January 15, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Invisible, with liberty and justice problem.

[00:00:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And if the city clerk could announce the roll call?

[00:00:11] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next is the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of full text of ordinance and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Does anyone on council wish to pull an item? Does anyone from the audience wish to pull an item? Could you have the button to make the motions? Thank you. Okay, then, a motion is in order?

[00:00:58] Unknown Speaker: You want to make a note of this second?

[00:00:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. Um, I will make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

[00:01:04] Councilmember John McAlister: One second.

[00:01:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, second by Council member McAllister. We'll vote on this. And that passes unanimously. Thank you. Next item is oral communications from the public on non agendaized items. 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 three minute period during this section. State law prohibits counsel from acting on non agenda items. So, if you could come up to the microphone and be sure to fill out a card so we have your name for the minutes.

[00:01:55] Stephen Goldstein: Stephen Goldstein, 10 year resident. I just wanted to make sure that in the process of the city going forward, that regarding anything in the area of the RHC. They are what they call quasi judicial committee. In both case law and statutes, the term quasi judicial hearing and ministry of hearings are used interchangeably, and quasi judicial proceedings are distinguishable from legislative proceedings. Legislative actions are like passing regulations. However, if you're doing an appeal, that is a judicial process, and that means that it crosses the line. Qualified judicial proceedings are also different from ministerial proceedings because the judicial hearings are providing for decision makers to make a discretional decision, whereas ministerial ones are simply dictated by state law or otherwise. At the same time, uh, I mean, it deals with ministerial issues, decisions cannot be a rule, standard based on the decision maker itself. It can only be done by an external force. At the same time, quasi judicial hearings are subject to federal and state due process. The fair hearing requirement of the code of civil conduct, section 1094.5 and additional requirements applicable to particular hearings. This was done by the Matthews versus Eldridge case in 1976. At the same time, the California Constitution's due process, safeguards are in Article one, section 7, California due process includes a liberty interest, in freedom from arbitrary, adjudicated procedures. At the same time, thus, fairness of all administrative hearing procedures may be judged under California due process, irrespective of whether the hearing involves a deprivation of a property or a private or a liberty interest. Then code of civil procedure also, 1094.5 also creates a statutory right to a fair hearing, which must be conducted in front of an impartial tribunal. However, what we've had here is that at the same time, when an administrative agency conducts a adjudicated proceeding, the constitutional guarantee of due process, again, requires a fair tribunal under Morongo. But under Morongo, it also says that only when people have no financial interest in the outcome of the hearing, adjudicators are presumed to be impartial. In this case, though, I hate to say it, but the CSFRA did throw a little bit of a trap there because it allowed 2 members who have real estate interests in development interests to be part of the board. Unfortunately, that means that it's in violation of state in federal constitutions. Finally, it says that if anything can be demonstrated that in the record, that shows any arbitrary bias, which I believe can be demonstrated by the public record up to this point, they will be assumed as being biased, and thus their decisions aren't void. Thank you very much.

[00:04:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:05:05] Jackie Cash: For those of you new to this group who don't know who I am, my name is Jackie Cash, and I'm at 2310 Rock Street, which comes before you for approval for demolition and rebuilding on February 12th. I hope by now you've all had a chance to read a letter from my neighbor, Carrie Castillo, which really in kind of haunting detail portrays what we are all feeling right now, the potential disruption of our families and everything else. You'll be hearing from more of my neighbors over the next few weeks. Several of them are elderly or disabled. They're having a difficult time creating their letters and getting here to city council. So we're working on bringing them here so that you can all meet them face to face. Even people who've only been in my building a few months who are aware of the fact that it's going to be torn down, have decided that they don't want to move. They really like it there. And so they're hoping that we can stop this rebuilding from happening. The other thing I'd like to ask all of you to do is something that members of Cofacito have been doing, well, not quite what we've been doing, but we've been going door to door over the past couple of weeks and delivering flyers to people in buildings that are currently in the city proposal project or some that are very early in the proposal stage, handing them flyers, saying, you know, we're available if you have questions, we'll help you understand what we've gone through so far because we've been through it early. What we see when we go through these buildings is just people's day-to-day lives. We see kids playing. We see people doing their laundry. We see the plants on the windowsills. And I think if you go through one of these buildings from one of the lists, you'll see in a different way from what we're describing what the disruption is going to do. These are people who may have just been told a couple weeks ago that, you know, guess what you're facing somewhere down the road. But I think seeing it from there, seeing people whose lives have not yet, they haven't started to feel what we have about it, you'll see what the consequences really are of all these buildings. Even we were speaking to someone at one building who said that even their building order is starting to have 2nd thoughts about selling because there's so many properties for sale in Mountain View that are being subject to this kind of demolition and rebuilding. Look at the lives and see whether this is really the right way to go. Yeah, we need housing in Mountain View. absolutely no question about that. And ownership housing would be good as well. But getting rid of people who've lived here for like my 70 year old neighbors who've been in the building for, I don't even know how many years. This isn't the way to do it. And that's what we want you to keep in mind when you're making these decisions. The real lives that are going on every day, the people who are facing the possibility of not having any place to have those real lives in Mountain View. Thank you.

[00:08:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[00:08:15] Lori Robbins: Hi, happy New Year. Lori Robbins, I've been a resident for about 7 years, and I'm here tonight. There's a lot of issues that are going to be facing Mountain View the coming year, but none so potentially transformative as the proposed new transit center. So I'm up here tonight because I want to bring your attention to it earlier rather than later. In fact, I believe that engineering is scheduled to start next month. So I've looked at the plans and perspectives of the approved May 2017 master plan. And I would emphasize a need for a model, as I noticed that some of the plans do not even match the perspectives. In addition, the outreach to the public has been minimal, and the website is confusing. In the interest of transparency, a model in a public place will provide the input that the council has said they value, and it will also clearly define the project. I think this is the most one of the most vibrant historic and walkable streets in Mountain View. And with a large concrete plaza and no retail, The design is feeling more like a traffic center than the intended intended transit center. The pickup areas are located on only one side of the street, so cars may need to make dangerous U-turns. There is a sight line and safety issues between motorists and cyclists. The plan also proposes massive construction of 5 underground tunnels. As someone who has lived through the Boston big dig, what looks easy on plan, is very, very disruptive for many years. Perhaps some creative thinking can reduce the impact on the downtown. Lastly, parking The 2017 summary estimates that the usage of the transit center will double. That same report concludes that the current demand exceeds 200 vehicles each weekday, which get parked on the residential streets. The new plan provides only 100 new spots, not even supplying what we need right now. So I'm here tonight. It's before we spend more costly consulting time and taxpayer money. At least provide a model so that we are certain of what is being built before it's too late. Thank you.

[00:11:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:11:13] Bill Murphy: Good evening. I'm Bill Murphy, a 31 year resident, and recent reports from this scientific community say that civilization, if we can't step up our game reducing carbon pollution dramatically and immediately, is unlikely to stop the emerging climate crisis. This, in turn, causes many types of chaos, suppressing economies and quality of life in every country. If we think headwinds that hit the stock market in December were serious. Wait until global heating suppresses economic activity for decades and for centuries. It's so late in the game, we will long struggle merely to keep the emerging climate crisis at the middle part of the harm continuum. If we ever get out to stark, a stark place further out. It's regional collapse, or worst case, a very, very stark place called global collapse. We have been asleep, most in this country and around the world still are. Therefore, we must now be more than woke. We must be urgently woke. Science tells us that we really only have about till about 2030 to turn the knobs available to us. Seen this way, Mountain View sustainability is not yet robust enough to do our part. let alone make us the leaders we want to be. How do I know this? After this meeting, please look carefully at our city's greenhouse gas emissions numbers on page 311 of the recent citizens task force final report. If all recommendations go perfectly and have no schedule slippage, which is unlikely, we will have reduced our carbon footprint by 2030 by only 19%. That's because it's a phased curve. We must recognize that it's currently structured. Our goal is to leave 81% uncontrollable and unanswered by any concrete action plan before 2030. The biggest number on the page is the one we actually have no answer for. My specific request is this. In your upcoming February 28th goal setting exercise, please make sustainability goals the most robust in Mount View history. Then, in April, only approve ESAP 4 if it places us among the best cities in the world. And there are many weaken benchmarks who have found the political will to go 100% greenhouse gas free, not 19%. If need be, send it back with instructions to get more teeth. We probably have no choice but to include, for example, the insurance policy of a very broad temporary program of carbon offsets to bridge our daunting timeline gaps until the meat of our local actions take effect. We must also have very strong metrics and a strong budget to play them against. I invite viewers watching at home tonight. Please talk or write to our council, city manager, new chief operating officer and sustainability staff. As well. Please join the new advocacy group, Carbon Free Mountain View. Sorry about the stark tone of these remarks. I am actually very proud of everything we've done here in Mountain View, Silicon Valley Clean Energy. And I'm grateful as well. Thanks very much.

