Good evening, everyone.

We're honored to welcome this year's elementary school mayor of the day winner.

And it's Hannah Kirshner.

She's gonna call our meeting to order.

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 please call our meeting to order.

I called to order the Mountain View City Council meeting of October 28th, 2025.

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.

When I wrote my essay, I wanted to give a bit of what I felt when I wanted to include everybody and treat them all with kindness.

And when I mean everybody, I mean everybody everywhere.

Great.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Have you sit down?

And then we'll do uh the pledge of allegiance.

And I want to, we're honored to welcome our middle middle school winner, Ishan Coshel.

Sean, will you please come up to the lectern and lead us in the pledge of allegiance?

I'm just talking right into it because it's on TV too.

Okay, so I'll just ask her.

Uh could everybody please stand up?

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.

The city clerk will now take attendance by roll call.

Councilmember Clark.

Councilmember Hicks?

Here.

Councilmember McAllister.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Councilmember Show Walter?

Here.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Here.

Mayor Kameh.

You have a quorum.

Great.

All right.

Well, thank you, everyone.

It's such an exciting meeting today.

And 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.

Specifically, applicants who are property owners in the downtown or representatives of businesses in the downtown.

Please visit Mountainview.gov backslash BCC to apply by 5 p.m.

on Thursday, November 6th.

Interviews will be held on the evening of November 17th.

We'll get back to the fun.

We're going to move on to item three, 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.

If you'd like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now.

And for our mayors who kicked off our meeting, we actually have recognition for both of them.

So I'm going to head back down to the lectern.

So our mayor for a day uh essay contest ran through the month of September, and elementary and middle school age Mountain View residents wrote about one problem they would solve if they were mayor for a day.

We decided to do an elementary school and a middle school uh age winner that were selected.

This is something that I did when I was uh mayor in the pandemic in 2021, so it's so nice to be able to do this in person.

And um, as we had earlier, we are happy to have Hannah back to join us as the elementary school winner.

She attends Therkoff Elementary School and is in the fifth grade.

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.

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.

All right, and for item 3.2, we're gonna have Ishaan back for the middle school recognition.

Ishaan is attends Graham Middle School and is in the seventh grade.

Uh Ishaan, if you want to join us at the lectern.

And I know you're gonna share a little bit about your essay.

Uh yeah.

Thank you so much for this honor.

Thank you to Mayor Kameh and the members of the city council.

Uh, thank you also to my parents and my brothers, Dave and Anja, and for always supporting me.

I am fortunate to have lived in Mountain View for all 12 years of my life.

I went to Imaya Elementary School, and I'm now a seventh grader at Graham Middle School.

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.

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.

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 Ringstorf, Shoreline and Castro, where we can connect with the people we care about.

This city is a very special place for me, my family, and my friends, and I'm so happy I had the chance to celebrate that in my essay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

And thanks to 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 Ishaan, 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.

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 Ishawn's essay about Mountain Go uh really, really touched on that.

And he his essay talked about, you know, looking up and not looking down.

Um 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 want to make sure.

Um, and so as we move 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 Sinham, program manager for the Institute for Local Government to present the 2025 Beacon Leadership and Innovation Award to the City of Mountain View.

I think we have a brief presentation.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm gonna 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 nonprofit education and training affiliate of the League of California Cities, along with the California State Association of Counties and the California Special Districts Association.

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.

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 climate adaptation, equity and engagement in sustainability and climate, innovation in clean transportation, and innovation in clean energy.

We're so excited to celebrate Mountain View as the 2025 awardee for innovation and 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.

Great.

Thank you.

And hopefully you can see us.

The award traveled safely from Long Beach.

So thank you to Vice Mayor Ramos.

And I don't know if we should thank Councilman McAllister.

I think probably the Vice Mayor brought it back safely.

Is that right?

But we do have our sustainability chief sustainability officer, Danielle Lee, and we have the executive director of our Jay Worker Center, Maria Maroquin, here as well to join us and say a few words.

So invite you to the lectern.

You have to come besides we can see you.

Or else we're back.

Good evening, mayor and honorable council members.

I'm so pleased to be here this evening alongside Maria Maroquin, the executive director of the Day Workers Center of Mountain View for this recognition of Mountain View's climate leadership.

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.

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, is behind the idea to create jobs for the workers that is really important in our community.

We have been working in the Day Workers Center for the last 29 years.

So from my personal my gratitude and also from the workers and their families, thank you so much.

It's really an honor and your 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.

This was presented to the city at the uh League of California City's annual conference.

So that's why we talked about it uh coming safely.

Thank you, Nikita, for joining us virtually.

Um so we'll move on to our last presentation item.

It's item 3.4, breast cancer awareness month proclamation.

We're happy to be joined this evening by Sergeant Chris Vigil, Community Services Office Community Services Officer Jody Pierce, Deputy Fire Chief Brian Jones, and the personnel from Fire Station One to accept this proclamation.

So why don't why doesn't everyone come and then we'll have our our speakers join us at the lecture?

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 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.

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.

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.

Sorry.

Thank you, Council.

On behalf of the fire department, I'd just like to thank the council for joining our effort and so and 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.

Hello, everyone, uh 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.

Thank you.

All right.

So I'll invite my colleagues from the council to maybe come around up 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 haven't 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 pack patch project.

Well, 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 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.

I don't want to know what it is on that wire.

Do our mayors want to join?

Our mayor's free thank you.

Wonderful.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you for joining us.

That concludes our presentation items.

So that concludes our presentation items.

Would any member of the council like to say a few words?

Councilmember Showalter.

Yes.

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, 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.

Great, thank you, Councilmember 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 won't go into detail in this the second one because uh councilmember Show Walter did such a great job.

You know, it's but it's it encompasses a little bit of everything, right?

Uh jobs, environmental justice, um sustainability, and maybe most important to me, quiet in the neighborhood.

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 breast cancer and early detection is really important.

So I value bringing that up.

So thank you, everyone.

Great, thank you so much.

Um all right.

Well, that um I don't see any other members in the queue.

So we'll now uh take uh public comment if there is any.

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 Zing.

Hi, good evening.

Uh I against uh pickleball cots in Questa Park.

So we're on the presentation items.

Um maybe you want to speak on item five when we do public comment.

Okay, okay, no problem.

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 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 Showelter.

Well, I don't really want to pull an item, but as is my custom, I'd like to make some comments.

Um, first um item 4.1, that's uh G9 policy.

This is a second reading uh 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 um both move in the right direction of making this program um move a little more smoothly.

So that's good.

Uh, the the next one is I wanted to talk about is item 4.6 the ringsdorf construction acceptance.

Boy, this has been a long time coming.

The people who have worked on this project know what I'm saying.

Um kudos to everyone who saw this uh complex project through.

By putting in an all-electric pool of this size, we were really pushing the boundaries of this technology, and we we paid some costs for it.

Um, it's really a tribute to our sustainability efforts that we did this, but it wasn't easy.

Um, it it um it's not often that you see uh 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 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 um just three hundred thousand dollars over the original um expectation, and on a 22 million dollar project, that is a very good record.

So kudos to the staff that um are um 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 um 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.

Um we have a collaboration with the city of Sunnyvale to sort our trash and accept our recyclables.

We do this at um a facility in Sunnyville that's called the SMART station.

This is one of those acumen acronyms that's a little tortured but fun.

Um 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.

Um the start station though, the original one's 30 years old, so it needs to be um rebuilt.

And um, there have been uh 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 um 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 um some of the financing arrangements that have been made.

And um, so I just wanted to bring that to everyone's um attention because I think that um we we sometimes forget about the just background city services that we get like trash and recycling that we all contribute to.

So thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

I just had some questions on 4.2 and 4.5.

Perhaps um you can ask your questions and then the appropriate staff will make their way down.

Okay, on 4.2.

Um, there was uh we were talking about the fees that is collected uh about the well on 4.2, the mixed uh parking in loo fees, and there was uh a comment from the one of the answers that the those in loo fees will are to be used to provide new parking public parking, and that they need to be used particularly within five years.

Where it's the status of new parking garage in downtown Mountain View, wondering about that.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

Jennifer Ng, the public works director.

Um, so we are looking at building a new parking structure in parking lot five in downtown.

Uh the beginning phases of that project is starting uh at the beginning of 2026.

So we'll be starting with uh writing scope of work, uh putting out RFP to get a consultant on board at the beginning of the new year.

Is there funding appropriated for this?

We do have some parking in Lou downtown.

I think I messed up the order of that downtown parking and loo fees that will be um attributed to this project, yes.

Will that be sufficient?

Uh it will be augmented so the overall cost of the new parking garage will be augmented by other funding sources.

Uh the total cost of the parking garage exceeds how much parking and loaf fees that we have in the piggy bank.

Are there other?

I mean, since we're supposed to use these funds within five years, then I'm sure we're probably running short on some of the uh already collected in the 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?

I don't know the specific details on that.

I'm wondering if finance knows or Don, maybe.

Thank you.

Good evening, Don 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 and loo fees are committed to projects such as a lot five parking structure, we are within we're meeting the requirements.

Okay, thank you.

Uh on 4.5, um professional service agreement and uh I apologize for asking these questions, but when we ask a question, they give you an answer.

Then you got to follow up with this one.

So uh the building division has five in-house uh staff for plan check.

Do and we're gonna reach out to others to help out.

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?

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, council Christian Murdoch, community development director.

We are currently fully staffed in terms of uh city staff positions related to plan check and inspection services.

Um historically, the city has not had in-house uh building permit plan check staff, and so that's actually uh an innovation within recent years to bring those two uh building division plan check staff in-house for single family and smaller commercial uh related improvements.

The city has had um fire inspection uh and plan check staff uh in-house for a number of years.

Um, how we resulted at three, I can't speak to uh based on historic practice, but that has been the number for uh quite a while.

So are we uh how is the five handling the projects?

Are they coming out in a reasonable amount of time, or is there once somebody submits a uh uh plans, are they supposed to be turned over and 30 reviewed within 30 days?

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.

Um it is a work in process uh progress.

I'll acknowledge that in terms of our plan review timelines.

Um, however, um having the augmentation of third-party consultant plan checking services does allow us to prioritize certain reviews and uh accomplish them in a more efficient manner.

Is there any plans to augment those five to bring on more on in-house?

Uh not at this time.

I think uh I feel comfortable with our in-house plan check capacity and having a variety of third-party uh consultant plan check services allows us to uh push those plan reviews out to the appropriate uh consultant services to meet our business needs.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you again.

Great, thank you.

All right, I don't see uh any other hands in the queue.

Um, so now we'll move on to uh public comment.

If anyone would like to uh 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, so we're not on public comment be 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 um I'll we'll circle back with you.

Yes, okay.

Uh we'll we'll circle back.

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 Loak.

Did you have a statement you wanted to make?

Oh, yes, thank you.

Um before we take our vote, I wanted to share that I'm recusing myself from voting on consent calendar item 4.4 due to my employment with the Foothill Deanza community college district.

Thank you.

All right, and we have a motion by council member Shewalter and a second by Councilmember Hicks.

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 frivolo 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 Number one eight nine three five, approving a mixed use edition at 194 to 198 Castro Street to modify condition of approval number 65 regarding parking and loofies 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 day 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 Westmid 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.

