March 19, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, call to order the study session. If the city clerk could announce attendance.

[00:00:08] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. And the topic of the study session tonight is the Mountain View Transit Center, Great Separation and Access Point, and the folks here with us tonight are Jim Lightbody, who is the project manager, and Don Cameron, who is the assistant public works director. And since this is a study session, will have the staff presentation. Then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we'll have the council ask questions and provide direction. So, all right. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:00:41] Assistant Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Good eating, Madam Mayor, members of the council. I also want to acknowledge, with us tonight, is Adam Denberg. He is with Kimley Horn and Associates, and he is the project manager for the consultant team. So if there's some additional questions that GMRI cannot handle, he'll be more than happy to step up and help answer some questions. Thank you. So we're here tonight to discuss with you the 15% design for the Great Separation and Access project for the Transit Center. This is one element at the transit center master plan, which was adopted by the city council in May 2017. The master plan was designed to identify future vision for the transit center and adjacent streets. In February 2018, uh, the council approved, uh, preceding with preliminary engineering and environmental assessment for what what's called element one from the Transit Center Master Plan. It is not unusual, when a master plan is adopted, that it's actually composed of several different projects, or, in this case, of elements that can proceed on different timelines in different contexts. So, as shown here, element one of the transit center master plan is primarily the infrastructure improvements necessary to handle the grade separation aspects of the project. And so you can see that line drawn around the element 1 boundaries, dealing with Central Expressway across the tracks, and that connection to Castro Street. There's also extended areas that go to Shoreline Boulevard in 85, which we'll touch on in a moment. The element 2 area that you see here on the graphic is the rest of the transit center. It involves what is currently parking lots for Caltrain parking, and the options that was looked at in the transitter master plan for joint development at that site. which could then mean building underground parking structure to accommodate all the parking and go ahead and putting in some kind of land use on those parking lots. It's reconfiguration of the bus and shuttle transfer area to make it much larger because the demand is so high in that area, as well as potential reconfiguration and redesign of Centennial Plaza. Most of this area is property owned by Caltrain, in order to proceed with element two, which would, again, be a separate project, it would start with a community-based land use planning effort, with extensive public outreach and involvement of Caltrain as a property owner. So, again, our focus tonight is on element one, but we wanted to provide the context of the overall transit or master plan of what would be involved with element 2, and that is a separate project. Thank you. With this, I am going to turn it over to Jim, who will talk about the great separation and access project.

[00:03:38] Project Manager Jim Lightbody: Thanks, thanks, Don. Yeah, I've got to walk through the key components of the project as we've developed them to date. As Don mentioned, this is looking at the access and circulation issues. And so we're currently in the preliminary engineering, an environmental analysis phase. We've started this last year, and it's expected to run to the end of 2019, which would include the final environmental document, and 35% design. We're currently at 15% design. I want to emphasize, well, we're going to show you some renderings of the project. Those are intended to be illustrative to illustrate the different components, but the major effort to date has been to define the locations and configuration of the key elements, the dimensions, width, and height, and so forth. The urban design components, landscaping, public art, and so forth. Those are components of the project that are envisioned, but would be developed as the project proceeds further into the design stage. Looking ahead after this phase, then we would anticipate starting final design, about a year from now or sooner, and that would take a couple of years, and then be able to move into construction following that. And that's, again, as noted, always depended on the measure B funding, to keep that schedule. Goals of the project. The big one is to try to improve the safety for peds and bikes and to reduce the vehicle delays that are associated with the current at grade, vehicle crossing on Castro, as well as at grade pedestrian crossings. And that's driven largely by the number of trains that are there today, and impacting those issues, as well as the fact that it could more than double in future years based on the plans that Caltrain has. In addition, the project is attempting to enhance access for bikes, pedestrians, shuttle buses, and more opportunities for pickup and drop off there, recognizing that it's already a very heavily traveled pedestrian bicycle crossing at Central Expressway, and to generally improve the walkability in the immediate area around the transit center. And then finally, to provide clarity as to where the Caltrain platforms would be located, how they would be integrated into this project, and to help Caltrain with future plans to improve and upgrade the platforms themselves. Just focusing on the Caltrain service growth, wanted to comment on the expected growth there. Today. There's in the peak periods, there's about 10 trains an hour, 5 in each direction. That results in the gates being down about 13 minutes in each hour, plus additional time for the signals to recycle. So there's a significant impact already today that I'm sure many of you experienced. But in the future, Caltrains is exploring a number of options, but quite possibly it could go up to as many as 12 trains an hour, each way or 24 trains overall, which would more than double the current impact. So you're talking about 30 to 40 minutes, that the travel across the tracks would be impacted by the gates and so forth. And that was really the driving factor behind pursuing this project. I wanted to just briefly touch on, then, the project components, we'll get into a little more detail on each of those, but they include kind of sequentially a development of a vehicle ramp that would extend up up Evelyn to Shoreline Boulevard to help divert traffic that would currently be on Castro and Evelyn, the construction of high quality, pedestrian bicycle undercrossings of Caltrain and Central Expressway, other related bicycle improvements that we can mention, as I mentioned, additional pickup and drop off curb space, and identify the provisions for the platforms that Caltrain would develop in the future. This overall picture. I probably seen this before, but it kind of shows the key components, but we'll drill down, look at each of them in a little bit more detail. The 1st is the proposed ramp, vehicle ramp, on Evelyn, this is currently an area west of Franklin that dead ends underneath Shoreline. So the project would develop a ramp that would extend up to shoreline. There would be a half signal, a shoreline, allowing vehicles to go from Evelyn north on shoreline and from shoreline south onto Evelyn. The ramp itself would include sidewalk on the south side, and wider shoulders that would allow bicycle usage. It also includes a the concept of a shared use path along the south side next to the police facility that would also continue then underneath Shoreline Boulevard itself, which is currently a movement that is used today. These are some renderings of the ramp and the general configuration. In terms of the phasing, then the shoreline would be the ramp would be the 1st element, following that, it would allow them for a minor reconfiguration of Castro and Evelyn allowing Evelyn traffic to flow onto, so the one side of Evelyn, you'd be able to continue onto the other side of Evelyn and over to Shoreline Boulevard. Because we're reducing the number of lanes there that are now crossing over the tracks. We'd also be able to widen out the curb and sidewalk area along the east side of Castro, which you can see there. Then the next element of the project would be to construct, and this is the largest element, or component of the project, would be to construct the undercrossings, which are illustrated here, but there are really 2 components of that. One is a, well, let me back up a second. First of all, we wanted to emphasize that when we looked at the design, we heard a lot from the community about what would be successful, to make this work, and incorporated a number of these design concepts and considerations into the design, including as much as possible, line of sight, from one end to the other, good lighting and security provisions, Open air, portions of this are open to the air, and there's some light provisions to let light into it. And we also, as I mentioned, have, we haven't gotten into the details of this, but we think there's room for possibly a couple of retail kiosks in the concourse area and obviously public art and other features that could be developed later. This illustrates the 1st element of the undercrossings, which is the entrance at Castro, and then on the other side of the tracks is an open air concourse and other stairs and ramps that would allow access to the northbound Caltrain platform and to the VTA light rail platform. This is a view that, looking from Castro to the north, here's a view looking from Moffatt to the south towards Castro. So you can see the portion that's open air and the stairs and ramps that would be associated. The 2nd element of the undercrossings would be 2 separate undercrossings under Central Expressway that would extend to both sides of Moffatt. And we've developed several options for the what we call vertical circulation, the stairs and ramps for the entrances at those two points, which I'll go through briefly. For the 100 moffins, Steerland side, there are three options. The first would be a fairly traditional switchback ramp that would meet ADA requirements, but could be also used by bicycles. But obviously, there'd also be a stairway. And these would lead directly into the existing configuration of the plaza area between the 100 Moffatt buildings, which included a bike path area as well as sidewalks. The 2nd option, and this was something we heard a lot in the community meetings, was to provide a more direct ramp for bicyclists that would also serve as ADA purposes, but this would allow then instead of the the current at grade configuration between the buildings, it would allow, it would have a direct ramp that would be available for bicyclists to enter into the continuing bike lanes on sterling. And then the 3rd option is kind of a hybrid of those 2 with a shorter direct ramp and a shorter switchback ramp combination. On the adobe building side, we looked at, also looked at three options, which are affected largely by the degree to which these options would use the existing parking lot at the adobe building, which, as I think we mentioned in the report, is not part of the historic site, where we're staying, all of these options stay away from the historic area of the building, but would allow different ways to use the parking lot. The first option is kind of the minimal ramp and stairway that would be able to be provided without touching the parking at all, would require a ramp that extends along central expressway some distance, and would be a switchback ramp, then plus stairs that would go directly up to Moffatt. The second option would take about half of the parking away to provide better, wider ramps, and some landscaping options, and other provisions to make it a little more attractive and flexible for users. And then the 3rd option would convert all of the parking into a plaza area and also allow for the ramp configuration to be expanded further with ramps and stairs. The trade-off, they, and I maybe just back up a 2nd on the 100 Moffatt, I think we're comfortable from what we've heard and looking at it, that we think the 2nd option with the direct ramp seems to be the right way to go. So we're suggesting that as the preferred option there. On the adobe building, it's a little more complicated, there's clearly some trade-offs between the minimal design option one, and the potential loss of parking, for the building, and in order to provide that. So we've been trying to explore and interested in your comments and feedback on that, in terms of the parking impacts, the possible modification or other uses of the adobe building that might make sense. And how it best how these options best integrate with the adjacent Willowgate neighborhood. Just to wrap up, then, there's a few other project components that I touched on, there's an proposed cycle track on the north side of Evelyn that would connect the Stevens Creek Trail into the transit center. We also have designed as, because we're modifying the configuration of Moffat as a result of the fact that it is only a T intersection with Central. We're able to add protected bike lanes, in part, on Moffat, as well as, in some cases, adding some additional areas for drop off and pick up on that side. And we've got new loading area for shuttles that's located along central expressway and would be accessible from the new undercrossing and concourse area. Just to briefly touch on the construction stages, as I mentioned, would start with the construction of the ramp, which might take about a year, short phase to reconfigure Castro and close the crossing to vehicles. We would probably have to maintain pedestrian and bicycle at grade crossings for an interim period, well, the pedestrian undercrossings are constructed, and that would occur. The final phase in the project, as we've envisioned it, would include the Caltrain platforms, which we're trying to work with Caltrain to define where the footprint would be for those. But the actual schedule for the platforms is really going to be determined by Caltrain, and they're still, you know, working on trying to figure out some of the components of what they need in the way of the size and length of the platforms and so forth. And this graphic just kind of illustrates it, illustrates those phases. And what I want to emphasize here is that we've tried in the construction, it's tended to be somewhat isolated. The ramp would be just, you know, the area west of Franklin. The Castro piece would be a short phase, and then most of the rest of the work would be under working underneath the railroad and underneath Central Expressway. The impact would be, you know, some temporary closures of service or shifting of service for Caltrain, and some reconfiguration of Central Expressway, and phases to allow the work to proceed, but that, all of the construction details are still yet to be determined. And with that, just the next steps, once we're, after tonight, we hope to be able to move forward with the remainder of the 35% design work, which will provide more details about the components that we talked about, and to continue to finalize the environmental clearance. After that, we would, and we're currently working in the city's currently working on getting funding through the measure, B program to begin the final design work, which would start hopefully in about a year from now.

[00:19:06] Public Works Staff: Thank you, Jim. Next slide. Oh, sorry. So the questions we have for you tonight deal with each of the project components and what we're at in terms of this 15% design phase, starting with, does the council support the proposed design concept for the ramp from West Evelyn Avenue to Shoreline Boulevard, noting that you are only seeing one design option. We looked at various things. We worked very closely with police department in terms of how that may affect their access in and out of their parking lot. And in the end, concluded with them that this was really the best design and why it is we're showing it to you tonight. The 2nd question has to do with the preferred option for the for the 100 Moffatt corner, as noted here. We're asking if you concur with option two, the Sterling Road ramp, since that was the one that we generally heard support from stakeholders, the community, and really supports the bicycle cord or that's been planned from the transit center all the way up into North Bay Shore. We also are asking for council direction on the preferred design option for the Adobe Building undercrossing entrance. You know, if you ask us in public works from a purely pedestrian circulation, we would say option three, because it gives us the widest ramps, it gives us the most access points, it really creates a much more welcoming open entrance to the undercrossing. However, that also takes away the parking of the Adobe Building, option 2 to a lesser extent, which can affect Adobe Building operations and how it's used for meetings and events, which is another, you know, main another part of what the city services are that are provided. Therefore, we have not actually recommended an option and would appreciate direction from the council about which option we should be pursuing. And fourth, does the council have any additional input for the design of the project improvements? And with that, we're ready to take questions. Thank you.

[00:21:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So at this point, we'll open it up for public input. So if you want to share your thoughts on this topic, please be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk either before or after you speak. And, um, you'll have 2 minutes. So, if you could come up to the microphone.

[00:21:44] Erin Grossman: Good evening. I was expecting three minutes. We'll have to talk fast. I'm Erin Grossman. I'm speaking on behalf of the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. And this is the summarized letter, the formal letter we sent out yesterday. Under the current plan, busy Evelyn Avenue will completely separate the transit center from downtown and require all walking or biking train passengers to cross at a few inconvenient crosswalks or to jaywalk. It's unsafe. It's poor urban design. Council member Hicks, and others have suggested a better solution that we endorse. Create a new pedestrian plaza at the north end of Castro Street. Yeah, that can we have the image that shows the old Planton? and make it the south end of the already planned undercrossing to all trains in Moffat Boulevard. Then extend the relatively short section of Evelyn Avenue from the west of Castro Street, across Castro and immediately north of this new pedestrian plaza, then connect it to the main part of Evelyn Avenue on the east side. Routing Evelyn Avenue around on the north side of a new Castro Pedestrian Plaza will provide easy and safe access between downtown and all trains in Moffatt Boulevard. Yes, it will rain. require changes to the existing Centennial Plaza, Depot building and bike parking, but the benefits of better and safer access far outweigh the costs. There are also implications for construction timing, and project phasing. This is not easy. But it's better to address the important downtown access and urban design issues now. before the project moves forward. It's better to take the time now to get this design right, rather than rush forward for funding expediency, with a poor design they will have to live with for many, many years. Next, the footprint for a future elevated, automated guideway transit AGT should be included in current plans. Just over a year ago, it was shown in a city council transit study report, and it should be included for thinking now. Thank you.

[00:23:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:23:52] Valerie Fenwick: Hi there. I'm Valerie Fenwick. I a member of the BPAC, but I am not representing the BPAC this evening. Thank you very much for tackling this dangerous intersection. This has been a bane of my existence for many years. I understand you cannot recess Castro, because of the rivers and the historic sites and the 100 Moffatt site. So I really appreciate the city council taking the efforts to look at other alternative approaches here. I really do support turning the end of Castro Street into more pedestrian friendly and accessible and not a roadway, like it is demonstrated here in this picture for any extent that it is possible. It is really critical to maintain pedestrian access to the businesses on Castro Street. A lot of us live on the other side of the tracks, and we love walking. I walked here tonight. So, um, but one thing I also wanted to point out to council about the criticality of this project, which I believe you understand, is there was a brief mention of the signal recycle. Doesn't sound like a big deal, but when you're walking, and a train comes, it restarts with east, westbound traffic with no pedestrian signal at all. So everybody has to stop. That's when you will see a lot of jaywalking happen, but there's no pedestrian signal until it gets about halfway through the loop. Does it let pedestrians start to cross? And if another train comes again, the recycle starts. So you can get blocked for, to go from the corner of Moffatt all the way to the transit center, can take up to 10 minutes during commute hours on foot. Also, sometimes buy car because the traffic gets so bad. The current loop for shuttle buses for and also regular buses is insufficient for the number of buses we have coming right now. I understand this plan adds another place for parking, but keep that in mind that if we're already over capacity to make sure we're planning for the future. Please do maintain accessible parking at the Adobe House. And that's really important for disabled people, and also if we can underground the parking at all, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

[00:25:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:26:02] Greg Eunangs: Yes, hello, Greg Eunangs, you're speaking as an individual. I want to start off with saying that I've been working with this team here for the past 3 or 4 years, and it's been a pleasure to do that. I mean, a tremendous amount of progress, but I want to talk tonight about what's become known as the Hicks alternative. I basically have been advocating some kind of crossing that gets you across Evelyn Street, which will become much busier avenue when we make this change to the ramp and whatnot. And it would be better if we could somehow get the pedestrians across Evelyn Street onto Castro underground, not doing it at surface. And this is basically what you did. which you're recommending. I look back and I was at February 2016, I came up with a very simple stick diagram. of how to do that, and I think her ideas are much better. If I would have known you were going to do that, I would have voted for you. So, at any rate, I think we ought to seriously consider that, but we also have another problem that we want to maintain here on Wednesday night. There was a BTA BPAC meeting, and it came up measure B funding. And thanks to this city staff and the work that's been done on this, There was a meeting with 3 cities, 3 city staffs, VTA, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, and they came up with this conclusion. BTA staff anticipates that Mountain View's Castro Street and Ringsdorf Avenue projects will begin the design phase in FY 2020 and require $31 million. This is basically saying that we're earmarking $31000000 for the 2 crossings in Mountain View ahead of Palo Alto in Sunnyvale. So we're 1st in line for the funding. And I'd hate to see the problem get delayed and we lose our place in line, basically. Thank you.

[00:28:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Don, did you want to comment on that? The 31 million?

[00:28:11] Staff Member Don: Thank you, yes. VTA staff, although they precluded in the two-year proposed budget for measure B, the 31 million that we would need for both brainstorf and Castro to take them into final design in 2020. The city of Sunnyvale pushed back on that, and Palo Alto to some extent, and what VTA staff has now said, is they'll budget the 31 million, but it is not guaranteed to Mountain View. It will go to whichever city is can show that they're ready to take the money when it's available. We're just happy there's 31000000 in the budget. We do.

[00:28:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great separation. Next, please. Could you speak into the microphone? Sorry, it's hard to hear you.

[00:28:54] Meredith Hitner: Sorry. I'm Meredith Hitner. I live on Santa Rosa Avenue. And one thing that bothers me that none of these plans show what happens to the residential streets behind Adobe House. And, um, you know, Adobe House has about 220 events. I live on a street that's already over parked with overflow parking and employee parking. And I think they need to keep their parking for catering and guests. But I'm also concerned about the access point. I think it needs to be on the corner of Moffatt and Central, because that's where the most foot traffic is down Moffatt, and not displaced into a residential neighborhood. And I'd like to point out that if you were to take option three and rip out the parking lot, the first house on the block is totally exposed to Moffatt Boulevard in Central Avenue. It's like the whole street is invaded, and I don't know that that's necessary if ramps can be built. Um, sufficient for the pedestrian undercrossing by using option one, or, worst case, option two. And one other point about considering the neighborhoods, these curb cuts on Moffat and taking out a lane, have serious effect on the parking overflow parking in both the Jackson Park, Willow Gate, Santa Rosa, all around there, and is not really fair to the businesses along Moffat. And I've heard complaints from 100 Moffat about their not being able to rent. along, uh, their Moffatt side. So I'm wondering why the shuttles can't be at the station as they are now and take the Evelyn ramp, rather than be displaced into the neighborhoods. Thank you.

[00:30:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:31:06] Joyce Yin: Hello? Good evening. My name is Joyce Yin. I'm here speaking as a mountain view resident. And I just want to offer a couple of small points that illustrate a larger one. We have one point of access between the historic downtown in Moffatt and it's the underpass. In the current design, the pedestrian walking downtown is cut off by what will be a stream of buses, shuttles, and cars bending around an open plaza. that has little purpose other than for people to cross on their way to and from the train. If closing the last blocks of Castro is to facilitate a great pedestrian experience, why undercut that concept by inserting a street with heavy traffic as the anchor to this new pedestrian mall? Similar to the Hicks alternative, one thought is to just bend Evelyn a little east, maybe even at Hope Street. So land south of Evelyn and west of hope becomes part of the downtown. And the result is literally an uninterrupted pedestrian experience from California Street through the underpass to Moffatt. And I can't say it often enough. But the only way to get people out of their cars is to ensure that the experience of getting to their destination by alternative means surpasses the convenience of driving to it. I'm a residential architect, and I've seen many homes with quirks. The project always turns out better when the client hands the reins of design to a professional, provides input throughout the process. A great urban designer not only has extensive experience doing similar projects, but is professionally trained to maximize space and create the highest quality experiences for the community. The transit center has the opportunity, opportunity to be something fantastic. And given the premium of space and the impact of creating a gateway into our city, we cannot afford to not hire a great urban designer to lead us. It's getting a little late in the process, so we definitely need to act now. Thank you.

[00:33:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:33:08] Mary Hotter: Good evening. My name is Mary Hotter, and I'm a resident of Mountain View. So given the short period, I'm just going to tell you a couple of things that I support or recommend. First of all, I wanted to point out that I still believe that the transit center name is a misnomer and it's difficult for the community to hook into the vision for this with that name. So, um, recently, I've been calling it downtown epicenter redesign because 50% of this um, map is transit, and 50% is downtown redesign. The 2nd thing I'd like to support is the what is apparently becoming known as the Hicks alternative, council member Hicks proposal to move the park. I really like that a lot. I also wanted to support the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning Letter. I read through all of the points, and I think that they make some excellent recommendations. Um, I also want to support the idea of getting a master vision. So I understand the planning. I understand the need to be number one in line for measure B funding, but I do believe after extensively studying this, that I, that Mountain View can retain its number one position and still create the master plan that would help you answer those 4 questions because I honestly don't think we can really answer those questions with a clear vision without understanding how the entire piece should be working. The last thing that I wanted to ask is in the downtown committee meeting 2 weeks ago, Jim Lightbody presented on the shoreline Evelyn Ramp. And so the question was asked, how many parking spaces were going to be lost? 70 along Evelyn and 50 ish underneath Shoreline? And I just wanted to leave you with the question of where are those cars going to go? Into the neighborhood would be my assessment. Thank you.

[00:35:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think is good. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:35:16] Lori Robbins: Evening. Lori Robbins, eight year resident of Mountain View. The Guggenheim, the Getty, Grand Central Station, celebrated public spaces, that work. All were designed, envisioned, then engineered. Why not Mountain View? The current transit center design has no sense of arrival or place. It has safety issues for cyclists, the need for dangerous U-turns, a two-way psychopedestrian track that crosses automobile driveways. And no waiting or pickup errors for the public. ADA. rules that a ramp slopes one inch for every foot. That means you must comply with that. That means that our elderly and injured population will have to navigate 150 feet down, and 150 feet up. The length of a football field. Just to get up and down. through this tunnel. That doesn't include other circulation and required turning platforms. I think you can see the case for an elevator. So tonight, I urge you to consider. The Hicks alternative. This plan that she has created, tweaks the current idea to go from two concrete holes, to a transit center that is fun, playful, sociable, safe, and functional. It is a place we will all want to be. If adopted, we'll avoid a large mistake, and I urge counsel to hire a designer before going further. Thank you.

[00:37:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:37:17] Louise Ketz: Good evening, Louise Ketz, Mountain View resident, and speaking on behalf of Livable Mountain View. Design is everything. Our past councils have been responsible for our beautiful city hall, our performing arts center, our amazing library, Eagle Park Pool, the new ring store building, and think how featureless our city would be without these. Mountain View has a worldwide recognition, as you know, our transit center should reflect that. Also, as you know, your job is not to design, but to bring forth the process, where experts come to us to create this reality, and they will, if we solicit them. Um, The outline that I had emailed to all of you, I believe, is approximately an 18 month process to have the bid process from beginning to end. It would, it's wonderful that the staff report that we just heard acknowledge the fact that we need to have design performed on this project and that it is not yet even begun. We heartily endorse the start of the process now. The time we have time to do it. And as I said, design is everything. As Lori said, when you think of Grand Central Station, you think of the design, you don't think of a parking lot in a sea of concrete and a drop off. site, but that's what we will have, if we don't have great innovative design art and landscape, I would urge you to act and let this be your legacy. Thank you.

[00:38:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[00:38:51] Serge Bond: Good evening, Serge Bond, Mountain View Resident, in case you keep track tonight. Um, so, uh, um, regarding the funding, uh, I suddenly hope that you kind of decouple ranks off and and and this project because, uh, you know, while there are many elements that may steal some work, need some work here. Ranks Off is pretty much ready to go, and we should grab the money before San Jose grabs it for more about things. The 2nd thing is that I think there is something missing in the 1st phase. The 1st phase I understand is to do great separation, and I think it should include the undercrossing between the eastern platforms. So that's a smaller, you know, yellow rectangle there, because from representation and from all the studies, it doesn't seem to be including in phase one. And I don't think you want to have something where people would still have to cross by foot the tracks to get to the of a platform. And the other comments is, you know, maybe echoing some of the previous comments, but I think we are not focused enough on pedestrians in terms of the whole design. So the most growing parts for me is that I don't see any improvements about crossing Evelyn. At the very minimum, I do expect very large crosswalks, very generous times, so that people don't have to jaywalk whenever they see a train coming on their platform. And, you know, the 2nd thing where I think pedestrians are kind of Not at the forefront is really on the circulations within beyond the crossing. I'm very concerned about conflicts between bikes and pedestrians, especially in the part that's described as the concourse. I don't I don't know if any stations where it's okay to bike in a concourse. Thank you.

[00:40:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[00:40:57] Mary Dadio: Hi, Mary Dadio, Mountain View resident, and I occasionally ride my bike and use the San Antonio station underpass to cross Central Expressway, because that seems like one of the safer ways to do it. And, um, Being on the bike, I take the ramp and the ramp there is quite narrow. And when you're coming, there's a bicycle that's coming from the opposite direction and you're on the ramp, it's pretty scary. So maybe we're supposed to walk on the ramp, but, um, practically speaking, in the middle of the day when it's not very crowded, I don't think you're going to get a lot of people to do that. So, um, I guess my point is, um, for the adobe ramps, um, I'm not sure what width options one, two, and 3 are for those ramps, but I strongly encourage you to make sure that they're wide enough for 3 or 4 people to pass at any one time. Um, because, uh, again, it's pretty scary on San Antonio when you're going and somebody's come the opposite direction. And I'd hate to think of what somebody in a wheelchair would experience trying to pass the cyclist. Also, a lot of pedestrians use the ramps there too, I think, just because the configuration and where they're trying to get to and from, that's easier than taking the stairs. So there's going to be a lot of traffic on the ramps, bottom line, and definitely need to leave plenty of space on those for people to use. Thank you.

[00:42:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:42:27] Public Speaker: Good evening, members of the council and staff. So, I'm coming at this a little bit different. Just, I think there's a lot of great elements of this. My kind of one big thing is I've been catching up to speed on the web and different stuff is reserved capacity, the growth capacity. Yes, the Caltrain's doing a business plan. 2040 It's 4X potentially the passengers. If your capacity already pretty busy with 60,000, imagine 240,000 people on Caltrain coming through here plus your aerial tram and some stuff. What I didn't see on the web, what answered is, what would happen if you need a 3rd track through this station, mountain view is going to be a key station on the peninsula. Where's the expansion? Not that you need it in the next 10 years, but it, how about 30 years from now, a 3rd track in the station area or a passing, another 4th track? There's talk in some stations, passing stations where you have an extra track on each side for trains to park, and the main line can go through. That's the one thing I didn't see addressed in it, like, how would you do that, 20, 30 years from now, before parking garages are built, and buildings are built, and it's all constrained, and then you become a choke point instead of a destination grate. I think there's a ton of great ideas here. Don't get me wrong. It's just, I would love to understand what casa and what the, everyone's assuming Caltran has this abundant capacity and stuff. Everyone's going to take cowtrain, but we have to reserve some growth for when that happens in the coming decades. Thank you.

[00:44:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:44:10] Sarah Astels: Good evening, counsel, Sarah Astels, business owner in downtown and also chair of the Board of the Central Business Association. I was really happy to hear so much support for what's become known as the Hicks alternative, because that's why I'm here tonight too. It does say we really support that, not only because of the increase in safety and appeal of the ramps, but for the vitality of downtown businesses. If you're in downtown as a patron, and you look down the road toward the 100 block, and you just see a transit center, you're not going to be pulled down that way. And I'm worried, we're worried as local downtown businesses, about people being drawn to the 100 block. If you look down and see a plaza, fountains, kiosks, you're more ought to continue down the street and we think it'll really protect the vitality of that side Castro Street. Thank you.

[00:44:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:44:59] Adina Levin: Good evening, Adina Levin. And most of my comments here are as an individual citizen who comes to Mountain View walking and biking and extremely rarely driving, and in terms of referencing what the previous speaker said, in terms of the increase, expected increase in transit users and Caltrain potentially increasing up to for X today on the ramps by the adobe building, I would encourage not to have the narrow ramps because I don't think that there's going to be enough room in the future for the pedestrian traffic. The idea of having some of the Caltrain parking as overflow space seems like a really good idea. There should definitely be some parking, especially for disabled parking and loading parking, but for people who are able bodied being able to walk for overflow parking seems like a reasonable solution. I also really, the concern about overflow parking into the neighborhood, and having residential permit parking to be able to prevent that, especially if it gets more and more easy to get over from the Moffat side into the transit center, there's going to be overflow parking unless that neighborhood is projected with neighborhood permits. And then finally, if there is 2nd to finally, if there's a way to allow people to bicycle through, it's not only a concourse, it's an underpass. Um, And therefore, if there's a way to do that where people with bikes can go very slowly, that would be appropriate if there's room to do that. Um, And lastly, in terms of smoothing out the Evelyn curve, that sounds like a fine idea. One of the things that protects safety, the intersection is really confusing, but people drive really slowly. And so something that keeps a slow pace of driving appropriate for downtown area continues to be appropriate. you.

[00:47:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else want to address the council on this topic? Okay, saying none will close public input, and we'll bring it back for council questions. Anyone want to jump in? Council member Hicks?

[00:47:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I have, I have a couple of questions, and the 1st is, um, Well, the 1st is I had a visual, actually, and I'm wondering if there's any way to put that up. Okay, this is clearly a cut and paste visual that doesn't, um, fully explain what, what could, how the, um, how element one could be redesigned, but it's what a lot of people have been referring to, and I think it's unclear if you haven't seen it before. But, and I'm gonna, I do have a question connected to it, but I just wanted to clarify what it is first, uh, that, uh, Evelyn is, um, is moved so that uh, the main centennial plaza can be at the end of Castro Street, so as many speakers said, as you come down Castro Street, you see an inviting pedestrian space at the end, instead of the previous concept of the plaza, was completely surrounded by various traffic uses, trains, buses, and Evelyn, which would have much heavier auto traffic than it does now. And my understanding of a space like that is that it would be an extremely unattractive place to be surrounded by traffic, and we'd put a lot of money into it, and people would not want to be there. And it would make our downtown on our businesses less inviting. I, the other, so that's one reason for tweaking this a little. And the 2nd thing is that, as many people have said, the underpass, the previous under the underpass and the other alternative, puts you as a pedestrian on the, you still have to cross Evelyn before you get downtown. And one of the problems with that is there'll be a just much huger volume of people coming, both cars on Evelyn at commute time, and people getting off the train and trying to go to their jobs downtown. And I just think that will be, you know, that will be unsafe and inefficient, and the cars and the pedestrians will be blocking each other. So to have you arrive into a plaza will be much safer and more efficient, as well as more attractive. Now, what's up there is not, it's just very quick cut and paste. It's not in any way a final design. I took out the bike shelter. I'm not saying we shouldn't have a bike shelter. I just didn't want to say where it should go. And it has pedestrians and bicyclers emerging into the middle of the plaza. That's not, they could emerge anywhere. They could, and the plaza doesn't have to be completely landscaped. It could be hardscaped. Also, the plaza would be bigger than that because the open space in front of Olympus is public space that could be included. I imagine that actually the Evelyn would be rerouted a little further to the east, I guess it is, to make the plaza bigger. So all those things said it's very conceptual. But the two main things it does is give you a great pedestrian mall and plaza at the center, at the heart of our downtown, and it's much more safe and efficient to get people back and forth from the train station to the downtown. So, that said, my question is, and I, although people have been referring it to it as the Hicks alternative, my understanding from, I did not tell everybody about it. My understanding is multiple people have raised this over the past months or whatever, and that's why they've been bringing up because it's reaffirming their thoughts. So all that said, my question is, because my understanding, Dawn, is that we are looking at element one tonight and not all the other elements. Um, What would we have to do? And I understand there will be a later community process with hiring, hopefully a designer, as people have said, and doing the other elements? What kind of decision can we make tonight that does not preclude an alternative like this? How can we not close the door to that? Thank you.

[00:52:10] Staff Member Dawn: Well, 1st off, if the council decides to proceed with the design, as we've shown it right now, where the staircase rises up, and we'd almost have to get, you know, get that one back up there, that design does not preclude in the future after going through more design and community outreach process of adjusting Evelyn, Castro, you know, as just as a perspective here. The greatest cost that we're dealing with this project is the undercrossing of Central Expressway in the train tracks. That's the big cost factor. That's also the most time consuming factor, and that's the one that we feel like we're on a fast track because those trains are going to start increasing. those gates are going to come down more and more. And we'd like to provide some options for bikes and pets across Central Expressway and so on. and deal with that. The location of the grand staircase, the ramps on the Castro side can be changed later. That's actually a relatively lower cost than the big undercrossing is. So, um, So going forward with element one as we have presented it does not preclude looking at options like this as part of element two.

[00:53:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[00:53:43] Staff Member Dawn: Did you have more? Sorry. If that fully answers your question, if I can also get into what it would mean if we tried to include it in element one is part of this project, if you want.

[00:53:59] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm, I guess I might want some suggested wording to make sure that we don't preclude it, make sure that we don't look back later and say, oh, we can sort of do that, but it can't, you know, the, I mean, this ramp comes up in a slightly different place than the other one does. I'd like some suggested wording so that when we make some motion, if the rest of council, you know, prefers it, that we want that we make sure that that option is really still open.

[00:54:33] Staff Member Dawn: Absolutely, and it looks like Mike Fuller has an idea here. I'm sure you could provide that wording.

[00:54:39] Mike Fuller: Another suggestion I'd have just to add some complexity. What we envision element 2 to be that whole area you see, which is the entire parking lot, it involves a public private partnership. It involves land use decisions about what gets built, there, another, and the timing of that is not yet known. We're not working on it yet. Another possibility is to look at something like this, you know, to basically split element two, look at something like this separate from the redevelopment of the entire area. I'm not sure how long that's gonna take. We have a lot of work to do with Caltrain. It is their property. We're going to have conversations about what to do with the funding stream associated with a ground lease. I mean, that could take a very long time. An alternative is to spend some time looking at this sooner than that. However, I would caution that even this alternative gets onto Caltrain property. I mean, it is very conceptual, but it looks like it lies just east of the existing bus crescent, which then would take, which centers on Hope Street if you see there. So you can envision the bus crest and kind of straddling Hope Street. So this alternative would take Centennial Plaza, and have some footprint on Caltrain property, which it just adds a complexity. So another thing to consider as you deliberate and provide guidance to us.

[00:56:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I think what you're suggesting isn't necessarily that, it would be studied as part of what we're calling element one project, but could be a separate study that's done, even before element 2 is taken on.

[00:56:37] Mike Fuller: That's what I'm suggesting to start looking at those options.

[00:56:40] City Staff: Yes. Because as you're mentioning, we're dealing with that option, for instance, that one up there does proceed on to Caltrain property. It also would affect the current bus shuttle, transfer area, because it bumps up right against it. We don't know how pet circulation could work for people exiting those buses and shuttles and how that would work. We would have to look at the traffic analysis of this. You can't actually add in Castle Street is shown there without making a cul-de-sac. So you really would want to end it at Villa. And so these are all the kind of the traffic circulation, in addition to the pet and bike circulation, you would want to look at looking at this. And if you did proceed with that as its own concept study, as a separate study, it also opens the door at looking at a variety of alternatives and tweaks to this, you know, separately while allowing element one to proceed through its phases and stay on its timeline.

[00:57:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So if I could suggest, as since this is a study session, and we're not taking a formal vote, we're just sharing our thoughts on the questions that have been asked of us, as you share your perspectives, if you could comment on whether or not you want to direct staff to look at this alternative, and I would say I'd leave it up to staff to say it's a separate project or we do it as part of the 2nd phase, but I would leave that up to staff to tell us what's the best direction there, but if you're interested in exploring it. Please mention that as you make your comments. Does that work for everyone? Okay. Did you have any other questions? Cancel number, Hicks.

[00:58:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Just one, I'm not sure what's on Caltran property. You mean where Evelyn has been moved is on Caltran property?

[00:58:43] City Staff: So, um, and I'm sorry I didn't think to bring a map to show this, but the city's property is actually much a smaller segment than you would think it is. It's only a port. It's, you have savise sellers, and next to it, I believe, is like the bike, um, gets a little bit in the bike room, and it's a narrow strip that's city property. The flagpole out there. If people can use that as a point of reference, is actually on Caltrain property. So, it's a little bit further.

[00:59:19] City Staff: Yeah, it's about half the plaza is Caltrain. So shifting the road over as you're suggesting, would definitely put it into Caltrain property.

[00:59:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I, I mean, I'm not, I'm not saying that it does, does or doesn't, but I thought that if you shift Evelyn to line up with Blossom Lane, that that's still on city property, but I don't know for sure you know more than I do.

[00:59:48] City Staff: But again, it would require far more study to look at all the circulation aspects, including the bus and shelters, actually using the transit center, and that type of aspect.

[01:00:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member McAllister?

[01:00:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Councilman Will Hicks, I got a couple questions for your design. So are you suggesting that Since our original goal is to get people to the transit center, you're having them go to a pocket and then crossing Evelyn to get to the transit center based on your diagram here?

[01:00:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[01:00:30] Councilmember John McAlister: So if you end up at your walkway, then you have to go east to get to the transit center, and that looks like it's going over a road, or is there an underground, under your park at little place?