[00:14:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:14:10] Alex: Hi, Alex. I have a concern about infrastructure. On the corner of Shoreline and El Camino, where the dentist offices, I don't know how often you guys drive by, but there's like a pothole forming. And now that it's raining, I'm just wearing it'll get worse. I know I swerved, but not like sort of violently, but just kind of like drifted over to avoid them when I was turning right. And I felt like other people might do that too. and cause accidents. So I don't know what the public works is to get potholes filled, but in case they don't drive through that area that often. Just wanted to...

[00:14:48] Unknown Speaker: Are you on a bike or a car?

[00:14:50] Alex: I'm in a car, you know, car. My right tire has low air pressure right now, and I don't want to go inflate it, and I'm worried every time I drive through the pothole. But it's really there, I swear. And yeah, just turn out. Thank you.

[00:15:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: works heard you. Yes. It's been noted. Next place.

[00:15:13] Trey Borman: Hello and happy New Year. I'm Trey Borman from Santiago Villa Neighborhood Association, the neighborhood on the North Bay Shore, the most rapidly growing place in Mountain View. currently. Happy New Year, and congratulations for being here. I definitely appreciate that Lucas is now getting a small stipend for attending all these meetings. And has a vote. But congratulations. I am here just to remind you of the promises that were made to not only the North Bay Shore citizens, but the mobile home dwellers in Mountain View right now in the North Bay Shore. The only residents there have construction going on all roads around their homes in to go in and to go out. We've talked to one of your city planners about the situation to remove all street parking from our area. And we're hoping we can come to some kind of agreement that will work out. One of the ideas I floated was if Google's amenable to giving Santo Govilla residents parking in one of their garage. Maybe they could use that as part of their community benefit because that's a benefit that citizens actually want, not one that the council has decided we want, such as an art installation a couple miles away or something. Also, as the mobile home alliance president, we hope you installed very fair RHC members. We've had a hard time with that committee, not only just getting logical responses, but from them being very abrupt and mean to people that actually come before them. I would also recommend that since this is such a hot topic, and they meet in this exact room with the exact equipment, that maybe we start televising their meetings as well as yours. It's a very important issue. I don't see any reason not to do that. And I think you guys will be able to watch from home. and see what is actually happening at these meetings because I think it's kind of, I've only seen a couple of you actually attend one. And then the last thing for the candidates that came in, we had a candidates forum around mobile home issues this year, we will again, for everybody who ever runs again in Mountain View. The candidates made promises to help agendize mobile home issues this year, and we hope we can hold you to your word. And it's been a five-year struggle, 2 years of my time coming to many meetings, and we've seen 0 progress on any productions for mobile home dwellers. So I hope you will 2019 will be the year that we actually make something happen and protect the seniors, the vets, the handicap that are a great majority in our mobile home parks. Thank you.

[00:17:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak during this time? Okay, seeing none will close this portion of the meeting. And next is item 7.one. which is acceptance of the consent of the owners of the Shoreline Regional Park Community Revenue Bonds, 2018 series A and B to certain amendments to the indenture of trust, and direction to staff to take related actions. And presenting tonight, and welcome to Mountain View and to your 1st council meeting, is our new finance and administrative services director, Jesse Takahashi. Welcome.

[00:18:37] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Thank you very much, mayor, and honorable council members. And very, just wanted to say before I get started, I am very pleased to be here at the city of Mountain View. And I look forward to being part of the entire team and engaging all the wonderful and great things that are being done here in the city. So the item before you tonight is a follow-up item related to the issuance of the 2018 Shoreline Community Revenue Bonds and proposed amendments to the trust indenture that council approved in November of 2018. We also have in the audience with us tonight, Stacy Hansen, who's representing our bond council firm of Jones Hall, who assisted in the issuance of these bonds and is available for any questions that council may have. Just to provide a little bit of background for those not familiar with this issue, the shoreline community was created in 1969 to allow for development and operation of a regional park, utilizing both public authority and public private interests. The vision on this community was to fund park infrastructure and improvements, and with debt, that could be repaid through property tax financing. And over the years, a number of revenue bonds were issued under a Master Truss indenture, beginning in 1992, in which funded a variety of infrastructure improvements. More recently, in June of 2018, Council discussed a potential new bond issuance to provide for additional improvements to the community. And in November of 2018, council authorized the bond issuance. Each new bond issue requires a supplemental indenture, and for the 2018 revenue bonds, The 6th supplemental venture was approved, and included in this resolution were a number of amendments to the indenture, as well, as the process to approve those amendments. It should be noted that the amendments can be only made with the consent of a majority of the bond owners. And so that is required for this to be completed. This was obtained effectively through the issuance of the 2018 bonds on December of 19, just last month, since the principal amount of debt issued was larger than the amount that was outstanding on the most recent issue of 2011, which was the only other outstanding debt related to the shoreline community. In the previously approved resolution, there were essentially 4 steps that were required for approval. And as you can see up here, the first two have already been completed, that being misending notices of proposed amendments to the previous 2011 bondholders. And again, as I mentioned, consent of the 2018 bondholders were effectively obtained through the bond issuance and the 6th supplemental indenture. Because these bondholders essentially were the majority of bondholders under the indenture. So basically that brings us to tonight. which we're at step three. And so the provision that was where we are in that process is within 60 days, that the board, which you're acting capacity tonight, would need to accept or adopt the resolution that accepts these bondholders consent, which effectively already happened. And then the last step, then, is to send notice to the bondholders, and then to post to the electronic municipal market access website, otherwise known as Emma. So accepting the consent is required by the indenture and will complete the amendment process. In addition, it will also help reduce the cost of issuance of any future debt issues that the shoreline community may take on in the future. So that concludes my presentation, and staff is happy to take any question that you may have.

[00:22:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Seeing none. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to comment on this topic? Saying none? We'll bring it back to council for deliberation in action.

[00:23:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I will move, um, the staff recommendation, which includes that acting as the Shoreline regional park community board of directors, that we adopt a resolution accepting the consent of the owners of the 2018 Shoreline Regional Park Community Revenue Bonds, to the adoption of certain amendments, to the indenture of trust, and authorizing and directing related official actions to be read entitled only for the Reading Way, Detachment One, the council report.

[00:23:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Here's a motion by Council member Clark and a second by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. So we're ready to vote on this. And that is unanimous. So, thank you very much. Wel.

[00:24:03] Unknown Speaker: You're starting slow. It's always this easy, Jesse.

[00:24:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Then onto item 8.1, which is the appointments to the rental housing committee, and I believe our city clerk just has a very brief presentation for us.

