proposed amendment is the SB 330 right of first refusal. SB 330 gives lower income tenants the right of first refusal to return to new units built after the redevelopment. The amendments add this right for displaced household up to 80% of the area median income. Landlords must provide unit inventories tenant data and evidence that the vacancies occurred lawfully. And landlords includes third party agencies working for landlords, developers etc. Failure to comply could result in denial of building permits or project entitlements. The final amendment increases benefits um to increase the efficacy of the TRAO per Council's request to evaluate the following options. Low income households up to 80% AMI to be added as special circumstance group qualifying for enhanced benefits similar to the amounts and our methodology used in comparable cities. And staff recommends moving costs kept at 50 miles for all tenants regardless of income. Either through reimbursements of actual reasonable costs or by landlords providing the professional moving services. The EPC also discussed a bonus for tenants who relocate within Mountain View however there are administrative and legal potential legal constraints to implement this data. Staff also recommends as earlier mentioned to relocate the TRAO from Chapter 36 to Chapter 46 which is envisioned to consolidate housing related ordinances. Um the EPC proposed to add in the alternate mitigation sections that benefits must be of equivalent value to the TRAO benefits which staff incorporated. And after the EPC meeting staff identified additional amendments to clarify the intent which are non-substantive edits. Uh one is that the consumer price index um is referred to in the definition section. It was clarified that all displaced tenants receive moving assistance regardless of income as already discussed. And it's specified that the right of first refusal applies to both residential and non-residential projects that demolish protected units which would align with SB 330 requirements. Uh the second reading of this ordinance would be scheduled for December 9th and if approved the amendments would take effect on January 8 on 2026. Uh that in that concludes staff presentation. Happy to answer any questions.

[01:28:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you very much. Uh does any member of the Council have any questions? Councilmember McAlister.

[01:28:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. So um I was reading this and I saw that you went to a bunch of advisory committees to make amendments and changes. What kind of outreach did you do to the um landlords associations to keep them update and get their input into these changes that have been recently done?

[01:28:50] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, thank you for the question. Uh Wayne Chen, Housing Director. Uh so as Ms. Van Deursen provided in the presentation um at the beginning of the process there was outreach conducted uh prior to um the study sessions that were uh undertaken last year. After we got uh direction from Council to uh move forward with the recommended changes, then the uh ensuing time after December was really working on the draft amendments looking at comparable jurisdictions and providing a basis for um the enhanced benefits. And uh what we've done is to notify the uh folks who have registered for the Displacement Response Strategy and those who have registered for the uh Rental Housing Committee distribution list information um providing this information um through that process. We didn't have additional stakeholder meetings afterwards because we felt we had um clear direction from Council to uh implement the changes and study the the parameters. And so we have been working on evaluating comparable jurisdictions and working on the ordinance amendments after the December study session.

[01:29:35] Councilmember John McAlister: So from what I my since I wasn't here during the last part but it sounds like from July of '24 till where we are now, you got initial input from the landlords departments and so how do we that there wasn't really any outreach because there was some changes. How do we present a balanced uh ordinance if we're not hear from both sides of uh of this particular ordinance? You I I'm still hearing that there was no direct outreach you had emails going to other people. Was was there direct outreach to associations or any of those types to say we've done this, what do you think of this dollar amounts etc etc?

[01:30:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Primarily we evaluated comparable jurisdictions. Uh the moving cost piece was um implementing the Council direction to provide a moving cost uh benefit to all residents regardless of income. And so what we had done with that was just try to gather some data about how to implement that. Um and then again for the comparable jurisdictions with regards to enhanced benefits for just the low income category, that is uh the enhanced benefits are not for um all tenants, it's just for the low income category. We were just implementing and evaluating Council's direction by looking at the comparable jurisdictions. So um you're correct we didn't further meet with stakeholder meetings but we're publicizing the meetings um that we undertook with EPC and tonight's City Council meeting.

[01:31:15] Councilmember John McAlister: So was there any financial um check to fair you know or or uh analysis to say when we say all incomes that the cost was going to be this much uh was it something that since this the TRAO is supposed to be neutral supposedly balanced for fairness all on both sides that going out say for all incomes so we could have a $200-300,000 person saying you're getting money. Was that any analysis do it or was that more of a uh feel good type of uh motion?

[01:31:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. We we provided comprehensive information during the um study sessions last year where we identified in the staff reports there's really kind of three groups to think about who could um Council direct us to study additional benefits for. The first group was for folks who were up to the 80% AMI low income group. The second group was really the moderate income group up to 120% um plus a $5,000 bonus because that's what's in our TRAO right now. And then the third group was anyone above that essentially above mod moderate um income earners. The question was posed to Council and to the Rental Housing Committee last year is there interest in evaluating additional benefits for one or any of the groups. And the direction that we received was enhanced benefits for group one, the low income households, and moving costs for all of the groups. And so those were questions that were discussed last year in a good amount of detail and the direction that uh was provided was moving costs for everyone, enhanced benefits for just the low income group.

[01:32:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Since uh I was not here last year I did not participate in that. Um so I saw a figure of $21,000. Um does that ring a bell in in your uh...

[01:32:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes. So right now the TRAO benefits is 3 months of comparable rent. So if we were to take uh the the recent data let's say that's about $4,000 of a comparable rent times 3 that's $12,000. And then there's a special circumstances uh category currently it's for households with a senior or with um children up to a certain age. The recommendation is to add uh the low income household group as a third category under the special circumstances uh group. That's about an $8,000 um enhanced benefit. And so that's where we get to about the $20 or $21,000 um amount which is uh in the range of what other cities do for um low income households.

[01:33:15] Councilmember John McAlister: So if somebody moved from Mountain View a mile away they're getting a fixed cost or what did I read something about the actual cost for the landlord? So is it a fixed amount or is it an actual cost to move?

[01:33:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We are talking about the the moving cost specifically. Right. So the um landlord can either provide the service and just cover it or have the um tenant conduct the move furnish the the receipts for the actual cost and then have it reimbursed.

[01:33:50] Councilmember John McAlister: So okay. Um is the cost I mean are non-rental units included in this for uh relocation?

[01:34:25] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh certainly the CSFRA units and then if you can clarify Anke you were about to provide some comments.

[01:34:30] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Yeah. May I add something. Um when we were comparing other cities, no other city is limiting the income uh eligibility for TRAO payments. So all other cities that we reviewed have no limitations on the income of any tenant and they provide these relocation benefits to all the tenants that are being displaced. So we wanted to keep in trace with the TRAO and with the previous wishes of the City Council um to keep that in place.

[01:34:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay you brought up a question. So when you compared that that all cities have no income limit, how about all the other fees? Are we higher lower in middle in between for displacement?

[01:35:05] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Do you specify which fees you mean?

[01:35:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Well okay you said for the relocation fees there was no income level that says you are not entitled to it. When you compared other fees because you said we multiple times that we compared to other cities, when you said you compared to other cities was that just on relocation or on all the other fees that uh people potentially are entitled to on displacement?

[01:35:30] Housing Director Wayne Chen: We only looked at the comparable jurisdictions related to relocation benefits, not um I think what you're suggesting is total development cost.

[01:35:40] Councilmember John McAlister: Is was there any consideration that the fees could be a detriment to remodeling for people to uh because we have a lot of older units in the city that uh need some drastic repair. So was there any uh input or look at or talk to that if I have to do some updating it's going to cost us so much so there's no incentive for me to do it because this is going to cost me a bunch of money so.

[01:36:00] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That was actually one of the primary reasons why staff recommended evaluating temporary displacement as a new section rather than having tenants who might need to move out because a landlord wants to do remodeling and having to pay permanent relocation costs under the current TRAO there wasn't a really easy way to do that. Um we did have the benefit of the 660 Mariposa project where the developer renovated um a CSFRA building and provided options for folks to move out for a short period of time and move back in. Uh those temporary costs would be lower than the costs that are currently in um TRAO. So we we think that the um recommended amendments are um trying to address the question that you're that you're posing which would hopefully allow landlords to undertake more renovation than they are currently under the TRAO.

[01:36:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Is it possible that somebody could be entitled to temporary displacement and permanent displacements depending on how they looked at things?

[01:37:05] Housing Director Wayne Chen: In in the scenario that we are thinking of if there is an unforeseen circumstance where the landlord is initially thinking that the scope of work would be 90 days or less and there are circumstances that result in a longer period of time, then the options that Miss Van Deursen was presenting that they could um opt to stay in their temporary situation that's one option. The other option is um uh a tenant can say well I would rather conclude my temporary situation, I would like to move out permanently, I won't have a right to come back to the unit.

[01:41:25] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um they would be then eligible for also the the the permanent relocation benefits if they're income eligible. Those are really the the two situations.

[01:41:34] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Now there is still the alternative means of compliance section here so potentially what a landlord can do is to say, well we think we might be a little bit longer than 90 days, um so we might come in under the alternate means of compliance section.

[01:41:48] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The reason why we thought of a 90 day period of time was to prevent a situation where um a landlord might uh intend to have um rehab done and then it just kind of drags on for a while and it becomes a year or 18 months or whatnot.

[01:42:08] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So we wanted to have a window of time. Um but there's the alternate means of compliance, the new temporary displacement section along with a um modified permanent relocation section.

[01:42:20] Councilmember John McAlister: When does the 90 day start? When you say notice of intent, does that mean that the landlord if he's required to have a permit, does it start from the day he gets the permit because we know getting permitting and so forth can take a little bit of time. So when does that 90 day start?

[01:42:37] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah that that's a that's a great question. I'm going to um look to Anke real quick to...

[01:42:43] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Uh from the date that the developer says that the tenants have to move.

[01:42:48] Councilmember John McAlister: So is that realistic though?

[01:42:51] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: I I think so. Like um so the developer gets the remodeling permit. He is planning his remodel.

[01:42:59] Councilmember John McAlister: So he's okay so he's got his permit in hand.

[01:43:02] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Yeah.

[01:43:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay that's what I was okay.

[01:43:05] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: And then uh but then then the 90 days don't start yet. The 90 days start from when he gives the notice to the tenants that they have to temporarily quit.

[01:43:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay so it's not okay I thank you. Thank you.

[01:43:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Showalter.

[01:43:21] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well um Councilmember McAlister asked a couple of the questions I was going to ask so. But but I'm a little confused about the money. All right so we um we've been hearing the magic number is $21,000, the maximum. How do you get that?

[01:43:43] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So three months times 4000 plus or three m three months times 4000 plus 8000 for special circumstances plus a thousand to move? Is that it?

[01:43:51] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: So uh the the amount varies by person because the three month comparable rent depends on what the renter is displaced from. Say if it's a three bedroom unit we're looking at the data, current data, what does the three bedroom unit go for in the market today.