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.

So now we're on to item five, 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.

Okay.

We have public comment in person, and then we'll move to virtual.

And each speaker will have three minutes.

And the first speaker is Malia.

And then we have Mon Salgado, Yari Navarro, and then Alexis Arika.

So if you want to maybe stand and get in line on the on the side.

And then let's see, after Alexis is Leticia Morales, and then Albert Jeans, then Dylan Rich.

That looks like everyone in person.

All right.

I think the clock is on.

Okay, great.

Awesome.

Well, good evening, Mayor Kamei, Vice Mayor Ramos and Council members.

My name is Malia Pyres.

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.

And I'm here today to for two reasons.

One to say thank you, and two to share a personal testimony and story from my heart.

And um, so thank you.

Thank you for the services and exhaustive efforts that the city has made to support our unhoused neighbors.

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, and then also for providing opportunities for organizations like Hope's Corner and United Effort Organization to work together in the downtown parking lot.

So I just wanted to say thank you and also thank you to the city manager's office for faithfully gathering the CBO organizations month after month to convene us to collaborate together in partnership and to think of innovative ways that we can serve our vulnerable neighbors.

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, possibly trafficking.

Um, and I had the opportunity.

Um, Sandra Spursa of Cafecito de Aroma Conjusticia, she invited me to go out door knocking.

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 says before Lucas uh was on I think he's running for counsel at that time and uh I was quite shocked so I have four kids um 30 down to 16 and uh 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 um and it completely changed the trajectory of Reach's work um we have faithfully been serving our unhoused neighbors bringing provision and resources but not just we're not doing it I actually we formally launched a LEEB this year so a lived experience advisory board 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've 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 gonna be here to share with you so I want to say thank you and uh good evening great thank you so uh next is Mon Salgado okay so not uh vamos a poner six minutos aquí so we'll just uh we'll put up the six minutes because uh we'll have the translation so I tiempo so you see my no is Macruz Tango viviendo aquí como 30 años que ya me siento in casa aquí in Monteview for questions de renta muy alta me toca acrisanto vivir en las calle buttas uh do gracias de estar viviendo indote seguro de tener uh circa doy gracias a la ciudad forte seguro antes de vivir ahí de darnos todos los services que tenemos nosotros tenemos agua tenemos bagunes tenemos lavanderia con ustedes buttons which is a malesimas gracias good evening my name is uh Maria Cruz I have been living here for 30 years I used to be um homeless because of and also because of the aumentation in rents I went to live in Crisanto in the streets but then thanks thanks to all of you right now I have the opportunity to leave in to say in a safe parking lot.

I just want to say that I'm thankful uh to the city because 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 in this gracious thank you uh Yari Navarro um good afternoon everyone um my name's oh you honorable counselor and mayors mayor and counselors if I'm a little nervous I'm sorry.

Um my name's Yaritsa and I've been I've been living in Mountain View for around five for around nine to eight years um before I was in the safe parking lot I was living in brain uh in the street uh next to Rain Surf Park um I were 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 uh the a decent space my mom's probably the most the most hardest work 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 actually 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 a 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 thank you.

Alexis Arika Good afternoon everyone hi my name is Alexis Arica I've 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 RV parking lot.

We moved from Hayward to Mountain View and I would like to say that I'm 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 a lot of food and we already met a lot of people in that lot and they feel like family to us already thank you thank you.

Alright next is Leticia Morales so I'll just put a six minutes up just in case thanks my name is Leticia Morales a ustedes on the ciudad mountain view.

But since I'm perding for a son you can terminoly in the apartment 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 um without any excuse.

And that's why my son couldn't finish um college.

And due to rent, we're not the lug on the vive.

And due to the high cost of rents, we lose the apartment where we lived, and we ended up leaving on the streets on Castro.

And thanks to the community, they had a community shelter.

There I've been there, I was there for October and through April.

Now I'm 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.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next uh in-person speaker is Albert Jeans and then Dylan Rich.

Yeah, she's getting a slide up.

I 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 the side like this or something like that.

I do my best, Albert, to remind you.

It's actually pretty good.

I won't name names, but some people are difficult to hear.

Um yeah, I'm actually speaking on the RV issue as well.

Well, they're not they're talking about the safe parking.

I'm just talking about RVs on the street, which is a little different.

Um so yeah, this morning I took another account because they temporarily disallowed parking on terror part of Terrabella, so I thought I'd see what happened.

Next slide, please.

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 Bell 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.

And you might have heard that Cooper Tino recently just enacted a ban on street parking for RVs overnight.

This was around 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, they were gone.

So I looked around, yeah, sure enough.

A month ago they decided to ban overnight parking RVs.

It took about a month to implement it, and it happened.

And so, uh next slide, please.

We have to think about what's gonna 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 ten times Mountain Views.

So Mountain View is just carrying an outsized 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, it's 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 condo there for several years and also worked nearby.

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 uh 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 business and stuff are suffering too.

There's just no way to run a city and allowing people to live on the streets.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Dylan.

Uh thank you council members.

Um I'd also just like to publicly I know this 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 Mount 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 Richard I'm the director at Palo Alto Prep.

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 independence before you can start seeing traffic uh within the last two feaks I personally had a close call um and I know what to look for um in terms of just looking for cars that just happen to be someone was speeding and someone was on their cell phone and they ran their 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 so just a reminder I please take action on this issue uh you're the only ones who can uh make change here um my we've said it before but it's not a matter if there will be an or if there will be an accident but uh when there will be an accident uh thank you thank you all right that concludes our in-person public comment we'll move on to virtual 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.

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 have to let her speak sure okay you can speak now I okay um so my name is uh 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 reserve 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 eligibility definition that excludes the part-time under a thousand hour uh city staff from qualifying again it's an internal document that the HR created excluding um uh under a thousand hour city staff employees this definition does not appear in the agreement was not included in this council staff report and has never been reviewed publicly there is no record of council directing staff to lit uh limit eligibility in this way these employees are part of the city workforce under a thousand hour staff support community events recreational programs building operations and help sta staff um city uh help staff city facilities year after year including um the city council meeting yet there are being excluded from the workers housing intended to uh support the people who are 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's also concerns about outreach the third party administrator House Keys 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 thousand 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 attended.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, the next uh public comment speaker is Ting Ting.

Singh.

Hi, good evening.

I am against uh Picoball Cots in Queza Park.

Questa park is a peaceful place, not only for the residents nearby, but also for all the residents in Mountainville, and as well as all the wild animals, birds, plants.

It's their home.

If we bring pickleball codes there, they will no longer be peaceful.

Uh so recently I read an article from uh Palauta Online about the Picobal Cots in Michelle Park in Mountain in Palo Alto.

And uh in this article, uh commenting members said you go in the park, you'll hear click click click all the time.

It doesn't feel like a park anymore.

I hope uh Quest Park's future won't be like that.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that concludes public comment.

So we'll move on to item six, public uh hearings.

Item 6.1 is our downtown business improvement area number one, an allocation of 2026 business improvement area number one revenues.

Councilmember Clark, do you have an announcement to make?

Yes, I am recusing myself from participating in any discussion or determination about the downtown business improvement area number one, due to the proximity of my personal residence to the improvement area.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hicks, do you have an announcement to make?

Yes, I'm also recusing myself from participating.

Uh and uh in any discussion or determination about the downtown business improvement area number one, because my personal residence is um close to the improvement area.

Great, thank you.

All right, economic vitality manager Amanda Rotella and community development director Christian Murdoch 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.

All right, thank you.

Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council.

Uh, tonight we're holding the second public hearing for the annual excuse me, renewal process for the downtown business improvement area number one.

The first meeting on September 23rd, 2025, was to review and preliminate preliminarily approve BIA number one.

As a reminder, BIA one 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 BIA1 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 one 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.

That concludes staff's comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does that any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember McAllister.

Yeah, thank you.

I'm gonna I had a couple of questions that council questions, and I'd just like to follow up on clarity on them.

Well, the question is what do we do with the funds?

And one of my questions was concerning the um could the funds be used for the downtown park and 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?

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, council members Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Uh the city uh operates that district.

And whose district is uh, what department is that under?

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.

And how is this district?

Does it have collect fees?

It does, it uh operates on an assessment basis for businesses located uh or properties rather located within the um district boundaries.

And how much do they collect each year and what are their fees?

Yeah, that's a it's approximately a hundred and fifty-six thousand a year.

Much better than our business district, doesn'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 Mount 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?

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 uh 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 uh 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.

Could any of the funds from the parking management operation assessment district be used for this?

Uh most likely, yes, uh, in terms of um upkeep and operation of the facilities, yes.

Okay, 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?

I think your question relates to the administrative fee that the city might opt to charge or recover.

Um I can't speak to why this district wasn't uh formed 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.

Okay, thank you.

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?

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.

Vice Mayor Ramos has made the motion and it's been seconded by Councilmember Ramirez.

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 view downtown Mountain View Business Improvement Area number one and declaring its intention to levy assessments for 2026 to be read in title only, further reading wave, and to set a public hearing date of October 28, 2025.

All right, let's vote.

All right, and that passes unanimously with those present.

So we'll invite council member Clark and Hicks uh to return to chambers and we'll move to item 6.2, our downtown business improvement area number two, an allocation of 2026 business improvement area number two revenues.

We'll wait till they return.

All right, and we'll turn it back over to you.

Thank you.

Good evening again, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and uh Council.

Returning to chambers council.

Tonight we are holding the second public hearing in the annual renewal process for downtown improvement uh area number two.

The first meeting on September 23rd, 2025 was to review and preliminarily approve BIA number one.

BIA number one 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 two 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 two for calendar year 2026, and second to authorize the city manager or designee to allocate the 2026 revenues from business improvement area number two 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.

That includes staff's comments.

Thank you.

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?

All right.

It looks like we have our our duo again.

Uh Vice Mayor Ramos and Council Member Ramirez.

So we'll turn it over to you, Vice Mayor.

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 Two and Living and Annual Benefit Assessments for Calendar Year 2026 to be read in title only.

Further reading weight.

All right, let's vote.

Mayor, if I may.

Um, um there's a second part to the recommendation as well that was not included in the motion.

All right, let me pull up the staff report.

It doesn't need to be read.

You just need to move the entire recommendation.

Oh, I'll move the entire recommendation, a staff's recommendation along with what I just read.

Does that is that okay?

Is that okay for the yes?

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

All right, let's vote.

Alright, 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.

But use can necessarily interpretation mediante zoom forward, they said click in the button the interpretation, después eligel idioma de su preferencia.

Yes, consecutivamente interpretar todos sus ideas.

Muchas gracias.

Great.

Thank you.

Rent stabilization manager Anki Van Dersen 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.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

Uh, Monkey Van Dursen, Rent Stabilization Manager from the Housing Department.

Tonight we are presenting the tenant relocation assistance ordinance amendments or TRIO amendments for the first reading.

And these amendments are part of the Housing Element Program 3.2, which directs the city to review the efficacy of the TRIO.

Staff recommends introducing an ordinance to repeal the existing TRIO in chapter 36, Article 13, add a new tenant relocation assistance article to Chapter 6 46, and find the amendments exempt from the CICOA.