[01:00:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: John, I'm not sure. I'm fully clear on your question, but I, so if you're coming from, if you are a pedestrian and you're coming from somewhere in the downtown, you would go on a side, sidewalk, you know, maybe on Castro Street, maybe along Evelyn, depending on where you're coming from. And then you don't have to walk through the center of the plaza because this is just conceptual. You might put a sidewalk to one side, and then just walk directly to the train station. You no longer under Evelyn. You no longer have to cross on the surface, across Evelyn, like in the other design. Did I answer your question?

[01:01:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then, you're also saying that you wouldn't, you're proposing Castro Street, you would not make, be allowed to make a right turn onto Evelyn?

[01:01:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, again, that's very conceptual, but I imagine that the first, um, you could do it in another way, but no, I wouldn't do that because that kind of defeats the purpose. One of the big purposes is that you don't have to cross a lot of roads to get to the train station and that also there's a very inviting public plaza or, um, pedestrian, people called it a pedestrian mall, um, at on Castro. So a very inviting place. And yeah, so the 1st block of Castro would be closed to cars, but not closed to pedestrians.

[01:02:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. Oh, my, thank you. So my questions are going. Now that the governor has talked a little bit about high speed rail. We don't know where it's going. Is that gonna be any kind of consideration at this point in time?

[01:02:35] City Staff: Well, we've continued to work with Caltrain as they work with high speed rail. Obviously, there's a question as to when funding, even if the project proceeds with their environmental document and planning that's going on now, but the question about when they would actually be in a position to fund improvements in the peninsula corridors, still a question. But we don't think that it would affect anything we're doing at this time. It mostly impacts some of the other stations where they might be looking at additional tracks or other, like at Milbright, where they have modifications to accommodate high speed rails.

[01:03:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Going to the Evelyn Shoreline overpass. There's a table in our council questions. I couldn't understand where you go northbound, westbound. Could someone just walk me through that particular diagram, or table? So it goes northbound slash westbound. I'm trying to figure out how you were going to be doing that route.

[01:03:48] City Staff: All right, um, so basically, uh, when you look at this table, the first segment on there is shoreline. So we're talking, in that case, the shoreline is a north-south route, we're talking northbound shoreline, north of Evelyn, would see increased volumes of 223 vehicles. Southbound Evelyn would be 308 vehicles.

[01:04:12] Councilmember John McAlister: So I thought Evelyn went east west.

[01:04:14] City Staff: I'm sorry, shoreline. sorry, shoreline. Shoreline, shoreline. I'm talking shoreline. Northbound shoreline and southbound shoreline. That's reading across the 1st row.

[01:04:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh okay.

[01:04:22] City Staff: Evelyn, being an east-west facility, you would read it as for this 1st column, westbound Evelyn, west of Franklin, would have additional, um, demand of 168 vehicles, and eastbound of Evelyn in that same area would be 186 vehicles. So that's basically how you read it is. If it's a north south facility road. It's northbound, southbound, if it's east west. It's eastbound, westbound.

[01:04:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. So when you had Villa, that's So the numbers here for existing traffic at this time. That's what it says existing plus, well, that says existing plus project. project.

[01:05:05] City Staff: But this is the, I believe it's the diverted traffic. It's the additional traffic.

[01:05:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[01:05:14] City Staff: Right. So, when you see Villa, west of Franklin, westbound, AMP, 104 vehicles, this would be from the traffic that's diverted, once you close Central Expressway at the tracks, and as noted, below in the question answers, you may recall the council previously saw an interim improvement for Central Expressway, Moffatt, and Castro to remove the double left from northbound Castro onto Central as a more immediate bicycle pedestrian safety improvement. And These numbers include that diverted traffic as well. So it's not in addition to that diverted traffic, it includes that diverted traffic as well.

[01:06:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so now that you brought up the Central Expressway Castro intersection, the time frame of this is you're hoping to get some construction started in 2020 or 2021.

[01:06:18] City Staff: Well, if everything proceeds as hoped, and in terms of funding, and all the other project phases, the earliest construction would likely start as 2021, and that would be on the shoreline ramp, which could take 9 to 12 months. So it'd be, um, it would be 2022, 2023 before we would start really on the undercrossing, and around 2024, before bikes and pets could use the undercrossing, likely.

[01:06:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, would it make sense to spend? And when does the Central Expressway Castro Moffin intersection, supposedly it's going to be coming up?

[01:06:59] City Staff: It is just about done with final design and all the approvals from the county, for the expressway changes, and so on. So I believe the plans and specs are going to be coming to you in the next quarter for approval to advertise the project awarded this summer. It could be under construction by the end of summer.

[01:07:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The reason I bring it up, because if we're going to, that project to modify as 101.8, $1.9 million, for a one year project of trying to do something, and is it really appropriate, considering the construction timeline of this underpass, to spend that kind of money, just for a temporary fix?

[01:07:44] City Staff: So, first, the fix, we go as quickly as we'd like to go, we're looking a minimum of 3 to 4 years, but the other piece is, at this point, we can't be sure we're going to get the money from VTA when we'd like to have it. They're working on an implementation plan involving all 8 grade set locations within all 3 cities. All's VTA will say right now is all of them will be done over the 30 year time frame of measure B, which goes to 2047. And if that means some weight to 20, 35, 2040, and they won't, you know, they're going to work through this process. We don't know how we're going to fare when it's all said and done. So it could be there for 10 years, for all we know. And the other aspect is working with Caltrain in terms of when they're going to allow that kind of major construction activity, and they may say, we want you to wait another year or two. So there's still a lot of unknowns. Best case is 3 to 4 years, minimum will be see the benefits of that interim project.

[01:08:49] Councilmember John McAlister: What could it be possible that we could repurpose the $1.9 million towards moving the project along using our own financing?

[01:08:57] City Staff: That would not be sufficient to get through final design, and it would not so it would not necessarily speed up the project.

[01:09:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The other question, then, uh huh, the Adobe Historic site, is that historic site, the Adobe house has always been?

[01:09:22] City Staff: Part of the environmental studies that we've done looked at the cultural elements and looked at the adobe building in quite detail and researched it, and what they've determined is that the building itself outside of the parking area, the parking area was reconfigured not that long ago. There used to be a water tank there and a pump station and so forth. So none of that qualifies as a historic property, just the building itself, which, and that's why we were careful to stay away from the building footprint and just focus on the parking area.

[01:10:02] Councilmember John McAlister: As ringstoreff was an historical building. The adobe house could potentially be relocated, too. And still, is that a possibility?

[01:10:13] City Staff: Anything's possible with council direction? Adam, it's on the National Register, correct?

[01:10:19] Adam: Is it possible? I guess anything's possible. It's just difficult to relocate? Yeah, that building's on the national register, historic places. Relocation may be possible, but it's very challenging. I know it was done with the with the Ringsdorf house. I don't know if it was on the national register at the time, though.

[01:10:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I'll save that for comments. Has there been any kind? I know when we were looking at the scope, project scope. And there's been concern in the past from the neighborhoods north of Central Expressway about the economic viability of the businesses on that such, the Moffat. Will there be any kind of an economic study? The effects that this is a great great crossing is going to have on those businesses?

[01:11:11] City Staff: So I may have to have Jim weigh in a little bit more on this since he was involved in the transgender master plan. It was a little before my time. I can tell you that the way this has currently been designed, it preserves access to these businesses, we can, you know, work with their on street parking. So this underpass alternative, did not directly affect construction wise, these businesses. Now, in turns, I think I know where you're going here. Are we, you know, by not having direct access to Castro Street. Are we affecting their business? So, Jim, did we have any studies on that?

[01:11:54] Jim: We did talk with a number of the property owners in the first earlier phase of the project. We did not do any detailed or economic analysis. There wasn't a sort of a larger, overall economic study, very brief one that was done for the downtown overall, but didn't really get into specifics for that section.

[01:12:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The... Also, about going to the Evelyn on ramp onto shoreline. There's been, we've been discussing about improving our public safety building and the possibility that it may propose relocating a kitty corner where it's located now. Would that have a positive effect on this on ramp if that was so done?

[01:12:47] City Staff: We've minimized the encroachment into the footprint of that building and intentionally. Um, I don't know that it would have a big impact one way or another. Police doesn't necessarily. They're not necessarily excited about the ramp going up behind their building, just for visibility and purposes and so on. We have met with them. We think we can take care of those concerns during design, though. And so I don't think this ramp would have a big impact on the decision of whether to rebuild here or potentially move the facility.

[01:13:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but would it improve the project if the public safety building was relocated?

[01:13:26] City Staff: If we had, we're very tight here in terms of parking and the pathway and so on. If the building were not there and we had a little more room to work, we might be able to do a little bit better with the design. We certainly did not presume that, though, with what you see here.

[01:13:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Concerning the shuttles, as we are going to put shuttle pickup on the Central Expressway side. Well, then that will hopefully reduce the congestion on the south side. Evelyn, is that one of our goals, and do we have an idea what the impact might be on doing that?

[01:14:04] City Staff: Yes, we've looked at, we've looked at the current shuttles, and we've identified some that could easily use the central expressway drop off areas. So there would relieve some of the demand over on the transit center side.

[01:14:18] Councilmember John McAlister: So would that also eliminate some of the demand for people, buses, shuttles going down Evelyn and going upshoreline?

[01:14:23] City Staff: Yes. Yes.

[01:14:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's good. There's been talks about, we should hire an urban designer. Do we have one as one of our contractors, or consultants, will be coda urban designer, have that technical background.

[01:14:38] City Staff: There is an urban designer, Terry Bottomley, is part of the Kimley Horn team, and he's been involved. He's responsible for a lot of the renderings and graphics that we've been looking at.

[01:14:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, excellent. The ramps that are over by the adobe on option one. How do they compare it with to what's on the Stevens Creek Trail now on the Switchbacks?

[01:15:09] City Staff: I don't really know the Adobe one, option one.

[01:15:14] Councilmember John McAlister: That one.

[01:15:14] City Staff: I couldn't tell... I don't really know the exact dimension of the ramps... on CVS Coutrait, but I can tell you that this ramp design is almost as narrow as you really can go on a ramp in order to squeeze it into the available right away. Stevens Creek Trail is 10 to 14 feet, depending on how much room we have.

[01:15:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. So of the two undercrossings that go over to North Central, which one do you expect to be the more popular one? The on the east side or the west side?

[01:15:53] City Staff: Probably the one going over to 100 Moffatt, because we're anticipating, not that we've got it all developed yet, but that was partly designed to connect to sterling, and then up to shoreline, where we have the plan to develop protected bike lanes that would eventually connect up to North Bay Shore. So we're hoping that there's a lot of bicycle and pedestrian use in that corridor to help relieve the traffic demand in North Bay Shore.

[01:16:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so that'd be more popular.

[01:16:23] City Staff: At the same time, though, even today, at 300 bikes and pads crossing today during the peak hour, if you go, you will see that there's substantial amount of crossing already happening from the adobe side. There's a lot of demand coming from that side.

[01:16:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and my last question going back to option one on the 100 side Moffatt? If the HET is going through, And we don't have that long ramp on there. Would that be more conducive to, if we put the AGT through this gateway into Sterling and up, Shoreline? versus if we had ramps in there that may affect how the AGT goes through?

[01:17:10] City Staff: If you recall in the AGT study, as far as we've gone so far, we were looking at Moffatt Boulevard, the median of Moffatt as where that could be developed.

[01:17:20] Councilmember John McAlister: I thought we were also looking at the option of going down Sterling into Shoreline.

[01:17:26] City Staff: Uh, no, what we've envisioned was either Shoreline or Moffat, uh, feeling was that this was a little too residential to support that.

[01:17:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[01:17:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, Mayor, Abby, Koga.

[01:17:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Sorry, I had some several questions that came up during the presentation. So let me start with council member Hicks. It wasn't quite clear if we, I don't know if you could put the rendering back up, but my question had to do with the plaza and Evelyn going around it. So what is your how would you cross Evelyn to get to the transit center? Is that a bridge or is it that?

[01:18:11] Councilmember Alison Hicks: The yellow? The yellow. The yellow is, it's the same underpass as in the 1st alternative. It just...

[01:18:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So it goes under.

[01:18:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, it goes under Evelyn, yeah.

[01:18:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And it doesn't have to come up in the middle of the plaza.

[01:18:30] Councilmember Alison Hicks: That was just when I cut and paste the easiest place to make it cook.

[01:18:33] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great.

[01:18:34] City Staff: If you were to do an option like that, you would probably have 2 exits from the stairwell, one on the north side of Evelyn, and then one into the plaza. So if you did want to go straight from Moffatt to the transit center, you could get there directly.

[01:18:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Now, to staff, a question regarding measure B funds, there's mention of Rengstorff and Castro, um, projects for 31 million. Are they being presented as in a package or are they 2 separate projects?

[01:19:07] City Staff: They are 2 separate projects? We're just trying to hold them to the same timeline. But and we're going to wait and see how that works out.

[01:19:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Ringstorf is essentially ready to go, though, isn't it?

[01:19:21] City Staff: Rainstorf is actually, at this point, to be honest, about eight, 9 months behind this project. And I say that because we've already been working on plulmonary engineering and environmental assessment for this project for a year, and we expect to complete by the end of this year. And we're just now getting the MOU executed with Caltrain, because they're going to take the lead to start the environmental clearance and do the plymonary engineering. So ring store might finish if we can keep it on track by about 6 months after we finish this project's implementary engineering and environmental.

[01:20:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then they both be ready for final design. Okay. All right. So then, let's see. Going to... Question about, um, the shuttle pickup, um, council member McAllister mentioned on the Central Expressway side. Is there anything that precludes us from having all the pickup on that side? My concern is that right now, and maybe the Evelyn ramp will help, but Villa Street is, I mean, it's impossible to get through at like 4 o'clock till 8 o'clock, especially on a Friday night. And I just don't want to see that kind of congestion on the side of downtown by Castor Street.

[01:20:46] City Staff: Frankly, there's just, there's way too much shuttle demand as well as the buses to even begin to fit all within that Central Expressway.

[01:20:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Shuttle it out.

[01:21:00] City Staff: Well, in one of the challenges you face is the further out, you extend it, the more people have to walk all the way back, to be able to access both downtown as well as the transit center, unless we built a 2nd bike ped undercrossing over on the east end from Central Expressway, which, you know, could be explored in the future, but it's another under crossing, which comes with its own costs and challenges.

[01:21:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, which leads me to my next question. How far down do we have to go for the tunnel? How many feet down are we digging?

[01:21:43] City Staff: Might give Adam a chance to comment on that. But it's fairly deep to be safe under the tracks.

[01:21:50] Adam: Yeah, right. Yeah, so we're still exploring some design options of how you construct it. So the depth would be anywhere from about 14 feet to 19 feet, down, depending on which construction technique we would go with.

[01:22:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then I'm gonna ask this... I don't think it was looked at at any point, although I was, I personally preferred, if you were to go above, over, what would that be? Like, let's Stevens Creek Trail at the height over the tracks right now.

[01:22:24] City Staff: The minimum clearance over the rail would govern, but I don't know what that number is.

[01:22:28] City Staff: Yeah, so the high speed rail would be 27 feet would be.

[01:22:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. But it's cheaper to go up than down, isn't it? Okay. And then if we were to do the, well, any of this. So we were in DC last week and taking the metro, there are escalators that go up quite a bit. We thought about adding those into this project.

[01:22:59] City Staff: From the beginning, we've attempted to avoid escalators and elevators because of maintenance and other issues, and we've tried to fit it in with using just ramps and stairs.

[01:23:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do you have a sense of a cost, or...? I mean, you can get it to me later, too.

[01:23:17] City Staff: We could get back to you on that. But, yeah, there would be, you know, added cost to do escalators and elevators, for sure.

[01:23:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then, um, if we were to do the AGT station, where would it go? And is this assuming that it's the flyover AGT piece?

[01:23:39] City Staff: We have a backup slide that we showed you when we brought forward the AGT feasibility study phase one. So we went ahead and put that in here. So, what we suggested at that time is the most logical place would be, I know our answer to council questions said northwest corner, but what we intended was the southwest corner, as you see here. Um, and it's the purple area or, or the, yeah, the general proprietary. And it would be elevated. So that area you could potentially, when AGT goes in, if it goes in, you would see 3 stories above ground, at ground, and below ground. And at that point, obviously, elevators start to become much more necessary and would be, you know, pursued as part or escalators would be pursued as part of putting in an HET system.

[01:24:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you.

[01:24:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:24:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, just 2 questions. So following up from uh, the questions from the vice mayor and council member McAllister, just to make sure I fully understand, uh, with the alternative, um, it sounds like there would be access to the undercrossing from both the Castro side and the southbound Caltrain platform. Am I understanding that correctly? So like stairs and a ramp from both the southbound platform and also the plaza on the Castro side.

[01:25:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You're asking me? Or anybody? Yeah, yeah, it's very conceptual, but yes, yes. It would go, and it's clear to me, because I cut and paste it myself, but I don't know what parts are clear to other people. Yeah, it would go, it would, just like the first alternative, this, which gives you an underpass to the old centennial plaza. This would give you an underpass to the new conception of Centennial Plaza, which would be connected then to a closed down first block of Castro Street open to pedestrians.

[01:26:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think I'm still missing it. So, I'm sorry.

[01:26:05] City Staff: If I may also clarify. So, of course, what stats brought forward as element one includes the grand staircase and a ramp, you know, where you see that, that yellow shaded area just north of the re laid out Evelyn. And one way or another, part of looking at this, that ramp would need to stay there, as well as some form of a staircase, to allow access to the southbound Caltrain platform, as well as the bus and shuttle transfer area, all of those pieces, because you need to be on that side of Evelyn Avenue to access it. So if it were to be pursued as a separate future project, to do something like this or similar to it, the tunnel could be extended under Evelyn, if Evelyn was realigned, and then an additional staircase and ramp would need to be added on that side. And those are the types of things that would have to be studied and looked at.

[01:27:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And just ballparking, roughly how much real estate would you need for a 2nd ramp and stairway?

[01:27:15] City Staff: Well, if, um, I know I keep telling you to flip back and forth, but it would be probably good to look at, like, the rendering, so you get a feel for how long ramps would have to be, um, as was mentioned before to meet ADA compliance. I mean, it switch backs and so on. It would need a fair amount of real estate to make that happen.

[01:27:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes. Well, thank you. And then the 2nd question, if the council were to direct staff to incorporate elevators, would that be a relatively trivial thing to incorporate or would there be a lot of substantial changes to the design that would need to be made?

[01:27:57] City Staff: I think that there's room, we have enough room to add elevators. Escalators would be a little more complicated, but elevators, for sure, there's enough space. It just is really a question of cost and other factors.

[01:28:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[01:28:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[01:28:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So, um, many of my questions have been asked, but I just was hoping, as we're talking about the underpass, if we could discuss, uh, the idea of the flow going under the tracks and coming out through Castro, so particularly maybe figure 7 from the staff report, just trying to understand the alignment, many people travel. It's page 11 of the staff report, uh, figure 7. Um, So many people travel across Moffatt. Actually, and use Castro by bike or ped to walk to maybe their places of work or to get downtown. And so I see a little bit in the rendering of a green, you know, green striping here is the idea that not only would pedestrians and cyclists be able to access the transit center, but that the flow would also be, if they'd like to continue down Castro, they can do that as well.

[01:29:16] City Staff: Yes.

[01:29:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And in doing that. My concern was a bit of safety. I was thinking a bit about kind of the mixed modal that I see on the underpath at the Palo Alto station. And so would we have is the idea to put striping and things there as well to try to kind of separate the different modes.

[01:29:39] City Staff: We do have, you can see, you can see here that the connections under Central Expressway, which is the bottom rendering, would, it's envisioned to have a separate pedestrian and bicycle area, the portion under the tracks is more of a concourse area, hopefully, either people would walk their bikes or ride slowly, because they'll be, anticipate a lot of passenger activity there. So we kind of compromised with partial, dedicated bike and pet areas and partly mixed operation. Is it?

[01:30:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[01:30:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I don't know if we're doing questions or if we're in comments, but I'm ready to make comments. I just have one question. I'm down to one. on my list. On page 9 of the staff report, it talks about the loss of 85 parking spaces. And I'm wondering if we have plans to replace those anywhere.

[01:30:46] City Staff: Not as part of this project, no.

[01:30:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Thank you.

[01:30:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Uh, Council member Clark.

[01:30:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, um, so, uh, for question one, I do support the, um, the, the ramp, um, design concept that you've shown, um, I support option 2, um, for the the Strowman Road ramp, um, from one hover Moffatt, um, on Adobe, or, uh, I'll skip to four. I'm okay with doing a separate small study sort of in between to look at the options for landing, you know, on Castro Street. I think I think with the idea that if we were to close the 100 or the 102 blocks of Castro at some and create a pedestrian mall. having some way for folks to access that directly instead of having to end up at the transit center and then having to cross at grade. So I think if there's a way to do that. My only concern with what council member, Hicks's design is shown would be it sort of prioritizes the land downtown, and then you have to cross that grade, you get to the transit center. So I'm sure there's ways, I'm sure there's ways to sort of, whether it's through a separate exit or something like that to make that work. I just don't know what the cost would be and how we would figure that out. But I think keeping in mind that, you know, someday maybe the 100 block of Castro would be a pedestrian mall and creating some sort of way to access that directly instead of having access to the transit center. would be a worthwhile investment to study. And then for the Adobe building. I think I'm uncomfortable with option one. I think it really needs to be either just because of the length of the switchbacks and how narrow they are. So I would either do option to where you, at minimum, we need to retain at least enough parking for ADAs and deliveries. But I think even if so with option three, it looked like you have a plaza there that perhaps could start with being some parking and perhaps someday, you know, could be turned into a plaza. I don't know there might be options there, but I think we're looking five, 6 years out, and the uses, you know, if the pedestrian access and bicycle access there is more important to me than the parking spaces are, frankly, looking 5 years from now. And so if the uses of the Adobe building have to change to reflect that, then so be it if we need to utilize Caltrain parking on the weekends or whenever to accommodate that, if events need to switch to the community center or somewhere else, the larger events that require a lot of people driving in. And so be it. We can address the issue of the neighborhood parking concerns, I think, through residential permits, and those sorts of solutions. But I think, I think if we're investing this amount of money in looking at things long term, I think it would be a mistake to do the bare minimum for bicycle and pedestrian access on that corner. In my mind, there are those, um, the interests of the bike pads and the overall good design of this are more important to me than the parking spaces at Adobe.

[01:34:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abi Coca?

[01:34:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So I'll go through the questions that I have some caveats. The ramp on Evelyn to Shoreline is fine. Um, 2 option 2, the Sterling Road is fine. So three, the Adobe Building, and, um, So, 2 is be fine. If the real concern with 2 is the loss of parking, there's already parking issues in the neighborhood there. I don't know if the businesses along Santa Rosa have enough parking, but I think we would have to really have a strong parking plan to replace parking. And frankly, I think we just need more parking on that side of Central Expressway anyway. But because of that, I actually would prefer option one. And the caveat being, and I ask questions about elevators and escalators, um, you know, I don't know how much the cost is going to be, but I feel like with the number of writers were looking at increasing too, um, in considering disabilities and so forth, I just think we have to get there, and we have to go there. So, um, I would like to see the cost estimates for adding, frankly, an escalator to me, I think you can get more folks through the, you know, masses rather than elevator that you have to wait for. And if we did that, perhaps we could actually separate out the pedestrians from the cyclists, because my sense is, you know, those who might walk up the ramp, it's just stairs are hard. But if you had an escalator, they wouldn't have to worry about that. So the some way of separating out the 2 pedestrians from the bicyclist, I think with an option one could work. Um, and, uh, So then we go into the additional comments. I like council number Hicks's alternative suggestion. Um, I guess it actually, you know, made me think about, um, several elements, and then looking at, you know, I've always said, from the very beginning, that I think we need to be looking at the grade crossing in conjunction with the transit center redevelopment. because of all of these different elements that are coming to play. You know, frankly, I didn't, I didn't, my preference was not to go under. We have a lot of concerns with tunnels. Um, you know, we're talking about the AGT, and frankly, after going to DC. I don't know how realistic it is funding wise to really do it, but if we are looking at it and we're gonna go up anyway, I don't, I guess it really, in my mind, I thought, you know, why don't we look at a flyover, a bridge, you know, Vegas? If you get to Vegas, there's a number of them, you get up the stairs or the escalator and you cross over. And if we're doing the AGT station or looking at that down the road anyway, I think it could all be combined with a pedestrian mall, you know, at the end of Castro Street, then you have enough, I think, right away or space to be able to build all that. And I think I still, you know, think, remember from numbers with high speed rail and tunneling versus going, you know, over that it's a much cheaper project too. And so I know we're down, we've gone down this road and, you know, frankly, I've brought it up, but didn't get a whole lot of, um, support from others, but I just, you know, would like to get a sense of what it would be, how much it could cost, you know, to do everything over instead of under. So that's my additional input. Thanks.

[01:38:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:38:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Um, I support the design for, um, the Evelyn is okay, but I'm still concerned that the traffic study is not as thorough as I would like. I would have came up before for discussion. I think we had a study session, traffic design that was light, and I like to see more of the impact that it might have on Evelyn, because that street is small as it is, and try to, and a lot of pedestrians on it, and if we do have diverted traffic going onto Evelyn, it would be very dangerous for those pedestrians, because it does get a lot of pedestrian bike walking there. So I like to make sure that any kind of effect would be negated properly with the West Evelyn. Number two, I support actually, I support option one, and the reason I like option one is because you're taking a ramp and you're going right through the middle of a community and dividing it. And so, With one, option one, there is an open space along there that can be utilized by the apartment complex there. You don't have bicyclists potentially zipping right up out of the grade separation going up through two, dividing that property. So, you know, it doesn't hurt to have a little bit of a slowdown for bicyclists to make a little U-turn. It's not going to hurt them. I think they'll get the better exercise. And if at any time we do decide to change or study or modify our AGT, that could be a potential route through there, and if we have the off the ramp going through the middle of it, could change it. So I prefer personally for number one because it does sort of meet our goal of keeping a complete neighborhood instead of you're dividing it. And I hate to see us do that. I mean, we've talked about neighborhoods for a long time, and here's an opportunity where we don't need to divide a neighborhood and still accomplish our goal. Number three, I agree with the vice mayor that I want to keep option one on the adobe building, and that's if we can move it, that would be great. That would be my preference. So then we could accomplish. And I've been to many events there, and the parking is terrible. And that neighborhood has been impacted for many, many years, and they don't need to have more impact and going with a residential permitting park program doesn't always achieve the goal of people still parking all over that area. So I think that we can keep the parking. And that's why I asked the question about utilization, which one's going to be more popular, and you said the 100. And so I think people are going to be really going over to that section and utilization over on the east side is not as great as it could be because people will find the popularity of going on the 2nd side. I'm also still hoping, so that's my thoughts on that. There are even small events need to be parking, and if people are going to start crossing, people say, well, we're going to put them over at the Caltrain station, that may not really happen because then they'd be going across the parking in the Jackson neighborhood, and that's going to impact neighborhoods again. And we don't want to have parking or traffic that goes into neighborhoods, it sort of defeats the purpose of having a complete neighborhood again. So I support the residents having their privacy and a little bit, and also for the businesses to come along in there too, because they'll need some parking. And the additional comments, I would, I still would like to consider delaying the one project of the $one.9 million, $one.800000 for changing the crossing at Castro. I think we can have a better use of that money. I think just eliminating the crosswalk on the west side, would actually accomplish the same deal. and save us $1.9 million. Then onto Council member Hicks, still, I'm a little concerned about that you're slicing and dicing a small piece of area and you're going to minimize the park area that we're having there. I'm also concerned about if they have an al wrap coming up, that a lot of space in that particular little park there. It's not a lot, is going to be involved with the ramps and staircases and not do the effect that you were looking for. So that's another concern. And I'm still a little concerned about not having a right turn lane into Evelyn off of Castro. We can always change it later now, but those are my concerns. If it's as a council member, Clark said, if it's a quick study, but I think the trade-offs of just coming up the middle, I think we're really reducing our open space, and I hate to divide, because if you do have that open space, you're going to have people walking across Evelyn anyway to get to the transit center, one way or other. And if we do have retail over in that area, people will be crossing over there and potentially doing that. So that's the thoughts on that one. Thank you.

[01:43:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member committee.

[01:43:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So, uh, for question one, um, yes, I support the proposed design, I particularly like how we're able to look at the shared use path for shoreline. I think that's a really important connection, especially when we looked at that project a couple weeks ago. Um, for question two, I'm comfortable with option two. I think it'll really help in terms of access, the ease of access and getting to the transit stations. So I'm comfortable with the idea that people go slowly. Um, for option three. Um, I feel option one mitigates the impact to the existing community the most. So, um, I'm comfortable with option one, uh, particularly hearing about the parking loss that we will experience with, um, the Evelyn and Shoreline area. I think that making sure that we have access is going to be important. Um, and then for question four, um, I'm comfortable with the study in terms of looking at what council member Hicks has proposed. I think we found out that there's a lot of different elements to it and interested to hear back on that. Um, I am interested. I know that the ramps are meet ADA requirements, but I am interested in an elevator. I think that having that additional access might be important for those who may have mobility issues or perhaps, you know, stroller or things like that, putting that into an elevator rather than a ramp might be safer. Um, and then uh, one thing we'll be talking about later is uh, parking downtown. Um, so I'm kind of interested in terms of, um, I know that the loss of parking is not part of this project, but what are things that we could look at in terms of making sure that we shore up any loss of spaces, um, as well. Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[01:45:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I made most of my comments during questions, so I'll keep it brief. As for supporting the ramp. Um, yes. Um, Concur with option two, uh, question number two, concurring with option number two, yes, I could do that. Option number three, which design option, do we support? Um, I agree with what other people are saying about protecting the neighborhood, the Willow Gate, am I saying it right, neighborhood, and exploring? And that leads me for this and other parts of the project, exploring elevators or escalators, I think, would be important, for a number of reasons, including people telling me that people with mobility problems telling me they can't navigate stairs or ramps. Um, and additional input for project improvements. Obviously, I support a study to for alternative 2, as I proposed it, and making a great pedestrian mall on the 1st block. I would like it if we did an RFP for a designer to help with that to really make this into. I think this could be a great entry to our downtown and make us, like, the best city on the peninsula if we do it right. And I think it could make us enter into a big concrete basement if we do it wrong and really cut off our most active, our most active 1st block of our downtown. I actually agree with a lot of what Margaret said, and I would, if I could take time back and be on the past council, I would support it a lot of what he said. and go over, you know, explore going over. That said, being where we are now, just one last answer to what John said, I actually think the open space, I did not cut and paste it right, but I think the open space, if Centennial Plaza were moved, I guess it's west or to our left as we look at this drawing. I think if you make it go to Blossom Lane and you include the part portion of open space in front of what's now Olympus or Olympia, um, cafe, it's actually a larger amount of open space than this drawing of Centennial Plaza. But I apologize because it's my cut and paste mistake that it wasn't portrayed that way. Sorry, what did you say for the for question three? You said one? Okay. Thank you.

[01:48:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Counsel my brother Ramirez.

[01:48:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. For question one, I also support the proposed design. Question two, I support option two, with some amount of way finding. I don't know if it's going to be a major problem, but I couldn't envision some people who aren't familiar with the entrance to the undercrossing, not knowing precisely where to go, and, you know, if they make their way down Moffat to central, only to have to backtrack. You know, I would feel there's a way to address that concern. I really struggled with option three. Um, Ordinarily, I'm fairly comfortable with reduced parking, but I'm not, I don't know if that would really work here. You know, all of us have been to a great number of events at the Adobe Building, and the parking already is over subscribed. Question three. Questions are coming. I sorry. Yes. You know, when I drive to events at the Adobe Building, 100% of the time, I park on Santa Rosa. So I think there is, I am concerned about parking impacts there. And I would be concerned about the viability of the Adobe Building as community space if we were to eliminate the parking there. So I support option one. I'm also sensitive. I think Adina brought this up. You know, as as Caltrain service increases, I would be concerned about people parking in that neighborhood to avoid having to pay for parking on the other side of the track. So exploring a residential parking permit program at some point, I think, makes a lot of sense. But it's probably not within the scope of this project. And then for a question for, I also, I agree with council member Kameh. I think we should explore the opportunity to add elevators, and then for the alternative that's being considered. I'm interested in learning more. I'm particularly interested in, so I appreciate the economic value of the real estate that's created by extending Castro. But I would like to know how much of that is displaced with the real estate you would need for a 2nd ramp and stairway. So I think there's a lot of benefit to this alternative, but I would like a better sense of the impact and the feasibility. Thank you.

[01:50:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, I'll run through my thoughts on these on the 1st question. I'm okay with the ramp on Evelyn, but I am concerned about the loss of parking spaces, and I do want to understand the plan for what we do about that. Because we have quite a few projects downtown where people want to reduce the number of parking spaces, and I don't think we've added back enough at a time when I think we need even more, or do something different, but we'll talk about that later tonight. But that's my biggest concern about the ramp. For question two, I support option one, I think it's really important that we have a pleasant experience between the buildings as you go towards central, um, the 100 Moffatt buildings, and to me, option one is the most pleasant experience for pedestrians. And I think we're trying to get both bicyclists and pedestrians to the transit center. So I support option one on question three. I also support option one. I do want to preserve the parking at the Adobe Building, and I am concerned about the impact of all of this on the neighborhood. And so in response to question four, I think it's important that we do look at the residential parking permit program. And I think we've talked about maybe we need to revisit that to find out why we haven't had any success with it so far. And I personally feel like if we're causing, If we're doing something that could potentially cause an impact on a neighborhood, in terms of the availability or lack thereof of parking, that maybe the city should do something about the parking permit program, and not rely on the neighborhood to come forward with a petition for it. And I go so far as to say that I don't think there should be a cost to the neighborhood. So I'd be looking for a revised RPPP for both downtown as well as the Willowgate area. I do agree that we should look at elevators and escalators instead of relying on ramps and stairs. And I would also delay, or postpone, or never do the change to the Castro and Central intersection. I think it's better to spend the $1.9 million on something else. Elevators, right? Oh, no. And I am intrigued by the alternative that was suggested tonight. Now that I learned a little bit more about it during our discussion, I do have concerns about it. I wouldn't want to have so much concrete in terms of ramps and steps, in multiple locations close together, but I do think it's intriguing to see if there is some way we could get people to come out from underground on Castro, rather than before that. So I'm interested in exploring it. And I think that is it. So if I was to summarize this, it was unanimous that we support the Evelyn ramp as proposed, in terms of the design for the 100 Moffatt area, option two, was favored by the majority. When it comes to the option at the Adobe Building, option one was the favored there. I did hear a lot of support, more than four. For elevators and escalators, at least looking at it. And I think some people mentioned one and not the other, but I heard quite a few for both. So, let's look at both. And I also heard majority support for looking quickly at the alternative that was proposed tonight to see if there's something we can do with that. There was also, yeah, quite a bit of support for looking at the RPPP for, especially the Willow Gate neighborhood. And then, um, I would support delaying the project, uh, Okay. postponing it? I'm sorry, not doing it. Yes. Okay. Did anybody else have any comments on that one? John. Ellen. Did either one of you, um, have any comments about the, John, I know you did the Castro and Central, um, intersection changes? Or should we just let it go?

[01:55:39] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I'd be interested in hearing from staff about the option of not doing it. He was just showing me the diagram. Yes.

[01:55:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, sorry. Thank you. Okay, so I guess we do want to explore then, um, not doing that the change to that intersection. Can we do that tonight?

[01:55:57] City Staff: Um, I'd like to clarify what that means. We're actually in the design process and would be bringing plans and specs to you in the next month or two. Um, we can, um, decide tonight to or direct staff to quit designing that project now. We don't plan to come back to you on that project, though, until we've completed our plans and specs, and we're almost there. Again, the genesis of that project for the new council members was recognizing that this project was going to be some years off and also recognizing that we have some issues out there, particularly with pedestrian crossing, particularly with pedestrians actually getting cut off halfway through crossing central expressway because the gates coming down. There was a desire to do something in the interim recognizing that it would be in place for, you know, anywhere from 3 to five, 10 years, depending on how long this project took. So it was meant to be a near term, relatively short term thing. We didn't know how short term or further along with this project. Maybe we have a better sense, but we still don't know when this is going to be built. So, some clarity on that tonight would be great. We'll also be talking about the Capital Improvement program next week and again, it is an existing project. It's on the list of existing projects. You can give us direction then too.

[01:57:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:57:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I was gonna say, yeah. next week would be fine. We can more clarity and we can talk to the other.

[01:57:38] City Staff: Okay, we can provide a few paragraphs of background about the project, give you a little more information. We didn't give you an offer. I could also mention that the option, there is an alternatives to just take the West Side sidewalk out and make people cross over to Adobe to come into the transit center. We could also eliminate that interference in option. Okay. And they were also changes to the northeast side that I think we all were fine with when we talked about that. It was mostly the west side that we were concerned. We can provide what the plan is and talk about the details.

[01:58:13] City Staff: If I could, if I could get some clarity on the RPP discussion. I've heard two things. I've heard, be a little more proactive with the RPP program in Willowgate. There is a mechanism under the current program for counsel to initiate a process. We honestly haven't heard from Willowgate with an application. We could reach out to them and say, you know, remind them that there is an RPP program and talk to them about it. The other option is to open up the entire program, which is a much larger effort.

[01:58:44] Unknown Speaker: Council member, I agree with the mayor about, let's be proactive on it because it's going to come down. And I also concur that there shouldn't be a cost to the residency.

[01:58:55] City Staff: So if the council wants to reexamine the RPP, That really should be a project listed on the goals. I think it's already on the list, as I recall, that needs to be prioritized and it needs to be put into the work plan for next year. This is really not the time to decide that in isolation.

[01:59:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So my thought on that is, I would like to do something about parking in the Willowgate neighborhood. I have heard from quite a few folks who live there. And it might not be the RPPP, but maybe it's something about our time limits on parking. There's some already, I think that it's 5 hours, but if that needs to be expanded, or if it's a different amount of hours, but I'd like to look at the issue of there's a whole lot of cars from people who don't live in the Willowgate area who are parking there, and how do we address that?