[01:44:11] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: That's those are the three months rent that they're getting. Plus for the tenants 80% AMI or lower they get an additional special circumstances which is around $8,000 and that goes up each year with the CPI.

[01:44:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. So...

[01:44:29] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: So if a three bedroom apartment currently goes for uh $3,500, they get three times $3,500 plus the extra $8,000.

[01:44:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. So that's not quite 20. And plus moving expenses.

[01:44:48] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Correct.

[01:44:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. Thank you that... So then we get to moving expenses. Um I can imagine how that varies quite a bit. I know over the course of my life there was a time when I um you know would have just put a few things in in um a suitcase and a couple of boxes and stuck it all in my car and maybe a friend's car and we would have been done.

[01:45:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And then as time goes on and you get furniture and you know household stuff it it gets to be much more extensive. So um uh so it seems like leaving this kind of open ended is I mean it's very it could be very open ended.

[01:45:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: What if people have a grand piano? You know I mean that that could cost a lot to move. So um how how are we going to work this so that it's not um so that it's not too open minded?

[01:45:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: The the thought is that um the 50 mile cap is one way to keep it from being open ended. The thought is that if a tenant needs to move they would have all their belongings that would need to go with them so if they had a piano then they should be able to bring the piano with them.

[01:46:03] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um if there are any other specific parameters um that Council has in mind you know we can we can certainly take it but we have looked at other cities and it is really kind of based on the ability to either have the landlord pay it or to furnish the actual cost of of the move through receipts or invoices and there is going to be a range.

[01:46:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um if folks are moving a little bit further, um if folks have more things then then it will vary.

[01:46:33] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. Um and then the temporary removal. Um why was 90 days chosen? I mean what kind of upgrades are you expecting a um landlord to make in 90 grades?

[01:46:51] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And what couldn't be made in 90 days? Kind of can you tell me because I know when I've done remodeling it's um you know you get an estimate from your contractor and for most people that estimate is um is very rubbery and and um it it goes a lot longer.

[01:47:10] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I mean you know you should break out the champagne if you get it done on time. It's just it's really not standard. So um so I want I'm a little I'm interested in in what are the kinds of things that you think would be would be done.

[01:47:25] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you for the question. The one of the starting points that we had was taking a look at the 660 Mariposa project which had a pretty comprehensive scope of work and I believe the timeframe for completing the work uh moving moving folks out, completing the work and moving folks in was around 45 days or so.

[01:47:45] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um now they they might have more experience and and was able to be able to implement all the changes by then. It was pretty comprehensive, it was floors and um cabinetry and um appliances and fixtures and and things like that.

[01:48:03] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um so that was pretty comprehensive and then there was also work done in the hallways and the common areas as well. Um those would be the types of things that we would envision. Maybe it's not all of them, maybe it's just a subset of of um uh of features.

[01:48:20] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh and then there could be other ways too of helping folks stay uh uh in the building. So for example in the 660 Mariposa example um the work was done in phases and so not everyone had to move at the same time.

[01:48:36] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um but there was also the ability to move folks from um uh a unit that they were in to another unit on site as a way to keep keep folks um in there.

[01:48:47] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um but I think that's where the alternative means alternate means of compliance can come in. If folks feel like they envision a scope of work that might need more than 90 days, they can come in under that pathway.

[01:49:02] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um we were also looking at how other cities handled temporary uh displacement situations and it ranged from 45 days to 60 days and what not and to your point it seemed like it would be reasonable to have a little bit more time than some of our comparable jurisdictions uh in order to have the landlords be able to get the contractors and maybe factor in a little bit of additional time to be able to implement the work.

[01:49:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um so taking a look at the comparable jurisdictions, looking at the time frame that the 660 Mariposa was completed um and having some flexibility without uh a situation where it dragged on too long was where we landed on the 90 days.

[01:49:46] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. The other thing I was thinking of is that um uh you know a lot of improvements are done when an apartment turns over. And um then the landlord doesn't have these restrictions.

[01:49:58] Councilmember Pat Showalter: But if they want to do um kind of some structural work say to the whole apartment building, I can imagine there might be um you know there there there might be some jobs that needed to be done. Termite damage or um electrification issues or things like that that would would really take in the whole you know the whole building.

[01:50:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So um you know it would be different. Um is there are there ways for us to make this a little more flexible? Have you thought of how you might make this flexible? If I mean for instance if if um if a job isn't done because uh there's something happens that's outside of the the control of the landlord or the contractor um that jump up to you know the complete TRAO, I mean that's a big jump.

[01:51:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um do we want to how how would you um how would you implement that?

[01:51:10] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh we we were just um brainstorming here a little bit. You know perhaps there could be a provision that allows documentation of an unforeseen circumstance that because was beyond the control of the landlord and they've done their best to try to keep it within the 90 days that there can be some flexibility incorporated into into that.

[01:51:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um because it was not the intention to um um go longer than is needed but but things have happened and we know that with sup supply chain and whatnot things can happen so there could be some flexibility potentially introduced in that manner.

[01:51:49] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I think that would be great. Okay thank you. And then another question I have is is I was we haven't talked much here about red tagging houses. It's a very scary subject and if you're you know having worked in flood control the worst thing that can happen if you're in a flood is that your house gets red tagged and you can't live in it.

[01:52:09] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So um so it's a real it's a it's a very very serious situation when your house gets red tagged. And um so I I wanted you to talk to us a little bit about um what would cause an apartment to get red tagged and what's our um what's our experience in Mountain View with this kind of thing?

[01:52:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thanks for the question. We've had two I think two or three projects over the last year and a half or two where the city has had to take this type of um enforcement action to red tag. Um in one of the projects the the units were just not habitable um or um they might have been unpermitted I believe and the situation resulted where the city action then resulted in tenants having to leave right away but there wasn't a way to provide the TRAO benefits to those tenants.

[01:53:01] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um perhaps Ms. van Deursen has some additional details about the characteristics or the situations of a couple of those projects.

[01:53:08] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: These were definitely unpermitted simple structures mostly found in the back of the yard looking more like sheds than housing or ADUs, lacking uh basic water, bathrooms, kitchens, you name it.

[01:53:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: So if we were if and I did ask this question if something was red tagged because of um a a natural disaster you answered it in the you know in the um questions then you know like an earthquake or a flood um then that wouldn't necessarily trigger the the TRAO right I mean so let's share that with the public.

[01:53:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That's correct. The recommendation is to maintain an exemption when there is say a fire or natural disaster and um the situation was not caused or contributed to by the landlord.

[01:54:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay. All right. Thank you so much for answering all those questions.

[01:54:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Hicks.

[01:54:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my question was mostly asked by Councilmember Showalter. There's maybe I'm trying to think whether to still ask there maybe a a little remaining piece of it. Um so the temporary displace my question is on the temporary displacement.

[01:54:27] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I actually asked this in Council questions but there's just a a little bit that I think is left. I guess most of this you you've answered but I'm wondering if my experience with renovations is that you get all the contractors, subcontractors in and something one step of it goes wrong.

[01:54:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And it may be because I'm not uh as professional as the people you know I don't work with the regular contractors all the time. Um but that may be the case for like a mom and pop uh rental owner.

[01:55:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um so what happens if like I I think in the staff report you said that if the uh landlord foresees that it's going to go over 90 days the renovation that uh they have to give the tenant one month notice that they're going to go over.

[01:55:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: But my experience is sometimes you don't know until the last minute. So I'm wondering this is in the category that Councilmember Showalter asked about flexibility. Like how could we handle that if it's a you know more of a an unexpected thing?

[01:55:39] Housing Director Wayne Chen: My suggestion would be to have these be um administrative details and procedures that with your feedback we can develop the procedural elements that can provide the flexibility and incorporate the um uh ability to um uh take a look at information that can be provided by the landlord about unforeseen or unexpected situations and then um essentially promulgate those through administrative uh guidelines and procedures.

[01:56:10] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So I think you um you've already identified at least a couple here for us to take back and uh provide flexibility that way.

[01:56:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That sounds good to me. Thank you.

[01:56:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Councilmember Ramirez.

[01:56:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Um I have a few questions. The first uh it might be helpful for staff to um spell out when TRAO applies and when the relocation assistance under SB 330 applies. I please correct me if I'm wrong but historically thinking about the types of displacement that we've seen in in Mountain View most of those would have uh required SB 330 relocation benefits so when would TRAO be required and when would SB 330 be required?

[01:57:01] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Yeah so the TRAO states that uh if three or more units are being demolished and tenants are being displaced then the TRAO will be applicable. Then SB 330 came along and under there protected units is a definition under SB 330 which um comprises CSFRA units, rent controlled units, um and any units with low income tenants.

[01:57:28] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: So it's not one or the other. Uh we have some guidelines where we compare the TRAO benefits with the SB 330 benefits and the string- stringenter one of the two applies for each situation. So most of the times the tenant relocation benefits are greater under SB 330 so then that will apply but then the TRAO also requires um a relocation agent to be used uh to help the tenants find uh placements units so then that application from the TRAO applies as well at the same time.

[01:58:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay uh so uh and my apologies for for uh walking through this very pedantically but uh for I think the the most important income bracket we're considering is 80% and below because that's where we are for the first time going to consider the special circumstance benefit addition, right?

[01:58:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um in many cases though for that income bracket if households 80% AMI and below are displaced they're more often than not going to benefit from SB 330 relocation assistance and not TRAO. Is that fair to say?

[01:58:49] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That is fair to say in in many if not most cases.

[01:58:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So then uh what are examples of displacement uh and you could draw from examples we've seen in Mountain View where TRAO for the 80% AMI and below households would apply.

[01:59:09] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: So first off the TRAO itself doesn't have the 80% AMI uh income group defined. Um any any eligible household uh under 120% AMI plus $5,000 get TRAO benefits. So for the time being that SB 330 is also in place only the households between 80 and 120% AMI will get the TRAO benefits whereas most likely the households under 80% will benefit more from the SB 330 uh payouts.

[01:59:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think we're talking past each other just a little a little bit. So the for for households 80% AMI or above 80% AMI there is no additional special circumstance benefit right that's only for 80% and below but what when would that actually be provided since most of these households would benefit from SB 330 state manded state mandated uh relocation assistance. What when so staff says it's it's rare when might we see that actually paid out.

[02:00:15] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah it's a somewhat complicated Venn diagram. I'm going to read a couple more um categories under the definition of protected unit under SB 330 which expands the the situation and then I'm going to ask if Karen Tiedemann legal counsel to the Rental Housing Committee could provide some additional um information to your question.

[02:00:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think sorry before before you go um further let's just try to uh if staff can promote Karen while um perfect okay great.