[00:24:19] City Clerk: Just a very brief background. The rental housing committee consists of five members and one alternate in November and December of 2018. The clerk's office conducted a recruitment process for two current vacancies, one member and one alternate to the rental housing committee. These terms will expire April 17th, 2019. In addition, the term of a third member will expire in April 17th, 2019, and the remaining three seats on the committee expire April of 2021. The council interviewed seven applicants in a study session this evening, and considered appointments to fill the two current vacancies. The member in the alternate, for the unexpired terms to April 17, 2019, as well as for successive four year terms, April 18, 2019, to April 17, 2023. I think, if this works properly, I can get the language into the system, as you considered it this evening, so let's see if I can make that work for you here, so that you can see the suggested action of what you consider this evening, is that coming up? Okay. So that takes into consideration your recommendations, um, following the interviews this evening.

[00:25:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. So, are there any cancel questions? I'm assuming not. So we just talked about this. Is there any member of the public who would wish to speak on this topic? Okay, seeing none. What? Oh, sorry.

[00:25:56] B. Johnson: Hi, B. Johnson from Santiagoville and Neighborhood Association. Um, I just want to uh, kind of express my own feeling about the rental housing committee, and I think I'm speaking from most of the seniors in our parks. Uh, I have extremely low expectations, um, of what is going to happen with the new members and I hope you will prove me wrong. Uh, but right now, it seems um, rather ironic, that the lawsuit that uh, 2 of our, um, 2 of our, uh, residents, um, decided that the rental housing committee was correct in, uh, defining their, uh, attorney's advice that mobile homes are covered by, um, CSFR, right? And not only is that ironic, but now our landlord, Mr. Vidovic, is not his attorney is now working with the rental housing committee, basically against us. So we have you to thank for that. And I'm not going to be mean about it or anything. I just wanted you to appreciate the irony that not only has nothing been done. for mobile home residents, but you've pretty much worked or the previous council has worked against us. Thank you.

[00:27:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this?

[00:27:32] Heather Phipps: My name is Heather Phipps, and I'm resident here in Mountain View, and I just want lift it up. I just want to express my concern as well about the RHC and deliberations you all had while you reviewed the applicants before you. There's very little representation on the RHC for people who live in the mobile home parks. There was an applicant who would have provided a voice for those residents. And it seems, you know, from your deliberations that you vote, you're not going to vote for that person to be on the RHC. And I disagree with that decision. I also just want to say that I have low expectations about RHC as well. Um, you know, given the past and given that there's now, again, applicants that are being, um, put on the HC, uh, you know, because the vote you're about to take, um, that will not really uh, create fair outcomes, uh, particular for tenants, um, in Mountain View. And the other thing I would like to 2nd is that those RHC meetings be televised so that they can be live streamed, I think, in this day and age, that's, you know, something that we could do here, especially in Mountain View. So thank you very much.

[00:28:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:28:47] Public Speaker: glad somebody else agrees with the live streaming of this. I think, you know, for if you want to be fair and transparent, a picture said tells a 1000 words. And if you could look at the faces when some of people go in front of Vanessa Honey, when she was the head and the way she treated the citizens of Mountain View, I think you would feel differently about having her still even continue her position. It's just disrespectful to the citizens of Mountain View. Televisation. If you televise it, it's on there. I think it'll make people behave better. It'll cut that behavior down. People won't belittle residents when they come in front of them. come in front of this committee. I think it'll solve a lot of problems. I'm all for it. Um, I'm also agree with B that the city, instead of helping mobile home residents is actively worked against us. You're letting the attorney, that we came in front of you. We came in front of you to complain about predatory practices of our landlord. And now the city has his attorney fighting against us. I don't know. I mean, it's like we came in front of you and you just stabbed us in the back. I don't really understand the situation or why you would allow that to happen. I understand you don't want to spend the money to defend the case, that you're probably not going to win. But it's in appeals now. There are easier solutions than going to court and fighting this over and over again. There's fair and just solutions to I would love to see this go in front of the new rental housing committee to make a decision. I think without Tom Means they're bulldozing his opinion over everybody. It might change things. People might be able to speak up and not have him just monopolize the whole conversation, which is what happened over and over and over again. So the television of it. I was hoping that you guys, I think there's supposed to be somebody neutral on the RHG is the way it's the law is written. It's been decided that mobile homes aren't covered. So there's somebody there, that's a homeowner, that's a renter, that has nothing to do with it as far as you guys have laid the law, and they're completely neutral, and nobody on the RHC steps up to learn about the mobile home issues at all. You have a perfect candidate right there, and to not select them is at least the alternate is another stab in the back for the community that's been a little abused by the city council. NRAC. Thank you.

[00:31:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's what McAllister has questions.

[00:31:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I have a counsel for our legal counsel. Many a couple of speakers have inferred that the city council was defending this action about the mobile home parks, but is, I thought that was, we are out of it, and it's all RHC directed, and we have no direct influence on that?

[00:31:36] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The case is still pending because it's on appeal, and both the city council and the, well, both the city of Mountain View and the Rental Housing Committee are named as parties in that. So it's up on appeal and it's in the mediation program.

[00:31:47] Public Speaker: And if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to have some more information based on what you were talking about. The lawyer that presented at the initial case is John Vitovic's lawyer, who has 2 mobile home parks. But would you mind I'm going to give you my phone number and we can talk offline because this is different than what I'm hearing is happening. So I want to, I would like to hear more and I can update the council.

[00:32:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. But 1st of all, you said, RHC, and the council, then you said RHC in the city of Mountain View. So could you make a distinction between, is there a distinction?

[00:32:21] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, that's one of the great mysteries of the CSFRA that the rental housing committee is an integral part of the city government, but it is completely independent of the city council. And if memory serves me correctly in that particular lawsuit. The rental housing committee is named as a defendant. And so is the city of Mountain View. And when it comes to the city of Mountain View, you are the policymakers, for the city of Mountain View. So they're both parties. But the rental housing committee is they're paying for the defense of that litigation.

[00:32:55] Councilmember John McAlister: But the city council isn't making any decisions that have been had made any decisions or any involvement based on these legal cases.

[00:33:04] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Correct.

[00:33:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I just want that to be clear that we're getting accused of being something, but we have no participation in it, and legally, we cannot participate, if that's correct.

[00:33:15] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, the city is named as a defendant. But so the city, when the city is named as a defendant, then it's the, that does involve the city council to the extent that the city is the defendant. But the litigation is really being paid for. It's being paid for by the rental housing committee.

[00:33:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:33:39] Public Speaker: It was being paid for by John Vidovic's lawyer. I think the rental housing committee's lawyer even showed up. They're making a decision, but their own lawyers are not even arguing in favor of it. They had to bring an outside attorney paid for by one of the predatory landlords that was the initial complaint was about. And that's why I would like to talk to you offline.

[00:34:02] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The rental housing committee hired a law firm to represent the city's interests and the rental housing committee's interest, and there was a dispositive motion, which has been appealed. And so the city's interest is really, the decision has been made and is more in a monitoring position of what's happening on the appeal. And my understanding is that the case is now in a mediation posture. But I do want to follow up with you, and if you can set up a time to talk.

[00:34:29] Public Speaker: Sure, yeah, I just kind of, I'm kind of curious if it's legal to let the outside lawyers come in and argue your case when it was the rental housing committee's decision, but then the lawyer from the person that we're complaining about is now representing them.

[00:34:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This really is not an appropriate venue to talk about legal actions. So if you 2 can connect offline, that'd be great. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:34:57] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, Mountain View. I just wanted to note that if you do start televising the RSC meetings, Julian might actually be able to know what happened enough to be able to answer questions about the role of the RSC, or any decisions that they've made, neither of which he touched on in any significant fashion in his interview. Thanks.