[01:59:43] City Staff: Another suggestion, perhaps, to give a venue for public input on this is to agendize that with the CTC, and they can discuss some options in more detail and then we can bring a recommendation to council, if that's interesting to the council.

[02:00:01] Unknown Speaker: I'd be comfortable with that suggestion. Nods.

[02:00:06] Unknown Speaker: sounds good.

[02:00:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, sounds good. Thank you. So, anything else on this topic? Okay, we will close this item, and I think we're going to take a 10 minute break before we go on to the regular meeting. So we'll be back at 725. Okay, we are gonna call this meeting to order the regular meeting, and we will start with, uh, the pledge of allegiance..

[02:01:05] Unknown Speaker: I pledge allegiance to the flag. Love you, United States of America. And to the Republic, a legit fans. One name up under God. like and justice world.

[02:01:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If the city clerk could announce our attendance?

[02:01:26] City Clerk: All council members are present, thank you.

[02:01:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next item is the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council or audience wishes to remove the item for discussion. Notices were mailed for item 4.2 on the consent calendar, the Lyong Drive, water and sewer main replacement item. And if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this item, now would be the appropriate time. Okay, so, are there any, um, council members who want to pull an item? No. Any member of the audience want to pull an item? No. Okay, it looks like we have a motion to the consent calendar from Council member McAllister and a 2nd by Vice Mayor Abbe Koga. We can vote on this. And the consent calendar passes unanimously. Thank you. The next item is oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter that is 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. Is there anyone who wishes to address the council on an item that is not on the agenda tonight? If you could fill out a blue card and come up to the microphone?

[02:03:13] Public Speaker: Good evening. I'm here to share with you two events. I'm proud to be supporting that I think will also be of interest to many people in the audience. As part of leadership Mountain View, best class ever. I'm playing a part in a really interesting project spearheaded by some of my amazing classmates called A Day in Mountain View. A day in Mountain View is actually a week long virtual event, which starts next Monday, the 25th of March, and runs through Friday the 29th of March. The project is meant to bring awareness and empathy to the lives of homeless and unstably housed youth in our city. using the powers of photographs on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Each day will be a different theme, including where I rest, what I enjoy, and when I grow up. Using hashtag a day in MV, you and their family can post and share their stories, and everyone else can read, share, comment, and retweet the stories you see, again, hashtag a day in MV. I'll have flyers to share. My colleague behind me. And also as part of Mountain View's Human Relations Commission, I'm proud to announce the return of civility roundtables. Our next event is on Saturday, 6th of April, and is called a trading on how to have a civil conversation about important community issues. In partnership with the League of Women voters, we are holding a nationally supported and recognized training on how to have challenging conversations on any topic. After a period of in-depth training, we will apply the methodology to talk about affordable housing, housing insecurity and homelessness in our community. People will take on personas representing different points of view, often different from their current point of view, and will learn empathy and skills for talking about this and other challenging topics. The point of this event is not to talk about policy, but to improve our ability to talk productively about this subject anymore. I also have flyers for this. If you want one, raise your hand, and Anis will pass them out. Thank you very much.

[02:05:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[02:05:19] Greg Unangst: Hello, Greg, you and Angst again, still in Mountain View. Good evening, council members, vice mayor and mayor. Well, the outcome of the Google Siwest deliberations have not gone well. It is important to be ready to act when the road ahead becomes clear. Tonight, I'm speaking on behalf of the members of the campaign for Balanced Mountain View, a group formed in 2014 to advocate for better jobs, the housing balance. The North Bayshore precise plan was adopted in 2017, advocated for the creation of 9,850 housing units. It's now that it is now apparent that that goal may be in jeopardy. This is troublesome. As a North Bay Shore area is a logical and compelling location for housing units. Our group was especially concerned as a ramification of not building significant housing. We'll have negative effects on for Mountain View and the Bay Area. Since North Bay Shore is the home of several large employers, it is imperative that housing be provided for many of the employees that these firms need. We encourage the council to advocate the following six items. Maintain, number one, maintain the long term goal of 9,850 housing units in complete neighborhoods. Two, connect the production of new offices to the production of new housing using the model that Google has suggested of four square feet of housing to one square foot of office, or establish a similar metric. Three, necessary to regain housing, if necessary to regain housing, and or height, of the opposed residential buildings to be increased. Four. Encourage the Mountain View, Whisman School District to accept the original 2.5 acre and park proposal, or a comparable site for an elementary school. Five, encourage parallel development of different sections of North Bay Shore at the same time. Do not wait for the gateway area to be completed before other areas are allowed to move forward. Six. Transportation movements are crucial, but these should not be used to slow the development of housing. Contracts and commitments can be made to ensure that the improvements will go forward. Many hours were spent, and many people worked to develop an imaginative plan and vision for the future of North Bay Shore. Let's make the necessary and arduous effort. provide 9,850 housing units in exciting and complete neighborhoods. Thank you.

[02:07:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. Is there anyone else who wants to speak on a topic not on the agenda?

[02:07:56] Karen Scold: Hello, my name is Karen Scold. I am a homeowner. I've lived here for 35 years. And right now, I want to speak about bicycle safety. I hope you all are aware of the tragic death of Steve Purcell, who they're friends of mine, the Purcells have been friends of mine for a long time. I am very concerned about bicycle safety. The appalling irony of his death is that he He's a very experienced cyclist. He had traveled all over the world, cycling in all kinds of road conditions and weather. And yet, the most dangerous place, where he was killed, was right here in Mountain View, not far from his own home. Um, I'm very sad for the family. And he will be much missed. So I want to ask counsel to put bicycle safety on a higher priority than perhaps it already is. I know there is a bicycle and pedestrian safety committee. But I would like to see all, all possible ways that bikes could be protected. It's very difficult to encourage people to ride their bikes instead of driving cars if they feel they have to risk their lives doing so. Um, possibility that you may or may not be aware of is the city of Seattle has installed concrete posts separating bike lanes from cars. after many pedestrian or bicycle desks. And I would like that issue to be considered and researched if the committee is not already aware of that. Thank you.

[02:10:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address this on an item that's not on the agenda? Okay, then we will close this portion. Oh. Come on up to the microphone, fill out a blue card, either before or after you speak.

[02:10:33] Maria Wong Kel: Hi, this is Maria, Wong Kel. I have, uh, something that... I asked around, and they said it's not, um, normal. I get a ticket in my RV and it's asking for registration. And it says that registration expire. And they took my license plate. And that person, if she he checks the license or license plate, then they should know that it's registered in a DMV. And also, I don't know who Sergeant McGee is. Does he drive around giving tickets? Maybe.

[02:11:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Maybe we could take this offline and we could follow up with. Actually, Sergeant Mitchie. McGee is right there. Next, please.

[02:11:42] Steve Rasmussen: Council. So I wanted to come here tonight, because today, I announced, my name is Steve Rasmussen, and I have the milk pail. So today was the day that I announced that we were going to bring closure to the business in the next couple of few months. And I wanted to thank the city because it's because of the city that we were able to have such a long run against many odds. To celebrate that long run, somewhere around here, outside is my daughter, who doesn't know I'm here right now, standing here, and we brought you all a platter of cheese. Because, you know, it's a very, especially if you've been here since five this afternoon. So I just wanted to thank the city that many of you were responsible for the fact that we had 45 years of a very good run. And I'm not getting any younger. And it's not really my age. I think it's my girth that slows me down. So, again, thank you very much, and see you around.

[02:12:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you for 45 years here, Steve. Thank you. Is there anyone else? who would like to speak with us on a topic not on the agenda? Okay, we will close this portion of the meeting, and we will now move to item 7.1, which is an update on initiatives to assist homeless and unstably housed residents and consideration of parking enforcement strategies. Our presenters tonight, our assistant to city manager, Kimberly Thompson, Thomas. Um, analyst Caitlin Sear, and assistant city attorney, Nicole Wright.

[02:13:42] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thompson: Thank you and good evening, Mayor and City Council members. I'll be providing the overview presentation, and I'm grateful to the many interdepartmental staff, as well as collaborators, CSA, Move, Palo Alto Housing Corporation, destination home, and the county that have contributed to this report, and many of them joined us here tonight. To guide the council's discussion, the first section of this report provides an update on the city's current strategy to address unstably housed and homeless. It requires council direction associated with extending funding for one or more options. The second section outlines a range of parking enforcement strategies, and recommends adoption of an ordinance related to vehicles discharging sewage in the public right of way, approval of a long term, safe parking policy, and declaration of a shelter crisis. Council direction will be sought on the second part of the report, with associated fiscal impacts. Council direction can be taken in any order. Over the past several years, there has been an increase in the number of people in Mountain View or without stable housing. Either living in vehicles or more traditionally homeless, living on the streets or in encampments. According to the county biannual point in time count, the number of homeless in Mountain View has increased from 139 in 2013 to 416 in 2017. The concentrations of recreational vehicles and other vehicles have been particularly a visible sign of this issue. With the most recent count in December of 2018 by our police department, identifying 290 vehicles that appeared to be used for living. The city has been working for the past three years to learn more about this population, develop solutions to address immediate needs, increased access to stable housing, and address the impacts of people living in the rights of way. We refer to this in the staff report, and some of our communications, as the three prong strategy. Most of the services associated with this strategy have just been operational a little less than two years. This work has been focused on implementing the council direction from five council meetings, in the form of a 73 item work plan. To date, 53 of those actions have been completed. 14 have been implemented, and are now ongoing, and 4 in process or being implemented. The elements of this strategy have included the short term initiatives associated with basic human services, the long term strategies spearheaded by community development related to housing supply, a new community outreach officer in our police department, and the city has also partnered with various community based organizations, and very much with the county on implementation of the strategy. Reducing the number of individuals and families without a home is a complex issue that requires multi agency and inter departmental coordination. Regional collaboration and a long term focus. The city's strategies in action taken thus far, demonstrate an investment in addressing this important and complex regional issue. This includes leveraging a number of funding sources, city funds, grants, and other commitments from the county to create shared accountability. Outreach and engagement to link residence to services has been a core focus over time, and CSA has led our outreach. Over time, CSA has outreached over 400 vehicles. That number flexes as the population on our streets, flexes as well. The city's current efforts have mitigated some of the impacts of vehicles being used as housing and have improved the lives for some living in vehicles. But certainly there's more to be done. The magnitude of the regional housing crisis, and the complexities of homelessness, have resulted in the needle not moving much, and reducing the inhabited vehicles seen on Mountain View streets. When working with homeless and disenfranchised, vulnerable populations. It can take multiple contacts to establish trust and engage people in services. Some may never engage. Many live day to day. and can often be in survival mode. The varying levels of engagement and the limits of the various assessment tools that we have mean we don't have as clear a picture of the population as we would like, the circumstances of each vehicle. However, in general, we know there is no one description of people living in vehicles in mountain view. They are as diverse as the fixed housing population. The programs shown on screen here are the main methods and some of our main partners that assist us in assisting the unstably housed and homeless individuals, even for established housing programs that have been around for many years, it can take several years for enrolled clients to transition to stable housing. In fact, it can take upwards of 18 months or longer. This is complicated by the fact that, generally, the individuals that are living in RVs, in particular, assess at a lower level of vulnerability than those who would be outside with no structure whatsoever. And many also complicate a complicated picture in that they may not consider themselves technically as homeless. While these programs can change lives and help prevent additional homelessness, specifically in the case of homelessness prevention. The number in need are so great that the city's efforts have not moved the vehicles off the streets. The table shown here and next summarizes the housing program data reported and captured in your report. The positive collective efforts of many have resulted in placing 116 Mountain View affiliated households in housing, and approximately another 44 are on a path to housing at this time, with the current funding of programs. Homelessness prevention, rental assistance, permanent supportive housing programs are showing the most positive impact. Many of our clients rate at the RV clients rate at the level of rapid rehousing and permanent support of housing. Unfortunately for both programs, there is more need than there is match. Continuing and noted here are the other 44, showing that you the rest of the graph of information, the data that's included in the report, and also the 44 that are pending housing. And again, that's covered through existing programs. Also, I mentioned briefly earlier, Sergeant Willie McGee of our neighborhood events services unit. This unit was established in 2017, and it created a new community outreach officer position. In addition to the normal duties of a police officer, the community outreach officer acts as a liaison between our community based providers and the homeless and vulnerable populations. The outreach officer has served during his time, and he's since retired to balance compassion with enforcement, and has made significant links in linking residents up, living in vehicles to services. The screen, the data on screen shows that it is somewhat reflective of the enhanced enforcement from March of 2018 that was canceled direction. But it's also important to note that there is no empirical data that shows that people living in vehicles, or the homeless generally, are any more or less likely to engage in criminal activity than the general public in our neighborhoods. Also, the city, as a part of this report and prior reports, has engaged in a combined community feedback through emails, letters, calls, social media, ask Mountain View. We've also tracked data at a staff level since 2017. We did a follow up to this report to a survey that was conducted in 2016, and staff shows some high points of that survey on the screen there. It's also available online in greater detail. Part one is wrapping up here with a pause for consideration of some budget components related to part one. The council can desire to take this now, or you can hold it for later, but on screen shown are a number of programs that are associated with human services, and linking folks up to housing. There is a suggested funding source for this that would be restricted for housing, covering about 250,000 of this 282, if the council is open to that for your consideration. So I'll pause for a moment.

[02:22:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think what I was going to propose a little bit later, is that we take the recommendations that are listed on the front page of the staff report, and we'd vite them into groups. So if, uh, everyone's got that page in front of them. I might as well go through that right now, and then we'll get back to the presentation. I was thinking maybe we could do one, four, and five together. And then two and three, and then six. If that works for everyone. Seemed like kind of a logical grouping of topics. Do you want me to repeat that? One, four, and five, together, and then two and three together, and then six, which gets to the funding, because that is sort of dependent on what we decide on the other ones. So I think we should just continue on with the staff presentation then. Staff will continue.

[02:23:25] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thompson: At its last meeting, addressing safe parking and, uh, non consent item, the council asks staff to return with options, that was similar to an update presented in March of 2018. This section of the presentation highlights a number of possible strategies for regulating the rights of way. As noted in the report, developments in case law have impacted city's ability and options in relation to enforcement, with rulings or pending rulings that limit a city's ability to prohibit using vehicles as sleeping quarters, prosecuting the homeless for sleeping on public property, when no other sleeping spaces are available, or towing vehicles whose owners have the inability to pay for those citations. In general, it's important to note that state law prescribes what cities may do in the regulation of street parking, and stress is the need for adequate notice and equitable application of the law. The strategies for regulating parking variant scope, depending upon the outcome. And so staff has arranged those in the report regarding four options. They're outlined, for help parking can be limited based on location, time, vehicle size, and activity impacts of the vehicle owner or occupant. These options involve trade offs between the needs of those living in vehicles currently are residents, businesses, in proximity to these uses, in the city rights of way, as well as possible trade offs of shifting parking from one location to the other. Implementation actions, in summary, could include defining an ordinance, communications rollout, conducting public outreach, fabricating and installing signage, phased potential enforcement of the regulations. Many of the examples will touch base on with you related to this, have done phased implementation. To help guide the council, there is a summary chart of all the options at the back of the staff report, as well as a summary breakdown of the budget recommendations in a chart form. In addition, staff. Caitlin has a copies of the maps. If you'd like to draw in and look at a particular location in terms of the city. We have an overlay with our zoning, as well as an overlay with our city facilities, including parks. The first option is locational parking limits. For this option, as seen on screen, there is A through C, and there are challenges to locational parking. These approaches, approaches in that they address parking enforcement only in an ad hoc piecemeal kind of way. While high concentration areas could be addressed more quickly. Location-based restrictions can have the unintended consequences of shifting parking from one location to another. And this has happened in the city of Mountain View. On Latham would be an example. Chrysanto would be another example. So just giving you some context for that. Further restrictions, also related to your discussion earlier, reduce on street parking supply, which is always a challenge, in busy Mountain View. There are the overarching cost considerations are moderate, both for staff time, as well as cost on this, and the estimated time frame is 3 to 12 months to implement, depending upon the scope the council desires. Option two. Also, A and B shown on screen, time limited parking could impact neighborhoods with new restrictions, and have unintended consequences, again, including more traffic congestion, as vehicles seek other places to park for longer durations, and move their vehicles potentially around. Many cities do follow this procedure and regulate through time. This is both moderate for cost and time, and is also an estimated time frame of three to 12 months to implement, depending upon scope. The last two are more complex options and have various provisions in, and I'm certainly will need a lot of feedback from the council as if we were to move forward with defining your preferences. And that is vehicle size limits, A through C. They're also shown on screen. The size limit approach addresses the concerns associated with traffic visibility and health and safety, which are some of the main areas of feedback we get from the community. But it would not restrict living of cars or smaller scale vehicles. That's a little less than 40% of the living and vehicle population, according to the last count. So to give you some idea of scale. Oversize restrictions have been adopted recently by East Palo Alto. Berkeley just did a couple of weeks back, as well as several cities throughout the North Bay, and some throughout the state, including one of the better examples, which is the city of Santa Barbara. A sample is included and attached for your reference. Challenges for vehicle size restrictions include providing adequate notice and moving large number of vehicles that may not have another transitional place to go. So those are some of the key challenges. In addition, there are a number of lawsuits that are currently challenging the city's regulations that affect the parking of vehicles, used for habitation, for living, that has been increasing, and so an oversized vehicle ban is not without risk, but it is something that the council consider, can consider, and this is moderate to high in terms of both cost and time. And we estimate that it would take 6 to 18 months to implement, depending on scope. A prohibition ordinance, could be brought quickly, and then allowing additional time, time through the next many months for implementation. to give you some idea of scale. Santa Barbara's took nearly 18 months for them to implement. There was also another area, which would be focused more on the vehicle owner and occupant activity limits, behaviors that may cause some concern throughout the community, addressing those on a one by one basis. Numerous cities have adopted ordinances, regulating living in vehicles, post the desertrain decision, but it does require a very careful drafting process, and in all likelihood, we would engage outside council for that to ensure that we are implementing that well, but there are many examples, including San Mateo, that did it in 2016. These options may require that further analysis, and most of the options to regulate or mitigate the vehicle actions activities. Those are outside the scope, normally for a city and municipal government. So it's a more challenging area to get into, and that would include things like additional waste management programs, additional health and safety, maintenance, looking at codes and compliance. The estimated time frame here is 12 to 18 months, to implement depending upon scope. As a part of the consideration of all of the four options associated with additional enforcement, There are some transitional safe parking options that staff has brought for your consideration. This would be a way to mitigate some of the consequences of additional parking changes and allow some phasing there. And that includes getting additional feedback from the council on scope, scale, and capacity as well as time limits. But that would include declaring a shelter crisis, adopting a safe parking ordinance, a sample draft of the shelter crisis, a resolution is attached, and there are various safe parking ordinance samples attached as well, and to approve or consider approving safe parking at Shoreline, one of the shoreline lots, and or other property. As mentioned in the staff report. Staff is currently in negotiations on a transit associated lot, that may be viable, and we have done some preliminary application on that. for safe parking. There are also other options the council could consider that are a little bit more innovative, but that would be things like a sort of a very basic parking program with no services, perhaps an incentive program for businesses, or the optional expansion of waste vouchers. If you want to tie that in, how you did with the Palo Alto housing Corp Lot. You added that to the mix so that you can ensure waste was well managed. Summary on screen, and we'll move from that, but these are some of the high points regarding what staff would recommend foreign enforcement, and that would include things like our community outreach officer, as well as some other tools that would assist the police department and its partners in managing data and other things associated with infield application. Wrapping up is the chart I mentioned earlier, which is the fiscal impact summary. All the options are shown there on the screen, as we've highlighted, there is one potential funding service of 250,000, that is solely for things associated with housing, all of the others would need a funding source. There are some additional recommendations in the staff report related to the general fund, but all of that would be incorporated into your considerations for the 1920 budget. Lastly, shown on screen one here, what was mentioned earlier by the mayor, one through four, and we're going to take them slightly out of order, and also next screen. 5 and six. There are also a number of alternatives, including changing the order around that the council could consider. That's included on screen here. And next, that concludes staff's presentation, and I would be happy, or our team that's up here to answer any questions. In addition, interdepartmental staff, including police and fire and public works, are in the audience, as well as move CSA, destination home, and various aspects of our county team. Thank you.

[02:33:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Do any council members have questions before we open this up for public input? Council member Ramirez.

[02:33:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, I have a couple of questions for MVPD, and I don't know if it'd be more appropriate to ask, uh, the chief or Sergeant McGee. There you go. Thank you, Chief. So... You know, I participated in a ride along yesterday. And so I asked these questions of Wally, so I don't know if you want to coordinate with this, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on if the council were to implement a citywide parking prohibition. how MVPD would go about it enforcing that and what inappropriate transition might look like.

[02:34:21] Police Chief: We'd have to give that some thought. I think, in the spirit of how we generally approach law enforcement, we would look for a phased implementation, start with warnings and education, and set a timeline that would be acceptable that would eventually lead to enforcement of the prohibition completely.

[02:34:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then I learned something during the ride along that I found interesting, and I don't know if you happen to know, but I assume you do. how Sunnyvale has been engaging their RV dwelling population and its impact on Mountain View. Could you share with us what's going on there?

[02:35:06] Police Chief: I would not be able to, no. I'll have Sergeant McGee.

[02:35:14] Sergeant McGee: Hello, counsel. So over the two years that I've been engaging with RV dwellers. Unfortunately, we've had some contacts where RV dwellers have told us that they've been directed by other cities, specifically law enforcement, unfortunately, to come to Mountain View, specifically with Sunnyvale, or from what I understand. This is the 3rd time I've heard it. But the 1st time I've actually seen a packet, been given out to RV dwellers regarding the services that are being provided by the city of Mountain View. And it's actually a city of Mountain View, initiative package created by the city. It's 8 pages, I believe. And it talks about all the services and whatnot provided. And 3 independent, um, people have told me that they've been directed to come here because it's basically welcomed, unfortunately. By what they stated, unfortunately, that's what I mean. I've heard this from Milpitas PD as well by 2 different RV dwellers. I've heard from Paul Alto, PD as well. And with some of my interactions, they've been, they've told me as well that Los Altos does not allow it, so they came to Mountain View.

[02:36:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you very much. Any other council questions? Council member Kameh.

[02:36:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I had a question that I was thinking about this morning, so sorry for not sending it to Steph sooner. Um, but at the state level, we're seeing a lot of legislation come forward. And I was just wondering as we are preparing to review all the information provided tonight, um, how some of the bills coming down from the state, we might want to take those into account and just wanted to, I know it's very early on. And in their legislative process, but wouldn't want to, you know, do anything that have some continuity in terms of what the state is directing as well as what cities might be able to do. Thank you.

[02:37:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Council member, you might be thinking of like assembly member choose bill in relation to fees and those type of things. And then also the Berman bill, those kinds.

[02:37:18] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, yes, both of those bills. You read my mind.

[02:37:21] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yeah. Staff is tracking all that legislation through our IGR in a governmental relations office. And we are monitoring that. And certainly our city attorney's office is consistent in reviewing any actions we'd be taking, included in the staff report is a pretty good summary of some of the main areas in case law, but also on the legislator front we are looking at it. And also, I think on an ongoing basis, looking at it, is there anything the state could do to help? as well.

[02:37:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:37:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I got a few questions. I got more than a few questions. So on your slide 6 or in the council report, page 11. There's a slide, and it talks about case client case management appointment, and county homeless assessment completed. What takes place at a client case appointment?

[02:38:16] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: What a staff level I know generally, but I do have an expert in the audience who could talk a bit about that. That would be Tom Myers from CSA or Nicole, his assistant. They can speak to this with the greatest depth.

[02:38:36] Tom Myers: Good evening. Your question specifically is what happens in a case management appointment?

[02:38:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Because there's a huge drop off of 129 case appointments to the final assessment completed, which really gets the moving to 40.

[02:38:52] Tom Myers: Yes, exactly. And that drop off is because within a case management appointment, you might find that someone is in need of different kinds of services, perhaps they are engaging but are not appropriate or they do not want to go into an assessment. So the assessment is the final product, the case management appointment, there's a lot more that goes into that. It's a lot more one on one. I would say that seeing that higher number for case management appointments is can be seen, though, as a good thing because that may be getting them connected to other services that don't necessarily lead to an assessment.

[02:39:30] Councilmember John McAlister: So when it says the assessment, My understanding, that's really the, as you say, the last step to getting on a list to get housing.

[02:39:37] Tom Myers: Exactly.

[02:39:38] Councilmember John McAlister: And so at the 129, you're you're filtering them at that point. But how many actually, then just sort of after that case assessment, don't have appointment.

[02:39:50] Tom Myers: If they've gotten to the point where they're having a case assessment appointment, because if you're engaging with someone during an outreach, that could be a one-off, if you've actually gotten them into the office where they're engaging with one of our social work case managers on case, on a case management, they may be getting themselves into food programs or they may be getting themselves into perhaps there's domestic violence issues that need to be dealt with or there's other kinds of issues. Just because they're not getting to the assessment doesn't mean that there's not good stuff happening in that case management. But if your goal is to get them assessed and into the line for affordable housing, then the assessment numbers the one you need to look at.

[02:40:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, here's going to put you on the spot a little bit. Okay. What can be done to increase that? The homeless assessment, getting that completed, getting more people doing that one.

[02:40:42] Tom Myers: That is a very tough question and... Yeah. Yeah, I think that we already stress, to anyone who goes through case management, that the goal is to get them stably housed, to understand that living in a vehicle is not ideal, and that we want to help get them to a place where they can be either assessed and put on a list for affordable housing, or find some other way that they can stabilize their living situation. You know, getting into onto the list assessment and onto the list for affordable housing is not necessarily the only way to solve someone's unstably housed situation. So that case management appointment, I think, is vital to get that number on the list higher. I think that we are already doing as much as we can within the case management process to try and do that. So I'm not sure that there's much more we can do. You cannot force someone onto an assessed list.

[02:41:47] Councilmember John McAlister: So what's the timeline? Once they get the assessed to getting housing, finding housing.

[02:41:52] Tom Myers: I would defer to the county or some other sources on what exactly the status is on that, speaking of which, Michelle Covert. The Office of Supportive Housing. Yeah, tag team. like setting you guys up.

[02:42:10] Michelle Covert: Good evening. I'm Michelle Covert with the Office of Supportive Housing, and a couple points about the assessment. That is specifically a housing triage tool that has between 40 and 50 very personal questions of an individual about their risk factors, their well-being, their history of homelessness, police and medical history. So there are quite a few individuals that, um, are hesitant to do that specific triage tool. So there may be other assessments that Tom Staff are doing that may be about housing and case management and creating a need and a needs and service plan. But that 40 number is specifically about the tool tool called the VI, a triage assessment tool that's done for housing. But again, it asks very personal, very detailed questions. And so some people do um, have some hesitancy about filling that out at times. So to then answer your question about what we're doing about that. We're actually working to implement a county wide outreach program to individuals who are resistant to coming in for services, be it because of a medical disability, mental health, substance abuse. So, um, maybe being having a resistance to, um, completing that assessment. So we're creating a new team that will focus countywide, but really, we feel that that team will focus on North and South County. Because those are the areas of the county that need additional outreach resources in order to address some of the issues with homeless population that you're seeing. In central Santa Clara County is pretty well serviced when it comes to outreach teams, what North and South County, we feel need more of it. And so we're implementing a 5 member homeless outreach team to supplement what CSA is already doing for us.

[02:43:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, now that I have you here, thank you. Is there a safe parking or any kind of RV parking allowed at the county fairgrounds?

[02:44:02] Tom: There is There's an RV parking program there ran by the Fairgrounds Management Corporation. So there's about, I think, between 28 and 32 RVs that are there at any given time.

[02:44:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Does the county still have control over the fairgrounds?

[02:44:18] Tom: Yes, and they subcontract the management of the overall site to the Fairgrounds Management Corporation.

[02:44:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Have you relocated anybody or suggested that they go to the fairgrounds?

[02:44:28] Tom: Yeah, I believe that there have been communities, so there's been outreach workers that have suggested people go to the fairgrounds. It's a pretty stable population that is there. I mean, they stay for about 28 days, and they leave for a day or two, and then they come back, and they allow additional RVs to come in when the, um, The amusement company. There's a part of the of the uh, uh, part of the fairgrounds area that's under contract with butler amusement. And so they come in and use, they have contracts. They put in the sewer and the water lines. So they had the 1st right to come in and use some of that space about 6 times out of the year. And when those spaces are not being used by the amusement company, the fairgrounds management corporation does let people come in and rent on a night by night, a week by the week basis. So in a sense, it is being used as a de facto safe parking program.

[02:45:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[02:45:22] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Oh, and I'll say, with staff can add to that, that CSA has done a step down program when they took on the mantle of doing the outreach efforts for the city. They created a full-scale mobile outreach program, and that's what Tom is mentioning. They look at every type of service that they can link folks up to short of assessment. Lastly, included in the report, there is a comment that they are assessing at a higher rate than they can even be placed in housing based upon availability in any case.

[02:45:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Over here on page 12, on rental assistance, you have a line in there. The last sentence says. for rental assistance, which is used as, again, for renting homelessness. Use of the program has been limited, given its parameters and the passage of the stabilization affair REN Act. Could you clarify for how or rent control limits, rental assistance?

[02:46:16] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, I think that probably having one of our housing staff speak to that would be more informative. So Tim Wong is available from community development, if he is here. Oh, it's nice and silent.

[02:46:38] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Hi, yes. Tim Wong Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager. In reply to council member McAllister's comment, The CSFRA, the original program to run through the CSA, allowed for rental assistance for those households who received approximately a 10% increase in rent over the past year or recently received a 10% increase. And with the CSFRA, which caps rental increases, it pretty much neutralized the rental assistance program in that regards. Since since nobody received a higher than 10% rent increase.

[02:47:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you want to follow up? You had a question for him?

[02:47:25] Unknown Speaker: Yes, go ahead. very quickly. folks who are in units that are not subject to the CSFRA regulations duplexes, single family households would still be eligible for that assistance under the correct program, though, right?

[02:47:40] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: Sorry, could you repeat that again?

[02:47:41] Unknown Speaker: Oh, for so I understand the challenge with rent controlled units, but for households and duplexes, single-family homes, units that are not subject to the rent control regulations. They would still be able to take advantage of this program, right?

[02:47:59] Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager Tim Wong: I do believe so as long as they were lower income households, yes. That's correct.

[02:48:05] Unknown Speaker: And is it just a matter of, there are very few households in that kind of housing?

[02:48:09] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, in relation to this particular program. It was modified by the council in March of 2018. There have been some staff transitions in community development, and they have reassigned this, and they're going to be re-looking at that. But basically what this will do in terms of your existing funding that's already at CSA, is it will be looking at making that program much more flexible for CSA to assist folks in any capacity that meet their income requirements.

[02:48:33] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Sorry about that.

[02:48:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, that's okay. Um Then I'm going over to page 14, Summary of Mountain View affiliated House of the Holes, individuals, current enrolled in housing programs waiting for housing. And that sort of ties in what we were talking about. There's the 4 programs. PSH, or which is I shouldn't use acronyms because I always get mad. Yeah, permanent support of housing, the rapid rehousing, by the county, and the city, and We so been rolled there are 40 approximately 44. Is that different than the 40 that we had under the county homeless assessment completed? Are they the same individuals?

[02:49:22] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Uh, they can be different. The assessments go into the overarching HMIS system, not to get into governments speak, but it's a, of the clearing house for the continuum of care with the county. And so some of those individuals could be, and some not. But, yeah, basically what that 44 is, is those are folks who have been assessed, and they are in the program, they're maintaining in the program, and they're waiting housing.

[02:49:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, good. Okay, going over here too. The metrics, and I'm trying to understand that this is on page 17, police community, outreach metrics. And there's a line in there that says... And so in one year, you had 2 columns, July 17th, through June 18th, which is about a year, and you had 178 homeless individuals or residents living in vehicles that have been arrested, under the influence, for various reasons, engagement with the police. For 6 months, July 2018 to December 18th, we had 162 for 6 months, this could be possibly for the police. Is this a indication that there's an increasing number of police encounters for particular violations?

[02:50:46] Police Department Representative: Again? So our level of engagement hasn't changed. We try to go out there, knock on doors, contact people, and oftentimes, we'll just run into certain violations that, um, it's almost like a surprise, and many of you that have written out, have experienced that as well. And so I wouldn't say that we're giving specifically extra enforcement attention. It just seems that we're just kind of digging up more crime that we tip than we typically have on average, as you can see by the numbers.

[02:51:14] Councilmember John McAlister: So that's sort of an upgrade curve then?

[02:51:17] Police Department Representative: Based on the numbers, yes.

[02:51:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh... My other question is related to... the San... San Luis Obispo. Citywide parking program.

[02:51:40] Unknown Speaker: We're all over here. Okay. San Luis Obispo. Yep, part to say. Go Mustangs.

[02:51:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, it's in here. But what was in there, it was... Okay, here it is. It's on page 42 of those following online. It's a way to provide parking, but it also includes a requirements are participation with a social service provider. So that could be, like, being engaged with CSA or the county or so forth like that. Have we looked at a model like that?

[02:52:13] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, we staff is recommending that we look at a model like that for safe parking, and that this is an example of one of the few. There aren't that many, safe parking ordinances that are in existence, and this is one. And some of those components, generally, if you're doing a full programmatic, safe parking program, case management is a given, any requirement.

[02:52:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And do we know how?

[02:52:36] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Timberly, can you expand? I believe those in our current safe parking program run by move, do go through a CSA assessment as part of the process?

[02:52:45] Kimberly: Correct, and they're required, I believe it's monthly, if I'm saying it correctly, and I see Dave in the office, and others, yes, thank you, Tom. Monthly to do a check in, and that check in process, if you are not doing so, affects your permit.

[02:52:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh, okay, thank you.

[02:53:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:53:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I asked most of my questions, um, in written form earlier, but I do have one short procedural question for the mayor, since you divided the how we would address the recommendations. Where would be the time for general comments? Would it be at the beginning of that? along with accepting the report?

[02:53:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:53:24] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[02:53:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes. Any other questions from council members?

[02:53:30] Unknown Speaker: I have a couple. I also sent in a whole bunch, but on question number 30. of the council questions that we sent in. I had a follow-up question on that one. So the question was, can businesses currently allow RVs to park in their parking lots, and the answer was, businesses can allow RVs to park in their parking lots, if they are on private property, for parking purposes. Does that mean you can't do it for living purposes?

[02:53:59] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: That's correct, and in terms of existing land use. So it's really a land use issue, not necessarily a traffic or a parking issue. And I'm looking at my attorney over here, Nicole, and making sure what I'm saying is accurate. But it is associated with parking only, and not other types of uses. And that parking is generally associated with activity of the business. You're engaging or your work there or those types of things. It's related to the activity that's designated at that site.

[02:54:28] Unknown Speaker: So if we wanted to allow businesses to allow their employees to park in their parking lots, who might be living in an RV, what would we have to do or could we do something to allow that?

[02:54:42] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I think I talked with our zoning administrator. It would be something that we would need to look at from a land use perspective. Um, similar to how you would be looking at the safe parking ordinance. Maybe it's something, I'm looking at both attorneys that could be weaved into that dialogue, or other ways. And so, currently, our safe parking program that's operated is they use a temporary use, Actually, they do require temporary use permit. It's an incidental use, parking those vehicles in a church parking lot, for example, is an incidental use, not the primary use of the property.

[02:55:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so we could use the same thing. Okay. And then my 2nd question is, We hear from some folks that the folks who are living in the RVs have been displaced, and I can imagine lots of different definitions of displays, but if you just kind of think about it broadly, I'm wondering, do we have any data that can support that, that the folks have been displaced? And I guess I'd say from either, you know, where they lived in Mountain View or the surrounding communities. Um, or, you know, do we have any data on that?

[02:55:56] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: That's a particular challenge. And I know it's, I'm having a vague recollection. It's something that's come up regarding a council goal or something as an idea in terms of tracking displacement. It is a real challenge, and what staff was able to gather for you that's included in the report is rather than just the generalized, affiliative federal standard for affiliation with Mountain View, which I know can be frustrating for some. But again, that's the federal government's designation. We were able to pull additional data from the county, their very talented staff. And that is the table that's included on page 15. It is the individuals that have had a zip code in Mountain View, or their last resident residency was in Mountain View. So it's a smaller subset of that larger affiliation, but it gives you some idea of context that 50% or more of the folks being assisted through programmatic areas, just these programs where they're enrolled. They are mountain view based.

[02:56:53] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So, um, I'm curious, um, from Mountain View Police Department, in the folks that you're encountering, talking with, um, do you have a sense for what percent, or what do people say to you? Because I know when I've gone out, I can only, you know, and I've been out several times with the police department, either the community services officer or a sworn officer. And I think over the past 3 years, I've probably been out maybe five, 6 times. And I've only encountered one person that I would say was displaced. My most recent ride along, um, a gentleman came from Oregon to help somebody in Sunnyvale, and he, I guess, was told to come to Mountain View. Um, And none of the others, I would say, were displaced. They're coming here from other states, other cities, but not Mountain View. So I'm kind of curious what your perspective on that is.

[02:57:55] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, and there is one comment that's included in the Stanford Report that is from the police department, which speaks to their tracking and data, being 50% or more not within Mountain View. And so that's based upon their engagement in which they are able to access additional avenues for data and information. So that is included in the staff report too, but certainly Chief Bozelle can speak to that. If you had anything to add to that, if not, I'm okay with that, too.

[02:58:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Any other questions from council members? Council member McAllister.

[02:58:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, just my last, honestly. Um, we have donation outreach. We've got a lot of concerned people, and compassionate people in Mountain View, are very active on this particular. And I was just wondering, what kind of donations are we getting from individuals?

[02:58:44] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, generally, those donations wouldn't come to the city. We're not the best conduit for that. They would go to CSA or any of the EAN emergency action network agencies. CSA is our main. So as always, in presentations that we've done, and certainly that CSA is done, we encourage donations to CSA. But we've also had some inroads on donations from private companies, to other partners that we work with on various programs.

[02:59:09] Councilmember John McAlister: So do we have it, other than bringing Tom back up, to have a sense of how the donations are coming in?

