Council Questions
October 28, 2025 - City Council Meeting
1 ITEM 4.1 Amendments to Chapter 36 (Zoning) of the City Code to Implement Council Policy G -9 (Second Reading)
1. If the item was pulled and not approved, could that new motion be to accept the staff’s original recommendation?
No, the item cannot be pulled to make a new motion to accept the staff’s original recommendation.
Doing so would conflict with both the City Charter and the Brown Act.
Under Charter Section 514, if an ordinance is modified after its introduction, final adoption must occur at a regular meeting held no fewer than five days after the modification. The ordinance posted for adoption was introduced on October 14, 2025. A motion to accept the staff’s original recommendation, if approved, would modify the ordinance currently posted for adoption. Therefore, the City Council could not approve a motion to accept the staff’s original recommendation and adopt the modified ordinance at the same meeting.
In addition, the Brown Act requires that the City provide a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at a meeting. The published description for Item 4.1 is the adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the City Code to update review procedures for private development applications involving legislative amendments to the zoning code, general plan, and precise plans. Any Council action other than adoption of the posted ordinance would fall outside the scope of the noticed item and therefore violate the Brown Act’s noticing requirements.
ITEM 4.2 Mixed-Use Addition at 194-198 Castro Street - Corrections to Approval Resolution
2. Having trouble understanding why a parking in -lieu fee payment is required even though no parking minimum requirements are enforceable under AB 2097. Can staff help clarify why an in-lieu fee payment is required and enforceable in this case?
Although AB 2097 provides a general exemption from automobile parking requirements for most development projects located within one -half mile of a major transit stop , it does include certain exceptions. Among these exceptions is an allowance for the continued requirement of the minimum number of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) and accessible parking spaces that would have otherwise applied to the development (see Government Code Section 65863.2(f)). The City Code parking requirements have included this requirement to provide EVSE-installed and accessible parking spaces (see City Code Section 36.32.50(b)(1)(c)).
Since the project site is within the Downtown Parking District, the applicant is not required to build the parking spaces on-site and can instead pay an in-lieu fee for the required EVSE-installed and accessible spaces. As no parking is proposed on -site, the applicant has decided to pay an in-lieu fee for the three required EVSE-installed spaces and one accessible parking space that would be required ( based on 11 total spaces that would have been required for the addition per the parking standards for the site).
2 3. Is the City obligated to use these fees, which are collected in lieu of providing EV and accessible parking spaces, to construct off-site EV or accessible parking spaces? What restrictions exist on the use of these in-lieu fees?
The City’s use of these fees is governed by Government Code Section 65863.2. The City uses these fees to provide new public parking, including EV and accessible parking spaces, in the Downtown Parking District.
4. Is the City obligated to expend these fees within a specific timeframe? If the City must commit or expend these fees within a specific timeframe, what happens if the City does not expend the funds in a timely manner?
The City generally tracks in lieu fees collected for parking spaces in the Downtown Parking District, similar to other development impact fees. This includes obligating them to a proposed project within five years of their collection. In certain cases, if the City is unable to obligate fees to a project within a reasonable period of time, the City may be required to return the fees to the payee.
5. Parking In-Lieu Fees mis-calculated. Did the applicant bring up the mis-calculated fees?
No, the staff identified this fee calculation error and initiated the corrective action that is before the City Council.
6. Could there be any other projects where parking fees were not calculated correctly?
Since AB 2097 passed, very few projects have been approved in the Downtown Parking District. Staff has verified that this error was only made on this project.
7. What does EV-capable spaces mean?
Division III (Green Building Code) of Article I (Building Code) of Chapter 8 (Buildings) of the City Code defines Electric Vehicle (EV) Capable as: A parking space linked to a listed electrical panel with sufficient capacity to provide at least 110/120 volts and 15/20 amperes to the parking space. Conduit is installed to the parking space, and building electrical system has ample capacity to serve future load. An electrician would be required to complete the circuit before charging is possible.
However, the fee in question relates to provision of Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) spaces, which are defined in the Green Building Code as follows: The conductors, including the ungrounded, grounded and equipment grounding conductors and the electric vehicle connecto rs, attachment plugs, and all other fittings, devices, power outlet s or apparatus installed specifically for the purpose of transferring energy between the premises wiring and the electric vehicle.”
3 8. What is the difference between the normal parking space and an EV-capable space?
As noted above, the fee in question is applicable to Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) spaces. An EVSE space is a parking space with a ll required equipment and electrical connections installed for operation of an electric vehicle charger. A standard parking space typically does not have the electrical upgrades necessary for EV-charging capabilities.
9. What is the new master fee for parking in lieu?
The FY 2025-26 City Adopted Master Fee Schedule includes a parking in lieu fee of $64,472/space for new construction projects in the Downtown Parking District.