[00:35:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:35:21] Public Speaker: I just wanted to say that I was personally one of the people that was abused during a RHC meeting because I was actually told to leave the podium during open communications. And I was really, uh, blown out of my mind. It was done specifically by Vanessa Honey. And it wasn't for the fact that I think someone finally turned around and said, you know, she probably got some message on one of your screens saying, you know what you did was completely inappropriate. She probably would not have pulled me back in. But the fact was she did actually throw me off the podium. And if I had not done voluntarily. I'm certain I would have been done by force. And so I definitely was abused by Vanessa Honey personally. during a RHC meeting. It can be actually observed in the archives in the audio. I will be very happy to follow up regarding that with anybody. I also was the person that gave you the copies of the League of California City's report regarding quasi-judicial hearing processes that was on your in your seats earlier this evening. I left my name and my phone number on it. I'd be very happy to have some discussions about it. To me, the real ugly mess about that is that that particular one document was written for the city attorneys of the state of California. It was done in 2013, during a legal conference in Sacramento, and I'm just surprised that it seems like the city attorney did not take any of the advice regarding the information that was provided. All I'm saying is, please peruse it. And you might find that, indeed, that there are a lot of rules and laws that have been made in the Supreme Court of California, that in fact, unfortunately, in a sense, overrides the many aspects of the CSFRA. Unfortunately, that's the way the, the, the, the current laws are. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[00:37:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else? Okay, then, um, Lisa is the, is it ready to go?

[00:37:45] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You should see it in the suggested action. Do you not see it there? I was hoping to make I was hoping to make it easier, but I don't know if I made it more complicated. We had to switch to the other tab.

[00:37:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, do we need to read the whole thing, Jenny?

[00:38:06] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: No, you've read the title of the resolution. Okay. And you might just want to clarify the names of the individuals and the dates of their terms. And I can do that if you want.

[00:38:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I can.

[00:38:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So it's moved by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga, seconded by Council member McAllister. And you were going to read it, right?

[00:38:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sorry. I'm ahead of you there. So I'll just go ahead and read the entirety after deliberation we did earlier today at our study session. I'd like to make a motion to adopt a resolution of the city of Mountain View to be read entitled only for the reading waived, that Julian Pardo Denzella is appointed as a member of the rental housing committee to a four-year term beginning April 18, 2019, and expiring April 17, 2023, and that Susan Allmond is appointed as a member of the rental housing committee for the unexpired term January 15, 2019, to April 17, 2019, and then to a four-year term expiring April 17, And that Nicole Haynes Livesay is appointed as an alternate to the rental housing committee for the unexpired term January 15, 2019, to April 17, 2019, into a four-year term expiring April 17, 2023.

[00:39:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we ready to vote? Oh, sorry. Any discussion? Thanks, John. Now we're ready to vote. And that vote is unanimous. Thank you. So the next item, new business is... I'm sorry, it's a study session. Um, item 9.1. Vision 0 policy, and our presenters are transportation manager, Rio Lo. and Assistant Public Works director, Don Cameron.

[00:40:31] Transportation Manager Rio Lo: Hello, today we're going to be introducing the Vision Zero concept and presenting preliminary research and also considering a draft vision Zero policy for Mountain View. Vision 0 was identified as a council priority, and it also helps to achieve the goals of our general plan. What Vision 0 is, is an integrated set of policies, plans, programs and approaches based on the philosophy that fatal collisions are unacceptable and preventable. It was pioneered successfully in Sweden in the late 1990s and there are now 34 cities within the United States that are part of the Vision 0 network, including San Jose and Fremont. to qualify to be a member of the Vision 0 network. Cities have to implement a number of best practices and generally the best practice strategies include 6 items. A clear goal with a timeline, public commitment by elected officials, an action plan, engagement of multiple departments, and the community, and ongoing evaluation. In addition to the organization or collaboration. A vision 0 action plan generally is a multi-pronged strategy of a set of multi-pronged strategies to improve traffic safety. And these strategies, they used to be known as the 3 E's and we've had some inflation since then. So now there are 7 E's, and they include engineering, enforcement, encouragement, engagement, equity, and evaluation. In the United States, vision 0 efforts have generally been led by large cities, which tend to be more prone to kind of bureaucratic problems related to bureaucratic silos. And so a lot of vision 0 efforts in other places have focused on communications, getting departments to talk to each other and that sort of thing. As a smaller city, Mountain View has less of those concerns. And so we may be able to focus our attention on other strategies that are more effective in this context. In our report, we spend quite a bit of time addressing some of our preliminary analysis, in order to understand what the issues are here, to inform the policy, and to guide actions related to where collisions are happening, who's involved, and what kinds of behaviors are involved in these fatal collisions. And this data can help us later as we tailor the action plan to the local context. So our analysis addresses collisions between the beginning of 2006 and the end of 2016, which is the most recent available data within the statewide traffic collisions reporting system. And so typically there's about an 18 month lag between when a collision happens and when it makes it into that system. And the reason is because it takes some time to complete the police investigations, compile the data locally, submit it to the statewide system and clean it up and geocoded and all of that. So based on this data, for that period from 2016, 6 to 2016, the Mountain View had a fatality rate of 4.4 fatalities per 100,000 population, and this is including freeway collisions, which is quite a bit lower than the national average, you can see on the right hand side, 11.6, but is higher than some of our neighboring cities. The rate of 4.4 fatalities per 100,000 population is equivalent to 3.3 fatalities per year because we are a city that has a population of less than 100,000. So if you look at the 3 year average annual rates in this diagram, it seems like there could be an upward, a slight upward trend, but statistically, we can't really make an assertion in terms of any trend because the sample size is small. And so to get a better understanding of trends, we and through our larger sample size, and also to capture situations which could have turned out worse. We also analyze collisions that resulted in severe injury. And in vision 0 speak, fatalities plus severe injuries are referred to as KSIs killed and severely injured. In Mountain View, between 2006 and 2016, there were 14.3 KSI collisions per year, and some of those involve more than one person. So there were 17.8 actual KSIs, the people involved per year. And so with this additional data, looking at these three-year averages, it's very difficult to see any discernible trend over time. What we did see in our analysis, in terms of patterns was who is involved in the collisions. And so while pedestrians, in this diagrams, the pedestrians are in green, while pedestrians constituted and bikers are there in blue, constituted about 10% of trips. They represented 46% of KSIs. The disparity is even more extreme when you consider fatalities. Pedestrians represent 3% of trips, but 50% of fatalities in this period. Men were also disproportionately affected among traffic fatalities. So in Mountain View, about 53% of the population is male, and yet 86%, 83%, sorry, of fatalities involved, boys or men. In particular, men between the age of 15 and 30, they represent 23% of our population, but 34% of fatalities, men over the age of 60, represent 13% of the population, but 41% of traffic fatalities. From the police reports and the statewide information, we can glean some information on contributing factors. Oh, oops, sorry. For fatal collisions, the 2 top primary collision factors were DUIs and also failure to yield to pedestrians who were in the crosswalk, and both of those are 14%. This was followed by unsafe speed at 11% and 7 other factors, which constituted 30 or 9% of collisions, with known, and the others, we don't know what the primary collision factors are. For KSI collisions, DUIs, again, the top primary collision factor at 12%, followed by crossing the divider or failing to yield in turns at 11% each, and then pedestrians failing to yield outside of the crosswalk at 10%. And then there were 10 other factors that constituted 30% of KSIs. So what we can see from this is that vision 0 efforts will need to address various parties and also various types of behaviors. One thing that I should note is that distracted driving is not coded in, you know, uniformly coded in police collision reports, but we understand from other research that it is an important action, important issue, and can contribute to many collisions as well. The final part of our analysis was identification of a high injury network. And this is something that most of vision zero cities do to help focus efforts geographically. And what we found is that KSIs are not happening everywhere. They not evenly distributed throughout the city. Rather, 50% of KSI collisions in Mountain View occurred on just 6 of our corridors, El Camina Real, Central Expressway, Ringstorff Avenue, Middlefield Road, and California Street. Some of these corridors are rather large. They're longer than one mile. So we also analyzed smaller segments and other streets on a per mile basis. And so on this slide, you can see in the yellow are the high injury network, corridors shown in yellow, and then the dash blue line shows the high injury segments of these corridors as well as other additional shorter streets that come into the high injury network when we analyze it on a per mile basis. And these additional streets include El Monty Avenue, Old Middlefield Way, Ellis Street, and San Antonio Road. So all of this information lays the groundwork for policy and also helps us to focus our efforts when it's time to develop the Vision 0 action plan down the track. Tonight, we're going to focus on developing the Vision 0 policy, which is the 1st 2 items in the best practice list. And staff proposes that the policy encompasses principles, goals, standards, and principles. So draft principles include 4 items. Firstly, the loss of life from traffic collisions is unacceptable and often preventable. And I should note that the draft policy that's included in your package, in attachment, one inadvertently admitted the word often, but staff proposed that that actually be part of the language. Secondly, uh, traffic system, transportation system should be designed to protect human life, um, the, thirdly, the system should be designed to anticipate human error so that the consequence of error is not death or severe injury. And fourthly, the safe behavior, human behavior, education, and enforcement are also essential. In terms of draft goals, We have a couple of draft goals to eliminate fatal collisions by 2030, to reduce KSI collisions by 50% by 2030, and then we've also added an interim goal to decrease the 3 year average KSIs by 15% every 3 years. And then finally, in terms of standards and practices, these include continuous improvement, evaluation and tracking, an action plan that addresses a 7 E's, prioritizing collaboration and data driven strategies, supporting regional, state and federal efforts and collaborating between departments. After finalizing a vision 0 policy, the next steps for the city would be to cover the other best practices. of action planning, engagement, and implementation. So these actions would build upon considerable existing effort that the city is doing, including capital investment in pedestrian and bike facilities, traffic enforcement and regional coordination, coordination between public works and police on fatal collisions, and safe routes to school and pedestrian and bike safety education. Based on our preliminary research, some additional near term action items could also include building on our existing work for the action plan, education enforcement that specifically targets impaired driving, crosswalk yielding, and speed, and then providing vision 0 input to the comprehensive modal plan, and prioritizing CIPs along the high injury network, which is something that staff have already started working on, and then also updating the pedestrian master plan, specifically including a prioritized list and phasing plan. So tonight, representing our initial work, and we'd like to also do some community engagement to refine the policy before we bring it back to you for policy adoption. And then after that, we would develop a comprehensive action, a comprehensive action plan and then do ongoing implementation of those actions. We have a couple of questions that we'd like to ask. First of all, does the council support the goals for eliminating fatal collisions and reducing KSI collisions as proposed in the draft Vision 0 policy? And then are there additional, is there additional research or are there any revisions that you would like for the draft Vision 0 policy? And I welcome your clarifying questions. Thank you.

