January 3, 2019 Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:00:04] Mayor Lenny Siegel: The meeting, please come to order. To the pledge of allegiance, please rise. The city clerk, please announce the role?

[00:00:32] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:33] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thank you. Thank you. Item 4 is the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Anybody on the council wish to pull an item from Margaret?

[00:00:55] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I'd like to pull item 4.2, please.

[00:00:58] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Okay. John?

[00:01:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Is that the one I'm trying to say? I think 4.2 maybe where we're trying to figure out the effective date of a particular

[00:01:11] Mayor Lenny Siegel: So that's that one? Okay. Does anybody in the audience wish to pull an item? Then entertain emotion on the balance of the consent calendar, council member Abbe Koga. You gotta read some stuff.

[00:01:28] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So, I'd like to make an emotion to approve the following items. Item 4.one, adopt resolution amending council policy, a 6 selection of mayor and vice mayor to be read entitled only for the reading wave detachment to the council report, and item 4.3, adopt a resolution amending city council policy, A13, city council meetings to be read entitled only for the reading waived attachment one to the council report.

[00:01:58] Mayor Lenny Siegel: We have a motion by council member Abbe Koga, seconded by council member Rosenberg. Is there any discussion? Let's vote. Do we need public comment on the item that's pulled? Do we need public comment on the balance? Because no one pulled. Okay, no one pulled it. So, okay. So John, I'm just waiting for your vote.

[00:02:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, we're voting on 4.one and 4.3.

[00:02:41] Mayor Lenny Siegel: balance of the consent calendar, sir. Passes unanimously. Margaret, you want to give your reason for pulling 4.2.

[00:02:50] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, so, um, 4.2 has to do with appointments onto the various uh, committees, regional bodies, and um, the change in the policy was that we would, the uh, CPC, the procedures committee recommends that, um, All appointments are made to sitting council members. Um, and, um, the, the question or the, um, there was the issue that came up as to when this would take, this policy would take into effect. And my assumption was that it would be immediately, once we pass it, so effective tonight or tomorrow was my recommendation was to add that effective date. And that was the main, that was an issue, if that's doable to do.

[00:03:44] Unknown Speaker: A resolution is effective upon adoption, and then the policies modified by that resolution or the code of conduct, so it would be effective upon adoption.

[00:03:53] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So I think the question is, um, just to be more detailed, specifically, um, there's the, the water seat and, um, it's currently being held by a non-council member. And so if we adopt this tonight. Um, when the mayor does the assignments, can she add that the Bosco seat to her list of assignments?

[00:04:22] Unknown Speaker: My understanding, and perhaps a city clerk, might know the answer to this, but that the appointment was made for a specific term, and it was made for a four year term. So, the only that individual would serve out the term. We can't modify the term after the appointment. So we would have to wait for the term to expire to then implement for that, for that specific appointment, yes.

[00:04:48] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Perspective only. Yeah, okay. Okay, before we go to discussion, I wonder if there's any public comment on item 4.2? Saying none, Pat.

[00:05:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted to bring up something that I brought up at the council procedures meeting, and I think it's included in this, but I do think it's an important point, and that's that, you know, there really are a tremendous number of outside bodies that people serve on. And there could be a time when we really wanted a council member to continue because the people who were on the council at that time just really didn't have the time. And it does include the option for the council to reappoint them. And that's why I'm going to be supporting this, because I do think it's important to have that flexibility, and there might be an instance, not necessarily this one, but an instance, in the future, where, you know, we would want somebody to, um, you know, to serve who was a former council member for one reason or another. So I'm glad that that's in there, because I think that it's important flexibility.

[00:06:05] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Seeing no more discussion of motion by council member Clark, seconded by council member Rosenberg, Chris, do you want to read them?

[00:06:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I move that we adopt a resolution amending Council Code of Conduct, chapter 2 to be read entitled only for the reading waved attachment to the council report.

[00:06:20] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Any further discussion? Let's vote. Passes unanimously. Now we're at item number five, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for one 3 minute period during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on non-agenda items. How many people wish to speak? Please line up and make sure you fill out a card for the city clerk.