[02:00:48] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Thank you. So a protected unit under SB 330 is um a unit covered by local rent stabilization provisions. Um number two subject to affordable housing covenants like a 100% affordable project. A unit that is just simply occupied by very low and low income households um or four units subject to um what is called an Ellis Act eviction where a landlord can just remove the units from the rental market um and something like that has occurred in the last 10 years.

[02:01:23] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um but if if Karen is available uh perhaps she can speak to uh Councilmember Ramirez's question about sort of the situations in which the the TRAO and the SB 330 overlap or or don't overlap in terms of the coverage.

[02:01:38] Karen Tiedemann: Yes good evening uh Karen Tiedemann with Goldfarb & Lipman um outside counsel for the City. So the situations where a 80% household would not be eligible for the 330 benefits would be a circumstance where the unit is covered by the CSFRA and um there's an owner occupancy move-in or there's an Ellis Act eviction. Um so any no fault just cause eviction under the CSFRA or the MHRSO that isn't related to a development project would trigger those benefits.

[02:02:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you and does staff can staff share statistically you know how how often has that occurred since uh the CSFRA became law?

[02:02:32] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Yeah so SB 330 is only applicable when uh projects uh properties are being demolished so whenever it's not being demolished but for instance there is an owner move in uh we've seen I would say about 20 cases of those in the last...

[02:02:47] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Since like April 2017?

[02:02:50] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Um I would say in the last two three years. Yeah.

[02:02:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Around 20 examples. Um and that's so those aren't all households with lower than 80% AMI that's just the total number. Okay. Um thank you that's very helpful so I I guess just to to you know sum up this line of questioning for the most part these amendments simply codify SB 330. We we're not changing too much beyond that.

[02:03:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That's correct.

[02:03:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um thank you. One last question um and maybe for the City Attorney um uh staff has brought up administrative guidelines and procedures. I didn't comb through the muni code amendments that carefully. Is that some additional direction that the Council would have to provide to give staff the flexibility to address the temporary displacement issues that Councilmembers um uh McAlister, Hicks and uh Showalter talked about?

[02:04:09] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So are you seeking to have those included in the ordinance or just included um in the administrative guidelines that would be drafted by staff?

[02:04:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Does the do the amendments to the muni code that have been prepared for Council review already reference administrative guidelines and procedures so we don't need to take any additional action?

[02:04:30] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Correct.

[02:04:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay great thank you.

[02:04:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great thank you. All right so um for colleagues if you have any additional questions we'll just um continue on with questions before we open public comment. Um I had a procedural kind of question. So when this came to Council last December um when looking at Table 1 item number three or sorry item number six and it said evaluate options to increase benefits, are all the amendments proposed um like starting on page nine when it says Amendment 6 and then everything after that you know additional amendments and so from page 9 to page 12 are those considered the quote unquote options that you're bringing back to Council?

[02:05:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Because everything says amendment and so not to necessarily make a question comment but I thought we were going to get you know kind of option one, option two, option three. Um you know I think the tables are are descriptive um in terms of the the attachments but I thought we were going to get kind of options of a suite of options which we could um choose from but are you saying that all the amendments listed from page 9 to 12 are options for recommended by staff for adoption?

[02:05:59] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh yes our um understanding from last December study session was to bring back um ordinance amendments for considerations and uh typically when we do that we would provide the the recommended amendment as opposed to provide you know op options for discussion. Um so that was the approach that that we took.

[02:06:21] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Um and then I think you're referring to page nine of tonight's staff report. Yeah we were really going um we were really looking to be responsive to um the section where uh Council is supportive of valuing enhanced benefits for group one only and moving costs for for all three three groups and and based on that direction the ensuing narrative was to provide the recommended amendment for for Council consideration.

[02:06:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: How many amend amendments are there because I think there's the amendment so at the at the um because there's also additional considerations, additional amendments. So can staff just tell us like which I think it's just important to to clarify.

[02:07:16] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes so the amendment for this sixth item evaluate or looking at increased benefits is uh number one to add the low income household category up to 80% AMI. That group would be added as a new group under special circumstances so that's the part A of Amendment 6.

[02:07:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Part A of Amendment 6. So which are we looking at the table or the staff report?

[02:07:43] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Just the way it's written and the way I'm trying to align I'm just trying to align particularly for the the public so I think the chart you know the chart on table three um is quite illustrative in terms of uh one through five okay these are the challenges considerations these are recommendations but when we get into um item six and it says evaluate options there's kind of multiple amendments that fall under that bucket and so I just want to clarify all of the additional amendments that we are discussing in reviewing tonight as a Council.

[02:08:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: I would draw your attention to page 10 under the in the first full paragraph in the the bold it says staff recommends using the this methodology and amending the TRAO to include group one as part of the definition of special circumstance so that's that's one aspect. And then in the next section under moving costs in in the bold where it says staff recommends allowing the landlord to elect either of the following forms of moving assistance in the two bullet points, that's the second part of the uh of the benefits for moving costs for everyone.

[02:08:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So the first full paragraph on page 10 and then the the the middle bolded section for moving costs.

[02:08:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And so those are so that's two amendments. Two two additional options greater or sorry two additional amendments to what we had discussed in December.

[02:09:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: These are two subcomponents to two amendments.

[02:09:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Sorry I know I just I I'm just trying to you know.

[02:09:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Understood. Thank you.

[02:09:21] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay so sub subcomponents. All right and then when we're getting into the additional um considerations so we're talking about adding group one as part of the special circumstances and then the second amendment on the moving costs and then when we get down into because then you get into EPC additional consideration 2 and then we get into even more additional amendments.

[02:09:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So is that something that we're discussing tonight is that incorporated into the final motion? I just need clarity.

[02:09:53] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yes so the EPC additional consideration was to actually add an even higher amount of moving costs and what we've noted here is there may be some challenges so to be very clear staff is recommending to not do that. Um the additional amendments have been incorporated into Attachment 1 as amendments already.

[02:10:18] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So during the EPC meeting um so on page 11 where it says EPC additional consideration 3 that has been uh incorporated into Attachment 1. And then the clarifications were items that staff had identified that would benefit from additional clarity but doesn't change the intent of it. Those have already been incorporated into Attachment 1 as well.

[02:10:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So all right and hopefully that clarifies everything for colleagues too. I just wanted to make sure that we're all understanding all of the different amendments that we're talking about um tonight and what's actually incorporated into what we're being asked to adopt so. Um and then uh just another question so there was a there was a question brought up by a colleague about um kind of additional community outreach that could be done.

[02:11:12] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So should Council adopt the TRAO tonight is there an opportunity to have further discussions and outreach? I think one I I you know think education is going to be a huge um component but is there also an opportunity for communications on these two amendments um moving costs and adding these folks to group one or has the ship sailed and if Council adopts both of those amendments tonight then there would be no further conversations with the and outreach with those um different entities that we may have not heard from yet.

[02:11:48] Housing Director Wayne Chen: There would be uh for example for this meeting um uh information provided about the agenda packet to all the folks who've signed up for receiving this information. That would go out again for the consent item but there wouldn't really be a process to provide feedback to modify anything from tonight. Uh the the this would go to the second reading as a consent item.

[02:12:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So if Council was interested in opportunities for that dialogue to happen how would we be able to do that? We would...

[02:12:19] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Yeah I think we would um we we would have a a modified schedule um to the extent that there may be some modifications that come out of that we may I would just confer with the City Attorney uh that we may have to come back um for uh a new first reading.

[02:12:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Yeah that's what I'm trying to clarify. Would we need to continue the item and hear it again to get that input or could we adopt tonight with I don't know with that up yeah. City Attorney Logue.

[02:12:48] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So you could make amendments tonight and introduce it with amendments and then it would come back for a second reading for adoption so you wouldn't have to re-introduce it. I mean you're here tonight and it's noticed for you to discuss everything so you could make amendments tonight. It's just that if it comes back again on the second reading then you are done at that point so there would be no more amendments but you could make amendments tonight that we could incorporate before second reading.

[02:13:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well I think that's just the how do we move this forward if the if those feel that they haven't had an opportunity to engage and provide um input.

[02:13:19] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: If you want to allow for more input from the community I would continue the item and just bring it back for another first reading.

[02:13:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. I just was curious about that just because that was a question that came up. All right. Uh back to Councilmember McAlister.

[02:13:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you Mayor for that last clarification. That was one of my questions. So I just need a little more clarification on a couple. So the 21,000 did I hear you say that was based on a three bedroom unit?

[02:13:49] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: I was just giving an example that the 21,000 is not a fixed number, how tenant benefits are being calculated. I'm just saying this is what the methodology is to calculate each household's uh TRAO benefits if it comes to that. So if you're in a two uh bedroom apartment and the market rate for that and I'm just hypothetically speaking is $2,500 per month, then they get three months of the $2,500.

[02:14:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So these were examples because for some reason I saw the 21,000 I thought that was the the given. What would happen and flexibility and I thank you Councilmember Showalter for your thoughts on uh flexibility and concern. What if somebody uh we have some land owners and uh landlords in Mountain View have a lot of hundreds of units. What if they say okay we're going to do some work here and we're going to put you into another unit of our own. Do they get all these relocation costs?

[02:14:52] Housing Director Wayne Chen: That's an option for them to do to to to help move folks into vacant units that that um could accommodate folks for a period of time and then that could be it there wouldn't have to be um like a payment to a hotel or something. I think the only thing then or the primary thing that would remain would just uh any cost associated with moving folks to a different unit.

[02:15:16] Councilmember John McAlister: So there's no uh I mean I wouldn't say extra cost of displacement. You're just paying you're going from here to here, the rent's going to be this. Okay. Is that something that is in here to say that's an exemption?

[02:15:29] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh that's one of the options in the in the in the uh amendments already.

[02:15:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And no those were my questions thank you very quick.

[02:15:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right I don't see any other Council questions so we'll open public comment. If any member of the public would like to provide comment public comment on this issue please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the City Clerk. We'll take in-person speakers first. Each speaker will have three minutes. We'll begin with Norman Lopatin, Anil Babbar, Tessa McFarland and then we'll go to virtual.

[02:16:08] Norman Lopatin: Good evening Mayor, member of the Council, staff. Uh want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here tonight about this. Um I am a portfolio manager for a small investment group uh local investment group uh that we have a 40 unit apartment complex uh in Mountain View at the present time. And I would like to say that you really you need to think about all of this. This will dissuade developers from redeveloping properties in Mountain View. It's an added cost that is a below the line cost that doesn't add value to the development, doesn't add value to anything other than the bottom line that they have to spend.