And if introduced tonight, the second reading will be scheduled for December 9th of this year.

The 2023 31 housing element includes program 3.2, which calls for reviewing the efficacy of the TRAIO 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.

The EPC unanimously supported the amendments and added three additional considerations, which I'll touch on later.

Senate Bill 330 or the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, which governs tenant relocation benefits and noticing requirements, the Alice 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 TRIU along with recommendations summarized here.

The first one is no specific move outdate is mentioned for redevelopment projects.

The second one is a 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 TRIO by increasing the relocation benefits.

Each issue has a corresponding amendment that I'll go through now.

Here's an illustrative example comparing the current TRIO in the second column with the recommended amendments in the third column and the dates 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 TRO prevents tenants from being asked to leave earlier than necessary and creates consistency with state requirements.

Amendment 2 has a later notice of intent.

This chart shows the shift of notice of intent.

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, not the landlord, will send an informational notice when a development application is filed, including instructions to sign up for project-specific email notifications.

And it also shows the city informational notice be handed out at the time of the application submitted.

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 Mariposa project.

The first option is a per diem payment or a hotel or motel within five miles or comparable housing in Mountain View.

Tenants also receive moving or storage cost 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 permanently and forgo the right of return to the remodel unit.

An income eligible tenants can then receive permanent relocation benefits under the TREO in addition to the temporary benefits they have already received.

Moving to amendment four, a city and enforcement not exempt.

The current TRAIO exempts landlords from paying relocation benefits 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 the landlords, developers, etc.

Failure to comply could result in denial of building permits or project entitlements.

The final amendment increases benefits 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 TRAIO from chapter 36 to chapter 46, which is envisioned to consolidate housing-related ordinances.

And the EPC proposed to add in the alternate mitigation sections that benefits must be of equivalent value to the TRIO benefits, which staff incorporated.

And after the EPC meeting, staff identified additional amendments to clarify the intent, which are non-substantive addits.

One is that the consumer price index 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 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.

The second reading of this ordinance would be scheduled for December 9th, and if approved, the amendments would take effect on January 8th on 2026.

That concludes staff presentation.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So I was reading this and I saw that you went to a bunch of advisory committees to make agendments and changes.

What kind of outreach did you do to the landlords associations to keep them updated and get their input into these changes that have been recently done?

Yeah, thank you for the question.

So as Ms.

Van Derson provided in the presentation at the beginning of the process, there was outreach conducted.

Prior to the study sessions that were undertaken last year.

After we got direction from council to uh move forward with the recommended changes, then the uh and sooning time after December was really working on the draft amendments, looking at comparable jurisdictions and providing a basis for 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, 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.

So, 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 landlord's departments in the so how do we that there wasn't really any outreach because there was some changes.

How do we present a balanced uh uh ordinance if we're not hearing from both sides of uh of this particular ordinance?

I am still hearing that there was no direct outreach, you had emails going to other people.

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.?

Primarily we evaluated comparable jurisdictions.

Um 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 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 you're correct, we didn't further meet with stakeholder meetings, but we are publicizing the meetings um that we undertook with EPC and tonight's city council meeting.

So was there any financial um check to fair, you know, or uh an 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 taro is supposed to be neutral, supposedly balanced for fairness all on both sides, that going out say for all income so we could have a 200-300,000 person saying you're getting money.

Was that any analysis to it, or was that more of a uh feel good type of uh motion?

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 a hundred and twenty uh percent um plus a five thousand bonus because that's how what's in our trail right now, and then the third group was anyone above that essentially above moderate um uh 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.

Okay, since uh I was not here last year, I did not participate in that.

Um, so I saw a figure of 21,000.

Is that ring a bell in your uh, yes?

So right now the TRAO benefits is three months of comparable rent.

So if we were to take uh the the recent data, let's say that's about four thousand dollars of a comparable rent times three, that's twelve thousand dollars,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 eight thousand dollar um enhanced benefit, and so that's where we get to about the twenty or twenty-one thousand dollar um amount, which is uh in the range of what other cities do for um low-income households.

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?

We were 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.

So um, as the cost, I mean, are non-rental units included in this for uh re uh relocation?

Uh certainly the CSF.

When I say non-rental, I mean non-f yeah, yeah, C CF, yeah.

That's the TRO is um CS for units, and then if you can clarify, you're about to provide some comments.

It's not limited to the CSFRA, the TREO existed before the C C for A even came into effect.

So it is uh for all uh redevelopments that um demolish uh three or more units in a rental property.

So that was an existing caliph uh Mount View code?

Okay, and was there a dollar amount on that?

Um the three months uh comparable rent uh has been in place for um I think since 2002 14.

Was there any financial analysis to say that this could be uh quite a burden for a landlord?

Yes, so in the December study session last year, um, we provided a framework for considering feasibility as well, development feasibility.

In the December staff report, we noted that there's actually SB 330 relocation uh benefits that also need to be evaluated on, for example, a redevelopment project.

So redevelopment project will come through and take a look at what the TRO redevelopment uh or relocation benefits would be, and also conduct an analysis under the SP 330 uh requirements.

In many cases, if not most cases, the SB 330 requirements would be greater and potentially far greater than the TRAO amount.

What we discussed last year in December was that SB 330 was likely the upper limit of what it could be, and we really needed to be looking at something below that limit, and adding low-income uh households as a special circumstance category is below that limit, and also in line with other cities that uh provide enhanced benefits for for low-income households, and so because we do have consideration for being below the SP 330 limit, we believe, and then looking at where comparable jurisdictions are um uh are landing where the uh for the amounts we we believe that it's um addressing the feasibility question as well.

There is the attachment three that provides what other cities are are providing as well.

And may I add something?

Um when we were comparing other cities, no other city is limiting the income uh eligibility for TRO 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 to keep that in place.

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, and middle in between for displacement?

Do you specify which fees you have?

Well, okay, you said for the uh relocation fees, there was no income level that says you're 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?

We only looked at the comparable jurisdictions related to relocation benefits, not um, I think what you're suggesting is total development cost.

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 gonna cost us so much.

So there's no incentive for me to do it because this is gonna cost me a bunch of money.

So 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 the landlord wants to do remodeling and having to pay permanent relocation costs under the current uh trail.

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 CSOR 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 TRIO.

So we we we think that the uh recommended amendments are um trying to address the question that you are that you're posing, which would hopefully allow landlords to undertake more renovations than they are currently under the trail.

Is it possible that somebody could be entitled to temporary displacement and permanent displacements, depending on how they looked at things?

In in the scenario that we are thinking of if there is an unforeseen circumstance where the landlord is uh 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 Ms.

Van Derson was presenting that they could um opt to stay in their uh temporary uh 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.

Um they would be then eligible for also the the permanent relocation benefits if their income eligible.

Those are really the the two situations.

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 uh a little bit longer than 90 days, so we might come in under the alternative means of compliance section.

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.

So we wanted to have a window of time, um, but there's the alternative means of compliance, the new temporary displacement section along with a um modified permanent uh relocation section.

When is the 90 day start?

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?

Yeah, that that's a that's a great question.

I'm gonna um look to Anki real quick to yeah.

Uh from the date that the developer says that the tenants have to move.

So is that realistic though?

Uh I think so.

Like um, so the developer gets the remodeling permit, he is planning his remodeling.

So he's okay, so he's got his permit in hand.

Yeah.

Okay, that's what I was okay.

And then uh, but then that then the 90 days don't start yet.

The 90 days start from when he gives the notice to the tenants that you can temporarily.

So it's not okay.

I thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Schalter.

Well, um, Councilmember McAllister asked a couple of the questions I was gonna ask, so 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.

What how do you get that?

So three months times four thousand plus or three month three months times four thousand plus eight thousand for special circumstances plus a thousand to move.

Is that it?

So uh the the amount varies by person because the three month comparable rent depends on what the renter is uh displaced from.

See if it's a three-bedroom uh unit, we're looking at the data, current data.

What does the three bedroom unit go for in the market today?

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 eight thousand dollars, and that goes up each year with the CPI.

Okay, all right.

So if a three-bedroom apartment currently goes for uh $3,500, they get three times $3,500 plus the extra eight thousand dollars.

Okay, all right.

So that's not quite 20% and plus moving expenses.

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.

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 it could be very open-ended.

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 gonna work this so that it's not um so that it's not too open-mended.

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 shouldn't be able to bring the piano with them.

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 costs of of the move through receipts or invoices, and there is going to be a range.

Um if folks are moving a little bit farther, um, if folks have more things, then it will vary.

Okay.

Um then the temporary removal.

Um why was 90 days chosen?

I mean, c what kind of upgrades are you expecting a um landlord to make in 90 grades?

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.

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 I'm interested in what are the kinds of things that you think would be would be done.

Thank you for the question.

The st 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 time frame for completing the work, uh moving moving folks out, completing the work and moving folks in was around forty forty-five days or so.

Now they they might have more experience and was able to be able to implement all the changes by then.

It was pretty comprehensive.

It was floors and cabinetry and um appliances and fixtures and and things like that.

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, uh, and then there could be other ways too of helping folks stay uh in the building.

So, for example, in the 660 Mariposa uh example, um, the work was done in phases, and so not everyone had to move at the same time, um, but there was also the ability to move folks from uh a unit that they're in to another unit on site as a way to keep keep folks um in there.

Um but I think that's where the alternative mean alternate means of compliance can come in if folks feel like they envision a scope of work that might need more than 90 days that can come in under that pathway.

Um we're also looking at how other cities handle temporary uh displacement situations and it ranged from 45 days to 60 days and whatnot, 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.

So taking a look at the comparable jurisdictions, looking at the time frame that the 660 Mariposa was completed, and having some flexibility without uh a situation where it dragged on too long was where we landed on the 90 days.

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.

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 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.

So, 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 trayo.

I mean, that's a big jump.

Um we want to how how would you um how would you implement that?

We're just um brainstorming here a little bit.

You know, perhaps there could be a provision that allows documentation of an unforeseen circumstance that because it 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 that, because it was not the intention to um go longer than is needed, but but things have happened, and we know that with supply chain and whatnot, things can happen.

So there could be some flexibility potentially introduced in that manner.

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.

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.

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 to 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?

Thanks for the question.

We've had two I think two or three projects of 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 if I believe and the situation resulted aware the city action then resulted in tenants having to leave right away but there wasn't a way to provide the trayo benefits to those tenants um perhaps Ms.

Menderson has some additional details about the characteristics or the situations of a couple of those projects.

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.

So if we were if and I did ask this question if something was red tagged because of um uh 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 trayo right I mean so share that with the public that's correct the 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.

Okay all right thank you so much for answering all those questions.

Councilmember Hicks.

So my question was mostly asked by council member show Walter there's maybe I'm trying to think whether to still ask there maybe a little remaining piece of it.

So the temporary displacement my question is on the temporary displacement I actually asked this in council questions just 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 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 um so what happens if like I I think in the staff report you said that if the uh landlord foresees that it's gonna go over 90 days the renovation that uh they have to give the tenant one month notice that they're gonna go over but my experience is sometimes you don't know until the last minute so I'm wondering this is in the category that council member showalder asked about flexibility like how could we handle that if it's a you know more of a an unexpected thing.