[00:07:12] Public Speaker: This time, I'll come first and say the last, for your last meeting. I have two points I'd like to make. One is that change seems to need a tipping point, often. I believe that the tipping point came on the 21st of December, when this council voted, unfortunately, 4 to 3 to go forward with 2005 Rock, and displaced, admittedly, a year from now, 20 families. The housing crisis needs to be addressed in a radically different way. Instead of continuing to approve demolitions of low income residents. We need to find a way that doesn't accept demolitions just because they're zoned, okay? You heard a number of findings from a couple of attorneys that gave you ways to vote against that going ahead, and you fail to do that. And those of you who voted for the demolition will continue on council. I urge you to... find a way in your goal setting, to... have a goal of preservation, especially for low income residents, and there are ways to do that. And I'm sure our dedicated staff people can find those for you. I hope that you will do that. And accept that as an... a goal that extends the goal of protecting our vote most vulnerable, population. Thank you, for the record, that meeting was December 11th.

[00:09:31] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Next, please.

[00:09:36] Christina Pereira: Hi, I'm Christina Pereira. a Mountain View resident? Um, I'm here about the same issue, which is the loss of rental housing units, and, um, what I read was that the council is considering implementing a rule for no net loss, which I think is an excellent idea, and I wanted to come here and say, Thank you for considering that, and I hope you'll be able to implement it. I'd like to see known debt loss of rental units, specifically, not just no loss of housing units, and I feel that we should have an increase in units overall, not a decrease. So the loss of these rental units on Rock Street, you know, it takes, we go from having more houses to fewer houses when we're in a housing crisis and we have people moving into RVs on the street. It seems crazy to me. It seems very obvious that it's the wrong thing to do. So thank you for considering for the work you're going to do, implementing a rule to prevent that from happening in future developments. I did also want to call out one particular piece of language, because I felt it was biased language. from the developer advocates. They called it ownership opportunities, which is like, oh, that's really clever. They must have paid a fortune for that phrase for their marketers. And the reason why I feel it's so deceptive is that, as a person, a young person moving into your house, you get this kind of glow of the American dream. I'm a property owner now, and it's a natural progression from one to the other. But for a city, it's not a progression. It's not a progression to take your rental units where young people and your teachers live and turn them into ownership units, where nobody can afford to live except the very rich techies. So next time that piece of language comes across your desk, I want you to stop and think about it, instead of hearing the word ownership opportunities with its pleasant glow, I want you to hear, um, you know, kicking people out and, uh, and upsetting the balance of housing in our community, because we need all kinds of housing, we need rental units, we need owner occupied units. We need in law units, we need high income, low income. You know, maybe we don't need fancy apartment with pet spas, but we do need basic apartments with coin up laundries. We need all these things. So don't think that if you're approving a project that moves rentals to ownership, that is a good thing. It's not necessarily a good thing, and don't let that language deceive you next time.

[00:12:03] Mayor Lenny Siegel: You very much. Next, please.

[00:12:13] Steve Chandler: So, Steve Chandler, resident of Mountain View? I wanted to comment on the meeting which was December 11th. That was when we had three council members, who I agreed with their vote, because this development of 2005 Rock Street, actually the demolition of 2000 Rock Street, and then development into luxury housing. This was a not a good thing for Mountain View. Certainly not right now, and such a huge shortage of affordable housing. So, now my comment is to four members of the council, Margaret, and Chris, and Lisa and John, is that all of you have received, well, it looks like at least a few thousand each, from the California Association of Realtors. California Apartment Association, CAA, Prometheus, and speaker properties. Okay, then, the voting record seems to be in favor of developers. Now that's, as far as I, as far as I could tell, been going on for a while. But, uh, excuse me. The really became horrible last December 11th, when the decision was made in favor of the developer, and there's approximately 75 residents in naturally affordable housing, who are being kicked out. Of course, they're getting some money for that, and there's various things that are being done for them, since they're being displaced. However, it's unlikely that most of them will find a place that they can afford to live a mountain view, which means that they're being kicked out of town. And my comment is, I think that's horrible. Thank you.

[00:14:45] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thanks for coming. Next, please.