[02:59:16] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: At a staff level, I'd have a difficult connection between knowing what Tom's taking in that would be related to mobile outreach or other city associated programs, but perhaps Tompkins speak to that in greater depth. Well, he's coming up, just a few examples, and Kimberly probably has others. I believe Google donated a million dollars to Destination Home, specifically for Sunnyvale and Mountain View, as well as, I believe, another million dollars to Hope's Corner for the kitchen at their shelter. So those are just examples of a few relatively large private donations.

[02:59:51] Kimberly: And LinkedIn to safe parking, and others.

[02:59:54] Tom: Yeah, and those very big donations garner a lot of attention. And rightfully so. I will tell you the largest percentage of donations we get at CSA are from individuals, and we're very, very proud of that, that is shows not only a community that is committed to doing good work and compassionate work in our community. It also shows people who want to make sure that this community is a great place. So, yeah, those big donations are very important. You know, but the most sustainable donations are a community that really cares.

[03:00:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you are you able to identify the funds? Do they say, or is it they just put it into your general fund and then based on your discretion, you apply it?

[03:00:41] Tom: Most of the time, that's what happens. However, some people do direct their funding. We had a number of people who read an article about a group that was having trouble getting their vehicles repaired, and knew that CSA actually has funding and we keep a little bit of funding in our budget to help people who are low income repair their vehicles. And so they came to, they called me and said, can we donate specifically to that fund? I'm sure, absolutely. And they added about $2500 to our fund to help people repair their vehicles.

[03:01:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from council members? Okay, then at this point, we are going to open it up for public input. And if you could be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk. There should be cards over there. Can I see, by a show of hens, how many folks wish to speak on this item? Okay, so we are gonna have input for 2 minutes per person. And I do want to remind folks tonight that there are likely different perspectives on this topic. And it's my expectation that everyone here will be respectful of the comments and that we will refrain from any applause or booing. So again, we're going to be very respectful of all of the comments here tonight. So, um, if you would come up to the microphone and, um, Got 2 minutes and the clock is right here.

[03:02:25] Sylvia Martin: Okay. Mom, I already filled out a form. My name is Sylvia Martin. I am a low income resident. I believe it should be a personal choice if I wish to move into my van for a while. The only way I can afford to move out of the Bay Area is to live in my van for a while, collect my money, keep it, and then move out of the Bay Area. I'm on the Housing Authority wait list in this county in Santa Cruz County, in San Mateo County, in Sonoma County. And I think at Hollister. I'm getting ready to get on the Sacramento Housing Authority. I'm on all kinds of housing. I'm on all kinds of wait lists. Most people have told me 7 years out for 30% of my income. Okay? There's that many people on the wait list. On the expedit, I scored a 3. I'm work. You know what I'm saying? My credit score is so good if I if I could get housing based on my credit score I'd be in right now. However, like I said, I don't think you should criminalize it. I work with CSA, but they can't put me anywhere. There's like I said, I scored a three. There's so many people ahead of me on the wait list. that, you know, I will be able to move out of the county once I retire in a few years, and voila, I'll be on my way. Like I said, I would really appreciate it if you guys would not criminalize people for sleeping in their van. You know, I'm not on probation or parole. I'm not a drug addict. I'm just a very poor person who can only afford to buy a vehicle and live in it. Thank you very much.

[03:03:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please. And I think we had, Lisa, that panel just fell out.

[03:04:05] Susan Barkin: I'm Susan Barkin. I have lived in my house in Mountain View for 47 years. I bought it for $35,000 when I was making a teacher's salary of $8,000 a year. Fast forward to now. In my neighborhood, there are there's a group of five or six duplexes. And a couple that I know lived in one of them for 22 years. When Google moved in next door, their landlord raised the rent by $700 a month. You all know also what is happening on Rock Street, where people who have lived in low cost apartments are being forced out because the developer wants to build more luxury condos, as if we need more luxury condos in Mountain View. So, this is the kind of person that is being squeezed in all directions. And I think many of the people who are living in their vehicles have faced similar situations. They have no other recourse. They want to stay in Mountain View. They want their children to go to school in Mountain View. They want to keep their jobs in Mountain View. And they really have no choice. And to simply say, You can't park there for some silly law about parking, is just, it shows the government has no heart. I think that probably, of all the things I've heard you mention today, the safe parking is probably the only solution that will work. And it is very irritating to have all of these legal, all of this legal jargon about why that cannot happen. So I'm hoping that you will consider either maybe even canvassing some of the residential neighborhoods. I know, personally, quite a few people in mind my own street would not mind having one vehicle parked there. One vehicle per street. There are many creative ways to look at this, but preventing parking and throwing more people out of our community is unconscionable. I do not want to live in a town where the only people who can afford to be here are very, very rich techies or very, very old retirees like myself. Thank you.

[03:06:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Again, where, please, no applause. I really want to make sure we're very respectful of all the comments here tonight, because there are different perspectives on this issue. Next, please.

[03:06:23] John Carpenter: You know, John Carpenter, Mountain View, I thought I would tell you what sort of thing we're heading into unless we're doing something like that. We're heading into what I call a Swiss source. You know, picture, Italy, as being in the Central Valley, it's picture, Switzerland, being in the Bay Area. The first solution, that's been, in fact, for decades, and it seems to work well very well, is that, uh, people, uh, people are can't afford to live in Switzerland. They take trains from Italy to Switzerland to our trip, uh, Monday morning, then Friday afternoon, they take the, take the train back, and meanwhile, these workers stay in tournamentories, either employ, employee furnished, uh, improved attic rooms, or just, uh, plane dormitories. So... And that, uh, and I ran into that situation on a Friday night when I wanted to Italy, the trains were booked solar, and that's the way they always would be. And same thing on many, money. But let's say, from having all kinds of vehicles parked on the street, and then extra space and housing, that has to be provided for families. families are in Italy. So you have to go back into your family. So, that, that's something that we, these are, this is something that's easy for them to do, it's harder for us to do. But this is something that we're headed into. And, uh... Also, they have to do that because of the, uh, air portion, that sort of thing. They have to get people off cars commuting, that kind of distance. Thank you.

[03:08:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:08:28] Matthew Botto: Hello. I'm Matthew Botto from Foothill College. I'm a student there, and I just wanted to share some of my experiences as a student that's been homeless, lived in his car, et cetera. It's no secret. Rent is very, very expensive here, and finding a livable wage is very difficult. Especially as a student, someone that's got to put a great deal of time into their studies. So I spent just about 2 years living in my car in the Mountain View, Los Altos area, sleeping in it, and had really an incredibly difficult time finding a livable wage to be able to support myself and still pursuing education. I am. I'm getting a bad sort of feeling about this banning of overnight parking. It seems like a criminalization of homelessness and poverty. And I feel that there should be more effort to solving the problem of homelessness and vehicle habitation rather than simply banning it, through city ordinances against overnight parking. Apologies if my voice is a little shaky. I'm very nervous to be up here, but I really, I really do think that this is not a step in the right direction and that we should be pushing for more programs to support low income and homeless people rather than simply banning parking. Overnight parking, I mean, thank you.

[03:10:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:10:19] Daisy Rosales: Hello? Uh, good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Daisy Rosales, and I'd like to echo Matthew, student perspective as a student at Foothill Community College. I have similarly experienced some of the struggles that he is experiencing. I actually, I've been in Mountain View for 2 years. I originally had an apartment, was working full time, and due to rent increases. I wasn't able to afford that apartment. And it was either stop my education or find another way. And yes, I'm on all of the lists that there are, the housing list, everything. I'm on there. But that is not. It's, it's not an immediate solution from the point where you find, you figure out that your finances no longer match what it requires for you to be housed. It's not something that the applications, they have 2 to 3 weights. But, um, apart from that, um, I would like to, I would like all of you to consider that there is a new organization, the Mountain View vehicle residents, and this is the first time that you've ever had vehicle residents get together. A lot of the data that you mentioned up there is not, it has not had much of our input in it. I ask that you consider, that you actually the people that are living in those homes. Let us, through our organization, the Mountain View vehicle residents, let us reach out to our community, through collaborative organizations, collaboration, we might be able to find some better solution than kicking people out. This is, it's not humane. And this housing crisis, it's happening all over the world. It's not just mountain view. I challenge Mountain View to be the change, to actually be some to be an inspiration to the rest of the country. Thank you.

[03:12:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:12:28] Chris: Hello. My name's Chris. Hello, council members and mayor. I would just like to really ask for some compassion and empathy. I'm also a student. I'm currently living in RV. I used to have an apartment in Mountain View. A rent was just too high. And I believe we live in one of the greatest cities in the world, and we should set the example. We have all these corporations here investing all these money, and I think it's our society and our council, our group, responsibility to really find housing and find a solution for all of us because it's just not right to live in an RV or a car. It's cold. We don't choose this lifestyle. This is not something that we came and just like, let's live in this lifestyle. Some people are choosing to do this, but that's not the representation of the whole. So I really ask that we have more empathy and that we come up with solutions to find more affordable housing. It's not fair that even if you work a full-time job, paying getting paid $15 an hour or getting paid under the table, $12 an hour trying to pay rent, the majority of your money is going to rent. You can't even afford food, you have to go to CSA to get the food that you need. We need a better solution. We need to find more affordable housing for these individuals and for all of us. Thank you.

[03:13:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:13:52] Public Speaker: Hi, I am a mountain review resident, and I'm a band dweller, and I'm proud to say that. I became a band brother because I felt that spending my money on my medical problems was more important than spending it on rent, for a roof that I was never going to own, and a landlord who didn't care about me or fixing the apartment that I lived in. One of the things I definitely want to get across to the city council is that I'm not just Evangel, or not just someone who lives inside my van. I'm a consumer. I spend money in Mountain View, I spend in at restaurants, on transportation. I spend I spend it on so many things. And I think that's really truly lost on a lot of people, that we're actually giving, and sometimes giving more than we actually take. CSA has been a godsend to me. I could have ended up on the street if it wasn't for them. So I definitely appreciate very much thank you. But please recognize that there's a lot of people who need to be in their vehicles. They want to be in housing. But when they're giving constantly been giving tickets and harassed, their money is not going into savings. It's going to pay those tickets. There are solutions out there. We need long-term parking. We need, you know, we can volunteer in exchange for keeping the parking lot clean, wherever it is that we end up. Please meet with us. Come promise with us. Harassment is not the way. promises the way. And if we come together and meet together, we will come up with solutions that will not only save money, but will make other people happy, the residents who don't like us. Thank you.

[03:15:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:15:41] Ida Rose Sylvester: Hello, once again, I'm Ida Rose Sylvester representing the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning. Tonight, I will be blessed to be able to go home and know that I have housing security. Many of the people in this room tonight cannot say that. And the Mountain View coalition for sustainable planning is here to express our support for them. The forces of dramatic population pressure, slower the needed housing development, and the destruction of naturally affordable housing have led to the perfect storm that has drastically decreased the supply of affordable housing in our city. We submitted a letter that stated all of our positions, but I'd like to highlight just major ones. One, a moratorium on new parking enforcement ordinance should happen until safe parking solutions are created, and residents have time to move to these safe parking sites. If we remove residents without these solutions, some vehicle dwellers will wind up homeless on the street, and many, including those who work in the city in the jobs that we all rely on, will simply leave, leaving a huge void in our community. Two, we need a significant increase in safe parking spaces in areas large enough to provide community and security for residents and allow more efficient deployment of infrastructure and social services. The currently planned additional 10 or 11 spots is absolutely insufficient. We urge the council to strongly consider Shoreline Lot AB. The VTA parking or other property with sufficient space. Three, we'd like the focus to be on appropriations for housing and safe parking, not on enforcement, by spending money quickly on safe parking and housing solutions, enforcement will become a moot point. Uh, four. The rapid, we need the rapid approval and build out of the proposed and approved 17,000 plus units of housing in North Bay Shore, Terabella in East Wisman. We must solve our housing crisis. The longer we delay, the worse this will get. And lastly, we need the significant addition of genuinely affordable units in this town. We need truly affordable and indicative solutions now. Thank you.

[03:17:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:17:52] Frank Wood: Good evening. My name is Frank Wood, and I'm a resident on Villa Street, about half block from Rangstorf Park. I'm a homeowner, and I've lived here for about 10 years. I pay property taxes, and that's the 2nd largest line item on my family budget. When we moved here, there were 0 RVs in our neighborhood. And they've slowly increased and increased. I've counted them several times. There's usually over 40 tonight. Driving here, there was 38. I have small children, and I worry about my kids with the population around my house. My kids love Rangstorff Park. They want to go there every day. Last Friday night, they wanted to go play basketball at dusk at Rankstorf Park. We played for a while, but it was more of a homeless encampment than a public park. The city here has spent a lot of money on a beautiful new community center. And yet I don't feel safe there. I'll be honest, my wife and I work full time. We live paycheck to paycheck to pay our mortgage and our property taxes. There's an increasing issue of sanitation, we've had human feces and urine dumped in our front yard, litter on a daily basis, as I said, safety. Last month, somebody tried to break into my house. Well, we had a babysitter there. It's not the city that I want to live in. I don't think that Mountain View has to carry the weight of the whole Bay Area for this homeless crisis, but I do sincerely admire all the people are here, and especially the young people that are speaking. Thank you very much.

[03:19:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:19:40] Verlin: Hi, good evening. Sorry, I'm short. Good evening. My name is Verlin. Currently, I'm a medical assistant at a hospital, and I'm getting my major as a nurse. And unfortunately, it's not my choice to live in this situation, but due to the rent, I have a statistic here. I think, to qualify for low income, you have to earn at least 117,000. So, with that said, I'm just trying to be successful. This is not my choice. I just want a better life for my family. I understand what you guys are saying regarding not feeling safe, but I don't think that applies to every single person that's living in RVs, the ones that are causing these issues. Um, I believe that if we come together, you can reach out to us anytime, and we will be willing to cooperate with you in order to find a solution. I don't believe that the overnight ban is a solution for the reason that like, like previous people have said it's an inhumane thing. I don't have parents that will pay for my SAT scores. I don't have parents that will basically pay for me to go to college. I got this on my own. I'm working hard for it, and I'm not gonna stop working hard. I just want to contribute to being a successful member to the society. That's all.

[03:21:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[03:21:18] Jack Baker: Hello, my name is Jack Baker, and I am a disabled homeless student who has lived in Mountain View for about 2 years. I didn't come very far. I came about 10 miles from Revenue City. Part of the reason I came here was to be close to the school that I attend. I have 6 case managers. Two weeks ago. I was awarded, um, housing, and I'd like to tell you that I'm gonna be able to take it, but the housing is more than I make in a month. It's more, uh, it's more than I, then I'll be a make for a projected 20 years. And part of that is because I can't attend school full time or I don't qualify for the low income housing that is available out there. My case managers are all fighting very hard to get me off the streets. I've been homeless in the Bay Area since I was 17. I'm just trying to become a productive member of society. Today's unskilled laborer is tomorrow's next inventor. And, and, and, uh, enforcing laws that make it harder for me to do is not going to help. Those of us who call this place home will resist those changes. Especially if we go to school nearby, especially if we have doctors nearby, especially if we have jobs, family, and friends nearby. This is our home. We're not trying to litter in your streets. We're not trying to make them unsafe. We're just trying to live like everyone else. Thank you.

[03:22:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:22:56] Joan Brodowski: Hello. I'm Joan Brodowski. I live in Mountain View. I'm speaking tonight for Balanced Mountain View. And I'm speaking first, telling my impressions. Last year, here in the council, Amber, the woman who presented the lots of love pilot project to the city council, hit me really hard with her story. She said that the city had found less than 10 parking spaces in a church parking lot for the project. The church let the dwellers limited to women, with children, who were living in their cars, not their RVs. Use the church bathrooms and showers, and the city posted a watchman every night. The families could not enter the lot before 7:00 p.m. and they had to leave by 7:00 a.m. She said the women were overwhelmingly grateful for the feeling of safety that those 12 hours every day gave them. And every time I think about this story, I think about myself as a young mother with two kids, and how would it have been if I'd been living then in Mountain View today, had lost my husband, and couldn't pay the rent? How would I feel trying to get my kids to do homework at McDonald's, or having to get out of a parking lot at 7:00 in the morning, on a Saturday evening, even when I hadn't even had six hours of sleep the night before? What would I do if the two year old woke up with diarrhea? So you can go on and on and like this. So we, it balanced Mountain View, asked that the council respond quickly, was safe parking for the 300 some. Looks like about 400 vehicles, that we have on our streets. We ask that you find safe parking on streets or on city owned land or on private land. We ask that you build ample bathrooms, with showers. Thank you. Institute of registration. program that you provide security for these spaces. I'm sorry. Thank you.

[03:25:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:25:10] Mary Beth Bird: Hi. My name is Mary Beth Bird. and I have been a resident in the area for 25 years. I own a home in Mountain View. And, um, I support vehicle residence. Many of these individuals are hard working people. I know some of them. They have been displaced. They have not moved here from another city because we have such good services. All the people that I know, have been displaced from their apartments because their rent went up so high. Some of them have children. They've been living in apartments, and the rent increases were too much for them to pay. Let's keep looking into more options. I love the questions that you were asking, John. You seemed really interested in looking for solutions. I thought that was a really a positive thing. Let's look into churches, parking lots, shoreline. Um, I love the one vehicle per street. What a great solution. I never thought of that. And I have questions for you, the council, and for the people of Mountain View. My 1st question is, if you put even more parking restrictions on RVs in Mountain View, people have nowhere to go. And then their last resort would be living in the streets, because they can't go to other cities. So I think the parking restrictions is a really bad idea. Have you each done everything you can to solve this problem? Can you really say to yourself, I've looked into every option. Please stop listening to NIMBI residents. NIMBI is not in my backyard, if anyone knows, doesn't know. And finally, this is my most important question. Where is your empathy? Please have some empathy. Thank you.

[03:27:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:27:22] David Meyer: Vice mayor members of the council. Thanks for the opportunity to address you today. My name's David Meyer. I work for Silicon Valley at home. I also happen to be a Mountain View resident. I wanted to 1st say thanks to this council for your ongoing efforts to put in place programs and policies to assist our neighbors who are experiencing homelessness through the homelessness initiatives work plan. I just wanted to thank city staff and community organizations, like the community services agency of Mountain View and the faith community for all of their efforts to implement the work plan. I think that this work really has been instrumental, preventing people from becoming homeless and helping find permanent housing solutions for those who are already experiencing homelessness. The fact that there are so many members of our community experiencing homelessness, whether they are living on the streets or in a vehicle. It's a direct result of our regional housing prices. Permanent housing is the only long term solution that will get our neighbors off the streets and into more stable environments. The staff report makes clear that Korean permanent housing solutions is an overarching goal of the city's strategy, and we applaud that goal. In the meantime, while still keeping the permit housing goals at the center of our policies, we believe cities can take actions to assist those who need help today. Mountain View has been implementing many policies to do just that from the safe parking pilot program to the emergency funds for families who are tutoring on the brink of homelessness. With all this in mind, we urge the city council to continue to support the action items, included in the homelessness initiative's work plan, and also authorize the expansion of the city's safe parking program to create additional safe parking areas, including the proposals that were put forward tonight. For many people living in RVs or other vehicles. Their cars will enable them to continue to participate in the community, maintain their job. Safe parking provides stability and keeps people off the street. We recognize there are no overnight solutions, and homelessness is having a wider effect on the entire community. That's why we are hardened to see mountain view residents are overwhelmingly supportive of permanent housing solutions for their neighbors experiencing homelessness. We also know that this challenge is not mountain views alone. And additional regional solutions must be identified to ensure cities are working together to have homelessness.

[03:29:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Before you go, Council member McAllister has a question.

[03:29:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you're a well known advocacy group. And you guys are always champing housing. But have you guys done anything financially to support someone's house? Have you built housing? Have you contributed to cities like Mountain View or Grants or to CSA and funding them in any particular way?

[03:29:45] David Meyer: Our organization isn't set up to provide grants in that way or build housing? We're supportive of the efforts of organizations like CSA, CSA, and developers in terms of moving their policies forward with you guys.

[03:30:00] Councilmember John McAlister: But you don't contribute to the cause. We do not provide money in that way that you're describing.

[03:30:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. The vice mayor also has a question for you.

[03:30:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I know you have a board that has the number of representatives from different companies, and have you talked to them about providing land or their parking lots for safe parking programs?

[03:30:24] David Meyer: Um, I have not had those conversations.

[03:30:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, but... Maybe you could?

[03:30:30] David Meyer: Yeah, I think those are good conversations to have.

[03:30:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[03:30:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:30:41] Bob Stromberg: Good evening. My name is Bob Stromberg, and I live in unincorporated county land, so I can't figure out whether that means I have 15 mayors or none. So today, you're mine. No, in all seriousness, I work with Destination Home, we're a nonprofit organization working with public and private partners to end and prevent homelessness throughout the county. We're a proud partner with CSA and other direct service providers throughout the county, on a now unified homelessness prevention system, and was glad to have that included in what was truly an impressive and comprehensive staff report. Congratulations to you on that, and also to counsel for past efforts to move forward on building permanent supportive housing. I have good news, bad news, and then a request, of course. The good news is that we know how to end homelessness. Right? It's been alluded to. It's supportive housing. And it's not just a random selection. It chosen as the way to move forward because it's effective. In fact, in this county, it's 90% effective. So, of all those moving from living outside or in an RV into permanent supportive housing, 90% remains stably housed. By far the most effective intervention to end homelessness in a person's life, in the world. And we're no anomaly. This is the case in cities around the world. Now, the bad news. The bad news is that in Santa Clara County, and I would imagine the mountain view's not very different. Every month, well, we may be moving 30, 40, 50 people from living outside to permanent supportive housing, 3 times that number are losing their homes in our communities. The answer is increased production. And I believe that some may be on the way, while we've completed half of the new regional housing need allocation cycle, mountain view, like the rest of the county, is only met 14% of the need in the lowest category. So I would encourage continued effort to make sure to build the low income affordable and supportive housing we need. Thank you.

[03:32:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:32:56] Lorraine Rodwold: Thank you, counsel, for taking the time to hear our voices tonight. My name is Lorraine Rodwold. I am not a vehicle resident, but my dad is, and he's speaking right after me. I am here tonight to share with you a story about my dad and why I'm standing here with him and the other vehicle residents in this community. My dad fell extremely ill in late December of 2016. He went into septic shock, quickly fell into a coma, and rapidly began having organ failure. We nearly lost him when quite literally at the final hour. A donor came through, and he was blessed to receive an emergency leverage transplant 12 days after he first became sick. The road to recovery was a long one. He was hospitalized for physical rehabilitation, which lasted 6 months after his transplant. Prior to this, he was an apartment renter in Mountain View, working in a physically labor intensive role in electrical construction. After his illness, he was no longer physically fit to resume at his job, and he lost his source of income. The fact is, he could no longer afford to pay rent and had no other option, but to move into his motor home, which he currently resides. He has loved living in the city of Mountain View and has put down roots here. His 12 year old son, my littlest brother, has for his whole life known the Mountain View school district. My dad's story is one of many. I ask the council to please take the stories you've heard and will continue to hear tonight to heart, to realize that many are living in vehicles as a result of unfortunate circumstance, whether due to high cost of living, they could no longer sustain medical troubles or any combination of other reasons. These are active members of the community who love their city, and they shouldn't be forced out. Thank you.

[03:34:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:34:49] Public Speaker: Madam Mayor, members of the council. That was my daughter. I didnt know she was going to speak, but I'm very, very proud of her. And she said, I'm a member of the Mountain View. I am a citizen of Mountain View. Some of you maybe remember, but I spoke kind of...

[03:35:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Could you speak up a little bit?

[03:35:10] Public Speaker: I'm sorry. Thank you. Some of you may remember I spoke a couple weeks ago on unlimited time. I had to cut down my speech, and I promise this time, I will not ask you to step aside. You have to kiss your in case you remember, I did do that by mistake. Anyhow, I am one of the people that have been assessed by his CSA. I am currently in a position where I am waiting to be on a waiting list. I do not have... Anyway, that's where I'm at. There is another problem with motor homes being housed at places like Santa Clara County Fairgrounds, and that is that there is an age limit. There is an age limit on the motor homes that will be accepted. That age is 2005 or newer. And anything older than that, they just will not take. Like I said before, many of us, many of us were forced into motor homes because of financial situations where rents have just gone up in excess of what we could afford. There are medical issues of people. There are people that are that are elderly, that are on fixed incomes. There are many reasons why that people are in a situation such as myself and we are families also. We have children that go to this school district in Wisman schools. They've been going to the school district for multiple years, many years. My son's been going since he was in 2nd grade. Um, All his friends are here. I'm running out of time. about to be blacked out. Thank you. I am so sorry.

[03:36:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, bud. Next, please.

[03:37:01] Blaine DeWanzick: Hi, there. My name is Blaine DeWanzick, and I'm a resident of Mountain View, and Peter Casbro, also of Mountain View, has yielded his time to me.

[03:37:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, unfortunately, that doesn't work that way.

[03:37:14] Blaine DeWanzick: That's okay. Thank you. Um, so I'm a resident of Mountain View. I have grown up here. I'm able to live affordably in Mountain View because my parents are homeowners. Um, and I am here. I work as a teacher, and I am here in solidarity with Mountain View vehicle residents, particularly our new advocacy group called Mountain View vehicle residents. And I'd like to take a moment to ask everyone in the room who supports vehicle residents to stand up and raise up your signs. Toros los que apollen los residentes, viculares, levanta, se por favor. Okay. Thank you, everyone. So we are here. And I also want to say, I am extremely concerned that Mountain View is considering increased parking restriction enforcement. I'm extremely concerned about dedicating potentially $500,000 to enforcement, and half of that to a safe parking program. Vehicle residents are in Mountain View for all the same reasons everyone, including myself, want to be here. Mountain View has great career opportunities, school opportunities, medical facilities, vehicle residents, family, and friends are here, and many have grown up here. Um, and many are living in vehicles only because Mountain View is unaffordable. And I urge you not to punish vehicle residents for pursuing the same opportunities that so many of us are. Berkeley and other cities have unfortunately made cowardly, shortsighted, and cruel decisions to evict their vehicle resident neighbors. And I know Mountain View can do better and set a better standard for the entire Bay Area. And I implore you not to turn your back on my friends and neighbors in Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:38:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:39:02] Serge Bont: Good evening. My name is Serge Bont. I'm a Mountain View resident, and I'm just like, and I'm a resident of Mountain View, just like any of the RV or homeless people in Mountain View. Don't take my word for this. This is the way the census works. When the senses will occur in 2020, and I think some of you are on top of this, the Santos will count as residents in everybody who is found to be in Mountain View at the time of the census. And it does include homeless people. It does include, you know, unstably housed people. So we are residents of Mountain View. I'm also then it's very obvious, non-native to California or on Mountain View. Never is my wife, never is my son. And I don't think I've ever been treated any differently than somebody who's native, and I would like to, you know, everybody to treat all of our residents the same way regardless of where we are from. So it doesn't mean that nothing, you know, needs to be done on this. I mean, I do support the emergency measure around, you know, sewage. That's a common sense sphinx. I do support the urgency declaration so that we can speed up, you know, safe parking, you know, bypass some of the red type, and reuse the very under utilized lot at shoreline, you know, that should, you know, provide a place for you to develop common sense regulations. In terms of regulations, we 1st make sure that you provide safe parking to everybody who's currently in mountain view, and then apply something that's equitable and fair to all of Mountain View. You know, right now, there is some disparities. You cannot bark overnight near into it or Google while you can bark overnight, you know, in neighborhood residency. It doesn't make any sense. So thanks.

[03:41:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:41:14] Steve Peters: My name is Steve Peters. I live on Ringsdorf Avenue near Middlefield. and I'm a parishioner and member of the vestry, or leadership board, of St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, which hosts one of Move Mountain View's safe parking lots. A few years ago, several of us at church slept in our cars in the church parking lot one evening during Lent is currently lent now. In order to glimpse the experience of our vehicle dwelling neighbors. I woke up at 4 a.m. needing to use the bathroom. Fortunately, we left the church bathroom open. Several years later, we have been hosting vehicle residents in our parking lot since July, and we provide access to a bathroom, he he. Despite the concerns raised about vehicle dwelling in the comments section of the Mountain View voice. We have not had any negative impacts to our property, but we have been blessed by closer relationships with our neighbors. We currently host passenger vehicles with no restriction on gender or age. And I'm going to start a discernment process to see if we'll be able to host any RVs, to expand that restriction. Later in this meeting, we're going to hear about the city's greenhouse gas inventory and our environmental goals. I looked at the report and the largest components of our inventory is from transportation. Sleeping in Mountain View overnight has less environmental impact than commuting from the central valley. Let's give vehicle residents a safe and green place to sleep. What do I think about neighboring cities trying to thwart vehicle residents with parking restrictions? I hear all the time how the Bay Area is so environmentally progressive. This is our chance to show leadership in human rights and environmental concern, and show that safe parking with bathroom access is part of a bridge to the future when there's enough housing for everyone. Thank you.

[03:43:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Next place. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see that. I'm sorry. Did you take a question for him?

[03:43:21] Unknown Speaker: Yes, sorry, I have a question for you. I wanted to... congratulate is the right word. Thank you for, um, you and your church hosting, uh, vehicle residents. And I know, I think that one of the biggest disappointments of counsels reviewing constantly reviewing, um, what we can do, or, I wasn't on counsel then, what they could do regarding vehicle residents, is that, I think, you guys can tell me if I'm wrong, that you would hope that there would be a much larger number of churches that would host vehicle residents. I was wondering if you could clarify in any way, I don't know how much you interacted with other churches or what the discussion was within your church, your congregation, how we could, you know, one of my dreams would be that more churches would do that, and more of them would consider what you're doing hosting RVs as well. Can you give any clarity on that? And do you have any ideas about how to do better outreach? You know, could your church with some support do outreach to other churches as well? Thanks.

[03:44:26] Steve Peters: Thank you. I think, you know, that's my dream as well. And I think, you know, it's been no, there's been no impact on us at all, really. I mean, it is kind of restrictive this 7 p.m. to 7 AM, but there's never messes in the bathroom. You know, there people just kind of forgot about it. And I think if we could, you know, communicate that to other churches in the area that, um, you know, hopefully others would expand, um, or would sign up as well. There is the issue of, I believe, you need a temporary use permit in order to have more than 4 slots. If there was a way to waive that or expedite that, that would allow the lots that, you know, that have volunteered to expand more easily. Thank you.

[03:45:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:45:22] Donna Yabs: Hello, Donna Yabs, what the League of Women voters, Mountain View resident, and then I also have to put a plug in. I'm also a Saint Tim's, and we've been very blessed by having the program there. So from the league, we send a letter. We basically, we urge this council to continue with the supportive services for those residents who have become homeless or have become vehicle dwellers. Such services include expanding the safe parking program, especially utilizing parking lots at Shoreline Ampitheater or it's feasible. We urge the council to consider adopting the safe parking strategies proposed in the comprehensive staff report. We continue to support Mountain View's leadership in providing more housing, and in particular, the affordable housing, which can help to alleviate the issues addressed in the staff report. increasing the BMR percentage in rental developments from 10 to 15% as well as supporting the homeless prevention. rental assistance, and rapid rehousing programs. Thank you.

[03:46:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:46:37] Art McGee: My name's Art McGee. I am a resident of Mountain View. I am not a homeowner. As a matter of fact, I don't have a home, I guess you would say, I have an RV, but I am a resident. I was named by John Orr of the Mercury press, who was as the mayor of Latham Street. I no longer hold that office because the community at Latham Street has been routed. And none of those people are together anymore. We actually had a bit of a community going on. We knew who to go talk to if your battery was dead, or if your child was sick, or if you had a headache, uh, who might have some aspirin, but that was not satisfactory to the people in the apartments and targets. But anyway, I'm not a drug dealer. I'm not a pervert. I'm not a child molester. I'm just not a homeowner. But I am human. And a lot of people here treat me as though I'm not. I don't feel homeless, unlike my RV. I like living in the RV. I never done it before. I came here. And the reason I did it, when I came here was because I couldn't afford to live here, with a regular structure over my head, I came here to be a babysitter for my grandchildren. And the only way to do that was to have the RV. My daughter's house didn't have room for me. So that was the alternative. Great investment as far as I'm concerned. But some people assumed that we're all criminals and there may be some criminals living in the RVs. I don't know. I haven't met any of them, but not all of this are. Please try to remember that. Thank you.

[03:48:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:48:41] Francisco Vargas: Hi, my name is Francisco Vargas, and I've been living in Mountain View for 19 years. The past 2.5 years, I lived in my trailer. The 1st of that year, I lived my trailer with both my mom and my dad. Um, and I'm a student. I work 40 hours. I pay bills. I pray for storage. I pay for the gym so I can go shower. I pay for gas so I can have heat in my generator. You know, I think that a lot of the stories you guys have heard have been all negative. I don't mean any disrespect, but to the police officer, I have no clue where you have gotten all these stories that everyone's a criminal. All these stories that, um, I mean, people are coming from elsewhere. I've been here for 19 years. And a lot of people have been urging you guys to go and talk to the people so you can find solutions. I also urge you guys to do that, but I urge you not to go as council members or mayors or police officers, but I urge you to go as humans, talking to other humans. Don't go and try to talk to them as people of power, but as people that want to see a change and want to see something good come up this community. Thank you.

[03:49:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:50:08] Joan MacDonald: Good evening. You know me as Joan MacDonald. A resident for 59 years in Mountain View, but I'm here to, hopefully, give you a statement from my housemate, who had to leave to go to the ER in El Camino hospital. Come on. D. Yeah. Bye. My name is G. I am1 year old. Female who lives in Mountain View. I have late stage cancer and for blasta. I live on 519 Emmon Street. I am Joan McDonald's roommate. The reason I became Joe McDonald's roommate was, I came out here from Boulder, Colorado, to get cancer treatments at Stanford, and Stanford, screwed up in terms of noticing that I had insurance, and also in terms of getting me into their cancer clinic, and I became sicker and sicker, not getting treated, and ended up sleeping on a picnic bench for six months, because there was no shelters for women. There was no decent place to go to that was safe, where you wouldn't get raped or beaten up. The addition is, she couldn't stay in the women's shelter because her immune system was such that any of a bug that was around, she would get, and that she would have to go back to the ER. She needs care, and she needs respite, and there is no program at the present time. It could be a program of that you could use. Thank you.

[03:52:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:52:21] Alex: Hi. I'm Alex, my resident. You probably already know what I think about the RV issue. So I just actually want to say, you know, I really want to just stay sitting down in my seat, cozy, looking pretty and being very quiet. But, like, just, um, I'm very concerned. Um, you know, imagine if I walked outside and then uh, it was my 1st day on earth and I saw one black dog and I was like, oh, that thing is black. And then I kept walking down the street, I saw another black dog, and it goes, oh, all the things in the world that are like that, must be that color. And it's like, just because maybe some of us have gone on ride alongs, where all the people we met weren't from Mountain View, doesn't mean that not everyone is from Mountain View. It doesn't mean that our conclusions can just be taken as a matter of fact. It's not okay to cherry pick. People are here saying that they are willing to be your interlocutors into this community so that you can actually have the insights that you need to make the appropriate decisions. And like, honestly, it is not some random organization's responsibility to go to Google and ask them about some safe parking program. It is not some random organization's program to fund or grant these programs. It's the responsibility of our elected body to do that. It is your guys' responsibility. So like, come on. Thank you.

[03:53:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:53:45] Dave Arnoni: Hello. My name's Dave Arnoni, and I've been a homeowner here in Mountain View for the last 25 years. And I stand here tonight with the vehicle residents. I've got vehicle residents living in my immediate neighborhood, and I welcome them. And it is a non-event. And I realized that maybe the vehicle residence on my block are different than what's on some other blocks. But it's been a good experience for me. I welcome those residents. Also, as a resident in Mountain View. I do welcome smart enforcement. I think we do need some enforcement. I mean, there's clearly places that are not safe. There are clearly places that have blight. I'd like to see that better. But I'd like to see it done in a smart way. I'd like to see, you know, if my dream were to come true, some kind of one for one exchange where we enforce a space and we provide a space. I think the way forward really is to find parking spaces. And I call on you guys, the elected body, to take the lead in finding those spaces. I'm one of the ones that run Move Mountain View. Lots of love. And I gotta say, it's really hard to find spaces. We are not going to scale this thing just on churches. But yet, I think if you guys were to take an active role and help lead us in finding spaces, whether it's with churches, the public lots and commercial lots. If you guys could do things to lower the threshold, for us to get use permits, that would be a huge help. I drove by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation lot today. You know what? It's exactly where it was a year ago. We've made no progress. Yeah, we talked a lot, but we've made no progress. We need your help. Lower the threshold. Do the emergency declaration. Like Alex said, let's get going. as far as we could do. Thank you.

[03:55:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[03:55:58] Steve: This is unexpected. I didn't come to speak at this point. Um, But I do want you that the cheese has come and now it's in the conference room. So, I've been in Mountain View for a very long time, as you know, and in a way, I'm going to be homeless pretty soon, but as an individual, but as a business. And the business is under pressure was under pressure because of the forces that are affecting many of the people who have spoken here tonight. One of my one of the people in Mountain View that I'm very happy that I can speak about, has lived here homeless as a homeless person for 30 years. And he created the Milpill web page at the Mountain View Library. And in those 15 or 18 years, he would never take any money from me. And when I see him on the streets, He's on the way down to the recycling center with his plastic bottles. So that's an example of somebody who's who has given me far more than I have given him back. Over the years, I've had a chance to meet Tom Myers. And my father-in-law, who's 89, we're not sure, um, He is a regular at the CSA picking up all kinds of foods there. And some of those foods end up at our house, and of course, we've never paid for those either. And then my daughter, my daughters, one of whom brought the cheese tonight, 2 of her close friends or PhD students, and for 3 years, they've been living in their vans, 2 different vans. So all I wanted to say is there, I've been so moved by this, um, discussion tonight about the CSA, that I'm going to make a donation, uh, to this CSA, for, I think, $10,000. So.

