Category: Mountain View City Council

Council Goal Setting – Phase 2

Previously, the City Council set four major thematic goals for the coming two-year cycle. On April 18^th, the Council ranked from among dozens of possible projects to fulfill those goals. City staff will further evaluate the feasibility and cost of the priority goals and return to Council for final approval before the budget is adopted in June. Here are some of the highly ranked projects organized by goal:

1. Protect Vulnerable Populations and Preserve Socioeconomic and Cultural Diversity

• • Study of registry, Sanctuary City, and Freedom City policies
  • Age-Friendly City initiatives (World Health Organization designation)
  • Homelessness and mental health services
  • Additional access to information and resources for immigrants
  • Initiatives for workers (local hire, wage theft)

2. Improve the Quantity, Diversity, and Affordability of Housing

• • Short-term residential rental regulations (Airbnb)
  • Request for proposals for development of downtown parking lot 12
  • Terra Bella area Visioning and Development Principles
  • Below Market Rate Ordinance update – Condo Mapping
  • Exploration of strategies to increase ownership

3. Strategies to Achieve Mobility, Connectivity, and Safety for People of All Ages

• • Comprehensive modal plan involving regional transit agencies and stakeholders.
  • An automated guideway connecting downtown to North Bayshore.
  • Exploration of a tax on employers to fund transportation improvements
  • Transit Center Master Plan
  • Bicycle corridor on Evelyn

4. Promote Environmental Sustainability with Measurable Outcomes

• • Reform the Environmental Sustainability Task Force
  • Explore new strategies for acquiring park land
  • Participate in South Bay Salt Ponds project with CA State Coastal Commission
  • North Bayshore Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures & Performance Measurements

Appointment of Rental Housing Committee Members

Also on April 18^th, after a lengthy and contentious interview process lasting several months, the Council formally appointed the five members and one alternate to the new Rental Housing Committee, established by the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (adopted as Measure V in November 2016). The Committee is charged with developing the regulatory framework for the rent stabilization program, appointing hearing officers, and adjudicating petitions by tenants and landlords.

In a surprise change, the Council decided by a 4-3 vote to appoint Human Relations Commissioner Evan Ortiz to the Committee instead of designating him as the alternate. Attorney Julian Pardo de Zela was instead appointed as the alternate. The remaining members of the Committee are former Mayor Tom Means, landlord Matthew Grunewald, property manager Vanessa Honey, and mechanical engineer Emily Ramos. Of the members, only Ortiz and Ramos are renters.

City Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Program

Council continues to craft the budget for the next fiscal year. In a special study session on Thursday, April 27^th, City staff reported an estimated $18.9 million operating balance for Fiscal Year 2016-17, prior to $4 million contributions to City employee retirement and post-employment health benefits and $2.5 million to reserves. The remaining $12.4 million is recommended to fund limited-period expenditures, supplement reserves, and make additional contributions towards the City’s unfunded employee benefit liabilities. The Council largely approved the staff recommendations, the most significant of which is to allocate a one-time $10 million contribution to pay down the unfunded liabilities and use revenue generated from the Google Amphitheatre parking agreement to pay down an additional $10 million. The first public hearing of the budget is scheduled for June 13, and final adoption is scheduled for June 20.

On the same evening, the Council reviewed the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. Again, the Council largely accepted the staff recommendations. Significant projects include the Rengstorff Aquatics Center design and construction, All-Inclusive Playground, Shoreline Boulevard Interim Bus Lane (a reversible bus-only/transit lane down the median of Shoreline Blvd), Shoreline Blvd at Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overcrossing Construction, El Monte Corridor Study (for bicycle/pedestrian safety), and Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts Second Stage Addition (to allow concurrent use of the Main Stage and Second Stage). “Community Benefits” funding, a new source of money from development that precedes precise plans or receives exceptions to development standards, was also discussed by Council. Four projects received priority for Community Benefits funding: Rengstorff Grade Separation Environmental Clearance, Mayfield Tunnel (extending the San Antonio Caltrain Station tunnel across Central Expressway), Library Remodel, and Transit Center Master Plan Next Steps.