[00:14:51] Heather Phipps: Hello, Heather Phipps. I live in Mountain View. And good evening to you all. I'm just going to read an email. I've sent, actually, to all of you, as well as the incoming council members, who will, I guess, be sworn in next meeting. So after the unfair and unjust decision made by 4 of the Mountain View City Council members on December 11th to demolish 2005 Rock Street and displace 25, mostly Latinex residents from our community, it's clear that the Mountain View City Council needs to take appropriate action to address our affordable housing and displacement crisis that's being perpetuated mainly via developers and landlords who are also investors. by demolishing naturally affordable housing in Mountain View. So in order for the city of Mountain View to function and to truly value diversity, as I've heard many of you say over the last months on council, We need black, brown, and white working class people to be able to live in our city. So the Mountain View City Council needs to enact a temporary moratorium or some type of moratorium on all demolitions of naturally affordable housing in Mountain View due to the emergency housing crisis that the city is currently experiencing. rent control and the CSFRA has been a huge success in stabilizing rents for tenants. But now there is a clear need for some time of preservation policy, or a policy that includes a no net loss of affordable housing units, and or a one or one-to-one, or even better, replacement of affordable units. The Mountain View City Council also needs to ensure that the appointment of new members to the rental housing committee, who will actually carry out the intent of the CSFRA and hopefully listen to advice from staff, which hasn't been the case in the last year and a half now that the CSFR has been in place. If the city council is unable to appoint RHT members in a fair and unbiased way. Then you can be sure that the tenants rights groups here in Mountain View will pursue a ballot measure to amend the CSFRA to establish an elected rent board. And we will ensure that members who are elected will be fair just and carry out the intent of the CSFRA. In order for the Mountain View to claim status as a mountain, I'm sorry, as a human rights city. It's imperative that city council addresses the affordable housing emergency with solutions that will stop the gentrification and displacement of racial minorities and working class residents of Mound View. Thank you.

[00:17:30] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thank you very much. Next, please.

[00:17:40] Job Lopez: You know who I am, Job Lopez. First of all, I want to tell Lenny Siegel for his leadership had an effective world during his 40 years in the city council to alleviate the housing crisis in Mountain View. A lot more needs to be done, and we are going to miss you. No, being there where you are now. I also want to temp Pacho, Walter and Ken Rosenberg, for all you did alone with Lenny during your mandate and the city consul to mitigate the housing crisis, which affects most of the law income working in our city. I will never forget, when Ken, last December 11, cider the fact that the mountain view is officially a human rights city, and what the universal, the creation of humans rights of the UN says, maybe, for what I read in, is Article 25. until I don't remember, you can mention the article. And yet, sadly and shamefully, in spite of what can say. Sadly and shamefully, 4 of you bordered the night of December 11th, 2018, in favor of the demolition, the 2005 Rocket Street apartment building to displace 75 mostly low income Latino residents from our community. You sided with the members of the one percent under the argument that they have the right to get out of the apartment renting business. If they want to, and while it is true, it is also true that they don't have the right to do, to do it by displacing families in order to build downhomes which those families will not be able to buy. This will make the mountain view housing crisis even worse. And it makes no sense. Money is worshiped and human beings are ignored and diminish. Well, the photo of you, they eat that night, along with the landlord is morally wrong. But they follow you who sided with the one% in the name of the money. have now another opportunity to do something good. You have another opportunity to do something good at the part of you. You, along with the three incoming consul members, should side with the 99% on their moral grounds and approve moratorium, and all the molitias, or naturally afford our house in unis, throughout mountain view, view to the housing crisis, we keep experiencing. You are, you are responsible for a fair and just housing rental committee to carry out the intent to make sure to be. Otherwise, you will you will force us to pursue a valid measure, to amend the CSFRA, to establish an elector RAN board, since the city console may now be able to appoint the HRC in a fair and unbiased way. Thank you.

[00:20:30] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:20:37] Barbara Goodwin: Hello, hello, Barbara Goodwin, longtime resident of Mountain View. This has been a great place, but we're comfortable. We're in a condo, which is lovely, but some people, not so good. You people have a lot of power, and you in the past, this council has bent over to accommodate the wishes of developers. It ain't pretty. don't like it. And many people here have given you some opportunities to perhaps get on the right path, and they've got good ideas. Let's try to implement them. And I will miss the outgoing people very much. Thank you.