[00:53:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Since this is a study session, we'll go now to public comment and then we'll come back to council questions and deliberate and input. So is there anyone from the audience who wishes to speak on this topic? Just one? Perfect.

[00:53:30] Janet LaFleur: I'm Janet LaFleur, and I'm surprised I'm the only one here. Guess I didn't get the memo. I'm a Mountain View resident, and I live within a half mile of four of those high KSI streets, Frankstorf Shoreline. Middlefield and Central, and I ride my bike across them every day, so this really matters to me. What I'm coming here to say is that to be successful, we're going to have to have a lot of courage to really change the way we think about transportation and safety. We've spent the last 60 years building, or, in many cases, rebuilding, our streets, or city streets, so that they look more like freeways, made them with lanes wider. We've added extra lean lanes. The result was to try to move traffic through vehicle traffic, I should say, and that's actually significant because of bicycling and pedestrian walking, I should say. These are pedestrians. There are people. They walking. have been reduced in numbers because it's less convenient for them. We've make them go around. Sometimes 3 crossings just across one street, less comfortable and less safe. And ironically, these high speeds that make driving more efficient also make it more dangerous for people in the cars. That's why half the deaths are in cars. And why does this happen? Well, a couple of things.

[00:54:42] Public Speaker: First of all, the faster you drive, you get a tunnel vision effect, you start seeing less around and that's why pedestrian. It's why people walking or biking or vulnerable in particular. It also means a stopping distance gets severely discreased. If you're going 40 miles an hour, you see something in the road 100 feet ahead, and you try to stop, you're going to hit them at 38 miles an hour. And correct me if I'm wrong, but if you're going 20 miles an hour, you actually won't hit the object or the person in front of you because you have time to stop. So that's why I really want an emphasis on the engineering kind of things to bring the driver's speed down. And some of them don't have to be big. You don't have to totally redo the city. Like one example, and I want to thank Mountain View for changing the intersection of right at Shoreline. There were a lot of complaints from people because the drivers had to make what they call a free lift turn. They didn't have an arrow. They just kind of went and they were supposed to yield to people in the crosswalk. Or, in my case, me riding across and in the lane, and they weren't. And so they made the change, and I'm telling you, it made my life 100% better. It used to be about once a week, I'd have to kind of, like, point to the driver, like, stop, I'm coming through. I don't have to do that anymore. So it doesn't have to be a big change. And that's why Sweden was successful. They focused on the engineering and the evaluation that goes with it. And, um, Education enforcement sounds great, but it's like your mom telling you to wear a coat when it's cold. doesn't always work. And that's all I have time for today, but I really look forward to the progress this makes and just focusing on the engineering. Thank you.

[00:56:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else? I'll try again. Okay, uh, seeing no other folks who want to talk to us from the audience, we'll bring it to, um, the council for questions. Um, Council member McAllister.

[00:56:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have two questions. What is different from this vision zero, then what city of Council, what city of Mountain View's doing already?

[00:56:53] City Staff: I think the primary difference is making this formal commitment to the vision zero policy to these goals. As Rhea noted in her presentation, the city's already taking many of the actions that you would typically see a city with vision zero policies taking, our collaboration between our different departments, public works of police, already ongoing. We have a lot of capital improvement, program, investments planned towards bike and pedestrian safety, and there is quite a bit of other work that's happening. So part of this is to a more public acknowledgement of this work, but it's also an opportunity to take a more in depth look at what we're doing, and developing these action plans, to see if there's what more we can do, and new strategies that we can develop.

[00:57:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Would we be doing that, regardless of this vision zero?

[00:57:53] City Staff: I'd like to think so that, yes, we will.

[00:57:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And the second question is, this is one of those projects where we did the human rights evaluation. And initially, it says, Was there anything through the human rights analysis that the city of Mountain View is not already doing?

[00:58:19] City Staff: I think I need a little clarification of your question.

[00:58:22] City Staff: Yeah, I mean, the human rights analysis isn't really intended, and Audrey or Christina can shame in. It's not intended to do or not do. It's really just a framework in which to look at something. What are the implications of what we're discussing here within that framework of human rights. So we use this as one of the three pilots to test that concept. Really, it'll be up to the council to decide whether or not that's something they want to continue in the future. But it's not really about what we are or aren't doing relative division zero. It's more like disclosure of impacts, potentially impacts of the policy.

[00:59:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, no, well, I mean, I thought it did, because, you know, we're looking in that if, but again, so again, am I getting the sense that every, the, what everything the city's doing is pretty much covered under this human rights, human rights analysis. Uses formalizing it. Just sort of like vision zero. Is there anything that you're doing different because of your analysis? Your human rights analysis.

[00:59:31] City Staff: Not necessarily, as Rhea was indicating...

[00:59:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay that's... Okay, okay. Thank you.

[00:59:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Does anyone else have any questions? Council member Clark. Let's not questions. Oh, are there any other questions? before we move on. I just want to remind folks tonight, we're talking about the policy. So while I know we're probably all tempted to dive into the data, especially me, again, we're focused on the policy tonight. So, um, council member Clark.