[02:16:53] Norman Lopatin: You're in the most expensive uh area in the in the world in terms of development costs and by increasing that you're you're not doing yourself any favor and you do have we're in an older stock building. And the 90 day I'm not going to talk about the temporary because the temporary relocation is I think a very good thing and and and it's not a problem. The 90 days is a problem. It's not realistic. It's not realistic at all because the majority are not cabinetry and refrigerators and whatever that you're doing and painting and recarpeting. It's infrastructure that is the problem in these older buildings.

[02:17:31] Norman Lopatin: The electric that have to all be upgraded which might even require upgraded service being brought to the thing which takes over a year and a half with PG&E to get that. So to say that 90 days is enough isn't even close. But that's not what I'm here I'm here on the the um the cost of um you know of um moving them out okay. And I only have a couple of questions on that that did you consider. The majority of the people in our development are people that are on subsidized housing from county, state and local and federal agencies that support it.

[02:18:04] Norman Lopatin: The tenant itself doesn't even have the lease. The lease is held by the agency that is granting them the you know getting the lease. So does that agency get relocation money cause that obviously doesn't seem to make sense. And that is not the purpose of what this is for and also I I mean you want to encourage the redevelopment within your city. To encourage redevelopment all I'm looking for is if you've held it for a long period of time. What you want to avoid is flippers okay I I I'm sure everyone understands what that term means a flipper.

[02:18:36] Norman Lopatin: A flipper is someone who comes in, buys something and then next year sells it because they've increased the value by uh they bought it cheap and they turn around get higher rents when they're allowed to move in and then they flip it to someone else. They have no commitment to the community. You want to keep people who are local and who have commitments to this community. You're not serving yourself well by making this amendment and doing this where this relocation is that high. Uh also I again as I said if the person doesn't even own the lease all right and they've been there for less than a year...

[02:19:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Sorry that was your three minutes.

[02:19:12] Norman Lopatin: Thank you very much. I have more to say and you definitely need to come and talk to us we were never asked. Thank you.

[02:19:18] Anil Babbar: Good evening Mayor and Council. Anil Babbar with the California Apartment Association. I wanted to express my um opposition to the proposed changes in the TRAO. Um first we're concerned and as we pointed out in our letter and and as you've heard on the dais today about the lack of outreach to housing providers on this issue. Property owners were not given an opportunity to present or participate in shaping these ordinances. Uh one meeting a year and a half ago doesn't suffice as outreach. It is a check the box.

[02:19:47] Anil Babbar: Um we want to be able to be at the table and uh understand the issue better uh and could have avoided a lot of the questions that you were having today. Um secondly as we mentioned before in the letter you know these proposed relocation payments are simply too high. You've heard from a a previous property owner that uh the impacts that uh these high payments will have. Um it will make it unsustainable to support reinvestment in housing and could lead to deferred maintenance, deterioration of properties and so forth.

[02:20:19] Anil Babbar: So we're asking simply to just continue this item, have our opportunity to present our input, ask the questions, understand the policy um and uh and come to some uh mutual agreement before we uh move forward and adopt something that will have obviously some uh uh I'm sure a lot of unintended consequences. All right. Thank you.

[02:20:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[02:20:52] Tessa McFarland: Good evening everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to address you tonight. Uh my name is Tessa McFarland I'm Senior Vice President and General Counsel at Prometheus Real Estate Group. Uh we've been a housing provider in Mountain View for many many years. We in fact did the development at um at 660 Mariposa. Unfortunately no one reached out to us about any of the provisions that are being kind of touted as a general justification for what you're doing and I have to say going to Councilmember McAlister's point, for that deal to work we knew all of our development costs going in.

[02:21:30] Tessa McFarland: So we were able to assess what we did there in connection with all of our development approvals. And so I don't think that that project as great as it is is a good general plan example. Um I'm here to ask you to please continue this matter. There has not been appropriate outreach. Um the two study sessions that were conducted were very general. Um this is the first time a couple days ago on Friday that this very detailed um amendment was made available and there aren't just two amendments.

[02:22:06] Tessa McFarland: I mean I want to be really clear on that. There are eight pages of new language at pages 24 through 32 um including for the new temporary relocation, new right of first refusal, new inventory requirements, there's at least seven new substantive definitions that are being changed. Um as to the comp charts, I I'm not sure how comparable they are. Um we have Oxnard, West Hollywood um and Santa Monica and even if we look at the comp charts that were provided for example the limited data that's example three jurisdictions, Alameda, Santa Monica and San Francisco do not include the 80% AMI households as special circumstances.

[02:22:47] Tessa McFarland: So the on the the data that is provided is limited and in some cases it is against what is being uh touted by staff here. Um the resulting 21,000 potential um of of relocation um assistance is damaging. It it is a lot of money especially when you cap that with unlimited moving expenses as Councilwoman Showalter said you know a grand piano, a piece of art, you know who knows right but there's absolutely no no cap on any moving expenses and a 50 mile radius is a very very large radius.

[02:23:24] Tessa McFarland: Um I I've got a lot of other things to say. The right of first refusal language won't work. It's going to hold units off the market for over 90 days which I don't think is what is intended here. Um the issue of of landlords having to provide notice in in three languages plus language that's uh requested by the tenant is untenable. And I've got a lot of other comments but...

[02:23:52] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[02:26:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: All right, so we'll uh that concludes public comment in person, so we'll move to virtual. Ileen Kim?

[02:26:34] Ileen Kim: Thank you. Um, my concern is that among the changes that the city staff are recommending to the ordinance is a significant increase in the relocation payments. The expanded relocation benefits would increase the financial burden on housing providers, and we're talking small mom and pop property owners. By doubling the benefits from about 12,000 to more than 21,000 per household, plus covering the moving costs for the tenant regardless of the tenant's income. Let me repeat that. Regardless of the tenant's income. This could be an AI tech worker making a million dollars a year, and the small mom and pop owner needs to reimburse them for their moving costs and relocation costs.

[02:27:24] Ileen Kim: I know people are frustrated with the lack of affordable housing in the area. But the issue truly at the core of this is the lack of housing. Let me repeat that, the lack of housing being built. Period. Basic supply and demand. But to confuse the problem of lack of affordable housing is related to and solved with increased rent control is a grave mistake. Let me talk about a study out of Stanford. Back in 2019, Stanford University study found that rent control in San Francisco led to a 15% decrease in the supply of rental housing because landlords sold properties or converted them to owner-occupied units.

[02:28:03] Ileen Kim: This study called the Effect of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality was conducted by Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian. I urge the City Council members to read this study. Time and time again, it's been proven with study after study, rent control and putting more and more fees on property owners does nothing to increase the affordable housing crisis. And in fact decreases the amount of affordable housing, as well it ghetto-izes the stock of housing that's made available.

[02:28:37] Ileen Kim: So when we return back to this new ordinance, the city staff are recommending to have small mom and pop owner landlords shelling out 21,000 per household plus the cost of moving costs to the tenant regardless of the tenant's income where there's no cap on the moving costs, is really an onerous burden. It's basically taking the problem of affordable housing and instead of solving it with building new housing as a city, the city staff is actually trying to offload the housing issues onto the backs of owners of small mom and pop property owners. These are, they keep using the word developer, these are not developers. These property owners are people who have worked hard, scrimped and saved, gotten a mortgage, maybe bought a triplex, maybe a quadplex, and they've gotten a mortgage and they're renting it out, working every weekend, working every evening in the hopes that this rental income will be their retirement income. And this is what the city staff is offloading this cost onto. This is not a solution. I urge you to reassess your ordinances, increase more housing. Thank you.

[02:29:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. All right, our next uh speaker is Reagan Avery.

[02:29:48] Reagan Avery: Uh can you h- hear me?

[02:29:49] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:29:50] Reagan Avery: Great. Hi. Um, good evening, uh Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers. Reagan Avery uh with Akko Management. Our company's been based in Mountain View since 1960. I've personally worked at the company for 34 years and I I must say I've never seen um the California Apartment Association as frustrated as they've been uh with this process as was articulated by Anil. Um and not being uh really uh at the table as a stakeholder.

[02:30:30] Reagan Avery: Um and and either staff felt that uh the housing industry was not a stakeholder here, which obviously isn't the case because ultimately we're the ones deciding to move forward and if redeveloping, providing more housing stock, which is very much needed, and also upgrading CSFRA um CSFRA stock. Uh 100% of our housing, uh three large communities are are under CSFRA. And if we redevelop, as you know, we're titled to maintain that same number under the CSFRA regulations. Um units are 50, 60 years old.

[02:31:11] Reagan Avery: But adding uh to the costs of doing so without including the stakeholders um can lead to unintended consequences working against those goals. And I appreciated uh many comments by the Council tonight about uh very informed about how uh the idea of a predictable schedule on a remodel is is pretty much unheard of. Um and the types of remodels we would be looking at here as was communicated. Um as well as the idea of having no means testing. I guarantee you the the communities that staff looked at, uh the average income even in B-level properties is magnitudes higher in Mountain View than in those other communities.

[02:32:03] Reagan Avery: I guess my ultimate concern was why uh the housing industry and CAA weren't invited to the table. Either they weren't considered um uh a key stakeholder or someone didn't want to hear their input. But I very much encourage the continuation because so much of the discussion tonight has been valuable, the questions from uh Councilmembers. Uh much of this, as was articulated, could have been vetted out earlier and there's still a lot that needs to um uh be vetted out going forward. Uh thank you for your time and uh listening to my comments.

[02:32:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Uh next is uh Edie Keating.

[02:32:50] Edie Keating: Hi, thank you. Hearing this tonight, I'm remembering the uh Rock Street redevelopments. And those were painful because tenants were losing their homes. And the TRAO in those situations were helpful. Um it didn't answer all the questions, neither will these situations uh answer all questions or help everyone stay in Mountain View.

[02:33:21] Edie Keating: Um some of the things I'm hearing tonight that I would like to speak to are the idea that uh the older housing stock in Mountain View must be uh redeveloped. And I've seen uh just visiting different apartment complexes that in-place uh improvements to apartments can and are taking place in Mountain View after the CSFRA was passed. I've seen new in-unit washer dryers added, I've seen beautiful new stairways up to second story uh units added. Um and all of these, you know the cutting edge sword of every uh improvement, is that when there's vacancy decontrol and a next person moves in, that there will be a higher rent charged.

[02:34:10] Edie Keating: Um the rent control is a imperfect way to control prices. It keeps current uh people in their apartments, but then the vacancy decontrol uh changes the price and slowly apartments gentrify. So this may you will be adding to the cost of redeveloping and but you know, so is state law, so is SB 330 adding to the cost of redeveloping.