[00:21:22] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Next, please. Are there any more speakers after this? If so, please line up.

[00:21:28] E.D. Keating: Hi. E.D. Keating. I would like to speak about the letter that you received on December 11 from Klespa and other lawyers. And I've read it multiple times, and it really, to me, is an amazing letter. It really changes my thinking. When I was knocking on doors in 2016, seeking to help inspire people to vote yes for measure V, once in a while, people would say, yeah, but then, you know, things are going to get redeveloped and you're going to lose affordable housing, you know, the naturally affordable housing anyway. And in my thinking at that point, I said, that is a little bit of a problem. But the reason I still support measure V is that people, you know, if we don't pass it, people are getting priced out right and left, all over the place. And there's no stability for anyone, no guarantees of housing for anyone. And so there's so much, you know, common good that's created by preserving this naturally affordable housing by passing rent stabilization that it's worth it. And yes, there may be an interest in redevelopment. So then, you know, a month ago, a week ago or two. I read this letter, and it says, it's not all about FAR and setbacks that requires you to approve a development. It says that there are other criteria that are there in your own municipal code. And the language about the welfare of the city, that that is a criteria that you need to look at. And so then it comes down to judgment. What is better for the city? High priced condos or preserving affordable housing? And that housing is much more valuable now because of rent stabilization. So you guys have to use your judgment about what's your vision for the city. And I hope your vision for the city includes using your power to preserve housing, to not have a loss of units, and to keep affordability where you can, and that when those things are being lost, that it's not good for the city. And you should say no. And the 1st time, and the 2nd time that you start saying no to some developments that are going to gentrify mountain view, then there won't be a need for white knights because the developers and the property owners themselves will be out looking for their own white knights so they can bring you something that truly is good for the city that includes more affordable units. Kind of like Sandhill is doing over in East Palo Alto, with aiming at least, to preserve the units that are currently affordable. And then on the sites they're redeveloping to add market rate units. So, you have power, and when you start using it, developers are going to comply.

[00:24:32] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Looks like we have another speaker.

[00:24:38] Leia Simeha: Hello, my name is Leia Simeha. Mountain View, um, resident. It's my 1st time to speak here, but not the 1st time to attend a council meeting. First of all, I wanted to thank, uh, cancel um, members who will be outgoing, who supported Major V and continue to support rent control in Mountain View. I really thank you for your efforts and for you guys having a conscience to stick with us residents, and everybody who's supporting to have equality and maintain a diverse community in Mountain View. If it wasn't for Measure V, I probably would not be standing before you today. We are still in the legal battle with our landlord. And due to Major V, we've been able to get good legal representation that came free that even allowed many tenants, I would say about 70 tenants, in our building, to be able to fight with our property, land, landlord, to be able to even be heard. And it's really, really sad to know that many, some of you are not standing by us as a resident. We voted for Major V. Voting is something that is upheld in this country, but it's very sad when you vote, something passes, we pass it as residents, that council members can actually be there to undermine that voting, that we have done as citizens. So I just like to ask that the council members who voted against the foe who voted against for the demolition of this residential property to really revisit their conscience. I'm not sure if any of you have put yourself in the in the place of those people who are being kicked out. It's very important that you all become human and not just look at your job because there are people who are being impacted and being impacted in a diverse way. As I'm saying, if it was information via, I would not be standing here today. I probably been out of mountain view and probably out of the state. Thank you.

[00:27:15] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thank you very much.