I think 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 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 so I think um you've already identified at least a couple here for us to take back and uh provide flexibility that way.

That sounds good to me thank you.

Councilmember Ramirez?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I have a few questions the first uh it might be helpful for staff to um uh spell out when TREO applies and when the relocation assistance under SB 330 applies.

I uh 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 SP 330 relocation benefits.

So when would TRAO be required and when would SB 330 be required?

Yeah, so the TREO states that uh if three or more units are being demolished and tenants are being displaced, then the TREO will be applicable.

Then SB 330 came along, and under there, protected units is a definition under SB 330, which comprises CSFRA units, rent controlled units, um, and any units with low-income tenants.

So it's not one or the other.

Uh we have some guidelines where we compare the TREO 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 TRAIO also requires um a relocation agent to be used uh to help the tenants find uh placements units.

So then that application from the TRAIO applies as well at the same time.

Okay.

Uh so uh my apologies for for uh walking through this very pedantically, but uh for I think 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?

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?

That is fair to say.

Um in many, if not most cases.

So then uh what are examples of displacement uh and you could draw from examples we've seen at Mountain View where TREO for the 80% AMI and below households would apply.

So first off, the TREO itself doesn't have the 80% AMI uh income group defined.

Um any eligible household uh under 120% AMI plus five thousand dollars get TRO 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.

I think we're talking past each other just a little a little bit.

So for for households 80% AMI or above 88% 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 mandated assistance?

Yeah, both as CSFRA units and just in general rental households under 80% AMI will be covered under the SB 330.

So it would be a rare instance where households would not get benefits under SB 330, but then fall under the TREO.

But we wanted to um increase um the efficacy of the TRAO comp and and add SB 330 elements in there as as far as they are reasonable in case the SB 330 at the time would not be a permanent one because for the longest time it had a sunset date.

Okay.

Um that that's helpful, thank you.

And just to I think maybe make it crystal clear for me, can you think of an example, you know, in in perhaps using displacement that has come before the council in the past you know 10 years or so where uh we would use the TREO a di special circumstance additional benefit, the relocation benefit, instead of the SB 330 state mandated state mandated uh relocation assistance.

What what when so staff says is it's rare?

When might we see that actually paid out?

Yeah, it's a somewhat complicated Venn diagram.

I'm gonna read a couple more um categories under the definition of protected unit under SP 330, which expands the the situation, and then I'm gonna ask if Karen Tiedeman uh legal counsel to the rental housing committee could provide some additional um information to your question.

Um so a protected unit.

Sorry, before before you go um further, let's just try to uh if staff can promote Karen while um, perfect, okay, great.

Thank you.

So a protected unit under SP 330 is um a unit covered by local rent stabilization provisions, um number two, subject to affordable housing covenants like a hundred percent affordable project, a unit that is just simply occupied by very low and low-come households, 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 something like that has occurred in the last 10 years.

Um but if if Karen is available, uh perhaps you can speak to uh council member Ramirez's question about uh sort of the situations in which the the TRAO and the SP 330 overlap or don't overlap in terms of the coverage.

Yes, good evening.

Uh Karen Tiedeman with Goldfarbin Lipman, um out by council 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 LFAC eviction.

Um fault just cause eviction under the CSFRA or the MHRSO that isn't related to a development project would trigger those benefits.

Thank you.

And does staff can staff share statistically, you know, how how often has that occurred since uh the CSFRA came along?

Yeah, so SBC 30 is only applicable when uh project 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.

Since since uh April 2017?

Um I would say in the last two or three years.

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 you know uh sum up this sort of line of questioning, for the most part, these amendments simply codify SB 330.

We know we're not changing too much beyond that.

That's correct.

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 Municode 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 council members um uh McAllister picks and uh Shell Walter talked about?

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?

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.

Correct.

Okay, great, thank you.

Are people still in the queue or are they wanting a second byte?

Councilmember Calmer, Council Member Hicks, are you?

I I yeah, I would, thank you.

Okay.

Well, I think if it's a direct comment to what Councilman Ramirez said, what just said, then or is it just yeah, I think that's fine, and then and then we'll um then we can go for those who haven't spoken and then we can do second round if folks want.

So um bringing up SB 330, so my understanding is I feel like I should know the answer to this, but my understanding is that it expires in it does not expire ever.

It's now been made permanent.

Okay, that's the answer to my question.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

All right, so um, for colleagues, if you have any additional questions, we'll just um continue on with questions before you open public comment.

Um I had a procedural kind of question.

So when this came to council last December, um when looking at table one, 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 six, and then everything after that, you know, additional amendments, and so from page nine to page twelve, are those considered the quote unquote options that you're bringing back to council because everything says amendment.

And so not to necessarily make a question comment, but I thought we were gonna get, you know, kind of option one, option two, option three.

Um, you know, I think the tables are descriptive um in terms of the the attachments, but I thought we were gonna 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 nine to twelve are options for recommended by staff for adoption?

Uh yes, the 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 uh options for discussion.

Um so that was the approach that that we took.

Um and then I think you're referring to page nine of tonight's um staff report.

Yeah, we were really going um we're really looking to be responsive to the section where uh council support evaluate 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.

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.

Yes, so the amendment for this sixth item evaluating or looking at increased benefits is uh number one to add the low-income household category, um, up to 80% AMI.

That group would be added as a new group under special circumstances.

So that's the part A of amendment six.

And then the second part part A of amendment six.

So which are we looking at the table or the staff report?

Just the way and apologies, the way it's written and the way I'm trying to, 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 um multiple amendments that fall under that bucket, and so I just want to clarify all of the additional amendments that we are discussing and reviewing tonight as a council.

I would draw your attention to page 10 under the in the first full paragraph in the the bowl that says staff recommends using the this methodology and amending the trio 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 and the two bullet points that's the second part of the uh of the benefits for moving costs for everyone so the first full paragraph on page 10 and then the the middle bolded section for moving costs okay and so those are so that's two amendments to two additional options or sorry two additional amendments to what we had discussed in December these are two subcomponents to thank you sorry I know I I just I I'm just trying to you know understood thank you.

Okay so 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 then you get into EPC additional consideration two and then we get into even more additional amendments.

So is that something that we're discussing tonight is that incorporated into the final motion I just need clarity.

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 okay thank you the additional amendments have been incorporated into attachment one as amendments already so during the EPC meeting um so on page 11 where it says EPC additional consideration three that has been uh incorporated into attachment one 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 one as well yes.

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 tonight and what's actually incorporated into what we're being asked to adopt so um and then um just another question so there was a there was a question bought up brought up by a colleague about um kind of additional community outreach that could be done so should council adopt the trio tonight is there an opportunity to have further discussions and outreach I think one I I you know I think education is gonna be a huge um component but is there also an opportunity for communications on these two amendments or 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 an outreach with those um different entities that we may have not heard from yet there would be uh for example for this meeting um 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 uh as a consent item so if council was interested in opportunities for that dialogue to happen how would we be able to do that we would 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 uh I would just confirm with the city attorney uh that we may have to come back um for uh a new first reading.

Okay.

Yeah that that's what I'm trying to clarify.

Would we need to continue the item and here again to get that input or could we adopt tonight with I don't know, with that up, yeah.

I'll city attorney logo.

Okay.

Um 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.

Well, I think that's just the how do we move this forward if though uh if those feel that they haven't had an opportunity to engage and provide um, input.

Correct.

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.

Okay, thank you.

I just was curious about that just because that was a question that came up.

All right.

Uh back to council member McAllister.

Thank you, mayor, for that last clarification.

That was one of my questions.

So I just needed a little more clarification on a couple of so the 21,000.

Did I hear you say that was based on a three-bedroom unit?

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 trayo 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 2500 uh dollars per month, then they get three months of the 2500 dollars.

So these were exempt, because for some reason I saw the 21,000, I thought that was given.

What would happen in flexibility, and I thank you, Councilmember Show Walter for your thoughts on uh flexibility and what if somebody uh we have some landowners and uh landlords in Mount View have a lot of hundreds of a units.

What if they say, okay, we're gonna do some work here and we're gonna put you into another unit of our own.

Do they get all these relocation costs?

That's an option for them to do to help move folks into the vacant units that that um 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, though I think the only thing that then would the primary thing that would remain, which is uh any cost associated with moving folks to a different unit.

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 gonna be this.

Okay, is that something that is in here to say that's an exemption?

Uh that's one of the options in the in the in the uh amendments already.

Okay, and those are my questions.

Thank you.

Very quick.

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 Lopaton, Anil Barber, uh Tessa McFarland, and then we'll go to virtual.

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.

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 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 in painting and recarpeting.

It's infrastructure that is the problem in these older buildings, the electric that have to all be the upgraded, which might even require upgraded service being brought to the thing, which takes over a year and a half with PGE to get that.

So to say that 90 days is enough isn't even close.

But that's not what I'm here on here on the the um the cost of um, you know, of uh moving them out, okay.

And I only have a couple 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.

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?

Because that obviously doesn't seem to make sense, and that is not the purpose of what this is for.

And also, 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 am sure everyone understands what that term means, a flipper.

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.

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.

Thank you.

Sorry, that was your three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I have more to say, and you definitely need to come and talk to us.

We were never asked.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

A noble bar with the California Apartment Association.

I wanted to express my um opposition to the uh proposed changes in the TRAO.

Um, first we're concerned, and as we pointed out in our letter, and as you've heard on the diet 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.

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 uh previous property owner that uh the impacts that uh these high payments will have.

Um it will make it unsustainable to support reinvestment housing and could lead to deferred maintenance, deterioration of properties, and so forth.

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 I'm sure a lot of unintended consequences.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

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 McAllister's point, for that deal to work, we knew all of our development costs going in.

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.

I'm here to ask you to please continue this matter.

There has not been appropriate outreach.

The two study sessions that were conducted were very general.

This is the first time a couple days ago on Friday that this very detailed amendment was made available.

And there aren't just two amendments.

I mean, I want to be really clear on that.

There are eight pages of new language at pages 24 through 32, 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.

As to the comp charts, I'm not sure how comparable they are.

We have Oxnard, West Hollywood, 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.

So the only 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 of relocation um assistance is damaging.

It is a lot of money, especially when you cap that with unlimited moving expenses, as councilwoman show Walter said, you know, a grand piano, a piece of art, you know, who knows, right?

But there's absolutely no cap on any moving expenses, and a 50-mile radius is a very, very large radius.

Um 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 thank you.

Yes.

All right, so we'll uh that concludes public comment in person, so I'll move to virtual.

Eileen 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.

I know people are frustrated with the lack of affordable housing in the Bay 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 a 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.

This study called the effect of rent control expansion on tenants, landlords and inequality, was conducted by Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuaid, and Franklin Kwan.

I urge the city counselor 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.

It in fact decreases the amount of affordable housing as well as ghettoizes the stock of housing that's made available.

So when we return back to this new ordinance, the city staff are recommending to have small mom and pop owner landlord shalling go, 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 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, scrimmed 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.

All right.

Our next uh speaker is Reagan Avery.

I can you hear me?

Yes.

Great.

Hi, good evening, uh, Honorable Mayor and Council members.

Uh, Regan Avery uh with ACO Management.

Our company's been based in Mountain View since 1960.