—Lucas Ramirez, Julie Lovins, Observers

Mountain View Transit Center Master Plan

To improve capacity, safety, bicycle/pedestrian connections, and integration with Downtown, a dramatic redesign of the Transit Center is underway. In the first phase of the planning process, the Council directed city staff to study closing Castro Street to vehicular traffic, creating a bicycle/pedestrian undercrossing to connect Castro with Moffett Boulevard, realigning Evelyn Avenue across Castro, and constructing a ramp connecting Evelyn to Shoreline Boulevard.

The second phase includes a comprehensive evaluation of many other elements of the Transit Center, including parking needs, land use, joint development, Centennial Plaza design, and shuttle pickup and drop-off facilities. On March 21^st, the Council directed staff to explore a concept that includes underground parking, maximum joint development opportunities fully integrated in the Transit Center, bus and shuttle loading facilities along Central Expressway, a significantly expanded multi-level plaza area, and a ramp connecting Central Expressway to the underground parking garage. Much work remains to be done in this planning process, and there will be many opportunities for public input.

Regulation of On-Demand Mobile Fueling

In the same meeting, the Council considered regulations for a nascent industry: on-demand mobile fueling. This service allows individuals to submit a request for a gasoline fill-up through a mobile application, and the providers transport the fuel directly to the customer’s vehicle at any site. Although company representatives and satisfied customers both attested to the safety precautions taken by the fuel providers, the Council supported the recommendation of city staff and adopted a resolution enacting strong regulations of the industry based on the International Fire Code. The regulations include a site permitting process, which requires a permit for every address at which mobile fueling is provided, and effective prohibition of service in residential areas.

Strategies to Assist the Homeless

On March 7^th, the Council approved a number of expenditures for programs and staffing increases to assist homeless members of our community. These include funding for an Outreach Worker and a Case Worker, exploration of a pilot RV waste disposal program, funding for Permanent Supportive Housing assistance and Rapid Rehousing for unstably housed residents, and funding for a Porta-Potti at Rengstorff Park to serve residents living in vehicles on Crisanto Avenue. The Council also supported strategies to encourage the development of interim and permanent supportive housing, including consideration of modifications of the Industrial to Residential Conversion Policy to make housing for the homeless easier to develop in areas currently zoned for industrial uses.

Gatekeeper Process & Long-Range Planning

Gatekeepers are development proposals that must go through a preliminary approval process because a discretionary action by the Council, like a General Plan or Precise Plan Amendment, is required. The Council must first authorize the use of staff resources for such a proposal before it can proceed to the entitlements process. Given an unprecedented number of gatekeeper proposals over the past few years, the Council directed staff to modify and standardize the process, which has been largely ad hoc. The Council supported requiring public noticing of gatekeeper applications (previously, only noticing in the Council agenda was required), adopting a rating system to evaluate applications, enforcing a time-limit for applications, and requiring applicants to resubmit a proposal if there is a transfer of ownership.

—Lucas Ramirez, Julie Lovins, Observers

Council Sets Goals for 2017-2019

Shortly after each city council election cycle, the Council adopts a small number of thematic goals and prioritizes a larger number of projects to fulfill those goals. On February 27^th, the Council retained three goals with slight modifications and adopted a fourth new goal:

1. Improve the quantity, diversity, and affordability of housing with an added focus on middle income and ownership opportunities.
2. Develop and implement comprehensive and coordinated transportation strategies to achieve mobility, connectivity, and safety for people of all ages.
3. Promote environmental sustainability with measurable outcomes.
4. Promote strategies to protect vulnerable populations and to preserve the socio-economic and cultural diversity of the community.

The council advisory bodies will make project recommendations to fulfill these goals throughout the month of March, and the Council is tentatively scheduled to preliminarily approve a list of projects on April 18.