[01:00:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'm supportive of the draft goals. I know, so one question that I I had and thought about was, you know, some cities, you know, also try and have a goal of eliminating, you know, the KSIs as well, but, um, I think I think it's understood that that is the overall goal or point of a vision 0 policy is to is to get to that. But I'm comfortable with, you know, in this case, I think it's really important that we set near term achievable goals in the next 5 to 10 years, and I think, you know, having, you know, trying to eliminate fatal collisions, you know, during that period and having the KSIs, which are, I think, more difficult to tackle is a, and then having the interim decreases of 15% every 3 years makes sense. So I'm, even though I struggle with that a little bit over the weekend, I'm sort of at peace with the draft goals there, but I'm open to what my colleagues have to say.

[01:01:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:01:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I did have a quick question regarding, I don't think it will make much of a difference in practice, but the inclusion of the word often among the principles. So if I understand correctly, in the standard language adopted by vision 0 cities, the word often is not included, is that true?

[01:01:28] City Staff: That is correct, in terms of the philosophy, the word often is not included, and several cities that refer to unacceptable and preventable do not use the word often. I will say that we had a little brainstorming session about, can we think of any kind of collision, where we couldn't figure out how to way to prevent it, and we do it. We were able to come up with certain factors that were completely beyond everybody's control. So it is, in the end, a policy decision for you to make. But in some respects, you know, what staff is saying is that we're not certain we can say they're totally 100% preventable.

[01:02:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I appreciate that. Just briefly, I agree with Council member Clark, and to respond to Council member McAllister's question, I think the value in adopting of vision 0 strategy or policy is to establish performance benchmarks and metrics against which we could evaluate progress in achieving the goal. So we might, sort of, on an ad hoc basis, implement CIPs that help achieve these goals anyway. But I think it helps to make those goals concrete in the same way that we're tackling climate change by having performance benchmarks on, you know, the degree to which we're reducing the greenhouse gas emissions over time. It doesn't, you know, in and of itself, it doesn't mean anything. The most important, I think, the aspect of this, I think, is the action plan, which we're not adopting right now. I assume at some point will have an action plan before us. But I think establishing the goal is important. My preference would be not to include the word often, just because other vision 0 cities don't include that word. I don't think it makes a practical difference either way, but just to be consistent with how other vision zeros are approaching this, that would be my preference.

[01:03:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice mayor Robbie Koga.

[01:03:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and thank you to staff for the staff report and your research. The data is very interesting. Um, I guess my my impressions, um, when I looked at the information was, um, I was actually quite happy to see that as a city, we're doing pretty well. Um, when, in comparison to the cities that maybe have a little bit less, um, the one difference that I think about is that, um, we're at the Mountain View is the densest city. And when I think of what that means, it means, to me, it means that we have more opportunity to interface the different modes compared to like a Los Altos, or Los Altos, I think. So I think that, you know, that's important to put that in context. But overall, I think you know, we are doing a lot. And if we want to highlight that by adopting this formal policy, I think that is a positive move. Um, in terms of the goals and, um, where we want to, um, focus our attention. I appreciate Janet's comments about, I think it was like infrastructure. But I noticed last summer, I was in Toronto, and my brother-in-law is a big bicycle activist up there, and he took us on a tour of Toronto up by bike. And what I noticed was as much, there's a lot of infrastructure that I think I would like to see us implement, you know, the separated bike lanes with the planters. What I really liked was the crosswalks that go diagonal through intersections. So there's definitely a lot. I think we could, I would love to see happen here in Mountain View. But what I really notice was that, um, there was much more awareness by the, like, the, the, the drivers, the, auto drivers of the cyclists and so forth. And that's what I feel like we're missing here. And I think it, you know, it might be just a product of Silicon Valley where we're just so busy. And when, you know, people are walking with their phones and not looking when they're crossing intersections, you know, as much as, like, I, you know, I have the kids at school and when I see, like, pick up and drop off. as much as it's, you know, the drivers are have to be aware. I see, you know, cyclists and sometimes the students just coming out of nowhere. So I guess that's where I would like to see some more emphasis on is, you know, how do we just get folks more aware, you know, if it means that we have to slow it down a bit, let's slow it down. But to be mindful of each other. And so that we have a more harmonious, if you want to say, interface. So, I hope that we could focus on that piece. Um, I think otherwise, um, yeah, I think these are good aspirations. I was surprised to see that DUIs are so high still. So, you know, I think there's definitely room for improvement to work on trying to educate folks on that piece. I know our police department does quite a bit, but looks like we have a lot more work to do. And then I would just say that I understand. I mean, they start, or I hope that we all understand these are aspirational goals. There's definitely this, you know, unavoidable. This uncontrollable piece to all of this. So, um, the 2030 or goal of eliminating fatal collisions, I think that's great to aspire to that. But, um, that's, you know, I think we all should be aware that, we should, we are aware that there's this other unknown, uncontrollable factor in all of this. So, um, so yeah, so otherwise, uh, thank you and I look forward to supporting this.

[01:08:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:08:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I wanted to thank staff as well for an engrossing report on some subjects that interest me. I was going to address the question of, is there additional research or any revisions desired for the draft vision 0 policy, especially additional research. The easy one is, and maybe you already have this planned, but, um, looking at what times of day, most injuries and fatalities occur, um, whether that's, I would imagine at night is what a lot of my, you know, people I talk to about biking and walking at night is when, particularly, um, there was, there were stats on people being run into in intersections, drivers ignoring people in intersections, when that happens. And also, or whether, particularly during commute hours, both work commute and school commute. Um, and also whether particular weather situations need to be looked at. And then my, actually, my major reaction is that I was, I was actually shocked at the number of pedestrians or the extent to which pedestrians are impacted. I had long known that biking safety could be improved, but I didn't know the, you know, the rate at which pedestrians were impacted. And that's something I'm really concerned about, and that I'd like further work done on. And one of the things I noticed was on your page 15 and 16 on high injury networks. The focus is on streets and street segments. But when I looked at that, at the map on page 15, one of the things that jumps out at me is that there are particular clusters, like pedestrian areas, both the downtown and what I think in the general plan are, like, village centers. anyway, places with a lot of retail and a lot of people walking around, that we would want people to feel comfortable walking around. And there's, like, really a cluster of incidents in those kinds of areas. And so that's another thing I hope we can focus on, not just streets and street segments, but also those pedestrian oriented areas where we really don't want to, we want to encourage, not discourage people milling around and being in public places. So, and then in particular, we had earlier this evening, a public speaker on the transit station, and some of the big changes that are coming up there. I think that, um, some of this interfaces with that in terms of, you know, a way of looking at that to make sure that it's, I forget how she phrased it, but she said it was, uh, you know, becoming a transit center rather than a pedestrian center in our downtown. And I'd really like to make sure that doesn't happen. You know, not just there, but also in other places where we're building, you know, higher density housing, but we want people to come out and be in public places and not feel trapped in their homes.

[01:11:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, Council member Kame.

[01:11:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Thank you to staff for the report. I'm encouraged that our commissions were heavily utilized in getting input on the draft that we see tonight and would further encourage that. really appreciate that you reached out to BPAC, Yak, and SAC. Um, and I will be supporting the Vision 0 policy. Um, I'm open to the discussion of the inclusion of often should my colleagues, um, like to see that included as well. Um, something that I'd like to touch on that, um, is, uh, looking at the different thoroughfares with the highest areas where collisions occur. And many of the different areas in our city are seeing precise plans or other items being implemented. I'd really love more information on how we're integrating, whether it's our expanded networks, our bike trail expansions, the developments, and how that's all working in and how maybe we'll be able to make quite a bit of progress. Um, should we adopt a Vision 0 policy, um, going forward. I think that there's a lot of opportunity to make it more bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Um, and, um, Yeah, I think we need to also focus on the pedestrian aspect, but I think that's something that was mentioned by someone giving public comment was also just kind of the speed in which vehicles go, but perhaps also looking at the timing with which, um, folks can cross the different intersections, whether it be by um, bicycle or on foot. I was trying to cross El Camino and had to run across and realize that 25 seconds, even though I'm able bodied, It's quite fast in the rain when people are quick trying to make that turn. So I would be interested in seeing a little bit more of that data as well. Thank you.