I've personally worked at the company for 34 years, and 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 Neil.

Um and not being uh really uh at the table as a stakeholder.

Um, 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 CFRA um CSFRA stock, uh 100% of our housing, uh three large communities are under CSFRA, and if we redevelop, as you know, we're titled to maintain that same number under the CSFRA regulations.

Umits are 50, 60 years old, but adding uh to the cost of doing so without including the stakeholders 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 that the communities the staff looked at, uh, the average income, even in B level properties is magnitudes higher in Mountain View than in those other communities.

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 their continuation because so much of the discussion tonight has been valuable.

The questions from uh council members, uh, much of this as was articulated, could have been vetted out earlier, and there's still a lot that needs to uh be vetted out going forward.

Uh, thank you for your time and uh listening to my comments.

Great, thank you.

Uh, next is uh Edie Keating.

Hi, thank you.

Hearing this tonight, I'm remembering the Rock Street redevelopments, and those were painful because tenants were losing their homes.

And the trail in those situations were helpful.

Um it didn't answer all the questions, neither will these situations um answer all questions or help everyone stay in Mountain View.

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 the next person moves in, that there will be a higher rent charge.

Um the rent control is a imperfect way to control prices and it keeps current uh people in their apartments, but then the vacancy decontrol uh changes the price and slowly apartments gentrify.

So this 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, 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 it think about some of the apartments that council members 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.

Thank you.

Uh, next is uh Mina Young.

Hi, my name's Maina Young.

Um I'm the president of business and housing network.

We have thousands of mom, mom 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, and with the proposal today, it's very clear, is 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 is the rent regulations adding the costs and premiums, and they're canceling hundreds of thousands.

Um, you know, that we can know of, and we have to do a lot more renovation and a lot more stringent um um renovation what in order to get another insurance coverage and rentals require additional coverage, and those have double the premium have double for us this year, and so, think about all these um all these new regulations, they're gonna prevent us from owning rentals from 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 uh anti-housing policies.

We are just neighbors.

You need to consider all sides 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 bias um policies.

So please stop that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

All right, I don't see any more virtual public comment.

Um, so I'm gonna turn it to City Attorney Loak.

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 I just wanted to, as you deliberate, to take that into consideration and add that as direction if if you wish to.

Great.

Thank you very much for that clarification.

So I am gonna 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.

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 um find uh 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.

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 it's it's a two-fold process.

One is um allowing for the densities that we need in those redevelopments, to taking a look and what those specific needs of those tenants to move forward, and and that's what staff has kind of proposed to us today.

So um going through uh some of these things.

So amendment one and amendment two 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.

Um when we start getting into amendment three, the new temporary displacement section.

Um that's where I feel like we can we can play with some flexibility.

I do feel like what staff has 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, bond, 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 three as it is with the direction to staff to hold stakeholder meetings to develop those administrative procedures.

Um amendment four relates to the red tag evictions, um, is very clear that staff has uh that we will 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 trayo.

So I agree with amendment four.

Um amendment five 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 mount to be focused.

We are a very diverse community, we have renters that speak different languages, and this is where the personal touch of sometimes some we we are a relatively large city or grow uh 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 five that are mostly SB 330, but um have that local touch to it, and I think that is absolutely appropriate.

Amendment six is probably the most flexible of all of us of what uh where we can move forward.

I am supportive of staff's recommendations with the enhanced benefit for low-income families and the moving cost.

Um in the EPC considerations, um, where is the first consider?

The first consideration I was okay with it felt that was more administrative, because uh staff uh 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, the uh in the EPC staff additional enhance the the ability of a 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 option to just when you send out that information, that's easy enough.

It was uh slide eight, page four of our packet.

The other one, um, I will follow staff's recommendation.

That seems the the whole thing about the the 50.

Oh, here you go.

The the EPC additional consideration was pay tenants a bonus for staying in Mount View equal to 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 gonna 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.

I'm generally fine.

Oh, actually, I do like number three 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 length that language seems fine with me.

Is there any other clarity?

We have to clarify that because as we see it's already was changed um last year.

So we got red.

So yeah, those clarifications I'm I'm okay with.

I'm ready to make a motion, and then we could continue on with our discussion with that.

If it gets a second, um, but overall, those are my feelings of this.

I'm yes.

Okay, so you went through everything.

I looked through, you're just recommending staff recommendations.

For the most part, yes, but uh there is a little bit of addition in amendment three about the temporary um and my uh so in the staff recommendation, it only included EPC additional consideration one, and then EPC additional consideration two and three were not included in the staff recommendation.

Additional consideration three um has been made to talk about equivalent value for alternative means but not additional consideration two.

Yeah, so that's staff recommendation, isn't it?

Yes, so I'm talking about in amendment three.

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, oh, sorry.

Does that need to be included?

Or what was that the staff intent or I think basically go ahead?

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.

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.

Oh, I can 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 way and a set a second reading for December 9, 2025.

I will also uh thank staff for the many.

Oh, yes, and uh to um when developing the administrative procedures for the new temporary displacement section, um provide opportunities for stakeholder feedback from our uh CAA, other land low low 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 be okay with where we are at.

So we have a motion, but we have no seconds, so that's why we're all standing okay.

All right.

So the the item has been seconded by sure.

Um I would like to add another provision to the um administrative guidelines that we oh we're supposed to talk into this 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 that 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 six thousand dollars, wouldn't be you just got six thousand dollars.

It would be you submitted your invoice for your move, and if it was below six thousand 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?

I accept that.

Thank you.

Okay, so um the current motion is the staff recommendation with the addition of when developing the administrative guidelines, that there is uh community outreach, um, to property owners and developers, um, stakehold 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 would love the the administrative procedures to be reflective of that stakeholder input.

So the flexibility we know 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, PBD, what those might be.

Okay.

Um next in the queue, Councilmember 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 council member Show Walter 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?

We can.

I we we would implement the stakeholder outreach.

Would it would include um developers, tenants and and landlords, and and get the feedback around and identify a cap.

Okay, okay.

That's one question knocked off.

Um, I 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 cost shall be.

So we need to reference the other document that would include the limit, if that's okay.

What do you need me to do?

So you can just accept my suggestion.

It would just be minor modifications as necessary to the ordinance to reference the cap in the administrative guidelines.

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 complexity of the situation.

I'm not sure we get it right.

Um, sorry.

Back to you, council member Hicks.

Apologies.

That's fine.

I appreciate that.

I've been mayor before.

Um, 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 eight, 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 this deep.

Uh yes, thank you.

So this wouldn't change from the current TRAO, either.

The intention is that the tenants would have the benefits so that they can actually find a replacement housing.

If it went to um say the housing authority, then it's not going to the tenants.

So the intention is that the tenants would receive the benefits so they can find the replacement housing.

And that would be uh for the modified TRAO as well.

So what happen I probably don't understand how the programs operate enough.

What happens if I'm I mean I've lived in apartments with people who get section eight and it maybe you explain to me how that happens?

It's a a portion of their rent is being paid.

How does that happen when a person 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 eight dollars a month extra under section eight, but there are also tenants that almost receive a hundred percent um of the rent.

Um so the uh the TRO 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.

And then do they still get their section eight while they're moved out, or how does that work with the program?

If they're being 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.

So if they were moved out temporarily and then moved back, they would re-they would get that subsidy again when they move back.

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 rent that they can spend.

Okay, so their search is more complicated.

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.

This may be an area where with 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 and maybe what 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.

Yeah, I would appreciate that if the motion make the motion maker and seconder or look fine with that.

Okay, that sounds okay to me.

City attorney, yes, I just thought sorry I was typing, because we're we're working on um re we're working on writing the amended motion as people are adding things.

We're just gonna summarize, and so can you just uh state again what uh you'd like them to include it?

Uh yes, or perhaps staff can help us with this who would stated.

I'll take a um a stab.

So um in addition to the flexibility discussed on the other items, um, add to the items of um evaluating options for uh, for example, project-based voucher holders and flexibility uh about the the uh relocation assistance amounts and receive feedback and and incorporate those into the guidelines.

Yes, that was what I was hoping for.

Um, and then uh okay, we did the unlimited expenses.

Um I so I thought that council member 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 uh 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, Councilmember Ramos named uh amendments number one, two, and five 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 one, two, and five.

Um definitely, and we can discuss those.

Well, then 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 SBT 30, so we can nobody uh have these discussions.

Um just then my statement is that I am hoping that I guess if in some ways move 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.

Thanks.

Councilmember Clark.

Thanks.

Um 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.

And I just want to start at the 50,000 foot level, thank you 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 with respect to moving and and other costs.

I think there was a majority for 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 made sense.

So I think 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.

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 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, I think we need to be uh we also need to think about the other costs that we're passing on.

Because I we we think a lot we think a lot in terms of redevelopment because of Rock Street and other trauma that we have, 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'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 it's also good to have some protections in there.

So with um with that said, I just want to highlight the things that I had 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.

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 cupertina or 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 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're maybe thinking about a permanent relocation.

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 agree with the folks who mentioned a cap.

I wanted to suggest um if we're doing 50 miles, I think I don't 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 uh 5,000 each way.

50 miles that's a hundred dollars a mile.

Um, you know, if if you move within Mountain View and you know, you have a really expensive move with an art pace 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 the CPI.

So I whether 10,000 is the right number or not, 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.

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 relocate, the the moving benefits, the relocation and moving benefits uh apply to the CSFRA units and the and the mobile home rent stabilization covered units.

So the units where you're gonna 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 three hundred thousand dollars a year.

So rather than just worry about 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-CSR for A units just as it does today.

That way we aren't dabbling in, you know, do I live in a CSFAR 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.

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 think the 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 cascop or moving cost cap um at whatever we feel is appropriate, I think we should do that.

If we're gonna 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 pre 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 gonna 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 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.

I there it's they're they're pretty significant friendly amendments, but uh if if we want to do that, that's fine.

Uh but um I I'm open to however the best way to do it is but I I just think that's a that's probably the best path forward in my if we want to move forward tonight, which by the way, there's no we've met our housing element obligation.

We have reviewed the TRAO.

Um we evaluated the efficacy of the TRAO.

It doesn't say we actually have to pass anything by December 31st, but um, so I think we've met our obligations there.

There's no like ticking clock on this one.

Um if SP 330 were expiring, then there would be a ticking clock, but um anyway, I've said my piece.

I'll let someone else speak.

Okay.

So I didn't hear and so can help me.

I didn't hear a formal substitute motion.

So I'm just gonna continue with the motion on the on the floor.

And I am going to go to Councilmember McAllister who and those who are in the queue.

Yeah, if someone else wants to make the substitute, they can.

I just I want to be I wanna be deferential to my colleagues who want to speak.

So I think because there's just there's folks that haven't had the opportunity to to lean in.

So I think before we start um making further mixing, why don't we hear from folks and then and then we can uh once everyone's had the opportunity, then we can get back to um if we want to make tweaks edits, et cetera.

Okay, council member McCallester.

Thank you.

So I have a question for the city attorney.

Um the path we're going down tonight concerns me about we're making uh ordinances, but we're not using real data.

So with this uh administrative procedure, if the ordinance is passed and the letter and the language is in there, the administrative procedures when they're saying well, we'll bring in input from the uh ownership side, will that be able to override what's in the ordinance?