Rental Housing Committee Interviews

The Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act (CSFRA), which Mountain View voters passed in November 2016 as Measure V, establishes a Rental Housing Committee (RHC) to develop a regulatory framework for the new rent stabilization law and to administer the program. The CSFRA authorizes the Council to appoint the five members of the committee, as well as one alternate, but a temporary restraining order currently prevents the City from implementing the CSFRA.

Although no appointments may be made yet, the Council has interviewed nearly 20 candidates for the RHC in two sessions. On February 21^st, the Council winnowed the list to six people: attorney Julian Pardo de Zela, Human Relations Commissioner Evan Ortiz, mechanical engineer Emily Ramos, landlord Matthew Grunewald, former Mayor Tom Means, and homeowner James Leonard. Concerned about the lack of representation of landlords who own rental property in Mountain View, the Council reopened the application period for two additional weeks.

East Whisman Precise Plan and Downtown Parking Initiatives

On February 14^th, the Council provided further input on the East Whisman Precise Plan, an exclusively commercial area bounded roughly by Whisman Road, Highway 101, the Sunnyvale border, and Whisman Station. A significant amount of residential and commercial development is envisioned for the area; the Council directed staff to study approximately 1.7 million net new square feet of office space and nearly 10,000 housing units.

Looking for short-term solutions to alleviate parking challenges in downtown, the Council approved two pilot programs on February 28^th. Beginning the second quarter of this year, Mountain View residents will be able to take advantage of a 50% credit, up to $5, when they use Uber or Lyft to go downtown. Residents will be able to use the credit for 5 round trips per user per month in this six month program. The Council also authorized a twelve month valet parking pilot during peak hours on Thursdays through Saturdays (11am-2pm and 5pm to midnight).

—Lucas Ramirez, Observer

Mountain View City Council Reorganization

On January 10^th, 2017, the Mountain View City Council bid outgoing members Mike Kasperzak and John Inks farewell and welcomed aboard Margaret Abe-Koga and Lisa Matichak. The Council then selected the Mayor and Vice Mayor for the year, voting unanimously for Ken Rosenberg and Lenny Siegel.

Although the Council had no significant business to conduct during this ceremonial meeting, roughly a dozen members of the public used the opportunity to urge the Council to defend Measure V, the citizen-initiated rent stabilization ballot measure that was approved last November, against a lawsuit filed by the California Apartment Association. The speakers thanked the Council for adopting emergency protections against no-cause evictions for renters shortly after Measure V passed, but lamented the City’s refusal to oppose a temporary restraining order that blocked the implementation of the law in late December, including the rent stabilization and rent-rollback provisions.

End of 2016 Recap

The Council discussed several major items before the holiday recess. Perhaps the most controversial was the food scraps and waste diversion program; the Council unanimously approved the staff recommendation to implement the program, but also to retain weekly garbage pickup. In the same meeting, the Council decided against extending the urgency ordinance establishing a temporary moratorium on outdoor cultivation of marijuana. Now, without the ordinance, residents are allowed to cultivate marijuana outdoors under the marijuana legalization ballot measure that passed in November. They also accepted a recommendation from the Human Relations Commission to adopt a resolution designating Mountain View a Human Rights City, a largely symbolic gesture. The Council agreed to consider developing a human rights policy analysis framework during the goal setting session in the first quarter of 2017.

The Council also reviewed over a dozen gatekeeper requests – a record number. These are development proposals that require Council approval in order to proceed to a more comprehensive review process. Due to the unprecedented amount of development occurring throughout the city, there is insufficient staff capacity to review all of the requests for development. The Council allowed two proposals to proceed: a small increase in the number of units in a residential project the Council already approved on Fayette Drive, and large apartment complex at two adjacent properties, 525-569 East Evelyn and at 769 East Evelyn. 

—Lucas Ramirez, Observer

Housing, less and more

Housing issues are always at the top of the list.

Council reviewed many options for a Safe Parking Program on February 23, looking for ways to provide parking for cars and RVs that are serving as homes. It won’t be easy, but a good to-do list of common-sense items emerged. Provision of liability coverage would make it easier for churches to step up, for example. Councilmembers followed up with HUD when five of them went to Washington, D.C. in March for information and outreach.