[02:34:44] Edie Keating: And it's uh one of the things that the CSFRA guarantees is habitability. So is there a need to totally wipe out older apartments and uh rebuild them? I would say no. I would say, what think about some of the apartments that Councilmembers do or have lived in. And there are ways to remodel a certain number of units at a time. So I appreciate the thoughts about flexibility and the landlord comments, and this has taken a while. The, you know I wonder when the last community meeting for renter input on this was. I think that was quite a while ago as well. Um I hope you will move ahead with this and I think uh you know, nothing is perfect, but I think this is an improvement. Thank you.

[02:35:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Uh next is uh Mina Young.

[02:35:40] Mina Young: Hi, my name's Mina Young. Um I'm the president of Business and Housing Network. We have thousands of mom mom and uh small mom and pop um owners throughout California, especially in South Bay. Um we are mainly um immigrant and uh seniors uh with um language barriers. So all these state and local regulations are really uh putting a big burden on the small mom and pops.

[02:36:17] Mina Young: And with the proposal today, it's very clear it's an example that um that's why housing stock is collapsing and people are leaving California. We really cannot survive in this environment. Um with insurance currently, as you know, a lot of insurance companies are leaving California, and actually they are telling us it's the rent regulations adding the cost and premiums and they're canceling hundreds of thousands um you know that we can know of.

[02:36:49] Mina Young: And we have to do a lot more renovation, I know a lot more stringent um um renovation work in order to get another insurance coverage. And rentals require additional coverage and those have doubled, the premiums have doubled for us this year. And so think about all these uh all these new regulations, they're going to prevent us from owning rentals for um mom and pop. We really cannot afford it. Okay, so you are forcing us out and so please do not do any more of these um anti-housing policies. We are just neighbors. You need to consider all sides um of the people, not just one side. And um the community is divided and we really cannot uh afford to uh handle any more of these um unreasonable regulations, uh burdens, and um one-sided biased um policies. So please stop that. Thank you.

[02:38:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, thank you. All right, I don't see any more virtual public comment. Um so I'm going to turn it to City Attorney Logue.

[02:38:15] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I actually just wanted to clarify my response to the question that um Councilmember Ramirez asked about administrative guidelines. If the Council is interested um in having administrative guidelines, I do think that you should provide direction this evening. I reviewed the ordinance and it does mention guidelines, but I think it's different guidelines. So, um, I just wanted to, as you deliberate, to take that into consideration and add that as direction if if if you wish to.

[02:38:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you very much for that clarification. So I am going to bring the item back for Council questions and deliberation, and please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report. Vice Mayor Ramos.

[02:38:55] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I can go deep into each of the amendments. I do not want to uh push this farther but we I think we could figure our way through to to um find a a a good place for all of us. Um so on a broader level, um this is an item that we have committed to in our housing element and it's because of our residents asking for essentially us to move forward um to figuring out a lot of this came from a lot of the trauma from our demolition projects a few years back.

[02:39:36] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um what does it mean for our city to um redevelop while ensuring that our tenants who did live in those older properties still get to stay in our community? And so w- it's it's a twofold process. One is um allowing for the densities that we need in those redevelopments, to taking a look on what those specific needs of those tenants to move forward. And and that's what staff has kind of proposed to us today.

[02:40:07] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So um going through uh some of these things. So Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 um are really more just adjusting to existing state law. Those of SB 330. Those aren't really significant changes that we are really undergoing. It's it's more of um a localizing protection. So like state law already does it, they already have to do it, but we want it localized because we want to ensure our tenants are protected regardless what the state does, um for the most part.

[02:40:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um when we start getting into Amendment 3, the new temporary displacement section, um that's where I feel like we can we can play with some flexibility. I I do feel like what staff has um is a good start and and a good place for us to jump off of. I think that the wiggle room we have is in the administrative procedures, um and uh that's where we can invite the different stakeholders whether it be the CAA, tenant groups, uh small landlords, BAHN, um whichever, and that I think that could actually be a powerful place where we can um we can adjust where it's it it's properly um addresses all the issues. Um and it'll provide staff with that kind of flexibility to come up with those administrative procedures. Um so I am okay with Amendment 3 as it is, with the direction to staff to hold stakeholder meetings to develop those administrative procedures.

[02:41:44] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um Amendment 4 relates to the red tag evictions, um is very clear that staff has uh that we would be including um red tag evictions to TRAO, except with one exception of essentially what I like to call acts of God. Um where it's like floods, fires, locusts, um famine, all the things from the Bible I guess. Um but the the reason why you would want the the red tag eviction to not be completely exempted is that there is a responsibility of the landlord to provide a habitable condition, and when that fails to happen uh through the actions or lack of actions from the landlord, that should be addressed in a TRAO. So I agree with Amendment 4.

[02:42:38] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um Amendment 5 um is the first right of return. This is interesting because it's also based on state law, and I think the the um tweaks that we have to it in our local thing is really just more Mountain View focused. We are a very diverse community, we have renters that speak different languages, and this is where the the personal touch of sometimes some we we are a relatively large city or growing of continuing to grow, but we're still have a small city heart and that watches how our residents are individually affected. Um and that's those are the touches in Amendment 5 that are mostly SB 330 but um have that local touch to it and I think that is absolutely appropriate.

[02:43:27] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Amendment 6 is probably the most flexible of all of us of what uh where we can move forward. I am supportive of of staff's recommendations um with the enhanced benefit for low income families um and the moving cost. Um in the EPC considerations, um where's the first consideration? The first consideration I was okay with, it felt that was more administrative because uh staff— I think staff's not recommending the second one but the first one staff had a slightly different recommendation which I'm perfectly fine with. Oh, here. The in the EPC staff additional enhanced the the ability of the tenant to monitor the progress of redevelopment process projects. So staff recommends including information for the proposed city informational notice for tenants to sign up for project specific updates. I feel like we don't have to tell them that but to give them that that option to just when you send out that information, that's easy enough. It was uh slide 8 page 4 of our packet.

[02:44:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: The other one um I will follow staff recommendation. That seems the the whole thing about the the 50... oh here we go. The the EPC Additional Consideration was pay tenants a bonus for staying in Mountain View equal to the savings between a 50 mile moving cost and presuming a lower moving cost within Mountain View. This is slide 13. Um and they say that there are administrative and potentially legal constraints to implementing this idea. I get the reasoning behind that idea. I'm I'm I think I'm just not going to touch that. So I think we'll be okay. I feel like that's that's one more complicated for both the tenants and the landlords so we we could we could leave that on the table. Um and so uh yeah I think I covered most of that. There were some additional considerations... um I'm generally fine. Oh, actually I do like number 3 in the additional uh clarifications that clarifies the right of refusal to replacement units apply to lower income households displaced by any proposed development project. Um and those link that language seems fine with me. Is there any other clarity?

[02:46:05] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We had to clarify that because the SB 330 was changed um last year, so we copied that language.

[02:46:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So yeah, those clarifications I'm I'm okay with. I'm ready to make a motion um and then we could continue on with our discussion with that, if if it gets a second. Um but overall those are my feelings of this. I'm ready to move forward.

[02:46:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So you went through everything, I look through... You're just recommending staff recommendation.

[02:46:40] Councilmember Emily Ramos: For the most part, yes, but uh there is a little bit of addition in Amendment 3 about the temporary, and my uh...

[02:46:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So in the staff recommendation, it only included EPC Additional Consideration 1, and then EPC Additional Consideration 2 and 3 were not included in the staff recommendation?

[02:47:03] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: Additional Consideration 3 um has been made to talk about equivalent value for alternative means but not Additional Consideration 2.

[02:47:11] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yeah. So that's staff recommendation. Isn't it?

[02:47:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So. Oh, I'm talking about in Amendment 3.

[02:47:17] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Um, it's not necessarily mentioned in staff recommendation but it was mentioned by by a lot of the colleagues, uh when they do their administrative procedure, um because the City Attorney mentioned— Oh, sorry.

[02:47:28] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Hold on. Does that need to be included? Or was that the staff intent or?

[02:47:32] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: I think based— Go ahead.

[02:47:34] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I I think based— I was just saying that if you wanted to provide direction to adopt the administrative guidelines or administrative procedural guidelines, I think that would be appropriate for this evening because it's not specifically addressed in the ordinance.

[02:47:46] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. And my direction to staff that I would like to ask is give the flexibility and create stakeholder um opportunities, whether it's a stakeholder meeting group. I'm actually okay with how you want to do that. Um but this this is where we can provide more outreach because it's one of the bigger changes in the amendments.

[02:48:23] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh, I could read the resolution. Um, so I move to introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View repealing Chapter 36 Article 13 Tenant Relocation Assistance of Mountain View City Code, amending Chapter 46 of Mountain View City Code to change the title and add a new article governing tenant relocation assistance, and finding that these code amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and a set a second reading for December 9th, 2025. I will also uh thank staff for the many...

[02:48:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Can you add in the other part to the motion that you wanted?

[02:49:03] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Oh yes, and uh to um, and when developing the administrative procedures for the new temporary displacement section, um provide opportunities for stakeholder feedback from our uh CAA, other land- lo- local landlord stakeholders and tenant stakeholders to and I I'm happy to give flexibility on that. And thank you, staff, for all the questions that you answered for me. I I spent a lot of time with them beforehand uh to to be okay with where we were at.

[02:49:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So we have a motion but we have no second, so that's why we're all st- okay. All right, so the the item has been seconded by comment?

[02:49:56] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Sure. Um, I would like to add another provision to the um administrative guidelines that we send off to staff. And that would be that um through the administrative guidelines they would develop a cap on moving expenses. I really think the open-ended nature of it is um uh... and the and the cap would be uh something along the lines of uh true expense cost up to whatever the cap is. So it wouldn't be that everybody get, you know, say it was 6,000 dollars. It wouldn't be you just got 6,000 dollars. It would be you submitted your invoice for your move and if it was below 6,000 dollars, they'd pay it and if not you know, the rest was on you. So something along those lines. Would that be acceptable to the motion maker?

[02:50:42] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I accept that.

[02:50:43] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Okay, so um the current motion is the staff recommendation with the addition of when developing the administrative guidelines that there is a community outreach um to property owners and developers um stakehol- stakeholder input, and uh flexibility on when that happens or you said you just said flexibility so I don't know what... I mean I I would love the the administrative procedures to be reflective of that stakeholder input so the flexibility we're not entirely sure what the stakeholders will put in so I want to give them that flexibility. Okay. And then uh in addition develop a cap on moving expenses TBD what those might be. Okay. Um next in the queue, Councilmember Hicks.

[02:51:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have several questions um brought up by uh the public speakers and also by the motion. Um so let's see where to start. Uh can do you think that the uh the amendment uh requested by Councilmember Showalter that um I I actually agree with the idea of the cap on moving expenses, that unlimited uh can we put a cap on uh on expenses in the administrative guidelines? Is that something that you can see how to do?