[01:13:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:13:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I support the goals, but I'm looking on page 4 and I guess I don't know what the council. Oh, wait. Council questions, it was table four, our page four. What's it in here? Okay, well, the other way it shows a comparison between our city and other cities. Just for my fellow old-time council members, I did not write one question here. So you guys are used to seeing a lot. I did not write one question. This was quite a commitment on somebody's part to write a lot of questions, and I phrase you for your persistence there, Durance. But my question is, look at San Jose. You know, you're doing these goals. So if we're gonna do it, do it. So it's goals, reduce 50 per ton. eliminate it. Just go to the chase, target year, ASAP. Why wait till 15 year reduction Earth? Let's get on board, get committed, and just do it. So I recommend that. We go to San Jose, and then therefore, then you can take out the interim goals because you're doing it ASAP. So, that's, well, I'd see. Hopefully we get some more council support to say. Just do it now. do it

[01:14:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, boy. So, um, if I may, I want to add a little context for San Jose, um, ASAP, when you actually read what they write, what they wrote was, 10 years is not long enough to do everything we need to do to eliminate fatalities. However, 10 years is too long. to take to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries. And that was the key reason they didn't set an actual year and just said ASAP because they know that they can't do it now, but they want to keep making progress. Maybe San Jose will follow Mountain View. And it will be the leaders. So, um, going through this, and listening to the questions, especially from council member McAllister, you know, it is good to see, um, so much of what we're already doing and that we'll continue to do sort of part of this. So it doesn't feel like this is a huge new, different approach we're taking. We're already doing a lot of this. I got to just share that my biggest concern about this is adopting something with a name that can be left to people's interpretation. So vision 0 policy varies by city. And what I would like us to do is make sure we let folks know that this is mountain views, vision 0 policy, and this is what's included. I wouldn't go so far as to say this is what's not included, but I want people to be very clear on what we're doing so that they're not, there's not a mismatch between expectations and what we're doing. And I know that's a hard thing to do because it requires a lot of education, but it does even say on the Vision 0 website that every city or every jurisdiction that adopts this needs to do what's right for their city because every city is different. So I appreciated that being on there, but I feel like it's kind of a hurdle for us to educate folks on what ours is. But again, I'm fully supportive of this. I was very pleased to see that our number of fatalities was lower than the US average, but as others have pointed out, it's too bad that we're not lower than all of our neighboring cities. But I'm sure we can get there. And I also appreciate the comment by Vice Mayor Obekoga about focusing, and I don't know how you do this, but it does seem like there's a lot of people who, whether they're walking, riding a bike or driving that are in their own little world, and not focused on anything else. And if people could be paying attention. I feel like, you know, the rules, you know, I'm a lot older than many folks here, you know, we had sayings, you know? Thanks, John. Uh, you know, you stop before you cross the street as opposed to just walk. You know, I find it, you know, when I'm driving, that I will try to anticipate if a pedestrian is going to turn left or right, and I'll just wait. Um, and then, of course, the people in back of me are annoyed, um, because I don't know what they're going to do, and I don't want to get halfway into the intersection and then have them crossed right in front of me. you know, across the street. So I feel like we're always, I know I'm always trying to guess what somebody's going to do, and it just makes for a pretty stressful situation, whether you're walking, biking or driving, frankly. So if we could somehow get folks to pay attention and lower the stress level. That would be wonderful. these You think I have the power to do that? Yeah. So, um, I would include other, um, if, and I don't know, I was trying to keep track of that, um, I definitely heard one person say they didn't want to include it. I heard a few say they'd be okay with it. I personally think I would include it. Um, and let's see, any other comments. I'm okay with the draft. as it is written of the policy, I guess, except for including the word other. Um, but I think it's great. We continue to get public input on this before. I'm sorry, often, often. Great to get more public input on this before it comes back to us, because again, I think that's part of the education process of what this is. so that people are aware and so they know what it is and what it isn't. Any other comments, council member McAllister?

[01:20:06] Councilmember John McAlister: On what was the mayor was saying? Do we reach out to the schools to get there and get them involved in this vision 0? Because that'd be a great way to start educating the kids or if we get some classes going, but I would like to get them be part partners in this.

[01:20:22] City Staff: One of the programs that we're preparing to relaunch is safe routes to school education encouragement, which would include not only working with school administration, faculty, and the community, but also working on educating the students on safe writing and walking habits and so on. So, yes, vision 0 and safe foods to school programs go very well hand in hand.

[01:20:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Do we reach out to PTAs?

[01:20:47] City Staff: Yes, yes.

[01:20:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, great.

[01:20:49] City Staff: We can do that. We would build that into our scope.

[01:20:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any other comments from council members? Any questions you have for us? Are we good?

[01:21:04] City Staff: It would be helpful to get a show of hands. I think the only question that's come up on the actual policy, which is really what you're providing direction on tonight, is whether or not to use the word often, and there were some mixed thoughts on that, so it would be helpful to get clarity on that. So when we bring it back, we have the final wording. Or you could also direct us to get more community input on that and bring it back to you. So, if we could just have a show of the hands of the folks who would like to include the word often.

[01:21:38] Unknown Speaker: Which is what staff recommended, right?

[01:21:41] City Staff: Yes.

[01:21:41] Unknown Speaker: Or what staff suggested?

[01:21:42] City Staff: Yes.

[01:21:43] Unknown Speaker: I always support staff. I'm just saying, I support staff. I'm voting that way.

[01:21:53] Unknown Speaker: Can you just read it in the full sentence?

[01:21:56] City Staff: So I believe it is, um, number one, loss of life from traffic collisions is unacceptable and often preventable. So it's the way it's worded on page 16 of the staff report, but it's not, that word was not included in the attachment, which is the actual draft policy, so we just want to be clear on which one you prefer.

[01:22:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Often. Looks like we have a majority.

[01:22:24] City Staff: Yeah, the staff recommendation.

[01:22:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. But, you know, if I think you're getting input from residents on all of this. So, if they have a different perspective, let us know. Okay, anything else on this one? If not, thank you very much. And we will move on to item 10, which is council staff committee reports. Does anyone have any Vice Mayor Abi Koga?

[01:22:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, so last week, uh, I attended the Silicon Valley Clean Energy, um, our monthly meeting, and, um, I was, uh, selected as chair of the board for this coming year. Um, and then immediately, uh, uh, we have been, um, I guess hit with the news of PG&E in their bankruptcy filing, and that, um, could potentially affect, um, our SVCE's operations. So we are monitoring the situation very closely. There's nothing at this time to report, but I will, I'm happy to provide, as we get updates, share that with all of you. I also attended the city's association of Santa Clara County. And thank you too, the mayor's support. I was elected onto the executive committee as a legislative action chair. And at that meeting, several of us were there. They had a presentation on the casa compact, the housing compact, um, that NTC has commissioned. There was quite a bit of discussion, um, questions. I don't know if at some point are we as a council may want to spend some time on what is being proposed. was quite a bit of concern raised by many of the city council members from our cities as well as the members of the public. There's quite quite a few folks who attended. So, yeah, there's something maybe we could consider looking over together as a council down the road. Thank you.

[01:24:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:24:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, on Thursday, I went to VTA, and one of the big items that VTA was discussing was the reduction of routes and coverage because of the financial difficulties that VTA is in. One particular route that may affect, well, 2 routes, 522, they're going to increase the frequency of it, but Route 22, between the hours of 1 and 4 o'clock in the morning, are going to be discontinued. So this is one of the roughs we had, one of our constituents call me, and I brought it up talking about how, for some people, that's the only way they can get from San Jose to Mountain View is taking the 22 if they're working late. So I've asked them to review that and see if there can be some way to have some other options. So, VTA initially came out with an 18, well, what they call it was an 83 or 82, 18 type coverage where the frequency was covering 18% of the valley, because of the financial difficulties. They reduced it to a 90 frequency and 10% coverage, a reduction, so that they can reduce the number of hours out there. And try to save some money. Also, VTA is in some very tough, well, all labor negotiations are tough, and it could be an interesting outcome of how it proceeds along the line. Just be if anybody asks about that, just have them come my way and I'll be good to answer questions.