[03:58:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Let you grab a hard one. We'll let you clap on that one. Nix, please. Thank you, Steve. to follow.

[03:58:17] Janet Stevens: I cannot do that. Mayor, counsel, my name is Janet Stevens. I was born in this city, more years ago, than I care to mention, because I don't want to... no? If I don't look at my license, I have no idea how old I am. The situation that I am in, started November first. I've lived my entire life, about some three, four miles from here, and in November first. I was homeless because my son went to college, and I lost his child support. I bought an RV with help of a friend of mine, and I'm now here because I have an illness. I was diagnosed 28 years ago with chronic fatigue syndrome. which stopped my ability to work for the state of California for permanently nine months. When I returned, I was only able to return part time. I had a child 19 years ago, who was also ill, and we both go to Stanford, and so I'm here getting help with Stanford. Otherwise, I'm without a whole mental medication that enables me to get up, move, take a shower, cook, or do anything to keep myself going, including my son. My son was able to get a four year scholarship at Irvine, so he's there now, but comes back and forth through Mountain View. I'm sorry, too, Stanford to get his treatment. And I would like you to understand, what I've been doing is walking around and meeting everybody I can in RVs. This is really new because I was so bedridden for so long. And these people in RVs are not what you think. Not one person have I met that is not originally from Mountain View, not one. And I've been to every street all along trying to meet them, because I'm getting an experience that I've missed for the last 28 years. And these people are amazing, and they are trying really hard. And the feeling that they are drugs and sex, you know, whatever workers is not right. And I just would like you to understand I'm one of them, and everybody I meet are as good, if not, you know, as equal as I am. And I'd really like you to take another look at what's going on in the city. And I hope you do, okay? Thank you.

[04:00:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:00:21] Translator: I'm going to translate for him. Thank you.

[04:00:26] Francisco Casares: Amo, Francisco Casa is in Whole Food for 29 years.

[04:00:34] Translator: My name is Francisco Casares, and I have worked for Whole Foods for 29 years. Since the 1990s, I live in a two bedroom apartment, when they raised the rent, to me, they increased the rent in the 2000s, I couldn't afford it anymore, and I had to move to live in rooms. And right now, I live in an Arabic. What I want to... Please ask you is if you can support us with a parking lot so we could live in there. Because there are people like me that are sick and we have families, and we need to give them a good education. So we are all the same. Thank you.

[04:02:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[04:02:38] Program Coordinator Amber Stime: Good evening. My name is Amber's time. I'm the program coordinator for lots of love, with Move Mountain View. One of you asked in terms of, Why aren't the churches stepping up? Why aren't churches doing more? Um, we are in conversation with the church, with churches. There are some that are very interested in being part of this program in helping people that are living in vehicles. I think one of the things you have to understand about churches is churches are made up of people. just like this place is made up of people. So it is a process. If a pastor is interested, then the congregation has to be informed. After the congregation, it goes to the neighborhood. We have to reach out to the neighbors as well. So it is working in terms of we have 2 churches. I think by me, we probably have 2 more churches that will partner with us, but we can only get 4 parking spaces in these churches. That's nothing compared to number of people that are living in vehicles. I think one of the things that would also make churches step up much quickly is a view, the council, and as a city, um, give a city voice saying, yes, we consider vehicle dwellers to be part of this community, and yes, as as governing bodies, we will allocate certain amount of land or property for them, for a parking program. I think we need to see your faith and your commitment to the people in order, the people in the community, to also step up, those in churches, and those that have businesses. We need your leadership on this. But the parking lot program is working. It's small. It's very, very, very small, but it is very effective. We have at least 5 people that were placed in permanent housing. Some of it is on their own finding. The others is through CSA. 5 and 9 months. I consider that a pretty good success. Thank you.

[04:04:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Wait, before you leave, the vice mayor has a question for you.

[04:04:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, question. So, um, the churches that are part of your organization. Are they, like, what are the cities that they're from?

[04:04:45] Program Coordinator Amber Stime: Mountain views where we're working right now? But we also have Palo Alto churches that are very interested on the 14th. We will be meeting with some city members of Palo Alto as well.

[04:04:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is Los Saltos a part of it or no?

[04:04:59] Program Coordinator Amber Stime: Los Altos, actually, as we are not in conversation with Los Altos. We do have some churches in Los Altos that are interested, but I think, again, it's a collaboration. And we cannot, churches cannot step up without the city being involved in with the regulations and permits. Thank you.

[04:05:20] Unknown Speaker: I have a question too. So it seems like most of the churches are hosting folks who are living in cars. And can you help me understand why that's happening? Like, what's the process that's resulting in cars as opposed to RVs?

[04:05:38] Program Coordinator Amber Stime: I think one, for churches, this has been a new issue in terms of hosting. And then I think the other part of it is for RVs. They're big. They take up more space. Not all the churches have big parking lots. They give what they have. But not all of them have big enough space for RVs. I mean, look at, we're looking at the Terrebello, Bella site right now, and fire marshals are saying we need a certain amount of turnaround space and all of that. So some of that is cumbersome in terms of the amount of space that they have. And I think the other part of it is RVs are considered, which I don't think is necessarily correct information. Maybe they break down and then how do we move them? It's much easier to tow a car than it is to tow an RV. So just a simple logistics.

[04:06:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Next please.

[04:06:33] Public Speaker: Hello, everybody, mayor council. Um. In my heart, I can see that the city of Mountain View, all you council members have this incredible authority to fix this problem just in days and weeks. In connection also with the police department, and a lot of other people in authority, but particularly with I'm a Vietnam veteran. I came here in 63. I came here in '63. I'm a Vietnam veteran. I love this country. I love this place. But now it's lost, it's lost almost everything from the orchards now to this corporate. And you know, we're so blessed. Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple. They've enriched our lives just incredibly. They are so blessed to be here. This is one of the greatest places in the universe. I mean, the center of the universe, the quad. Um, Silicon Valley. These with your authority, police department, I lay this burden, I lay this on your responsibility. You can make this happen. If you engage the 4 large, these corporations that the executive CEOs are making $100 million a year, they're incredibly their, their society, they're, the development of mankind. But if you can touch their heart, that the 4 of them can combine, they could resolve this 400 car parking problem in, in no time. In no time. They could do it. It could be done. I pray for you. I pray for you, that the Lord will give you the right visions and things to do and insight and authority and prayers to make this happen. Otherwise, it's just going to be, you know, major disaster, this Silicon Valley, the 2nd promised land. Thank you.

[04:08:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay. Sorry, I thought to talk. Next, please.

[04:08:57] Alex Brown: Alex Brown, Santiago Villa, North Bajor, Mountain View. I'd like to thank you for your compassion that you've shown to our unstately housed Mountain View residence. I'd also like to express my support for allowing them to park in the Shoreline Ampitheater parking lots. I myself can't wait for all the new North Bay Shore neighbors, and this would be a fantastic way to start by opening our neighborhood to those for whom we can make the greatest impact in the short term. I would also support increasing our housing supply by funding new public housing projects. Thanks.

[04:09:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:09:28] Lonnie Siegel: My name is Lonnie Siegel. I a homeowner. I've been accused of wanting to turn Mountain View into another Berkeley, and let me assure you, after hearing what Berkeley did recently, I think Berkeley should become more like us. I see the city has 2 tasks. The 1st is to find a place for people to park. I don't want them in bike lanes. I don't want them blocking driveways, but we ought to find a place, whether it be Shoreline Ampitheater. Maybe we could pass an ordinance requiring orchard supply to open up their parking lot while the lot's vacant. Maybe we can designate some streets. Maybe we can require large employers to make their lots available at night. Cisco Systems has an empty lot on Ferguson. I'm not sure what the right answer is. Probably neighbors will complain that a lot of these places, but that's the 1st step, finding places where people can park rather than finding places where people cannot park. That is the solution to the problem. Once we figure that out or while we're figuring it out, we establish a system that brings people into the system. that we don't just say you can park here, so you park here, we want you to register, we want to provide you with a case officer, maybe we want to charge you a dollar a night. We want to bring you into the system because the long term solution to your situation is to bring you into all these programs that Kimberly and the rest of the staff has been working on, the CSA has been working on. The county has been working on. And we want to take people who are out floundering, working trying to find us a solution for themselves into a systematic solution to our homelessness and RV problem until we're able to build the housing that we're most of us are hoping to build. Thank you.

[04:11:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this topic? If there's anyone else, if you could make your way to the aisle there.

[04:11:33] Public Speaker: I don't really want to be here. But I have to say, this is also about equality, okay? And, uh, I want you guys to consider about what...

[04:11:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You could speak into the microphone.

[04:11:44] Public Speaker: What you guys consider it means to live and beside in the, uh, even the United States. Okay? What does residents mean? Okay? Residents is not, if you look it up, all the, all the cases here, residents, I don't want to say it, but, uh, please consider. And thus, in order for it to be valid, for city of Mountain View, for any other kind of a city, United States, it's not, considering that, considering that kind of a, that's a legal kind of a preview. Is it right? What kind of right does the city have?

[04:12:28] Public Speaker: Or the state have to charge a property tax? Okay, because I believe there's a poverty issue that really needs to be resolved here. And the, Parking could be the issue, but before you consider any kind of a legislation or any kind of an issue here, the biggest issue here, you have to recognize is what's equality. If, if there's any kind of, uh, if, uh, homeowner should not be taxed, okay, because taxing would just, considering what the definition of residence mean. That means all the, where are all these money going to for the city? Because the land, the land itself, is it owned by California owned by the property owners? Because property owners, do they have a right in their property to live, to live there as an owner of a property? But at the same time, it has no given kind of a privilege, no given kind of a, kind of a right that's not claimed by non-residence. I don't know if you know what I'm talking about. But it's a...

[04:13:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[04:13:37] Public Speaker: But before I let you, this is...

[04:13:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[04:13:41] Public Speaker: Is that about an equality issue here? That, uh, you guys consider it. Thanks.

[04:13:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[04:13:52] Public Speaker: I grew up in a small rural town north of Sacramento. A town of field workers, living paycheck to paycheck. And although low income was something I was not unfamiliar with, homelessness was. Coming to Mountain View to pursue a career, was a huge cultural shock for me. How can we, as a society, continue to choose to see individuals living in their vehicles as a norm. Housing is an issue that we created and it's our civil responsibility to fix it. We need to acknowledge the real problem, the cost of living, not criminal activity or vehicle residence. Thank you.

[04:14:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wants to address the council on this issue? No, I think you already spoke. Thank you. Okay, if not, we will... You can turn that in afterwards.

[04:14:45] Manny Velasco: Good evening, my name is Manny Velasco. I'm born and raised here in Mountain View 35 years, and at some point, 5 generations of my family has called Mount View Home. So I'm well aware of the issues. I've been watching it happen, you know, since I was born. Um, And I'm here to speak to you guys on behalf of the youth. Whether, you know, you guys make a decision one way or the other. I hope that you guys understand that this is a huge mental strain for a lot of the students here in Mountain View, a lot of the youth here. So I encourage you guys. You know, while you're deciding what to do to go out and look for resources, mental health support for our families, for the families that are living in these RVs. I don't think that that's addressed enough. You know, sometimes we are so bent on finding a solution or, you know, finding an endpoint that we don't realize that while we're sitting here having this conversation, Our students are at home panicking. You know, will I lose my residence soon? Will I no longer be at my school? Do I have to say goodbye to my friends? So I urge you guys to definitely look for resources, you know, help out the school district, help us connect families to those resources. You know? It's crazy. We sit here and talk about how great Mountain View is. But, you know, it's changed a lot. These companies, I mean, the milk pail going away is, you know, another nail in the coffin for what Mount View used to be. You know, we're a small town. And a big city. Um, you know, but allowing companies like Google to have gyms in their, you know, in their facility, restaurants, all of these jobs that really could be going to a lot of these residents that are living in our views and allowing these huge companies to build their own mini communities instead of enhancing our community, I think is also something that you guys should start looking into and seeing if maybe some of those jobs, you know, those people should be coming into the community for lunch, going downtown mountain, but you're going to the local stores. you.

[04:16:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, wait, um, Council member Ramirez, you have a question?

[04:16:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just a quick question for our benefit. Roughly, how many families with kids in the school district have you worked with who live in RVs or vehicles?

[04:17:05] Manny Velasco: Personally, I would probably estimate between 40 and 50 families that I've worked with directly, there's a lot more in the school district.

[04:17:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Who live in vehicles

[04:17:14] Manny Velasco: who live in vehicles, yeah.

[04:17:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you.

[04:17:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else who would like to provide input that hasn't already done so? Okay, so, um, we'll close the public input part of this and, um, did council members have any, maybe we can just do general comments or questions if you have follow up questions? Counsel member McAllister.

[04:17:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I have a couple of questions, follow up questions. There was a lot of great feedback, and it made me think a little bit more so. Um, the phasing in here. So we have these options, and you have timelines, 6 to 18 months, et cetera. And I understand Shoreline is not available until November. So let's walk through a scenario that says 6 to 18 months. How was that implemented and how, I just, the process, because you have six to 18 months, is a wide range there. And just, yeah, and so how would it get us to maybe shoreline parking?

[04:18:23] Staff Member Kimberly: Based upon council's guidance, you have a number of options before you, including using the shoreline for the approximately four and a half months that it is in non-session for concert season. You also have before you an option to be able to negotiate with Live Nation, at which you could expand the utilization of any number of parking lots to be defined at your discretion. That would all those factors and all of that feedback would help staff to be able to develop and draft the program. The time frames that are included in there are encompassing what it would take to be able to do a number of steps, all of which staff has not been able to map out completely. But one of the scenarios that we had talked about in numerous staff reports related to safe parking going back to 20, was looking at that during the winter season. That's when it's available. Um, uh, and figuring out a way to be able to time things such that your perspective change to parking enforcement would occur in accordance with that open time frame. That's assuming you don't make any additional modifications or one is to engage in securing additional spots at Shoreline.

[04:19:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So, if we were to do a timeline, it would, but it looks a lot of these options, there would be plenty of time for people to understand what we're doing, get community outreach to them. And based on what you're saying, it looks like we could go 18 months before we actually fully implement something.

[04:19:55] Staff Member Kimberly: It's conceivable, depending upon which option you are looking at. For example, I've mentioned earlier in staff comments related to the oversized ban. that when Santa Barbara adopted, They adopted relatively quickly. And then they had a process of outreach, signage, engagement, public noticing that would be a phased process before you actually began the citation process. And we also need to work with PD and our various other partners to work through what that looks like and what that staff load is like. So there is additional analysis that staff would need to do once we get feedback on the components.

[04:20:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so if we make a particular option, then there would, okay, people would have plenty of notice. Okay. Second question is, is the lady from Santa Clara County still here? Could you help clarify, when the gentleman mentioned about older vehicles of 2005 RVs, I'd like to clarify that, or get a better understanding on that one? Thank you for staying, though.

[04:21:01] Santa Clara County Representative: Of course. Welcome to our world. The outcome of this one. Um, so, uh, I'm not 100% sure what the requirements are for, um, the Faragon's Management Corporations program in, at the Fairgrounds is, but it is pretty typical that RV parks and mobile home parks do set a age limitation on the, um, on the RB's that are brought in. So, you know, summer, you know, 2000s, summer 2005. Some may have, you know, limitations that, you know, 1995 are older. So it is very common, though, for RV parks, to set it, because they don't want the older ones that they feel are in poor condition.

[04:21:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[04:21:40] Santa Clara County Representative: So I could look I could look at the actual details because I have that information at the office and could let Kimberly know.

[04:21:46] Councilmember John McAlister: would be appreciated.

[04:21:47] Santa Clara County Representative: Sure. No problem.

[04:21:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Because more options are always better than fear. Now, going back to the temporary use permit, well, I've heard a couple of times people were saying, you know, it's too restrictive or what can the council do to say, okay, parking lots, whatever, we can make a streamline over the counter type type temp use permit, or is there a liability on the city that if we get too lenient on something like that?

[04:22:15] Staff Member Kimberly: I'll give an initial staff answer and ask for a potential backup from legal. on this, but what the basic parameters are, is the current existing temporary use permit is an operation for 2 cycles of 180 if they reapply.

[04:22:29] Councilmember John McAlister: 180 days.

[04:22:30] Staff Member Kimberly: 180 days. So for up to 360, that's in accordance with the action that you've already given and provided to the various organizations in the city staff that was in formally in December. So that process is in place. And what staff talked about at that time is that that process is sort of using an existing option at the city. What we've offered for you tonight is an additional option, which would be a recommendation to move forward with something of more substance regarding an ordinance for safe parking. I do caution, and this is where I look illegal to potentially jump in. That does not change any of the basic core services that our department team would be requiring, like lighting, making sure that there's an ADA portable restroom facility. The requirements that we have are actually a very baseline, and there is a team that has looked at this at great depth, and our parameters are very similar to what they are for other safe parking programs. So the city of Mountain View is not adding an additional laundry list of items to the operators of safe parking. But legal, please feel free to chime in.

[04:23:37] Nicole (City Attorney's Office): The only thing I would add to that is a safe parking ordinance would basically streamline the land use part of that. So instead of having to get a TUP from the more than four vehicles, that could be avoided through a safe parking ordinance.

[04:23:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's good question. Yeah, go ahead.

[04:23:53] Staff Member Kimberly: And that's what some other communities have done, including San Jose, what they recently adopted was to streamline for safe parking purposes.

[04:24:01] Councilmember John McAlister: So do the churches who have their parking lots open right now have TUPs?

[04:24:06] Staff Member Kimberly: They do not, because they're under four, so it's considered, I believe it's an ancillary use. to their existing use, and then there is that. For right now, there is the process in place to allow them to expand that at any time with a TUP for up to 360, And then what we are looking at now, as Nicole mentions, is that you could potentially enhance that further by adopting an ordinance to allow that to be longer term, which is what staffs desire us. in terms of the recommendation.

[04:24:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Thanks. Okay. So, I was going to make a few comments. So now you help clarify. I'm pretty proud of this city council. I'm pretty damn proud of this, council, and prior councils, because we've been attacked a few times, or induated that city of Mountain View is not doing enough. And I take a front to that because I've been here for 6 years. And I was mayor in 2015 when we start pushing to the safe lots to the churches. You also noticed, I challenged Silicon Valley at home. You know, this is a problem or a crisis that all of us have to be involved in. Mountain View has put up millions of dollars to do this. Mountain View is building more affordable housing than any, whether we're putting all the money that we have in affordable or subsidized housing, more than anybody else in the area. So when people come up here and say, Mountain, you got to do more, you got to take action. We are doing it. We talk to talk, but we also walk the walk. And that's what people have to appreciate. Yes, there's a lot of passion out there for people to say, you know, you're not doing enough, but we are. Somebody said, get take an active role. I, in 2015, I challenged Pastor Leon to start doing that, because they came up and said, well, you know, we're just, we're sort of talking, no, I want you to take action. People mention Google. We went out to Google and yes, they were great that they donated us a million dollars, but they have a acreage of lot there if you go up to Shoreline. It's called Shoreline Comments, that's vacant. We've asked them, we back them, the, the, Joe Samidian has asked them, can you let us use that open space? Because there's an old gym, gold gyms there? Has facilities, a shower, and all that? No, no, no. So we are pushing when you say, oh, go to corporations. We are doing that. So we are doing everything possible that we can. We're putting money into CSA. Thanks, Tom. You're welcome for the 10,000 push. But we are asking, and that's why I asked you folks to contribute, too. I mean, it's not everything. So when you're up here and you're challenging us, we have answers because this staff has been working hard. This council, formal councils have been working hard too. We've been looking for safe lots for a long time. So I'm doing a little bit of preaching, but it's important to let you understand what we've been doing, what proactive we are, and compared to other cities, there's no one comparison to us. So, That's it for now. I'll be glad to hear the rest of my council.

[04:26:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[04:26:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, yes, a couple of questions. First, Kimberly, how many, between the lots that we've been talking about for safe parking, Palo Alto housing in Shoreline? Well, first, I should clarify Palo Alto housing, my understanding is it may come online in April, is that true?

[04:27:12] Staff Member Kimberly: That's the current estimate. Palo Alto Housing Corp. Diane Dittmar and her team member is here with us this evening, but it's just given us an update that that is looking what the timeline looks like. They've hired an additional resource to assist them in the project management, and they're beginning one of the more complex pieces, which is dealing with and coordinating with PG&E, and they are in process on that. But we do have ongoing updates where we engage with a team on that to keep them as much as we can on track. It's a very difficult process.

[04:27:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, so follow up, thank you. Follow up question. So between Palo Alto housing and shoreline lots that you're talking about, what would be the number of vehicle spots, potential vehicle spots, and if it's a range for any number of reasons, you can give me the range.

[04:28:03] Staff Member Kimberly: It really would be, ultimately, at the discretion of the council, what we discuss in the staff report, and our partners are also aware of these overarching parameters, is something on the range of 20 spaces. The rationale for that is that it's a manageable, moderate size and scale with which an operator can provide programmatic services, security, and other needs. Larger scale programs, as are discussed in the report, are untested in our area. An example would be, I don't have the number handy, but K, they can grab it for me. County wide. We currently have something on the order of 70 plus spaces. So the scale for mountain view, if you were to approve and scale up, your existing 8 that are at the faith lots, your online coming 8 to 11 at Palo Alto Housing Corp. If you were to have 20 at Shoreline, and you were to have 20 at the prospective lot, we're in negotiations with for the transit lot, you would be on par with what we are providing at the entire county of Santa Clara.

[04:29:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And then, in addition, people have sometimes talked about certain streets, such as streets in commercial areas. I don't know how much you've looked at this, but looking over streets and saying, you know, we don't want people, excuse me, parked in bike lanes and near parks anymore, but there are alternative streets. Have you looked at alternative streets? And if so, you know, which ones and any estimate of spaces?

[04:29:37] Staff Member Kimberly: What staff has done on this is we map it in the sense that we know where the vehicles are. The police department has done that now 3 times. So we have maps that are attached to your report, and we have looked at that. What we have not done is come up with any additional advisory to you in terms of a recommendation as to where you might like to continue to allow those vehicles to be. The map, I think, speaks for itself. There are concentrations in some of the industrial areas. There are concentrations around some of the known areas that you're aware of on Cresanto, that are aligning the Caltrain corridor. So those are some of the larger ones. If you'd like us, we'd be more than happy to bring up the map. We do have it available for you as a supplement. And then the last thing I would say on that is, we've looked at a number of options that we discussed with you regarding permitting other issues that might be available through the California vehicle code. And so we had some discussions with public works on this, but that's the extent of it.

[04:30:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, let me see, if I understand that. There, you have a map, or we have a map, and there are streets on it, and we could direct you to look at, to come back with a list of streets, and then you could come back with numbers. I'm just, there's a reason I'm asking them.

[04:30:57] Kimberly: Sure. What we can say, and if Caitlin wants to pull the map up, we can show you the highest levels of concentration. And we can also show you what that zoning is for those areas. And that can be a decision point for the council, in terms of, you know, whichever of the 4 options you are looking at. You can make exceptions. I look for the attorney regarding a number of the options that you're looking.

[04:31:26] City Manager Dan Rich: Just a time in here. I think what you're getting our councilman, Hicks, is, are there specific streets that would be designated for RVs, with the exclusion of all other streets?

[04:31:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes.

[04:31:37] City Manager Dan Rich: We have not explicitly done that. You could give us direction to do that. I think it would take some research, and just realize that any street we or you picked is somebody's street, and not somebody else's street, and frankly, how this all started years and years ago, was when they were starting to park in industrial areas, and we would get complaints from the property owners, and the tenants of those sites, and we would put up signs, and then they would just go to another street, and quickly realize that's not a real solution. So I just caution that if you're going to pick specific streets, that's going to be a challenging process. We can certainly do it if that's your direction.

[04:32:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, no, actually, the reason I asked that question, I am interested in safe parking, but I also wanted to let the public know how, how difficult it is to actually find spaces, and that the, my personal and unfortunate opinion is that this is not, this is not really a problem that can be solved within one city. that we get to a breaking point, that we look at, as Kimberly was saying, if we looked at all the sites we've been able to find, we get close to offering the number of sites for vehicles that the county as a whole is offering. Um, you know, and I, I'm new on the council, and I'm willing to roll ahead with things like that. But I also think you should know this impacted the election. And my feeling is that, like what happened in Berkeley, at some point, this breaks, and that we won't be able to continue to cover it, and we are covering it, more or less fairly alone. The cities around us are not doing the same kind of job that we're doing. Um, so, um, with that caution, you know, I'm willing to, I'm speaking fairly plainly here. I'm willing to go ahead and be as compassionate as possible. But quite honestly on this issue, I don't feel like I have much more power than I did when I was sitting where you were all sitting. And I think that we all together need to go and talk to places like the Silicon Valley Community Foundation and Google. I can't do it alone. I have a little more leverage, more of us working together, have more leverage, than few of us working alone. And I'm willing to go with any of you. This is also something that I think that the, to David Meyer leave, from Silicon Valley at home. Oh, well. You know, this is something that I've been talking to the county and to David about, and saying that the solutions that I'm saying are, for example, in the casa compact. This is all the legislation that's coming through California. It is, there's a lot on giving people full supportive housing, but the problems are breaking out faster than this is a real crisis. And the problems are breaking out faster than the solutions are arriving. And so I think we need a regional discussion, I've said that to people in the county, I think we need to talk about parking lots scattered around the county. I think we need to talk about business hosting and talking to more churches. And I think we all need to work together because I think this council has up to this point, and I don't know what's going to happen tonight. But been pretty much more compassionate than any council I've seen, and I'm from Berkeley.

[04:35:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[04:35:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, question regarding the VT. Oh, I guess it's the lot that we are negotiating. Chains of property. Sorry. Do you know have some timeline on that?

[04:35:33] Kimberly: Yeah, it looks, I guess, it looks fruitful, and I believe community development. If Tim is still here, he will correct me, but the last update was sometime in April that will come before you. And we've done the preliminary application or letter in relation to lot use. And so if things were to move forward on the property, I'm looking at the attorneys, it would be a positive development, hopefully.

[04:36:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, good question on that one. Is it going to the VTA board first or to the...?

[04:36:04] Kimberly: It should. Or going to city council first. I believe we're scheduled to have a closed session on it next month. Oh. to provide you an update on the negotiation with the other party. Loose lips.

[04:36:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um... It was well said. And a second question... Other matter. was, um, there's mention about, uh, parking restrictions in industrial commercial zones, is that right? So no overnight parking in those zones, but So it's only residential zones that we allow parking overnight.

[04:36:45] Kimberly: Oh, I think you might be referencing the 2 to 6 restriction. The 2 AM to 6 a.m. And public comment mentioned that. Yes, it is a number of locations. There is a reference in the staff report to it, which I will try to find. But it is a number of locations, many of which are in commercial and office areas. And that was done in response to a number of concerns and complaints that were brought before public works.

[04:37:13] City Manager Dan Rich: So, just to add to that. We have an ordinance that's been on the book since, I believe, the 1960s, it has never been enforced to anyone who's alive here's knowledge. It is only enforceable wear sign. There are signs prohibiting overnight parking in certain limited streets, primarily commercial right now. So that's the only places it's currently being enforced.

[04:37:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So only, okay. Because I know I've seen RVs over on Garcia, I believe, in North Bay Shore. So as long as there's not a sign, we can.

[04:37:47] City Manager Dan Rich: Correct, we're signed.

[04:37:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. I guess going into comments, I want to, 1st of all, acknowledge staff for all of your hard work and the 48 page staff report was very comprehensive, and I really appreciate the care, though. It's been taken by all of our staff members in working on this issue for several years. And I agree with my colleagues who spoke before me. I think as a city and as a city council, we have, um, done, someone asked if they think, you know, we've done everything we could. I actually think we're getting there. And, you know, when we have a, is it 73 item work plan and we've implemented pretty much everything, except there's one thing that we haven't, and I'll get to that later. I think we have been pretty extensive and doing everything we can. But as it's been mentioned, and this is the challenge is that, you know, we are a city, mountain view of one city. We just take the county or one city of 15. And, you know, that I we have safe parking. I mean, I personally, I was the one who asked Palo Alto Housing Corporation for their lot, and I've asked every time I meet with a developer or someone who has property, I ask them, can we use your lot, even if it's temporary? And, you know, frankly, I have gotten one, yes, and that's it. So it's not an easy problem to solve. I think we've worked really hard. We've spent over a million dollars a year on this issue. You know, I think we've provided every service we could think of. And so I do hope people, folks recognize that we have been compassionate, just as much as we are council members, we are residents and we're people too. And I care about, you know, our residents here as a whole. I mean, I personally go out and volunteer a lot of time and have made contributions. And so I do care. And I think we all do care. And we've done, you know, really worked really hard to try to figure out how we can, you know, try to make a dent in this issue. The challenges that we haven't, even though we've spent all of this effort and, you know, money. We haven't really moved the needle, as it's been mentioned in the staff report, because, as council member Hicks said, it's not just, you know, mountain view's problem to solve, and it has to really take, again, a regional effort or even bigger than that. We were in Washington, D.C. last week for the National League of Cities conference. And I was surprised because everybody who spoke from throughout the country talked about housing and a housing crisis. So whether you're in Indiana or Ohio or California, there's a housing crisis nationally. So, given the enormous, the ginormous scale of this, it's really, you know, frankly, impossible for Mountain View to solve it alone. So, I hope folks understand that, and when we ask, you know, SV at home, the reason why I ask them is because we get to maybe meet with the C... Well, I don't even think we get to meet with the CEOs very often, but, you know, SP At Home has a board that has these representatives from these organizations on there, and they meet regularly. So we need help from other folks. You know, I would ask the churches. I know you have affiliate churches in other cities. Could you, you know, reach, have you reached out to them? Could you reach out to them? you know, encourage them, if their cities have, um, issue restrictions, city, you know, ordinances and so forth. Well, maybe they need, they could go and lobby their city councils to make changes and, um, you know, to contribute to this effort. I see Joe Samitians, staff person here. And from a county perspective. Frankly, I would ask that, you know, perhaps Supervisor Submitian could continue to have those dialogues with the cities that are in his district. So that's what we're talking about. We're not trying to, you know, short card responsibility. I think we're doing the best we can, but it really does take more than Mountain View to solve these issues. So in light of that, I don't, I guess there's some others in Q. I think we have to have a balanced approach. And we have focused on the, you know, the services, but I think we need to move beyond that this evening to try to make something work and actually see some progress. Thanks.

[04:42:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[04:42:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Bont for his plug on the upcoming census. I serve on the Santa Clara County Steering Committee for the Census, and one of the things that's the theme is be counted. You count, I count. And I think that's really applicable to the conversation tonight. in terms of, um, I'm thankful that everyone is able to come to give public comment. Um, I have been out 3 times and I think the reason why we've never met is because you're working or you're a student. So being part of the audience and providing us, that perspective is really critical. for those who are in community colleges. Um, it's no secret that my former boss is putting forward a bill, AB 302, which is looking at safe parking for community college students throughout the entire state. The number. I talked to the office today. is of the, I believe, 2000000 community college students, about half a 1000000 are unstably housed or living in vehicles throughout our state. And that's a staggering number. So I'm not sure if we'll be supporting any legislation today, but I'm sure we'll be tracking it, so just a heads up and an FYI on that. Um, I did have a question and something that I don't think that's come up is something I did notice was, um, the amount of RVs that are now being rented out. Um, and I saw one that, uh, you know, uh, really struck me in terms of the condition and that someone was paying $400 a month to live in something that was not adequate. And I just wanted to ask either staff or the county CSA, if you have any numbers on the amount of RVs that are being rented out in our community.

[04:44:25] Kimberly: We don't have definitive data on that. We have more anecdotal data. We have some baseline from back when we did the survey with life moves and CSA where they can, do engage and try to determine if that situation is occurring. As you know, in your staff report. There is an area for you to consider in terms of enforcing that. It really is a challenging area. We also know from anecdotal emails and other things that residents send us that people are noticing them, that their 1st rent in Mountain View. But in terms of hard data on the percentages, we do not have that.

[04:45:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I want to make a few comments here. I echo the several of the comments that my fellow council members have made about what we have done. Well, some of you have not come to council meetings before, and so maybe you're not aware of all the things we have done. It's a lot. We've invested a lot of money. We've certainly tried a lot of things. We, fortunately, have been able to help quite a few people. I personally reached out to LinkedIn and asked them if they could help with safe parking. And they did not volunteer their parking lots, but they did contribute $15,000. And then I believe it's 15,000 more matching. So I appreciate that LinkedIn provided some resources to safe parking. But it's really, really hard to address this issue and it has been going on for years and years and years. And My perspective is that the majority of the residents in our city want us to address this and they want us to do that tonight. Um, we have become known as the place where um, you should go if you're living in an RV. And I think we can still continue to help people. You know, as the vice mayor said, I think we all have compassion here and we're humans. And we have been helping folks, and we can continue to do that. I don't think any of us would say we shouldn't continue to help people. It would just be different, depending upon, you know, decisions we might make here tonight, but I certainly support continuing to help people find homes and, you know, the services that they might need. Um, but, Even after all the work we've done, we still have basically the same number of vehicles, which is really frustrating. So, I do want us to make progress on addressing this issue. And I hope we can do that tonight. Council member Ramirez.

[04:47:12] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Oops. I have a lot to say. And understanding that we're going to break it up into parts. I'll try and be succinct and sort of keep it to each of the components of this discussion that we're going to be taking on, but just as introductory remarks. I also would like to thank staff on all of your work on this issue. in the context of my day job. There's an entire department working on this. In Kimberly, I get the impression that you're doing what the Department of Housing in San Jose is doing basically single-handedly, which I find astonishing. Thank you very much for your work and for all of the support that other members of the staff provide. And then similarly, I'd like to thank the Mountain View Police Department for your work on this issue. The ride along I went on yesterday was the 1st I had participated in. And I was really glad to get one scheduled before this meeting, because it was truly enlightening. And though I don't think the experience I had was nearly as eventful, I'll say, as the experience that several of you have had, I learned a lot, and I appreciated the opportunity to ask Sergeant McGee many, many questions over the 4 hours I was out there. And I honest, my takeaway was, you're doing a phenomenal job. balancing compassion with enforcement. And I commend you for the work that you're doing. Thank you. And then finally, I would like to thank the community for the extraordinary patience and tolerance that you have displayed over the past several years, both residents in conventional housing and the vehicle residents. It's, you know, I feel for you. I feel that my charge, as an elected official, is to help the residents of Mountain View, and I believe that you are residents of Mountain View. And I think, um, you know, that it's our responsibility to try and find a balance that, that takes into consideration the very real needs and concerns that you have, and also the very real issues related to public health and safety. and the very real impact that RVs in particular have on the residents who live adjacent to them. It's a very difficult, it's a very complex issue. And I think our response will need to be appropriately nuanced and thoughtful. So I guess when we get to each of the components, I'll speak to my thoughts, but those are just sort of high-level remarks. Thank you.

[04:49:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so if we're ready, I think we can move on to one, four, and five, which I was thinking might be the least controversial ones here. So if we could focus on those three, that would be great. Vice may Rabi Koga.

[04:50:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I wanted to go ahead and start making some motions to that effect. I believe I have to read this. So, um, I would like to make a motion to, one, accept an update on the short term homeless initiatives in the city's three pronged strategy. Uh, for... I know, and I don't have to read the numbers, but it helps me. Introduce an ordinance, adding section 19.70.1 to chapter 19, division 2 of the Mountain View city code related to the parking of vehicles that discharge domestic sewage, on the public right of way, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and set 2nd reading for April 9, 2019. In item five, adopt a resolution of the city of Mountain View declaring a shelter crisis to be read in title only for the reading waived.

[04:51:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, we have a motion by the vice mayor, and a second by council member Kamei. Is there any discussion on those three? Okay, see, nobody in the queue, we can vote on that. And those three items pass unanimously. So then moving on to items 2 and 3, to me, they are pretty related. So I thought we should talk about them together, and that is parking enforcement, as well as safe parking. Council member Hicks.

[04:51:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Excuse me. I actually thought maybe we could talk about safe parking first, and in some ways, in the way that, uh, council member McAllister had talked about, um, phasing and starting off with safe parking, if that, if that works for the rest of you.

[04:52:10] Unknown Speaker: Question. Sorry, did you have a question?

[04:52:13] Unknown Speaker: Yes. What does that mean? Are you talking about a specific... I approach.

[04:52:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I was just talking about not talking about them in tandem necessarily, but, uh, sort of walking down the road of how to provide safe parking 1st and then doing the other one afterwards. Or at least getting a little bit down that road first.

[04:52:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So it sounds like the safe parking. We have the Palo Alto housing lot coming online in April, hopefully. And the other lot that we're negotiating with around that time, or at least that it'll start coming to us. So we are phasing in safe parking lots. My sense is if we were to talk about restrictions. That's going to take some time anyway as well. So I think we could do them in parallel.

[04:53:12] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I also think we can do them in parallel. I think they're very related. So just a thought.

[04:53:19] Unknown Speaker: They're certainly related, and ultimately you have to do one before the other, but you can talk about them together. Just a suggestion maybe, I think it's possible that how you address safe parking will be dependent on how you would address enforcement. For example, if you seek a stronger enforcement mechanism, a ban, or whatever it may be, that may impact how you structure safe parking in terms of both the timing of it, whether or not you want to open up shoreline or something like that. So I would actually respectfully suggest flipping it and talk about the enforcement first, and then that may impact your decisions on the safe parking. But clearly they are interrelated.

[04:54:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The vice mayor, I'll be cogo.

[04:54:12] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yes, that oh, that's the other question. Go ahead.

[04:54:15] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask a question?

[04:54:16] Unknown Speaker: Sure. So, was part of the conversation related to safe parking about if we'd like to adopt a safe parking ordinance? That was my understanding, right?

[04:54:27] Unknown Speaker: It is. Okay. There's a number of options that staff needs directional and related to safe parking.

[04:54:33] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. So though we're participating in having safe parking lots, we, the city can also adopt a, say, parking ordinance, correct?

[04:54:42] Unknown Speaker: Yes, but staff also needs direction from you on the lots themselves. even the transit oriented lot.

[04:54:48] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for letting me ask the questions.

