City Council Questions
September 23, 2025 – City Council Meeting
1 ITEM 4.3 Street Closure, Sound Amplification, and Festival Area Designation for the German International School of Silicon Valley German Holiday Market
1. Will Friday closure of Mercy Street block entrances to the City Hall or the Library underground parking lots?
No. The requested closure will not block or prevent access to the underground parking garages for either City Hall or the Mountain View Public Library.
ITEM 4.8 Property Management Services for 909 San Rafael—Professional Services Agreement
2. Can staff remind the Council about state laws requiring development fees to be committed within 5 years of receipt? The staff report indicates that $20.4 million is available in the Stierlin Park Land Dedication Fund. How much of this is committed, and is the City on track to commit all of this funding?
The fees collected are subject to the requirements of the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477).
The Quimby Act requires fees to be committed within five years of payment (Section 66477(a)(6)(A)).
The $20.4 million referenced in the staff report refer s to the amounts committed on September 13, 2022, for the acquisition of both 909 and 917 San Rafael Avenue. The amounts that comprised the $20.4 million were committed within the statutorily required five-year time frame.
3. Is the lease revenue generated (which must be deposited back in the Park Land Dedication Fund) also subject to any laws requiring the City to commit the funding within 5 years? Or is this funding more flexible?
The lease revenue generated is not flexible funding; it is already committed to the future park on this property.
ITEM 4.10 Adoption of Amended Federal Legislative Platform for 2025
4. Page 2 of Attachment; item 1. Should we also add a reference to the increased availability of tax credits in HR1, but mention that improvements aren't enough?
Staff proposes that the following reference be incorporated into A.1 – Congress - Expand Affordable and Work Force Housing:
Support extensions and expansion of the Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program by restoring the increase of the 9% LIHTC ceiling by 12.5%, allowing states to allocate more credits for affordable housing projects. The federal LIHTC program has been t he single largest and most important funding source for affordable housing. However, the available funding is simply not enough for both the 4% and 9% programs. It has been estimated that, based on historical LIHTC funding levels available for California and Santa Clara County, it would take 215 years of LIHTC funding to meet the state-determined Regional Housing Needs Allocation for the County. While Congress has expanded the LIHTC, the City also supports legislation like the UNLOCK Act, introduced by Rep. Sam Liccardo, and the Road to Housing Act to give Mountain View the tools and flexibility to expand affordable and workforce housing. 2 These and other measures would unlock federal properties, streamline financing, and provide resources to help the City meet housing demand, support essential workers, and sustain Silicon Valley’s innovation economy.
5. Page 6 of Attachment under D. Bolster Resilience. In line with resolutions being developed for NLC, could we add a request to restore & bolster federal efforts to provide extreme weather data and data for regular ongoing weather? This includes supporting scientific employees needed to provide weather data and continue to improve our systems to distribute weather information. The first is crucial for protecting public safety, and the second is used regularly for all sorts of commerce and everyday logistics. The clerk will send drafts of NLC/EENR resolutions to all CMs.
Staff proposes that the following policy statement be incorporated as statement D.14 – Congress - Bolster Mountain View’s Resiliency, Sustainability, and Safety.
Support federal legislation that restores and bolsters federal efforts to provide extreme weather data and data for regular ongoing weather, including supporting scientific employees needed to provide weather data, and continuing to improve our systems to distribute weather information.
6. We also might want to add an item to support the development of science, both basic and applied, to promote public safety, national security, and commerce. In Mountain View, we have several federal scientific agencies that are a source of community pride, jobs, and innovation.
Staff proposes that the following policy statement be incorporated as statement D.15 – Congress - Bolster Mountain View’s Resiliency, Sustainability, and Safety.
The City of Mountain View, home to NASA Ames Research Center and world -class research institutions and technology companies, urges Congress to prioritize robust federal investment in science, hard, and applied. Federal support for basic research, advanced computing, materials science, and applied engineering drives innovation, job creation, and America’s global competitiveness. Mountain View sees firsthand how these investments attract talent, catalyze breakthroughs, and provide solutions to urgent challenges from energy security to space exploration and national defense.
ITEM 6.1 Residential Condominium Development at 266-272 Tyrella Avenue
7. Condition 143. PARK LAND DEDICATION FEE states that, “Prior to the issuance the final inspection [sic] that grants occupancy, the applicant shall pay the Park Land Dedication Fee.” However, the staff report says that “prior to issuance of any building permits or prior to approval of a final map, the applicant shall pay the Park Land Dedication In -Lieu Fee.” Can staff clarify which is correct? Does Senate Bill 937 (Fee Deferral and Entitlement Extension), deferring payment of fees and charges until the date the first certificate of occupancy or first temporary certificate of occupancy is issued, apply to this project?
Staff have determined that Senate Bill 937 does apply to this project based on its eligibility for a density bonus.
Project Condition of Approval #141 and Tentative Map Condition of Approval #13 correctly defer payment of the park land dedication in lieu fee to the certificate of occupancy. The conditions of approval have precedence over language in the staff report and will govern.
