|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View residents could see on their November ballots an option to approve changes to the city’s foundational contract, the City Charter.
Mountain View’s charter, which was first adopted in 1952, is a voter-approved legal document that essentially serves as a local constitution for the city, spokesperson Lenka Wright told the Voice. It lays out the basic rules, structures and powers for how the city operates.
In what could be the first of two rounds of proposed amendments to update the charter, the city is looking to make technical and clarifying changes, such as correcting typos, switching to gender-neutral language and revising outdated phrasing. City staff have characterized the changes as “non-substantive” and “non-controversial.”
The City Council reviewed the proposed amendments Tuesday evening, providing feedback to city officials who will eventually bring the amendments back for an official vote on whether to include them on November’s ballot. The city has until Aug. 7 to place a measure on the fall ballot, and the City Council will likely take action on whether to do so in June, according to Wright.
The city’s charter hasn’t been amended since 2016, which is when voters approved the city’s rent control law, known as the Community Stabilization and Fair Rent Act. Per the California Constitution, a charter can only be amended by a majority vote of the electors.
“As a council we’ve been talking about this for a very long time,” Council member Ellen Kamei said at the Feb. 10 meeting. “It’s something hopefully that is not new news to our community, and to be able to take this step, will be really great.”
The City Council is expected to consider more substantive amendments to the City Charter in 2028. Those modifications have been deferred until then so as to minimize “ballot complexity” in a year with a city bond measure, according to City Attorney Jennifer Logue. It also reduces the risk of necessary changes not going through because of too many amendments being heaped into one measure and will allow for the creation of a charter review committee, she said.
When developing this first batch of proposed amendments, the city attorney’s office reviewed the charters of nine other cities, including nearby ones, as well as larger ones that are often making changes to reflect evolving standards, Logue said.
“The review definitely helped provide a general understanding of modern drafting approaches and commonly used requirements,” she told the council.
Council members weigh in on changes
Some of the proposed changes to the charter include fixing typographical errors, transitioning to gender-neutral terminology and aligning language to comply with state law. Other tweaks include clarifying phrasing and updating municipal code references in the city’s rent control law.
Council members generally backed the minor changes that staff is proposing for the coming ballot.
One specific proposal that drew support from council members was an amendment to extend the timeframe for the City Council to either appoint someone or call for a special election to fill a vacant seat from 30 to 60 days.
“Sixty days, I think, is sufficient,” Mayor Emily Ann Ramos said. “It’s literally double what we had before.”
Some Council members expressed hesitancy to make the suggested modification to the charter in regard to the city’s rent control law, which aims to update municipal code references.
“I would send that one back to the Rental Housing Committee,” Council member Pat Showalter said. “I don’t feel competent to really weigh in on that.”
Council member John McAlister suggested postponing the proposed amendments to 2028, noting that doing two rounds of changes would require “double effort” for staff conducting public outreach, but fellow council members disagreed.
“I don’t think we gain anything by waiting,” Council member Lucas Ramirez said. “I have waited eight years, so I’d like to do this before I die.”
Mountain View residents launch app to help homeowners navigate building permitsMarch 11, 2026 8:29 am
I fail to understand how these changes can be described as ‘non-controversial’ when there was so much controversy a mere 3 years ago when the City Council chose to appoint Mayor Emily Ann Ramos to fill a vacancy on the Council rather than call for a special election. See the comments: https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/01/06/mountain-view-city-council-to-appoint-a-new-council-member-rather-than-conduct-a-special-election/
The fundamental right of voters to choose our leaders was denied, thanks to the efforts of Ramirez, Kamei, and Showalter. From that article:
“Mayor Lucas Ramirez and council members Ellen Kamei and Pat Showalter all supported doing an appointment, bringing the council to an impasse, as Hicks appeared to be leaning toward a special election.”
Also from that article:
““I can’t justify spending $2.1 million on a special election,” [Lucas Ramirez] said. “It’s an extraordinary expenditure.”
And yet, our city was recently willing to spend $5 million to pave over parts of Cuesta Park or the Annex to install pickleball courts, until the community rose up to object.
Democracy is apparently less important than pickleball. And now, the council wants to act to make it easier for them to make ANOTHER appointment in the future if and when the situation arises again:
“One specific proposal that drew support from council members was an amendment to extend the timeframe for the City Council to either appoint someone or call for a special election to fill a vacant seat from 30 to 60 days.”
And the icing on the cake?
“Sixty days, I think, is sufficient,” Mayor Emily Ann Ramos said. “It’s literally double what we had before.”
Ramos was the BENEFICIARY of an appointment process that unfolded in ways that were not communicated in advance. The council had noted that turnout is often low in a special election, “so they are not as good a gauge of public opinion as regular elections,” as Alison Hicks put it. So, in order “to be fair” to voters who do not engage in the process, the right to vote was taken away from all voters.
But there was nothing “fair” about what happened on the night of the appointment. YIMBY activists from outside of Mountain View flooded the chambers and were allowed 2 minutes each to express support for Ramos. Their presence affected the voting, as Ramos became “choice 2” on everyone’s ballot, and thus won in the first round of voting.
So a “special election” happened after all, on the night the council made their choice. The only “voters” who mattered were the ones who turned up in council chambers. Was that a better gauge of public opinion than an actual special election? No. The “turnout” was limited to the capacity of the room, and votes were cast by non-residents.
I don’t want it to be easy for our city council to again choose to “avoid the costs” of a special election. I want it to be as difficult as possible. A special election, however imperfect, is the ONLY legitimate gauge of public opinion by REGISTERED VOTERS.
If the City were to switch to district based elections (as Los Altos or the Mountain View Los Altos High School district), the proposed charter change would mean that one of Mountain View’s district would be without representation for 60 days or even more if a special election is called.
Really unfortunate that. unlike Sunnyvale, the City didn’t establish an independent Charter Review Committee to better air out/vet these changes.