[00:27:17] Unknown Speaker: Can you have a comment? Yeah. This is my comments right now are addressed, addressed specifically to the people who spoke publicly tonight, essentially thanking a couple of people for their vote and kind of admonishing the other people for their vote. I can only speak for myself when I say that was probably, that wasn't probably, that was the most agonizing vote that I had to take in the 4 years that I've been on council. And one of the most remarkable things about that particular discussion was the anxiety, angst, and concern of the people up here, for what they had to do that night. I don't disparage any of my colleagues for their vote on that particular night on that particular issue, because the outcome, almost irrespective of the vote would have been the same. And One of the things that I admire about, and I'll single out Chris Clark and Margaret Abakoga for their eloquence on that night, trying to do their level best to make sure that the residents of Rock Street got the best deal given that we couldn't really help them sufficiently. And I believe strongly that the message that you are sending to counsel has been heard. And when the goal setting process for next year happens and we have a new mayor and so forth, that the city itself is going to try to address that in a proactive way. So I have faith in my colleagues, and I want to say, that was agonizing. And it still haunts me today, that what happened and to hear the stories and so forth. So please understand that when you talk, when the members of the public talk to us either privately or publicly in front of your from the podium, we do hear you. And some votes are, some votes are just ridiculously difficult.

[00:29:19] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Our next item is item 7. one appointments to the environmental planning commission. We have no formal staff report, but I'll just to make sure people know what's going on. The council in the atrium council, atrium conference room earlier this evening, interviewed 10 candidates, applicants for the Environmental Planning Commission. We took a series of votes leading to a recommendation for 4 people to take seats on the planning commission, and so we aren't going to go through the detail of all who's voting for whom or not. They'll expect a motion to reflect the results of those votes. But I guess I should probably, I don't think we have any council questions because we talked about it extensively. Is there any public comment? There were members of the public president at these interviews. Saying no public comment. I'll welcome a motion for... Margaret.

[00:30:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, yes, we had a great group of candidates. It was a difficult decision, but we have reached decision, and so I'd like to make a motion to adopt a resolution appointing members to the environmental planning commission, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and to appoint Margaret Caprillis and Joy Xin, to unexpired terms on ending December 31st, 2021, and appoint Cami Lo and William Bill Cranston to terms from January 3rd, 2019 to December 31st, 2022. And I'm going to amend my first, yeah, the 1st one didn't have the starting date. So, oh, I guess it's an unexpired term. So sorry, let me just do that again. So appointing Margaret Caprillis and Joyce in to unexpired terms on the ending or ending December 31st, 2021 and appoint Camelo and William Bill Cranston to 2 terms starting January 3rd, 2019 to December 31st, 2022.

[00:31:29] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thanks. Promotion by council member Abikoga, seconded by Vice Mayor Matachek. Any further discussion? Let's vote. Passes unanimously. Now we move on to council staff committee reports. Anybody else want to report anything? And I have a few things. I attended the Waymo Forum on December 13th at the Adobe Building, packed house learning about Waymo's plans. in self-driving cars in Mountain View. On December 17th, I attended a subcommittee meeting of the Measure A Oversight Committee of the County. I will be continuing on that committee because I was not appointed by the city of Mountain View. I was appointed by supervisor submittian, as a housing advocate, and I will continue to be a housing advocate. So I don't even know when that expires, but just to clarify that I'm not, you see me on something, it's not because I'm representing the city of Mountain View. And let's see. Then we had, um, John and I, we're at a meeting of the North County Representatives to VTA, where we worked, clarified the bylaws for appointments to the VTA board and alternate, to make it clear that the term of appointment belongs to the city, not just to the individual, to clarify some problem, to overcome some problems that occurred when, I think it was Palo Alto, got, shorted in the past. And then finally, along with other council members, I attended the retirement party for Patty Kong, it is my understanding, we did not spend $5,000 on that. Zero. So it's our tradition not to spend city money on retirement parties. So, um, anybody else have something? Do we have a closed session announcement?

[00:33:41] City Attorney: Yes, we do have a closed session announcement. Item 10.1 this evening will be conference with real property negotiator. pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is 850 Lyong Drive, 8 p.m. number 153 dash 19 dash 002, our agency negotiator is Dennis Dren, the real property program administrator. The negotiating party is County Inn, LP under negotiation are priced in terms of payment for an acquisition of a temporary construction easement, and we'll be recessing to the atrium conference room, and I do not anticipate that we'll have an announcement this evening. Following the close session.

[00:34:20] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Thank you, so counsel and staff will adjourn to the atrium conference room.

[00:34:34] Mayor Lenny Siegel: Her announcements... HRC?

[00:34:38] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

• Next →