3 8. Condition 143 also says that “no later than sixty (60) days prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant may make a one-time written request to the City to recalculate the Park Land Dedication Fee applicable to the project based on any update to or replacement of the fee ordinance. The recalculated fee shall result in no less than a twenty percent (20%) reduction of the total fee amount set forth above.” Given that payment seems to be deferred until the certificate of occupancy is issued, why i s the recalculation tied to the issuance of a building permit?
Senate Bill 937 allows for fee deferral of impact fees and is applicable to this project. The recalculation of the Park Land Dedication fee, as well as other City impact fees, is tied to the issuance of a building permit to provide clarity and certainty of these fees with sufficient advance notice for both the City and applicants. The calculation of the fee tied to the issuance of a building permit allows efficiency for staff during the same time that calculations and payments of other fees are being made. Having one milestone for the calculation of all fees provides simplicity and reduces the possibility of errors.
Staff is still preparing specific processes as a result of the 2024 law and will be establishing these procedures to provide efficiency and transparency for both staff and applicants.
9. Are site -specific findings required to justify imposing a park in -lieu fee, and what facts must be articulated to ensure the legal defensibility of the fee? Are the findings included in the resolution site - specific?
To maximize legal defensibility, staff have made fact -specific findings to support the imposition of the park land dedication in lieu fee, which have been included in the resolutions.
10. The staff report indicates that “the project proposes 86% California native plantings, which exceeds City Council’s 75% native landscaping goal.” Is the 75% native landscaping goal in the municipal code or in any adopted plan? Is it legally enforceable?
There is no objective standard in the City Code or and the project is not subject to any adopted plan that requires the applicant to meet the 75% native landscaping goal set forth by the City Council. As this is a housing development project under state la w, and the 75% native landscaping goal is not an objective standard, the goal is only met if the applicant voluntarily proposes the native landscaping. In this case, the applicant has voluntarily proposed 86% California native planting for the site.
11. Condition 16. FUTURE MODIFICATIONS TO THE STRUCTURES states that “The structure(s) approved with this project deviated from applicable zoning standards pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Any future addition or other alteration to the approved structure(s ) will need to comply with the latest applicable development standards of the Zoning District in which it is located.” Does this mean that this project will be a legal non-conforming structure under the current zoning? What are the implications of this to the property owners?
The project is not considered legal non -conforming under the underlying zoning. A “legal non - conforming” status typically applies when a structure was built in compliance with zoning regulations in place at the time of construction but later becomes nonconforming due to changes in the zoning code.
4 In this instance, the deviations from standard zoning requirements were granted pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code § 65915), which allows qualifying projects to request waivers and concessions from local development standards. These deviations are legally authorized under state law and therefore considered legally conforming as approved.
The purpose of condition of Approval #16 is to clarify that any future modifications or additions to the approved structures must substantially conform to the existing approvals or otherwise comply with the zoning regulations in effect at the time the new permit application is submitted. Minor modifications to the approvals would be processed consistently with COA #8; however, major modifications to the project that require entirely new concessions and waivers could require an amended density bonus application or an entirely new application, depending on the scope of the changes.
12. Condition 68. FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL requires “a copy of a written offer to existing occupants to rent a comparable unit in the new development, proof of delivery of the offer, or a copy of a written acceptance or rejection of the offer by the occupant.” When must the applicant provide this information to the City? Must it be an offer to “rent a comparable unit,” or does the first right of refusal also include the ability to purchase a new unit?
This Condition of Approval ensures that the applicant complies with SB 330 by offering eligible low - or lower-income households a comparable, affordable unit in the new housing development. This unit can be either rental or for sale. Although offering the first right of refusal is required by state law, the law does not specify how or when the offer must be made to current tenants. First, all tenants will be informed of their first right of refusal when the Notice of Intent is issued. The applicant must then follow up with tenants who have expressed interest and provided their forwarding address. The City will collaborate with the applicant to provide an offer to tenants on the interest list at least 60 days before issuing a temporary or final certificate of occupancy. Tenants wishing to claim a unit in the new building must respond within 30 days of receiving the offer and occupy the unit within 60 days of accepting it. If the unit is for purchase, tenants must enter into a purchase contract no later than 90 days after the sales program begins.
To date, no SB 330 projects in Mountain View have reached the first right of refusal stage of development. The notice requirement timeline detailed above is included in the upcoming draft of the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance revisions.
13. In Attachment 8, it says "As of July 29, 2025, no applications from tenants for relocation benefits have been received. The relocation consultant will continue communications with tenants to encourage them to apply for benefits and find replacement housing . Tenants are eligible to apply for benefits until the final vacate date (which has not been set yet)" When did the application for relocation assistance go out? Who is responsible for sending it (the landlord, the city, the consultant)?
The Notice of Intent was mailed on May 29, 2025, with the relocation-benefit application form attached.
As a courtesy, the relocation consultant sends out the Notice of Intent and application form after the landlord has reviewed and signed it.