10. How many employees, with the addition, can be accommodated?
The applicant anticipates the addition will allow approximately 30 additional employees.
11. What is planned for on the first floor?
As entitled, the project proposes retail/commercial space on the ground floor.
12. Who in the Community Development Department is responsible for monitoring TDMS?
The Transportation Division in the Public Works Department is responsible for transportation demand management (TDM) monitoring.
ITEM 4.5 Professional Services Agreement for Outside Building Plan Checking and Inspection Services
13. How many outside consultants versus in-house staff do plan checking?
The Building Division of the Community Development Department currently has the following budgeted positions assigned to plan checking duties:
• two (2) in -house staff who plan check single -family residential and small commercial building permits, and
• three (3) in-house staff who plan, check, and inspect fire protection permits for all development.
As noted in the Council report, the Building Division has entered into contracts with eight consulting firms in Fiscal Year 2025 -26 to assist with building and fire protection services. Each firm has multiple staff, but the Division is currently working wi th 12 to 14 people. It should be noted that a number of these firms provide other services to the City beyond plan checking, such as inspection or specialty disciplines.
4 14. If the development services fund is fully cost-recovered, how are the funds appropriated by the council reconciled at the end of the budget year?
For Fiscal Year 2025 -26, the Building Division has a budget of $2.1 million for contract services, which includes outside consultant plan checking, inspection, and consultant services. Each budget year, the Building Division requests any necessary adjustments to this total budget amount as deemed necessary based on permit/construction activity. City staff then enters into contracts for vendor services within this cumulative total for the budget year. There is no reconciliation of fees at the end of the year , as invoices are paid to the vendors after services have been performed, based on plan check fees already collected by the City. Should permit or construction activity be higher than anticipated, then City staff will bring a request to appropriate additional funds to the Council for consideration.
Please note: The request before the Council at this meeting is to authorize the City Manager or their designee to enter into a contract over the threshold established in Council Policy A -10 ($253,000 for FY 25-26) and is not a request to appropriate funds.
ITEM 4.6 Rengstorff Park Aquatics Center Replacement, Project 18-38-Construction Acceptance
15. This project was difficult. Surprised that it was accomplished within budget despite 30 change orders.
How did the final cost relate to the estimated cost at the beginning of construction?
The final cost is $300,000 higher than when the project began construction. On February 8, 2022, Council authorized the award of the construction contract for $21,488,000 and included a $1,954,000 construction contingency (9.1% of the base cost). On Decemb er 5, 2023, Council authorized an amendment to add $300,000 contingency (bringing the total contingency to 10.5%) to address the potential need for additional construction contingency to complete the project. Completing a vertical construction project of this size and complexity with a 10.5% contingency is well within industry norms.
The final construction contract amount of $21,788,000 represents expenditure of all contingency funds without exceeding the approved maximum contract amount.
ITEM 4.7 Amendment No. 1 to 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
16. If the total cost of $51 million was estimated in 2025, with the delays and a new RFP, it could be more for the project to be completed in 2027. What is the revised estimate cost going to be?
The $51 million overall cost was estimated in today's dollars and includes some escalation.
Approximately $43 million of those dollars have been bid and are under contract. Sunnyvale estimated and justified the remaining approximately $8 million in unbid/future projects to their bond council when securing financing for additional projects that will be bid in future years. Per the new MOU amendment, any additional cost over the bond issue amount will be discussed at the staff level and, if needed, brought to Mountain View’s City Council for approval of additional expenditures or borne solely by Sunnyvale.
5 17. If the current usage rate is 27%, what happens when that number goes up?
Per the MOU this share percentage is based on usage at time of bond sale. It will not go up and will be locked in as soon as Sunnyvale goes to market for bond sale in mid-November. The amendment specifies Mountain View’s percentage as 26.76%.
18. When the City debt issuance occurs in November 2025, what is the City’s total bond debt?
The total project cost is anticipated to be $51.54 million. There is a $6.6 million grant from CalRecycle and the $4.0 million one-time payment Mountain View plans to make to reduce the need for financing.
As a result, Mountain View’s debt portion will be about $8.0 million.
19. Is the City expected to issue more bonds in 2026? For what?
Mountain View has no plans to issue any debt in the Solid Waste Fund in 2026. The City is in the process of issuing bonds for the Public Safety Building, which will not impact the Solid Waste Fund.
20. Did the Mountain View legal department draw up the new MOU?
Yes. The new MOU amendment was drafted by the Mountain View City Attorney’s Office and consisted of a joint collaboration between the City Attorney's Office, Finance, and Public Works Departments.
21. Is the cost associated with this MOU covered by trash fees?
Correct, all expenses in the Solid Waste fund, including the costs associated with this project, are factored into the trash fee determination. This is a long-term planned project, and the costs have already been included in the Solid Waste budget forecast.