No, it will not.

It would have to be consistent with the ordinance.

So, correct.

No, it will not override it.

The ordinance will tromp anything in the administrative guidelines to the extent that it conflicts.

Okay, with that being said, I'll make my comments very short.

I cannot support this motion.

I'm not uh I say comfortable how we're doing this.

So we're just making the law and it's well.

This sounds good.

This one, without bringing the the input of the third party who's the landlords, I would support continuance.

Thank you, but council member Clark to saying we've uh met our obligations.

Um, and this is not good governance.

So go this going down this path saying, well, can't staff can do that, we're gonna tweak this, gonna tweak that.

I think this is so important that we do we do have to do a better job, due diligence, listen to who's out there.

Uh if I was out there as a and there are six new amendments come 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 to 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 that's where I'm going right now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, a lot of uh good thoughtful comments from members of the council.

Um 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 on related to SB330 where I agree, agree with Councilmember Clark.

We should spend the time to figure out what makes sense 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 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 should be some baseline expectation, and I think a future council ought to consider deliberating that.

Um I did want to um I don't want to totally uh try and ref uh reiterate what council member 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 I'm sorry?

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 it it's sort of like a like like a surrogate council member, 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.

It's in section, well, I won't read the section, but basically it's it's saying that if the tenant voluntarily if they've been temporary 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 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 still get the total permanent relocation amount, they just don't get to stack them.

And if but if the landlord's actions or delay causes the unit to become unavailable for for reoccupancy, then the tenants 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 temporary relocating.

Thank you.

That's one.

The other is the tricky one is the cap on the moving cost.

Well, let's let's one at a time.

We'll go back to that.

Um, and then uh the bigger one is um basically just adding a uh 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 OS Act.

So it's basically just excluding if you if you're a CSFRA unit or mobile home um stable uh 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 three thirty govern all that um 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 council member Clark read that would um address the potential double dipping issue and the and just so we don't waste anyone's time I feel very strongly about that last one so regardless of the friendly amendments accepted I'll I'll I will vote no if we try and cover non-CSFR units with this that that's a big deal to me heard loud and clear all right so we could start by this one by one um the 90 days to oh 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 in the case of um council member Clark's uh suggestion by way of council member Ramirez um the the suggestion is uh if the tenant decides in their temporary relocated place um that that's what they want to be permanent how do we ensure that it's the tenant's decision and not due to um a landlord action 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 sixty days that is not um that is not uh the project is not done that's not a voluntary decision that you're t that you're going to be permanently displaced that is that is just uh 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.

And the vice mayor just to confirm I think you're referring to a situation where that is not the situation and a tenant is choosing to move out voluntarily I think 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 or any other things that could have led to that okay so yeah I'm I as long as that's put in place I'm okay with that first one for the second one um it was the adding cap um you threw out five thousand dollars um it kind of reminds me each way sorry so total of ten a total of ten it it does remind me of back when I was on the RAC 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 base them on some of the numbers in the staff report some of the moving estimates obviously it's gonna depend on my which but you're you're right I did I 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 maybe?

Well, because I feel rather than back and forth on 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 not.

That's what I was gonna ask.

Or do you just want us to set a number tonight?

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 think these are worthwhile questions because as you were just saying, doing back of the napkin, guessing, legislating from the diet, as council member caller is saying we just need to, you know, I think it's just prudent to if we're gonna give a number and then I think um council member 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 council member Clark was concerned of uh 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 temporary displacement section of amendment.

I do believe in that concept.

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 a question.

Did you ask?

No, no.

I just looking at staff.

I mean, I think I I understand the the perspective and the points of view that folks are sharing.

I'm 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 gonna 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 that's you know, kind of come back to council once that I I you know I don't know whether that's on an off agenda memo or other 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.

Yeah, I guess in theory we could still pass amendment three and like get and and then vote on a cap at a future date.

Well it's gonna come back as a second reading.

That's true, 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 council member Clark, did you want the cap to be part of the ordinance itself?

I think it really needs to be, or or if it's gonna 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.

I promise I'm not just trying to kick the can, but what we could do is give staff the the time to still bring this back to us 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 and thinking of the meetings.

Maybe it would, but at least it's still getting at least is still getting done, and then we're not trying to dot eyes and cross T's at the dais, but that's up to you.

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 if I could just provide some feedback, the item of movement costs is like many other items, um a series of trade-offs and um if the council can provide perhaps some some principles I I hear balance, you know, we want to address the moving cost of tenants, um, but but the capital 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 uh 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's looking for us to to recommend and we can do thinking after this to to bring it back on on on December the ninth.

If there's any additional principles that you may have for us to factor it in.

There are also schedules that I think are published by the Federal Transportation Administration.

Those are for situations where there's um cost that the 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 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 we can take that and trying to find a uh uh more more clarity and and perhaps a uh 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 so what does that mean for amendment three we would still move forward with amendment three and staff would um 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 as one way another way would be to provide perhaps a a figure when we come back on December the ninth.

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 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 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.

So I think Vice Mayor so there were three um items via council member 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 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 Council Member Ramirez via council member Clark on the cap.

I mean I feel more comfortable with the second option when they come back with some kind of an initiative guidelines and then we can have a cap there.

Because he mentioned he wanted it in the motion that in the ordinance 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 ministry 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 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 five thousand dollars to play with and have added, but if you're moving 50 miles, it's I I just think there should be some um there should be some limit.

And and you're okay with that methodology that we mentioned I'll come back with the administration.

We mentioned the cap in the ordinance that there will be a cap.

Yeah, and it and that it will just based on CPI.

I think that's important too.

It shouldn't just be fixed in time.

Okay.

But I but I do yeah, I that piece we haven't tackled the bigger thing, but yeah, that's that's I'm I'm I'm kind of dreading the third piece, but um, so yes, I accept uh council member 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 uh in in the ordinance itself, but is an expectation that staff will bring back at the administrative guidelines with to us with options for a cap.

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.

Okay, that's yeah, okay.

That's if I may so yes, that's that's accurate.

Uh 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.

Yes.

It's not necessary to bring back the full set of administrative guidelines, which are going to be a bunch of procedures and processes, but just focus on bringing back the cap that would we would recommend be included, and then you you as the council would make that final decision on that cap amount.

Okay, correct.

All right.

Councilmember Ramirez, did you have uh anything else that you wanted to add or yes on the third point, so um uh I I think we might have a disagreement about the uh applicability of the two uh laws, SB 330 and TREO, which is uh in part why um I I was asking staff that uh at the beginning of the meeting to to help me understand where one applies and where the other applies.

Um so I my understanding is uh or if we're covering just CSFRA and MHRSO S 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.

I think the provisions in SP 330 and the LS Act are sufficient to cover market rate units.

I don't think our TRAO, um I sorry, not the TRIO.

I think the relocation assistance and moving cost provisions in the TRIO 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 think someone making a quarter million dollars in a market rate unit needs moving assistance to have their unit upgraded.

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 council member Ramirez is concerned about and what I was slightly concerned about is the protections of a trail protections for people who are not displaced or a no fault eviction that are not due to redevelopment.

Right.

So I feel like can someone give me an example of when we, yeah.

Can we uh also bring up the Alice Act is withdrawal from the rental market.

So if a property owner does not want to demolish a project, but he just wants to withdraw from the rental market, that's an Alice activation.

Um and those are currently covered under the TRIO, but those are not SB 330 um cases.

And I just think that's a risk you take when you're random market rate unit.

So are they currently covered right now with our trail though?

Does that mean you want to take away their trail rights of those who are currently covered?

I think I would rely on 330 in the Ellis Act.

Um I guess sorry.

It's all right, yeah.

So I um I maybe we can it sounds like you do not want to include item three that council member Clark suggested.

So I think just for and uh rather than so and that's and that's fine.

So I think if if there's any more questions related to that, then um I just need to make sure that the seconder is okay with that as we continue.

Right?

So it's it's you as the motion maker, and then I have to go to the seconder to make sure and then we need to clarify the motion that's on the floor.

Um but it it unless you have more that you because I um I so I I do need to check with Councilmember Schulwalter on whether she accepts that one in the he gave three, so like there's one.

So we're still I'm just trying to wrap up through number three.

Okay.

So is there I think there might be different perspectives.

And so that's all right.

I just want to make it work.

Yeah, I think that um everyone up here wants to make it work.

I think that um, let me the trail.

The amendment that we would make is still hold on, sorry.

It's the 80%, or we're taking the A Saf recommended the right of first review.

Where is that?

Um, okay, here we go.

Um so we're talking about tra like the entirety of trail or the amending trail to include group one as part of the second special circumstances.

Because is it the AMI?

I'm just like I hear what you're saying, because the aim sorry, um this is where I'm trying to get the understanding.

Yeah.

Is it because of the the income levels that you want to?

It's the it's the lack of means testing.

Okay.

So I uh that's why that's why it says the relocation assistance and moving cost provisions in this article.

This don't those two things don't apply to the non-CSFRA units.

But if but if staff or you have a more creative way of, I just I think if you're in a market rate unit, you sign up for a month a month, a year-long lease, whatever after that, you know, you you've made a choice that you're okay with uncertainty beyond that.

And I I just especially without means testing, I just don't think we should be offering.

Are you just referring to the moving cost then?

Because all the other benefits the relocation and moving cost provisions, but relocations are already means tested.

Then then that's um just for the permanent one, not for the temporary one.

Uh, I see.

So for the permanent relocation, it is means tested with the hundred twenty percent AMI plus 5,000.

That's already existing in the TRIO, 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 uh instead you could say I want the moving cost also be means tested.

Uh if that's your concern, uh that would be fine or just not applicable to non-CSRA units.

Uh 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.

Through through this.

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.

That's my opinion.

Yeah.

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 would probably be protected units.

So the C CFRA is not applicable to 100% subsidized housing.

So those then also would be excluded from uh the moving cost reimbursement.

But they're covered by 330, because 330 covers.

I see.

Yeah, this is why we shouldn't do all this too much.

Sorry.

I misunderstood some of the questions.

So uh as we yeah, okay.

Then they're not covered by the trail, but then they might be covered by SB 330 in certain circumstances.

Yeah, yeah.

I think my my intent is just not to provide a new set of benefits.

I'm okay with existing.

I don't want to provide a new set of benefits to market reunits.

Um as you think about that, can I look at the housing director?

I 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 because it's she meant 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 I I think that if the vice mayor's 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.

No, it seems like it was an important element for council member clerk.

So we're just asking the vice mayor.

Yeah.

Um, I mean my question is I'm uh, 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 second or 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.

Uh and then we can go for second bytes.

Thank you so much.

I really appreciate it.

Um, I mean, um, so it I knew that we were like talking past each other, so now I'm getting a better sense of what you're asking for and it's less horrifying to me.

So that's that's good.

Well, I mean like is that not included in CSFRA is like affordable housing units.

Um I I do feel like I I would somewhat be open, but I'm I I don't actually think I like it.

So um I'm willing to hear from other colleagues.

I don't know if I need to make a decision right now as we say yes, I so we're 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?

So I think that was this is getting this has gotten confusing.

Um, why don't um why don't I check in with staff?