[04:54:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Vice mayor Rabbi Koga.

[04:54:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I did think that we needed to talk about whether we wanted to do further restrictions enforcements first, and that would lead to what we do with safe parking lot. So, um, You know, this is very difficult. And I, you know, I know we all have struggled with this. But as a council member, Hicks has mentioned, I think we have heard from the community about this issue and, you know, let me just start off by saying, I did a ride along as well. We've studied this issue extensively, and we're not categorizing everybody in one pot or in one box or another. The population of vehicle dwellers is just as diverse as our population in our entire city. So, you know, please understand that. What we've seen on our ride alongs is just one aspect, we understand that. There's data too. But we understand, too, that there are folks who, you know, we're living in Mountain View. We're just maybe displaced and they're looking for another housing opportunity. You know, I think our police department has done an incredible job with, along with CSA and reaching out to, I believe all of the vehicle dwellers. So, um, from, you know, my, my conversations, I think our staff has gotten to know, the, the, the vehicle dweller residence. And so, um, I understand it's very diverse. But, um, you know, there are challenges that we've talked about public health safety issues. That's really the primary concern that I've heard. Um, you know, I think from a, you know, perspective of like, in terms of, um, the size of vehicles, um, it does block the view, you know, trying to get out of the target parking lot. Sometimes I was like a leap of faith to try to get out because I couldn't see on both sides with the RVs parked when they were parked there. getting into the bike lanes. There's a lot of, there's one that was parked, like we have rotaries on our street and there's one park very close to that. So when you're turning the curb, the corner, it's hard to get around. So, I think, for me, the real issue has been that about safety, and the challenge I see has been with the oversized vehicles. And so, my end, you know, this issue of picking streets. Um, I just, for me, fairness and, you know, equity is really important. That's one of my basic principles, and I don't get, I've said this before. I don't care if you're poor or rich or, you know, white or green. I believe in a certain fairness factor. And so I don't want to pick one street over another. Um, I think that what if whatever we're gonna do should be citywide. And so, again, my main concern going back to public health and safety is the oversized vehicles. And so I would like to move forward with that option of, um, restricting those. 3A? Is it 3A? I'm trying to find a chart.

[04:58:19] Unknown Speaker: It's right here. It's on the screen.

[04:58:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Okay, 3A, yes. And, you know, that doesn't, man, I don't, you know, I don't, we don't want to necessarily ban activity in the vehicles. I mean, the irony, I thought, is I was reading the staff report too, is that for those who are, um, it seemed like the vehicle dwellers, because they're considered more unstably housed or homeless, and so they're able to get services more easily, or RVs aren't necessarily considered.

[04:58:56] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:58:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, so. It's that vulnerability factor with having a semi roof. So, yeah, so, um, even for that, you know, I want to help folks who want to find other opportunities. I've always said that. But what we've seen is, again, there's a variety, and there are some folks who have chosen to live here in an RV, you know, have been told to come to Mountain View. And, you know, I want to help those who we have, but the challenge of not doing some kind of restriction is, you know, we can find safe parking spots, but I think, and as we've seen over the years, is we're just gonna have more RVs coming in. And again, it's, you know, we can't do this ourselves. So we need help from, you know, all the other cities around us to do this. So, um, I think we need to contain our, um, you know, our our challenge, our situation, and then try to resolve it by helping these folks get into more permanent housing. So I support, you know, if we want to do more permanent supportive housing, rapid rehousing. You know, I always have pushed for a short term rental assistance program, like, for 2 years, you know, if we can help those folks who need to pay rent. I'm all for that, but I think we really have to do some restrictions and, you know, I go back to the last time we talked about this. I think it was someone from Santa Barbara, who said, in order for a safe parking program to work, we have to have parking restrictions, so they go hand in hand.

[05:00:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Any comments on that? It's page 29. Staff important. Um, Council member Hicks.

[05:00:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I could... sorry. Um, I could start with, uh, motor vehicle line of sight impacts, um, adverse impact, you know, bicycle lanes. I think that's stated as adverse impacts on bicycle and pedestrian safety, um, and other kinds of encroachments start with some of those to begin with.

[05:01:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[05:01:11] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I don't think... I don't think in the motion to just completely ban oversized vehicle parking citywide is the right approach here. I think as council member Hicks said, I think, starting to look at, you know, specific situations where we talk about, you know, in the locational parking limits under B, you know, talking about locational modifications that, you know, specifically address health and safety impacts, bike lanes, line of sight, those sorts of things, and looking at, you know, studying desired locations for the restrictions themselves. I think makes more sense. I think if we simply ban oversized vehicle partnering parking citywide, we're doing exactly what a lot of our neighbors have done. And I think we are, um, yes, we've done a lot and we should give ourselves and our community a lot of credit for the programs that we're instituting and we can continue working on safe parking and other things. But as I've said before, I am willing to go down the enforcement route to a certain extent when there are other opportunities available to folks so that we aren't just pushing them into other communities and doing exactly what other cities have done to us. And it is not clear to me that that is present here. And I'm willing to take steps that I haven't been willing to take before in prior years, which is to look at, you know, additional restrictions on places where we really had significant pain points in bike lanes, perhaps in specific residential areas. You know, I'm willing to talk about, you know, adjacencies to parks where there are impacts, you know, during the daytime and weekends where there are folks trying to take their kids to the park and there, you know, maybe we need to put time parking there during specific days or parts of the day. I'm willing to look at that. I'm willing to look at restrictions in specifically in residential areas where maybe we look at overnight parking there and there's health and safety impacts where we study the various areas. But I think just banning oversized vehicles citywide is taking the easy way out. And I don't, it's hard to do, but I just, I think it's, I think it's, I think it's doing exactly what every other city has has done and has helped contribute to this park, this, this problem by doing. And I'm not willing to support that.

[05:03:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me. Remember, we're not gonna do that tonight. We're gonna listen respectfully to the different perspectives here. So, I seconded at the motion that the vice mayor made. And from my perspective, we've tried what council member Clark just talked about, where we have, as our city manager said, we've changed the regulations, and that just moves, the vehicles to another location. And I don't want to continue to do that. And as the vice mayor said, we heard that in order for safe parking program to be successful, you need regulations. So, um, I'm supportive of the motion and if there are not any other comments, um, we should take a vote on this one. Did somebody have did you have comments?

[05:04:41] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah.

[05:04:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Cancel my book of May. Okay. Or we can just hold off for a 2nd sheet.

[05:04:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Sorry. So I just had a quick some follow-ups. Sorry, we started moving quickly here. Okay. So it sounded like some people were talking about option one, which might be locational parking limits. Is that my understanding of what council member Hicks and council member Clark are talking about? And then what the motion, that's before us, is option three, which is the vehicle size limit. BA, 3A, is my understanding, right? So, question to the motion. In some of the examples in our many attachments, when cities have looked at oversized vehicles, they've also looked at a permitting process, is this something that the motion makers would be comfortable including? So I, something that I've been interested in is a permitting process for, um, for vehicles and those, um, you know, who are participating in programs or on housing waiting lists. And I would be interested in that. I'd also maybe be interested in oversized vehicle parking limitations in certain areas like residential neighborhoods, and then, you know, permitting in non-residential areas of our city. I don't know how the motion makers feel, but I just wanted to put that as well. No matter what type of enforcement we talk about tonight, I really think adequate notice to those in their vehicles or RVs is, um, uh, imperative. So, what, you know, um, I don't want to be like our neighbors who, uh, do something and then it's effective the next day, I would only feel comfortable if this is something that we would have maybe, uh, you know, till the end of the year and then we, and then we start so that people have the opportunity to work through their transition. So I don't know if that could be part of the motion, but or any things we look at, but I think that that's also very important. as well.

[05:06:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I guess there's a lot more discussion on this. So I think we need to have the cue so I can see who's in it.

[05:06:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Should I answer?

[05:06:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Go ahead.

[05:07:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: My, I guess my question would be to the city attorney as to what we are, we would be able to do. I'm open to a permitting program. Again, if, you know, folks are in the process of working with different agencies to find more permanent housing. You know, I'm open to giving them more time. I just don't know what we are legally able to do. Um, so I'd ask the city attorney for them.

[05:07:31] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So we touched on that just very briefly in the staff report. We spent a considerable amount of time trying to come up with a feasible permitting program. And given that our ability to control the rights of way, our constrained by state law, we didn't come up with a way that you could do a permitting system. And so for that reason, staff, under that approach, staff favors the safe parking program is a way to get there. And I don't know, Nicole has done most of the research on this, so she might have a couple comments.

[05:08:07] Staff Member Nicole: So, excuse me. I was just gonna add that, um, what other cities have done like Santa Barbara is, um, they do have an oversized vehicle band that applies citywide, and there are a number of exceptions to that. Some of those exceptions are outright. exceptions for government vehicles, emergency vehicles, need for repairs, and things like that. And then they also do have several permits that are issued that are akin to like a residential parking permit program, which is allowed under the vehicle code. So that is something that we could consider, if there was interest in counsel as well.

[05:08:42] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Maybe you want to give some of those examples because I don't want I don't want to give you the wrong impression about what those permits are for.

[05:08:49] Staff Member Nicole: So, yeah, so, um, so basically for, um, for a fixed residence, to have a guest who is staying, um, with them that's associated with that fixed residence, to apply for a permit, um, or for a fixed commercial business that is using, because this is oversized vehicles using a commercial vehicle associated with, um, a fixed address. There's also a contractor's permit for commercial vehicles, for utilizing the public rights of way, for certain purposes, and it doesn't allow actually overnight parking for those vehicles, but for all of those, it's a limited duration, so the ones associated with a residence or a commercial business. That's a temporary permit, it's valid for 5 days and can be renewed again for another 5 days. So it's intended for short periods of time. And again, it's associated with another business. And there's also some ADA requirements. No, thanks.

[05:09:51] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So, um, if, in that situation, then, are we looking more at 3B exemptions, under 3B?

[05:10:04] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The 3B is really those exceptions that are most common in oversize ordinances as Nicole just kind of walked you through. The permit isn't even necessarily required, if you have exceptions, but you do include the exceptions to allow fixed businesses, fixed residents. Public safety is even included, as an option, to be able to, well, usually recommended, because it's an oversized vehicle to ensure that you're...

[05:10:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I guess I'm looking at 3A, but adding the exceptions. That would be one of my amendment.

[05:10:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, because B is by location. You'd want citywide with exceptions. And when we talk about safe parking, you know, we can talk about other approaches, like maybe allowing the business or businesses to house vehicles and so forth. So, um, I tend to explore those other options that have been brought up, but I think we need to do this first. And I'm good with that amendment or change to that motion.

[05:11:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[05:11:16] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so just for just as a matter of process, when we're handling these, my preference, you know, you're the maker of the motion, but my preference would be to make a motion that addresses both the safe parking and the enforcement component at the same time, just so we have some level of certainty over the approach that we'll take as a city. But if the preference is to address them one at a time, then I guess I'll deal with that. So this is this is a very difficult issue in, you know, you've been addressing it as policy makers much longer than I have, but I've been addressing it in the context of my day drive from a very different perspective. And I think all of us know that there really isn't a simple, clean way of addressing this problem. But I'll try and speak to sort of, I'll try and articulate a vision that hopefully can get us to, you know, some kind of approach that can work for most, if not all of us. But I think I think what the vice mayor is speaking to, which I do agree with, is providing the community some assurance that there is an end to this problem. I think that's essential. And that was probably the failure of the previous council's approach. And, you know, saying there's taking a compassionate approach, I support and fully understand, but, you know, if you do that with no, um, no incentive for the folks at the other end to transition the way that we're hoping that they will, that's the intent of the compassionate approach, I think, um, then we'll end up in a situation where we're not meaningfully addressing the problem. And I think that's kind of that's the challenge that we're facing now. And I appreciate the success that we have had in transitioning folks to permanent supportive housing or to some other kind of more appropriate shelter, but, you know, it's when we do that, the folks who vacated the space are just simply supplanted with somebody else, right? And apparently many folks from other communities. So I do think some providing some level of enforcement is appropriate because it will provide assurance to the community that we're heading toward a specific end, that we have an objective in mind, and it provides an incentive for folks to participate in the process as we intend them to. I hope I'm articulating this in a way that makes sense. I don't want this to exist indefinitely, because I don't think we're actually solving the problem. At the same time, as we step up enforcement, I do think that we need to make sure that people have a place to go. The biggest, the biggest unintended consequence that I've observed, just, again, in my other capacity, is you can address the problem with vehicles and get to the point where you're impounding vehicles, but the people who live in them don't go away. And what I'm very concerned about is we could end up with a different kind of homelessness in Mountain View and a kind of homelessness that looks more like the kind that exists in San Jose, which is extremely difficult to address. So, you know, greater presence of encampments, folks living on Caltran's property, Caltrane, right of way. Um, you know, and perhaps we've addressed the specific challenges associated with oversized vehicles, but we may have inadvertently created a different problem, which is why I think a fairly lengthy transition period is essential. Because I don't want to kick people out of RVs and onto the streets. It's a different problem and it's a more difficult problem to address. So those are some things I hope we can achieve with this. I do support some level of enforcement. And I think the kind of enforcement I'm willing to support will be conditioned totally on the other the corresponding approach, the safe parking approach. So I'm hoping we can sort of talk through this a little bit more. Thank you.

[05:15:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[05:15:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Council member Ramirez?

[05:15:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, sir.

[05:15:40] Councilmember John McAlister: When you said former counselor failed. to solve this problem. Let me point out a few things.

[05:15:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Can I hide?

[05:15:52] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no. It's a process. This process started in 2016. And so we showed compassion. We showed thought. And so we didn't fail. We have been going through the process to get to the point we are today. So we have those programs in place. We have money spent to them. So we haven't failed. We are doing our due diligence trying to solve this problem. So that's where I'm coming from on that way, because we did work hard. So we didn't fail. We helped eliminate a lot of things that you don't have to consider because we've done that in the prior councils. So, um, Like the vice mayor. I'm not done yet. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry. I'm on a roll. So here's, okay, I'm a very programmatic type of person to try to solve problems. I keep it simple, and I try to do it. And so with these options coming here, I don't want to have an option that just kicks the problem down the road. And a lot of cities are doing, it just keeps kicking it down. I want results. And that's why I've supported money. I supported everything that we have that supports providing money to CSA for rapid rehousing. I say, give them more money, because that gets, I want people for assistance. I want to get people solutions. And that's why when I mentioned earlier that I said, I was looking at the city of San Luis Obispo. And I wanted participation with social service providers. I want to help people who are willing to help themselves. I want to give them solutions, and, in a sense, you're sort of saying, is that we're gonna do enforcement, so you have a choice. You get involved, you take our services, and you get your life better. Or you move out. And it may not be fair to a lot of people, but that's how I call tough love. I remember having a conversation with Tom, and I always bring it up, and even though this conversation was probably about two, 3 years ago, He says, sometimes you gotta tell people, hey, your housing, it's out in the valley. But that's what, you know, quality of life. Sometimes you have to make the hard choices. Do you have to take with what you have or what you don't? And so, I want to, I want to help those who want to help themselves. I want to send the resources to them. And I also agree with you, I want safe lots. Again, I originate the safe lots. And everybody keeps saying, well, you can't do this unless you have the safe lots. And I think we're going to do that. I'm all in favor of doing the ordinance to get people to save lots so they have a transition. And that's why if you mentioned, I also mentioned earlier, with Kimberly, how long would it take us to get there? And you're looking almost a year and a half. So I think that's a hell of a transition to get people involved, to make their choice or to move on. I'm not throwing anybody out, but I want, you know, the citizens ask us to solve the problem. You gotta help yourselves, and we'll be there to help you. We'll be that rock. And so that's what I'm coming from on this particular issue. One other thing. I just got to defend the police department. Somebody mentioned that they shouldn't be doing enforcement. Well, if you look at what the police are actually doing or Sergeant Wally's, McGee, sorry. What's he's actually doing? He's engaging those individuals and helping them get social services. Yes, there's an enforcement policy, but that's not really his job. His job is to go out there and make contact with the homeless, make contact with the RVs, and help them get services. So people, you know, you can feel my frustration is that you don't understand what we're doing, and it's sometimes we're not doing a good job to get the information out, that we're doing all these things, and you need to ask us the questions, and I'll be glad to sit down with anybody and chat. But that's what those, well, Officer Sergeant McGee is really designed to do is get people's solutions and get them the help. So if we're going down 3B. Um, with I don't know if that's where the maker is going.

[05:19:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Three A with exceptions.

[05:19:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Three A with exceptions. But then my exception is it's got to be participating with social service providers. to help them make sure that we are spending our precious resources. We don't have a lot, but we're spending every dime we have, and if Tom comes back to me and says, John, I need more money for a program, I'll be the first one and say, I'll give you the money, because I think those are the services that directly benefit people and help them immediately and help those people get into rapid housing. So that's the direction I'm doing. Vice mayor, I'll be Coco.

[05:20:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so I'm gonna attempt to add the other pieces, actually, not just one piece with the funding piece as well and just roll it into one motion. Yeah, I think it's all just is coming together. So in addition to the restrictions, I would add a safe parking ordinance, one, two, moving forward with the negotiated lot. Three, allowing businesses and non-profits to allow vehicle dwellers to park in their parking lots. And I don't know how that works legally, but...

[05:21:04] Unknown Speaker: It would be something that staff would need to pursue and do further analysis of.

[05:21:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. Um, and so yes, so this would be direct to direct stuff to move forward with these items. For, um, exploring, streamlining the permitting process for the churches to allow more than 4 vehicles per lot.

[05:21:32] City Staff: Some of those can be incorporated into your safe parking ordinance provision, if you're allowing staff to move forward with that, we would look at those issues within that bundle.

[05:21:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. And then five. And this goes on defending this, well, I guess it would. Five is the short-term emergency rental assistance program, from what I heard because of CSFRA, that's changed the qualifications. So review the guidelines and make modifications as needed to allow for more opportunity to use those funds for rental system. Do you know how much is left of what was allocated for that?

[05:22:21] City Staff: Yeah, there's about 70,000, a little shy of 70,000, that exists still.

[05:22:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thanks.

[05:22:26] City Staff: It in CSA's hands, but it's being unused.

[05:22:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then I will move to include the funding for, and this is on page 43. I don't know if I have to read each item, but I'll go ahead and do so. under enforcement related. One, continue the police outreach officer, $260,000, to continue police extra hourly for enforcement, $40,000, three, continue police, tow enhancement, $40,000, for enforcement initiatives that will require more resources, up to $200,000. And five, the new ESRI GIS program data management system to achieve the next step of enforcement priorities, up to $11,000. Going on to links to housing, PSH safe housing, one continue outreach worker with possible scope change depending on characteristics of new policy, up to $40, $60,000, continue the case worker for permanent supportive housing, up to $125,000, and then safe parking continuation, including the Pelage housing, corporation lot, the city and acquired lot, up to $65,000. And then under waste management, one the biohazard waste cleanup, continuation 20 up to $20,000. And I'm not sure if we need the porta potty. So I'm gonna leave that out. Leave item 2 and 3 out from that.

[05:24:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Can I ask a question about that? So was that to what time frame was that for?

[05:24:06] City Staff: That ends funding for that ends in June of this year. And if community services were here, I know from speaking with John Marchant, they're still supportive of it for many reasons, but it's to the council's discretion.

[05:24:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, then I will include the 12,000 for the porta potty. I'm not going to include the vouchers for waste disposal because we tried that pilot program and it wasn't utilized. And so, right?

[05:24:34] City Staff: That was the program that we did the pilot program. This one would be a little different. This would be associated with safe parking. You have approved a program for your Palo Alto Housing Corporation Lot.

[05:24:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And so it would be solely associated with safe parking, not red large. So just being that? Okay. All right, then I'll include that as well.

[05:24:51] City Staff: Those cost parameters are not factored into that 32,000. So that will raise the item based upon however many spaces you utilize at safe parking.

[05:24:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Oh, go ahead and add that as well. Okay, and I'll accept all those editions.

[05:25:09] City Staff: Ooh, if staff could interject. Nicole Wright just mentioned that one other provision. Did you want to consider the resolution regarding?

[05:25:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We did that, the... Oh, the first notion? Oh, Tire. We did one for... We already adopted.

[05:25:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member, Commé.

[05:25:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um... I'm glad that we were able to have this discussion, so that we could walk through all the different elements. When I've been thinking about, uh, this topic coming forward. I really was trying to think of how do we continue to be this compassionate community that I love so much and also make sure that we are protecting the safety of all our residents. Um, and I think that one of the things that really struck me last Friday when I was out was, um, you know, the those who are taking advantage of people's displacement. And so I would really like to, and I don't know if there's a portion for that where we can include it. But, you know, amendment, uh, where we can include that. But, you know, I think that's something that is really important because I think what we heard tonight is a lot of stories of the working poor in our community, and making sure that the disenfranchisement they're going through is not taking advantage of, I think, is really important. So with that said, and hopefully with an additional, this additional amendment, I'm not sure how that would be framed in terms of how to

[05:26:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You're thinking an amendment in relation to staff, pursuing liaisoning with the state, the county regarding rental.

[05:27:02] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. Substandard rental.

[05:27:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. I'm open to it. an amendment if you can tell me how to do it. Yeah. Do you want to clarify it?

[05:27:17] City Staff: So, there are some, and I think we put this on the staff report, too. There are some health and safety codes, sections and regulations that do address RV occupancy. It doesn't necessarily relate to rental, but just in general occupancy of RVs that might address some of those concerns.

[05:27:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. I think as long as we're also moving forward with making sure that those concerns are addressed, I saw many different.

[05:27:43] City Staff: If staff can interject. And that would be a very large scope program area, to be able to get into, at which we expressed in the staff report, we have no level of expertise currently in. One avenue that was highlighted in there was continued ongoing engagement related to those who are in that rental business, which I think is a piece of what you're commenting on.

[05:28:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, I think as we're talking about, um, enforcement, safe parking, resources, I just want to make sure that that component is not lost in terms of engaging with those who the person I interacted with said that the person they rent from rents out 6 different RVs, which are in an unsafe condition. So I just want to make sure that that part, I don't know how we address that.

[05:28:40] City Staff: We don't have a definitive caveat in the staff report beyond what we've highlighted. That's more in the behavior category, the option 4 mix that we've talked about, where it can be more cost prohibitive as well as resource prohibitive. But certainly, I'm looking at Dan. Um, we, we, a city manager. We certainly have engagement on that at the state and county level.

[05:29:06] City Staff: So, if I can clarify one thing as well. So even though there are some health and safety codes, sections and regulations that do address that right now, I'm not aware of any enforcement of those code sections, when those RVs that are parked on public streets. There is enforcement of those code sections when a RV is parked in like an RV park, a special occupancy park or a mobile home park. So I think one of the things that was put before you is option 4 C. because whether or not there is interest on the part of the council to explore looking at the city and forcing some of those provisions. And what Kimberly was mentioning before is that that's not something that we, the staff may or may not have expertise on at this point.

[05:29:51] City Manager Dan Rich: Right. Yes, that's a good capture. Just thought on that. I mean, that really would be very, very challenging for us to undertake, but we can engage with our county social services and as well as protect, engage with the state. whether there's a legislative solution needed and or increased enforcement by the state, so we can look into those things, but we really can't do it ourselves.

[05:30:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you. Well, I'd be interested in that. And then in terms of the motion before us. Um, I, There is no, I think, uh, it's a very challenging situation, but with the different components that have been put forward, um, I'll be supporting the motion, um, I think that one of the things I talked about last year was looking at an oversized vehicle, uh, parking ordinance, I think, coupled with safe parking, with resour with looking at the enforcement that I've been mentioning. I think that that might be some more action in terms of trying to bring some positive assistance to the situation. And I think the timeline in terms of the 18 months, it says it could be 6 to 18. I think the 18 months would be my preference for the implementation of what we decide tonight.

[05:31:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: think I should. So could I question, um, what is your motion on the rental issue? Is it 4C? Is that what you want to direct staff to look into? Staff has a side question also, but please, um,

[05:31:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Yes, I think from no, no, dancing? No. So I think what Dan suggested. What Dan suggested?

[05:31:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: What Dan suggested is what I... Can you restate that?

[05:32:02] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, just to be clear, 4C would basically have the city enforcing state law, which would be very, very problematic. So what I suggested was that we work with county on any enforcement tools they have as well as work with a state legislature and potential, both enforcement, as well as potential, additional legislative tools that would address health and safety issues.

[05:32:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, that. As well as the rental, right? As well as regulations about rental substandard.

[05:32:31] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes.

[05:32:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Yes. So, I would include that addition. In terms of the timing, the 18 months. I'd like to leave it to what staff thinks because if they can do all the outreach and get everything done sooner, then I think that's fine. So they've given us that time range. So I would just leave it to staff to implement.

[05:32:59] City Staff: And council member, if I can just ask a quick clarification. I might not have written it down correctly regarding shoreline. Was there?

[05:33:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Just the, like, city negotiated lot for now. Yes.

[05:33:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, Council member Hicks.

[05:33:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm not sure I'm understanding exactly what direction we're taking. I heard, John, at one point, you said you would support 3A, with exceptions, 3A, being the oversized vehicle, parking prohibition, ordinance cities wide, with exceptions, which are engaging with social services, and I'm a little unclear what we're doing, is that that if people engage with, what does engaging with social services mean? And then do you get into a lot, what if you engage with social services, but there's no safe parking spaces for you? Maybe I've just misunderstood what people are talking about, but it seems like you're in limbo then.

[05:34:13] Unknown Speaker: We can't do that.

[05:34:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: You can't do what?

[05:34:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I can try to clarify.

[05:34:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, clarify for me. Clearly I don't understand. And I was also gonna say, one other thing about social services, to me, it seemed like a lot of the RV residents didn't need social services, they were, like, students or something, and they just needed to finish school and get a job. So I'm unclear on that whole thing, and maybe you can explain it.

[05:34:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And counsel member McAllister, our staff, can correct me. But my understanding is, the link to social services that you were talking about is specifically goes with the safe parking ordinance, in order to qualify for safe parking, you must essentially register with CSA and engage in whatever appropriate services. I don't think we would specify, I think that's really up to Tom and his staff to figure out what the right services are for the individual situation, but we would want them to go through that intake process and get into the system. That's not related to the 3A or the oversized vehicle parking, that's a separate ordinance, it's not type services.

[05:35:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Ramirez.

[05:35:30] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So first, Council member McAllister, I accept your critique. I think, you know, what I had intended to convey was, I think the specific difficulty was not inarticulating a date certain for a conclusion to this process. So it's great to provide the compassionate approach and access to services and programs, but I think the impression that the community was left with is that it was intended to go on indefinitely. And I think that's where we're hearing the frustration. So I think that's what we're intending to rectify here. So point taken. I appreciate that. And I, so, I'm also, I appreciate the vice mayor's willingness to modify the motion to make it comprehensive. I think that helps a lot. So I'll share with you what would make me comfortable with the motion. I think there are, so I agree with you that the demographic makeup of the population living in RVs is as diverse as the general public. And I think my preference would be to provide the greatest level of assistance and outreach to specific populations. So families with children, especially those in the school district, senior citizens, households with a dependent adult. So if we can provide some level of certainty for these folks that they're going to be okay at the conclusion of the process. That would make me feel much more comfortable with supporting this. There are 2 specific additions I would appreciate. One would be consideration of using the shoreline parking lot, at least for the duration of the transition. and specifically to provide a parking space for those specific populations. So families with children. And then if you're amenable to it, senior citizens and families with dependent adults. But 1st and foremost kids. I think that'll give some larger families, I think, are more difficult to provide accommodations for because it's harder to find housing for them. And I'm not certain with the existing motion that there will be enough safe parking spaces to accommodate that demand. So that would be the 1st suggestion.

[05:38:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Before you go on, could I ask staff about that? So we only have certainty about one parking lot in Shoreline for 4 months. Right?

[05:38:16] City Staff: Correct certainty on that if you decided. And then we have the perspective, additional lot, and the engagement on behalf of move with the faith community. But in terms of the shoreline, where there's larger lots, I don't feel like there's a guarantee that even if we tried to negotiate with Live Nation, we would have a solution that works. I mean, there's no guarantee at this time. It's an open ended question.

[05:38:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. So I feel like how would we do that if we don't ourselves have the certainty that we can have access to the lots?

[05:38:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right, and I think that would be dependent on the length of the transition period. So just to make sure I understand, we do have the certainty of having access to those lots at least for the winter months when landation does not need it.

[05:39:06] City Staff: Yes, you do, when it's not rented. and when it's not under contract.

[05:39:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So the second modification, again, if you're amenable to it, would be to allow for a transition to a point where we know the conclusion of this process would terminate with the end of the winter months, so either next year or the following year, and my preference would be longer, just because I think it will take a lot of time to help folks transition. So if you are comfortable with those modifications, I would support the motion.

[05:39:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, my concern with this is that, um, we are, we have, we're limited in staff resources, and the laundry list that we've already created is quite long. And, you know, my hope is, and with this conversation we have, is the acknowledgement that this cannot be done by us alone or the city council alone. And if we can streamline the permitting for churches, encourage businesses, we would get more participation from other entities. And that's what I'm really looking for is a community wide effort. And so in terms of, you know, Kimberly and staff, I just want to do focus on this, frankly, because negotiating with Live Nation, I just think will be cumbersome and challenging. And given that we won't have the use of that lot until November anyway and for 4 months. I would like to put more effort into these elements that I hope will provide longer term locations and participation from other community members. Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[05:40:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Uh, to Council member Hicks. Is she still with us?

[05:40:57] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[05:40:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay. My goal, whatever basic policy we do, I just want to make sure that they're, you know, they get social services, and be participating in the programs, that was my concern. So, whatever we go through, but that's, and it does include college students, because they need housing, too. So everybody needs housing. So we're not gonna, I don't want to exclude anybody from being involved in the, even, even if it's just a little bit where they do a case management, and they get something that they're engaged, and that's what I'm looking for. So that's, hopefully, that clarifies for that. To Mr. Ramirez, I have a question. So, you're saying that at the end of a certain timeline of the implementation, then we stop doing what we're doing, that there's a definitive finish date, that's what I heard, that's what I thought or heard from you, but I don't know if that's what you really want.

[05:41:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So what I mean by definitive end date would be the enforcement of the citywide parking prohibition for oversized vehicles. So that would allow for a transition for the folks currently living in oversized vehicles to find some kind of accommodations, even if it's just safe parking. But then there's sort of the stick, I guess, of knowing that at the conclusion of however long the implementation is, they know that that's when we would begin and foreseen.

[05:42:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, I thought you said after that, it was like a sunset and then we're back to square one again.

[05:42:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. No, no, no. okay That, not what I'm suggesting.

[05:42:25] Councilmember John McAlister: So other question. To Kimberly. Glad you're hanging in there. They added a motion for the faith-based loves lots. Is that for, if we do the streamlining. So let's say we do get a corporation that does it. Does that include them, too?

[05:42:44] Staff Member Kimberly: So if we do finally get another, like, that would include any person, any person is providing a lot, not just faith-based. If I'm understanding you correctly, as we move forward with a drafting of a safe parking ordinance, that would include whatever additional preferences you would like, businesses, faith. You have a number of samples that are included here that encompass that.

[05:43:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Because I heard the maker say faith-based, and that's why I just want to make sure it's open to...

[05:43:14] Unknown Speaker: She actually said nonprofits and businesses.

[05:43:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I just want,

[05:43:17] Unknown Speaker: or it could be private ownership that has something, too.

[05:43:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I just want to make it as flexible or wide range. Okay, thank you.

[05:43:24] Unknown Speaker: The faith based one was the more than four vehicles to streamline that process, so they...

[05:43:32] Staff Member Kimberly: But I would want to, that would be, that would be part of the safe parking ordinance, which would create a mechanism so that you wouldn't have to go if I'm getting this correct. You wouldn't have to go through a TUP because we would have an ordinance that sets that up automatically, and that could be any participant in the safe parking program.

[05:43:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. That... Council member Clark.

[05:43:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just to ask, just to sum up. So just sitting here, and if I were sitting in the audience, I'd be confused too. So, um, So the... Just throw it all away. So your motion is so on the restriction. So when would the band kick in? Do we, like, is it, is it tomorrow? Is it 9 months from now? Is it 6 months from now?

[05:44:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: When staff brings that to you. We would have a discussion about those timings. Same principle would apply with the same parking. Any endpoints there as well.

[05:44:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. And then, um... Right? And then we aren't pursuing any shore wine barking. Okay. So I, the mayor is absolutely right. I'm sure the Santa Barbara program, you're right. If you need to pair enforcement with a safe parking program, Santa Barbara, I'm guessing had a whole, they did that, but they had a whole bunch of more than, you know, 10 or 12 spaces lined up, and I doubt that they were talking about a ban on all this before they had a pretty solid idea that all of that would be available. So I, you're right, in principle, that's the way that you pair it together. I just don't think we're at the, if we're not pursuing shoreline at all and using all the options at our disposal, then I don't think, I don't think this is the right way to go.

[05:45:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:45:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I have the same concern. I think that, unless I know what the number of lots and spaces, and the timing is, I don't feel like I can, if it's 6 months and 20 spots, you know, then I don't want to go in this direction. I don't know, I don't know the number of spots. I don't know the time length, and I think it's quite likely, and this is why I asked John the question that we'll have far more people wanting to go through the intake process than we can actually serve. So that, that whole thing makes me uncomfortable supporting.

[05:46:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Robbie Koga.

[05:46:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I thought with Santa Barbara, their program was to allow nonprofits and businesses to have...

[05:46:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We did, but they have a really large lot. They have a lot of space. A staff can interject.

[05:46:21] City Staff: They have about 23, if I remember correctly, spread out, and their program was in operation for about 14, 15 years before they did OV.

[05:46:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So we're looking at 40 and my hope is that with the churches and we can get to more than that, 60, 80. So that's why I would like to focus on this program first. And the reality is, is I think we talked about this in October and it's taken us 5 months to get here. So I don't expect anything to happen tomorrow. It's just gonna, and it's going to have to come back with more details. I would just like for us to move forward in that direction this evening. So that's why I made the motion as it is. Thank you. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue. So, uh, I think we're ready to... I don't see you in the queue. Okay. Did you have more comments?

[05:47:22] Unknown Speaker: I'm just, I'm new here. I'm unclear on what it means to be moving forward on this when you saying you just wanted to get it started.

[05:47:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: it comes back to us, and we get to

[05:47:35] Unknown Speaker: Oh, that makes me more comfortable.

[05:47:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We don't have all the details this evening, but we're just directing staff to begin initiating. to look into a process like that. And they have to come back to us with the decision points.

[05:47:46] City Staff: Based on the motion on the floor, we will come back with two specific ordinances, one for safe parking and one for a bandwidth exceptions. The funding, things will all be dealt with through the budget process. The main components are to come back with those 2 ordinances. With those ordinances. You can decide at that time when you would want them to become effective.

[05:48:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else have questions? Oh, I just want to clarify for Council member Hicks. We're also authorizing $833,000 tonight. So, I mean, it's another chunk of change. Somewhere... over 800...

[05:48:28] City Staff: directing staff to include that in the proposed 1920 budget. that you're not authorizing it tonight?

[05:48:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have a comment?

[05:48:38] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I did. I just wanted to add a comment. I think there's been some discussion about Shoreline. Um, and I feel like It's, if it's, I, I would be interested in looking at Shoreline. I don't know how the motion makers feel about that. But I think that, um, If... Or would we be able to talk about that when it comes back? Or is it set now

[05:49:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: or can I add that I don't think anything is set, frankly, this is our 1st step, right? And if we want to, if the items that we put out today aren't working, we can always look at other items. So, you know, I just want us to focus so we can get some things done. The more we expand the program. the longer it's gonna take. So I would like us to focus on this. And, you know, if Shoreline, because frankly, Shoreline wouldn't be available to us until November anyway. So we have some time and we can mull over that if we want to, maybe when it comes back. But I think this is the, to me, the simplest way to move forward as quickly as we can trying to, you know, get the rest of the community involved too. So I would like to just start with this. I also want to add that what's not in the motion is, um, passenger cars, you know, this is strictly about the oversized vehicles. So we do know we have lots of people living in passenger cars. And I'm not sure how vans, if they're oversize or not, but I'm guessing not.

[05:50:29] Unknown Speaker: Only 6 foot though.

[05:50:31] City Staff: Yeah, I hate to do this to you. Come here. If I can just clarify one thing though. I think, though, if counsel does direct staff to return with the motion as proposed, including those ordinances, that doesn't include bringing back shoreline at that time for consideration for safe parking purposes. I just wanted...

[05:50:51] City Staff: The timing on the transit lot is also a lot of factors involved.

[05:50:56] Unknown Speaker: So I got a question. So, Shoreline Park, Shoreline, you mentioned Live Nation. So is that something that we, do we have to go to Live Nation to ask to use that or can we just...

[05:51:08] City Staff: We have control of it during the non-concert months, which I believe are basically November 1st to mid-March, something like that?

[05:51:16] Unknown Speaker: So we can do whatever we want then?

[05:51:17] City Staff: If we wanted to be able to use it year round, we would have to amend our contract with them, which would be far more challenging.

[05:51:24] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so I just want to make sure we have freedom to do it when we want it to do it.

[05:51:29] City Staff: Yeah, so you could, when we bring back the ordinance, at that time, you could say, move forward with Shoreline. The only caveat I would have is if you wanted, or expected shoreline to be up and running for this winter season, we would need some advance notice. We got to set up a program, we need to make sure a move, or whoever's gonna support it, has the capacity to do that in sanitation security. I mean, you don't just open up a safe parking lot overnight, so we would need some time to plan for that.

[05:52:01] Unknown Speaker: Wouldn't we need that for the city negotiated lot as well?

[05:52:06] City Staff: Yeah, I mean, if you get, if you give us direction tonight, that you want to pursue that one, then we'll start going down that road sooner rather than later.

[05:52:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Okay, um, is everyone... Oh, did you...?

[05:52:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Very, very briefly, I'm sorry, so I just want to voice support for, I think, the direction that Council member Convey was going. I would feel much more comfortable with the certainty that we're going to be looking at Shoreline. I don't feel as comfortable without that certainty for whatever that's worth. this year, not the next calendar year.