ITEM 6.2 Downtown Business Improvement Area No. 2 and Allocation of 2026 Business Improvement Area No. 2 Revenues
22. Does the City collect any fees for collecting BDI Funds?
The City does not collect any fees related to the collection of assessments for either of the Business Improvement Areas.
23. Does the Chamber charge the DBI any fees for administering the funds?
The Chamber does not charge the Downtown Business Association (DBA) any fees to administer the funds from either of the Business Improvement Areas.
6 24. Can the downtown business improvement area cover the cost of fixing the parking garage electronics parking availability signage?
Business Improvement Area assessments can only be used for advertising, promotions, special events, or other activities that promote the designated business area. Funds must be utilized by the Downtown Business Association, which is a separate entity from the City of Mountain View.
The garages fall within the Parking Management and Operations Assessment District. New signage technology and/or repair of existing electronic signage are being explored as part of the implementation of the 2021 Downtown Parking Strategy and would be undertaken by the City of Mountain View.
25. What are the “disbursement agreement terms”?
The terms of the disbursement agreement between the City and the Chamber of Commerce include:
• Annual report and budget prepared by the Chamber and submitted to the City • Separate tracking of funds in each of the BIAs
• BIAs named on all activities funded by the BIAs
• Annual reporting to assessed business owners
• Open meetings in compliance with the Brown Act and California Public Records Act • Creation and maintenance of central files and records • Procurement and competitive bidding requirements
ITEM 6.3 Code Amendment to Chapter 36 (Zoning)-Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (First reading)
26. What has been a ballpark normal or average range of time between the date of issuance of a demolition permit and the start of construction on our recent housing projects?
The City does not track this metric. However, based on input from the Building Division, a developer typically does not apply for and receive a demolition permit unless and until they are prepared to move forward with the project. Therefore, in general, the time lag between issuance of a demolition permits and the actual demolition is relatively minimal.
27. One part of the New Temporary Displacement portion of the TRAO reads, "If the temporary displacement exceeds 90 days, tenants can choose to..." Does this mean that if the landlord had thought that the renovation would take less than 90 days, but unforeseen circumstances force the displacement to be more than 90 days? If so, are there any notices or any other requirements that accompany this situation?
Yes, the intention is that the landlord needs to plan for renovations that would be 90 days in duration or less in order to qualify as a temporary displacement, unless unforeseen circumstances arise during the renovations that may cause the duration to exceed 90 days. In this situation, tenants may choose to:
7 • Remain in temporary housing under the same arrangement, or • Move out permanently and receive full permanent relocation benefits (in addition to the temporary benefits already received), if they are income eligible.
Staff recommends that the landlord provide tenants a minimum notice of 30 days if the renovations are expected to exceed 90 days, i.e., provide a notice by day 60. Staff will develop administrative procedures and work closely with the City’s relocation consultant to monitor the status of these situations.
28. For City-initiated displacements, such as red-tagging, who pays the displacement costs?
Currently, the TRAO exempts landlords from paying TRAO benefits in a City red -tagging situation. This means that displaced tenants do not receive any TRAO benefits. There are State relocation assistance requirements; however, the State benefits are lower than the TRAO, and the City does not oversee those requirements. As such, the staff recommends removing the exemption so that the landlord pays the displacement costs in this situation.
29. How would this work if the displacement is caused by a lack of ongoing maintenance versus a natural disaster like an earthquake or a flood?
Staff’s recommendation would result in a landlord paying the relocation benefits if the red-tagging is due to the lack of ongoing maintenance.
Staff does recommend keeping the exemption if the City enforcement order is due to a natural disaster not caused or contributed to by the landlord, such as a fire, flood, or earthquake, and if the landlord did not cause or significantly contribute to the damage. In such cases, the landlord would not be responsible for relocation payments.
30. How much are moving costs typically? Range is fine.
Based on data from the City’s relocation consultant, estimates for a local move typically range from $1,000 to $3,000 and between $5,000 and $7,000 for longer-distance moves (up to 50 miles away).
31. What is the difference in moving costs between people who move locally and those who move more than 50 miles away?
Moves beyond 50 miles depend on the actual distance and are difficult to estimate. Staff have received information that long-distance moves, including crossing the State line, can go up to $20,000.
8 32. What is our experience with tenants returning based on first right of refusal?
The recommended TRAO amendments include an “SB 330 right of first refusal” for low -income households (≤80% AMI) displaced from “protected units.” While the City has approved projects with SB 330 replacement requirements, no projects with replacement units have yet been completed. Therefore, the right of first refusal has not yet been effectuated in a project. Staff's recommended amendments incorporate procedures to track tenants and provide notices to facilitate the right of first refusal to the extent possible.
33. Are we creating regulations that will not get used very often?
The tenant protection requirements of SB 330—including right of first refusal—are now permanent and will be required of all applicable projects going forward.