[02:52:18] Community Development Director Christian Murdock: We can. I we we would implement the stakeholder outreach would would include um developers, tenants, and and landlords and and get the feedback around and identify a cap.

[02:52:32] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. That's one question knocked off. Um...

[02:52:37] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I might just make one suggestion on that um. It's fine to put it in the administrative guidelines, but would you mind including in your motion a minor modification to the ordinance that says subject to any caps set forth in the administrative guidelines? Because I'm afraid that the language is a little broad in the ordinance saying moving costs shall be. So we need to reference the other document that would include the limit. If that's okay.

[02:53:05] Councilmember Emily Ramos: What do you need me to do?

[02:53:07] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: You can just accept my suggestion.

[02:53:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I accept.

[02:53:10] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So it would just be minor modifications as necessary to the ordinance to reference the cap in the administrative guidelines.

[02:53:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think before we take the final vote we can also um restate what the motion is with the clean clarified language. That's why I keep kind of asking questions because I just the the complexity of the situation, I'm like sure we get it right. Um so okay. Sorry, back to you Councilmember Hicks. Apologies.

[02:53:45] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That's fine, I appreciate that. I've been mayor before. Um okay, so my next question is um uh let's see. Um one of the the public speakers brought up something I had not thought of before that uh he has tenants subsidized by other agencies. I imagine that's like Section 8 maybe and so forth. Um and uh the person doesn't even own the lease. How would that be how would that be handled under current proposals? Do we need to modify it in any way? Who would be paid the money? The moving expenses seems obvious. But so the rent doesn't to me, maybe it does to you.

[02:54:31] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: That depends on the tenant's income and then the Housing Authority defines what extra subsidy they're getting. I mean, we had a tenant who only received $8 a month extra under Section 8, but there are also tenants that almost receive 100% um of the rent. Um so the uh the TRAO uh benefits go to the tenants because the tenants still need to pay for their moving costs and they still need to find another house where they have to pay first month rent, last month rent, security deposit. Um the Housing Authority every year does an income uh qualification for the tenants so that money that they receive go towards that income qualification.

[02:55:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then do they still get their Section 8 while they're moved out or how does that work with the program? If they're being...

[02:55:23] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: The Housing Authority only provides uh monthly checks for rents that have actually been established with a lease. So the moment that a tenant finds new housing uh then the Housing Authority will restart paying the rent.

[02:55:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So if they were moved out temporarily and then moved back, they would receive they would get that subsidy again when they move back?

[02:55:47] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Yes. But of course the Housing Authority has a lot of guidelines and regulations as well as to what type of housing they can live in and what the maximum amount is of the rent that they can spend.

[02:55:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so their search is more complicated.

[02:55:59] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: It's it's pretty complicated because it needs to go to landlords that are uh working together with the Housing Authority and that are pre-approved for those rentals.

[02:56:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: This may be an area where with um some direction we we may need to also do some additional information gathering about the voucher piece and if there's um some instructions about how to handle this situation that we can also include as part of the administrative guidelines, and whether it's some modified... it maybe where you're thinking about some flexibility to address the situation if there is a voucher situation. Um any direction that you may have, we can incorporate that into our development of the admin guidelines.

[02:56:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I would appreciate that if the motion make the motion maker and seconder are look fine with that. Okay, that sounds good to me. Um okay, we did the unlimited expenses. Um I so I thought that Councilmember Ramos did a good job of summing up the six amendments and which ones were related to SB 330 and which ones were not. I'm wondering from staff, it seems like some of the flexibility, the there's a number of things we want flexibility on when we're incorporating them and further uh stakeholder input and we're putting those into administrative guidelines. There's also some that I feel there may be less flexibility available than maybe some stakeholders are hoping because of SB 330. In particular, um Councilmember Ramos named uh Amendments number 1, 2, and 5 being related to SB 330. So I guess my question of staff is how much do you think there's um room for change and how much is it more education that's needed, education on the fact that there's because of state law there's not really a lot of room for change in some areas of this, in particular numbers 1, 2, and 5.

[02:58:17] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Um definitely, and we can discuss those while when we have the stakeholder meetings for the guidelines. Um the flexibility mostly was addressed with regards to the temporary relocation if I remember correctly, and that that part is not subject to SB 330 so we can locally uh have these discussions.

[02:58:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um okay, so just then my statement is that I am hoping that, I mean I guess we've in some ways moved beyond this. I'm hoping we do not have a continuation that we can put as much done that we can get it done tonight and put the things that we want input on into administrative guidelines. That's my hope. Thank you.

[02:59:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thanks. Councilmember Clark.

[02:59:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thanks. Um I I appreciate the administrative guidelines piece. I think um I think some of these things really should, if I were a staff member, I would not want to be the person deciding what the cap on moving costs is. Um and I think it's unfair to them to do that. And so to your point, I understand not wanting to kick the can down the road. Um I came prepared with some um suggested amendments in in those respects that I think will hopefully address some of the concerns that were raised.

[02:59:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I just want to start at the at the 50,000 foot level. Thank you to to staff for getting us this point. Um I wasn't on Council when this started. I did watch the December meeting uh roughly a year ago. Um with respect to moving and and other costs, I think there was a majority four to to explore that and cost that out but not a commitment from four people to absolutely include moving costs at any income level or anything like that. And that makes sense. So I think um I I appreciate all the work that's been done and I think a large percentage of what's being presented to us in terms of aligning with SB 330 and all those other things makes sense, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

[03:00:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: There's a couple items that I think I think frankly just times have changed in the last 18 months where 330 is permanent or at least for the next five years or so. I I don't think there's any risk of that going away anytime soon. I think we've undertaken an effort as a Council to try and reduce um housing costs to the extent that we can. Um whether it's reducing the fees that we charge at the expense of things we love like parks. But I think I think we need to be uh I think we need to be uh we also need to think about the other costs that we're passing on because I we think a lot we think a lot in terms of redevelopment because of Rock Street and other trauma that we have.

[03:01:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: But with 90 days or less um which is a big focus of this, you're really talking about flooring, kitchen remodels, things that we want people to do over time. And we don't and um you know it it's not going in and and completely redeveloping something. And I think it's it's to everyone's benefit that those occur over time and and it's also good to have some protections in there. So I think the simplest thing to do here, I have um language for this, but to essentially limit these benefits to uh the CSFRA units and the mobile home covered units. So excluding market rate units not otherwise covered by rent control, I think is a way to uh avoid conflicting with 330 and make the administration of this a lot simpler for staff to deal with. Um with um with that said, I just want to highlight the things that I'd planned to suggest here and I'm happy to do if we if we want to do a substitute motion or something like that we can. Um but it it really I just wanted to address um three big things.

[03:02:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: One is um the way that it's written um this is more of a minor thing but I think it could become a thing. There's a there's a way to double dip here that I noticed where if you let's say you're doing that kitchen remodel, um you're it's roughly planned to happen occur for 90 days. You take advantage of the temporary relocation, you move to I don't know, choose your city, Cupertino, Sunnyvale temporarily. Um and you get to day 60, you've got your temporary relocation benefits already. Um you are um you get to day 60 and you realize actually I'm a little closer to work now and this works better for me, um I I'd like to make this permanent. In that case um there's a loophole in here which allows you to not only take the temporary relocation you've gotten but now you can qualify for permanent relocation, which is even uh on top of that. Um and so I think in that case it's fine that people make that decision. I just think that you shouldn't be able to double dip. You should just subtract the you you should get the permanent amount just minus the temporary that you've already gotten so that there's um just so it doesn't create this weird incentive for people to um basically lie and say I'm temporarily relocating when in the back of their mind they may be thinking about a permanent relocation.

[03:04:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's a minor thing. Um I have language for that. It's just a paragraph. Um it's just um clarifying the language and eliminating that loophole. Um the the other minor clarification is just that the the reimbursement for moving costs, I don't know how we came up with 50 miles but I'm not going to argue over it. Um just that it's it would be based on the actual distance um that they're moving. And that we would put I I I agree with the folks who mentioned a cap. I wanted to suggest um if we're doing 50 miles, I think I think it's unfair to staff to have them decide that based on stakeholder input. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. And I and I think that um uh 5,000 each way, 50 miles that's $100 a mile. Um you know if if you move within Mountain View and you know you have a really expensive move with an art piece, fine, 5,000, it's just a 10,000 cap in total, right? And that can adjust with CPI. There's language in the ordinance already that would tie things to CPI. So I whether 10,000 is the right number or not, I I I don't know but I think it's better for us to decide whenever we're introducing this ordinance than it is to force staff to make a tough decision and and endure the wrath of whoever they have to deal with.

[03:05:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um and then the so that's that's the second thing. Um the third thing is when this when I think this was first looked at there was a worry about 330 going away. I think that's mostly subsided. And so I think what we can do is greatly simplify this by saying the the reloca- the the moving benefits, the relocation and moving benefits apply to the CSFRA units and the and the mobile home rent stabilization covered units. So the units where you're going to have most of the folks who will feel the greatest impact from this and not have um not have um our local thing um try and trump SB 330 which provides protections for all the market rate units and the people making two, $300,000 a year. So rather than just worry ab- rather than worry about that, I think we focus on having this cover CSFRA and MHRSO and let 330, which can be amended over time, cover all the non-CSFRA units just as it does today. So that way we aren't dabbling in you know, do I live in a CSFRA unit or not? If I don't then I get these moving costs but I don't get these other things. It just becomes really difficult to administer.

[03:07:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I don't see a need right now to cover the people in a market rate unit that isn't covered by rent control to have to deal with I wouldn't want to have to administer this for all those units. I I think this I think I think if we stay within our CSFRA framework and the and the mobile homes, I think that makes sense. So that's a long way of saying it's actually a pretty simple um simple thing. I think the the duplicate payment loophole is very easy to close. Um setting a moving cost cap um at whatever we feel is appropriate. I think we should do that if we're going to pass the ordinance tonight, I think we should do that tonight. I don't think we should put that on staff. And I'm open to whatever number people come up with. I think 10,000 total is fine. But that's just me. And then um and then I think that we should just limit all of this to the CSFRA and MHRSO covered units to simplify everyone's lives and I have a paragraph about that too. I pr- I shared this with the City Attorney in advance so that we would have the language that we could if people didn't want to continue this or kick the can down the road, we would have language to insert. Um but I I'm very hesitant to try and put any of this in the administrative guidelines where there's a decision that someone has to make that's going to be very uncomfortable for them as a staff member. I think we should bear we should make those decisions and we should bear the brunt of whatever criticism comes from that, not the staff members. Um in fairness. So um as long as I say I can't support the motion that's on the table. I'm happy to either let folks vote on that or or I'll make a substitute motion but that's um but I'm also curious to hear what others think.