They'll read the motion as it's why why don't you that would be helpful.

Okay, great.

Yeah.

Mayor, it would be helpful at this point is staff could have a five-minute break and we'll pull this together.

Okay.

Sure.

So what we believe we can hurt the maker of the motion has supported, including in the motion.

Yeah, and I'll share what I heard because I was taking notes.

So I heard that it was the staff recommendation.

It was also support for, I just want to make sure I read it correctly.

Um actually this is the best.

Um, and then it the staff recommendation including the EPC additional consideration one, enhance the ability of tenants to monitor the progress of development projects, and it was also an inclusion of um it was EPC additional consideration three is what I wrote, and then I believe both of those yeah, and then it was a key reading in the ordinance.

And then I was gonna so and then it was including administrative, including in the administrative procedure guidelines, some flexibility and stakeholder outreach, then develop a cap on moving expenses, then I heard um some evaluation of the BMR voucher piece, then I heard um a way to um make sure that the trail addresses loopholes related to double double dipping, and um that was the you know, if it's a if they're uh temporary and then they move to permanent and making sure that that um that if they are temporary they move to permanent that that temporary amount is um subtracted from the permanent cost, and then the last item I heard was um that coming back to council would be um the administrative guidelines related to the moving cost expense cap those are the all the things I heard um yes yes I have those on the list also, yeah.

Um I do need clarification of what are the maker of the motion was um uh interest uh supportive of the means testing for temporary relocation.

I I believe that was not uh an amendment that was made.

Thank you.

And I was checking with the vice mayor that she was okay with the different with the changes that we made in the motion.

So that's the motion.

You seconded it.

Are you comfortable with everything that we I just said, yes, okay, okay.

Does staff still want to take a break?

Or was that the clarification that we were seeking, or I think we have everything.

Do you have everything?

Okay, we have everything.

Okay, great.

So we'll continue the discussion and the dialogue, and I have two people who have been patiently waiting in the queue to be able to speak again.

So um, I just um I wanna I want to thank staff and I want to thank my colleagues.

I it does definitely feel like some um sausage making.

Um, and I I think that we're landing in a place where I feel um more comfortable.

Um I do think um staff had mentioned maybe some guiding principles related to um balance, you know, having clarity for uh landlords, developers, um, and trying to find other um like rubrics, and so I just wanted to say that that is um that's appreciated as as we're going forward.

Um I think when I was asking my um questions earlier um related to um how this came back to us.

I think we had a really we've had really robust discussions about TRAO, and I would have appreciated as um evaluate options to increase benefits, um, just perhaps a little bit, at least for myself, a little bit more information and then being able to have that dialogue with our our property owners.

Um the just to have I think a level of um of due diligence.

Um I don't I'm excited to that the our city has continued to amend our TRAO as times have gone on.

I think we've looked at TRO.

I don't want to say I want to say maybe every year I've been on council, how to make it more robust, how we create more protections, and all of that is I think related to one of our other goals, which is um, you know, avoiding tenant displacement and trying to find ways for people to be able to stay um in Mountain View.

So I I understand that TRO is an important piece of that.

I think that um some colleagues are bringing up some of the um unfortunate things that can happen if somebody um is like not honest in the process, right?

And on both sides, right?

Um, and and how do we address that?

And I think what what we're talking about right now are just kind of like the nuances of those situations, right?

We we want to make sure that there isn't tenant intimidation, but we also want to make sure that if people don't need the trayo, that they're not taking the trayo.

And I under I understand that perspective too.

So um, I I I do um that's my perspective going in.

I think that I think for the motion as it currently stands, if the motion makers would be interested or amenable to have to the means testing, I think that I would that would gain my support, and I think maybe um I think just as a extra measure um to create that um assurance um in what in what we're doing, you know, we're doing it with our permanent, why wouldn't why wouldn't we do it with our temporary?

I I think it makes sense.

Um I'm not really sure.

Um sounds like some folks are opposed, not really sure why, but I think in terms of moving forward tonight, that seems like something that um we can be able to we should be able to do.

I will turn it over to uh Councilmember Callser.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I do appreciate everybody's uh input tonight, so but I had one of follow-up question for the city staff.

Is there any circumstances under where somebody is evicted for whatever reasons that they're covered for um disbursements or relocation costs?

Yeah, I mean there's just cause evictions that um would not qualify them for relocation benefits, and there are a list of exemptions that don't qualify folks for relocation uh benefits, but but yes, you can be evicted for just cause and not have the benefits.

Okay.

Thanks, Anza.

Second question is for the city attorney.

So at the second reading, there's this things we could do incorporate the guidelines and so forth.

Um that's it pretty much then it's a consent calendar item, but you said we could pull it off off consent.

Can it be modified on that day?

So the ordinance can't be modified that day, and I thought we had moved past doing the the cap and discussing that on the 29th that that would come back at a later point as they're developing the administrative guidelines, they would come back for the sole purpose of talking about the cap with council.

So that wouldn't be taken care of on December 9th.

Um that is I have that in here as coming back at a later time.

So you could not make modifications on December 9th without having to bump it out again.

Okay.

So I got a question for the vice mayor.

This is very important to you, I understand.

And that's been one of your um campaign promises and one of your goals to make everything work.

But you made a couple of comments tonight about Tom Ian saying, you know, doing stuff on the back of an envelope, and there's been a lot of uncertainty.

Why though you feel that it needs to get done tonight?

And yet if we put it off or we continue it, that a lot of this discussion, and then we'll get the input from the the uh ownership uh community will give us a much better uh ordinance that we can live with because it sounds like there could be potential on the unintended consequences.

So why do you want to go now?

Whereas if we wait a couple of weeks, we're gonna know we got staff is gonna come back, we can take care of the concerns of everybody on the committee, and we know that we have a much stronger ordinance.

So what things why are you thinking that and you use the expression kick it down the can.

And again, that's not a good term for governance.

So is there any particular reasons that you gotta get it done tonight?

Chris and I are new to this, but even after you guys had your numerous meetings, it still sounds like there's a lot of tweaking going on or sausage making as the council as the mayor says that's going on right now.

Wouldn't you rather have it sit back, let staff do it, get our input, and then when we put it out there, we know we are putting something that's gonna stand the test of time that's gonna be fair for all.

Thank you, Council Member McAllister.

I view it kind of this way.

We have had many very interesting um items come before our council, and we have been tasked with making decisions on them with somewhat of a deadline.

Um, whether it is our I guess we we've been going back and forth on R3 like forever.

Um, and that's not the only kinds of policies that we have.

We there are times when we do have to settle and then make a decision, take the action.

Um, and I do feel that this is one of those actions.

Um the parts that I feel that will get improved with stakeholder impact, I think are already being addressed by the direction we have given to staff with the administrative guidelines.

Um, so the parts I am not willing to move on are things that are very clearly to be aligned with SB 330.

That should not have to come back to us.

That work is done.

Um we just need to approve that work.

So, yes, there's there's multiple amendments, and some of them have more staff and more council discretion and others.

Um, and so things like the um amendment four should go through.

Um the amendment three was the one where it was clear that we may want more stakeholder impact input, but I feel like we properly addressed it with our direction to staff to the ministry of guidelines.

Um, I'm thinking back to um it's it's really interesting.

Um I knew that there might be um some things to work out with the with the trail when I saw it first on the agenda coming up.

Um, and I I was tasked to find a way to to get all my questions out ahead of time, but I'm make myself like right with it, and I I I was able to do that, and I think that helped me sit with what staff has recommended now.

Um there are a lot of good questions from my colleagues, and I I actually trust all of you to have a very strong and good perspective that I would probably never have myself.

Um I'm a tenant, I never owned property ever.

But I do think that on a whole staff's work here is good enough to go through.

Um staff's work here that has been a culmination of several years of work from the moment we had our first displacement project um is culminating here and I want us to move forward on that.

Um this was not just a campaign promise, but a promise our council made to our community that we would address this issue of the displacement impacts um upon redevelopment and there are a little bit more um and part of this um part of this work is also going to feed into our displacement response strategy.

When we think about tenant protections, it's it's more like there's not gonna be a single tenant protection that will solve everyone's problem, but it's kind of like a weaving of all of them together.

And so even when we pass this, the work is still not done, but we're gonna have more of that web put together to protect our residents.

And so, yes, I want to move forward on as much as we can tonight.

I feel most of staff's work is good tonight, um, to move forward and adopt the ordinance tonight.

I hope that makes that clear.

No, that's okay, but there's still uncertainty sometimes when you said most work done, and okay.

But no, I appreciate you giving your thoughts.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hicks.

So I'm just wanting to hear a little more um from uh council on why uh why people think or do not think means testing for temporary relocation, you know, how people weigh in on that.

And I guess my my um my thoughts on our it are that I don't want to create a situ an incentive most of the times when I've lived in apartments and I've lived in ones, I don't want to name who the developer was because they were in town.

Um there was a lot of reconstruction going on, but it didn't require people to move out.

And I don't want to create an incentive where, you know, we were market rate, but it would have been really inconvenient.

You know, I had two kids.

People were changing jobs, people have all sorts of situations.

We had neighbors who were pregnant, etc.

Um, that they have to move into a hotel and bear the expense themselves when they're paying fairly expensive rent, and probably what the reason they're there is they thought they had a more or less a stable situation that they weren't gonna be packing their bags and putting things in storage.

I think that's to some degree uh I uh decision of the landlord that they're moving people out to do that work.

Maybe it's not sometimes, but I hope that's very rare, and I would like to set up a circumstance where it is rare.

So those are my thoughts.

That's why I'm a little leery of means testing that particular thing because I think we may be setting up uh an incentive to massively inconvenience people who are paying a lot of money.

Councilmember Clark.

Yeah, I think um you make a good point.

I think um, but I think in the vast majority of cases, it um most landlords are going to offer accommodations in those cases because they they want that tenant back, right?

Um they're not a they're not a below, they're not a a tenant in a a below market rate unit or a or a rent controlled unit that's paying below market, and um frankly, it just it happens all the time.

You know, you get most of the time they're gonna move you into another unit within the complex, or they're going to find some way to take care of you.

And I just think it's I just don't think it's great in the vast majority of the state or the country, you know.

These things just work themselves out, and it just feels strange to me, and it's really hard for me to go to a constituent and justify um, uh you know a really significant relocation and moving cost provision that isn't means tested.

I just feel like that's that's just a better way to do it.

But I I guess um what I was going to say overall is I think there's I think we can thread the needle and land the plane with everyone here for the most part.

I think the means testing might be a little tricky, but um I'll just say that you know, if if what was summarized by the mayor and staff is is where we've landed, where I just wanted to clarify that there's a reference to the moving cost cap in the in the ordinance, but it's defined in the in the administrative guidelines later.

So what I would suggest is we um we take everything that staff has that they've heard from us, um they can come back to us for the first reading in December.

Um the benefit of that is one we can hear from anyone in the general public between now and then it comes back on consent.

Um with all the things that we've identified tonight.

So hopefully it won't be super controversial.

It doesn't have to have the moving cost cap at that point, but at least we'll get additional feedback.

We can still make amendments that night if someone wants to pull it, but I think the majority of our our um comments have been aired tonight, so hopefully it'll be in pretty much final form.

We still have the second reading shortly thereafter.

Everything really kind of gets done roughly on time.

There's also the opportunity for additional public input to us within that within that time frame.

And um the moving cost cap, I don't think we should have an entire council meeting item on that.

I think that could come back as a recommendation from staff on consent.

If someone thinks whatever is they've come up with is egregious, then we can pull it.

But at least we've codified it and we've seen it.

Um but I don't think we need a an item just for the administrative guidelines.

Hopefully, everyone agrees on that.

But but I think if we if we if we move forward with all on all of that, have it come back to us in December on consent.

Uh someone can pull it if we're really uncomfortable with anything, and then we and then we can move forward in whatever shape or form we want.

I think that solves a whole bunch of different issues.

And we could even just do if we want to put the the means testing to bed, we could do a straw poll, um, just a raising of hands before we make motions to amend or substitute motions and try and tank something because I think everyone's been very, everyone's worked tried to very very hard to see everyone else's side tonight.

So maybe, maybe uh maybe just a show of hands and then and then we can either the the maker of the motion either way can either accept that or or not, and we can go from there, but maybe maybe that's a friendly way to do it.

But that's up to the mayor, not me.

Mayor, may I provide uh maybe an important detail to this discussion?

I just want to flag that there was a lot of thought about this issue, and there's a specific piece in the recommended amendments too that, for example, for temporary relocation situations, is that if um a tenant accepts a temporary relocation option, they're still paying rent on the on their unit, which offsets the cost that the landlord would have to pay.

And um I think that there's an an important piece of information, but um that would they would still be paying rent, but it was the easiest way that we thought of it administratively, so that um benefits temporarily could be provided to the displaced tenant, but the landlords are still getting rent for the unit while it's getting renovated.

Okay.

So I think that takes care of that then.

So I don't think we need to do the straw poll, um, Consumer Clark.

Does that sound fine?

Or do you do you want to still do I thought that's what why you were leaning for with us?

Was that did I misunderstand?

That's for a temporary the moving cost piece.

Um we had embarked on this direction because the initial direction was to make it available to all um tenants regardless of of income, and um, but if there was a modification on that, then uh but that that was the direction that we took to have a number for for everyone.

I think part of it of what uh council member Clark was saying was a way to address maybe the moving cost piece, but that was what I was saying here was really related to the temporary relocation piece.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was the moving cost that I was concerned about providing to just anyone without uncapped and it just seemed strange.

Well, I think before we do the straw poll on the means testing part, you um made another suggestion on a change.

So I want to make sure I want to check in with the vice mayor that it's okay, right?

Because you said you would want that the December 9th to be the first reading, is that right?

It and the intent of that is just to give staff the grant.

I just wanted to clear I just want to clarify for the record, right?

So if staff doesn't need the time, that's fine.

But I think if I were them, I'd want it, I don't know.

So, you know, I would say you like putting that forward, I would ask this if we do that just for discussion and input purposes, have the December 9th as the first reading.

Could we turn around and have the second reading our following meeting?

No, you need to have because it has to be a regular the next regular because it's a special correct.

So it would be January 27th 27th.

So it would be like a month difference, give or take.

Yes, city, thank you.

If I may, if if you do choose to um more create a motion where it's directing staff to bring back the ordinance for a first reading taking uh you know, amending it uh based upon uh the comments received.

Um if you could not set a specific date but asked staff to bring it forward back as quickly as possible because while you know it suggested it be put on consent when looking at our TAO and so on, we may need to make sure it comes to a meeting where if it gets gonna get pulled, um we have we have the time to make that happen.

So uh allowing staff to pick the timing when we'll bring it back as quickly as possible for the first reading, especially since we won't get a second reading until the end of January.

Okay, okay.

So uh I just wanted to put that out there before we do the straw poll.

Um and see if there's an openness to that.

Um to the motion maker.

Sorry, that was the that was the second one.

I know, I that was the suggestion, so I need to go back to you as the motion maker.

I'm trying really hard not to be unreasonable.

I think I mean uh yeah, you I I think that um what's nice about that I think is it it tackles the public outreach, community outreach piece, and maybe it doesn't I mean it can be in the administrative guidelines, but then yeah, I I yeah I'm much more comfortable with a time cert and yeah, I mean I think that staff can work, you and I can work with we can get it as fast as possible, knowing that the second reading would be on consent.

I guess I'm I'm curious to see what my other colleagues think about that to.

But there's a question on the floor, and I think as the motion maker to continue the discussion, right?

She needs to so if I say I'll I'll say no now and then we could do a draw poll.

There was a there was a request to to change to make an amendment to the current motion, so I need to I'm asking whether or not I accept it as a friendly amendment.

Yes, or then you can treat it as well.

I'm just trying to follow procedure.

Yeah we're gonna res and joy's rules.

Yes, yes, trying to follow all the rules yes so okay so looking into the city clerk I can take a show poll um and perhaps that can um curb continued discussion and people can just decide so um the suggestion was to uh bring the ordinance back as a first reading uh I would say like by December 9th or before you know um because it's it's it has a second reading date um but we could try to do it before um are people interested in that can I say that um how about um I think we have a meeting December 16th is that right if you yeah it is but it's introducing an ordinance so you can do that as special meeting so if you could say but by December 16th that would earlier or earlier and it would still uh allow the second reading to occur in January.

Okay.

All right so if you are interested in having the item come back for first reading before December 16th.

On or before on or before December 16th I mean I don't it doesn't matter to me.

Yeah yeah okay so that looks like five okay so that's six okay so um that so then we take the vote on the current motion or yes perfect okay great thank you just want to make sure so that didn't get included the means testing did not get included so we're just gonna call the question now.

Is that alright?

All right everyone yes to be clear the means testing I was suggesting was for any benefits that don't that are new so not assessing existing things just any new benefits to the non-CSP ones but if that's been put well and maybe when the item comes back staff can provide detail or I don't you know if there's more information that we would okay yeah okay all right shall we vote?

Yes staff revoting on so the the what I repeated earlier nothing I I'll repeat it one more time.

Yes the the current motion I believe is to adopt or up adopt the first you know adopt the ordinance in first reading and that's not what you're doing at this stage.

So I think um a new motion is is warranted that direct staff to bring back the ordinance for a first reading on or before December 16th incorporating the the all the changes that we discussed tonight yes exactly and we don't need to restate all those changes because those are already in the record that's correct okay great does the current so shall we with do we need to do a withdrawal of the motion or do we need to do a substitute substitute motion since we need to do yes city attorney logo who's gonna make it are you gonna make it Emily?

If you do a substitute motion it could be somebody else but I mean if you're just gonna do with it then you can if you're gonna do it you can just modify your motion all right I will modify my motion to have it bring back on or before December 16th but all the items on there are staying um that we have all collectively agreed to um so I that means I probably won't read the motion because it's correct, you're not gonna read the title anymore.

You are great, okay.

Yes, I was just gonna say yeah, it's the same motion, it's just that we're bringing it back on this on or before 1216.

Okay.

So is the seconder okay to be the seconder?

Okay.

So you can withdraw.

And then would someone else like to second the motion?

Okay, it's been seconded.

Let's vote.

Alright, and that passes, what is that?

5-2.

All right.

Thank you to staff.

Thank you, everyone.

May someone make a motion so I can close out our meeting to continue past 10 p.m.

So moved.

Great.

Let's vote.

All right, and that pass so passes 5-2.

So we'll move on to item seven, which is our council and staff committee reports.

Does anyone have a report?

Councilmember Schwalter.

Excuse me, I need to find the right paper.

I guess the first thing I would say is that we all had a uh council appointments committee yesterday, and um uh I appreciated the announcement that you made about uh other people needing to step up.

That was very good.

And along with that, um one of the subjects that arose was that the um uh bylaws for the downtown committee specify different categories um of uh uh different categories and we haven't been able to meet um all of those categories in many years.

So I think it would be good for the um the uh when the bylaws are revised, we're going through and we're revising all of the advisory committee resolutions and things for um the uh the downtown committee uh membership to be relaxed so that we don't have this problem of uh the uh the the numbers in the in the right boxes um would Ellen or Emily like to clarify that.

I mean, did I get that sort of what we were talking about?

Yeah, okay, all right.

Then the other thing I wanted to say is that um last Wednesday we convened a um uh a meeting of the Santa Clara shoreline cities to talk about sea level rise and the um progress that has been made over the last year and um what we want to do moving forward, and we we had really good staff participation from all of the uh um cities.

We we didn't have we had uh elected officials from uh Mountain View, Valley Water, uh Sunnyvale and uh Campbell.

Campbell was representing VTA, and and a representative staff representative for um uh the uh county and for San Jose.

So we had a really robust discussion, and um I think one of the things that we we celebrate, or we should celebrate here too, is that um the county has received uh 2.4 million dollar grant for planning for um sea level rise to get our regional shoreline adaptation plan together, and this grant um goes for three years, and we will working on be working our staffs together, we'll be working on uh a plan um that will have to be passed by all of our cities, and um uh I think it's important to remember that in addition to um uh just the cities in Santa Clara, we also have Valley Water taking an active role.

They are the flood protection agency for this for the county and VTA.

They there's a lot of transportation implications with sea level rise protection.

So that's my report.

Great, thank you.

Does anyone else have a report?

Councilmember Clark?

Um, if you don't have anything, mayor, I was just gonna say something about.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, no, um I just I was looking through my calendar trying to remember everything.

Um we did we had Monster Bash over the weekend, which was um lovely.

And we had our CARC meeting our council appointment review committee.

We had our obviously our our EPC interviews the other week um what else am I forgetting?

Um and I think that's everything um that we've done since then and then um so I'll move on to item eight since there's no others which is adjournment and tonight we're adjourning the meeting in memory of Monique Kane who provided special service to our community as the former executive director of the community health awareness council she was also a member of our Keywandis club of Mountain View and a member of the Mountain View Rotary Club.

Our thoughts are with her and our loved ones and I know that many of us had the opportunity to know um Monique as she was a fabric of our community for decades um and I um want to turn it over to councilmember Clark for a few words.

Yeah I just wanted to say um I was deeply sorry to hear that we um we lost a champion of our community Monique um led Shaq for a long time I worked with her closely when I was on the board both as a council member and not as a council member and she was um not only instrumental as in ensuring um you know everyone's uh not just Chaq but the community's commitment to to youth mental health and um and um and counseling services but she was also instrumental in um the long-term wellbeing of the organization which is now Pacific Clinics um I worked with her closely on the the land swap uh to get them into the the building that they're in now which used to be the business that I worked at um before it was Chaq and um and the Malik family and Monique um uh and uh the business that I work for at the time worked really hard to to make that happen and I think um anyway we we've we lost a great champion not just for mountain view but for for youth mental health and a number of other causes in the in the Bay Area so um as you said mayor um thoughts are with her family and and I um and certainly celebrating the an incredible life and all the gifts that she gave to everyone very much agreed and a woman of the year and um uh just a a great just a great sense of humor too which I really appreciated she always had a smile and a laugh so our next city council meeting will be held on November 4th 2024 this meeting is adjourned at 10 524 sorry 20 November 4th 2025 uh the meeting is adjourned at 10 51 pm