14. When would a tenant have to decide if they wanted to utilize their "first right of return"? What would be the deadline to that decision?
Please see the response to question 12.
5 15. Is the "Notice of Intent" sent out in just English or in other languages?
The Notice of Intent was sent out in English and Spanish. The relocation consultant has also contacted the tenants by phone to introduce themselves, explain the relocation assistance benefits, and offer assistance with the application process.
16. If the project is approved, when will the city know the timeline of eviction, demolition and construction?
The applicant estimates that demolition of the existing building will begin by April 2027. Per SB 330, the tenants are entitled to occupy their units until at least 6 months before the start of construction. Based on the estimated timeline, the final vacat e date would be October 2026. These dates are subject to change depending on the actual date of demolition for the project.
17. Is there enough room at the top of the ramp from the garage for a car to pause and look for pedestrians that might be on the sidewalk?
Yes, the driveway includes a transition to a flatter slope within approximately 15 feet of the back of the sidewalk. This design provides a level area near the top of the ramp where vehicles can pause, improving visibility and allowing drivers to safely ch eck for pedestrians before entering the sidewalk area and street.
18. Given our normal funding leverage rate for affordable housing that ranges from 4 to 7 (?), how many rental units could be supported by this fee? If we let all the units be market rate, how many rental units would the fees support?
In the last 5 years, for projects that are either completed or have secured full financing, the City has provided an average contribution of $207,000 per unit. In our NOFA pipeline, the City has made funding commitments that average $83,000 per unit across 4 projects. The in -lieu fee for this project would support roughly 1/3rd of one pipeline unit.
Under the provisions of the State Density Bonus law and the SB 330 replacement requirements, this project is not eligible for alternative mitigations and therefore cannot provide in-lieu fees for the 5 BMR units. However, hypothetically, if state law were not applicable and they opted to pursue in-lieu fees for all 5.4 required BMR units, the fee would be $472,000, which would support 5.7 new rental units.
ITEM 6.2 Fiscal Year 2024-25 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
19. The staff report indicates that “10,063 Mountain View residents” were served by the CSA Homelessness Prevention program, funded with $31,201 in CDBG funds. However, in a previous Council meeting, staff and CSA clarified that this figure includes all reside nts served by a broader understanding of various assistance programs (like backpack give -aways) and not specifically rent relief or direct financial assistance. Is there any way to get a more precise understanding of how many residents were served specifically by the Homelessness Prevention program using the CDBG funds?
Housing staff spoke with representatives from CSA, and it was determined that they had incorrectly reported the accomplishment data for the Homelessness Prevention Services (HPS) program for FY 2024- 25 by reporting the duplicated number of beneficiaries rather than the unduplicated number. 6 This means that the original reported number of 10,063 included each instance of service provided, rather than reporting on each person or household once, regardless of how many times they received services. The correct number of unduplicated Mountain View residents that were assisted by the HPS program for FY 2024-25 was 4,971.
The CDBG funding provided to CSA for the HPS program for FY 2024 -25, in the amount of $31,201, was used for staff and personnel costs for time spent assisting Mountain View clients. Services provided through the HPS program include rent relief, utility as sistance, direct financial assistance through the City’s Guaranteed Basic Income Pilot Program (which ended in December 2024), and transportation assistance. The total budget for the HPS program for FY 2024-25 was approximately $800,000, and 90% of the beneficiaries of the program were Mountain View residents. The program budget is as follows:
Rental Assistance: $662,100
Transportation Assistance $43,460
Utility Assistance $35,082
ITEM 6.4 Downtown Business Improvement Area No. 2 - Annual Report and Levy of Business Assessments
20. How is the pressure washing going to clean up Downtown Mountain View, particularly the parking garages?
Downtown sidewalks and paseos, and City Hall Plaza, all have regularly scheduled power washing. The Pedestrian Mall (100 -300 blocks of Castro) is cleaned twice a month, and City Hall Plaza is cleaned quarterly. The City is also working to establish a regul ar cleaning schedule for the Downtown parking garages, with the first cleaning expected to occur in the first week of October.
21. Are any pop-ups planned to fill the vacant spaces during the holidays? If not, why not? What can we do to make them happen?
There are no holiday -specific pop -up activations planned at this time. However, the City is actively partnering with MOMENT, a retail activation company, to establish a year -long pop-up installation in a vacant Downtown storefront.
The primary challenge with the pop -up activation program has been securing a willing property owner to lease their space for this purpose. City staff and MOMENT have been working for several months to identify and finalize a location and remain committed t o bringing this activation to Downtown as soon as a viable space is identified.
The Fiscal Years 2025 -27 Council Work Plan includes a project to create a Pedestrian Mall Vacant Storefront Activation Program. Staff’s work on this project will include the identification of any other incentives to increase participation by property owners with vacant storefronts.
22. Is there any news on a tenant for Amici’s location? A breakfast place would be good.
The former Amici’s space has been leased, and the new restaurant tenant has submitted a building permit and received their first round of comments.