[03:08:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. So um I didn't hear a formal substitute motion. So I'm just going to continue with the motion on the floor. And I am going to go to Councilmember McAlister who and those who are in the queue.

[03:09:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, if someone else wants to make the substitute they can. I just I want to be I want to be deferential to my colleagues who want to speak.

[03:11:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Make further mixing. Why don't we hear from folks and then and then we can once everyone's had the opportunity then we can get back to if we want to make tweaks, edits, etc. Okay, Councilmember McAlister.

[03:11:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you. So I have a question for the City Attorney. Um, in the path we're going down tonight concerns me about we're making ordinances but we're not using real data. So with this administrative procedure, if the ordinance is passed and the and the language is in there, the administrative procedures when they're saying well we'll bring in input from the ownership side, will that be able to override what's in the ordinance?

[03:12:18] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: No, it will not. It would have to be consistent with the ordinance. So, correct. No, it will not override it. The ordinance will trump anything in the administrative guidelines to the extent that it conflicts.

[03:12:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, with that being said I'll make my comments very short. I cannot support this motion. I'm not say comfortable how we're doing this. So we're just making the law and it's well this sounds good this without bringing the input of the third party who's the landlords, I would support a continuance. Thank you Councilmember Clark for saying we've met our obligations. Um, and this is not good governance to go this going down this path saying okay well staff can do that we're going to tweak this going to tweak that. I think this is so important that we do we do have to do a better job of due diligence, listen to who's out there. If I was out there as a and there was six new amendments coming along and I hadn't had an input and I'm the one that's going to be paying the cost, I would be very upset. Remember the landlord community is our partners. They're the ones that own them. They're the ones that bring them in code. They supply the housing. So I think we do owe them some due diligence. There is a good point about 330. That covers a lot of stuff. But that's where I'm going right now. Thank you.

[03:13:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Mayor. Um, a lot of good thoughtful comments from members of the Council. Um I I could not support a continuance because the bulk of the ordinance simply implements or uh reflects the SB 330 requirements in the municipal code. I think there are points of discretion unrelated to SB 330 where I agree agree with Councilmember Clark we should spend the time to figure out what makes sense uh and advance the the ordinance. Uh you know perhaps in a future Council it might be good to have a formal uh stakeholder engagement and outreach policy. Uh I think it's a best practice and uh when we don't do it or if we don't do it adequately then we end up with more challenging meetings than we really need. So I I do think that's something we should reflect on. In in some cases we've done I think uh significant amount of outreach sometimes to the point where I get very frustrated. Um but uh I think there there should be some baseline expectation and I think a future Council ought to to consider deliberating that. Um I did want to um I don't want to totally uh try and ref uh reiterate what Councilmember Clark was suggesting but I think there were some good thoughtful suggestions. Uh and if you weren't going to make the friendly amendment effort then I'm happy to on your behalf. I think the first one had something to do with...

[03:15:37] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh yeah, so so it was it was language to address the potential double dipping issue. Um so if you wouldn't mind reading that language I think that would so if sort of like a like like a surrogate Councilmember right? I'm happy to make the friendly amendment on your behalf but I think that that suggestion makes sense. Yeah for everyone's benefit um and this was what I sent to the City Attorney, it doesn't mean it shouldn't be modified. Um but it it's essentially um um it it's in section well I won't read the section but basically it's it's saying that if the tenant voluntarily elects if they've been temporarily relocated and they elect voluntarily uh not to return for reasons other than the landlord's failure to complete the project in a timely manner, so they're of their own free will deciding not to return, um uh um any temporary relocation assistance that was previously paid gets credited toward the permanent relocation payment. So they're not they're not combining the two. They they still get the total permanent relocation amount they just don't get to stack them. Um and if but if the landlord's actions or delay causes the unit to become unavailable for for reoccupancy then the tenant's entitled to the full permanent relocation benefit and the temporary. Um because it's not their fault. They're basically they're basically being forced to permanently relocate after having thought that they were only temporarily relocating.

[03:16:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And then that's one. The other is the tricky one is the cap on the moving costs.

[03:17:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: Well let's let's do one at a time. One at a time. We'll go back to that. Um and then the bigger one is um basically just adding a a subsection to the permanent relocation assistance applicability and saying that the the relocation assistance and moving costs provisions in in this article are only going to apply uh to income qualified tenant households residing in dwelling units covered by the CSFRA and the Mobile Home Stabilization Ordinance. Um relocation obligations for non-CSFRA and non-mobile home uh units are covered by state law including but not limited to SB 330 and the Ellis Act. So it's basically just excluding if you if you're in a CSFRA unit or a Mobile Home Home um stabilization ordinance unit, you're covered by this and we're just not dealing with any anyone who isn't covered by those two things. We're letting 330 govern all that.

[03:18:04] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll get to three at the conclusion but um the the so going one at a time, would the maker of the motion be comfortable with the language that Councilmember Clark read that would um address the potential double dipping issue in the...

[03:18:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: And just so we don't waste anyone's time, I feel very strongly about that last one so regardless if the friendly amendment's accepted I'll I'll I will vote no if we try and cover non-CSFRA units with this. That that's a big deal to me.

[03:18:37] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Heard loud and clear. All right so we could start by this one by one. Um the 90 days to Oh. Are you... For the sake of clarity, yeah. Um I did want clarification from uh staff. I guess the bigger issue is um properly determining whether the decision of that being from a temporary uh uh relocation to a permanent relocation. How do we ensure that it's it is um in the case of um Councilmember Clark's uh suggestion by way of Councilmember Ramirez, um the the suggestion is uh if the tenant decides in their temporarily relocated place um that that's where they want to be permanent. How do we ensure that it's the tenant's decision and not due to uh a landlord action?

[03:19:35] Housing Director Wayne Chen: So if for instance a landlord says I have a 60-day remodeling project, you have to be temporary replaced um for 60 days. If after 60 days that is not uh that that is not uh the project is not done, that's not a voluntary decision that you're that you're going to be permanently displaced. That is that is just the landlord's part of... And and I understand we want to talk about the flexibility of that timeline still, but that was not a tenant voluntarily decision to move out permanently. That was due to the circumstances.

[03:20:14] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. And and the Vice Mayor, just to confirm I think you were referring to a situation where that is not the situation and a tenant is choosing to move out voluntarily. Right. Um, we'll develop some procedures around that. Maybe there's um some documentation that can occur that um verifies that it's voluntarily determined by the tenant and not due to um the the situation with the landlord. Any coersion or any other other things that could have led to that. Okay. So yeah I'm I as long as that is put in place, I'm okay with that first one.

[03:20:52] Councilmember Emily Ramos: For the second one, um it was the adding a cap. Um you threw out $5,000. Each way, sorry. So total of 10. A total of 10. It it does remind me of back when I was on the RHC and I had a colleague uh former former former Mayor Means, uh he was very fond of trying to avoid back of the back of the envelope calculation. I'm just like oh no. Um... I I did just some of those numbers I I based them on some of the numbers in the staff report some of the moving estimates. Obviously it's going to depend on mileage but you're you're right I did I yeah. Um so uh like I guess what we could do is make sure that a cap that we give is higher than an estimated cap that staff may presume to have. That that's one way to do it so it doesn't get ridiculous. I know we talked about the the the piano situation but God forbid a girl have hobbies. Um but um I guess I I hate to put staff on the spot for this but do you feel like that is an... Oh, okay, go ahead Mayor.

[03:22:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Well, cause I feel rather than back and forth um can staff evaluate and come back to Council with an with with numbers so that Council can see some actual data and analysis or or or not. That that's what I was gonna ask. Or do you just want us to set a number tonight?

[03:22:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Well I I don't like kicking this down the road. That's my own... I don't think anyone's kicking anything down the road. I I think these are worthwhile questions because as you were just saying doing back of the napkin guessing legislating from the dais as Councilmember McAlister was saying we just need to you know I think it's just prudent to if we're going to give a number and then I think um Councilmember uh Clark was saying you know we could adjust it with CPI. I just want us to be choosing a number that right? I mean overall that's why I allowed staff to have that flexibility to decide what was kind of best so they didn't have to come back to us. Um but I know that Councilmember Clark was concerned of of putting essentially that burden on staff. Um so like I I trust staff to give me a number. Uh I don't expect them to give me a number today. Um but I do want the the temporary displacement section of amendment, I do believe in that concept.

[03:23:42] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah so I'm just asking staff. Like can we move forward and adopt tonight and you can come back to us with a number or is that not possible we need to decide tonight. That's the question. I'm sorry. I was being... No no problem. No no problem. I I just looking to staff. I mean I think I I understand the the perspective and the points of view that folks are sharing. I've as I mentioned I'm not trying to kick any can. I I just am trying to do due diligence and be prudent as we're having this discussion that is going to affect people's lives, right? And so I am you know asking should we go forward and adopt tonight and we're making all these various amendments? I'm just curious if at you know kind of come back to Council once that you know I don't whether that's on an off agenda memo or other I I'm just trying to understand how we can move forward but maybe get a little bit more substance to this decision that we're making on moving costs.

[03:24:51] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Yeah, I guess in theory we could still pass amendment 3 and like get and and then vote on a cap at a future date. Well it's going to come back as a second reading right? So could at the second reading that's in there I I'm trying to find the wiggle room as well there and looking to staff and we can... I guess the question is uh Councilmember Clark, did you want the cap to be part of the ordinance itself?

[03:25:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think it really needs to be. Or or if it's going to be the administrative guidelines then we need to dictate it. But I I think it really should be in the ordinance because then it's tied to CPI instead of just flat. A another another option is this is already scheduled for a second meeting in December and I promise I'm not just trying to kick the can but what we could do is give staff the the the time to still bring this back to us at December 9th it would just be um it could still even be on consent with our feedback now and then um we're really not pushing it out that far. I don't know if the second reading would still occur in December I'm thinking of the meetings maybe it would. But at least it's still getting at least it's still getting done and then we're not trying to dot i's and cross t's at the dais but that's up to you all. I I think that's probably the better way to go is just to give everyone the time to redo it and bring the first reading to us when this was scheduled for second reading and then it still gets done in roughly the same timeline maybe a few weeks later but...