The next agenda item was a presentation of Santa Clara County’s Community Plan to End Homelessness, and passage of several affiliated resolutions.

“Soft rent control”?

We still don’t know what will happen with the months-long attempt to create a rental housing dispute resolution program. On March 15, the results of prior meetings came back to Council as a framework for an ordinance. The proposal covers a defined list of disputes–including rent increases of over 7.2%/year, an arbitrary number that Council selected–allows either tenant or landlord to initiate professional dispute resolution within given time limits, and involves increasingly complex discussion only if it is needed. If a professional dispute resolution specialist cannot initially effect “conciliation”, the next stage is a mediation session (with mandatory attendance), and if that doesn’t effect a resolution, there could be binding or non-binding arbitration.

Supporters of binding arbitration emphasized that it is almost never used, but must be there to incentivize earlier-stage resolution. An arbitrator, if it comes to that, is required to take into account landlords’ documented maintenance expenses (including a new roof), which can generally be passed on to tenants. This allows owners a reasonable rate of return. Binding arbitration for units newer than early 1995 is generally disallowed by the Costa-Hawkins Act.  The program would be paid for by a very small per-unit fee assessed on landlords.

Rental property owners and managers took advantage of the 90 seconds allowed for each comment (a measure of how many speakers there were) to predict dire consequences for tenants, owners, and the state of the city. Tenants requested protection against arbitrary evictions and other retaliation, a tenant-landlord commission, and a temporary moratorium on rent increases.

Enough Councilmembers accepted some version of the claim that “this is rent control and therefore bad” to defeat the binding arbitration provision, opting instead for an ordinance that would have non-binding arbitration and be reviewed informally in six months and formally two or three years after that. The eventual motion passed 4-3. A second reading was set for March 22, but a Councilmember who had voted for the ordinance was absent on March 22, and after serious discussion of the possible outcome, Council voted to postpone the second reading to the next regular meeting, April 26, over a month later.

Since there was no move toward “tenant protection”, the possibility of sparse use of this program (if passed) remains, resulting in little data for Council to evaluate later.

Readers interested in more in-depth information about the proposal should look at the very lucid staff report for agenda item 7.1 on the March 15 Council agenda: point your mouse at http://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=18958

Much more housing coming (for whom?)

Meanwhile, the effort to build a lot more housing in the city continues unabated.

The Sobrato Organization has made extensive modifications to a project proposal for the east end of Pear Avenue in North Bayshore, presenting to a Council study session on March 1 a plan with reduced square footage for offices and more for housing. An appreciable amount of affordable housing (exact affordability level TBD) would be built by default on a parcel next to the market-rate housing, but several Councilmembers spoke up in favor of at least some inclusionary zoning (having the affordable units integrated into the other buildings, as is done for all other apartment developments in town). There was also some support for unbundling parking.

On this occasion, and in the formal Council meeting that followed, it became clear that Santiago Villa (mobile home park) residents, who would be next door to the Sobrato project, are under a lot of stress due to increases in their space rents (especially for new residents) and threatening-sounding communications from the park ownership. Those who want to sell their units are sometimes unable to because prospective new owners are daunted by the space rent, and some claimed that their only recourse was to sell to the park owner, increasing his control of the land. Ultimately, the mayor made an unscheduled statement that there is no plan to rezone the area, and Council directed City Staff to look into allegations of inappropriate treatment of these residents. Sobrato was also urged to establish good communication with the Santiago Villa residents, currently the only residents of North Bayshore.

A more common type of affordable housing project, at 779 E. Evelyn (next to Bernardo, on the border with Sunnyvale), received unanimous support later in the same Council meeting. ROEM will build 116 units affordable to households with up to 60% of Area Median Income: mostly one or two bedrooms, but some studios and three-bedroom units.