[01:26:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:26:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Um, uh, I would like, with the considered the council, to refer an item to the new CPC. I think it's CPPC now. This is the 1st time I've participated in an interview process, but I've observed them over the years, and every mayor handles the selection process differently. And I'd like to just gauge the interest of the council in developing a policy to have an established procedure that every council would adhere to rather than have more of this ad hoc process that, you know, that we had been using. Do folks have any...

[01:27:08] Unknown Speaker: You're talking about the selection process. So, like, actual, like how you vote.

[01:27:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So like, um, you know, like we did, we had a different, like the APC interviews were different than here.

[01:27:19] Unknown Speaker: I don't mind sort of developing a policy. I mean, we can always sort of do our own thing at the meeting, but I think having some guidance there in terms of how we vote on things or how we approach the vote is acceptable to me.

[01:27:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was going to actually say that oftentimes it has to do with the number of applicants. And so because we don't know what we're gonna get, we have to, you know, make things up as we go sometimes. So we may have a panel of 3 interviewees at one time or not. And so my, I guess my concern would be if we set a policy. I would question how much flexibility we would have. And I think in light of, you know, how these go, we just have to sometimes go with what we get. So I'm fine if the CPPC would like to discuss this. It might be that we

[01:28:21] Unknown Speaker: No, we changed it. And we changed the name of it. Is that you in? It council procedures and policies committee. Yes. Yes.

[01:28:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So, um, so sorry, this is the 1st time I'm doing this, so do we have to decide here? Do we just take it up at the?

[01:28:40] City Staff: If 4 council members provide direction to refer to the committee, then that would be added to the committee's work plan? But if there is a majority support, it wouldn't be added. Although, technically, I think the subcommittees can take it up on their own, but it'd be helpful to know if there's council interest in doing it.

[01:29:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So is there are there four people who are interested in doing this?

[01:29:04] Unknown Speaker: I'd be fine doing it.

[01:29:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: One, two...

[01:29:07] Unknown Speaker: at least discussing it. I'm okay with it.

[01:29:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If you're willing to have a discussion about it. I think it would be helpful. And, you know, if you decide that, you know, it's not it's not worth setting some, necessarily in a policy, then just tell us that and I'll accept that.

[01:29:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, do we have four?

[01:29:29] Unknown Speaker: Sure. Okay, sorry. So I'm happy to support it if Majority wants to. I will say that I want to thank the mayor for the process that we had tonight. I thought that it was very clear. I appreciated that we had our questions first. We decided on the questions we were going to ask, including the short 2 minutes for candidates to introduce themselves. And then if council members had follow-up questions, you allowed that. I thought that that, you know, enabled it to be as fair and equitable as possible. So, um, you know, coming off of that experience, I feel comfortable going forward this year. But should, you know, people want to look into it, I'm fine with that as well.

[01:30:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, so let's see, is that it? Okay. So I had a couple of things. I attended the Cities Association of Santa Clara County selection committee meeting as Vice Mayor, Obikoga mentioned, as well as the City's Association of Santa Clara County board meeting, where our voice mayor was appointed to the executive board, which is great. It's good to have Mountain View representation on the executive board. And I personally think it would be great to have a discussion about the casa compact. There were definitely a lot of folks that had concern. And I'm not sure how we would do that here, but it looks like our city manager has to do. Make a suggestion on that.

[01:31:04] City Manager Dan Rich: My understanding is the city's association is going to be spending some time on the next month or 2 and to try to see if there's a consensus or a uniform statement or, excuse me, guiding principles or a position they can take. So I would recommend we wait and give that some time. I'm actually working with 2 other city managers to help kind of frame that in dialogue to give them something to react to. Generally, it'll happen, as a city's association will take it up. If they can't reach consensus, then they'll ask each city to individually adopt that position. So let's let that play out. If for some reason, there isn't a uniform cities association position, or we disagree with it, then we can take our own position, but I would suggest we not rush into our own until that's played out for a little while.

[01:31:53] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So, May, question on... Oh, was it my... I thought it was my understanding that when the initial vote was to move it on to the legislator from the select committee and the MTC that I know about four or five cities already wrote their letters against it, and that the MTC already voted to move it to the next level. So what would the effect of we would be writing to our legislators?

[01:32:19] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, so the reality is what MTC or A Bag do is, frankly, irrelevant. It's really primarily going to be up to the state legislature. And as most of you know, the compact is very vague and very limited on details. So there's a lot of devil in the detail that has to be debated and negotiated and whatnot. So the end result, yes, will be to try to influence the legislature and their decision making process. I believe A-Bag is scheduled to vote on it next week. This week, Thursday.

[01:32:54] Unknown Speaker: Chris, what are you voting on? To move it on to accept the adoption movement?

[01:32:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's the same vote that MTC took. So it's basically authorizing the chair to sign it, and what that actually means is up for is up for significant debate.

[01:33:08] Unknown Speaker: So do you have a position on it from the standpoint of the MT from City Association?

[01:33:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: It was a mixed bag. I mean, there's a lot of concerns with a lot of different elements. I mean, I think I think where everyone sort of falls is there's a lot of really good work that's been done and sort of suggestions in a framework and like menus of things, but there's also on that menu, there's a lot of really controversial things to. And so the folks who view the vote to, you know, move it to the next stage, the folks who think that that's an endorsement of everything that's in it, are really fired up, and I don't blame them. And then there's sort of the camp that's, you know, this is sort of thanking all the, it was sort of a blue rig commission. It was labor and developers and everyone in it was one of these things where there's a lot of sausage making at the end, everyone hates it. But that's me, a like tax reform. everyone has something they ate. But it really depends on your viewpoint. But anyway, just to get back to it, it's at the stage now where the technical and the steering committees have sort of done all their work and it's come to MDC and A-Bag to sort of accept the work or not. and what that means is, Okay, who knows? But then, but then the next stop. I mean, the legislature is actually already starting to

[01:34:29] Unknown Speaker: Okay, the MTC rep for the city voted no. So I'm curious where you've made a position yet. Has the city association... Recommended to tell you, they haven't given you any direct... I vote.

[01:34:42] Councilmember Chris Clark: They did not vote to tell us how we should vote.

[01:34:45] Unknown Speaker: How about his own council member?

[01:34:48] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Just a reminder that this is not an agenda item, and you really cannot be discussing the substance of it. The issue is whether or not you want to direct staff to take a position or come back with an agenda item, which you're welcome to do.

[01:35:02] City Manager Dan Rich: As I said, my recommendation is we work through the city's association initially. Yes, the legislature is starting to talk about it, but I can pretty much guarantee you it's gonna have a lot of twists and turns and it's not gonna happen in the next month. So.

[01:35:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so any other items under 10. And we have taken so much of this out of order. So, um, do you do a closed session report on the closed session we've had, but not the other one or how does this work?

[01:35:39] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, we've already made the clothes session announcement and... Yeah, we can just go, well, we had discussed whether or not we were going to make any sort of announcement after the closer show we already had, which was a security briefing. And so we've already made the announcement for the other closed session. So I don't anticipate that we'll have a further close session announcement this year or yeah, further close houses. further discussion of the closed session publicly this evening.

[01:36:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, We are adjourning this portion of the meeting to the next council meeting that will be held on Tuesday, January 22nd, 2019 at 5.30 PM in the Plaza Conference room, and we will reconvene in the Plaza Conference room for the 2nd close session item that we didn't get to yet. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →