Mountain View City Council Meeting – October 28, 2025

The Mountain View City Council met on October 28, 2025, at 6 PM (starting with roll call at approximately 6:05 PM and adjourning at 10:51 PM) to recognize community award winners, consider consent items, hear public comment, and deliberate on a first‑reading amendment to the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO). The meeting also included presentations from the Institute for Local Government and a Breast Cancer Awareness Month proclamation.

Consent Calendar

• Consent calendar approved 7‑0 (Councilmember Loak recused from item 4.4; Councilmembers Clark and Hicks recused from items 6.1 and 6.2 due to proximity to downtown). Items included:
  • 4.1: Second reading of zoning code amendments related to the gatekeeper program (removing floor plan requirement for some applications, exempting zoning consistency changes).
  • 4.2: Resolution amending parking in‑lieu fees for a mixed‑use development at 194‑198 Castro Street.
  • 4.4: Resolution authorizing amendment to the below‑market‑rate regulatory agreement to add Foothill‑De Anza Community College District as a party (Councilmember Loak recused).
  • 4.6: Acceptance of the Rengstorff Park pool construction project – noted as over 30 change orders but only $300,000 over its $22 million budget.
  • 4.7: Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding with Sunnyvale for operation of the SMART station (Materials Recovery and Transfer Station) – a 30‑year‑old facility needing rebuilding.
• Councilmember McAllister asked about the status of downtown parking garage (Lot 5) – staff responded that design will begin in early 2026, and that in‑lieu funds are committed to that project, meeting the five‑year use requirement.
• Councilmember McAllister also questioned the building division’s five in‑house plan check staff – staff reported that they are fully staffed and use third‑party consultants as needed.

Public Comments & Testimony

• On consent item 4.4 (BMR housing eligibility): Raquel (speaking for Los Altos Affordable Housing Support Network) expressed support for adding Foothill‑De Anza but urged that all city staff, including those working fewer than 1,000 hours, should be eligible. She stated that HR created an internal definition that excludes part‑time workers, which was not in the original agreement nor reviewed by council. She requested that staff apply the original eligibility to all city employees.
• General public comment (item 5):
  • Malia Pyres (19‑year resident, executive director of Reach SV): Thanked the city for homeless services; shared a personal testimony of changing her views after meeting RV families with children.
  • Maria Cruz (translated from Spanish, 30‑year resident): Thanked the city for safe parking lots providing water, restrooms, and laundry.
  • Yari Navarro (teenager): Described living in a van for two years before getting an RV and expressed gratitude for the safe parking lot; hopes to give back to the community.
  • Alexis Arika (three‑year resident): Thanked the city for safe RV parking lot that provides showers, laundry, and food.
  • Leticia Morales (20‑year resident): Lost her job and apartment, lived on Castro Street, suffered an assault, and now feels safe in a shelter.
  • Albert Jeans: Reported that RV parking on city streets reached an all‑time high of 297 RVs; criticized Mountain View for shouldering an outsized burden and called for regional solutions. Mentioned that Cupertino recently enacted an overnight ban on RV street parking.
  • Dylan Rich (director at Palo Alto Prep): Requested action on sight‑line difficulties at Independence Avenue near the school, warning that an accident is inevitable.
  • Ting Ting: Opposed pickleball courts in Cuesta Park, stating it would spoil the park’s peace and citing negative experiences from Palo Alto.

Discussion Items

• Item 6.1 & 6.2 – Downtown Business Improvement Areas (BIA1 & BIA2): Held second public hearings; approved resolutions levying assessments for 2026 (BIA1: ~$38,700; BIA2: ~$12,000). Councilmember McAllister questioned the use of funds for downtown parking wayfinding signage and the timeline of the Downtown Parking Strategy. Staff noted a consultant is engaged and wayfinding is a priority.
• Item 6.3 – Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRAO) Amendments (first reading):
  • Staff presented six amendments to align with SB 330, address temporary displacement, remove the red‑tag exemption, add a right of first refusal, and increase benefits. Proposed enhanced benefits for low‑income households (≤80% AMI) up to about $21,000, plus moving costs for all tenants (50‑mile radius, either actual cost or landlord‑provided services).
  • Public speakers (landlord representatives): Norman Lopaton, Anil Barber (California Apartment Association), Tessa McFarland (Prometheus Real Estate Group), Eileen Kim, Regan Avery (ACO Management), and Mina Young (Business and Housing Network) opposed the amendments, citing lack of outreach to housing providers, high cost (potentially over $21,000 per household plus unlimited moving costs), and potential to discourage redevelopment and maintenance. They requested a continuance for more input.
  • Public speakers (tenant supporter): Edie Keating supported the amendments, noting they improve protections for tenants displaced by redevelopment.
  • Council deliberation:
    • Vice Mayor Ramos moved to adopt the staff recommendation with additional direction: (1) develop administrative guidelines with stakeholder input (including from CAA, tenant groups, landlords), (2) include a cap on moving expenses, (3) address double‑dipping (if a temporary relocation becomes permanent, credit temporary benefits against permanent), (4) evaluate voucher‑holder situations, and (5) bring the ordinance back for first reading on or before December 16, 2025.
    • Councilmember Clark proposed limiting the new benefits to units covered by the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA) and Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Ordinance (MHRSO), but this was not accepted by the motion maker. Means testing for temporary relocation was discussed but not included.
    • The motion passed 5‑2 (Councilmembers McAllister and Clark opposed, with McAllister citing insufficient landlord input and Clark expressing concerns about new benefits without means testing).

Key Outcomes

• Consent calendar approved (7‑0 with recusals).
• BIA1 and BIA2 assessments for 2026 approved unanimously by council members present.
• TRAO amendment (first reading) was continued; council directed staff to bring a revised ordinance for first reading on or before December 16, 2025, incorporating:
  • All six staff‑recommended amendments (including enhanced benefits for low‑income households, moving costs for all tenants, temporary displacement provisions, red‑tag coverage, right of first refusal, and alignment with SB 330).
  • Development of administrative guidelines through stakeholder outreach (landlords, tenants, developers) to address:
    • A cap on moving expenses (staff to recommend a specific amount, tied to CPI).
    • Rules to prevent double‑dipping if a temporary relocation becomes permanent.
    • Flexibility for voucher holders.
  • The second reading is expected in January 2026.
• Council adjourned in memory of Monique Kane, former executive director of the Community Health Awareness Council (CHAC).
• Next regular council meeting: November 4, 2025.