In another study session toward the end of this meeting, Council discussed and gave Staff direction on the in-progress modification of the North Bayshore Precise Plan, to allow it to include residential uses. There could ultimately be up to 10,250 new units there. Staff’s action list includes an economic study to determine what minimum percentage requirement for affordable housing would be reasonable, in return for higher densities; providing more information on unbundling parking, on onstreet parking, and on what they mean by the “expedited process” that they suggested as an incentive. A majority of the Council also supported adding dual plumbing (for clear water and greywater) to building requirements there.

Several of these Council discussions included comments that new housing is being built only for people with high incomes or low incomes—nothing for those in the middle. This is definitely not a new trend but it is becoming increasingly noticeable.

The newest Precise Plan

Council approved the East Whisman Precise Plan Scope of Work on March 22. The main decision to be made was whether to accept VTA’s recent request to include their former Park-and-Ride lot (across Evelyn from where there used to be a Light Rail station) in the plan area. It is not contiguous to other land in the planning area. Council rejected the idea 5-1-1.

Next, what about parking?

On March 22, Council voted 6-0-1 to have a .45 parking ratio at the Palo Alto Housing Corporation affordable complex (about 60 units) being built at El Camino Real and Rich. This figure was supported by data on previous similar developments.

Several years ago, Council decided there should be a Residential Parking Permit Program established for which any neighborhood in the city could apply, to mitigate impacts of spillover parking from nearby non-residential activity. This would work by establishing duration limits on curbside parking for non-permit-holders in the approved area. On February 23, Public Works staff brought a proposal to a Council study session, with Old Mountain View (which includes the commercial downtown and abuts the Transit Center) as the basis for examples of how the process could work. They outlined program funding possibilities, criteria for establishment of such a permit parking zone, and how it could be approved, implemented, and enforced. Based on the staff report, residents (mostly from Old Mountain View) provided systematic feedback on what aspects of the proposal they felt would and would not fit well with local needs, street layout, and housing types. Council asked Staff to work on modifications to the proposal, and Staff agreed to do so. The staff report projected an ordinance in May.

Or not parking…

There will be a substantial (commercial) development impact fee for North Bayshore projects, aimed at transportation improvements. Council selected amounts for office, retail, and hotel uses that added up to no more than a total that was justified by a nexus study.

An increasing number of North Bayshore workers are anticipated to get there by means other than cars, regardless of North Bayshore housing construction. Many of them will pass through the Downtown Transit Center. Exactly how connections will work will be studied in Phase II of a Transit Center Master Plan project. Phase I, to be completed first, recently had its first community meeting, and then a Council study session on March 22. The topic was an old and popular one: how to get to a grade separation of the train tracks and everything else, and should that involve closing Castro Street just south of the tracks?

Everyone agreed that this would be the least stressful alternative, with distinct advantages over depressing Castro to go under the tracks (including major impacts to businesses on the 100 block, during and after construction), but that there are many details to be worked out. Another alternative that consultants had suggested involved a pedestrian plaza in the area, which was strongly supported by residents and Council. Some people also felt that a lot more information is needed on how many people enter and leave the area, crossing the tracks, using all mobility modes and at different times. (Current rough figures show a relatively small percentage of traffic to downtown crosses the tracks, but that’s all that was presented.) Opinion was divided on what should happen with the two now-disjunct pieces of Evelyn Avenue. The western one could potentially provide a connection with Shoreline Boulevard, but they’re currently at very different heights. Staff and consultants will provide more information on all of this, with termination of Castro at its north end a starting point, and with a strong emphasis on bicycle/pedestrian safety.

Local campaign finance disclosure

This report ends with a topic central to LWV concerns. Faceless “independent expenditure committees” caused an uproar in the 2014 Council election. The City Attorney, LWV-LAMV, and residents have proposed ways of shining light on them, starting with disclosure of top funders on all external-origin advertisements, with low dollar triggers for the requirement. Council supported having an ordinance (to come back later this spring) with such requirements, and also mandating electronic filing (for candidates), which would make data-tracking more efficient.

–Julie Lovins and Lucas Ramirez, Observers