[05:52:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So if we're looking at it as a one year program 2019 to 2020, is that what you were talking about with time limits?

[05:53:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So that would be at the conclusion of March 2020, when we would no longer have access to those safe parking sites in Shoreline, then that's when the prohibition would take effect. It might...

[05:53:15] City Staff: No, we would just have access to the safe parking lot from November to March, but that doesn't necessarily imply that that's when the prohibition would go into effect.

[05:53:26] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I would be comfortable with that because I think that gives us some assurance that we'll have a reasonable number of safe parking spaces for RVs specifically, and that I think in that amount of time, we should be able to transition a fair number of folks. So I would be comfortable with that.

[05:53:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we're looking at 20 spaces at Shoreline parking lot.

[05:53:48] City Staff: Yeah, I don't want to commit to an exact number of Shoreline, because we want to look at the configuration and what, but we think probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 could go there.

[05:53:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I can go with that. I just really want to, you know, emphasize that we are not unlimited in our resources and our staffing, and, um, my concern is that the more we open up, there's gonna be more expectation that we open up more. And, you know, I think we really have to say, look, you know, everybody needs to do their part. So that's why I wanted to limit it, but if that, if we say one year, this coming year, um, and come March 2020, that will be the end of the shoreline lot, then I can, I can go with that.

[05:54:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I appreciate that. Thank you.

[05:54:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, um, is everyone... I just want to make sure the seconder of the motion agrees to that friendly amendment as well.

[05:54:47] Unknown Speaker: I did. Yes.

[05:54:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So if there's no other comments, I wanna make sure everyone's clear on the motion. Sorry to say that. And I'm not sure if we want to repeat the whole thing. Do you want to, do you want me to summarize where I think we are?

[05:55:05] Unknown Speaker: That'd be great. Let me know if I've missed anything. So, um, we are proposing an oversized vehicle parking prohibition ordinance citywide. which is 3 A, if anyone's on page 29. And then we have picked up the exceptions that are part of 3B, where it starts with a dash exceptions and it lists all those there. And then, um, we are allocating the... we're asking for the numbers for dollar resources. They're on page 43, which is 551,000 for enforcement related, 250,000 for housing related, safe parking related, and 32,000 plus, because we don't know the exact number for the waste disposal at safe parking, and then... We already did the safe parking ordinance in an earlier motion. Didn't we?

[05:56:19] Unknown Speaker: No, no. To me? Sorry. Boss track.

[05:56:22] Unknown Speaker: We didn't? We did that. Okay.

[05:56:24] Unknown Speaker: Shelter crisis. Oh, that's right, that's right. So safe parking ordinance. Specifically, we want to make sure it's got the streamlined temporary use permit aspect of that. Then we have for the safe parking lots, the, what do we call it, the city negotiated lot? And, um, The shoreline lot during the period where we have 100% access to it, November to March, something like that.

[05:56:58] Unknown Speaker: For one year only. 20 spaces. You want to finish?

[05:57:04] Unknown Speaker: So, yes, that'd be the negotiated lot, and then the shortline parking lot for the 2019, 2020 season that the city has control of a lot, 20 spaces at that lot. In addition, we would modify or look at, review the guidelines for the short-term rental assistance program and make modifications as necessary to, um, in light of CSFRA. And then explore county and state enforcement measures for health and safety codes of RVs. That's it.

[05:57:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I think we're ready to vote.

[05:58:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And that passes 5 to 2 with council members Clark and Hicks opposed. Okay. So that ends this item. And do, let's see, why don't we take a, uh, seven minute break and come back at...

[05:58:28] Unknown Speaker: We need to take a motion to continue, but number two, you have two additional items. So if there's thought of not doing both of those, it would probably be good to decide that before the break.

[05:58:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Can we do that? Well, what do we got?

[05:58:44] City Staff: So we've got two topics. 8.1 is the community greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and the second one is 9.1 downtown paid parking study.

[05:58:56] Unknown Speaker: When's a study session?

[05:58:57] Unknown Speaker: So that, I know there's a... And then I had a... Oh, and actually, and two council members have to recuse themselves from that one. And then I had a request of, since we have to recuse, can we move item 10 up to before the study session?

[05:59:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So um... Are you ready for continuation?

[05:59:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, um... Continuation but to re... So, I, we obviously have to vote to start on new topics past 10 o'clock. Sorry, I forgot about that. But I'm okay covering both of these topics if others are.

[05:59:39] Unknown Speaker: The problem with not doing that is, yeah, we keep on pushing everything out, and then we have to schedule more meetings.

[05:59:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, I'll move that we do both, or I'd like to see a Stravo for, um, are you okay doing two more items past 10 o'clock? All those in favor. one. So that's the plan. We're going to do both of the topics tonight, and we will move item 10 to after item 8 so that the council members who have to recuse themselves can participate in that. Okay, now did I cover all the bases? Okay, now we'll take a break. And we'll come back at 1140. Start with that one.

[06:00:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. And the next item on our agenda is item 8.1, preliminary 2017 community greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and our presenters tonight are sustainability analyst Aaron Brewster, and environmental sustainability coordinator Steve Attinger.

[06:01:03] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: Good evening. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I was asked to ask the council whether, given the hour, you would like no staff presentation, or an abbreviated staff presentation, or the full presentation, which the full presentation would be around 13 minutes, um, but just wanted to find out if there's a preference for the council on how we proceed.

[06:01:32] Unknown Speaker: I would go for an...

[06:01:34] Unknown Speaker: What are you asking us at the end here?

[06:01:37] Unknown Speaker: An abbreviated version.

[06:01:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Looks okay with that? The abbreviated version?

[06:01:44] Unknown Speaker: I feel like I'd like some presentations, so I don't want to do none.

[06:01:48] Unknown Speaker: Okay, we will skip every other word. Perfect.

[06:01:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we'll proceed with an abbreviated version.

[06:01:58] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: So I'm just, you know, spin it out. All right. Thank you, mayor, vice mayor, and council. I'm here tonight to present the results of our preliminary 2017 community greenhouse gas emissions inventory. And our recommendation tonight is for the council to provide input on the preliminary 2017 GHD inventory and recommended actions for related to future inventories. And as you've requested an abbreviated version, we will skip the background, on our GHD reduction targets and efforts. I do want to take the time to mention, very briefly, that there are several new climate change reports that have amplified the urgency of climate action, the IPCC special report filed last fall, which issued a conclusion that failing to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, rather than the 2 degree pathway in the Paris agreements, could cause dangerous changes to the planet, and that on our current path, we could reach that 1.5 degrees of warming as early as 2030. But the IPCC report did also stress that changes made locally by individuals, organizations and civil society can have a big impact on global emissions. There was also a US government report that confirmed these findings and stressed that the impacts of global climate change are already being felt in the U.S. and are projected to intensify, and that decisions made today will not only determine the risk exposure for current and future generations, but will broaden or limit our options to reduce those negative consequences in the future. So with that in mind, These are mountain views, GHD reduction targets that were adopted by council in 2009. These represent a percentage reduction in total, community wide GHD emissions against a baseline year of 2005. As you can see, our next adopted target is a 15 to 20% reduction by 2020. And our long-term target is an 80% reduction by 2050, which is consistent with California statewide reduction goals. So our preliminary results for our 2017 community, GHD inventory, show a decline in community wide emissions from 2015 levels. And this is a really important milestone for the city as it represents the 1st year that emissions have begun to decline since Mountain View 1st began conducting inventories. 2017 emissions decreased 6.7% from 2015. And we're also getting closer to the path needed to reach our targets. In 2015, we were 21.3% above our goal. And in 2017, we were 15.7% above that level and needed to stay on track between our targets. This does mean that while our community wide emissions are moving in the right direction, they will need to decline about 50% faster to reach that 2020 target. In order to reach that target, the city would need to take action to accelerate those GHG emissions reductions. So this chart shows a breakdown of those community wide emissions by sector. As you can see, transportation and energy continue to comprise close to 90% of our total community wide emissions. Transportation is still the largest share of emissions at 60.7%. Energy related emissions from electricity and natural gas use, account for 27.7% of community wide emissions, which is down from 32.9% in 2015. I do want to stress these are preliminary numbers. What makes these results preliminary is that we don't yet have final emissions data from PG&E. They supplied nearly half of the utility provided electricity in 2017. The other half was supplied by Silicon Valley Clean Energy, which began operations in April. We already have their emissions data. What we're missing is an emissions factor, which is essentially a carbon intensity, that allows us to translate that electricity usage into the GHD emissions, that will depend on the exact sources of energy generation used by PG&E. We don't, uh, so these emissions, uh, these calculations are based on using the previous year's emissions factor as a proxy. We do expect the final emissions factor will be lower because PG&E's electricity portfolio for 2017 was cleaner. This chart shows the trends in total emissions in each sector from our baseline year of 2005 through 2017. As you can see, energy emissions have decreased significantly over the years, primarily due to clean our sources of electricity like SVCE. 2017 was the 1st year that Silicon Valley Clean Energy began providing carbon free electricity to Mountain View residents and businesses, beginning operations in April. 2018 will be the 1st full year of their operation, so we expect another decline in energy related emissions in 2018. Transportation emissions are up 16% since 2005, but they are beginning to decline. Transportation emissions decrease 5% from 2015 to 2017, primarily due to greater numbers of electric vehicles and higher fuel efficiency standards, as well as a smaller decrease in per capita VMT. Sorry, vehicle miles traveled. Other significant changes include emissions from off-road mobile sources, these increased 58% from 2015 to 2017, primarily due to an increase in construction. This category includes construction and landscaping equipment, but the majority of those emissions are from construction. In conclusion, there are three main points we want to emphasize. Emissions have begun to decline, but they're not decreasing fast enough to meet our targets. 27 emissions decrease significantly on both an absolute and per capita basis, from 2015 levels, primarily due to cleaner electricity and vehicles. Despite this decrease, we still have not achieved our 2015 reduction target. In order to meet the 2020 target of 15 to 20% below 2005 levels, we would need to invest in GHD reduction efforts to accelerate the pace of emissions reductions. Secondly, the transportation sector needs the most attention as it is 61% of total emissions. Gasoline powered passenger vehicles alone represent the majority of total community wide emissions. In order to achieve our GHG reduction targets, we would need to reduce vehicle miles traveled, especially from single occupancy vehicles, and increase the percentage of clean vehicles such as plug in electric vehicles on the road. Last, the clean electricity will help reduce our energy related emissions, but it is not enough to reach our targets. Carbon-free electricity from SVCE has helped reduce emissions from electricity. However, the majority of our energy related emissions are now from natural gas use. And we would need to address these emissions through efficiency efforts and facilitating the transition to all electric buildings. So we have three recommended actions related to the community GHD inventory. The first is to secure the remaining data and finalize the inventory. Stuff, as we mentioned, we're waiting for emissions factors from PG&E. There's no set timetable for this information. But as soon as it is published, we will be able to find the 2017 community emissions inventory. We also recommend conducting annual community greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Previously, These inventories were conducted every 3 to 5 years, depending on staff time allowed. switching to annual inventories would bring Mountain View in line with best practices in this field, and allow for better monitoring of initiatives for success in reducing emissions. Thankfully, the partnership with Google through last year's Civic Leadership Program reduced the staff time needed to conduct inventories by about 80%. Third, the task force report made several recommendations regarding how the city should set its GHE reduction targets and create a system of accountability for meeting them. Now that the 2017 inventory is complete, staff can evaluate these options in the context of the current GHD emissions trajectory, which was very different than the trajectory we were on in 2015, and present any proposed revisions to council for consideration. As far as physical impact, there was no cost to complete the 2017 inventory other than staff time. We anticipate future inventories could cost up to 10,000 each inventory year for transportation consultant services. These costs may be avoided in years when this data is available for other purposes, such as plan updates, which has been the case for past inventory years. Staff are also exploring alternative sources for this data that may reduce or eliminate these costs in the future. And now I will turn the presentation over to Steve to talk about our next steps.

[06:11:57] Environmental Sustainability Coordinator Steve Attinger: Thank you very much, Aaron. So just to bring us to the finish line here. The quick timeline here over the next 6 months or so. following tonight's meeting on April 1st. Uh, we will present uh, to the Council Environmental Sustainability Committee. We'll share an update on the progress of our internal program assessment and strategic plan, as well as the approach, our proposed approach for the next environmental action plan, which will be ASAP 4. Then about 30 days later, we will bring that equivalent information in the way of the formal strategic plan that we've been developing in conjunction with the consultant Cadmus. We'll bring that to the full council on April 30th to get council feedback on the strategic plan. And then June 11th is the opportunity for the council to provide direction to staff based on the results of the strategic plan, in terms of operations, staffing, structures, et cetera. What kind of budget adjustments we may want to make to accommodate some of the new initiatives. Then, in late June, tentatively, we're looking to present the next action plan to the city council. In the fall, we hope to bring the municipal operations inventory to the council. And sometime, hopefully in the fall, but as Erin mentioned, it's a little unknown. finalize the community inventory as well. So that's about the next six months, with sort of lots going on between now and June. Thank you very much, and this concludes our presentation.

[06:13:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So are there any questions from members of the council? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[06:13:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Regarding the sources and the pie chart, I guess the question I had was about direct access. Users, um, There's been a increase allowed at the state level. So do you anticipate that in affecting our emissions in mountain view?

[06:14:23] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: It's a little bit hard for us to know, we don't know who our direct access customers are because of privacy laws.

[06:14:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[06:14:31] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: So, and we don't necessarily know who's looking to join as a new customer. So we would have to wait and see if our usage, our total usage does increase.

[06:14:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I thought SVC has that kind of information of who the direct access users are, but. I may be wrong.

[06:14:48] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: They know the total usage by jurisdiction. That is disclosed, and certainly individual DA customers are able to disclose that information, should they choose?

[06:14:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. And then we are talking about reach codes. So how will that that will affect, hopefully, in a positive way, the residential natural gas? Is that it? And oh, and electricity. percentages, correct?

[06:15:17] Environmental Sustainability Coordinator Steve Attinger: Yes, we are working with SVCE and other regional partners on the development of model reach codes for consideration as part of this code update cycle. And they could address building electrification and efficiency measures.

[06:15:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[06:15:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[06:15:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have a question about how the transportation part of this is calculated, and in particular, I'm thinking about, um, you know, we build housing near transit to try to get people out of their cars and using transportation more, but one of the things I've seen is that as we do that, we're also demolishing a lot of naturally affordable housing, many people I know have moved to, like, Gilroy and Turlock and so forth, and are still driving here for jobs. So how does that get calculated? Do we split the difference with Gilroy or Turlock, and does that come back? And then that comes back in air as a greater rather than lesser transportation impact?

[06:16:21] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: So our basic transportation, methodology accounts for any trip that starts or ends in Mountain View, we account for half of those miles. So yes, for people commuting in, who work in Mountain View and live elsewhere, we would be accounting for half of that trip. The, we use data from our transportation model that the same one that planning uses. And so it is a predictive model based on land use changes.

[06:16:50] City Staff: We do see, uh, we do see that the per capita transportation impacts are higher for employees than they are for residents because they are commuting from further away. I'm not sure, does that answer your question?

[06:17:07] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'm just trying to understand a little more about that particular calculation, and how do you know, like, the people I know who are driving farther are, like, waiters and shuttle drivers and how do you know where they're driving, where they move to?

[06:17:24] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: Well, it is, it's not a measured, uh, uh, data source. It's modeled. So there is some uncertainty in that. And from my understanding, I'm not an expert in the travel model that's community developments area of expertise. It does take into account land use changes, and the trip generation that each of those land uses would be accounting for, whether it's a residence or a business. I imagine they make certain assumptions on trip length based on other available data, from other sources, but that for more detailed information, we would have to defer to community development on that.

[06:18:07] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I'd just be interested if you could ever follow up on that in any way. If there are assumptions being made that, you know, a waiter, you generally lives, you know, within 10 miles, you know, and if that's changing, whether we could refine that particular metric is something I be interested in.

[06:18:22] Sustainability Analyst Aaron Brewster: Sure.

[06:18:27] Unknown Speaker: So I had one question, and that is back to the number of employees. And I was one who sent in that question about that. And... For some reason, I feel like I still can't reconcile the number I see here, 96,000, with either the sum of the percent of the residents who are also employees in the city. And what I've heard is the number of employees who come from outside of Mountain View into the city. It seems like the sum of those two, that those two numbers is much less than 96,000. But I can't remember the number of employees that come into the city, but I thought it was, like, 30 or 40,000.

[06:19:20] City Staff: The source for that number is the same that planning uses for many of their estimates. It's from the American Community Survey, one year estimates. Those do use statistical sampling, so there is a margin of error associated with that. Um, there are other sources that use other sampling data, and they would have uh, may give slightly different numbers as well. But the 96,000, I believe it is, it should be the total number of employees in Mountain View, whether they live here or not. And it may be all jobs, not necessarily just primary jobs, which could be another reason for discrepancy between different figures.

[06:20:04] Unknown Speaker: Still seems high to me, but uh, because we often say our population increases by about 50% during the day. And this is over 100% increase.

[06:20:15] City Staff: Well, there is a difference between the daytime population and the service population. The daytime population is sort of the maximum capacity at any given time, it accounts for the fact that many residents leave, to go work elsewhere, and then many employees commute in from elsewhere. So that's going to be a much lower number than the service population, which accounts for essentially all the total commercial and residential capacity you need to provide for all the employees and residents that are in the city at any given time, not necessarily at the same time.

[06:20:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Uh, does anyone else have questions? If not, we will open this for public input, so if you would like us to provide us with your thoughts on this topic, please come up to the microphone, be sure to fill out a blue card.

[06:21:14] Public Speaker: Hello, counsel. So, I'm always in favor of smaller carbon footprints. I have been for many years. Um, I live in a large condo complex. You know, we have, like, 300 units and a board of directors. And I kind of looked many years ago, I kind of looked into what would I have to do to get them to put solar on the roofs. And, you know, quite aside from the fact that we have a lot of beautiful, mature, redwood trees. There are some roofs that, but it's like, you know, they were like, well, there's lots of permits, we have to get, and we don't want to do that, you know? And so, if this, it's kind of like, you know, they were talking about the people living in their cars, and I, I see, I walk past a row of spots every day, but I don't want to do 50 tons of paperwork to get permission to house people there. I want to get the board to say yes in the city to make it happen. You know, it's like... So, anyway, there's a lot of big complexes in Mountain View. I've walked precincts all over the city. And if you could make it easy for all of us to have solar panels, that would really be great. Thank you.

[06:22:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[06:22:57] Serge Bon: Serge bon, pantanjour resident. So, um, I was really staying for the next item, and I'll talk about this shortly. So on this, I understand that it's very complicated to do the inventory. There are a lot of variables things like this. But there are 2 things that I'm not sure we are capturing. One is the emissions in the areas that are next to Mountain View or within the sphere of influence of Mountain View, and it's mostly, you know, things on Moffat. at bike by Moffat every day. And I can tell you that there are some emissions there. That's pretty clear. But it's also, you know, Google has an office there, Mesa, and so on, and there are also many issues there, and I'm not sure if they are counted in the county or not counted at all, and it would make sense to count them in Mountain View because it's very much part of Mountain View. And the 2nd one that I'm not sure is captured is what's called the unbuddied emissions in construction. So from what I gather, you capture the construction vehicles per se, but the building itself has some embedded emissions and it's really based on materials, you know, that had to be produced and so on. And it's very significant when we see a project like Rock Streets, where we kind of raise a building and build a new one because it's a one time hit on the embodied emissions and it's pretty significant of a block of building. I think it's about 20%. of the emission. So I, you know, I want to make sure that it is counted because that really should be a decision factor also when you review demolitions of things like this. you know, that's fair. And then I wanted to ask a favor if I could provide my public comments on the next item because, you know, I don't know how many people you're going to have still here. And I think as better I practice, it would be nice to allow people, you know, to provide comments at a decent hour.

[06:25:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, actually, um, We can't. Because we have a couple of folks who have to recuse themselves from the next topic.

[06:25:22] Steve Peters: I spoke earlier about the impact that I think having, you know, how more housing can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, so I won't go into that further. Steve Peters, by the way. But I just wanted to make sure an observation that I used to live in Cambridge, Massachusetts for several years while I was in graduate school. And, um, I didn't have a, we didn't have a car. I like to bike and take public transit. Once we moved here, we got a car. a little bit more necessary. So, um, now we have two. We have kids, we have to take to preschool and all that stuff, but just an observation that there's still room for improvement in transit in the city and I think that could help with the transportation. So thanks.

[06:26:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else want to provide us with input on this topic? Okay, seeing none. Um, well, bring it back to council for discussion. And Steph has, there's 3 recommended actions that we should talk about. Vice Mayor Abi Koga.

[06:26:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And no one's in cues, so, um, I'll just make a couple of comments, and I would like, I guess I'll go ahead and make a motion if that works for folks. Thank you to staff for all your hard work on this. It is quite complicated, so I appreciate all the work that you've put into this. I'm, you know, pleased to see, the trending down. I do think the clean energy has made a big difference, which we knew it would, and as we continue forward with the reach codes, and I think, you know, EVs are a big push at the state level, and maybe we could be looking at focusing more efforts in that too. I know that at the air district, we have a goal of, I think, 90% EVs by 2050, I think, is the year, but right now we're at 2 to 3%. So we have a long ways to go. But given that transportation is a big chunk of that pie, I think that we could, you know, spend some focused energy on in that area. So, um, I think the inventory, um, doing it now that it's easier to do and doable to do it yearly is great. So I'd like to go ahead and make emotion to, um, I guess one, secure final data and present a final 2017 community GHG inventory to conduct annual community greenhouse guest missions inventories, and 3 direct staff to evaluate the GHD emissions reduction targets.

[06:28:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Joining a motion, and I just have a motion.

[06:28:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by the vice mayor and a 2nd by council member Ramirez. Any discussion on that? Okay, then I guess we're ready to vote. And that passes unanimously. Thank you very much. And we'll see you soon. April.

[06:28:40] City Staff April: Thanks.

[06:28:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: The next item on the agenda, we are going to do item 10, and then come back to item 9, because a couple council members have to recuse themselves on 9. So, are there any items for number 10. Vice mayor, Abi Koga.

[06:29:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, so I forget whatever the policy is, but, um, according to policy we need to report out, um, that, uh, several of us, uh, attended the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C. Um, the focus was on infrastructure and, um, lobbying the federal government to, um, to put some real resources and funding into our deteriorating infrastructure nationwide. There's also, as mentioned earlier, a lot of talk about housing and the housing prices nationwide, which was very interesting for different reasons. There's housing issues throughout the country. So I thought that was interesting and always helpful to hear from people, colleagues throughout the nation. We had meetings with representatives of the Department of Transportation. I wanted to note, you know, we talked about funding opportunities. And, um, we mentioned, or spent some time talking about the AGT, which, um, I don't know, you know, I was, um, they, the representatives, um, suggested we talk to Disneyland. And at 1st I thought, you know, that makes sense because they have to make money off of that. But then when I came home, I realized, you know, Disneyland, you pay the admission to get into this park. And it's not to get on a monorail. So it's not really a relevant source. So it just made me wonder if, you know, they were not being very serious, the whole thing. But I think, you know, to be honest, the HET, if we're quoting $500 million, it is gonna be a stretch to find that kind of funding. We went to the Department of Army and got updates on Orion Park as well as Shenandoah. And then we also talked with congresswoman Anna issue, quite extensively about airport noise and then also about Shenandoah. And so I wanted to actually go back and at this time, I mentioned during the goal setting process, I asked for a placeholder item, and having to do with planning and land juice. And that item was actually to conduct or take the lead, the city take a lead on master planning the Shenandoah parcel with affordable housing as our priority, especially protecting the military families there. So, um, that's the, that was a mystery. So if that could be added to the goal setting list, I would appreciate that. And then the 2nd item, the city... Oh, thank Dan.

[06:31:59] City Manager Dan Rich: Just a clarification, did you mean a master plan or a precise plan?

[06:32:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Precise plan? Would it be a precise plan?

[06:32:05] City Manager Dan Rich: I think for laughco purposes, you have to do a precise plan and pre zone it, but we'll double check.

[06:32:10] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, yes. So, yeah, if it's, um, whichever is appropriate. And then the second item, the city's association last week, I think you all got a copy of our position statement paper on housing, which took several iterations to get 15 cities degree on a document. But I think it was a unanimous vote. So that is our official statement from the Cities Association. But with the caveat that every city has the, you know, freedom and opportunity to state whatever they choose to state. So, um, I'm excited. glad that we got something going. That's it. Thank you.

[06:32:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[06:32:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, um, I was also at NLC, but then I also want to, um, after that, on Thursday, I was up in Sacramento. So we had the first, what Evan Lowe claims to be the first ever in the nation. Gathering of statewide, LGBT elected officials in California. So the California state legislative, LGBT caucus invited, basically, the elect officials statewide from, like, there were folks from school boards and community college boards all the way up to the statewide officers there. So we spent a day just sort of sharing ideas. And I just wanted to report that apparently this is the first time that's been done in the nation. So it was a good day.

[06:33:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[06:33:52] Councilmember John McAlister: I, uh... I just got back from Phoenix yesterday, spending 3 days, 4 days, whatever there. And there was a proliferation of scooters. There was jump, lift, Uber, bird, and, um, there was skip. And they were all everywhere. I was in Scottsdale, and they were all over the streets, and it was quite interesting to see how to, they're all charged, you know, so forth. But the takeaway was. We should not have scooters downtown Mountain View. These people, well, it could have been a young crowd, but they were all over the place. They were just zip and zepping. Scottsdale has wide streets, so it's somewhat safe, but if it comes to mountain view, I consider being very cautious about it. So I did experience driving, riding on some of those down the streets, and St. Patrick's Day didn't help, but it was a good experience to see all those there. And I don't think they had any permits. They just started dropping them off everywhere. And so, um, I don't know where we're going with it, because we have this bikes, and, oh, Lyme was the other company too. So they were all there, so just precautionary about scooters in Mountain View.

[06:35:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[06:35:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I made a speech to Mountain View high school students on, uh, about being on city council and other forms of leadership you can take in your community on, I think it was a high school leadership day. Thank you.

[06:35:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: As you heard, several of us attended the National League of Cities Conference, and the other meeting that I had was with the NASA administrator, to tell him how much we enjoy having NASA here, close to Mountain View. It's a nice bit of tech that's cool, I guess I'd say. And the vice mayor mentioned the city's association meeting, so, um, she was at the executive board meeting, and, um, I really appreciate the work that the legislative action committee did, and especially our vice mayor on the Casa position paper, or the housing position paper. Pardon me? It's housing position paper. And we had the opportunity to talk about that a little further, and it was, I think, a very good discussion. And on that same theme, Senator Jerry Hill had a meeting, I think that was last week, Friday. And he invited the mayors and the city managers from all of the cities in his district. And we each had 3 minutes to share our perspective on Casa and SB 50. And I came away from that with the, um, reinforced perspective that it's amazing how different all of the cities are, and a one size fits all approach is a problem. The other thing is, I attended the VTA policy advisory committee meeting, and that's where we talked about the 31 million for the grade separation projects. And thanks to Dawn, I knew that that came up at the TAC, technical advisory committee, and so I was prepared to say, of course, Mountain View supports having 31 million for grade separation projects, and we can figure out later which city gets it. And that's it for me. Anyone else? Oh, man. Did y'all hear that? Okay. So, the next item, I'm just going to announce the item, and then two council members have comments to make. The next item is 9.one, the downtown paid parking study. So, before staff gives the presentation, Vice Mayor Abekoga.

[06:38:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, um, due to real property that I own in uh, the downtown area. I will be recusing myself from this next study session.

[06:38:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[06:38:18] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And the same. I own real property near the downtown. Thank you. I'll recuse myself.

[06:38:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Good night. Bye, Tom. So, tonight, we have, as our presenters, business development specialist, Tiffany Chu, an assistant community development director, Wayne Chin, and we have to wait one more minute before we start on the presentation. Okay, we're ready.

[06:39:17] Business Development Specialist Tiffany Chu: Okay. Good morning, Mayor and city council. Tonight, council will receive an overview of the downtown pay parking study. Receive input on issues, concerns, and goals related to downtown parking, and receive input on potential parking policies, and programs, including paid parking. As a reminder, city council discussed in 2016, uh, short term and long term options related to managing demand in our downtown, uh, and directed staff to move forward with a valet parking pilot program and rideshare pilot program. But in the long term, explore shared parking opportunities, and initiated paid parking study. And in 2018, we implemented the valet program and completed the paid parking study. As a result, City initiated a study with Dixon Resources. The purpose of the study is to provide a roadmap with steps to implement paid parking in the downtown. The study focuses on the commercial core of the downtown primarily the 100 to 400 blocks of Castro Street and its side streets, along with the remaining blocks of Castro Street. Paid parking is considered to be part of a comprehensive parking demand management system where policies, regulations, and practices manage the use and supply of public parking, both Austria and off street. The study identifies key components in paid parking, but also acknowledges parking and transportation demands solutions. The first part of the study acknowledges current parking demands. While the study utilizes April 2018 parking occupancy data, staff provided updated information for this study session. Shown on the chart before you is November 2018 data, where Parking occupancy data is collected at the public parking facilities. This does not include on street parking or Civic Center parking. And we do track this data twice a year. As you can see on the chart. The downtown parking system is below the parking industry standard of 85% threshold. The majority of the time throughout the day, when there is more supply than demand except for the 2 peak periods of noon and 6 p.m. or the lunch and dinner hours. Staff also looked at parking data from a different perspective as to where the underutilized parking facilities are at these peak periods. And as you can see on the chart, even when there are 2 peak periods, Wednesday through Friday, there is still underutilized capacity at various downtown parking facilities, primarily pricing structure 3 and lot 12. This suggests that there are opportunities to increase the utilization rate and parking efficiencies of existing facilities. And to some of the data, visually, what we're talking about is the parking structure, number 3, and then Lot 12. And then the parking facilities in the downtown historic core 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street continue to generate the most demand. As part of the study, stakeholder outreach was a large component of the paid parking study. The consultant in tandem with staff did a variety of things, beginning with an online survey, held one on one business meetings and for focus groups. With the online survey, there were 180 responses collected with a majority of the respondents self-reporting. They are Mountain View residents. As I mentioned earlier, over 70 businesses participated in these one-on-one meetings. And we met with downtown commercial property owners, another set of downtown business owners, downtown residents, and the general community. And so shown on the chart before you is the summarized feedback across the different outreach methods and groups. Staff also worked with the downtown committee throughout this paid parking process. The study is included as part of their current fiscal year work plan, but the downtown committee provided input on the paid parking study. The committee views parking as a tool to encourage economic vitality for downtown businesses, visitors, and the neighbors surrounding neighborhoods. However, parking solutions should be implemented incrementally focusing on a parking ambassador program, dedicate city staff to parking, implement a plan for the temporary loss of 4 and 8 and explore microtransit solutions. Based on the parking occupancy data study killed our outreach and staff input, Dixon developed a roadmap to implement paid parking and additional parking and transit solutions. First, Dixon identified paid parking infrastructure, paid parking requires infrastructure and technology to collect revenue, and the collection process begins with pay stations. Shown on the chart before you is estimated equipment costs and operating costs for paid parking within the downtown core of 844 parking spaces and all of the public parking facilities. In addition to the infrastructure, when you establish a paid parking area, a rate structure is identified, and there are four rate structures available. First one is a flat hourly rate, second zoned base or tiered pricing. Third, specific time of day or week rates, um, fourth, escalated pay rate. And in addition, a combination of the above rate options could be implemented. The appropriate structure to use depends on the parking goals that the city wishes to achieve. In addition to the infrastructure and rate structure, if paid parking were implemented, the city would need to identify resources to oversee and manage a paid parking system, and explore options for incorporating a parking benefits district within the existing parking district. However, paid parking should be viewed in the larger context of parking and transportation demand strategies. While the study focuses on paid parking, there are broader discussions about improving the efficiency and effectiveness of paid parking through added parking technology, reviewing the downtown or residential parking permit program, or developing an educational campaign. In addition, there should be considerations regarding shifting parking demands through mode shift, including TDGM solutions, shuttles, or bike share. In addition, there are a number of underlying parking issues related to a downtown parking system. The 1st one is, what are the concerns about parking spillover into the residential neighborhoods? Second, is there a perception with existing parking permit existing downtown parking programs, and are they either underutilized or overutilized? Three, our parking demands impacting the success of the downtown, and four, are there additional concerns not yet addressed? And in addition to the paid parking study, Urban Land Institute recently assessed the downtown and provided import on parking, and identified that parking should be more efficient, and the city should carefully develop parking programs to ensure downtown businesses are not impacted. So, tonight, we are asking city council to provide input on the following questions. One, does council have input on issues, concerns or goals related to downtown parking? Two, is council interested in pursuing paid parking? If so, before, during, or after other strategies, and three, does council want to explore other parking, transportation demand management strategies. Based on council input tonight, staff will return with a work plan. However, next steps may also depend on the goal setting process. This includes staff presentation. Thank you.

[06:47:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Since this is a study session, we will open it now to public input. So, if you have input for us, please come up to the microphone, be sure to fill out a blue card and leave it with our city clerk.

[06:48:22] Kathy Thibodeau: Well, good morning, everyone. You're very dedicated. I watch from home, you deal with some amazing things, and you do it so well. My name is Kathy Thibodeau. I am a 28 year resident of Mountain View, and I'm here representing Marwood Assets Management, which owns several properties in Mountain View, including one downtown, across from the transit center. And as you discuss, question number 3 tonight, I'd like to suggest that you consider making it a very high priority to explore the expansion of Mountain View's TMA to the downtown and providing some very specific services that would be unique to downtown. Over the weekend, I sent to you and to staff a white paper prepared by Marwood with some attachments that really provide a great deal of detail about the potential benefits of this to the city. But I'll just highlight a couple right now. It's really cost effective compared to building parking garages. It can be implemented very quickly. And there's nothing controversial about it that I could actually think of, and I think there are some parking solutions for downtown that, while effective, could be somewhat controversial. And if Palo Alto's success is a guide, there are some terrific social equity benefits for an expansion of TMA services to the downtown. So I am hoping that the city council will vote to get started on this. It would be a real win for our downtown and for our city. Thanks so much for taking that into consideration.

[06:49:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:50:00] Mary Hodder: Hi, uh, Mary Hodder. Um, so I sent you a list of questions, actually, uh, CC'd you, uh, some questions that I asked, uh, Tiffany about from livable Mountain View regarding a number of meetings that we've had with Dixon and, and uh, the downtown committee over the past few months, but at the end of that, I listed some recommendations for staff and you all, and I wanted to clarify a couple of of, um, pieces about that. First of all, I talked about enforcement, which is an option for you up here in the list of questions. And in particular, I wanted to emphasize that we don't see enforcement as strictly something that would mean writing a lot of tickets or coming down very hard on people who, let's say, overstayed either the amount of time that was in a particular zone, let's say, 2 hours or if we did implement paid parking, that would cause people to get upset with our merchants or do some kind of damage to our downtown small businesses. So I did want to emphasize that I'm interested in figuring out how to go step by step in a very nuanced way. I also believe that we should consider an enforcement program that starts without paid parking and simply enforces what we have now through warnings and through data collection to figure out how we might improve and then reassess after that process for a paid program. Um, I'm also interested in emphasizing the residential parking permit program. We've talked about that. I've heard you all talk about it many times, and I think that that could also effectively shift what are perceived as parking program issues downtown. Um, So I would emphasize that revising the current program that we have because I think it's too difficult for neighborhoods to get it. First of all, starting off with an 80%, um, uh, petition signage in a neighborhood is just too much. And then considering, um, Lisa had suggested earlier in the meeting that we consider, um, giving neighborhoods, uh, that are near the transit center, a, um, a program because we just need to move forward on that. I would definitely endorse a program like that. Lastly, um, I again would like to emphasize that we consider, um, analyzing and revamping our paid year-long parking permit program. I am for giving permits to employees of small town, small businesses, but I think we need to take a look at the office workers who park in our city lots and think about something better. Thank you.

[06:53:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. Did you speak the mic?

[06:53:12] Public Speaker: Oh, sorry about that. I think 11 friends of Caltrain supporting Caltrain and a context of sustainable transportation on the peninsula corridor and with that have been watching other cities with how they're managing parking and access to their downtowns and would like to give several examples of sets of policies that can potentially help improve parking and access into downtown. areas, starting with as the, as the previous speaker mentioned, residential permit parking, whereas there are more people, looking to use a downtown, not using residential streets as a free parking lot, is something that starts to become a good thing to do, and can also give residents comfort as the city takes further steps to manage the parking and access and the 80% threshold in Mountain View significantly higher than other cities. Mountain View could make that easier to do. Then the 2nd is transportation demand management to help downtown workers, especially lower income service workers to have options other than driving. So previous speaker mention, Palo Alto has helped over 300 low income service workers not have to drive to work. They were able to defer a parking garage. And the businesses there started out, like in Mountain View, skeptical that this is going to work for their workers, and they've become really strong supporters, and they found that it increased the retention rate because the workers really appreciated this benefit and the low stress commute. The funding structure for a downtown TMA has to be different. It can't be paid for by the fees from large companies. What they did was they increase the cost of the full price worker parking permits, and use the extra, and that's the largest source of the funding for their discount transit passes and TDM programs. And then third, um, priced parking, um, to be able to have better turnover for businesses and to use the further away spaces um, for people who want to pay less and walk further using modern technology. So pay by credit card, pay by mobile, so you can stay longer, and having gateway signage so that if someone is approaching, they have these in San Jose, San Francisco, not only assigned by the structure, but assigned by the entrance to town, so you know where you can go, and there's no anxiety into finding a space. Redwood City and San Mateo have very thriving downtowns with paid parking. And the last time I was at a San Mateo Council, the business is really appreciated, including their carefully managed, iteratively managed program that helps the turnover for the close in spaces and helps people access downtown. Thank you.

[06:56:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Castle Ramirez has a question for you.