[03:26:12] Housing Director Wayne Chen: If I could just provide some feedback. The item of moving costs is like many other items um a series of trade-offs and um if Council can provide perhaps some some principles I I hear balance, you know want to address the moving costs of tenants um but but cap it so that it can be a uh a more feasible amount and there's some clarity that landlords can expect, right? Um just some some context other cities um do have open ended and we we have um attempted to provide a cap through the 50 miles but what I'm hearing is that that may not there may be another way that Council is looking for us to to recommend and we can do thinking after this to to bring it back on on December the 9th. If there's any additional principles that you may have for us to factor it in. Um there are also schedules that um I think are published by the Federal Transportation Administration, those are for situations where there's um um costs that a uh like a governmental agency would would be paying in in certain relocation um situations and so there are publicly available schedules but not exactly for this type of situation but those could be um things that we can look at to have an objective standard. Um um so yeah I think if what you're saying is there may indeed be a cap and it won't cover all the tenant costs, we we can take that and trying to find a uh uh more more clarity and and perhaps a a lower amount or some set amount we can certainly take that and provide a recommendation. It would be hard to do something right now just because it it is a lot of um trade-offs.

[03:28:18] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So what does that mean for amendment 3? We would still move forward with amendment 3 and staff would...

[03:28:28] Housing Director Wayne Chen: Uh I think one option is what the City Attorney's office said was to add a language under the moving cost section to be to say um subject to uh you had a better way of saying it City Attorney to what would be promulgated through the the guidelines that's one way another way would be to provide perhaps a a figure when we come back on December the 9th.

[03:28:54] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So that's correct. We could we could have a reference in the ordinance to the guidelines and when they come back when it comes back on December 9th staff could be prepared to bring a figure. Problem is it was going to come back on consent so you'd if you'd want to talk about that number, right, you wouldn't want it on consent it'd have to be pulled so you could have discussion. You could also have it come back on the 9th be adopted and as they're working on the guidelines they come back at a future meeting to to talk to you about that number before it gets put in the guidelines. So not necessarily bringing the entire guidelines back but come back and talk to you about the cap.

[03:29:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I think Vice Mayor so there were three um items via Councilmember Ramirez so I think we went through item one which you were um there was willingness to include in the current motion. So we're on item two. So is there a will given the discussion at hand and the staff advisement is there a willingness at you as the motion maker to include um the suggestion via Councilmember Ramirez via Councilmember Clark on the uh cap.

[03:30:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I mean I feel more comfortable with the second option when they come back with some kind of administrative guidelines and then we can have a cap there. I'm not in I don't know if that is what Councilmember Clark was looking for via Councilmember Ramirez um because he mentioned he wanted it in the motion in in the in the ordinance.

[03:30:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: I I personally think that's the best place for it. If if staff thinks it can be in the if staff thinks that the ordinance can reference a cap that's in the administrative guidelines and we have input on what that number is ultimately then I that's fine with me. The my real goal is I don't think staff can recommend things but I think we should be the ones to decide um what the right number is and I don't know what that is. But I but I do I think the cap is important because if it's unlimited there's no incentive for the person moving to control any sort of costs, right? It's it's just I want I want the five star moving service and I want the white glove everything and that's fine if you're moving 10 miles and you have $5,000 to play with then have at it but if you're moving 50 miles it's I I just think there should be some um there should be some limit.

[03:31:29] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. And and you're okay with that methodology that I mentioned that they'll come back with the administrative we mentioned the cap in the ordinance that there will be a cap.

[03:31:39] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah and and that it will adjust based on CPI. I think that's important too. It shouldn't just be fixed in time.

[03:31:50] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Okay. But I but I yeah. I that piece we haven't tackled the bigger thing but yeah that's that's the I know. I I'm I'm I'm I'm kind of dreading the third piece but um um so yes I accept uh Councilmember Clark's via Councilmember Ramirez's amendment um to add on that there will be a cap displayed through the administrative guidelines and this doesn't have to be in the motion in in the ordinance itself but is an expectation that staff will bring back the administrative guidelines with to us with options for a cap.

[03:31:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: My understanding was that that the ordinance would reference the cap and then the cap would be in the administrative guidelines. That was my understanding. Correct. All right. Councilmember Ramirez did you have uh anything else that you wanted to add or yes on the third point so um I I think we might have a disagreement about the uh applicability of the two uh laws SB 330 and TRAO which is uh in part why um I I was asking staff at the beginning of the meeting to to help me understand where one applies and where where the other applies. Um so I my understanding is uh for if we're covering just CSFRA and MHRSO SB 330 would be the applicable law right and then TRAO would cover things that SB 330 does not include. So if we if we have TRAO apply only to what you've described then it's already overridden by SB 330 and then we would lose protections for those instances of displacement where SB 330 does not apply. And I'm curious if that's actually what you're trying to achieve.

[03:34:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think the provisions in SB 330 and the Ellis Act are sufficient to cover market rate units. I don't think our TRAO um I I sorry not the TRAO I think the relocation assistance and moving cost provisions um in the TRAO should just not apply to market rate units. I I I think there's already 330 language covering that and I just I think it's overkill. Um I don't I don't think someone making a quarter million dollars in a market rate unit needs moving assistance to have their unit upgraded.

[03:35:09] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So we might be talking past each other. So SB 330 those protections only happen in a redevelopment. Right. So what we are I think what Councilmember Ramirez is concerned about and what I was slightly concerned about is the protections of a TRAO protections for people who are not displaced for a no fault eviction that are not due to redevelopment.

[03:35:44] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. I feel like can someone give me an example of when...

[03:36:13] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Can we yeah can we uh also bring up the Ellis Act...

[03:36:24] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: Can we yeah can we also bring up the Ellis Act is withdrawal from the rental market so if a property owner does not want to demolish a project but he just wants to withdrawal from the rental market that's an Ellis Act eviction and those are currently covered under the TRAO. But those are not SB 330 cases.

[03:37:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just think that's a risk you take when you rent a market rate unit.

[03:37:28] Councilmember Emily Ramos: So are they currently covered right now with our TRAO though? Does that mean you want to take away their TRAO rights of those who are currently covered?

[03:37:40] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: I think I would rely on 330 and the Ellis Act.

[03:38:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: No no I guess sorry that covered covered units oh protected units. So the CSFRA is not applicable to 100% subsidized housing so those then also would be excluded from the moving cost reimbursement. But they're covered by 330 cause 330 covers them. I see. Yeah yeah. I think my my intent is just not to provide a new set of benefits to market rate units. I'm okay with existing benefits. I don't want to provide a new set of benefits to market rate units.

[03:40:00] Councilmember Emily Ramos: As you think about that can I look at the Housing Director it look like you might say something or no? Well I mean and as you're thinking would you be willing to include means testing for the temporary ones that cuz it she men um staff mentioned the permanent ones are means tested might be an opportunity to perhaps that's a way to thread a bit of the needle. Yeah I think that if the Vice Mayor is open to that I think it's a way to thread the needle and then and then we can say we've mean tested tested both as we're having dialogue with our community. I'm just not sure I'm particularly into that.

[03:40:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay well I'm just I'm just asking because that seems like it was an important element for Councilmember Clark so we're just just asking the Vice Mayor. Yeah. I mean my question is I'm a you know I I'm Can I I'm so sorry may I finish to see if the um where the Vice Mayor is landing on this and then I need to go or go to the the seconder and then I'd love to speak I haven't had a chance to speak yet I mean I'm speaking but not on the item and then we can go for second bites. Thank you so much I really appreciate it. I mean um so I knew that we were like talking past each other so now I'm getting a better sense of what you were asking for and it's less horrifying to me. So that's that's good. What's the score? Well I mean like okay is that not included in CSFRA is like affordable housing units. Um I I I do feel like I I I would somewhat be open but I I don't actually think I like it. So um I am willing to hear from other colleagues I don't know if I need to make that decision right now as we say yes I so will okay well let me just um thank you we'll move on to the seconder. So are you open to the um two amendments um additional amendments um that the Vice Mayor made to the motion.

[03:40:56] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I'm not going to accept that amendment. And I think I think we're we're okay with that.

[03:41:20] Rent Stabilization Manager Anke van Deursen: So the CSFRA is not applicable to 100% subsidized housing so those then also would be excluded from the moving cost reimbursement. But relocation is are already means tested with the 120% AMI plus 5,000 that's already existing in the TRAO. The only other thing that we uh propose on top of that that is not means tested is the temporary replacement uh clause and the actual the just the moving costs. So in instead you could say I want the moving costs also be means tested uh if that's your concern uh That would be fine or just not applicable to non-CSFRA units. I any I I just don't want to add I don't want to add any benefits to non-CSFRA units that don't already exist. That's my goal. Okay. So you don't want the moving costs for non-CSFRA MHRSO units. If they if they don't get them today I don't think we should add them. Well then that's that's your That's my opinion yeah.

[03:42:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just think that's a risk you take when you rent a market rate unit.

[03:42:56] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I'm not going to accept that amendment and I think I think we're we're okay with that. I do believe that that also means that that protection wouldn't apply to affordable housing units because they're exempt from the CSFRA. Things like that that's Covered covered units. Oh protected units.

[03:43:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: As you think about that can I look at the Housing Director it look like you might say something or no? Well I mean and as you're thinking would you be willing to include means testing for the temporary ones that cuz it she men um staff mentioned the permanent ones are means tested might be an opportunity to perhaps that's a way to thread a bit of the needle. Yeah I think that if the Vice Mayor is open to that I think it's a way to thread the needle and then and then we can say we've mean tested tested both as we're having dialogue with our community. I'm just not sure I'm particularly into that. Okay well I'm just I'm just asking because that seems like it was an important element for Councilmember Clark so we're just just asking the Vice Mayor. Yeah. I mean my question is I'm a you know I I'm Can I I'm so sorry may I finish to see if the um where the Vice Mayor is landing on this and then I need to go or go to the the seconder and then I'd love to speak I haven't had a chance to speak yet I mean I'm speaking but not on the item and then we can go for second bites. Thank you so much I really appreciate it. I mean um so I knew that we were like talking past each other so now I'm getting a better sense of what you were asking for and it's less horrifying to me. So that's that's good. What's the score? Well I mean like okay is that not included in CSFRA is like affordable housing units. Um I I I do feel like I I I would somewhat be open but I I don't actually think I like it. So um I am willing to hear from other colleagues I don't know if I need to make that decision right now as we say yes I so will okay well let me just um thank you we'll move on to the seconder. So are you open to the um two amendments um additional amendments um that the Vice Mayor made to the motion.

[03:44:14] Councilmember Pat Showalter: This is get this has gotten confusing. Um the the why don't why don't I check in with staff they'll read the motion as it stands now. Yeah. Why don't you that would be helpful.

[03:44:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Mayor um I you know I'm can I I'm so sorry may I finish...

[03:44:34] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Mayor it would be helpful at this point if staff could have a five minute break and we'll pull this together. So yes that is accurate but the second part which uh I really do appreciate what Councilmember Clark is saying about not putting it on staff to determine make the final decision on the cap is that you'd be directing staff to come back with the recommendation for the cap that would be included in the administrative guidelines.