[06:56:14] Unknown Speaker: Quick question. Thank you. Um, I asked a similar question of Steve Rainey when he was before the council speaking about the Palo Alto TMA, but if the council were to explore the creation of a TMA specifically serving the downtown, one of the challenges is getting the existing businesses to voluntarily become members. We could get a business to become a member, you know, if we have land use authority over them, but if they already exist, it's much more challenging. So for other downtown TMAs, you are aware of what strategies have been effective to get downtown businesses to participate.

[06:56:54] Unknown Speaker: So in Palo Alto, it's a voluntary program, and they started out running pilots and offering the discount transit passes and carpool benefits, and we're really surprised by how popular they were with workers and how much they help with worker retention, and that has helped to really grow their program, even though it's voluntary and not compulsory.

[06:57:20] Unknown Speaker: Are there other downtown TMAs you are aware of that have enjoyed similar success?

[06:57:26] Unknown Speaker: So, Palo Alto does some things that Boulder did, including using parking revenues for this funding strategy because it's not feasible to have a fee-based strategy like you can do in an office park. There are other cities that are following along in the footsteps. Redwood City has approved a similar policy San Mateo has, but they're following on Palo Alto in their process.

[06:57:54] Unknown Speaker: Cool, thank you.

[06:57:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:58:02] Public Speaker: Didn't think I was gonna come up. But, um, I actually am part of, I work in Cal Avenue in Palo Alto, and I am actually, uh, a beneficiary of Palo Alto's TMA program. Um, I get a free Caltrain pass from them. It's actually pretty awesome. It's my 1st month doing it. Um, even though I had to walk to the Caltrain station. I dislike the outdoors for the most part, but, um, it's actually really a nice option for me. When they did outreach, they pretty much just 1st they reached out to their downtown, there's a downtown, not a downtown, but a Cal Avenue business meeting committee that I went to and that's how they started getting it. And they actually hired a consultant to pretty much just go knocking on doors in each of the businesses. I happen to know that person that was knocking on the doors, which was kind of awesome too. Um, But my understanding is that they were also funded. They weren't funded by the businesses. My boss doesn't pay anything into that TMA program. Um, and I was eligible for it by making less than $70,000 a year, which is, um, really high threshold in my opinion, but, um, But like I said, I got a free Caltrain pass that prevents me from using my car. They ask us to use it 3 times a week. Um, and we have to renew it every month. Apparently, I haven't gotten the renewal notice yet, but they send a text message to us or they say they're going to send a text message. Do you still want to be in the program and you're supposed to text? Yes. And then apparently they could track that you're using it too. Um, they offered Caltrain, VTA, um, like some kind of ways carpool, uh, lift carpool credit too. But I only chose the Caltrain one. I'm assuming he could only pick one. Um, But that was my experience with the TMA program, at least in Kelav. Like I said, they expanded it for the 1st time. for where I work. They've been doing in downtown for a long time. Apparently they started with a threshold of 50 K, but they found that it was increased use at 70 K because it included started to include the mid-level managers and that's what caused more people to use it because when they saw like their mid-level managers use it more than those at the lower income levels were more open to use it or the culture of the work was more acceptable to it. take with that, but you may.

[07:00:38] Unknown Speaker: Thank you before you go. Collection, ma'am.

[07:00:41] Public Speaker: Yes.

[07:00:42] Unknown Speaker: Did you have the option of a VTA pass?

[07:00:45] Public Speaker: Yes.

[07:00:46] Unknown Speaker: And so you choose between either one.

[07:00:48] Public Speaker: Yes. I chose Caltrain because it's faster and Yeah, because it's it's faster for me. and Caltrain's literally right there.

[07:00:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[07:01:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else want to address the council on this topic? Okay, then we'll close public input, and this is a study session. So staff has asked us some questions, and I think we can do all of them at the same time. Council member McAllister.

[07:01:21] Councilmember John McAlister: All right, so earlier today, we were looking at the transit center, and we were lucky that we're going to lose this rounded off to 100 parking spaces. Would you guys be considering that when we're going through this parking study that we're going to lose some stations, parking?

[07:01:42] City Staff: No, we were not considering the transit center as part of the parking study. What we did consider was lots of 4 and 8 and then eventually 12 as part of this. We were really more focusing on the parking district.

[07:01:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, but even though it's outside the park, is that because of the funding or, I mean, because we're still losing a 100 regardless if it's in the parking district or not. So is that something that as you move forward, since this is a study session, that you can incorporate that a little bit?

[07:02:14] City Staff: Yes, we could incorporate it.

[07:02:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Also, can we also review looking at the Park and Lou parking in Luffy right now, it's at 48,000. Yet we know it's 60. And is it possible that we could look at that with an inflation clause also related to that?

[07:02:35] City Staff: The parking in Luffy currently has a construction inflation cause associated with it. So if you wanted to add an additional...

[07:02:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, it has the clause, but, I mean, it's still 12,000 below, you know, what we even get close to actual costs, so is that something we can incorporate into this? Otherwise, we're subsidizing parking. I thought that was the whole point that we weren't trying to do that.

[07:03:00] City Staff: So, I would suggest that's not directly related to this. You certainly can do that, the best place to do that, would be with the fee schedule when it comes with the budget.

[07:03:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But Sarah in the port, so I... And you told me to ask it earlier today, so I... Um, where is the money used?

[07:03:20] City Staff: So, on there, you're gonna have, we're gonna, the program, I was gonna, said, residential parking for itself annually, quarter monthly, and daily passes people within the park, and just, and permit holders can park, and...

[07:03:31] Councilmember John McAlister: So where's that revenue gonna go?

[07:03:34] City Staff: The parking permit revenue goes back into the parking district.

[07:03:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And is it just used for maintenance, or is it actually capital money, possibly?

[07:03:43] City Staff: It's used for maintenance and operations.

[07:03:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Then on staff report, page seven, you have a table two. And you have some green and red, and so indicating various usages. But that's an average use per the day, so it doesn't really show the two peak periods, particularly in this table, or does it?

[07:04:14] City Staff: The purpose of this table was really to unpack all the data and show that while there are 2 peak periods on average, certain lots are have capacity Wednesday through Saturday in green. So green means that the lots at that, at those days on average, have capacity under 85%. The blue is that mid-range around that 85% and then the red is above 85.

[07:04:47] Councilmember John McAlister: But if you were to take a look at those at peak hours, you would probably indicate that those were closer to 85. Like in the green. This is just average usage. Is that...

[07:04:57] City Staff: I believe that's correct. And I believe, in the attachment, it provides a more detailed breakdown for all the facilities at the different hours.

[07:05:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Was there any talk about validating parking for the businesses?

[07:05:10] City Staff: Validation of parking as it relates to paid parking or...?

[07:05:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, you go into a store, they validate your parking, and so if you're going...

[07:05:18] City Staff: I guess that could be considered as part of paid parking. It hasn't been considered though.

[07:05:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Or that's what we're learning tonight? Okay. Also, the cost of doing this business of doing this paid parking seems to Is there any indication that we would break even? Or would we be losing money if we go to the paid parking program?

[07:05:35] City Staff: The revenue assumptions did assume that it would be customer cover.

[07:05:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Cost what?

[07:05:40] City Staff: Cost of recovery based upon approximately $1.50 an hour.

[07:05:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay, $1.50. Okay. Was it much or just a...

[07:05:51] City Staff: We were looking at a... We were looking at paid parking from a sustainable method.

[07:05:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. It was interesting also that you had this downtown business meeting, and they said that 81% of their employees drove in. Was that a surprise to you that that high percentage of employees drove in?

[07:06:12] City Staff: No, it was not a surprise.

[07:06:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay. And was there any concern that the downtown committee did not endorse paid parking? They just had concerns?

[07:06:23] City Staff: The downtown committee endorsed the concept of paid parking, but they asked that council consider it in an incremental and thoughtful manner?

[07:06:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. And to increase, to create a parking district, would there have to be a vote of the distant parking district landowners?

[07:06:46] City Staff: Part of the next steps related to paid parking is seeing how the current parking district would come into play with paid parking revenues. We talked about a parking benefits district and the questions and next steps is how do you apply the current district with with these new revenue streams.

[07:07:10] Councilmember John McAlister: But with the parking existing parking district, have to vote on it?

[07:07:14] City Staff: Um, I'm not sure the legalities around that. I'm not sure.

[07:07:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I got a price. I stumped this panel.

[07:07:25] City Staff: We do have Dixon resources here, so perhaps they might be able to provide some insight about the process of establishing the benefit district.

[07:07:39] Consultant Julie Dixon: Hi, my name is Julie Dixon with Dixon Resources Unlimited. We'd actually have to dig deeper into the code, just to validate that to make sure, along with what the city attorney reference to, to confirm that, I would say, typically, it hasn't been a requirement of the district members to vote on that. It's typically based on the way the ordinance is written. So we'd have to defer to the ordinance.

[07:08:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any other questions from council members? Okay, I have a couple. Um. I was surprised by the 81% number. in terms of the employees who say they drive to work, and we've seen a number of proposed developments come before us where they say, we can do 20%, 30% SOV. How do I reconcile that with, actually, 81% say they drive?

[07:08:41] City Staff: Can you provide some clarification? Are you asking for the correlation between development projects and our current demand?

[07:08:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, do we, why would we believe any development proposal that says they're going to have a 20 to 30% SOV when the reported is 81%?

[07:09:05] City Staff: So maybe I can just offer a couple of thoughts and if folks have any additional comments, certainly welcome those thoughts, but some of the recent projects that we've been looking at, do have enhanced the more robust TDM strategies that go along with new projects. So depending on the survey and those respondents, And Tiffany may have more of that breakdown, but those may be from employees with existing businesses that may not have those same levels of TDM strategies that we've been looking at for new projects. So that's one perspective that we can offer regarding going forward with new projects, the decreased amount of parking demand and tedium components that help reduce those parking demand components.

[07:10:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Are we looking at all at increasing capacity, in terms of either moving quickly to regrade, repave, lot 11, um, do the lot in back of the post office, is that the name of it, um, or expanding the valet program? Do we have, like, what's the timing of the other 2 lots being?

[07:10:40] City Staff: So staff is looking at expanding the valet program and Castle, the Castle Forest property as part of when we lose lots foreign aid for the development project, in terms of timeline, it'll depend on the entitlement process. The entitlement process that's been completed, but the building permit process.

[07:11:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there reason why we wouldn't do it sooner?

[07:11:05] City Staff: So if I can just add to that, I believe there is a CIP and we'll have to check with public works on the timing, but I think there is a timeline to move with those and we can get back to you on that.

[07:11:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. And the valet, what's the, have we looked at yet? The, The cost, like per car moved? Or how do we measure the effectiveness or the cost effectiveness of the valet program?

[07:11:35] City Staff: A way to measure cost effectiveness of the program is by demand for the program. If, you know, hopefully we can increase the demand for the program that lowers the cost per vehicle. If you think about it, that building a new parking structure costs $60,000, this program in the 1st year costs $75,000, and we were able to increase capacity in lot 11 by 30%. So, um, We're hoping in the 2nd year to increase the demand for this program to increase the utilization to lower the costs.

[07:12:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do you know what the utilization is? Like, how do we measure that? Is it, do we know that when the valets there? that we're always using 100% of that extra capacity or is it 75% of the capacity or how are we measuring, I guess, it's success.

[07:12:33] City Staff: So the valet company provides provides us with data of how many cars are parked per day during the lunch and dinner times, we had reviewed that in January as part of that discussion. And so, if I can remember correctly, on average, the program was parking about 15 cars per day when it was in use.

[07:13:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[07:13:01] City Staff: And we do see opportunities for enhanced utilization of that. through potentially improved signage, lighting, et cetera, placement of the tents. And so we do see some good headroom and headway for more utilization there. And depending on that, we could take a look to see how valet parking could continue to increase the efficiency, potentially in other parking lots as well, you know, provide a report to the city council about how that increased utilization rate is going and exploring options from that point.

[07:13:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Have we ever considered increasing the time during which there are time limits? So it ends, I believe, is it 5 or six? The current value of program. Sorry, not just the valet, but in downtown in general.

[07:13:55] City Staff: Generally, downtown has parking time restrictions Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.

[07:14:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Have we ever considered expanding those hours to say till like 7 or 8 PM?

[07:14:08] City Staff: Not at this point. I do want to add that the parking action plan, does discuss opportunities to consider maybe modifications of the time limits, where those time limits could be modified, and also factoring in on street and off street parking as well, to help facilitate greater efficiency and utilization of the parking system. So if that is something that the council has input on, Those could be potential modifications that we could be exploring as an overall parking demand management strategy, and we can kind of fold that into a sort of integrated set of options that we can explore and look at it in a more integrated, cohesive way.

[07:14:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Cancel member Ramirez.

[07:14:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I have a quick question related to... The narrowest question about the survey. Did the survey break down the demographics of the employees commuting to downtown? So I know El Alto, for instance, has pretty distinct data related to service workers and office workers. Is that is that sort of delineated in the survey here?

[07:15:27] Unknown Speaker: No, the survey didn't delineate down to the type of warfare. They were trying to capture how they were, how they were being transported in and out of the downtown. But most of the employees surveyed where the service type workers are associated with our ground floor businesses.

[07:15:51] Unknown Speaker: Okay, got it. Thank you.

[07:15:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions? Council member Clark.

[07:15:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh. It's not a question. I was just going to go under the question.

[07:16:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's fine. I think we're ready for that.

[07:16:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: Um, so, so, for one, um, so, I think the, the specific things that I'm interested in addressing with, with paid parking and other strategies are, you know, as you showed, there's potential here to, you know, we can, we can work on supply long term, but really what we want to do here is try and shift demand a little bit, um, to, because there's really those 2 peak periods. And if you can just shift demand even a little bit, You get a much better, I think, more efficient utilization of the supply that we currently have. So for me, the goal is to sort of shift that demand a little bit without having severe unintended consequences, whether it's, you know, causing people to be more reluctant to come downtown or to park farther out or do those sorts of things. So, um, in that regard, I am interested in, in further pursuing paid parking downtown, um, because I think it is, it is a long-term tool that we can utilize to, um, that we can easily adjust over time to shift demand if necessary. And, um, and, you know, if things improve, then we can reduce rates if we need to or we can increase them at certain times in certain areas. And with respect to that, I would, you know, I hope that we would pursue not just one of the paid part, one of the rate structures, but some combination of those because I think now with a lot of the parking infrastructure, the pedestals and meters and things like that. have the ability to do all of these things. You can do demand-based pricing, you can set different prices for different zones, and you can base it on demand and time of day and all sorts of different things. So I think as long as you are willing to spend a little bit more upfront and get the best and the smartest meters. It gives you a significant amount of options in the long run. I would say that, you know, one thing that I would suggest, and, you know, we can, as we, if we delve into paid parking even more, we can get into how much we do or don't want to, um, um, mess with the details, but one thing I would suggest is it's clear that our parking structures just aren't utilized as much as we would like them to be during peak periods. And so, you know, if it were cheaper or even free to utilize those structures, whereas the surface parking were more expensive and sort of push people to utilize the structures more and save the on street parking for 2 to 3 hour periods where for retail customers or folks who aren't going to park for a long period of time and push the people who are parking for long periods of time into the structures, I think that would be good. But, um, And then, um, and then I think that, but I don't think pay parking should be our only focus, I think we should pursue that in conjunction with some of the other strategies that you identified. So I think I think having a really robust TDM strategy, and I don't think it needs to be a completely separate TMA or TDM from what we have, I think it can be citywide, but it can be multi-pronged. So I think, you know, the downtown might have different levers that we poll versus other areas of town like North Bay Shore or San Antonio. But I do think I do think we have an opportunity downtown specifically, just given the number of service and other workers to provide subsidized transit passes, to focus on what we do with office workers and their permits and ensuring that we find, you know, appropriate spaces for them so that they're not pushed into the neighborhoods or taking up parking that's utilized by retail customers or service workers. But I think that's an important piece of the strategy to pursue is the TMA slash TDM. And then I think we should continue some of the other things that we're doing in terms of wayfinding and technology and just ensuring that folks, especially if when we roll out, if we roll out smart meters, ensuring that those meters are able to provide parking availability data to whatever in an open source manner to whatever apps are out there that can utilize that so that people know in real time what parking is available where. And then And then, finally, you know, I think a key piece of this will be the residential parking permit program, and I think the key there is, especially during the daytime, to just ensure that, you know, we aren't pushing all of this demand for parking out into the neighborhoods where people are just trying to avoid pain for, um, pain for parking. So you, I could see, you know, out in the, in the neighborhood, it's one of the things that you, I see in neighborhoods in San Francisco near busy areas or, you know, you just have a one or 2 hour time limit during the day unless you have a permit. And then my guess is that most of the demand sort of goes away in the evening and, you know, you don't have to spend quite as much of an enforcement as you do in the evening, but you have a really heavy enforcement period during a specific period of time during the day for those who don't hold residential permits. And then I already touched on the TMA options. Those are my comments for now. Thank you.

[07:21:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[07:21:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Oh, see, no one else in the queue. So I mostly agree with council member Clark, just for my ¢2 on question one. I think, certainly, intrusion into the neighborhood is a key concern that we're trying to mitigate with whatever strategy we end up employing. And the ability of folks who want to patronize the downtown to find a space that is convenient. Um, is critical. I think the, you know, the wayfinding that we've put in place that the parking structures has certainly helped, but I think, well, you know, I'll get into this more with question two, but I think paid parking could help facilitate sort of the the more efficient utilization of parking if it's done well. And then sort of related to that is, I think, the challenge with employees taking up some of the the parking supply that would otherwise go to patrons of the downtown. So I think those are the key issues that we're striving to address. So yes, I do support pursuing paid parking, and I think it must be done in conjunction with other strategies. And in particular, the residential parking permit program, because I, you know, it's very easy to envision a scenario where we have paid parking and folks elect to take up or, you know, use the free available parking in the neighborhood, which defeats the purpose of paid parking. So I think that's absolutely essential. And I think we should also consider looking at a phased implementation. I don't think we necessarily need to have paid parking throughout the entire downtown, but perhaps looking at those areas where there is the greatest demand and perhaps where there is already a relatively high amount of turnovers. So I'm thinking Castro Street, specifically. So just looking at meters in that area, and then over time, if it proves to be effective, exploring paid parking in the lots, the parking structures. And I agree with Council member Clark, we need to pursue all of the strategies that he identified. I do feel pretty strongly about creating a downtown specific TMA, primarily because I think it would make the most sense to have the downtown businesses serve on the governing board of that TMA rather than have, you know, North Bay Shore businesses and East Wisdom businesses sort of govern the programming and strategies that the TMA, you know, utilizes to serve downtown businesses. I think I think that is a key distinction. And I think, you know, the programming that the citywide TMA or the North Bay Shore serving teammate will be very different from what the downtown TMA would probably implement. So I think we should explore that possibility. I think it would be much more effective DMA than to sort of force the citywide TMA to provide downtown specific programming. That's a all, you.

[07:25:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Others? Council member commit.

[07:25:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: My button does not exist right now. Okay. I will try to be as articulate as possible. Given we're now at 110. Um, So, uh, in terms of, I'll try to touch on places too, perhaps that my colleagues haven't just um, to share. So, um, in terms of question one, um, some underlying issues, concerns or goals. I think, um, one of the things that we heard, um, with looking at our transit center earlier tonight, was, um, just making sure that we're utilizing opportunities for the shared parking. And then as we are redeveloping within our downtown, and we lose spaces, as we learn tonight, right, 84 spaces, what are things that we can do to help mitigate that? And so that's why I was thinking shared parking could be one of those things that we do. But the effects of that will be for employees, visitors, staff, et cetera, almost loss of spots. So what else could we do either by shoring up our transportation options, to, again, help medicate. Um, I think, uh, one of the things that was discussed within the staff report and and up here on the dais was kind of the issue of spillover. Um, so I am, maybe I'm skipping around. I'm sorry. Um, I'm just gonna keep going, though. is looking at a, I don't know if it's a revision or looking at how we can make the residential parking program work for, um, the community and the areas that will be affected. Um, so we heard, you know, threshold could be an issue or um, respondents having to, you know, sign and then return the postcard can be different, difficult. Are there things that we can tweak so that, um, the hurdles aren't as large, perhaps. Um, for, uh, question 2 in terms of pursuing paid parking. I have a little bit of hesitation in terms of moving there. One of the things that I looked at in the 10 X page attachment that you all provided was a little bit more context in terms of when our neighboring cities have moved to paid parking. So for example, San Jose, Redwood City, San Mateo, what was the tipping point there? I think the comparison in terms of like the pricing and the rates is helpful. Um, But, uh, it's quite an endeavor to go into paid parking. And so, um, you know, how how is that done? Um, and how is that done in a way that was, you know, as seamless as possible. So for me, one of the things that I've been thinking about is, um, where you have right now signage, which states certain hours, um, restrictions. I wonder if we can look into, and I think it was in the staff report as well, is looking at zones. So different areas within our city, having, you know, in Paloto, they have colored zones, and then they have to move the vehicle, right? Is that, and that's not a paid cost, I believe, a total.

[07:28:52] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, it's not all paid.

[07:28:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And so could that be something that we know, it's not something that we could do. I don't know what the head not is. Sorry? Oh, okay. Well, I think my interest in it was that perhaps we could go to that model if it doesn't work and then move into paid. Um, and have more, have more information. Um, and that's just me. That's my personal opinion. Um, for number three, I touched a little bit in terms of the the, um, parking permits. I am interested in the TMA. I know that within the last couple of weeks we've talked about, should it be a citywide TMA or a downtown TMA, um, I think it's what we feel like will serve the area the best. So I feel open to that. Um, I think one of the interesting, um, pieces of feedback from the downtown committee was talking about uh, parking ambassador type program, I think that could be, um, something that's good as in addition to that, perhaps additional wayfinding signs. So I think the, um, the signage in terms of how many spots are available, that's helpful, but in terms of letting people know, uh, especially, I think we saw the impact of, um, you know, the more historic area of our downtown, um, seeing more impact in terms of parking, if people knew that there were other lots that they could go to with some more signage, I think that that could, um, be helpful. Thank you.

[07:30:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[07:30:38] Councilmember John McAlister: Last one. Uh... Okay, so, um, you heard about, I like to look at validated parking. I'd be interested in three hours of parking, versus the two hours, if we were gonna do sort of validation. The zone parking. Uh, let's start simple, rather just have it everywhere. I'm not sure if we did a downtown, if there's a critical mass. So that's a concern of mine. And since they're, so that's, I'd still like to see it incorporated in the whole area town because we do have a lot of locals that live there. So if we incorporate it, I think we can get more of a critical mass. I've never really been a big fan of paid parking. because I think it is a detriment, and I think there was some comment in the staff report about it, that we are competitive with other areas, and that if we go with the paid parking, it, uh, in other areas, Palo Alto or Sunnyvale don't have it, it could be, uh, again, detrimental. So anything like that would I wouldn't support. Our wayfinding, it would have to be better than what we have now, just because we have a number on the street, we need to make that much more convenient so that people aren't driving up to the parking garage that the information is provided to them before they get to the parking garage. And hopefully it gets implemented sooner than later. So that's one thing I'd like to do. And... The residential parking permit, of course, we have to protect the residents. I don't think we need to, want to charge residents for that. And then there was some concern about the parking permits are, is, uh, employee parking permits. Do they exceed our supply right now or was it close to it? Or is there a formula where you can say if we got 100, we could sell 110 because not everybody uses it.

[07:32:55] Unknown Speaker: The city does not cap the number of parking permits sold. So we do exceed the number of parking spaces available for permit holders.

[07:33:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, wait a minute, exceed. Okay, so we have certain parking lots that are designed for parking permit. And so that would be the maximum amount, a number of parking permits we would sell. correct?

[07:33:16] Unknown Speaker: Uh, not correct. We have designated lots and structures that are available for permit parkers, but we do not cap the number of parking permits sold. So we do oversell the number of parking permits versus the number of available parking spaces. And in the council questions we provided some data as to the 1st parking structure and how the capacity is from the parking permit standpoint. And in that chart, which I have as a backup slide. It shows that the data shows that the highest demand for permit parking in the parking structure is actually at 10 AM and the tapers off into the evening.

[07:34:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but I think you answered the same question that I asked us that. We have certain parking lots that have are zoned or designated for paid parking. And you said, well, we exceed, that could be a 100 and we exceed that number. But how are we? Um, So let's see. I'm looking here at 10 so they fill up in the morning and then they, you know, of course they taper off a day. So you're saying here we have capacity in all these lots for how many, how much more capacity do we have to grow with?

[07:34:38] Unknown Speaker: So parking structure, number one, has a total capacity of 13 parking spaces.

[07:34:44] Councilmember John McAlister: No, but how much are paid permit parking?

[07:34:47] Unknown Speaker: Within the paid parking permit program, if I can go to my map. Within the program, we have about over a 1000 parking spaces available.

[07:35:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, in parking structure one.

[07:35:05] Unknown Speaker: In parking structure, one, we have 313 spaces in the California Bryant Street parking structure, we have 405 spaces.

[07:35:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so let's just stay on parking lot one. The whole building can be used for permit parking allowed.

[07:35:20] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[07:35:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's it. Okay. And then the other purple ones, too. Okay. But number isn't lot one pretty busy with consumers wanting to park in that area.

[07:35:39] City Staff: The overall demand for parking in the 1st parking structure is high compared to some of our other locations of this is still within the 100 to 300 blocks of the downtown.

[07:35:50] Councilmember John McAlister: So. So if we go with paid parking, would there be a strategy that would take the permit parking and put it to the outskirts so that we can make more money by charging consumers that come in and rotate in and out?

[07:36:03] City Staff: That could be an option. Just add the ability for congestion pricing allows a jurisdiction to be able to shift depending on the demand based on the different rate structures in order to do the appropriate shifting to where there might be existing capacity in other locations. And so to the extent that you have a system that has the technology to have that pricing structure change real time or based on data that allows us to make informed decisions about what the rates should be. Then the paid parking model would allow the ability to address such as what you're describing, is understanding where the congestion is, setting the pricing so that demand is is balanced, increasing turnover and then increasing the utilization of underutilized parking facilities.

[07:37:05] Councilmember John McAlister: And somebody mentioned about a parking ambassador. If you want to try it, I don't think that would... How would they do? They just talk to businesses and sell them parking passes or what would that barking ambassador do?

[07:37:21] City Staff: Oh, you mean, yeah. Wanda, here is a number of space 12.

[07:37:25] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I mean, so what would that do?

[07:37:28] City Staff: It's more of a customer service approach to parking, having a person dedicated to directing people web, helping people understand where to park, if there were questions about enforcement or even the tickets, you know, what would you do with them? It's more of providing a face to help talk about parking.

[07:37:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Where would they be? Okay, would they be standing out there in a parking lot? I'm trying to understand where they go to the business, the business would say, hey, we want to do something?

[07:38:08] City Staff: Yes, that could be part of the program.

[07:38:10] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, I don't know if we need a, okay, that doesn't sound worthy of spending money on, so I don't think I'm thrilled with that one. So, because I think we already have a parking department, and we already have staff, so.

[07:38:24] City Staff: And just add, I think, part of the opportunities with an ambassador program, should the council direct us to explore that further, there are opportunities for education and outreach. I think the approach for an ambassador is shifting it, maybe not so much less from an enforcement perspective, but more towards a compliance perspective. And so with a compliance framework. There are additional opportunities to get folks to use and follow the regulations that we have in place without adding an unnecessary punitive component to it, that would still allow folks to understand that there are rules to follow, but still have folks feel like downtown is a welcoming place for them as well. So trying to balance those components through the compliance perspective.

[07:39:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And my last thought was that I would like to make sure that it is cost recovery, plus, and that if we can, you know, again, going back to the 70 or 100 stalls that we're gonna lose, that we need to have some kind of a plan looking forward, that a plan B for increasing parking...

[07:39:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I think I'm the last, and the specific concerns I have are that our downtown businesses are losing business, because people can't always find parking. The second is that there's a spillover of parking into the neighborhood. Third, there's a lot of congestion. People are driving around looking for parking spaces. Fourth is our overall parking capacity. It troubles me that we are taking away additional parking and we don't have a plan to replace that at a time when we're already stretched very much for parking capacity. And then I also have concerns about the downtown permit parking program. I would like to look at maybe changing which structures they could park in, that looks like they are using parking lot one, the parking structure. And to me, that's kind of prime parking for the businesses, you know, in the 1st 3 blocks of Castro. So maybe that shouldn't be the place where you can use a parking permit to park there. And I'm also concerned about how many we sell of the parking permits. Because that could be taking capacity that customers are the businesses, the retail businesses, the restaurants should be using. I do support doing an expansion of the existing TMA. I could imagine it would be operated very differently than the part of the TMA that works for North Bay Shore and East Wisman. But I think there's a lot you can learn by operating into TMA. So you see, there's a lot of synergies with keeping it all together, even though the operations might be very different. And I also think we need to think about is the TMA, a regional TMA at some point. It's probably beyond the scope of what we're talking about tonight, but it's in the back of my mind. I do want to figure out how to address parking downtown for residents in the downtown area as well as the Willowgate area that we talked about earlier today. and the residential parking permit program, making changes to that, and making it available to those 2 neighborhoods. Um, in a fashion that doesn't cost them any money. I think there's a lot of things we can do to address parking before we get to parking, paid parking. I'm not necessarily opposed to paid parking, but I feel like we should do other things before we get to that. And People say that I've heard that, you know, you need to do more enforcement before you switch to something like that. It kind of sounds like we're doing a lot of enforcement already. So I'm not sure how much more we would be doing, but if there's any room for additional enforcement, it sounds like that's something we should do. expanding the valet capacity. As long as it's cost effective. And I would also like to see time limits revisited in terms of the hours that they're in place and the length of time that you can park. And in particular at the post office. I heard from lots of folks that they can never go visit their post office box because they can't find a place at the post office. I shared concerns with Council member McAllister about the parking ambassador. I wasn't really sure what that role would be, what it would look like, what they would do. So I'd want to know more about that before I would support it. And have I missed anything? I did talk about, you know, expanding the capacity, and that is Lot 11 and the Castle Farms and anything else we can do to increase capacity. It just seems to me like we have an ongoing shortage and it appears to be getting worse with all of the changes happening and I'm very concerned about that. I got one. And that's it. Council member, Clark.

[07:44:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: I just wanted to put, since we, there's only 5 of us, and I want to make sure we... I'm not quite sure where we stand on yes or no to some of these things. I just wanted to put one more plug-in. Forget about whether or not you think we should charge for parking. We just talked about we're going to be losing parking spaces. There's going to be a lot of construction going on. There's going to be a lot of different changes. And for a 1000000 dollars, you can put in the infrastructure to not only charge for parking in certain areas, if we ultimately decide, you know, if you want to take some additional other steps, we can. I'm not sure what other concrete ones we can take. There are some. But I think we should also prepare ourselves for having the ability, at least, to shift demand around and keep all of our options open. If we do get into an even bigger crunch than we're in now, because even if you don't charge with these meters, you have the ability to, one, know where the availability is and have all the data that all the questions that we've been asking about tonight for data, we'd have really concrete data on what is the availability. What is the utilization? Are people using validation? Are people using permits? The enforcement becomes a lot more efficient because the person, the the, the community service officers or whoever's doing the enforcement know exactly where the violators are, how long they've been violated, and they can target those specifically. So you make the whole system more efficient. And if we were talking like $10 million, I would have a very different opinion here. But if the on street parking and the public parking combined, just for the infrastructure costs is, I hate to say only a million, but only a $1000000 and the operating cost really isn't that high. And you can, if you charge for some of that, you can do cost recovery. I just think if you're wanting to preserve your options for the for the possible scenario in a few years when we're really in a crunch, I'd hate to have to spend a year or whatever putting all this infrastructure in then, then I would being able to do it now and turn it on if we need to. I just think it's a, it's a better investment upfront, and I don't have any hidden agenda there. I just think that even if you ultimately decide, you know, it's not good for Mountain View. competing with our communities. We're not going to charge a lot or we're not going to charge anything or we're going to do validation or whatever. You at least preserve your options, and you have much better data and much more efficient enforcement of everything. if you go this route. Like I said, if this were 5 or $10 million, I would feel very differently. But I feel like we have cost recovery mechanisms in place, and, you know, if we sell permits for more money, even if we don't charge for charge a lot per hour, really anything for retail customers, and we validate their parking, whatever. I don't know. I just think it's, I think it, I think we, it would be good to preserve our options, but that's just my, my own individual opinion.

[07:47:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Counselor McAllister.

[07:47:17] Councilmember John McAlister: I don't know if it's part of our parking. study, but we have a lot of small owner lots in downtown Mountain View. Like the Maru properties doing one. We got some others, and there's, is there a way to reach out to all those smaller ones and try to get them, so as they come up for development, that we would be able to have a program in place for them, or that we could have them support something now because we know that they're going to develop it down the road. There's also the corner of where the gas old gas station is. And that's going to be developed or they want to develop that. So can we collectively start looking at all the small lots and say, okay, as they come for development, we have a game plan to sell to them or they can do, or we already say, hey, we got the parking, so that's going to be something to make it easier for them to move along.

[07:48:09] City Staff: Just to clarify, maybe to ask the question back is one of the thoughts that paid parking could be part of TDM conversation we would have with an applicant, which could be part of a suite of options that we would explore with the applicant during those conversations, or you were talking about something even more sort of proactive in advance, even before an applicant.

[07:48:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, before, I mean, because you'll be able to look at those, you'll be able to identify, hopefully we identify the lots, and we know it potentially based on the zoning what they're going to be able to build. somewhere and have to pay Park and Luffy, somewhere exempt, because they're in parking zones. I noticed that, so, that we just look at those, and we proactively figure out what those parking demands are going to be from those properties as we know they get developed. And so that when they come up for development, we already have the parking strategy in place. And then we're looking forward to, you know, forward thinking.

[07:49:10] City Staff: So just off the cuff at 130, um, I think, um, that could be certainly something we would explore as part of an overall, uh, paid parking, um, uh, uh, uh, we could talk further with with Dixon and better understand what that would mean if there were sort of one-offs versus having, um, those individual lots being able to plug into, uh, uh, comprehensive infrastructure and how that in terms of the cost, et cetera, and whether there are, you know, kind of economies of scale, implications, without a broader infrastructure, um, versus having one where folks can plug in versus kind of one off. So I think I think with your question, that's something that we can further study and assess and see how it would fit into an overall strategy.

[07:50:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, because those, I mean, if you get enough of them, you can say, hey, this is gonna cost, you're gonna have to pay in lieu. We'll build your own parking structure, and then maybe wherever it is, then 10 different properties have their dedicated parking. So, if it's possible, that would consider that. You're looking like you need to go to sleep. Did you understand the question?

[07:50:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Any other comments before I attempt to summarize?

[07:50:32] Unknown Speaker: Nope.

[07:50:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so... I'm gonna go through the things I feel like I heard the most comments about, if I have missed something, I would appreciate it, if others would chime in, certainly heard a lot about concern about spillover into the neighborhoods, and that we want to explore our PPPs. for the neighborhood. I heard support for a TMA. But I'm not sure it was unanimous in terms of using the current TMA versus doing something different, but certainly looking at a TMA was unanimous. I feel like there is support for looking at paid parking. I think it's a question of maybe when we do that, is how I guess I would describe that. I do agree with council member Clark as a just a personal comment here, that it does make sense to put the infrastructure in place, um, because it's better to do that now than later. And in the meantime, we get more information. And Concern about the loss of parking spaces and what we can do to increase capacity without building additional parking spaces. anything else? That was kind of my takeaway.

[07:52:20] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, just... My notes were a little more scattered on the seminal question of paid parking or not. So I'd like to be sure. I had two people that were definitely interested in exploring it, in conjunction with other tools. Um, to that said, not yet, and one who wasn't really a fan of it. So, to me, that was more of a majority to not do it, but if you're saying, go ahead with the infrastructure now, then that kind of tips it towards moving forward sooner rather than later.

[07:53:02] Unknown Speaker: So I heard John say he had a concern with paid barking. And some hesitation from Ellen is what I wrote. But I think the rest of us said, okay, but maybe you do other things first. But she put the infrastructure in place to be ready, just in case.

[07:53:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: I don't know. I mean, it's not to say you can't try different strategies and different areas, if you want to do different, if you want to do timing in some areas, or say, you know, two hours or three hour limits. My experience with that in San Francisco, as someone who's guilty of this, is on days that I drive, there's a 2 limit, 2 hour limit on the street, all I do is move my car every 2 hours, and I haven't really fixed the supply. I've just, I've freed up a space and taken another one. So I haven't really, um, it doesn't really, it creates more turnover and it might be appropriate for certain areas of the downtown. Maybe paid parking isn't the ideal for the entire downtown area. But I do generally feel that, um, I would much rather be sort of looking at the infrastructure options now than 2 years from now when lots of foreign aid are under construction and the transit center gets going. I just, I feel like there's going to be a crunch and it's better for us to have all the tools at our disposal than not. But that's just my opinion.

[07:54:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I would agree with that. Um, I see at least... 4 nodding heads. And then there were a lot of other comments. But... I'm not sure there was, like, 3 of any other one comment. That's what I remember, Ramirez.

[07:54:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Just a quick comment on the TMA. Since we don't control the TMA may be worth reaching out to them to see if they would be willing to provide some dedicated service or programming for the downtown area, unless you've already had a preliminary conversation with them.

[07:55:08] City Staff: Yeah, I mean, I think they're interested in expanding. We need to have a lot more discussions with them. And frankly, the funding model and, as you indicated, the governance model are going to have to be explored primarily. The funding model, because as you noted, the board is dominated by the businesses that benefit from the shuttles and contribute to the shuttles and, you know, like Palo Alto, there is no inherent funding source other than parking district or city funds or permit fees from existing businesses. So I think we need to have conversations with them. We need to be creative, and we need to be willing to step up as a more active partner and participant ourselves.

[07:55:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, anything else on that? Okay, we'll close this item. And next, is there a closed session report?

[07:56:07] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: We do not have a closed session report this morning.

[07:56:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, then we will adjourn this meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019, at 4:30 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 4:30 p.m. in the Plaza Conference room, 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →