June 11, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community and Capital Improvements Financing Authority

Video

Transcript

[00:00:33] Solid Waste Program Manager Lori Topley: Mayor and council members. I'm Lori Topley, and I'm the solid waste program manager, and I have with me tonight, Don Cameron, who is our assistant public works director. So the purpose of this study session is to present the draft 0 waste plan, and we're seeking input from the council and the public tonight, to be incorporated into a final plan. So 0 waste is a whole a whole system approach to the use of resources. So in addition to the efforts that we can make to reduce, reuse, recycle, compost, We 0 waste also requires that we address product and packaging design and producer and consumer responsibility for the end of life of their products. A year ago, the council adopted a 0 waste policy. The policy established a goal of achieving 90% diversion by 2030, which is an accepted benchmark of 0 waste success. The policy also includes following the principles of highest and best use, protecting natural resources and minimizing pollutants and toxins. So the city's made a lot of progress, since diversion efforts began in earnest in 1990, reducing landfilled waste nearly in half. Since 2005, employment and population growth has decreased our progress somewhat. This graphic shows our current diversion rate of 78%, and what landfill disposal would have been if we were at 90% diversion now. So the drafts are a waste plan provides a framework for accomplishing this goal. The plan also serves as a basis for new and revised contracts. The city must develop for collection, processing, and landfill services to replace the current agreements, which all expire at the end of 2021. Development of the plan began with an analysis of the city's single family commercial and construction debris waste streams, because multifamily programs have not changed my in recent years. Data from a 2010 analysis, was used for the plan. All materials found in the trash were assigned to a recoverability group based on whether they can currently be recycled or composted in the city's collection programs, or if they might possibly be recovered, if we made program or facility changes. So problem materials are those that are difficult to recover, such as typical diapers, pet waste, and also things that are composite materials, things that are stuck together. The pie chart shows the breakdown of single family, multifamily, and commercial waste, which you can see are fairly similar, and also the largest percentage of waste in each stream is food. To obtain public input before drafting the plans. Stakeholder interviews were held with a variety of interested parties, including residents, businesses, and nonprofits, and then using information from those interviews, and also about 0 waste best practices, a menu of policy program and infrastructure options were presented at the public workshop, and then we use that input to help prepare the draft plan. So the plan also takes into consideration upcoming regulations, developed by the state, to implement a short lived climate pollutant strategy. I always trip over that. That was adopted as part of Senate Bill 1383 in 2016. And since this is the most significant waste reduction mandate, we've seen in the last 30 years, I'd like to just take a few minutes to review it with you. Although the regulations aren't finalized yet, Cal Recycle anticipates having them ready by the end of 2019. So that's coming up fairly soon. One of the short-lived pollutants addressed in the legislation is methane. So to reduce methane emissions, SB 1383 has set a target of reducing the amount of landfill organics 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025, with an additional target of increasing the recovery of edible food by 20%. And all of those will be measured against a 2014 baseline. Because the targets are statewide and not jurisdiction specific. These regulations are very prescriptive. They include detailed actions. The city must take related to collection services, and food recovery programs, education and outreach, procurement, capacity analysis, enforcement, record keeping, and new reporting requirements. So the primary approach to meet that 75% reduction target is to require jurisdictions to provide organic collection service to every resident and business. And there's any one of 3 collection systems that you can use, Mountain View current usually uses a 3 container system. So while you can do one or 2 containers, the container that has the mixed waste in those systems, meaning the one that has the organics mixed with trash, has to be taken to a facility that can verify that that facility recovers 75% of the organics from that from that cart. So we think that's going to be a very difficult standard to me. So for now, this plan assumes that the city will continue with a 3 container collection system. In that case, the regulations prohibit residents. and businesses from placing any organic materials in the trash cart, and they require the city to enforce the prohibition. So enforcement begins with specified education efforts, and then moves into penalties for violations. Oops. The 0 waste plan covers a 10 year period and includes 38 initiatives arranged into short, medium and long-term time frames. We analyzed 8 different impact categories for each initiative, including the diversion potential, JHG reduction, staff needs, and one time costs. The mandatory participation enforcement program that I just spoke about for SB 1383 must be in place no later than January 1st, 2022. So that ordinance adoption is the 1st of the medium term initiatives, and then there's 8 other initiatives in the plan that are either partially or wholly related to SB 1383, including multifamily food scraps, and food donation, and 0 waste events, and all the technical assistance programs. The 11 actions that we've suggested to be taken over the first two years are focused on projects that are underway at the county level, that the city can leverage, such as expanding the food wear ordinance, programs that are already under development in the city, such as the multifamily and food scraps program, and large waste streams, such as food and construction materials. The medium term includes actions that can be taken during years 3 through 8. With an early focus, again, on that mandatory participation program. And then those actions that will likely require changes to our service provider agreements. So we've put those in medium term because that's the time period after 2021. And I've highlighted those in yellow text. And then after that, the focus shifts to food donation programs and problem materials, such as plastics, pet waste, and diapers. Then the actions suggested for the later years include a reconsideration of every other week garbage collection. And also, we put here mostly collaborative efforts, such as reusable filling stations, at stores, and packaging designs, things that we probably won't be able to do just on our own in Mountain View. So, taken all together, the 38 initiatives are estimated to divert 28,000 tons of material from landfill and reduce JHG emissions by more than 40,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. So, and we account for growth and disposal, based on the population estimate of the 2030 general plan, 28,000 tons of landfill reduction would bring us very close to that 90% diversion goal. So it's important to remember that the diversion potential that we've estimated is just that. It's a best estimate based on what we know right now about how programs can work. So we may hit 90% or more, or we might fall a bit short. And so that's why it will be necessary for us to monitor our progress annually and keep track of any new initiatives or programs that might come up that can be taken. Staff estimates the resources needed to implement the 0 waste plan and comply with the SV 1383 regulations will be substantial. We're estimating the equivalent of an additional 3.3 FTE of staffing resources, and for the one time costs, approximately $389,000. Ongoing costs for the initiatives that will require us to make changes to our service provider agreements. We haven't estimated yet, because those will be negotiated as part of those service agreements. But we also think that at least one new permanent FTE will be needed at the city staff level for the SV 1383 regulations, and then the additional FTE staffing could be a combination of hourly assistance, contract assistance, maybe even incorporated into some of those service provider agreements. So the staffing and one time cost needs will bring to you each year. We'll evaluate those and incorporate them into the annual budget process, and then funding for all the 0 waste actions would come from the solid waste fund, which, as you know, receives revenues from the garbage customers. So we'll use the input from the public in the council tonight to prepare the final plan, and we'll bring that to you for adoption in the fall. And at the same time in the fall, we'll have you evaluate options for the service provider agreements. And those have to be in place by the end of 2020. So we look forward to your, yes, it won't be long. We look forward to your comments on the draft plan, and I'll be happy to answer any questions, and I want to introduce Ruth Abby, who was our lead consultant in preparing the plan, and she'll help me with questions if you throw anything I can't answer.

[00:11:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. As I said, since this is a study session, we'll open it up for public comment. Can I see a show of hands with folks who want to speak? Okay. We can give you two minutes. Okay, so, um, two minutes, if you could fill out a blue card either before or after you speak, um, and leave it with our city clerk, that would be great. And, yeah, this is just on the zero waste topic.

[00:12:06] Pat Showalter: Hey, nice to see everybody tonight, and thank you for your service. I'm Pat Show Walter, a 35 year resident of Mountain View, and past member of this August body. And I just wanted to come and support this item. I, uh, It's very important from our sustainability efforts to follow through on this. And I particularly wanted to bring to your attention, page 32 of the draft plan, which lists the costs and the GHD savings of various items, and there are 3 things that are the highest. One is advocacy on state packaging. Another is technical assistance for food scraps, and another is technical assistance for construction. I also wanted to bring up that everybody wants to know what they can do to help the environment. And in this case, continuous education about the best way to recycle. I think is really worthwhile. while So having staff attend fairs, Thursday Night Live, uh, neighborhood, uh, get-togethers, all those things, is really a valid way for them to give little demos about how to recycle and what goes and which container. Because it's a little different in different jurisdictions and people get confused. So I would like to encourage that. And then another thing I'd like to see, move up on the timeline, if possible, is the food donation program. Here we are in the center of Silicon Valley with businesses that are, you know, household names across the whole world. And I think that it's a good, you know, this is the kind of, of, um, program that's reasonable and that our employers would like to take part in. They would like to contribute to the community, and they don't like waste. So I hope you'll consider moving that up. Thank you very much.

[00:14:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:14:14] Suzanne Martinez: Madam Mayor and members of the city council. My name is Suzanne Martinez, and I am a resident of old Mountain View. And I have sent you all a letter with detailing some concerns I have about item 29. But first, I want to say that the rest of the plan has a lot of really ambitious and good provisions, and I don't want to just be negative in talking about this one provision. But as it's written right now, it says that we would develop a pilot program to design every other week, and I noticed that in the presentation, Lori said, we would reconsider. And I thought it was extremely important that we acknowledge that we've had a pilot program, and there was high levels of dissatisfaction with it. And there were a lot of problems with diapers, food, pet waste, and the variety of things. So it's important, if we bring it up again, we talk about, we have a history here. The other thing, in conversations with the staff, they indicated that this would only be considered after other initiatives to reduce food waste going into the trash had been implemented. And I know that one of those would be the technical assistance and outreach programs that they're talking about. And if you look at Old Mountain View, which had the program for 18 months, the rate of moving food waste out of the trash is much higher than other areas of the city. And that shows that over time, you can develop and learn, as you're going forward. And I think making those two changes would be important. to show that it's been tried, and that it would only be considered if other options have failed. But I also want to say it's too narrowly focused. If we are not reaching our goals. We ought to consider other things, and I listed, in my letter, a couple of other proposals that I've seen other cities around the country are using. One in particular, the small food waste container would be very valuable to add to our current program. Thank you.

[00:16:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:16:23] Bruce Carney: Good evening. I'm Bruce Carney. I chaired the environmental sustainability task force that presented its recommendations to the council a year ago. And as you may recall, dealing with solid waste and the emissions from solid waste was the subject of 3 or 4 of our recommendations, and I'm really happy to see that this plan echoes and amplifies what the task force recommended. Solid waste doesn't get the kind of media attention that electric self-driving cars do, but methane is a short term and very environmentally devastating pollutant. And so everything that we can easily do to reduce the amount of methane from organics is a step in the right direction. I've lived in Mountain View almost 40 years, and I remember when you could put out as many bags of trash as you wanted for one flat rate, and they would be dumped in a hole in the ground that is now shoreline amphitheater. I'm happy to see that over the decades, Mountain View has moved from being a city proud of its garbage dump to a city that's proud of its sustainability efforts, and it's worked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I'm sure that whatever plans are developed for the frequency and sorting of materials put in, recycling, trash, compost, with a good outreach and education. The bright residents of Mountain View will all figure it out, and will adhere to it. I know that when I look at the lids of my trash containers, It's not exactly obvious, even for a native English speaker, what is supposed to go where? And sometimes things that were accepted once, like number one plastic clamshells are no longer accepted. So there's this need for ongoing education and enforcement. But certainly, I look forward each week to filling up my compost card or getting as close as I can to putting that 100 gallons in there. My yard keeps generating more and more, every week. So thanks and congratulations and let's move forward on this.

[00:18:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:18:26] Heidi Melander: Good evening. My name is Heidi Melander. I'm a 15 year resident of Mountain View, and I'm just excited to finally see a huge 0 waste effort going on. This is my field of work, so I've been following this for many years, and I'm excited to see that there's so much movement on the sustainability and 0 waste here in Mountain View. I've been very active. I have a 10 year old and at Springer Elementary and I've been really active for her kindergarten through 4th grade years trying to get recycling. Luckily, somebody had already kind of created a program at our school before I got there and I've been working on it consistently for 5 years. And, um, I'll appreciate any additional help that we can do in schools because I really believe that if we can at least focus some effort at the schools that we get that message home also. And, um, it requires with new students coming in every year and teacher turnover and parent turnover, it requires a lot of attention and, um, support and I will continue my efforts and I look forward to city support as well. And the city has been very supportive, but it just requires constant care and maybe something a little unique to excite people about it a little more than volunteer parents can get going. So thank you very much.

[00:19:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who wishes to provide input on the 0 waste plan? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it to council for questions before we get into answering the questions that staff asks us. So any questions from council members? None? Okay, then, uh, we can go into comments. Um, we had three questions and then, uh, any other input we would like to provide? We're pretty quiet today. You're quiet. Council member Clark.

[00:20:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: I guess it'll be... it's more a question than a comment. So, um, the, uh, Can you share what would be involved in, um, so we participate in this in my business. We just, in terms of food, you know, excess food that we have after meals, we just partner with a volunteer organization. I mean, would it be difficult to move that up into an earlier phase or what is the level of, I guess, effort that will be put into that?

[00:21:28] Staff Member Laurie: So you're talking about the commercial food donation portion. So, One of the things that will be required to do under SB 1383 is to touch all of the businesses who are in the tier one and tier 2 categories and help them find and set up these programs. So, Right now, we don't have a huge staff resource estimated for it, but that's partly because it's a little farther out in the plan, and things are happening right now that I think might make that easier for us later. So, for example, we've been as a county wide group, funding the a la carte food truck program, which is one of the ways that those businesses are getting food out. And we've also been doing some studies to find out what the infrastructure is that's available and things that we might be able to fund at a county wide level to help develop the infrastructure a little bit more. So if we go out too early, we might end up having to provide too many staff resources to that effort.

[00:22:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: I see. So part of the timing consideration is either a state mandate, so everyone's going to be doing this at some point. And so it makes sense. And the base is being built kind of right now. So there are sort of economies of scale of everyone, sort of.

[00:22:53] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Exactly. Laurie, I don't know if you're familiar with this, but I have a recollection that Joint Venture Silicon Valley is actually running a food donation or...

[00:23:04] Staff Member Laurie: So that's the a la carte? Okay. program that I was talking about, and that was partially funded from countywide efforts. And my countywide group, where all the cities work together. We're still very much involved in, uh, helping Silicon Valley joint venture grow that program.

[00:23:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anything else? Council member McAllister?

[00:23:28] Councilmember John McAlister: My comments are very brief that I think you guys are an excellent job, considering that government always gives you direction and funding it and more guidance, so I think you did a great job in that aspect, I wholeheartedly support everything that is recommended, and I trust staff on this one.

[00:23:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[00:23:51] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So the public speakers all kind of stole my lines, all the things I was going to comment on the staff report, which is a good thing I like when I agree with the public speakers. Um, So I would just agree that, uh, I was going to single out, uh, exactly the things that Pat show Walter singled out, uh, as giving us the biggest bang for the buck, which is, um, item number 3 state packaging. I think really when I toured the various recycling centers. The thing that most impressed me was that there were some things that could not be recycled, and that when I spoke to staff there, they said, yeah, we should lobby to not, you know, at the source, not make those things anymore, switch that often it seems, I mean, as somebody who's not a manufacturer, I'll say it seems very simple, to switch from one form of packaging that is recyclable to another so that I think that kind of lobbying has a lot of potential, and I would like that. You know, it's one of your items. It's listed as one of the items with the most potential, and I would just beef that up as much as possible. Another is, um, well, two kinds of education, the number 10, residential assistance, and number 11, uh, technical assistance to contractors. It's also my experience that when I, my family and I try to recycle. We do it, like, all wrong all the time, every time. Every time I talk to people, you know, professionals about it. There's more to learn. So that seems to have a lot of potential for, you know, for getting more of more waste recycled. And I agree with the speaker who said that, uh, using our schools as, is, our schools are one of the primary sites that we could do education. And as she said, there's a lot of turnover at schools. You know, like every decade or so, it seems like it's all new parents, all new kids, and a lot of new teachers. So it's something that it's a source that could, we could continually renew that education. Let's see if I had, and the other thing that I think might be quite useful is that when you go from city to city, what's recyclable and how it's done is really different. So if I go to another city, and I'm trying to throw away my packaging, and there are different bins, you know, one recycling, trash, and something else, paper, um, I never know what to put my, whatever I'm holding in my hand. I don't know what to put where. So I think consistency, some regional consistency would also be very, very helpful. I think that's most of my most of my comments for now.

[00:26:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[00:26:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and thank you to staff for, um, I know you've worked on this for quite a while and worked really hard, and I think we didn't have very many questions because it was quite comprehensive, and I appreciate that. So thank you. Yeah, I don't have a lot to say. I think what's been said by the public. I agree with. Um, yeah, I, from, I'm looking, definitely looking forward to item number two, the multifamily food scraps collection. I know we've done a pilot program, and if anything I've heard in the public, that's the program that folks are really looking forward to. Um, I guess my question, if it is a question, is, um, like, would that, would 4, on medium turn, would that, like, would it, could it, go together, or is there a reason why it comes after implementation of the collection? Just because as we were talking, like, you know, there's just a lot of education, I think that folks need to know what needs to go into what's been, and I mean, I still don't. Yeah, and I still don't know if I'm doing it. I don't think I'm doing it right either, but as we roll out a program, should we be rolling out the education program with it?

[00:28:09] Staff Member Laurie: Were you, I'm sorry, were you referring to a specific media term program?

[00:28:13] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So it's 2 on short term, the multifamily food scraps collection. Is that tied to in the median term, the technical number four, technical assistance for multifamily and commercial customers?

[00:28:27] Staff Member Laurie: 14?

[00:28:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Oh, sorry. I'm on the staff report page seven. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. I'm looking at the medium term.

[00:28:34] Staff Member Laurie: So you're talking about number 15, which is technical assistance for multifamily and commercial customers.

[00:28:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Yeah.

[00:28:39] Staff Member Laurie: So, the implementation of the food scraps is really more focused on getting those complexes into the food scraps program and the technical assistance is something we actually do some of that right now, but we only have one person doing it. And they go in and look at everything, looking at the recycling, looking at food scraps. So, and it might even be a follow-up from a customer who already implemented food scraps, but then new people came in to live there. So you've got to constantly be going back and refreshing.

[00:29:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, yeah. And is that is it the lag time, I guess, because You just need the staffing for you? Yeah.

[00:29:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[00:29:25] Staff Member Laurie: Yeah. And also, I think this is one that we had tagged as possibly being able to get some more resources from the collection service agreement. And so again, I've got some things in the medium term that may be easier and better to implement with the new service agreements. And so some of these things are there for that reason.

[00:29:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great.

[00:29:47] Unknown Speaker: And if I may add, I think, Laurie, what you were saying is item number two, which is the rollout, does include technical assistance. Okay. But it's a much greater effort to do a rollout, get these things set up, provide the techno assistance. Once we've done that, and we get to the medium term, now we need to continue with technical assistance, and that's what you're seeing in the medium term.

[00:30:09] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. All right. Thank you. Um, and then, you know, there was, um, um, Ms. Martinez and, um, there, I remember there was quite a bit of consternation when they were doing the pilot program for, um, composting and the, you know, every week versus every other week, garbage pickup, and I know that's way back, way down the road, but, um, my hope is that when we do all the other things, we won't have to get there, but, um, just, yeah, I, I want to be mindful of the the public interest on that. that we be sure to do public outreach when we get there. Um, I think that's it. Thank you.

[00:31:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[00:31:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, and similarly, my comments will be pretty brief. I support all of the initiatives that staff has proposed in the order in which they are proposed. I think so I wanted to highlight the every other week, the garbage collection as well. So I support it. I think it's appropriately classified as a long-term initiative. You know, it's, I think we're all sensitive to the inconvenience, inconvenience it poses to folks who produce a lot of garbage, and I'm thinking in particular about larger families or, you know, I know it's a few years out, but to the extent, we still have the challenge of overcrowding in households. It could pose a very, you know, severe impact to residents. So likewise, I hope that, you know, by the time we implement most of the other initiatives, then that particular initiative will be relatively not trivial, but less harmful, I guess, in its impact. But otherwise, I think this is a great plan and I support it wholeheartedly.

[00:32:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Komei.

[00:32:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. I just had a question and a comment. So my question is, um, staff has referenced, um, the 90% goal, um, for 2030. And I was just curious, and I was trying to look through one last time on the staff report just now. How often will staff be reviewing our progress towards that 90% reduction goal? Can you refresh my memory?

[00:32:41] Staff Member Laurie: Well, we're forced to review it annually by this date. And so we do that. And usually, we have a new diversion calculation by August first. That's when things get finalized. So we don't normally provide that information directly to the council sort of just starts to leak out when we start talking about our latest diversion rate. So, but I think since we'll have to be talking about staffing needs and costs at the budget every year, we can certainly be providing a short update on how we're doing what we've rolled out, how it's gone, that sort of thing.

[00:33:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I don't know if I'm my colleagues, but I'd be interested because I know that these efforts, there's a lot of overlap with our sustainability goals as well. So I know that when we talked about our sustainability goals is making sure that we're tracking those so that we're meeting them. I think that this would be another opportunity to just see our progress. Um, And then for the, um, I think I, last year there was the stakeholder meeting, and I remember at the table I was sitting at, there was comments, um, in terms of composting and having opportunities for those who live, um, in, um, apartment complexes to be able to, to utilize, um, more opportunities to compost, people at my table were offering where they live, for people to come, drop and do composting. So I think, um, kind of similar to what customer Ramirez was saying, you know, for those who are maybe living, um, in tighter quarters and things like that, it would be good to make sure that we're also having, um, composting opportunities there. But really, um, thankful for all the robust work that's happened and the ability I need to go and visit the recycling site. Also, it was really great in anticipation of this. So thank you.

[00:34:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I didn't have any questions, but um, and I didn't have anything I wanted to exclude or include. Um, but I did have some that I wanted to rearrange, and I sent in, um, my ideas to Lori earlier today. And that was, um, I did want to see if we could put, um, the technical assistance to schools, the diapers and the pet waste into a more short term focus than the medium term where they are now. And those are numbers, I think it's 14, 27 and 28. Um, because up from, I've heard from quite a few people that schools would appreciate some more help from the city, as well as I appreciate the comment that if you get to the kids, sometimes you get to the whole family. In addition, I just think it's good to get kids started early on recycling. And then the 2 items that I heard the most about when we did the pilot on the every other week, waste collection, garbage collection, were concerns about diapers and pet waste. So, it'd be great if we could address those, I think, sooner, rather than later. So, um, I was wondering what you all think what staff thinks about those three moving them up.

[00:36:01] Staff Member Laurie: Well, moving anything around will require us to go back and reevaluate the staffing resources, which we can do. The school initiative, in particular, has a like a 20% FTE estimate. So that one will, if we want to move that in the short term, it definitely means we're going to be doing something a little different in the short term. For example, maybe we don't roll out as many multifamily complexes or we, you know, we do that a little bit slower so we can deploy some of the resources we were going to use for that. to the school assistance or we could look at other things and come back to you at the final with a suggestion of what we might move, but we definitely will have some impact there. For the pet waste and diaper initiatives. They're not as heavy of a staffing resource, but I think it's maybe a little bit more strategy. kind of what I was talking about earlier is that, you know, in the short and medium term, in the beginning, in the medium term, we're really going to be focused on really the big stuff, the food and the construction waste. And, you know, residents really can only take so many messages at a time. And I think that once we, especially if the mandatory participation program works well. I think when residents start seeing what's left, and they're over the big shock of, we're really going to make you move your food, then they see what's left. I think they might be more receptive to us coming along and saying, okay, now we're going to help you with what's left. So there's a little bit of strategy in there. But we can certainly think about it and we'll talk about it with you when we come back with the final.

[00:37:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I don't know if other council members have an interest in hearing about that, or is it just me?

[00:38:02] Unknown Speaker: Well, I'd have an interest. You know, the plan, the way it's laid out, seems really logical and well thought out, but if you're gonna come back to us anyway. Maybe, I also think the mayor's, um, you know, it makes good sense what she's saying. So coming back with sharing the impact, and then we can all decide, which makes more sense.

[00:38:25] Unknown Speaker: Sounds good to me.

[00:38:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Others, can we just do a show of hands? Are folks interested in hearing that?

[00:38:36] Unknown Speaker: Sure.

[00:38:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I want to make sure we're clear on our direction to staff. I see the thumbs up from the city manager. And then I do have concerns about the way, item 29, every other week, garbage collection is positioned. And I agree that maybe, um, we should position this as, you know, we're going to consider, like you said, during your presentation, rather than saying we're going to do a pilot or we're just, we're moving to this. I would like it to be more um, Or I guess I should say, I'd like it to be less certain and more about we're going to be taking a look at this because it does depend quite a bit on what we're able to accomplish with all the other activities that go on before that. But I think for the sake of our residents, we need to be careful about how we position this. So I tweak that a little bit. And then, um, I do have an interest in moving construction debris to the high diversion facility, and you had talked about that in, you know, do we want to look at that for the new contract, and I do. I think that would be a good thing to consider. Um, Anyone else?

[00:40:04] Unknown Speaker: Nope.

[00:40:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Good, it's good. Okay. Then, um, I guess we can.

[00:40:13] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, just, I mean, there were several items brought up that weren't necessarily clear. I mean, I think most of you express the same concern about the every other week and tweaking how we frame that, but just to get nodding heads on that. would be helpful. And then I think your last suggestion on the construction, the high diversion, as you have clarity on that one. Is that a?

[00:40:42] Unknown Speaker: Yes, that is something that would need to be considered as part of the rework of the contracts. And so, uh, the plan says, let's take a look at that. It's definitely something to see.

[00:40:52] City Manager Dan Rich: And so, I think, Miramad, I was just emphasizing that she likes that idea. There were a couple other things brought up, but I didn't hear Lots of council members say it, but we could go through some of those.

[00:41:10] Councilmember John McAlister: I have a question on your school. Does the service provider have outreach to the schools, do we know?

[00:41:18] Unknown Speaker: We have one person who does technical assistance to multifamily commercial and schools, but we haven't had a focus on that because of the state mandate, that we have to be providing compost service to certain businesses, and we haven't quite caught up with that. So the answer is, the short answer is yes. The long answer is, We don't really have enough resource to be having that be a priority right now.

[00:41:47] Councilmember John McAlister: A service provider. Recology have an outreach to this person that goes to the schools.

[00:41:52] Unknown Speaker: That, well, that outreach person does a lot of things and like that person's not been having a big focus on schools.

[00:41:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But yeah, also I think schools are very important, I think, I think, Heather, for her, rather. Letter, and I think, you know, everything that we do anyway, socially, or environmentally, we used to start with the kids and just get them, that's automatic. That's their train of thought, and they go that way. So anything that will help the schools and implement these projects, I'll support you 100% on that. Nice mayor.

[00:42:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, cooker.

[00:42:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: I support that, but I thought I heard that it would take away from the multifamily program, is that right? Or did I...

[00:42:36] Unknown Speaker: What we're saying is it, because it would require 20% of a full-time staff position that we don't already have designated in the short term, in order to pursue that. We would have to bring you options of what other short term initiatives to move out to the middle midterm.

[00:42:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. So something has to give.

[00:42:57] Unknown Speaker: What Lori was suggesting is we can bring it back as an alternative of, if you want to move schools up, this is how we gain that 20% staff time back, these are the things we'd have to move out to the midterm.

[00:43:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. I'm open to seeing that. But yeah, it will really depend on what we'd have to give up and I really believe that given is it 60% of our residents live in multi-family developments that we need to move forward with that as a priority. Thanks.

[00:43:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Those kids live in multifamily, too. So you hit them through the school, therefore they'll get to the multifamily. We have to get that program off the ground.

[00:43:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments? Okay, then we will close this item. And, much to my surprise, we got through it much faster than we thought. And our regular council meeting starts at 6.30. So we will adjourn the study session and come back by 6.30.

[00:44:01] Unknown Speaker: John, do you know your house is on fire? There's a power outage in our

[00:44:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we will call to order the regular meeting of the council, and we will start with the pledge of allegiance. So if you will join me. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.. In the bar, city clerk would announce the attendance?

[00:44:50] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:44:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. We are going to start tonight with a presentation, and it is the recognition of the Mountain View and Los Altos Union High School District Athletic Teams. So I would like to invite the superintendent, Jeff Harding of the Mountain View Los Altos High School District, as well as all of the athletes that are here tonight. It looks like there's quite a crowd. If you could come up here to the lectern, You guys can come on over more. Do have even more? Well, thank you all for joining us. This is really exciting. So before I give you the certificates, recognizing your accomplishments, I do want to share with everyone here tonight, some facts about these talented teams. The Los Altos high school girls, water polo team, beat Mountain View in the CCS Division one championship game this past season. They qualified for Norcal, which is which was unfortunately canceled due to the smoke. But the team finished with a 1613 record, and they are CCS Division one back to back champions. There's one. Michelle Knowett, our athletic record from Los Altos. He's here, and we also have a principal Saturday. Yeah, yeah. Well, thank you all for coming. So a couple more effects. The Los Altos High School Girls volleyball team was 339 for the season. They won Norkel against Aragon High School and moved on to place 2nd at state. They had a total of 187 blocks, 15.6 digs per set, 299 serving aces, and 11 kills per set, which are, which all are higher than the national average. half of that one. And Los Altos High School Girls Gymnastics has won the Santa Clara Valley Athletic League three years in a row. They are 2018 and 2019 back to back CCS champions. They had one individual CCS champion, 2 2nd place finishes, and 2 third place finishes in individual events. The Mountain View High School Boys basketball team, which I think we have a few here. They beat Leland in the CCS Division 2 championship this past season. They finished with a 245 record, as well as a Dianza League championship. This was the 2nd CCS title for Mountain View Boys basketball in the last 3 years. The 1st 2 ever for boys, basketball at Mountain View. They also won the 1st Norcal State Tournament game in school history at the Central Catholic in Modesto. And one more. The Mountain View High, boys, varsity basketball team was 2011, 1, for the season, including a CCS Division 1 championship, beating Leland 65 in the finals. They stole a CCS best in one of 132 bases this season as a program. They had over 300 stolen bases in the last 3 seasons. So let's give them all around our replies. This is incredible. And we do have certificates for you. And did anyone want to say anything? Well, I'll let you guys pass out. Did you want to say anything, Joe?

[00:50:04] Principal Dave Grayson: Hi, I'm Dave Grayson, the principal at Mountain View High School. Just want to honor our 2 coaches. Kevin Mac, our boys basketball coach. Wait, come back. Is that to say baseball or basketball on it? All right, sweet. And first ever, Coach Chris, come on up. First ever CCS title in boys baseball at Mountain View High School. Congratulations.

[00:50:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And, Michelle, would you come up on behalf of the coaches from Los Altos? We have a beautiful certificate of recognition for girls' gymnastics. Right here. Girls volleyball, second place in state championship. And girls water polo, two years in a row, CCS champs.

[00:51:10] Athletic Director Michelle Knowett: Thank you for having us here today. You know, it's really an honor. The CCS Central Coast section. There's well over 100 schools. So it's really says a lot when a team can win at that level. And besides that, many of our teams are acknowledged for their academics and their grade point average as well as their athletics. So we're very proud of our students, and we look forward to another great season next year. Thank you for the recognition.

[00:52:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, next on the 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. The reading of the full text of ordinances and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Are there any items that the council wishes to pull? Are there any members of the audience wishing to pull an item?

[00:52:50] Public Speaker: Yes. Yeah, I'd like to pull the item, the second reading of the marijuana ordinance. My concern, I know that good people debate about whether marijuana is a good thing and whether the stories are a good thing. The concern I want to raise tonight is that when the council took an action, what was it, May 23rd, there really wasn't the public didn't know that that action was on the table. Sure, there were a lot of people from the public who wanted to not have marijuana businesses in Mountain View. But I'm concerned that it was a bait and switch situation. And I hope the council will think about reversing that. Thank you.

[00:53:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else wishing to pull an item or have comments on an item from the audience? Okay, seeing none. Uh, motion. We should do, we have a few announcements we need to make on this. Council member Clark.

[00:53:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'll start. So for item 4.6, the proposed capital improvement program. It's a two-part resolution. So on part resolution part two. I'll be recusing myself due to an interest in real property from the 20 to 61 El Camino Real bike improvements in the 22 46 El Camino Real bike improvements. So I'll just be recording a recusal for that portion of the consent counter.

[00:54:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abbe Koga?

[00:54:31] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. I also, on item 4.6. Actually, on item one, the adoption of the CIP and the AGT phase 2 study, I will be registering a no vote on the HET study, and then I will be recusing myself on, is it item 3? I believe the downtown precise plan update due to real property I own in the downtown area. And I think those are the two.

[00:54:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Kame?

[00:55:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: For item 4.6, I will also be recusing myself from resolution one, 20 dash 59, the automated guideway transportation phase 2 feasibility study, as well as 24 dash 40, the Moffat Boulevard, Class 4 Bikeway, Middlefield Clark, Preliminary Design, because of real property, at least, in the area.

[00:55:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[00:55:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I will also be recusing myself for item three, the downtown precise plan update because I have real property in the vicinity. And I will be registering a no vote on resolution one, the CIP 20 dash 59 for the HGT phase 2. And

[00:55:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[00:56:03] Councilmember John McAlister: This is all new to me, this accusal stuff, so... I'm recuse my cell phone. Item 4.7.

[00:56:16] Unknown Speaker: I think you meant 4.2.

[00:56:19] Councilmember John McAlister: That two? 4.2? Which is 777 West Malfield. Oh, okay. I've got the 7s mixed up. I will recuse myself on 4.2. And, um, What about 4.6? And I think the same as Council member Clark on the 2nd resolution in item 4.6 that involves El Camino Rio. I had more. And I'll recuse myself on 4.6 resolution 2.

[00:56:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any others? Okay, council member Ramirez.

[00:56:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I have the privilege to demonstrate to the community that I am literate. So, I move to approve the consent calendar, including for 4.one, adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager, or his designee to execute a side letter amending the memorandum of understanding between the International Association of Firefighters, local 1965, and the city for July 1st, 2017 through June 30th, 2020, establishing a replacement career development program to be implemented the pay period, including July 1st, 2019, authorizing the city manager or his designee to set the compensation for the career development program classifications system and revise the city of Mountain View's salary plan for fiscal year 2019 to 20 to reflect these compensation changes to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Adopt a resolution establishing a replacement career development program for unrepresented fire managers to be implemented the pay period, including July 1st, 2019, to be read in title only for the reading waived. 4.2. Adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map for the property located at 777 West Middlefield Road from the R3-2 multiple family zoning district to the P planned community zoning district to be read entitled only further reading waived. 4.3. Adopt an ordinance amending chapter 15, Article 2 of the Mountain View City code related to mobile vendors to be read entitled only further reading waived. 4.4. Adopt an ordinance amending cannabis regulations in Article 9, division 21 of chapter 36 to prohibit storefront retail cannabis businesses within the city, maintain existing sensitive use buffers, establish a minimum distance of 600 feet between cannabis businesses, and establish a maximum number of non-storefront cannabis businesses to 3 in the city, to be read entitled only further reading waived. Introduce an ordinance amending cannabis regulations in Article 5, Division 2, in Article 6, Divisions 2, and 3, of chapter 36, to amend land use and permitting requirements to prohibit storefront retail cannabis businesses within the city, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a 2nd reading for June 25, 2019. Adopt a resolution amending the P19 downtown precise plan, the P38 El Camino Real Precise Plan, and the P39 North Bayshore Precise Plan to prohibit storefront retail cannabis businesses within their boundaries to be read entitled only further reading waived. Adopt a resolution amending the city of Mountain View master fee scheduled to modify the cannabis business registration fee. to be read entitled only further reading waived. Adopt a resolution establishing a cannabis tax rate of 9% of grocery receipts to be read entitled only further reading waived. 4.5. Adopt an ordinance approving a zoning map amendment for the properties located at 1696 to 1758 Villa Street from the R3-2 multiple family residential and R1 single family residential districts to the P17 Villa Mariposa Precise Plan. 4.6. Adopt a resolution, approving capital improvement projects, 20 dash 59, automated guideway transportation phase 2, feasibility study, and 24 dash 40, Moffat Boulevard, Class 4 bike way, Middlefield dash to Clark, Preliminary design, identified in the fiscal years 2019 to 20 through 23 to 24 capital improvement program to be read entitled only further reading waived. Adopt a resolution approving capital improvement projects, 20 61, El Camino Real, bike improvements, design, and 22 46, El Camino Real, bike improvements, Shoreline Maramonte, the Rainstorf, construction identified in fiscal years 2019 to 20 through 23 to 24 capital improvement program to be read entitled only for their reading waived. Adopt a resolution, approving capital improvement project 20 66, downtown precise plan update, identified in the fiscal years 2019 to 20 through 23 to 24 capital improvement program, to be read, entitle only further reading waived. Adopt a resolution, approving the remainder of the proposed fiscal years, 2019 to 20 through 23 to 24 capital improvement program, including amendments to existing projects, and excluding the shoreline regional park community, to be read, entitle only, further reading waived, adopt a resolution approving the proposed fiscal years 2019 to 20 through 23 to 24 capital improvement program for the Shoreline Regional Park community, Including amendments to existing projects to be read entitled only further reading waived. We have done a lot in the past six months.

[01:02:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, council member Ramirez. So we have a motion by Council member Ramirez, and a 2nd by me. And is there any other discussion? And we are ready to vote? Well, most of us are ready to vote. That passes unanimously, and all of the recusals and no votes are recorded. Okay, thank you. Next item is item five, which 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 up to 3 minutes. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. So if there are folks who want to talk about items that are not on the agenda, if you could be sure to fill out a blue card. and leave it with our city clerk, and it looks like there's only a couple. You can have 3 minutes. And I bet I know what your topic is.

[01:03:29] Albert Jeans: Hi, my name is Albert Jeans, 35 year old resident of Mountain View, near Matachek council members. Today, I like to talk about my one of my favorite topics, which is traffic. Last month, he approved 777 West Middlefield, possibly the largest apartment complex ever started in Mountain View. And one of the entrances is on Shoreline Boulevard. And this is despite lack of a credible traffic impact analysis. Now these traffic consultants are also doing analyses for other projects all over the city, including some of the traffic, you know, related ones. And so what this amounts to is we're going forward here with no idea, what the traffic impact will be of all these projects, because all these analyses are actually faulty. So I'd like to show a video of a possible result of this, because we know if you go forward without a plan, odds are it's not going to turn out favorably. This is taken by my friend Joel Dean. He's often out on Shoreline taking videos of the traffic there. He's standing at the corner of Terabelle and Shoreline on a typical morning. And you'll see a fire truck coming in the distance. I don't know if we got sounder or not. There we go. Great. So you can guess what's gonna happen. You don't see it here, but the Shoreline Terabella exit is gridlocked as usual. This is an intersection, which is rated B plus by the traffic analyst, which means average of 11 seconds delay. This is clearly not the case. And just points to the fallacy of all these traffic reports that we get. Now imagine you're weighing down somewhere with a heart attack, waiting for help. And you're waiting for this fire engine to get to you, and it's caught in traffic or an ambulance or some other emergency vehicle. It's rather unusual here, because actually southbound is also clogged, so you can't just cut over, cut over on the other side and use that. He's waiting, he's waiting. Because it's clogged all the way over to pear, probably. Remember, time is going by. You know, time is important when you have an emergency if your house is burning down or something like that. So traffic has real implications on people's lives. if it's not controlled properly. It's not like people have anywhere to go. I mean, the road is just jam packed. So finally, the, yeah, either people are able to move over or the light changed on the other side, he's able to go forward. That's a long time to wait if you're, you know, hanging on to life somewhere. So I urge you to think more about getting decent traffic analysis done with all these projects that are going on in Mountain View. Thank you.

[01:06:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:06:44] Ilya Guerin: My name is Ilya Guerin. I have been a Mountain View resident for 9 years. Mountain View residents voted in 3 elections to approve marijuana businesses, including retail in the city. And now the council is voting to change the most recently approved plan. I do not believe that council has a mandate for such a change without another public vote. I believe that residents and council have been presented with a false choice between marijuana and no marijuana. The real choice is between legal regulated taxed sales to individuals with ID on the one hand, and on the other hand, illegal, underground, dangerous sales of product, probably grown on our national forest land. So I urge council to reconsider. Thank you.

[01:07:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council on an item not on the agenda?

[01:07:55] Kristen: Hello. My name is Kristen. Uh, you probably remember me from last week, uh, resident of, you know, Mount V 10 years. I'm here to talk to you a little bit about the homelessness here, Mountain View, and just a few things that we can provide for them as a city. would be lockers, large lockers. If you think about it, whenever you want to go and do things, if you're having to carry everything with you, it makes it more limited. Example would be having some large lockers, obviously not size somebody can live in, sleep in, but something large enough for a bedroll, a backpack, suitcase, possibly. Examples of places to put it would be at the Mountain View workers' day center. That way they can put their things. I've talked with some homeless people that have signed up, but haven't utilized the program, because they have no safe place to put their things. Another thing would be in front of grocery stores. You know, you want to have your stuff safe and be able to go in and shop. Another service would be similar to Digney on Wheels, which is a service, Emma San Mateo, that offers showers, some washer and dryers. I know at the CSA, the service agency here off of Sterling. On Thursdays, they do have health mobile services. And so if you could have the same services for them, that would be on the same, you know, coinciding the same thing. That way people can go ahead and shower, and have clean clothes and take care of themselves. as well as I haven't looked at the location, but portalettes, you know, for people to go to. The last thing I request is to update the city of Mountain View website. If you go on there to try and find services available for homeless, if you're homeless and you go on there trying to see what's available, you have to literally go I had to write this down, but you go under services, resident services, then you click on neighborhood and housing, then you click on information who are homeless or living in vehicles. So you have to click all of that. And then you find a link, you have to click on one more thing. You find the information at the bottom of that page. So it's really not helpful. I request that on the front page of the city of Mountain View website, that you have services for homelessness and make it that simple. And at that, then provide specific dates and times. Right now when you read through it, you guys are all, yay, we're doing this, but you don't put any specifics of when things are happening, and when they can take advantage of those services. You direct people to the CSA website and on there, they only say, here come in, see a counselor. So I'd like to just update the website, say here on Thursdays, you can go to this. City of Mountain View provides these services to take care of yourself. Thank you.

[01:11:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Next, please. You know what? If you could refrain from clapping, at the meetings, we like to maintain order here and we would prefer folks do not clap or boo or any other things like that. We just want to listen respectfully to what people have to say.

[01:11:22] Alex Brown: Hey Alex Brown. Uh, I'd also love for good homeless services to help homeless. But I wanted to echo earlier's statement from earlier. I'd love to see a direct referendum in the city on the presence and availability of retail cannabis, particularly if it's if the taxes are tied to something that could benefit the people of Mountain View, like infrastructure projects to update our city and prepare us for the next century. Broadband. Thank you

[01:11:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else wishing to address the council? on items not on the agenda. Yeah.

[01:11:57] Megan Freely: Hi, my name is Megan Freely, I'm Mountain View resident, and I'm here to both apologize to counsel. Last week. I was, I think it was just last week or 2 weeks ago. I was here, and in my impassioned state, yelled something out, and I wanted to apologize to the council for kind of disrupting. I know that, and I want to specifically apologize to Mayor Matachak. I know that maintaining a room where there are such deeply felt passions and sometimes divided opinions can be a very, very challenging thing to do. And I want to say thank you for doing so with such grace. And I hope you all will accept my apology. I want to speak a little more to civility and what I will attempt to hold myself to as much as I can. And I have impulse control issues once in a while when I feel a passion. So I will try to do better tonight. But on the topic of civility. I started facilitating a political book club about 8 years ago. And every, at the beginning of every book club, we would read timely tips for having a civil political dialogue. So I thought I would share them and hopefully all of us tonight can come from a place of love because civility is about being a citizen and showing respect and tolerance for differences and yet coming together for the better kind of humanity. And I think that's what each and every one of us is here for tonight. So timely tips that I shall try to hold myself to. And hopefully some others of us. Do your homework to build depth behind your convictions. Number two, show empathy and tolerance for differences. Number three, manners are the lubricating oil of good political discussions. Number four, when caught off guard take time to think before engaging in speech. Number five, avoid name calling, use statements, and should talk. Number six, seek to 1st understand by mastering the art of listening, and then the use of engaging questions. Number seven, use the power of a positive pause to surface more understanding and deeper insights. Number eight, when it's your turn to speak, be more on focused on what you're for rather than what you are against. Nine, be able to admit your own mistakes and the mistakes of your own party. 10, use humor to diffuse a difficult situation. 11, instead of hammering your position home, be ready to take distance from a difficult conversation and to let others think. And number 12, know when to end a fruitless conversation. Thank you.

[01:14:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you, and thank you for the apology. I appreciate it. Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on an item not on the agenda tonight? Okay, seeing none, we'll close that portion of the meeting. And we will move on to item six, which is a public hearing for fiscal year 2019, 2020 proposed budget. And we will start with a staff presentation. If you could also introduce yourselves.

[01:14:49] Unknown Speaker: So I will be making the presentation tonight. You're gonna turn this way. I will be supported by Jesse Takahashi, our new finance administrative service director, as well as Susie and Anne on the other side, and Lauren, I think, is somewhere out there who helped us with the budget process as well. So thank you to all of them. And I'm going to actually try to do my own clicking. We'll see how that works. It may not work. What am I pointing at? All right, Susie will click for me. So much for technology. Or Jesse will click for me. Oh, Jesse will click for me. Okay, just as a refresher. So the budget is a very long and thorough process. It actually starts for staff back in November. The slide before you kind of highlights where council and the public have interacted with the process. Most significantly on April 25th where we presented the narrative budget. That was a very extensive presentation. So I'm going to go through the slides tonight fairly quickly, but focusing on those things that are new since the narrative. Okay, so this slide shows us the total budget for the city for all funds, 450 million with the general operating fund, obviously, being the biggest chunk there, but shoreline at 120 million pretty sizable piece as well. And then you look at all the expenditures for all funds. I think this is the 1st time we've ever crossed the half $1000000 mark for expenditures, which is a lot of money. But if you're looking closely, that number significantly larger than the revenue, one on the previous slide, and the reason for that is a lot of capital projects and one time things that are taken from fund balances and reserves, as well as carry over funds from fund balances. So that's why those numbers don't quite match up. This slide compares last year's actual final numbers where we expect to end up the current year on June 30th and then the proposed 1920 budget. And so just to point you to the bottom line there for the current year, we're estimating that after transfers, and there are a number of transfers shown there after those transfers, we would have a balance of about $4.3 million left. And for the proposed budget, the fund balance after the recommended expenditures and transfers would be $2.5 million. So then we really focus primarily tonight on the general operating fund. That's the budget that is the day to day operations, police fire, parks, recreation, general administration, those sorts of things. It's the more stable element of the budget. So that's our primary focus. So here, you see the revenues for next year, estimated $148 million. Uh, property tax, again, is our number one. Most interesting to me, and I think maybe interesting to the community is the 2nd largest there, the use of money and property. This is the 2nd year that category has been the 2nd largest source of revenue for the city. That puts Mountain View in an extremely unique situation. A lot of people say cities fight for sales tax because their budgets are all about sales tax, what you can see here, that's clearly not the case for us. And thanks to the foresight of you and your predecessors and my predecessors, The city has been very strategic in the use of property, and we currently generate close to $20 million through lease revenue for property the city owns. And with interest rates going up, our use of money has been going up as well because we have a large portfolio of reserves and funds in the bank as we're waiting for capital projects and whatnot. So looking on the expenditure side there, well, I should have been more attentive for the color. Sorry, officers, it should be blue for police, not green, and red for fire, not pink, but, um, Not surprisingly, police and fire are the 2 largest piece of the budget. What is a little surprising, actually, is it's a relatively low percentage. It's only about 36% of our budget. There are some cities where 60, 70% of their budget goes to public safety. So we do a good job of providing excellent services with reasonable amount of funding. Other thing, just a note on that one, just kind of more of a curiosity is a very small sliver, a pink up at the top for community development. Obviously, land use is one of the most important things the city does after public safety. of course, but it's only $1.8 million or 1.2% of the operating budget, and that's because the bulk of it is supported by fees for services. Similarly, a lot of public works is through enterprise funds and other funds. So it's a relatively small piece of the general operating fund. So on the next slide, This is looking at the current year and what we expect to do and have available and do with that funding at the end of the year. 4.3 million carry over, and then another 5.8 million from 1718. So available 10.1 million. But then it shows you how we recommend using those most significantly with a limited period, and we'll talk more about those in a minute. But at the point is that year-end balance is really critical to providing services through limited period expenditures. If we didn't have that year-end balance, we would really struggle to provide the level of service that we do. The rest of those transfers are to restock our reserves, as well as to continue to pay down our unfunded liabilities with the $2 million extra contribution to pers. So 156,000 for the CIP. is a relatively small number. Our general policy is any leftover money at the end of the year, up to $3 million, would go into the CIP. Usually we end up better than we expect, but as of now, the number is 156,000. So moving on to the actual recommendations for the 1920 budget. And this is information you've seen before, so I'm not going to dwell on it. The nondiscretionary. These are really contract adjustments, cost of living increases, things like that. They're detailed on page 7 dash 7 in your report. Those that are over $50,000 are shown on this totaling, all of them totaling together, about $750,000. The next category is what we call discretionary. These are ones that, obviously, as a title says, are discretionary. You can do them or not do them as you choose. These are what we recommend. Again, the details are found both in the budget document, and then in page 712. Totaling 1.4 million, the overwhelming bulk of that, 1200000 is for staff. No surprise. We are a service organization, and about 80% of our budget goes to personnel. So we are recommending a net increase of positions. thought of different ways to count our people between permanent and limited period and new and continuing and whatnot. Bottom line is the recommended budget includes 10.25 additional bodies. So additional kind of manpower person power to help with the workload issues that are quite severe. That's on top of 27 additional bodies that have been added in the last 2 years. We're fortunate to be in a good economic time. We were able to do that, even with those 3 years of restocking personnel. We actually still don't quite achieve our staffing high, which goes back to 2002, but we're getting pretty close with the positions we've added in the last few years. And the 3rd category of recommendations comes in limited period, and those are, again, one-time funds that we used primarily from leftover at the end of the year, again, not surprisingly, the bulk of that goes into personnel, we use limited period people for fluctuations in workload and for short-term kinds of things. So a total of 1200000 out of the total 4.10000000 limited period. The details of all the limited periods are starting on page 7 dash 22 of your budget. Just a few of the ones that are a little oblique there, contract services, 664,000. That's for a variety of different things. A lot of that is for information technology contracts. as well as in the recommendations in your staff reports tonight. You see a request for funding to do an ADA study. Americans with Disabilities Act, study, update our plan for that. Another component of that contracts is attorney services primarily for labor services. The hourly wages one down there. 365,000, again, a variety of different things, have funds, limited period HR analysts, It funds, additional parking enforcement, some additional hourly services and public works, as well as some additional funding to do some side work, sidewalk work. So again, the total recommendation for limited periods $4.1 million. So moving on to things that are a little different, or either follow up from what you asked for at the narrative or new since the narrative, these are items that were identified that night but weren't included. They're now included in the proposed budget before you. So I won't go through these unless you have questions. Obviously, you can ask questions on any of the items, and Jesse will answer them all. Some specific issues that you asked us to follow up on at the narrative in April. And there are attachments to the staff report related to these childcare. It's an attachment to that was a path that you directed us back in November of 2018 to set aside $100,000 for 5 years to help subsidize low income Mountain View children in the childcare program. Attachment 3 is follow up on the request for feminine hygiene products at city facilities. We will ask you at the end of the presentation to pick an option for that. It's very low cost, and we can absorb the cost, but there are some different ways it can be done. Friends at Caltrain, you ask for some more information that is in the base budget. The information you asked for is found in attachment four. And then finally, the community outreach coordinator, what we're recommending. It's currently a .5 halftime permanent position. What we're recommending is adding 0.25 on a limited period basis to supplement that. And the information on what that would quote buy you is an attachment 5. Moving on to items that are new, but are in the budget. So these are things that were subsequent to the narrative, just the week after the narrative we talked about, environmental sustainability, and you directed us to set aside 7.5 million. The proposal is to put that into a CIP. We're not specifically allocating or asking you to allocate it tonight. We'll come back to you in the fall. The intent of this 7.5 million is to fund several years worth of projects, but to have a pot and a commitment to multi-year funding. And then, as I mentioned earlier, we are recommending an ADA consultant to do a new plan for the city. The total of new items don't add up 7.500000 and 200,000, but we'll ignore that for the moment. Moving on to the next slide. So there's a large number of re-budgets in the proposed budget. Re-budgets are things that you already appropriated in the current year or possibly even before, but because of timing issues, they won't be spent until after July one. So we're asking you to carry those funds over into the next year's budget. So it's a very big number there. $64 million, but again, those are policy decisions you've already made. The money's already currently allocated. It's really kind of a bookkeep being exercised to move them over to next year. And then the next slide is, I'm on the right page here, sorry. items that we're recommending, but are not yet in the proposed budget. They've come up relatively late in the process with your concurrence, they would be added into the adopted budget, which will be before you next week. Several of these things are came up at the goals, including a number of council goals that have budgets associated with them, including council's direction to add a principal planner to provide additional capacity for some of the significant advanced planning projects. So moving on, and quickly, these next few slides, I'm really not going to talk about, there's nothing in these has changed from what you heard at the narrative, but just to summarize the other major funds, development services, shoreline, and the regional park, they're obviously more detailed in the report. And again, we talked about them at the narrative. Moving on to our utility rates. Again, nothing new here. We are recommending, and we discussed at the narrative, one% increase, very modest increase for water, and then a 3% increase for waste water, and 3% for solid waste. Nothing new on those. And then the last one with nothing new is the proposed fees. Again, we talked about these at the narrative. Most of our fees just have basic inflationary adjustments. There are a few new or modified, and significantly, there are a few that are actually proposed for elimination, we discussed at the narrative, most notably the wedding services. We will no longer be providing those, and therefore no need for a fee, as well as we have the conversation about eliminating some of the library fines. And so there's a budgetary implication to that. Next is the proposed capital projects for 1920 on your consent calendar tonight. You approve the plan for the five-year CIP with the budget. Next week, you will actually adopt the funding for the 1st year of that. You've had 2 study sessions on that. So the final product reflects that direction, including 34 new discretionary projects, and a total CIP of 141 million. I'll look to Mike to see if that's a record, but if it's not, it's certainly pretty close, it is a record amount of spending. So a lot is going on in this city. And finally, last light, and for the record, there is at least 10% fewer slides this year than last year, and I think it's close to record setting pace of getting through them. Tonight, we'll ask you to, after taking public input on the proposed budget, provide direction on some specific things, primarily those that are new since the narrative, the several items, as I mentioned, the childcare, the feminine hygiene, friends of Caltrain, and the multilingual program, all of those are in the base budget. The only real direction we need, unless council wants to change direction, is which of the 2 options for the feminine hygiene program you want to do. And then the new items proposed by staff, that's the carryovers and rebudgets, the ADA study, sustainability, funding, and the funding for goals. And then if there's any other direction on the other funds, the rates, utility rates, and the fees. And that will cover it tonight, there's no formal action to be taken, other than direction on those, based on your direction, we'll come back last night. I'm sorry, next week. That was wishful thinking that it was done last night. We will come back next week with the final budget for your formal vote. And with that, we're here to answer any questions you have and take public comments. Thank you.

[01:32:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Did you have any? Council, ma'am. Oh, Vice Mayor Abacoga.

[01:32:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you for the budget, I know, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time, and I appreciate all the staff that are involved in preparing a very comprehensive budget. Just one question. So there's items that were not included that came in after the narrative. So, um, just to, for my own accounting purposes, to, will those be taken off of the, the general operating fund. There's the ending balance, will that just go down a little more?

[01:33:20] City Manager Dan Rich: Those items for next week when it comes back would be assuming council is fine with them would be included in the adopted budget that gets approved next week. So that'll the ending balance will probably be different.

[01:33:36] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: simplified. In terms of the funding?

[01:33:38] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes. Of those money. Those items are recommended to come from the respective, if we can go back to. Yeah, I mean, it's a variety of different sources. Most of it is not the general fund. If you look on slide 12. There you go. So, yeah, a combination from the general operating fund as well as general non-operating fund or limited period, and then a variety of other funds, special revenue funds and so on. So those specific items, they are actually our savings to the general operating fund, just because of things removed from one fund to another based on the items.

[01:34:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[01:34:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:34:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, this was very, it's always good to see a summary on here, and so it always brings a few questions to me. So the school crossing guard services, do we pay 100% of that for the schools?

[01:34:43] City Manager Dan Rich: My understanding is, yes, we do fully fund that program. There's a limit to it. I think it's 8 locations or something currently, but I believe that's fully funded by the city.

[01:34:55] Councilmember John McAlister: So when the new school opens up, will we then increase the budget for?

[01:34:58] City Manager Dan Rich: It's not currently in the budget for Vargas. I did have a conversation with the superintendent who's here. You might want to comment on that.

[01:35:04] Superintendent: I think we are putting in a signal at that intersection. I think the intent was to monitor it for the first year and see how things go, and then we'll have a conversation with a school district, and see whether or not a crossing guard is needed there a year from now.

[01:35:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, but that's why do you say it's nondiscretionary?

[01:35:27] City Manager Dan Rich: I think the it's in the nondiscretionary category because the increase is due to wages and sort of things beyond our control, whether or not you fund school crossing cars is obviously a policy decision you don't have to fund, but the increase is to maintain the current level of service. So it's sort of sort of an inflationary kind of increase.

[01:35:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And I see the fire chief here. And so I always like helping, I always appreciate what the fire department does for. So I see this one line item fire special operations. training. And so I'm always intrigued that what's new and exciting in the way of fire operations, and maybe the chief could give us an update on how our city is being proactive and anticipating things we don't aware of.

[01:36:15] Fire Chief: Good evening, yeah, that is what is left of the 500,000. that was given three years ago.

[01:36:21] Councilmember John McAlister: And what type of training?

[01:36:23] Fire Chief: Our firefighters are getting certified in confined space rescue, technical rescue, high angle, low angle, rescue, all sorts of type of rescue that in the past, we didn't have those skills.

[01:36:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, great. Okay. Thank you. Okay. will be needed when we need it.

[01:36:38] Councilmember John McAlister: And then I had a question on the check. I sort of brought it up last time we were talking about it, about public health, and, you know, what's happening around in the United States, and the stress that are put on people and our young people and the challenges for everyone and the challenges of just getting mental health. The $5,000. Is that in addition to what we do through the JPA or is this an additional amount?

[01:37:09] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, they get a, I forget the exact number. I think it's close to $100,000 of funding from the city. They requested a 5% increase this year, and this is that net increase, which council gave direction to include in the budget.

[01:37:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. If what's happening, I know the school district just recently converted some of their staff or hired on full time therapists, I guess. And I know when they talked to us, they were as like a 4 month wait for some of their clients to get evaluated. Is there a time opportunity to reconsider this 5000? You give them some one time money to help take care of their backlog of clients?

[01:37:53] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, certainly within council's prerogative to fund it at a lever, whatever level you choose. As I indicated, they already get about $100,000 from the city, and this is a 5% increase, which is what they requested. I can't comment, whether more money would help them with a backlog or not. You know, I think there might be a number of different constraints. Staffing, physical constraints and whatnot. So it's hard to say, just giving them more money, how that would help. I've never heard of a nonprofit saying more money doesn't help. So I'm not saying they wouldn't take it. All I'm saying is I can't tell you what the outcome of that additional funding would be.

[01:38:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Because I know they have challenges with the salaries and keeping therapists on staff because of the large turnover. But as I was mentioning, with the police chief, and if we're proactive, I asked them how much often do they go out to, There was a recent call where police were called because a child was screaming at his parents or something along that line, and they called the police department to go investigate the issue. And I'm thinking, well, we're putting more stress and more challenges for a police department to handle social issues and that if we can be proactive through check and try to prevent some of this, I think that would be a good use of our money. So.

[01:39:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Now I would just add, I believe, Senator Bell has allocated some fund for mental health, and so there might be other opportunities, both for check, and the city, and others, to partner for additional, I know the schools, fund, check, as well, as well as Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. So there's a number of different funding sources and options.

[01:39:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from council members? Okay, then, um, we will open this up for public input. So if you have any comments on the budget. If you could come up to the microphone, be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak on the budget? Okay. Um, you can have 2 minutes. Um, and where's, oh, there's a counter. Yes,

[01:40:13] Public Speaker: Councilman McAllister, I'm glad you put that as an issue of public policy that maybe you ought to think about changing. And now is a time when that can be increased. I know check can definitely use the money, and they are the ones that are doing the high school and middle school counseling. So I hope you propose that as a motion, and that you get a majority of your council members to jack that number up a little bit. But there's another thing. I know for the elementary school budget. There is this shoreline community, quasi redevelopment district that is now diverting over $8000000 a year in general property taxes that would be going to the Mountain View Whisman School District. There is, I think, perhaps the trustees of the county board would like to be getting their full amount of property tax also. But, uh, Maybe somebody ought to talk to one of those uh, those board members. Of that, more than $8 million, 12 years ago, there was $3 billion of assessed valuation and out at Shoreline. We know that it's increased by least a 1000000000 in just the last year. With the current arrangement, you are not guaranteeing any money, any general property tax money to the Mountain View Wisman school district. You have a half arrangement where you're sort of agreeing to share half of that money only if you don't declare a physical emergency. What that does is that could leave the district $4000000 short within a year or 2 of you declaring a fiscal emergency, and, you know, this issue of how much money there is to build a school out there. If you had an extra $4000000 in general revenue, you can do a COP certificate of participation and build a very nice school out there. It's equivalent a guaranteed mortgage. So sunset on shoreline. Thank you.

[01:42:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:42:25] Public Speaker: Good evening. Can you hear me, okay? The budget is very complicated. And I'm interested in the homeless and the homelessness, and I read that there are 23 places in the budget that the word homeless appears, and yet there is no heading for homeless or homelessness in the budget. So I was wondering how much money is going to be spent on homeless in this year budget. The best I can find is there's going to be a little bit here, a little bit there, and there seems to be $500,000 earmarked for the homeless. And of that, 289,000 is going to go to hiring another police officer, and I'm going to read your words about it. Toward employing one more police officer to improve police department handling vulnerable populations, including homeless and mentally ill. Really? You're gonna have the police handle the mentally ill. I think it would be better off with psychologists and sociologists than police. The other thing is, you're going to fund homeless shelter and support services for approximately 10 persons, approximately. You couldn't even say for sure that it's going to be 10 people. And how are you going to select these 10 people? Are you going to have a lottery? Thank you.

[01:43:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:44:19] Public Speaker: Hi. Hi, Ms. Ross, let me translating home. Do you introduce yourself? She's here to speak on behalf of the leadership Spanish Civic Leadership Academy.

[01:44:33] Public Speaker: para mantenere este programma. ye peramo, que ta meen considering, para poderlo amplier, todavillamas.

[01:44:42] Public Speaker: We are very grateful for the position, the consideration of the position, and the extra fund that's being allocated to bring it to three quarters time. We would like to consider that you bring it to a full time position.

[01:44:54] Public Speaker: Al momento, tres academias, maste noventa graduados, un desarroyo, un impacto nuevo, en la comunida estana conesto.

[01:45:05] Public Speaker: So far, we've graduated three generations, we've been having a big impact on the community.

[01:45:13] Public Speaker: esperamos? que lo que jempes samos a lograr, por ejemplo, dos miembro nuestro son parte aora de la comencione de la ciudada.

[01:45:24] Public Speaker: Um, so far, two of our members are, two of our graduates are parts of employees of the city on commissions. We would like to duplicate these results with the upcoming class.

[01:45:45] Public Speaker: Let me expect. I say que vemos... que tieno relidadung gran impacto, en nevel personal.

[01:46:00] Public Speaker: It has a significant impact on both a personal level and on a community level.

[01:46:05] Public Speaker: Manual personnel. This program has made me feel, like, more of a part of this community has helped me integrate into this city and feel like more of an engaged citizen.

[01:46:57] Public Speaker: This program has been extremely important for my family forward in this community. My son is about to take the citizenship exam. Two sons are about to take the citizenship exam, and this involvement in this program, the importance and the impact this program has had on the family and the community has been vital for advancing my family.

[01:47:22] Public Speaker: por de la pollo, yes, pero, que, continuo, es pero, que...

[01:47:29] Public Speaker: Thank you. Thank you very much for your support of this program. We hope to see it continue, and thank you very much for any and all support that you can give to it. Thank you.

[01:47:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:47:47] Fernando Romero: Hello, good evening. My name is Fernando, Romero, and I'm a resident of Amantambi. I'm also a graduate of the Spanish leadership academy. Today, um, here in favor of the proposed budget, uh, to increase the multicultural average program coordinator by .25. And I think just like Nadia was saying, I think this program is very important for our community and I think it has the potential to pay big dividends in the future. So I think that good return on investment. Um, The program has been in effect for 3 years and like Nadia managed already. He has already got people involved in government. So, um, We have 2 people have who have gone to uh, serve in um, commissions myself, including in the uh, human relations commission, and um, we have another person who's serving the parks and recreation uh, commission. And so tonight. So I'm asking you guys to consider increasing defense for the multicultural rich program coordinator and I think it has a big potential. Thank you very much for your time.

[01:49:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:49:08] Adina Levin: Good evening. Council members, Adina 11, with friends of Caltrain, wanted to thank the city for its support in the previous years, helping us to bring community education around things like international practices for integrated rail and transit systems, the emerging practices for connecting transportation and climate action in our communities. and the work that we've been doing to bring to the community information about what the potential for transportation, for transformation, with Caltrain electrification and their business plan, in the coming year. Um, So we do have, um, on the peninsula corridor, about 8000 or so participants from San Francisco through San Jose, including about 800 in the city of Mountain View, and work to keep people informed to be able to participate, um, in things that are going on locally in their community as well as in the region. There are some exciting things that we're going to be working on, including doing community education around a potential regional transportation measure that would be transformative, about the potential to have a more integrated regional transportation system, including bringing in education about how this is done around the world. We've got some experts queued up to talk about how to have potential lively transit centers that are multimodal and are part of the fabric of the. Mountain View does have a particular condition to make sure that the money that Mountain View has been spending is only spent on the education that we do and is not spent on the advocacy that we do, we do advocacy. We did support, for example, measure P. We supported VTA spending its money efficiently, but that is not what Mountain View has been supporting, and we would hope to have Mountain View's continued support to do the community education. Happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

[01:51:13] Unknown Speaker: I have a question for you. When you say you have 8000 members, is that, um, like, do you have regular meetings and you invite 8000 people to them?

[01:51:22] Adina Levin: Oh, goodness, no. So the 8000 is people who are on a combination of a mailing list and a variety of different social media that people engage. And, you know, we have heard that when we get out the word through the social media, that that helps turn out to, um, for example, um, you know, a mountain views meeting about the transit center that will help people come and participate in an informed manner. So we do have meetings that focus on particular topics of interest like some of the ones that I mentioned to you.

[01:52:01] Unknown Speaker: Do you have meetings of the, like yourself and other people who run the organization.

[01:52:07] Adina Levin: Yeah, we have we do have a board and that board has meets annually, because it's distributed over 50 miles, we don't have that frequent meetings in person, but we have discussions on email about the topics like policies that we may want to weigh in on or what educational activities that we want to engage in.

[01:52:35] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you.

[01:52:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, please.

[01:52:43] Bruce Nagel: Hi, my name is Bruce Nagel. I've been a resident of Mountain View for over half of my life. I want to thank you for being able to put the $7500000 in on the sustainability budget. I think it's a key important thing. I've had the pleasure to be able to serve on both the environmental sustainability task force and carbon free Mountain View. And I view it's an important part of keeping us in the forefront of sustainability. I think we have a responsibility since we know about the problem to be able to lead in this effort. And whatever we lead would eventually lead to other people, and picking up on this, and the important issue is not just for Mountain View to be sustainability, but for the world to be sustainable. And we can take our stand right here and start with this and 7.500000 is a good start to moving in that direction. And I thank you for doing it and hope it stays in the budget. Thank you.

[01:53:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anyone else wishing to address the council on the budget? Okay, seeing then, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council. Um, we have some specific items that we need to provide direction on and also some others that, um, if we want to comment on them. So, let's see. The, let's start with the um, 4 questions that are on page 13 of the presentation, and that is around childcare, which is built into the budget, uh, the community, the, um, well, community outreach, um, the multi-cultural .25 FTE, and then, um, questions specifically on feminine hygiene products and friends of Caltrain. Why don't we start with those?

[01:54:35] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask polarity? So, I mean, these are already included in the budget, and they were just sort of, I thought they were just a memo follow-up to the council about...

[01:54:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well no, on feminine hygiene, we have to select which option.

[01:54:49] Unknown Speaker: Okay, well, what about the others?

[01:54:51] Unknown Speaker: Well, um, two of them are included, the child care, but if you had any comments about that, and the multicultural community outreach is also included. And then the other two, we need to provide direction on. But if you disagreed with what's in the childcare or the multicultural, then...

[01:55:10] Unknown Speaker: childcare, but...

[01:55:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Or the other one, then you should say so.

[01:55:15] Unknown Speaker: Just to clarify, friends at Caltrain is in the base budget as well. So you would need to give us direction if you want to do something different with that.

[01:55:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Go ahead. Take your cash. Cancel member, Hicks.

[01:55:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I agree with the things that are in the base budget, and, um, and, uh, want to continue them. In particular, I wanted to call out what Mr. Nagel called out the 7.5 million for sustainability, and I agree with him that it's a good start, and hope we can do more in the future. Um, and as for, um, the questions, uh, the one with the 2 options, the feminine hygiene project products. I wanted to thank council member Camay for bringing that up, and I would go for option two, which was the more comprehensive option, and only cost several $100 more, so I think it's fully worth it. Thank you.

[01:56:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:56:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay.

[01:56:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You can do them all.

[01:56:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so I agree with council member Hicks. So for the feminine hygiene projects. I also support option two. I support the proposed budget and all of the recommendations provided by staff. The only modification I would suggest, in line with what we had talked about in the last meeting, was increasing the multilingual coordinator from the recommended .75 FTE to a full FTE, a limited period. I think the demand for the program and the workload of this position, I think, will only increase. We've already seen substantial involvement from this community, from the not only the Spanish speaking community, but also the Mandarin speaking community. And I think, you know, the program will grow and evolve as the demand for access to the city, both, you know, programming opportunities for participation and information grow. And I think it'd be worth, you know, my preference would be for ongoing, but I think just sort of piloting it as a limited period for full-time FDE would be worthy of exploration.

[01:57:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I just wanted to clarify my understanding. So you would increase it from .25 to one.

[01:58:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, point. So, it's .5 now. I think the recommendation is to increase it by 0.25. And so I would suggest going it from increasing it from .252.5.

[01:58:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member command?

[01:58:20] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, I was just clarifying with council member Ramirez. So he said it right now, the base, I think, is .5 FTE. His proposal would be to bring it to .5 FTA for a limited period. And that's something that I'm willing to support. And for the childcare subsidies, I'm fine with that amount for the feminine hygiene products. Thank you to staff for the details and the attachment. And I think that I was happy to see that many cities up and down the Bay Area are providing this and we're joining them and doing that and would ask for support for option two. And I know that the mayor may have more to say on Friends of Caltrain, so I'll stay off of that one. But those are my initial thoughts.

[01:59:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:59:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, a childcare subsidy.

[01:59:15] Unknown Speaker: So this particular item is only what do we do for the rec program where we have our childcare program. Do we do subsidies for that? We have a fee waiver program for low income folks for all of our rec programs, and I believe they would qualify for that program as well.

[01:59:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So what is 100% wave?

[01:59:35] Unknown Speaker: No, it's not 100%. John, do you want to take that one? I think it's a sliding scale based on income, but our community services director, John Marshall. Be happy with that.

[01:59:46] Community Services Director John Marshall: That's correct. There is a sliding scale. So it's either 75% subsidy or 90% subsidy based on income.

[01:59:53] Councilmember John McAlister: So what is that, 90%? Have you end up paying? 10% of the program? how much would that dollar amount be?

[02:00:00] Community Services Director John Marshall: I don't know off the top of my head. I sorry.

[02:00:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Do we have a waiting list to get into this particular program?

[02:00:05] Community Services Director John Marshall: We do not.

[02:00:05] Councilmember John McAlister: You do not. Oh, okay. That answers that question. I will defer number 2 to the more intelligent staff and my colleagues on number two, whichever is best for them, is good for me. and for them. Friends of Caltrain. You know, I had interest in that over the years, but being involved in VTA. I have to appreciate what they've been doing for Mountain View in a larger, like when they talk in front of ETA. They are educating the VTA board. When I see her at other meetings, friends of Caltrain at other meetings. They are advocating, and I know they're not supposed to be advocating, I guess, but educating us and the general public for transit and all. And I think it's a benefit for all of us to continue to have any kind of educational services out there for transportation because next to housing, I think Well, actually, I think transportation is more important, but I appreciate what they've been doing, and I think that's been a benefit to the city of Mountain View, as it concerns some of our projects and educating people, the opportunities are what's out there in the future. On the community's outreach, you know, I see that we have this program and I sometimes I like to, we like to fund all projects that come our way, but since staff is proposing to evaluate it and then come back to us, I like to see just one, there's no dollar amount to us, which we're always concerned about a dollar amount. And I just like to see, since it is a limited time offer right now, to see how that position does do its job and what the outcome would be. So I'm sort of leaning that way and see what the evaluation comes after a limited. We might say come back in 6 months and say, how's it doing? But I'm sort of leaning, keeping it at that direction at this time.

[02:02:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Kuga?

[02:02:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, yes, the last time we did this, I had to leave early to go to a housing meeting, so I may have missed a discussion on the childcare subsidies. I don't know what the issue is there, but I'm fine to continue the subsidies through our reserve. Um, feminine hygiene products, um, option two. Sounds comprehensive. I'll support that. Um, And then I'm gonna jump to community outreach coordinator. So, um, again, this one was when I missed, um, I had, because I had to leave early. I said it wasn't a part of the conversation, but I've been, for a long time now, I've actually been thinking our community is, you know, is diverse. We have many languages spoken, and there's definitely a need for multi-language multilingual services. That's really the key to participation and to being able to reach out to the community. And so, um, I, you know, in the past, we've been limited in our budget, so it hasn't been something that we could really consider. But in light of our positive situation. Um, I support, um, I actually support more than .25. Um, I was, I, um, I bring this up in light of the census coming up next year. And when we just need to make sure that we get out and help our county in counting all of our folks, um, and that takes, um, outreach in various languages. I know that we have that as a separate program. But I think you will also see with our new census numbers, the changing demographics of this community, and we are much more multicultural and multilingual. I appreciate the work that our staff has done with like the Spanish leadership academy. But, and I appreciate council member Kame bringing it up during our goal setting. And, you know, in all frankness, I would have liked to have supported a Mandarin speaking language leadership academy, but in light of all of the other projects we had, it didn't make that cut, but I believe the Spanish program started from our staff, Nancy Dukos, who's just done a fabulous job. So I would like to see that replicated with the Mandarin speaking community, which is a growing community in our city. And so in light of that, I would like to see, and I don't know how the breakdown works. I mean, that's, and that's beyond my, I know my role. I shouldn't micromanage, but I would really like to see a more robust multilingual program. And so for that, I would like to start out with a .5 limited term FTE increase and then see how that goes and as we watch our budget and the economy, see if we might be able to make that permanent more down the road. So that's my, that would be my recommendation for that. And then friends of Caltrain, so, you know, I appreciate the work that friends of Caltrain does. This has come up in the past before, and I guess I didn't look at this more closely until just now. But, um, I noticed too um, under agency, it's 7 dash 5 in our budget. These are funding of nonprofit agencies outside of our CDBG funds. And some of these, you know, I get like the housing trust, we do the 150,000. A lot of these, like Project Sentinel. These are all like program based, but I noticed friends of Caltrain. And then also Silicon Valley at home, I wanted I was wondering what the 2500 for that organization is and how these came about into our budget, is that a membership, and that's my question, because, you know, my concern is that we are equitable in how we, um, distribute our funds, and, um, I believe, like, if I recall with friends of Caltrain, it was like a request that was provided to a former council member and included in a budget. And I just want to make sure if we're going to fund organizations, like nonprofits, that there's some process that allows for any organization to request funds, not just based on, you know, hearsay or special requests to any one of us. And so, I guess one, what is the Silicon Valley at home $2500 budget item? And then two, do we have some kind of process or how do these items come into our budget here?

[02:07:16] Unknown Speaker: So, Susie or our team may, correct me. I believe the $2,500 for SV at home is in the operating budget of CDD and it's to support programs that occur for Affordable Housing Week, which we participate. So it's program based.

[02:07:30] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So then, and then friends of Caltrain, is that, how did, is it, is there a process that this came about? And was there like a call out for requests for funding or, and I'm sorry, I didn't.

[02:07:46] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, maybe we've we've had some dialogue about this in the past. This one did, as I recall, you're correct, that this did 1st come up as kind of a on the spot request at one at a council meeting. Subsequently, the council was asked whether or not they wanted to renew it and or put it in the base budget, and the determination at the time was to put it in the base budget. Council also requested a follow-up study session on nonprofit funding in general and what the process was, and we came back to you maybe a year ago or so on that. And part of the outcome of that was kind of better categorizing and listing in the budget, what's a membership and what's not. But there was not a kind of fundamental change in the process. We still have the public process for both CDPG and general fund groups that anyone can apply to.

[02:08:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And so, yeah, so I know it's not a big amount, but I think for me, I just want to make sure that, you know, everyone has an opportunity and we're not picking, singling out one organization over others.

[02:08:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:09:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just want to go back to one of the multilingual coordinator. I better get a, after listening to my fellow counselors, I'm going to better get an understanding from our city manager. Could you give me a little better your thoughts on this outreach coordinator going .25 versus .5.

[02:09:23] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, so the memo you asked for explains what we think we would get with the additional .5. I'm sorry, the .25, which is in the recommendation. It's unclear right now exactly what more would be done with the .25 that's being discussed tonight. Certainly census is probably an area where we could put more focus on, I know there is interest in doing more for the Mandarin speaking community. I think it's unclear at this point whether or not that would automatically be an academy or more outreach to determine what the best kind of programming and outreach of that community is. But that would obviously provide some additional capacity. Yeah, I think, from my perspective, you know, limited period would be appropriate to determine, you know, what that extra .5 does accomplish, and, you know, whether or not there are short-term needs, like the census, and, you know, some vulnerable population things, hopefully in the relatively short term. And then we can determine. But at this point, I can't tell you exactly what the extra .25 would find we would have to go back, and we can talk to staff. If you'd like. We can bring that to you or try to bring a little bit more information to you next week with the proposed budget if that's council's direction. And we would, if the council direction is to add the .5, we would certainly either come up with a work plan or report back to you on, you know, what we would do without additional .25 capacity.

[02:10:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. I'd appreciate that though.

[02:11:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[02:11:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I'm... I'm fine with everything. That's been that's shown here, the childcare subsidies, the option to for the eminent hygiene products, the forensic Caltrain, for the community outreach piece, could we say, I just want to give you some flexibility in this? So if, you know, I'm fine with an additional .25, if you think that that will be the most impactful, if you think that money is, there's, you know, .25 in terms of personnel is enough, and you'd rather have the equivalent in funding for other things, I'm fine with that too. I don't want to dictate that, yes, an extra, you know, quarter FTE is the right thing here because I'm not sure it is. So if you want to come back, you know, next week or whenever. And I think my sense is that we're generally open to, you know, increasing resources available for this, if it makes sense to put the time in to have the .5 FT, then that's fine with me if you think it makes more sense to put it into other areas over the next year, then I'm fine with that too.

[02:12:11] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I appreciate that. And flexibility would be helpful. The base budget or an additional limited period in their, which we haven't talked about, but there is additional funding, I believe, of $10,000 for additional hourly funding for the multicultural program, and that's to assist with translation and that sort of stuff. The .25 or .5 you're talking about really is the coordinator position. But there may be, you know, some discussion on whether all of that goes to that position or to hour lees or to specific programs. So, um, you know, if you provided more flexibility, that probably would be helpful, I believe, .25, the cost of that is about $35,000 or so. So if you provided that funding, we could, you know, use it flexibly as best needed for the program, whether it's, you know, for Nancy, specifically for hourly employees or for supplies or different programmatic.

[02:13:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: There may be years when you need the extra hours too, you know, like in 2020. Anyway, I'm flexible on that. I'm supportive of what folks are trying to do here. I'm just not sure that I just don't want to limit the use of those funds to one particular thing. So that's all I have. Thank you.

[02:13:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, I am okay with um, the childcare and Option 2 for feminine hygiene. So I guess that's unanimous on option two. And including the childcare. And then on Friends of Caltrain and other nonprofits, I agree with the vice mayor. I actually would take out friends of Caltrain this year, and have a process by which any nonprofit could apply for funding from the city, rather than have this sort of haphazard one that came about. And then, um, in terms of additional FTE for the, um, multicultural, or a Mandarin program or other resources, I'd be interested in hearing what staff would recommend if we allocated additional FTE or money. And I agree with council member Clark that I'd want to be flexible on this. But I think maybe we could have a little discussion about that next week. to finalize that. And then I'm okay with the new items and the rebudgets. So it sounds like, um, I guess the only one that, um, We I need to really count comments here as the friends of Caltrain, and it looks like we are leaving that in. Because there were at least 4 people. who said that. Um... And that's it that I have is a summary in list of any questions? Or any other comments from council members? Before next week when we finalize the budget. Where we have more questions, or just these four?

[02:15:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there another part of this discussion for this budget?

[02:15:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, but if you had something you wanted to add, feel free to do that.

[02:15:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I was... I would like to consider adding money to check one time money to check. have a discussion with maybe our other JPA members to see if we can match it up and try to get this. But I'd like to have direct staff to have discussions with them to see or where we can find additional funding.

[02:15:55] City Manager Dan Rich: So we are providing the funding they requested, which was a 5% increase. I don't know that it's realistic, then between now and the staff report for next week, which goes out in 48 hours. We will have had robust conversation with the other JPA members, which is 2 or 3 school districts and 2 other cities. So, I mean, if council wants to direct us to add or if they want to put a placeholder, we can do that. I just want to be realistic that we're not before the budget adoption next week, and I likely have consensus between all the JPA members,

[02:16:31] Councilmember John McAlister: the JPA members, as I recall, excuse me, only provide a relatively small portion of the total budget of check. So what do you mean by a placeholder?

[02:16:43] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, you could authorize a flat amount of money, or a percent increase, no matter what, you could authorize a flat amount of money, or a percent, increase contingent on matches from the other JPA members. I mean, there's different ways you could structure it.

[02:17:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I guess I would ask if other, were you done, sorry?

[02:17:04] City Manager Dan Rich: No, go ahead.

[02:17:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was going to ask if others are interested in exploring that. We have 2 former or current and former check members and... V Mayor Abi Koga?

[02:17:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I wanted to speak to it. I appreciate Counselor McAllister's interest. I think and mental health was something that we talked about it and during our goal setting it as well. I think there are many players actually in the mental health field that we should engage with the school districts. I know this Dr. Rudolph is here, but I'll set the high school. They've increased their resources. There are other organizations, as mentioned, Senator Bell mentioned that he has legislation that passed that includes funding for a drop-in center for youth. Um, and he was, uh, he mentioned this at the Cities Association. He spoke at looking at location in Mountain View for that drop-in center. So I think there are many different groups that we should talk with. And, you know, I guess I was on the chat as a rep to the checkboard. There's an issue of the JPA and what the other partners would do. I think there's some other organizational issues that they're dealing with. And so, and then also, frankly, their model is with interns that are not paid. They're looking at a different model, but I don't think they're ready for that. So I think we should engage with all of our, all of the different entities to figure out what the best way is for the city to be a part of that. And we even talked about it at our youth services committee meeting this afternoon about, you know, working with our yak to see what the students, the youth think would be the most effective in helping them deal with some of the mental health issues in the schools.

[02:19:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Clay.

[02:19:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I just thought I'd lean forward since I'm the JPA member on Shack right now. So I appreciate where council member counselor's coming from, I think that, um, the need, um, and the, um, opportunity for funding to meet that need is something that the organization has been talking about, um, and getting getting all the dollars to be as robust as possible. So, um, I appreciate where Cosmo Markhouse is going. I think that the difficult part is that we don't I don't have a number figure. other than the 5% increase that we discussed. So, you know, I'd appreciate the opportunity to continue the conversation. I think that one of the things that came up, I think, when we were talking about the CDBG allocation was having, um, chat come, um, annually to to report on, um, the organization, and perhaps that could be an opportunity to hear about the, the funding, um, and a potential conversation for an increase at that point. I don't know, Cosmic Cosor McAllister, if that could be something we can incorporate that way we can hear directly from the organization, since they aren't here tonight.

[02:20:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think at this point for me, while I appreciate that mental health is a very large issue that we absolutely need to keep on our radar and support addressing. I do think there's a lot of other things going on that might be substantially increasing the resources available to our community. And I guess I'd like to see how they play out. And since we are meeting checks, recommended, or requested amount. I feel comfortable just leaving it at what they requested. And if we want to revisit it at a later date. I'm fine doing that. But for now, I would leave it at what it is and see how the other activities play out.

[02:21:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, okay, sorry. Okay. So what are the, you know, I'm not one to throw out a number. I've seen too many times this council is throwing out a dollar amount without actually putting some thought in it. So I'm not going to recommend any dollar amount. So halfway have a conversation, what opportunities are there to bring this back to consider after listening to checking getting a better sense of what's out there?

[02:21:48] City Manager Dan Rich: You always have the ability to do a mid-year adjustment, resources permitting, so it certainly can be addressed at a later date. I would just echo the comments that it is a complex issue with a lot of different funding sources and a lot of different partners. And, you know, as I say, $100,000 of general fund money from the city is not an insignificant contribution right now. I think it's the largest funding to any nonprofit we give. And we are meeting the specific request of 5% that they made, which, frankly, is more than our average contract increase in a typical year and higher than CPI. So, but, you know, we can talk to them and have them make their annual presentation, and if council's interested in doing a mid-year budget adjustment at a later date. We can certainly do that.

[02:22:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I would appreciate if the council would consider that. Just two weeks ago. There was a live shooter scenario at the high school. And so our the police spent over $5,000 just on overtime on training on that. So when we start thinking about a $5,000 here to an actual live shooter event, I think the dollars could be well spent. So please consider those as we look forward and see what we can do.

[02:23:10] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry. I just want to clarify, it was a training for active computer, so there was not an active computer. I just don't want people to

[02:23:19] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, no, no. I think Sergeant would have been jumped up in the lieutenant, but no, yes, it was... It was a training scenario. I thought I said scenario. Yeah, no, it was not life. But the fact that we're spending time to, you know, react, I think, our money could be better spent being proactive than reactive.

[02:23:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Any other comments on this? Okay, then we will close this item. Thank you so much. Okay, we are onto item seven, which is... Approve of the direction for a safe parking program on city lots and safe parking ordinance parameters. And we'll do a change of staff here, and then we'll start with the staff presentation, as soon as everybody's in place.

[02:24:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Whenever you're ready. Grace.

[02:25:01] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: Thank you and good evening, Marion City Council members. I'm Kimberly Thomas, assistant to the city manager, and I'll be providing an overview presentation. I'm grateful to the many intro departmental staff, collaborators such as CSA move in the county that have contributed to this report and joined us here tonight. This brief presentation will include background approaches to safe parking programs, seeking council direction on program parameters to then take to the EPC and bring back to the council for final adoption, as well as adoption for a resolution for the two city controlled lots to be used for safe parking. A bit of background regarding existing, not advancing. It's not advancing. I didn't realize it wasn't. Yeah, I know. I just realized. Bring it back up. Start it again. Just realized it wasn't advancing, my apologies. Oh, there we go. Okay, great. No, it's the back of working. A bit of background first on the safe parking program. In July of 2018. The city began its first efforts regarding operating safe parking with move, the local nonprofit. It is currently serving toothface sites and they've been in operation for approximately a year. Move will also provide program services to the Palo Alto Housing Law, which was approved by the city council in December of 2018. At that time, the council also provided funding for site improvements to the Palo Alto housing site to meet health and safety requirements. That process and a pending application for TUP is underway. In March of 2019, the council gave direction to pursue the temporary use of city controlled lots at Shoreline Amphitheater at Lot B, in the off season, which is mid November through mid March, and once secured, a lot at the Pioneer and Evelyn location that is previously used for parking at the VTA lot for the Evelyn Light Rail station, folks may know it as. Additional background regarding an update on data from the March 19th meeting. Overall, individuals who've been continuously homeless for over one year are considered to be chronically homeless. This includes places not meant for human habitation like a vehicle. As you'll see on screen, the police department visual count that includes vehicles that show clear signs of habitation, many of which have been there for a longer period and would fall into the chronically homeless category. The recent count in May shows an overall decrease in vehicles, however, a small increase in associated vehicles, or vehicles used for getting around during the day while the RV might be parked within the city. There is an overall increase in people reporting the need for homelessness services through our local safety net provider, CSA. There's also a rise in homelessness overall, for the point in time count at the county level, where homelessness is up by 31%. Background for the timeline it takes to be housed. We've talked about this in various council reports in the past, but it varies greatly, and it can be from 18 to 24 months for a single occupant. It can be more for a family. However, it's important to know that clients are served by multiple programs. This means that their stay in short and safe parking can't potentially be short term. As they move through different cycles and different options, such as sheltering. Shown on screen here is the overall capacity of this city's current and planned safe parking capacity for known lots as of today. The teal block indicates passenger vehicle only. The blue block indicates capacity for RVs, but could also be passenger vehicles. The current represents vehicles and the lots of love program at the face sites. Lots of love is actively engaged with other face sites for safe parking services at this time. In July or August of 2019. It's expected that the Palo Alto housing lot will come online. That will host 8 to 11 vehicles. It's going to depend upon size and scale. It's a relatively small lot, as you may know, from the prior staff report. In October, we anticipate securing the negotiations with VTA and being able to use the pioneer Evelyn lot. Lots of unknowns there, but we're working through that and are hopeful. Then in November. The Shoreline Amphitheater Lot B will be available as of mid November, through the council's direction, mid March of 2020. Thereafter, going into April, the scale will drop down to about 39 to 40 vehicles. Overall, the safe parking requirements included in the staff report and in detail in one of your attachments, which will be the essence and the outline for what the ordinance will be, that will be, again, brought to you in the early portion of the fall, includes guidelines based upon the limited number of programs that exist in other cities. 5 in total, that we were able to get copies of, 5 in total. That gives you some understanding of the scale and how limited this is. But these are programs from other cities as well as your interdepartmental team that includes police, fire, and building, looking at this from a public safety and health perspective. It's not random requirements. It's very detailed and in-depth understanding. This brief snapshot that's shown on screen is just highlights of what those parameters are. The detailed version is included in your attachment 3. And again, we'll be further fleshed out and detailed based upon your direction today for the final ordinance. Safe parking would be allowed in as a primary use or ancillary use in the zoning districts that are discussed in detail in the staff report. It will include course services, like case management, to ensure participants have the ability to transition to permanent housing. It will also include an operations plan and an emergency plan, which is standard for any sheltering. The lot hours will also be defined to 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. We've set a maximum capacity guideline that's based upon other recommended guidelines, such as the city of San Jose. We've also said a surrounding buffer for the residences. We've set limits and recommendations related to temporary structures that may be on the site that does not affect portable restroom stations and wash stations if those are needed or trash facilities. It's solely for pop-ups and other structures that could appear on the site. It also includes having a detailed waste disposal plan in place to ensure there are no spills or other issues associated with the larger vehicles that will be there temporarily. There are also a number of operational requirements associated with the operator, which, in this case, were recommending move, as it relates to health and safety maintenance, ensuring there's no fire, no open flame, things of those nature. In addition to these core requirements, staff does recommend the adoption of a resolution to operate a safe parking program on the anticipated two city controlled lots, Shoreline Amphitheater B, as well as pioneer at Evelyn, a lot once we've completed those negotiations with VTA. We have a number of questions for the council that we're seeking feedback on to ensure we have that reflected in the final ordinance. These include, most importantly, what process the council prefers? Does the council prefer what we're calling option one, which is allowing safe parking by a nondiscretionary CUP? This option includes noticing to property owners and tenants within 750 feet of the proposed site. But no public airing is held unless it is requested in writing by an applicant. This could also, of course, be modified and or any other provision by the council. Conditions of approval will require inspection by police and fire for safety. Applicable appeals would be to the council level, and we anticipate that this process would provide a more streamlined and a very transparent process as to what safe parking is about and what is required. The process does also notify residents that safe parking will be located within their neighborhood, which is an important component of many of the things we do here in Mountain View. Option 2 allows safe parking by right in certain zoning districts, and through an application and permit process to the police department. This is similar to other permits, the police department currently administers, such as live entertainment and other types of permits. The applicant would submit the application, the police department would review it, and once accepted as complete, police and fire would, again, perform a site inspection to ensure compliance. This decision would be available to the department head of the department heads, which is the city manager, and the approach, we feel in this case, offers a streamlined approach, with, but, it has a challenge in that there's no opportunity for neighborhood feedback or appeal. Additional questions for the council relate to should the city fund services on private lots. as well as potential willingness to fund, to add funding or other funding to increase capacity beyond the existing funding for 60 vehicles, which you currently have through a combination of county funding and city funding for the existing budget year combined with a new budget you just heard tonight that will be adopted in the 18th. Those are considerations for the council. We've put in a guideline for you of what the rough estimation of that would be, to scale up by at least 40 additional vehicles, between 250,000 and 280,000. Over time, there may be some economies of scale that could be gained there once move is up and operating with more clients, but at this time, that's our baseline estimate. That's what move was approved for by the county when they began the startup of their program serving 40. We also have additional questions related to whether the council would like to consider safe parking programs, as they're done in other communities that may allow owned as well as rented vehicles. Some RV occupants, as we've heard from the outreach workers, pay rent to the owner of the vehicle. In these cases, the vehicle registration would not match the licensed driver. Those are key provisions of a safe parking program, having all your documents in line. Safe parking could be limited to the owner occupied vehicles, or it could also be made to the occupants of rented vehicles. The council could carve this out for the city lots specifically, or another guidance for the ordinance. I'm looking over at Nicole to ensure that that's true, and I said that correctly. But that's an option also for the council. Other areas for the council consideration include preferences associated with the city lots. This would be for participants. One area that staff can study and look at is a similar fashion program to the live work scenario that's used for the below market rate program. We would need to look at that in greater depth as it relates to the applicability to safe parking, i.e. temporary housing in a vehicle. We also put forward for the council consideration for families and children that are enrolled in the mountain view school districts under the age of 18, As you know, there's some data included in your staff report that is very challenging. Lastly, shown on screen here are staff's recommendations, which there are three. This includes, again, the resolution associated with the operation of the city 2 lots. I wrap it up with a recap of where we're seeking direction, again, to be able to return to the EPC in September and council in October, regarding permitting, regarding option one, or two, or some modification thereof, funding, direction from the council, ownership versus rental, and preferences for participants, and the number of areas that we should study to be able to bring back. This concludes staff presentation, I would be happy to answer questions. In addition, there is an interdepartmental team, including public safety and public works, as well as move, CSA, and the county, who are available and present tonight and are able to respond to questions. Thank you.

[02:37:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So are there any questions from council members? Council member Hicks?

[02:37:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, thank you to staff. For people and members of the public who don't know, council members are allowed to ask written questions before this meeting, so if you sometimes don't see us asking many questions is probably because we've asked them previously in writing. I did ask several, but I want to ask for clarification of a couple of those. So, one is, um, I asked, do we know how many vehicles in Mountain View currently have children in grade school through high school living in them? And you gave an answer, which I, maybe other council members fully understood, but I need some clarification on. So there were, it looks to me like there are 2 figures. One says 89 total homeless youth in Mountain View Wizmen, and then it says that the district has confirmed 15 families with 24 children, which is different than 89. And then the Mountain View Los Altos says 84 homeless youth. And then the notes say that LASD has one homeless youth, so I'm probably reading that wrong. Can you clarify?

[02:38:53] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Yes, a staff can. That baseline number comes from a data that's from the county office of education. That's a total of 89 Homeless reported through the McKinney Vinto Act, 89 for the Mountain View Whisman School District. That includes all elements of homelessness. A subset of that for the Mountain Dew Whisman school district is the 15 families that the superintendent has confirmed staff, exist within his district, and that represents 24 children in his school district. The Mountain View, low South East number, is 84. Again, now it's data that's reported to the County Department of Education, and there is no breakdown sub breakdown that staff has in relation to that number, in terms of living in vehicles.

[02:39:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. And actually, I have a second question. The second question is that, and again, I asked it earlier, but I'd like some clarification. I've heard that to cut regulations regarding safe parking down. We need an emergency carve out under state law. And I'm wondering, I'd like a little more clarification of that, and what you think we might, if we were wanting to cut regulations so that we could expand the safe parking, what areas you would recommend that we could cut.

[02:40:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: And for that, I'll have Nicole respond to that.

[02:40:15] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So, Nicole, Wright, Assistant City Attorney. So, I think, to clarify a little bit, the city has already declared a housing crisis, and as part of that, it allows for a relaxation of building standards. And it's also not directly applicable to a safe parking program, that said, from our fire and building officials, they've indicated that the safe parking requirements that we're currently imposing on the operating safe parking lots and those that are included in the parameters presented this evening are the minimum standards that would be required to ensure safety. if that addresses your question.

[02:41:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[02:41:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[02:41:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Just a quick follow-up question to that, Nicole. So the council has been made aware of a safe parking program, I believe, in San Diego that has standards that are less than what the city of Mountain View is imposing. And I'm curious to know whether the standards that you are referring to are standards that we impose or do they come from the state level. Why is it that San Diego can have, I guess, from Mountain View's perspectives, you know, substandard conditions for their safe parking and, you know, we would have a different set of standards?

[02:41:42] Assistant City Attorney Nicole Wright: So my understanding, and I don't know if anyone, from building is here, fire can indicate, but my understanding is that there aren't directly building codes applicable to a safe parking program. And with respect to San Diego, their program, San Diego, as I understand it, can really correct me if I'm wrong, is that the city actually doesn't regulate safe parking. There are no regulations. So that might be the difference.

[02:42:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: And in addition, staff will adjoin to that, that the more streamlined and somewhat primitive indications of pictures that we've seen of that program, it serves predominantly passenger vehicles. So it's not yet deep on serving RVs. What we are talking about for the city lots is RVs, larger scale vehicles. So it's kind of an apple and an orange, and a bit different. They have begun to pursue at least 5 or more at last count that we know. hosting of those RVs. And it is predominantly a limited regulation program. There are a number of considerations they just started to review in April and May. Staff has not had time to go deep on what the city is looking at from San Diego, but up until this time, they've been in operation for upwards of close to 3 years, as I understand it. It has operated in an extraneous kind of non-regulatory environment.

[02:42:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. Council member McAllister.

[02:43:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, could you give me a definition of a chronic, homeless person? What does chronically mean?

[02:43:10] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Uh, yes, um, HUD defines that and updates that yearly, but it's generally one year. spent without housing, and that includes folks who are not meant for habitation, and that includes vehicles. Shelters, other types of places not met. It meant for people not met for habitation. Not meant for habitation, meaning not a fixed structure, plumbing, the essentials of health and safety.

[02:43:34] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, the housing's not meant for... okay. Okay. Um... Okay. Is there a time limit on any of these, in meaning, like, can they stay, someone could be at a safe safe parking lot for 6 months, 10 months, 12 months?

[02:43:56] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: There's not a set time frame. We've talked a little bit about what the time frames look like to actually get to permanent housing. Staff also advised and put into the record just now that there are variations of programs that participants and clients can go through, one program to another, as they kind of phase through getting their eventual placement in permanent housing. The county sets a goal for sheltering, according to Key Lee, the director who actually was kind enough to just respond to me on this question today, of about 120 days within sheltering, it's a little different within the safe parking environment. And that would certainly be a desirable goal. It's not necessarily a performance measure that would probably always be hit. And in terms of Mountain View programs, as well as those that are operated throughout the county, going from what I recall on history. The oldest one is Gilroy. And actually, Morgan Hill or Gilroy. And so that would be the longest one in operation. None have been around for decades, with the exception of Santa Barbara and some of the cities down south San Luis Obispo. So we don't have any any good data set, really, to operate on. I would also say that the program guideline for the operator is that they check in on a 30 day permit with the clientele for each safe parking spot. And if the client is not making forward progression, to moving to permanent housing and securing various activities that they need to do to get there, then their permit could be revoked.

[02:45:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Because you said 120 days to relocate? I mean, to get permanent housing, or get into housing, not permanent housing, but...

[02:45:40] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: No. No, what I said was that's a guideline for the county to ideally transition folks from sheltering. From shelter inn. There's no specific marker as it relates to safe parking.

[02:45:50] Councilmember John McAlister: I thought I read something about 18 months.

[02:45:54] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: 18 months overall for the homelessness population of various different populations, at least 18 months from assessment, when they've gone through a full assessment, and are in the county coordinated care system. Yes, in the county.

[02:46:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Okay. Do we have any? Projections are goals that we're trying to look at with a safe parking.

[02:46:18] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: We've not set performance standards on the current operator. The current operator has had some success with their initial clientele, as they are very mobile, passenger vehicle based often can be that way. I think the population that we would be serving through safe parking with the larger vehicles may need some additional time and assistance and some pretty intensive case management. We've highlighted that in the report and the potential impacts on CSA. But I really can't offer you a specific time frame. Each instance is so unique.

[02:46:49] Councilmember John McAlister: You gave us a chart in the council question, answers. It says length. So that's the minimum length, maximum length. What is that main length?

[02:46:58] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I think you might be referencing the OV, the OV, that's related to oversized vehicles. Right. That's the next topic.

[02:47:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, is that the next topic? Oh, okay. Sorry about that one. Then, do we, when they were talking about who would qualify for the, who could qualify for safe parking? You had a few scenarios, families or similar to our BMR thing, or people that have lived in Mountain View for many years? So is that something that's going to evolve? Are you gonna come back to us?

[02:47:36] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: Well, we're seeking some direction on what preferences, um, council council might be interested in. And one in particular, we'd like to do some further study of, which would be if you're interested in the live works, live work guidelines, similar to BMR. And then as it relates to families, That is a guideline that many programs do operate by, right now, the current lots for the face sites, the boards help facilitate what the guidelines are, and they're currently serving women and children.

[02:48:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then, you had a question where, uh, move will provide site management, with case management services, contracted with the community service agency. So move is paying CSA for these?

[02:48:13] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: They are, and the city and the county are subfunding, of course, that service.

[02:48:18] Councilmember John McAlister: So, we're subfunding a subfunding group. Okay.

[02:48:22] County Representative: Yes. We're funding move, and then they are contracting directly with CSA.

[02:48:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you.

[02:48:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, committee.

[02:48:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I just have a couple questions. Um, and I think this one is for city attorney. So one of the items that's come up often is the idea of a parking registration system. And I was wondering, again, if you could remind us about the difficulties in doing a type of registration type system,

[02:48:56] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I either can answer, but I just I know that I'm going to let Nicole answer that one.

[02:49:00] Nicole: And I think what you're, just to confirm what you're asking is whether why we just don't do a parking permit system instead of a safe parking program.

[02:49:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes, thank you.

[02:49:10] Nicole: In the rights of way or private property. Yeah, so just to clarify, the question is on the public right of way. Is that correct? Yeah.

[02:49:19] Nicole: So the vehicle code provides the city authority to regulate traffic control, which includes parking. And so in order for the city to implement some sort of parking permit system, it would have to be granted to us through the vehicle code. And the vehicle code is very limited authority for a parking permit system, which does include things such as the residential parking permit, which we do have, from staff's review of the vehicle code, there wouldn't be authority to do just a registration permit type system.

[02:49:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. My next question is related to capacity. So one of the things that came up, I believe, in March when we talked was that for some that are currently participating in safe parking for passenger vehicles, there might be some additional capacity that we could look into. I was wondering if staff could share a little bit more about kind of what that conversation has been since March. And I know that council had talked about perhaps being able to streamline that process for those faith-based organizations that could see more vehicles. I don't know if there's been any conversation related to that since that time, but I know that that was something that was discussed. So I just remembered just now to follow up on it.

[02:50:46] Nicole: What our goal and our hope and our intent. would be through the safe parking ordinance is to make this process and requirements, as well as potential support or funding available to both those face sites that may continue to have an interest. There are some that are still considering it right now. But this process would apply to those face sites as well as private companies or other nonprofits that might be interested in safe parking. So once the city adopts the ordinance, it would apply to all who would like to engage in safe parking, and that would be a faith site that might come online or any other site.

[02:51:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So my question is more that for those who are already engaging and would like to increase capacity. Um, you know, would, um, the options that, how would the option, neither option one or option to kind of play into those who are looking to increase capacity, um, on their existing site? Because I believe one of the items is that if they were, for example, St. Tim's is currently providing a service level and has an interest, potentially an expanding.

[02:51:52] Nicole: Once the ordinance was adopted, they would go through the process, and whichever option the council recommends, one or two, they would go through the procedure and file an application for that. So it would apply to them, and it would allow them to abide by similar standards. I should note, into the record, both Lord's Grace, as well as St. Tim's, comply with the lion's share of the requirements that we are recommending. They are very safe and make well maintained lots, provided care and services to remove as well as CSA.

[02:52:22] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Great. Thank you. And then I had one other question only because I see county representation here. So, um, the county does have a social services agency, um, and I, this may precede my time on council, uh, was there a discussion about looking into that a lot as a potential partner at all? Or sorry to put you on the spot key.

[02:52:51] Nicole: I don't know. Speaking of the county lot, we have had discussion on this the past, and I think Michelle Covert put some items into the record in March, but if Keeley would like to respond. Sorry, Key, that's what happens when you sit in front.

[02:53:07] County Representative Keith: I don't know what Michelle put into the record, but I can say that we can just go back and talk to our facilities and fleet folks and ask what the status of the social services agency lot is. I think we are renting it so we can we can find out.

[02:53:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Keith.

[02:53:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Vice mayor. Abbe Koga.

[02:53:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. In the written questions, there was a question about, um, locations, um, specifically North Bay Shore and East Bisman being, um, areas that would be permitted for, say, parking programs, um, and the question was why those two, but, um, I guess I noticed, um, Walmart in our San Antonio area seems to have their own program that there's so RVs parked there. And I guess my question was, is 1st question is, is there a difference between like a retail location versus current commercial industrial that I thought was prohibited? Um, and then two, why not, think, look at other areas other than the 2 North Bay Shore and East?

[02:54:25] Nicole: I'll respond to the 1st one, and I may ask for planning assistance on the second. The 1st is their private lots, and, you know, Walmart, as well as the different operators that make up the San Antonio Center. You know, make decisions about how they operate in terms of parking for people coming for the normal course of business. Hopefully that's reflected correctly in terms of how private property works, different than the public space, and then on the zone issue. I will ask, I not sure who we have available from Stephanie is available tonight, is Stephanie, if you can come forward and respond to the zone question.

[02:55:07] Planning Staff Stephanie: Good evening. So we did choose those different precise plans and zoning districts, but it is up to council's discretion as to if they want to add other precise plants.

[02:55:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I guess I'm not clear than I understand Walmart is a private property, but let's pick some other company, for instance. I'm just gonna randomly pick semantic, for instance. So they're an Ace Wizman. So if they wanted to start allow parking, would they have to go through the process as opposed to what Walmart's doing? I guess I don't understand the difference.

[02:55:51] Planning Staff Stephanie: Oh, you mean between a non-programmatic element where folks are just parking in the parking lot and an actual safe parking program where services are being provided in accordance with the ordinance?

[02:56:01] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So is that the expectation of like a, again, just, you know, randomly taking semantic? If a company wanted to allow, um, safe parking, is it would we only require or only allow for a official program?

[02:56:20] Planning Staff Stephanie: Correct. And then if they wanted to just on their own allow RVs to park in their lots, they can do that today. It's not allowed. It's just not being enforced upon.

[02:56:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, okay.

[02:56:35] Planning Staff Stephanie: So the safe parking. So parking of the vehicles is considered to be the parking spaces are reserved for the business use. And so what the, one of the goals of the safe parking ordinance would be is to allow this additional use. And it would either be considered an ancillary use in different jurisdictions. It is a relaxing of the rules. if I'm not mistaken. And so it would allow this combination of uses where right now the zoning requires that if you have parking spaces on site, they're supposed to be used for parking for the business. So the whole purpose of creating this ordinance is to relax that and allow them to use it not only for parking for the business, but for safe parking. So it's to encourage them. And then we have a set of guidelines and we would apply them the same to everyone. So as of right now, a private entity is not allowed to allow oversized vehicles. To park their overnight overnight.

[02:57:34] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[02:57:35] Planning Staff Stephanie: But during the day, as long as they're allowed to use their parking for parking purposes to serve the business.

[02:57:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[02:57:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks, Stephanie. I just had one question. One of the ones I sent in, I wanted to follow up on, and that is the one about the permit process on page 4 of the staff report. And I was referencing option one in that one instead of option two. And I was wondering, could we just modify option one and say there is some sort of public hearing so that folks who are noticed about this have the opportunity without specifically requesting a public hearing. could come to the meeting.

[02:58:24] City Staff: And yes, that could be could be added based upon council direction tonight.

[02:58:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So actually, and then I want to go back to the vice mayor's question. So, if, you know, I know the goal was to make it easier for businesses to allow parking in their lots. And did I hear? I know that we've talked about, you can't do that now technically, but we're not enforcing it. But once we pass a safe parking ordinance, Are they required to offer the safe parking that would be defined here and provide those services or could they just open up their lots and allow people to park their vehicles there?

[02:59:19] Nicole: It's my understanding that as proposed, as we've proposed the safe parking ordinance and the parameters. Everyone would need to, everyone who wants to offer safe parking would need to comply with those regulations.

[02:59:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I guess does like Walmart consider what they're doing safe parking. And would they need to then comply or would they just continue doing?

[02:59:41] Nicole: Our dialogue with Walmart has been limited based upon guidance that I got from speaking with the staff. It's not a formal program. So it would be different, in all likelihood, than safe parking. But again, Walmart is a corporation is one thing, and local Walmart and the property owner have may have different perspectives on how they operate their current parking lot.

[03:00:14] City Staff: And Nicole, if I may also just chime in. So, I think, I think part of the issue is using a private parking lot, to park overnight when that parking is not being used for the business, is not an appropriate use, I think, is, um, city attorney Quinn had indicated. So by doing a safe parking ordinance is providing a path forward in terms of how to utilize parking. Granted, yes, the requirements would need to be met under the ordinance, but it's a path forward for how to use those private property lots to meet this need.

[03:00:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member, Ramir?

[03:00:56] City Staff: If I could just take that one step further. I mean, it sounds like council has some interest in what might be deemed kind of a hybrid, where private property owners would make their lots available, but without a formal program, that is different from what we're proposing, if that's something council's interested in. Um, you know, it's actually more akin to the San Diego where it's kind of a free-for-all. And there's no kind of path towards housing and no services, right? But if the goal is to have more spaces available for private property owners, you know, that's something that we could, um, we could come back with sort of 2 2 components of the ordinance, I think, to allow that without services, but we'd have to, um, explore that some further.

[03:01:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez.

[03:01:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. My colleagues, colleagues are asking good questions, and I wanted to follow up on some of them. So, related to the line of questioning from the mayor and vice mayor, currently, if a private property owner opened up their lot informally, like as Walmart is doing and a couple of others, they would be subject to code enforcement, that would be the remedy right now because it is technically not allowed as a use. Is that is that correct?

[03:02:20] City Staff: Yeah, the challenge that we're trying to address. And I know planning will speak up is balancing a number of considerations. When does it become a land use, right, per se? When does this temporary use as a parking, um, as a safe parking program become a land use that needs to be regulated? And we did this in the context of the mobile food vendors, the food trucks. You know, at what point, and you made a policy call, at what point did that really become a land use where they would need a temporary use permit? And I think one of the challenges here is that it is, we're trying to create a one size fits all, and maybe one size doesn't fit all, since we have such a, you know, a number of employers with large parking lots that aren't necessarily used for parking their employees in the evening. So, you know, we looked at kind of best practices of the 5 existing programs. And Mountain View is always unique and has maybe some different characteristics than other jurisdictions. And so, um, you know, in the last couple of months, we tried to bring forward something that we could we could model in other cities, but as I said, we always have kind of a unique flair and maybe there's another way to look at this. And I don't know what RT thinks about what I've just said.

[03:03:37] City Staff: And just to add on to that. I mean, we have done substantial outreach to private sector, employers, to encourage them to open up their lots with absolutely 0 interest. So, you know, whether there are services provided or required or not. There hasn't been a lot of takers. We haven't even gotten to that level of conversation. It's more about liability and concerns like that. So, you know, we can certainly explore that further, but I want to be realistic that, you know, Walmart seems to be doing that, my understanding is Walmart has a national policy of allowing RVs in their lots. I don't think they intend it to be a safe parking program, or for people to stay there long term, but, you know, in general, there's not a lot of companies saying, well, if you just let us open up our lots, we're happy to do that, or we can certainly explore it.

[03:04:34] City Staff: And also, if staff can just join, in the last staff report in March, the context that was included in that was just a parking program, and that can tend to be more of a just an encampment. You create something that you might not have intended, where there wouldn't be service delivery attached to it. And so that's a distinct model, but it's different than safe parking.

[03:04:59] City Staff: Sorry, responding to Council member Ramirez's question. We are looking at safe parking as a land use. Currently We have allowed it in churches, without a temporary use permit, if they're fewer than 4 vehicles, and we really haven't processed any other safe parking programs. So Walmart is, as a land use, is not allowed to have us have those vehicles with people living in them. And so I think we're looking for options based on what the council has told us to bring back to you.

[03:05:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So if Walmart or some other commercial property owner wanted to continue to allow RVs and, you know, folks who live in RVs on their property, but did not want to formally participate in the safe parking program and have case management and comply with the rules that were, you know, providing direction on tonight, would counsel action be necessary to allow that, or is the status quo okay?

[03:06:03] City Staff: The status quo does not allow people living in vehicles on Walmart. So we would need to provide if the council were interested in allowing. We need to bring it back.

[03:06:12] City Staff: Yes, we need to bring it back.

[03:06:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's helpful.

[03:06:14] City Staff: At this point, we're recommending the safe parking programs. So Walmart could apply for this CUP, nondiscretionary otherwise, and go through the process in order to allow it. And then at that point, they would be required to provide or work with an operator who would provide case management and that kind of thing.

[03:06:32] City Staff: That's right, correct.

[03:06:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Got it. Thank you. And then following up from council member, Camay's question to the county, for key or Michaela or whomever would like to address this question. So can you provide us an update on county funding for safe parking in Mountain View and sort of what the future of that may look like?

[03:06:52] County Staff: So I think the county has set aside nearly $260,000 a year for a two-year pilot program with Move Mountain View, a similar program with Amigos de Guadalupe in San Jose. We think that our intention, well, our intention is to assess whether that those programs are effective, take lessons learned from other jurisdictions. San Jose, for example, has a safe parking program, they sort of have different registration processes, application processes. And then to see to what extent we can sort of expand or refine those programs. Having said that, We do feel that it's important to continue to provide and modify program to meet the needs of individuals and families. So depending on what happens here today, if move mountains views said to us that there is an opportunity to expand the program, we can sit down with them, and then the staff would be willing to sort of bring that set of recommendations to the county exec and then possibly to the board.

[03:08:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. Yeah, I have one more question. I know there are more businesses than Joe's Walmart that are allowing either their employees or other people to park in their lots. I've seen some where they are just parking in the evening. And I'm wondering, um, do we have any information on if some of the issues we're seeing when people are parking in the public right away? We're also seeing in the parking lots. Some indication in and around Knob Hill, and I'm looking for Wally, who is right there. Hi, Willie.

[03:08:57] City Staff: There has been incidents both in Walmart, Target, Nob Hill, that would be sort of similar. But I don't know if the police department wants to speak to any of those issues.

[03:09:15] Sergeant McGee: Sergeant McGee Mountain View Police Department. Could you clarify the question, ma'am?

[03:09:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I was wondering if some of the issues we are seeing in terms of public health and safety on the public right away. We're also seeing in the private parking lots.

[03:09:30] Sergeant McGee: Absolutely. We're seeing leaking sewage, at times large amount of oil that's dropping onto the road onto the parking lot areas, buckets of sewage being left in the parking lots themselves. And so, yes, we are seeing the same issues.

[03:09:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Okay, any other questions from council members? Don't see anybody in the queue. Okay, so before I open this up for public input, I do want to mention a few things. One is, you know, we've got 2 topics on our agenda still tonight. The 1st one is safe parking. The 2nd one is talking about oversized vehicles, parking. And so I want to make sure folks keep their comments to the topic we're discussing right now at 1st and that's safe parking. I also want to remind folks that we're not adopting any ordinance tonight on safe parking. We're providing direction to staff to bring an ordinance back to us. We're doing a couple other things in this area, but we're not adopting the ordinance. I also want to remind folks that there are going to be different perspectives on this topic. And if you've been here before, you know that I expect folks to listen carefully and with respect to every single person who comes up here and provides us with public input. And that means I don't want any applause or booing or any other outbursts, we're just going to listen, and we're going to listen respectfully. So with that said, can I see a show of hands of how many folks wish to address the council on safe parking? Okay. So, a couple things. Be sure to fill out a blue card before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk. And we will give you a minute and a half . And when you get close to that time, you know, you'll see the timer, change to red, and then you'll hear a chime that means the time is up. So if you could please respect that, I would appreciate it. We've got a lot of folks who want to provide us with input, and we want to make sure we hear from all of them. So if folks could start lining up over here. Remember the blue card, and if the 1st speaker could come up to the microphone. That'd be great.

[03:12:05] Louise Katz: Thank you, council members, Louise Katz, on behalf of livable Mountain View. We've already provided a letter to the council, so I would like just to give a brief summary. for purposes of people in the community understanding what we would like to try to accomplish. Our position is that unlimited street parking is not sustainable, especially as other cities shift people to us. But Mountain View cannot do it all, and need clearly exceeds capacity. This is a regional problem. And we recognize that there are many tremendous obstacles to regional solutions, but we'd like to think outside the box. Livable Mountain View has offered to work as an advisory committee to bring to the table advocates, RV dwellers, elected officials, for cities on the peninsula, counties, state, the VTA, real estate industry, tech, and schools. The problems, the obstacles, such as legal issues, land use for public and private property, security, liability, as you've mentioned, are huge, but we believe that these problems can be solved. So we would like to learn and advise the Council of Possible on regional solutions. Thank you.

[03:13:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:13:25] Mary Hodder: Good evening, Mary Hodder, I'm also here representing Livable Mountain View. And I wanted to echo what Louise just said about finding a regional solution. In particular, we know that these issues are hugely important and they're very emotional across all the parties who care about making sure that we're able to house all the folks who want to be in Mountain View and who have lived here before. That said, we also wanted to underscore and acknowledge that you have to deal with the code and safety requirements that limit how many vehicles, for example, might be accommodated in a single lot. So, for example, we understand that a fire truck has to be able to turn around in an offstreet parking area where RVs or cars might be spending the night. Water and sewer also have to follow code and safety rules, and we believe that there is a solution a way through that can accommodate all the needs and safety code issues. So as I said, we are very interested in finding a regional solution. We don't want to see any group, whether it's council, residents, or RV dwellers be demonized. We want to figure out a way through, and we think that that's possible. So thank you.

[03:14:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:14:49] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Ain't it, Rudolph, Superintendent, Mountain View, Westman, school districts, currently today where there are 103 families who qualify as homeless under the McKinney Vento Act, 88 are doubled up in apartments, 2 are living in a shelter, and 21 live in RVs, which is down from the last number. To be clear, I am speaking on behalf of the trustees. We are not criticizing or commenting on whether or not you should have a ban or if there should, what we are arguing is that there should be some type of say parking. But really, I'm here to highlight the plight of the 21 kids. We need more time to partner with regular community agencies, CSA, 2nd Arms, Food Baker County. Last for love to understand what is actually feasible. We need more time to work for our stakeholders, to explore, say parking on our school site. So specifically, I'm asking for you to allow staff to create more time so that we can properly vet this decision. Because ultimately these kids are not choosing to live in these RVs. These chick, these kids are victims. These kids are individuals who are trying to make the best out of what they have. And you need to take that into account before we make any other decisions. I look forward to working with city staff a little bit more, as well as all the other providers to get this done. Thank you.

[03:15:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Excuse me, Dr. Rudolph, before you leave, we have some questions for you. And I just want to remind folks that, um, often the council does have questions for speakers, and, um, it's not that we're giving them more time to speak, we just have questions about what they've said. And as I said before, we're listening to people and sometimes we have questions.

[03:16:20] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: No worries. I text a couple people, see if I get 5 cards, but alas, I figured I could squeeze it in in 90 seconds.

[03:16:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member committee has a question for you.

[03:16:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: You did a good job. Thanks. I don't think I've heard you speak so fast before. So, um, for um, it sounds like the school district is interested in safe parking. Can you share with council, maybe how long that you would, uh, might be necessary for you to get your safe parking online?

[03:16:56] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: So our trustees, I've spoke. I talked with each one individually offline. So they haven't taken an official position as a board, but each one of them has agreed that they want to explore this topic. I did meet with city staff. as well as with lots of love, and we all agree that this is an item that we can do. I also spoke with the city manager, I believe it was last week, and sort of reaffirmed my position. To be honest, I think if you could give us an account, essentially a year from now, we should be able to have an option. And only what I'm asking for is for you, regardless of what the restriction is that you decide, right? If you give us a year, June, we should be able to, if we're going to have a safe lot, we should be able to have it up and running and have would have went through the full process to talk to people. If we can't do it, then we'll be able to say before then, yes or no. But I think in order to properly vet this, we need a year, especially now that all the parents are gone. We need a year to really talk about this issue and look at their actual impact. We've had secure, not pure storage as already donated washing machines for our kids. We have bikes that have come in for them. So we have these other resources that are out there. We just need time to really pull every body together and talk about this issue and sort of come up with a plan of action.

[03:18:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: One last question. So, um, I know it's like discussions haven't happened, but would it be, um, perhaps multiple sites? Are you thinking just at one site or that would be part of the discussion that you would have?

[03:18:27] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: So I think what we don't want to do is we don't want any kid being publicly shamed. I mean, that's not the name of the game, right? But I do believe that, you know, we have we control a lot of land in Mountain View. And so we have enough parking lots from 7 PM to 7 AM to sort of make this work. I don't know what that looks like. Our kids are spread out across all of our schools with the exception of Huff, which means that all of our schools have this particular need. So I think it's possible to look at what the options are. I will say the middle schools pose the best option because it would allow us to the washing machines that have been donated. Kids, we can set up a process where they can go in and out to sort of take showers, meet those particular needs, which I think would address some of the other concerns. And those lots are also bigger and a little bit more secluded, which means that from a safety standpoint. We should feel really good. But they also have multiple points of entry, which means that when those RVs have to leave at 7 AM, no one would actually see them versus at an elementary school. The lots are right in front of the school. And I think that would create a large logistical problem. But I don't want to get, you know, the card ahead of the horse. But I do think those are probably, you know, all best guess will be those will be the 2 options that we would explore. But we would need to engage the communities around them to make sure it works.

[03:19:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Vice mayor has a question for you.

[03:19:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Dr. Rudolph. So just to clarify, is it 21 students who live in RVs, not 21 RVs?

[03:20:08] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Correct. So there are, um, there are 21 students who live in RVs. I believe the number 15 is still correct. Okay. And so, you know, originally when I spoke with city staff, we talked, you know, the 1st question I had was, okay, so you got a lot that holds 20. We got 15. We can make life easy for you and we put all 15 there and then you just figure out how to how to do the other five. City staff, of course, was like, well, we can't really just give all the lots to them. but they were sympathetic to the actual need, right? And so I think for us is how do we figure out how to how to house 15. And that's our only priority. We would not, we're not going to open up our schools, to other members of the community. Our priorities, our kids. And that's really what we're concerned about. And I know that may not be popular with people behind me, but ultimately that's my job is to think about the kids. And so that's who we'll focus on those 15 RVs.

[03:21:04] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I was going to ask you then, one of the issues is prioritizing and an option is to prioritize families with children in our schools and how would you feel about that as an interim measure until you get your own program up and running.

[03:21:23] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Well, I love that. We know these families have registered, right? And so we know who they are. And, um, There's a lot of stigmas about being homeless and there's a lot of things that go back and forth. The fact that these families came to us and our seeking supports is a big step for them because that is that is a very humbling experience to get up and say I'm homeless and I have kids and we're living in this, you know, this small spot. So if you could do that, that would be great. I do understand that there are other there are a lot of needs that exist. Of course, I'm always going to advocate on behalf of the students. And so I would love for families to be prioritized. If not, then I'm advocating for the other, which is simply give us enough time to work with all my friends who are sitting in here to come up with a solution that both city staff can support as well as the partners can support.

[03:22:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Are there is there anything that if we were to the city we're able to help provide resources to help you get a program up and running sooner? Is that a possibility? Or are there just, you know, issues that you, within the school district that you have to deal with that would take? Like the time you mentioned.

[03:22:43] Superintendent Ayinde Rudolph: Yeah, you know, I think the... When this 1st came out in March, we sort of, we were like, oh, okay, well, let's look at what our data is. And then we had other issues that we're sort of pressing that we focused on. This would be a top priority at the beginning of the year for us to go through. Um, you know, probably it probably would take us about 5 months or so, um, to work with family, you know, to sort of work through with the community to understand the plight. But that's a very aggressive schedule, assuming that staff essentially prioritize that as a number one focus. And then, of course, the county and CSA and all our other friends were all sitting there and our religious partners are all sitting there at a table making this a top priority. So we could get it done that fast. Okay. I think the most feasible option to vet this out completely would be a year.

[03:23:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Ramirez has a question for you. Sorry.

[03:23:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. and thank you for being here in your willingness to partner with the city in addressing this issue. So I, just, uh, to, for my benefit, you've had a chance to weigh in on the parameters that are being proposed for the safe parking program and you're comfortable with them?

[03:24:00] Dr. Rudolph: I haven't had a chance to weigh in. Um, you know, we both working under the same constraints. And so, I don't have access to staff reports before they come out. But I was made aware that, like, you know, we should be able to investigate how this impacts our lots. I think one of the things we need to do is to due diligence. I don't know the size of the mobile homes or the RVs that our kids are in. So I don't know what the impact is. And I would need to go through. So I'm, again, I don't want to be quoted saying we're going to use crittin, right? But if we were to use Crittinin, I would need to go through and look at what the size is, the same thing with Graham on the backside of the lot, how many RVs could we safely get there and sort of what are the requirements and understand what all the logistics are? And that's part of the time and the due diligence that we would need. And the beauty of this is because these families are registered, it's easy for us to go. It's not easy for us to find them, but it's easy for us to connect with them and understand what's taking place. One of my biggest fears, though, is that families now to this summertime. And we're now moving into our summer feeding program. These families may choose to move and go to another community. And then we'll have to track them down under the McKinney Vental law and provide services to bring them back. And so that's one of those things that is just, that's why we need to just need a little bit more time to sort of figure this one out.

[03:25:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And maybe this is a question for staff, but, and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to ask it eloquently, but I assume that there may be some fair housing implications to preferential treatment. And if that's the case, and we have a program that has certain stipulations for who's eligible and the school district would like to participate, but has a different set of preferences, would they be able to comply? Would they be able to participate in our safe parking program? Um,

[03:25:56] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: I'll take an effort at that. and then Nicole can chime in as well. In terms of families and children, we, McColl, we have looked at that and that looks like a preference, that could be a part of the guidance for the safe parking ordinance. So, yeah, from staff to review, of it, we were, we believe would be appropriate to provide a preference for families, with children, for a priority for that. That wouldn't be a problem.

[03:26:27] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: just to be clear, if I assume you would only host families with children enrolled in the Mountain View Wisman school district in those schools.

[03:26:37] Dr. Rudolph: This is correct.

[03:26:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: But we couldn't make that distinction in the parameters of the state parking ordinance, could we? It would be families with children, but we couldn't say it's limited only to students who are enrolled in Mountain View wisdom schools.

[03:26:57] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: hadn't totally contemplated that limited of a preference. I don't know offhand whether that would be problematic. I think that we would need to review that a little more closely. I don't yeah, I think we would need to review that more closely.

[03:27:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We have one more question from you for you from actually, we might have more. Council member McAllister.

[03:27:20] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, yeah. Do you do anything for the people that live in RVs now?

[03:27:28] Dr. Rudolph: So under McKinney Vento laws, we provide them with food, partnering with CSA, and we actually have, we clothing to our liaison. We provide them with gift cards to purchase things. We, when they have particular needs for school supplies. You make sure that they have those. We have a set aside in our budget that is specifically designated for homeless students. And by law, uh, and then McKinney Vento, we have to do everything within our power to make sure that they are essentially are made equal. So even if they were to move to Oakland and chose to stay in Mountain View, we would have to provide transportation for them to come back. And the intent is, is that you shouldn't punish a student who is homeless. And so these kids will qualify under that. And then we have worked with some of our corporate sponsors. Again, to provide book bags, the washing machines. We just got, I think, 12 bikes for them. So we try our best to provide to make their lives as close to what everybody, what every other kid would have it that's living in a house.

[03:28:42] Councilmember John McAlister: And my other question is, you're assuming school year. What about summer? Well, temporary uses of the schoolyards during the summer. You have 2 months of pretty much non-use. So has that crossed your mind for temporary emergency housing available to the city or to move? Or lots of love.

[03:29:06] Dr. Rudolph: The, I believe that we, whatever plan of action we come up with that has to be approved by our governing body, would probably include the whole year, has provided that we could provide their appropriate supports to make it work. What I can't do is sit here and say, yes, that's what we're going to do without at least 3 members of our board saying yes. And so while we may have an informal poll, they need to officially weigh in to say this is what we want, but we could, once we make a decision, if the answer is yes, we could open it up for a year long, provided that we follow the requirements, which the 7 the 7 PM to 7 AM is really the thing that we have to stick to. Otherwise, we run into other legal issues.

[03:29:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you. I just thank you. Okay. That was my last question, but I did want to do a shout out to Pastor Leon. I remember him in 2015, so appreciate you coming and still advocating for this project.

[03:30:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And Council member Hicks has a question for you.

[03:30:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Actually, my question is not for Dr. Rudolph, but it's on this subject. So I have a question regarding the fair housing implications of the program that we're trying to put together. And that is that, um, whether you can, whether the school district can, under the setup that we seem to be moving towards for safe parking, whether they can say they only want families with children or whether there's their, uh, preferences have to be consistent with the preferences of the other lots. Is there a way to handle that legally? Because it sounds like it's a different, slightly different set of preferences.

[03:30:48] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So I think if the council wanted to include preferences in the safe parking ordinance, you could do that, and then if other private or in this case, I guess public lot, owners, operators wanted to include additional or more stringent preferences, they would be able to do so. Alternatively, if you didn't include any preferences, they would be able to do so as well. don't think they'd be prohibited from that.

[03:31:18] Unknown Speaker: And I just want to caution or back us up a little bit that we use the live work preference in the context of housing, but then this is vehicles, and that's one of the issues and how that applies is something that Nicole and I need some more time to work through. And that is something that we're familiar with. So that's why it got raised in the context of the staff report. And it does seem that most parking programs have lots that are dedicated just to women or to women and children or to families that there's an ability to arrange the lot so that it can meet certain needs.

[03:31:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So there's some history or some experience with more restrictive requirements. Okay, thank you.

[03:32:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. You. We're back to additional public input.

[03:32:12] Penny Hart: Hi, my name's R Penny Hart, and I've been a homeowner and resident of Mountain View for 26 years. I also am currently a substitute teacher in the Mountain View Westman school district. In addition, I'm a member of Palo Alto Vineyard Church, and many of our members live and work in Mountain View. And like myself, are very concerned about the plight of our neighbors, the vehicle dwellers. I did read the article this week that the mayor and vice mayor wrote in the Mountain View Voice, and I wanted to honor and thank all of you for your efforts thus far in addressing this very complex and difficult situation regarding safe parking and provision for our residents. My suggestion is that there be a plan before considering the ban. So, in other words, what you've already been talking about this evening, being able to be considering how to provide safe, permanent 24 hour safe parking for our residents before any kind of ban is enacted. I consider the RV dwellers and vehicle dwellers to be residents of Mountain View just like myself. Their children attend the schools that I teach at, and their parents work in the same city I work in. And, um, just wanted to say, thank you for your efforts, and please consider plan before the ban. Thank you.

[03:33:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:33:46] Roger Nubis: Yeah, good evening, Mom. My name is Roger Nubis. Born in Aberdeen, Scotland, 1948. I'm 70 years old. The family moved to United States, 1965, just in time to be drafted in the 1969. I'm Rain Corps. I spent 2 tours in Vietnam and honorably discharged, excuse me. I'm still an immigrant. I'm constantly in and out of the VA hospital, pacemaker, 22 operations on my hands, and because of Agent Orange, this will be going on for the rest of my life. My income over the years is reflected from these proceedings. I live in a motorhome. I choose to live in my motor home. I like it, bitch, on Cresanto. I qualify for section 8,000 but do not want it. I paid 100s of dollars on tickets, fines, and penalties. I paid 1000s on toes, storage fees, and 5 years. The 1st Tuesday of March 2019. I parked the motor home, I parked the motor home at the park, legally get up the street so they could clean the streets. I had a coronary incident right when I parked it, and I was taken to the VA hospital for 10 days in ICU. My staff called the police. They said, call the park department, the park department, says, keep your vet safe and sound. We won't do his vehicle. I still got 2 tickets. Hopefully I can get that erased. Anyway. To take care of vets, period. There are 20 to 22 veterans from these wars, commit suicide every day. They don't need any more aggravation than they get. I have a flat fee proposition. If you charge us a fee. If you charge a fee to pay for everything, all the amenities, it could help. Thank you.

[03:35:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:35:35] Suhas Patil: My name is Suhas Patil. I am owner of the building right next to the pioneer lot, and other owners are here as well, and we've been following this. I have a question. I have questions relating to how the lot will operate. Okay? In particular, you know, are you going to be planning, you know, water, switch, you know, shower facility and so on. The reason I asked some of these questions is, we recently had an incident where in RV parked in that lot and they strung a long electrical cord and plugged into where we have plugs for charging electrical vehicles. So these needs are real. And I would like to make sure the planning is complete and wholesome so that, you know, others are not impacted in our neighborhood. Relating to that is this apparently is 7 o'clock in the evening to 7 in the morning. Where do these 40 RVs go? That lot is not like a school lot or company lot. is there all the time. Thank you.

[03:37:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:37:16] Steve Peters: Hi, my name is Steve Peters. I attend St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, where we currently have a safe parking lot. We host 4 residents and passenger vehicles right now with no restriction on gender or age. I think there's some good parts of the proposed ordinance that make it easier to supply more parking spaces. Currently, our lot is limited to 4 spaces without a temporary use permit, but this ordinance could expand that significantly to streamline things. After all, we did declare a crisis at the March 19th meeting. There are some parts of the ordinance I'm concerned about that add complication and expense, such as the option one conditional use permit process. I think option 2 is much more in keeping with the state of crisis that we're in. I'm also concerned that we not, in the ordinance, limit the hours of operation for private, safe parking lots. If an opportunity was to arise for a private lot to give more extensive hours, we shouldn't prematurely limit that. And I just want to say I'm grateful to the city for supporting safe parking, and I hope we give it time to grow. Santa Barbara developed its safe parking program for over 15 years without restricting oversized vehicles from parking on city streets. Thank you. you.

[03:38:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have a question, Council member Hicks?

[03:38:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh sorry. Excuse me, I have a question. So thank you for all the work that you're doing at your church. Can you tell me, you said you were considering you would consider under this new plan you would consider expanding? Have you had talks on about how much?

[03:39:11] Steve Peters: Can I invite my pastor to help answer that question?

[03:39:20] Steve: Yes, we would like to expand. I think we would have to look at the capacity of our parking lot because we have a shared agreement with the doctor's office next to us, but we'd like to at least have 10 spaces available if possible.

[03:39:35] Unknown Speaker: And would that include RVs as well?

[03:39:38] Steve: Possibly.

[03:39:40] Unknown Speaker: So you're exploring that.

[03:39:41] Steve: We're exploring that, yeah.

[03:39:43] Unknown Speaker: And then, can you tell me there was, you had mentioned some problems with working through the CUP. Is that just staffing problems?

[03:39:51] Steve Peters: Um, it just, it would, it would just be a lot easier to, it just, if we had, um, it's just a more streamlined process, if it's just by right through zoning, whereas if it was, um, if you had to go, it just adds delay, if you have to go through, um, all that extra process and invite people to complain about it.

[03:40:16] Unknown Speaker: So it's more timing than a staffing problem.

[03:40:19] Steve Peters: Um, I mean, it's, it's, it's a, Yeah, it just like the, um, Yeah, I think timing.

[03:40:28] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[03:40:36] Reverend Lisa McIndoo: Hi, I'm Reverend Lisa McIndoo. I'm with St. Timothy's Episcopal Church, Mountain View on Grant Road. We were a pilot program for lots of love. And currently, as Steve said, we've got 4 people in our lot. And I just want to say thank you for bringing this recommendation to the council. What I want to do is just kind of give you the face of some of the people that are in our lot, just to make it very human for you. We, right now, have just cars in our lot. So we have an 85 year old woman that's in our lot right now. It's very, she's very old and she's very fragile and she sleeps sitting up every single night. She is currently on a housing list and she checks in with our manager every week, almost every other day, and we're trying to find her housing. But these are the people that are in our lot. We've had a mother and a daughter, daughter who was a student at Mountain View High School. We have a couple that lived in Sunnyvale for 35 years. The women worked at Stanford. They got sick. Both of them couldn't afford the rent that was going up, and now they're homeless. I mean, just like that. And so they now live sleeping in the back seat of their vehicles and they're 67 years old. We have people that work that are in our lot that have jobs and they leave every morning and go to work and come back and sleep in our lot. So I just wanted to let you know that there are real people that have real concerns that are wonderful citizens. Thank you.

[03:42:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:42:15] Stephen Nelson: Good evening again. My name is Stephen Nelson, and this person you see in a Mountain View Voice article from 2015 was a constituent of mine. A resident of Mountain View. One of the people that John says he represents. For the purpose of the U.S. Census, people who live in RVs or under the bridges are residents. They are enumerated in the census, they go on our help get us congressional districts. Go back 50 years, fair to drive near your area, Lisa. NASA contractors. I'm sure we're living in that RV area that got on Fairtrial Drive that got turned into condominiums. We need places for contractors also to come and live here short term as they're doing the work to build up this place. So I agree that maybe there needs to be something for the Walmart stuff. Maybe there needs to be something for this kind of safe parking, but there also needs to be the RV safe parking. So maybe there needs to be 3 components of this thing. I definitely don't think if you haven't benchmarked against Santa Barbara, you're missing a big thing, have you benchmarked Santa Barbara?

[03:43:29] City Staff: Yes, it's been one of the main programs that we've been looking on since we started.

[03:43:32] Stephen Nelson: Good. But the... People have said the things now are too tight. I would agree that 247 ought to be allowed for some of the things.

[03:43:44] City Staff: The maximum capacity, it depends on the site. Could be more than 30. Thank you.

[03:43:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:43:54] Public Speaker: Hi, thank you very much for having this meeting and letting us talk. I have a couple things, but 1st I want to address what the pastor just said. If that doesn't shake you to your bone and hit you at the sole. You need to find out where your soul is because that is really heartbreaking to hear her story. But first, I'd like to thank each one of you. I have an invitation. We haven't yet been having the opportunity of doing one-on-one with all of you, some, but not all. So I have an invitation to a potluck I would like to give to you from Angel. And we invite every one of you to go to this potluck at a, um, picnic at Rankstorf Park on the 23rd, I believe it is at 4 p.m. And before we can get to know you and really address the situation. To the meat of this. Number one, I really appreciate you trying to do the safe parking, addressing that. But there are a lot of problems with it. Number one, there are a lot of people that live in RVs and cars, which are heartbreaking, that work not only swing shift, but graveyard or mix it. There's one gentleman that some days is days, swing shift, and graveyard. What would they do during the 7 to 7, number one? Number two, is there any discussion or implemented, idea of implementing starting this only after the large RV, the large vehicle ban? Would you guys, are you ever considering having the band before you implement the safe parking? That's a question.

[03:45:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We'll talk about that the next topic.

[03:45:18] Public Speaker: Yeah, all right. And let me see what else. Ooh, I think that's it. Sorry, but I appreciate you addressing it. I think there's a lot to discuss, and I hope you keep open-minded about it all. Thank you.

[03:45:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[03:45:34] Uncle Santuario: Good evening. My name is Uncle Santuario. being a resident of Mound View for 15, 16 years now. part of the MVTC and helping organize the vehicle residence in the city. I got to thank you for bringing this up. The safe parking is something that has come up in our meetings when we talk to the community. A lot of them do want a safe place to park when they can, you know, maybe pay a little rent and have some services. But I got to let you know that not all of them. There are people that are completely comfortable doing Derby that would just like to maybe find a better place that is away from, you know, the bike lanes and stuff like that. So it's a very complex issue. We have people living in the same situation, but with different circumstances, some have candy caps, different issues with documentation or not. So, And, you know, Mountain View is not the only city. So we know that it's a regional problem. So we are starting to look at that. We're talking to organizations from other cities, and we would like to, as one of the leaders from the MVVR said, to join this potluck that's going to be happening. We're going to have organizations there. We're going to have the vehicle residents. So you can meet them face to face and talk to them and hear what could work and what would not work. I hear from their from their own mouth. And we don't have to be guessing or looking at what other cities do. Thank you very much for your time.

[03:47:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:47:11] Lester Frame: Hello. My name's Lester Frame. originally from Southern California. Moved to another state for 30 years. Circumstances brought me back here. I'm back home. And unfortunately, because of circumstances in this particular city, I became ashamed of being a Californian, and I started not trusting people that were supposed to trust because of what's happened to me, because I was living in my RV, not knowing I entered a battle zone. And I worked for Moffatt for the better part of a year, upgraded the Google thing, and I kept having the important things mess with, and I don't want to name names or say anything ugly right now. I just want this, I want it to end, and I want people to start caring about other people. But I've had I had my toad allies stolen while I was at work. I've been harassed. I've done the best I can. In fact, I've spent several $1000 helping other people. But the circumstances here forced me to have to rent a hotel for $7000 for a few months just so my motorhome was not hauled away taken away from me, like my toe deli was illegally. I'm about to fight tears right now. All I know is I love America. I love God and I love people. And I have been abused so badly. I'm 61 years old and I'm back in the workforce being retired for 10 years. And I don't understand, come back here to California and be treated like this. something's got to be fixed. I've got a couple ideas to solve problems, which some other people had some wonderful ideas here. Anyone wants to, they can call on me. I got food. Thank you very much.

[03:48:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:48:55] Unknown Speaker: Also, can folks be sure to turn in the blue cards with our city clerk. You've been getting them all, Lisa.

[03:49:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[03:49:03] David Lowe: Good evening, members of the council. My name is David Lowe. I'm speaking here on behalf of Destination Home. Destination homes and nonprofit organization that's convening partners from the public and private sector throughout Santa Clara County, with the goal of trying to end homelessness in our community. As you consider the items before you today. We just wanted to hope that the council will keep in mind also the need to continue pursuing longer-term strategies to our homelessness crisis as well. In particular, there's a dire need to develop more supportive housing units or community. These are affordable housing units that are combined with important services that can help people who are experiencing homeless get back on their feet and stay stably housed. We're grateful that the city has already adopted a goal as part of the housing investment strategy to produce a couple 100 more units of this type of housing and we have destination homework, eager to see how we can help you implement that vision. We've already had some early conversations with our community development team about the type of resources we could bring and assistance to help really get those units in the pipeline. And so we hope that you all will consider continue to prioritize the development of permanent housing as you continue these discussions today. Thank you.

[03:50:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. We have a question for you. Council member Ramirez.

[03:50:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'm not sure. Thank you. This may be a question for the county as well, but so if memory serves, there's a difference in the priority given to folks who are living on the streets versus folks living in vehicles for permanent supportive housing, I believe if memories folks living in vehicles have a lower priority because they're deemed at greater risk. Is there any effort to equalize that priority? So folks who are in vehicles also have access to primitive support.

[03:50:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Would you want to take that one?

[03:50:42] David Lowe: We consider individuals living in cars or RVs or on the street equally unsheltered. I don't see, I don't have not heard that the assessment tool that we use is sort of prioritize as one or over the other. I will confirm that, but I don't think that is an issue for us.

[03:51:06] City Staff: Thank you. At a staff level, we have communicated as well as CSA, who does our assessments, that it is a challenge, in some cases, to ensure that the clients that are reviewed meet that vulnerability index level. That's the VI Spedat acronym. So it certainly is a challenge in some instances, and I think that we want to continue to engage with the county on any refinement that might be available there.

[03:51:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Mr. Lo, we had more questions for you. We had more questions for you. Council member Komet.

[03:51:40] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Hi, good to see you. So, Destination Home is one of the organizations that I've mentioned to my colleagues. I know that your whole purpose is to help eradicate homelessness in Santa Clara County. Can you please share a little bit? When you were talking about resources you provide, can you please share with us kind of what you've done in other communities, those resources, and how, you know, you talked about permanent supportive housing, kind of some of the solutions and pathways to housing?

[03:52:09] David Lowe: Sure, yeah, our focus really is on some of those longer-term strategies and really focus on how we can build more of this permanent housing where we ultimately want to see folks who are experiencing homelessness get. Because we have some financial resources. We recently launched a, we call a supportive housing innovation fund, seed it with some generous donations from Cisco. We've been looking to see how we can partner with cities in the county who are interested in developing more supportive housing units. So some ways we've done that is helping provide pre-development, financing, in San Jose where we're very active. We helped increase capacity in the planning department, help get those permits going more quickly. So this is a couple of examples, and we really want to look to see in partnership with cities and councils who are interested in doing this to see how we can work together.

[03:52:53] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you.

[03:52:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:52:58] City Clerk: Mayor, the speaker has up 5 cards and has requested 10 minutes to speak.

[03:53:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are those 5 people here? Are the 5 people that...

[03:53:19] Unknown Speaker: Isn't the policy you have to have 5 people who agree not to speak, so that was four?

[03:53:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry? Emily Ramos, are you here?

[03:53:30] Dave Arnoni: Emily is in the hallway.

[03:53:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: There she is. Okay. Thank you, Emily.

[03:53:34] Emily Ramos: Thanks.

[03:53:35] Dave Arnoni: Am good?

[03:53:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep, you're good. All right, let's go.

[03:53:37] Unknown Speaker: So, not a mayor, not to be a curmudgeon, but the 10 minutes in the policy is based on the normal 3 minutes for one speaker. We're only allowing a minute and a half tonight, so you may want to adjust.

[03:53:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Actually, I'm sorry, I forgot about that. Yes, so it would be 5 minutes.

[03:53:51] Dave Arnoni: Five minutes?

[03:53:52] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. It's not a... Three times 5 is 15, and we give you 10.

[03:54:02] Dave Arnoni: You set the bar, you set the... Well, I'll get there.

[03:54:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Let's go. Let's go. Did you also have a presentation?

[03:54:12] Dave Arnoni: I'm putting on speeder. Okay, so my name's Dave Arnoni, and I'm here to make presentation to try and present, kind of maybe a different way of thinking, about a regional 24 hour approach. I'm a resident of Mountain View for the last 25 years, and I'm a director of Mountain View. So, housing cost and availability has led people to living on our streets. It's exacerbated by a regional supply of high paying jobs. We've just got jobs after jobs and people are coming here. Vehicle living challenges our sense of order and calm. leaving vehicles parked on our streets 24 hours a day in places we don't like. Oversized vehicle households, though, do need a place to part those vehicles during the day. Whether that's in the same place they spend the night or some other place they've got to go during the night.

[03:55:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could remember to address us as opposed to the audience, that'd be great.

[03:55:14] Dave Arnoni: Okay.

[03:55:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And we'll give you a couple more seconds because I just took that.

[03:55:16] Dave Arnoni: Okay. Overnight parking solutions are going to force those vehicles back onto our streets every day. We need a 24 hour solution. So our challenge is to balance our value for compassion while maximizing our desire for safety and order and beauty. How do we get here? It happened really quick. I'm really proud of our community, our city council, that we've emphasized compassion, compassion over quality of life for the tradition we housed. But times marched on, the number of vehicles has grown, and now it feels like our pendulum is swinging back the other way, looking for balance and bringing in order. or emphasizing order. Let me tell you a little bit about safe parking, move mountain views, a pilot program. We partner with the city, um, We've got 8 spaces, and, you know, if we do the plans we've got, we've got potential, you know, another 50 spaces pending. Safe parking works. New beginnings place 64% of their clients in stable housing in 2017. Life moves as a, um, really impressive record of exiting every one of their clients so far to shelter or stable housing and move Mountain View. We've served 24 vehicles and moved 7 of those into housing. But we need 24 hour safe parking. Let me tell you a little about finances. A unit of supportive housing cost the county about $15,000 a year. Move Mountain View, when we built our financial model, we targeted costs of $5,000 per year per parking space when we're at the 50 space level. Once these lots open, we're going to be at that level. We're one year into a two-year contract with the county. And when you look at this, you know, one way to look at this is that would cost of $5,000 per space, and you compare that to the county's cost of $15,000 per year for supportive housing, and Keeley tells me that number is quite low. It leaves a $10,000 per year per space opportunity for the county. So what I want to propose is a county wide approach. We get participating cities. And we ask each of those cities to set their own 24 hour parking space goal. We establish a registration system. I recognize that there are legal issues, but you could set up a system that's run by a safe parking provider like life moves and or move Mountain View. Let each city decide the priorities for getting the spaces. This registration system enables enforcement against rogue parkers. We create a task force to go out and find the spaces. And then we ask the cities to provide on street designated parking for any shortfall against their goal. The county coordinates and finds large lots that we can share between us. They continue to fund safe parking countywide, and they continue to develop partnerships and best practices between the cities. Where do we get all these spaces? Well, let's start by converting the planned overnight lots that we have to 2747 operation and use them at full capacity. That gets us to 100 spaces pretty quick if we push it and do that. We put in place this ongoing effort to bring on new lots as we sunset older ones. We look to the school districts like we've heard, Mountain View Whisman, Foothill, Los Altos High School, to provide spaces for their students. We aggressively and publicly pursue large businesses to step up. And we take some of that county opportunity money to rent individual spaces from small businesses and even homeowners. Imagine a tire shop or a garage repair shop. that could rent back a couple spaces a year. And then the city, we'd look to the city to provide buffer parking. You can see from the demonstration there that you could pretty quickly get to 200 spaces. Thank you. I'll stop right there.

[03:59:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That's good place. Appreciate it. Thanks, you guys. We have a question for you.

[03:59:38] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, Dave, I'm intrigued by we had communicated prior to the meeting, and I'm intrigued by the notion of a task force that would go and identify parking spaces. Can you can you flesh out that idea for us and share with us what you think the city's role in such a task force might be?

[03:59:58] Dave Arnoni: Look, you know, the way I envision it, and this is just the start of a thought, but...

[04:00:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You could speak into the microphone?

[04:00:03] Dave Arnoni: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. To create a, we should create a cross-functional task force. And that task force is charged to do our very, very best to find spaces. That's their job. It would have city and county representatives, real estate and legal professionals. the safe parking providers, representatives from the faith community, representatives from our Chamber of Commerce. And the way I see it is, that group would be chartered to be on an ongoing basis finding spaces. You know, I think we've got a pretty good supply of spaces right now that are in the pipeline. Some of the, but they're temporary. Some of them are gonna go away, but new opportunities are gonna come up. And I think part of this is to be processing it and bringing our best to the game to maintain the supply. You know, Lots are slated for development. They go fallow. Well, you know, during the permit phase. Why can't we, you know, waive some of these requirements under our housing crisis to be able to quickly take advantage of that, move 6 vehicles onto a lot that's in a permit process to be developed.

[04:01:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks has a question for you too.

[04:01:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Actually, my question. I do like the idea of a task force, a regional task force, but my question is for the gentleman from the county, and I'm sorry, I've forgotten your name. You were when Mr. Arnoni was talking about the 5000 versus 15,000 for supportive services, I believe it was you were making faces. So I'd like you to clarify. Also squinting to understand the slide.

[04:01:53] County Representative: First, it is true, it is sort of a scattered site, supportive housing program. We sort of anticipate the rental subsidy on an annual basis is about $15,000 a year, sort of depending on where that unit is. On top of that, there's probably about another $10,000 or so in terms of supportive services, depending on the program type, those subsidies and supportive services can be provided indefinitely, permanently, especially for people who are disabled and long-term homeless, um or have long histories of homelessness, or temporarily a year, 2 years for people who have the ability to have some earned income.

[04:02:35] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So is Mr. Arnoni right that if he were able to provide those services at a reduced price, that would enable could enable a regional system that you could support?

[04:02:49] County Representative: Um, I do want to encourage and the county wants to support more solutions. I will say that, well, what I seem to understand here is that we're creating, we're trying to have more safe parking. So that's more services. And at the same time, create more housing opportunities for individuals and families. To the extent that some of those individuals and families can resolve their homelessness without a rental assistance and ongoing supportive services, and we think that about 20% of individuals and families can, then sort of that's the only cost of safe parking. But if we're talking about adding more safe parking. Funding more that means funding more safe parking programs. and trying to create supportive housing opportunities for individuals and families in those safe parking programs. We see those as sort of additional costs, additional expenses, not to say that we shouldn't try to advance those, but I'm not having little trouble sort of seeing how there's a sort of a savings that could be redirected. But we do want to encourage more temporary shelter programs and more permanent housing and supportive housing programs.

[04:04:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. The vice mayor has a question. I'm not sure who it is for.

[04:04:16] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: From Mr. Arnoni. And thank you for your presentation, I appreciate the regional approach. My question is that I think you've heard our conversation, discussions over the, at least last year and, you know, we've attempted to reach out to businesses. I personally have asked developers, businesses, and we're just not getting any interest. And so have you, have you reached out and found success that maybe we're not finding, yeah, I guess what makes you think that there is opportunity there. I feel like we've really kind of turned every rock and maybe we haven't, but Yeah, I just want to get your perspective on trying to get partners.

[04:05:08] Dave Arnoni: Yeah, so this. What I've not seen, what I have seen is the city reaching out. And what I've not seen is a cross-functional group coming together to share ideas and challenge one another and work together to go out and find these spots. You know, I would imagine a best effort would include a marketing campaign. would include working with the media, would include, um, You know, I mean, I look at things like, uh, the success that Hope's corner had with Google and bringing Google in and, you know, using uh, uh, supervisor submitian to make that contact and make that happen. I'd envision a cross-functional task force doing things like that.

[04:06:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry to interrupt, but just with all due respect to the speaker and not to get into a debate here, and I appreciate the passion and the ideas, the city has spent countless hours, and with all due respect to Google and that, it was the city pushing Google to open their lots for safe parking that led to Google, then saying, we can't do that, but instead, we'll give a million dollars to... Hope's Corner. Destination. We have tried tremendously. I would love anyone else to be successful and be more successful than us. But I think it's a false narrative to say the city hasn't put extensive resources to finding partners to do this.

[04:06:49] Dave Arnoni: So I understand. That is not the narrative I'm trying to put out there. I'm trying to say, let's put together...

[04:06:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It just sounds that way. So I do want to recognize... I mean, actually, I understand that, you know, in the larger community there might be connections that maybe we don't have. And I understand that. I guess some of the, I think Council member Ramirez asked it and I didn't quite hear if there was an answer, but how do you see or where do you see the city's involvement in this regional task force? Like, what do you want us to do specifically? Do you want us to fund it? Do you want us to continue?

[04:07:23] Dave Arnoni: So 1st of all, I'd like to, I'd like the city to set a goal or a level of how many 24 hour spaces, they want to get behind. I like the city.

[04:07:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And you said you just want us to start with that.

[04:07:43] Dave Arnoni: And then I'd like the city to find some on street non-residential buffer parking for when we can't completely meet that goal. And then as move, as move.

[04:07:55] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Are you gonna take the lead in creating this task force or are you expecting a city to be?

[04:08:02] Dave Arnoni: I think we'd be open to it.

[04:08:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. It's all in the details, but yeah.

[04:08:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member Kame.

[04:08:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Can you pull up the slide, please, about the parking registration if it's still possible? Is it that one? Is that that one? Okay, yes. So I asked a question when we 1st started the discussion about parking registration, which you heard the answer to staff, but I see your slide and I read your opinion piece in the paper. And so I think there's been a lot of conversation and the city had explored looking into a parking registration program. I don't know if staff has more to comment on that, but I feel like that was something that I was interested initially. I know that the staff and prior council were interested in. And so I just don't know if there's more to speak on on the parking registration, but I think that that, um, continues to come up. And so I just want the, the, the city to be clear and the, that it was explored and why we weren't able to pursue that as an option. I think that that needs to be very clear and, um, I don't know if anyone from staff would like to take a.

[04:09:18] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Registration can mean a number of things. So if we're talking about the city having a, the city under the vehicle code cannot have a straight permitting system to allow people to park on the on the public street. Registration could be a system that people register to park on private property. So it's not clear to me from the slides, but it's an issue that we did research and don't feel that the city is authorized under the vehicle code, since the state is the one who gives us the power to permit the public street. We can do we can do a something like our residential parking permit system, but that's tied to actual physical addresses. So.

[04:10:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Okay, thank you.

[04:10:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: for questions for you. Thank you. Next, please.

[04:10:14] Margaret Poor: Hi, my name is Margaret Poor, and I'm a resident of Mountain View. I've lived here for about 15 or 16 years. We own a house in the town. I want to ask you to not pass any ordinance that includes banning a group of people. I heard, actually, I knew this was coming up, but I heard on NPR this morning, this specific meeting was talked about, and I thought, wow, mountain view. It's because it's very controversial to ban a group of people from living in a town, and I'd like you to really reconsider.

[04:10:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So actually, we're talking about safe parking right now. It sounds like you're talking about the oversized vehicle ordinance, and that's the next topic.

[04:10:51] Margaret Poor: Oh, I'm so sorry. this was it. Oh, this is safe parking. Okay. Thank you.

[04:10:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Next, please.

[04:11:01] Heather Busey: Hi, my name's Heather Busey, and I'm representing life moves. As you heard previously, life moves currently does operate in partnership with the city of San Jose, 3 safe parking programs, and so we are definitely in support of this program being extended into other communities in our county. We have seen tremendous success already. We launched our safe parking for families program in November, and we do already have a 94% success, right, of people going into more stable housing options, which means they're leaving their vehicles for shelter for other permanent housing options. So we just wanted to show our support for this type of program.

[04:11:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have a question for you. Council member Ramirez.

[04:11:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Many questions. Thank you for being here. So I have a few questions related to the difference between, so we don't have any lots available for RVs right now. I know in San Jose, there are lots for RVs. I'd be interested in hearing from life moves perspective, the difference in the operations of a lot with RVs versus one for just for cars.

[04:12:07] Heather Busey: So the 3 different lots that we operate are mixed use. So we do have cars and RVs. And within those lots, we size them. So each lot specifically maxes around 24 vehicles, which includes the length of an RV. And so we potentially take up more than one space for those vehicles. So we look for larger lots and then see what's safe to operate within that, accommodating for both sizes of vehicles.

[04:12:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And then one other question. I don't know if you've had a chance to take a look at the parameters outlined in the attachment to the staff report about our safe parking program, but just for our benefit as we provide direction on parameters for the ordinance, what are some things that, you know, again, from the perspective of an operator, especially for larger sites and sites with RVs, what are some of the key provisions for an ordinance that you think would be necessary to make it effective?

[04:13:03] Operator: For us, it's access to additional services so that case management piece is hugely important in making sure that participants are both compliant with a lot regulations and moving to more permanent and stable options instead of remaining in their vehicles. Just also access to basic services. So having access to restrooms, to shower, to laundry services, either on the site, or in partnership with other community entities makes that successful.

[04:13:29] Unknown Speaker: Do you have any thoughts on time limited parking? So 7 PM to 7 AM versus 247 availability?

[04:13:38] Operator: Currently operate at 7 PM to 7 AM and some of our challenges are where do those same individuals who are working in our community attending our schools go during the day? One of the most common things that people don't realize is a lot of our individuals in RVs are families in RVs, have a secondary vehicle. So the RV stays complacent, and then they go about their daily life in that vehicle, because it is the housing option that they can afford.

[04:14:03] Unknown Speaker: As an operator, would you feel comfortable managing a 247 law for safe parking?

[04:14:10] Operator: If the lot encouraged that participation in case management, because our goal is to move people out of that opportunity, I think we would be interested, yes.

[04:14:19] Unknown Speaker: Great, thank you.

[04:14:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[04:14:28] Joan McDonald: Joan McDonald, I'm speaking for advocates for affordable housing. First, I want to say, yes, we desperately need a safe parking program, but we need it robust so that it really does cover all of the vehicles that we now see parked on our streets. In order to do that, the program must have at least a high percentage of 24 7... parking opportunities rather than all but 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. or even 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. So, we would support a delay of adopting a safe parking program. We definitely support Superintendent Rudolph's suggestion that we have a year to develop the program that really makes sense also. I'm a, we are appalled at even suggesting that a requirement would be ownership of the RVs, that would definitely discriminate against the most, the poorest among the RV residents. So if we can't have...

[04:16:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: you. Next, please.

[04:16:12] Job Lopez: My name is Job Lopez. Rested in a mountain view since 1974. And I am here to remind you, H one of you, the city council members, to please rather than look, pay attention to the size of the RBs, to focus on the size of your compassion. Mountain View has been declared a human's right city. And housing is a human right. So please pay attention to that. And the same thing I asked to each one of the city officers involved in finding a solution. I agree with A Barononi that we need and you need to achieve a goal of 427. What our brothers and sister is living an RVS. As I say, parking lot 24 hours a day. So again, you receive a letters from the ACLU, from the AloFoundation of Silicon Valley, from the Stanford Community Law Clinic, and for many other longtime residents on Mountain View. warning you.

[04:17:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think you're speaking about the vehicle ordinance again, and we're talking about safe parking right now. Did you have any comments about safe parking?

[04:17:32] Job Lopez: Right now, I don't, what I'm, say, pay attention to the letters that you got because if you own, then probably you are exposing the city to be Sioux, and responding to the Sioux, you will be spending 1000s and 1000s of dollars, our taxes, that we can be used for other good things.

[04:17:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you.

[04:17:57] Matthew Petaki: Hi, Matthew Petaki. I own the property across the street from 15 Pioneer Way, and I want to say that I realize now this is a much wider reaching issue. And also, I'm not in the dark as much as I was last time. So, um, and just, you know, coming from the aspect of an owner and listening to all these people, I applaud them. And uh,

[04:18:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you want to take a minute and then come back?

[04:18:35] Matthew Petaki: Well, I'll do it quick. It's amazing what they're doing. Um, I think before, when I was thinking about it, that, um, you know, 7 to 7, it had to be that, but, you know, 24 hours, you know, seemed a little bit better, but just remember stating the obvious that, you know, infrastructure, that's the biggest thing. So.

[04:18:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'm sorry. Oh, we have a question for you.

[04:19:00] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for your patience, Mayor. Sorry, I didn't look down there. So I appreciate your being here and providing public input. As a property owner, one of the questions I've always wondered is, what are the barriers to entry for private owners to participate? And then what are some things, you know, from the city perspective, what could we do to encourage property owners to participate in a safe parking lot?

[04:19:25] Matthew Petaki: You know, so for me, it's like it's like in the forefront, right? So like, like last time it was like all of a sudden the news is like in my building and kind of lose my voice all the time. So, um, I was I was very I was not educated in this whole situation last time. So, I think education is probably the biggest thing. Uh, you know, so I would probably put that as a priority. Uh, you know, the one of my biggest concerns would be, and I talked about this with Lisa, is that, you know, where do these cars go because my guys can't even park on the street. So if all these cars moved out there, then, you know, this here's a problem, right? So but in the in the 15 pioneer way, if they, you know, let's say some cars were there for 24 hours, as long as it was the infrastructure was there, it makes a lot of sense. So, but sorry, did I answer the question properly?

[04:20:23] Unknown Speaker: Maybe let me narrowly scope it. What would it take for you to participate voluntarily in a safe working program?

[04:20:29] Matthew Petaki: Oh, well, I think I already am. I mean, it's like right in front of me. So, um, you know, I mean, I don't really have, you know, if it's, you know, it's I'm here, right? You know, so...

[04:20:41] Unknown Speaker: But you don't have any parking spaces.

[04:20:43] Matthew Petaki: Oh, I don't have any park space. Sorry, no, I mean, it's an automatic. Sorry, is that okay? Yeah, so sorry. So, yeah, like I only have very limited, limited parking spaces on my property. It just happens to be right across the street from the Pioneer Way spot. So sorry. Yeah.

[04:20:58] Unknown Speaker: No, no, I appreciate that. Yeah, misunderstood.

[04:21:00] Matthew Petaki: But at the same time, education, I would say. And now, so...

[04:21:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: How am I picky? Thank you. Thank you.

[04:21:07] Unknown Speaker: person to ask. The speaker has 8 cards and has requested 6 minutes.

[04:21:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So are all those 8 people, if you can raise your hands? So it looks like Try to hold it to five, but... That'd be great. Thanks.

[04:21:41] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, Mountain View homeowner. There are, um... Different reasons we might want to do safe parking. The one that I think is important is providing temporary shelter opportunities, as we seek permanent housing for these residents. So we heard before from the veteran, there's some people who don't want the permanent housing, and as we find permanent housing for people, there'll probably be more people who show up. So the problem's not going to go away. I've tried to divide the challenge into 4 areas. And some of the things that council members have said thus far kind of match that. These are the 4 areas. First is people who sleep in their cars. This is the lots of love model. For people like that, you know, they sleep in their car, they wake up in the morning, they drive to the gym, take a shower, and they drive to work. And the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. restriction isn't usually a problem for them. So it's a matter, as Mr. Anoni said, increasing the number of spaces that are available at churches, but those are primarily going to be for people living in cars because the churches need the lots during the day. And it's a lot harder for people to move their motorhomes day in day out. Second group, people talked about employers, developers in schools to develop safe parking for people associated with them. It'd be interesting to know what the legal situation is if Walmart wants to provide parking for its employees, or if DevCon wants to supply places for its construction workers who commute once a week, to park in their staging areas or where they're building. It's a different problem than some of the other problems. And I think we have to treat it separately. because there's probably a different solution. People have been talking about the rented oversized vehicles. I don't think we should outlaw them, but we should regulate them, just like we regulate the rents in apartments. I'm concerned because some I've heard some of these motor homes do not have adequate safety. They don't allow people to drive the vehicles. They don't allow people to dispose of waste in the vehicles, and we should regulate that. But the main thing we're talking about is oversized vehicles. And I, like Mr. Ioni, believe we should set a goal based roughly on the number of spaces that we need now. And basically set it up so that we aren't a magnet, but we're serving the people who live recently, recently lived, worked or go to school in Mountain View. Registration, that's not permitting, but registration can be done, fees would work. Definitely people should accept case management because we want to get as many of them as possible into permanent housing. However, If you talk to the people who live in the motor homes, And I've been doing that for months. You'll see that it's actually very difficult for them to move their vehicles out of a lot during the day, and where are they going to put them? Are they going to put them in front of your house? Are they going to put them at Walmart? Why if we have a city owned lot? Wouldn't we have a system for having the vehicles there for not permanently for a fixed amount of time? There's a video that was circulating about a vehicle community in Austin. They've actually built a community on this model. And I mentioned Austin, uh, like Mr. Anoni, I think we, you know, as long as the safety requirements are equal to or better than what people are doing on the streets, I don't know why we would be so restrictive. Definitely we should provide waste services. We should talk to the vehicle residents. What kind of waste services they need when we tried, when I was on council, we tried to, a dump station. It didn't work. When I talked to vehicle residents about it, we did it the wrong way. And we need to work with them to figure out how to use it better. the different kinds of properties, just in terms of underutilized commercial lots. When I was on council, I was part of the effort to get some of the private property owners to offer space. One a couple places that I think we should not only ask, but provide incentives or even requirements, and that's the Cisco lot on Ferguson. Cisco makes a big deal about wanting to help the homeless. I want them to do it. And the orchard supply lot, they don't want to do anything, we need to insist. Next steps. Meet with a meet. Meet with the residents. In terms of regional efforts, the Silicon Valley Community Foundation has convened a working group. I attended, the mayor attended, Miss Thomas attended. The people from many cities in the area trying to come up with a joint answer. And that's something that definitely Mountain Jew should do. We should make sure that people who represent Mount View want to see a solution. Thank you.

[04:27:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:27:11] Public Speaker: And I've been doing consulting engineering on mixed signal design around Silicon Valley for decades, but over the last couple of decades, I've been doing my own types of, you know, fun projects and stuff. And I'm going to be starting a business, but I'm on SSI, you know, supplemental security income. So no way do I want to take the money that I'm getting this small amount every month and put it into housing when I've got a perfectly good RV, that I'm going to be running my business out of. The one problem is, I can't get a business license because I don't have a residence address. I can't get a resale license from the state of California, because I don't have a residence address, and I can't get an employee identification number from the federal government because I don't have a residence address. Oh, what's wrong with his picture? Give me a break. So I've decided, because I've been negotiating contracts with multibillion dollar companies, just from two business courses at Mission College, that I can do this all with contracts. And I don't need anybody's permission to do that. And there's a wonderful opportunity here to form coalitions, and to get to know each other, and solve this problem without making it, like everybody has to be stigmatized, because they're living in an RV, when they're perfectly, how do you say, happy and honest and hard working people. So we'll see what happens. And I think wonderful things can happen, not gonna happen, because there's a lot of people here that want to form the coalitions, and they're doing that. Thank you. So just listen to them and get out there and find out what's going on. Thank you. who are out there, who know what's going on. Thank you. who can be your agents to tell you.

[04:29:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[04:29:03] Sherry Emling: Sherry Emling, President of Mountain View. First of all, I want to thank the council. You've done a tremendous amount of work. I haven't heard a lot of things on that, and I'm very, very impressed with what you've done. It's a very difficult situation. And I understand that. My 1st choice would be to do whatever we can for the children, that's where my heart is. I don't want them stigmatized. I like the idea of the school using the lot. I wish it could be 24 hours. I don't know if they're planning that or not. The other thing I'd like to say is we have become a magnet, as we all know, and it's going to get worse. And I think it's very important than what Mountain View taxpayers, money goes towards our Mountain View residents, those who work here, those who previously were housed here. I think registration is extremely important. I think the RV has to be functional and work. And I think we need to look at that. Thank you.

[04:30:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:30:23] Bob Pollock: Hello again? Bob Pollock. I lived in Mountain View, 40 years or so, and, um, I've been listening to the different people that have come up here, and it comes to me. I prepare a bunch of questions and statements that probably are irrelevant at the moment. But homelessness is a problem. RVs in the streets are not a problem. The people that live in RVs are perfectly happy there. And what they need is a stepping stone toward permanent housing. Pushing them out of these streets for 12 hours does not solve any other problems. It just adds to their problems, because they will be stressed twice a day in traffic. It adds to their cost of moving. RVs are not easily maneuverable. They'll be moving at 7 in the morning. at 7 at night, in the middle of the winter, when there is a lot of darkness, and they'll be moving during the rush hours. So is that what you really want to have the RVs, add to the rush hour traffic, looking for a parking spot during the day because they have no place to park. And they go to wherever they were parked the night before and they'll find out there's somebody else that's parked there already. Anyway, I prepare some statements. I'll leave them with the council.

[04:31:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: you. you. Thanks, please.

[04:32:06] Public Speaker: Hi, which man can still invite home? Um... We're here tonight to support expanding the safe parking options. This is, um, the start of a plan. Um, especially the safe parking options at Shoreline Park near Evelyn. Our position is permanent housing is the long-term solution to the challenges, but until all that housing is built, There's an urgent need for meat solutions. This ordinance is only addressing a fraction of the need, unfortunately. So it's a great step in the right direction. There's a lot more work that needs to be done. But luckily, um, The other thing we want to recognize is that this is a regional crisis, and it's not just mountain view. Luckily in this room, we have a lot of people who have spoken eloquently about regional solutions that can be pursued, especially there's move, you saw their presentation, there's the Silicon Valley Community Foundation, roundtable. Um, So regional corporation is going to be the key to finding success in this. An SV at home seeks to be part of the solution by providing a platform, that kind of dialogue, especially among elected officials. And we are committed to sports city staff and identifying additional opportunities for parking. And with that said, we would strongly recommend a note vote on the next item, since this safe parking ordinance won't be paired until September. We'll be ready to vote on until then. It seems clear that voting to ban RVs doesn't make sense if there's no RFM to go.

[04:33:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that's the next topic. We have some questions for you. Council member McAllister?

[04:33:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Of course. Always. I'm glad people enjoy. Welcome for coming. I always appreciate you representing multiple large corporations that donate to your fund, and we appreciate advocacy. So one of the questions was talking about parking spaces. You have multiple large corporations that have large parking lots. How have you made out asking your members to open up their parking lots for safe parking?

[04:34:04] Public Speaker: Right, so that's exactly what I was referring to. Where you want to support staff on that. Obviously, they're running their programs, we need to coordinate with them to make sure that we're asked making the right asks. But, um,

[04:34:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep. Well, I mean, not all your members are in Mountain View, so you're talking about a regional solution. Aren't your corporations throughout the South Bay an area? And how are they helping? Are they volunteering? Have you advocated to them? Have you sent them letters? Have you sat and said, hey, we have this crisis. We're advocating for it and we'd like you to pony up and help out and offer your corporate lots?

[04:34:38] Public Speaker: So we want to coordinate whatever kind of program what that is with the people riding the safe parking to make sure that we're making the right asks. But certainly we're happy to do that anywhere around the county. We're committed to regional crisis.

[04:34:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Since you're very knowledgeable in this aspect, just do it on your own to say we're going to open up these parking lots to our employers, to our contractors that are building our buildings to just sort of say we can do it without necessarily coordinating with the city amount here or others.

[04:35:03] Public Speaker: Unfortunately, this isn't actually our area of expertise, but I'm happy to refer you to other people, destination home, the county who are focused on homelessness as their main mission. We usually defer to them these issues.

[04:35:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice mayor has a question for you as well.

[04:35:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, yes. So, along the same lines. Hey, excuse me. Councilman from McAllister. Oh, really cute. Thank you for your questioning that. It was along. I have similar questions. So what it doesn't take very much just to ask a company and you have member companies, I see your list of your founding members, which are mostly corporations. So have you taken the initiative to at least ask them if they would be willing to open a lot like I have with some of our developers?

[04:35:51] Public Speaker: I'm not aware of that so far. It might not have been me.

[04:35:54] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So can you please do that?

[04:35:56] Public Speaker: We certainly willing to do that. Yes.

[04:35:57] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I know you have a forum coming up. I believe council member Hicks is on there, but is that have you invited the corporations to attend and are there some coming? Will you make that?

[04:36:08] Public Speaker: That's an elected official only event, but that could happen.

[04:36:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Yes, we hope that you will be a part of the solution. Thanks. Admitted to addressing it.

[04:36:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next please.

[04:36:30] Patrick Ewell: Hi, um, thanks for allowing me to opportunity to speak. My name's Patrick Ewell. You're a homeowner. Some great ideas being said by the folks before me. I think it's obviously a tough problem to solve. I just thought I'd offer a few bits of constructive suggestions if it were to go through. I think the 24 hour parking is really essential. I don't see logistically, that's going to add problems to, you know, traffic and stress and that's the last thing, you know, these people need in their lives, honestly. Also, I really think there should be some defined affordable income or low cost housing that this feeds into because it's a temporary program and that since the date has not been defined yet, I don't think there should be a set date for everyone. Like families are going to need more times to move than a single person living in an RV. I think there should be some flexibility there, if this were to pass.

[04:37:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So that's actually the next topic. Did you have any comments on safe parking?

[04:37:37] Patrick Ewell: Oh, well, that's just a, it was just discussed in the context of safe parking, so I thought I'd just mention it. But basic, you know, basic electricity, drinking water, um, at the sites, drinking water, especially, um, but, um, I think, you know, there's more to this than just, um, parking is the whole affordable housing, and zoning and making it easy for people to offer their own houses to people would be nice.

[04:38:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[04:38:17] Gil Akins: My name is Gil Akins. My family and I own the property that's immediately adjacent to the 67 East Evelyn. We live at 60, have a building at 67 East Evelyn. It's immediately adjacent to the lot on Pioneer and Evelyn. So we're very interested in what happens at that lot. I want to make 2 points. One, we would like to have more coordination with ourselves and the other people immediately adjacent there to understand what the rules that you're setting up, so we might be able to suggest what we thought would work and what won't, and have a point person that we can talk to, because we don't know who's running it now. The people that we're talking the last meeting are different than the people who are talking now. And so if we could have a point person in that point person probably would need to be continued through as you get this going, so we can help you make this work. We'd like to see it work. The 2nd point I'd make quickly. I think the problem is bigger than you're stating today. With more and more people, having harder time finding a place to live, there's going to be more and more people that are going to want to live in an RV. Thank you.

[04:39:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Just Kimberly, are you the point person?

[04:39:44] Kimberly: And we've sent letters and or emails to the people on the BTA related list, and I think all 3 of them were here tonight.

[04:39:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else who wanted to address the council on safe parking? Okay. We will close the public input portion. I want to powerful through. Did you guys want a break? through it. I think I'm hearing more for, let's just power through this, and then we'll take a break. So, are there any other council questions? Council member? Oh. Did anybody have any more questions on this? Council member Hicks.

[04:40:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just have one question. Is it really necessary that it be 7 to 7? Can we expand the hours beyond that?

[04:40:45] Unknown Speaker: If you want to expand the hours beyond 7 AM to 7 PM, then my recommendation would be that we get legislation that exempts the city from the application of certain state laws like the city of San Jose has in the city and county of Santa Clara. there's a concern that it would be considered potentially considered some sort of a mobile home park or RV park. And so if we can get exempted from that legislation like other cities and even counties have done.

[04:41:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So is it specifically the 7 to 7? I mean, or is it, you know, if you leave for 2 hours, is it, does that make a difference?

[04:41:27] Unknown Speaker: There's no, there's no magic number, but it's, or a specific number, but rather, are we creating a parking program, which is a temporary thing, or are we creating some other sort of a residency market that it would be considered to be, that they'd be residents?

[04:41:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Vice mayor Abi Koga.

[04:41:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Actually, I had a similar question, so, um, regarding the hours of a private, um, owner wanted to start a safe parking program. Are they or do we have to limit their hours? Or, for instance, to churches if they wanted to expand their hours? Would they be able to? Could we allow them to do that?

[04:42:20] Unknown Speaker: Well, I think in looking at the other cities that have done safe parking ordinances, I think they all pretty much, I'm looking at Kimberlation better than I, but I think they all pretty much limit their hours in some fashion, whether or not, we wanted to allow, if the council wanted to allow private property owners to decide what those hours might be, That wasn't something that we considered. And planning might have some comments on it as well, because it's really at what point does it become a land use, and is it the primary use, or the ancillary use, and when does it compete with the other uses on the property? And I think that for that reason, it's generally been restricted to the 12 hours.

[04:43:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And they would be the off hours from it, for instance, and our churches have different hours. I don't know if you say company closes at five. I guess I'm not thinking, it sounds like 247 might be a challenge, but is it flexible that it could be 6 to 7, 6 PM to 7 AM or something different? than the, is there a 12? Is there something special about the 12 hours?

[04:43:35] Unknown Speaker: All the recommendations this evening were based on the other existing programs and speaking for planning, and they'll jump up if I don't hit the right mark. But I think it's about compatibility of uses. and ensuring that there's ample parking for the use, that's been given a permit to operate on the property or operates by right on the property.

[04:43:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Councilman Rick May, you have your light on, is it, do you have a question? Oh, you didn't have a question? Okay. Council member Hicks?

[04:44:13] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes, I do have one more question. So the shoreline lot, what I saw, yeah, I don't have I don't remember it exactly, but there was something like 20 spaces that were recommended or slated for that lot. Could we, since it's a large lot, could we divide it into 2 units of 22 distinct areas to increase capacity, which some people in council had seem to want to do?

[04:44:43] Unknown Speaker: At a staff level, we've scoped it and dentist site plan to allow for 20 for the average size of an RV for the oversized. If the council directed that you wanted to go beyond that, and then also looking to Nicole, do a separate carve out above and beyond the 30 that would be included in the perspective ordinance that we'd be adopting in September or October, that could be allowed theoretically, right, for the city 2 lots.

[04:45:14] Kimberly: I mean, I think the short answer is, yes, you could. There are funding implications, and, you know, we strongly recommend that no one lot have more than 20 or 30 vehicles in it. And that seems to be best practices across the state. Could you create 2 different lots on different ends of a big lot, conceivably you could. But there are funding and staffing implications to that.

[04:45:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions?

[04:45:48] Unknown Speaker: And just to add it, as Kimberly said, the proposed ordinance that we're suggesting would allow up to 30, but we're scoping them, you know, for approximately 20, but we want to have some flexibility based on circumstances.

[04:46:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, then we'll move to discussion, and then staff has asked us for, um, you know, I want to remind folks, we're not adopting an ordinance tonight. The 1st thing we're doing is providing direction on, thank you. These 4 items, and then we can maybe take 2 and three. So, um, this is, yeah. And these are on pages. 5 and 6 of the staff report. So if folks could go through those 4, that would be great. Council member Clark.

[04:46:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, so tell me if I skip over anything. So I'm using the point by the slides here. So on the permitting process, I think there might be some nuances here. So I'm I have no issue with during during the period when we've declared a housing or shelter crisis, having, say, parking be by right in certain specific zoning districts. So churches, for example, I don't have, I mean, that should just be during a shelter or housing crisis. You know, when that expires, that's a different, I think, a different question for us. But during that period, if a church wants to use their lot, I think I think we should just minimize the red tape in those cases. And I would, I would say the same for, um, you know, any, any private lot in a non-residential area. So, you know, basically allowing Walmart to do what they're doing today without having to go through a bunch of red tape during a house. I assume that we can limit it during the period to when we've declared the housing or shelter crisis. I think once that expires, then, you know, then we, if we want to discuss, maybe it looks more like option one where we go through a permitting process. But I think there are certain districts specifically what I'm thinking of are church lots and private lots in non-residential areas, or maybe that aren't, you know, directly adjacent to. I don't want to get into that right now, but that's what I'm thinking on the permitting process is I just want to minimize the red tape to the extent possible during a housing shelter crisis for churches in particular and probably the least impactful private lots. the ones that would have the least impact on neighboring residential, on safe parking services and funding. I don't have an issue as long as we're prudent about it with funding some services on private lots, especially if we can get matching funds. And, you know, I'm willing to add funding or and seek county or other funding to increase capacity if we can. I think we just need to sort of be prudent about how we how we do that. I don't want to just fund anything, but I think we should be willing to, you know, to partner on these on these opportunities when they arise. I don't think we should, I don't have any interest in requiring vehicle ownership. I think that's, I think that's discriminatory and actually, as one of the speakers said, you're really going after the folks who have the least means in a lot of cases there. So I don't think we should discriminate between vehicle owners and vehicle renters. And then on, say, parking participation. So I would like to study preferences for live work or families with students. I think there are some different definitions that we clear away from tonight that we need to be a little careful about. I'm most interested in that for the for the public, the city lots. I don't, if we're porting significant funding into a private lot, then I might feel strongly about us having some influence over the preferences, but if it's just a church doing their own thing without a lot of our funding, then, you know, they should be able to, you know, have whoever they want there. And we should be able to, you know, hopefully have some set some preferences on the city lots or anything that we're putting significant funding toward. That would be sort of my threshold. And then, um, I don't know if we, that addresses the questions, I don't know if we need to get into some of the other things, but, um, I don't have an issue with, um, so if we're talking about private lots, um, if they want to do, um, 24 seven, um, in a portion of their lot, then I don't necessarily think that we should prevent them from doing so. I understand that planning might have, and others might have some, I think as long as it's an ancillary use. It's not the primary use. I think there should be some parameters around it, but if they want to, if they want to offer 20, if a church or a private lot wants to offer something 247 and it's, it's not, it's an answear use or it's a, a subset of the lot and it's not the primary purpose of the lot, then I don't have it, you know, that's, I don't think we're at risk of creating, it certainly wouldn't be the city creating a mobile home park there. Hopefully that wouldn't be an issue there. I think that would be on them. And then I would say for us. I think I don't know what the application process is for the state to get an exemption, if it's something we can do in 6 months before winter, then I think it's worth doing so that we at least have the option of expanding the hours beyond 12 hours or whatever it is without putting ourselves at risk. So I don't know what that process looks like, how long it takes. But if it's something that we can do in the state is sort of currently, I'm guessing they're sort of in a mode where they're more open to granting these exceptions than they would be in other times, then I would say we should do it so that we maximize our flexibility, especially when the shoreline lots and other areas come on. I'm not saying it should be 247, all the same vehicles. I think there should be a turnover period so that everyone sort of has a chance and it doesn't become a permanent home for anyone. But I'd like to have the flexibility to implement various time frames beyond 12 hours when we get there. And I'll just caveat that when I say the church is private lots or whoever should be able to do 247 as an ancillary or sort of less than a majority use of the wild churches, I don't really care about, but it would be a little if all of Walmart's parking lot were to become. It doesn't, it's not really an ancillary use at a certain point. I don't know how you define that. But I would say that all these things, just to be somewhat conservative, should be should be allowed during the housing shelter crisis. I might feel a little bit differently about how permissive we are outside of this sort of scenario. So I don't know if there's a way to tie all this to that, but those are my high-level thoughts on the poor questions and I'm open to what others feel.

[04:53:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[04:53:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. My comments are substantially similar to council member Clark's, just sort of high level. I think the challenge we're trying to address is that the barriers to participation are fairly high and there's not a lot of upside for private property owners to participate. So it's, you know, in addition to the outreach that city staff has done, you know, continuing to do stakeholder outreach to identify barriers to participation and potentially incentives that would encourage property owners to participate. I think would be very helpful as the city manager. And as the vice mayor pointed out, We've asked a lot of folks, and a lot of folks haven't been interested in stepping up. So with that in mind, getting into the questions. For question one, I support option two. I think any anything that would discourage a property owner from participating is something that we should shy away from. And so if a nondiscretionary CUP process is a barrier to entry, then I'm less interested in that kind of process. and maybe a reasonable compromise, maybe what Council member Clark identified, tying this to the shelter crisis, so for as long as we have, you know, unmet need for shelter than an option to, I think, is a more desirable process. And then also appreciating sort of the nuance and the different kinds of need, you know, maybe for if the council is interested in exploring a 247, uh, safe parking lot, you know, it should, you know, we secure the uh, the state exemptions that we would need, then, you know, the process maybe should be more onerous because that has a different kind of impact. And then similarly for the handful of property owners that sort of have a de facto program right now, even if there isn't case management, having some regulations in place. So we have guidance for code enforcement or for PD, you know, to to enforce those, you know, minimal regulations, I think would be appropriate rather than just kind of this haphazard, um, uh, the status quo as far. It's technically not allowed, but it sounds like we're not really meaningfully enforcing anything. So there's a spectrum, I think, that we may need to consider in the preparation of this ordinance. But all of that said right now, I'm comfortable with option two. Question two, yes, I would support funding services as necessary. I think continuing to work with the county is appropriate. Question three. So I agree. I think as long as the occupant meets the eligibility criteria that are established for participation, I'm not sure it's really necessary to preclude, you know, rented vehicles from utilizing the safe parking lots. And question for, yes, absolutely. I think we need to have live work preferences, and then preferences for families with children. And I think, you know, sort of a hierarchy. The next in line, I think, would be seniors who are more vulnerable than, you know, younger folks may be. So I'm perfectly comfortable with a reasonable set of preferences. But, you know, focusing the program 1st and foremost on Mountain View residents. I'm not interested in being sort of the magnet in taking folks from other cities. So some additional comments. I would like to expand the precise plan areas. I agree with the vice mayor. we kind of have this already going on de facto in San Antonio. So in addition to Walmart, the little commercial property I live next to has, I don't know if they don't know or don't care, but there are some folks sleeping in vehicles back there. And, you know, my preference would be, you know, we can't compel participation in the safe parking program, but I would like to have a program where those folks participate voluntarily, you know, rather than just have, you know, folks we don't know sleeping in the back, you know, we know that they will have access to case managers. And we know that there are property owners right now in San Antonio. And I assume that there are probably property owners along El Camino, who may be interested in participation, so allowing that, I think, would be helpful. I think that the task force idea is interesting, and if only to relieve the burden from staff of going out and identifying lots. So just working with a group of folks who appear to have a great deal of passion and maybe willing to help supplement our efforts to identify spaces, I think would be valuable. And, you know, again, continuing with stakeholder outreach. I would be interested in exploring an incentive program if even with the minimal sort of zoning, um, regulations, it's still unpalatable for private property owners to participate, I think at that point we may need to explore incentives. And I'm open to what those might be. And then again, so I would support exploring, seeking state legislation to exempt us from whatever requirements that may preclude the possibility of a 247 lot. And I know I have a lot of comments. And just a couple of remaining things. So, you know, because the barrier to entry is already quite high. I think most property owners and the service providers, the safe parking program, probably would impose their own limitations on the time restriction and the capacity. I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary to identify those if there are, you know, large properties available where the property owner and the operator can comfortably accommodate more than 30 vehicles. I don't want to preclude that possibility in the regulations. So I'd be interested in exploring that as well. And the last thing I'll say is, I think, depending on the outcome of 7.2, we can probably reasonably anticipate a surge of demand. So I'm hoping that the program doesn't take too long to get up and running. I know there have been some challenges with the Palo Alto housing site. If it takes a year for a site and practice to get up and running, then we're not going to be able to meet that demand. So I just want to make sure that, you know, this is, you know, relatively easy to rule out and relatively easy to opt into. Thank you.

[05:01:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[05:01:26] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm thinking along the same lines as the previous council members, so I'll keep it short. I, um, I agree with, uh, council member Ramrod, that I would like to, uh, explore a task force to find spaces and, uh, possible incentive program. As for question one, which permitting process, I agree with what's being said that during a housing crisis, we could have a buy right for certain uses, such as churches and private lots and non-residential areas, and expand the precise plan areas beyond the ones that were originally named in the staff report. Question number 2 about funding services. Um, Yes, I would like to, um, I would like to explore. I would like to, um, expand funding and, um, also in conjunction with partners like the county and other possible partners, um, and look at increasing capacity, particularly possibly on shoreline in some way, and then in other, um, you know, other sites as well that, uh, private entities may come up with. Question number three, should safe parking be available to rented vehicles. Yes, but I think that, uh, as a part of the registration or permitting process, I would like it to be identified, whether they're rented or owned, and I would like the, um, the owner to keep the vehicle in good operating order. Um, and I'd like to explore whether we could have some kind of, um, fee that the owner would pay or some kind of rent control something so that we could control that situation. You know, I would hate, I would like to, at the very least, use permitting as a way to identify what percentage of the vehicles are owned versus rental I would hate to see that it's a growing concern, and that most of the lots, you know, there's a growing number of renters or landlords for the RVs. Let's see, question number four, should preferences be established? Yeah, I support, live, work, um, preference, live work and study preferences, and families with students. And I also support the state exemption to extend ours.

[05:04:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abi Koga.

[05:04:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So going through the questions, um, uh, programming, uh, actually, um, like council member Clark's suggestion that if we tie it with to the housing shelter crisis, and I don't know, is there a time limit on that?

[05:04:31] Unknown Speaker: Uh, that resolution was adopted to end as of now in June of 2020. And so, but the with the option for the council to reauthorize.

[05:04:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is there a limit to that extensions or is that?

[05:04:47] Unknown Speaker: I'm actually not sure we'd need to look at that whether you can, I believe they can take the action multiple times, but as long as the conditions are the same. We can look at it. We'll look into it. I think certain findings have to be made, and if those findings can still be made, Consistently. be able to extend it.

[05:05:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So, yes, if we can tie it to the crisis, um, and, uh, you know, certainly I appreciate the churches who have stepped up and their interest in wanting to expand and I don't want to make it difficult for them to do that. So, um, that should be fine. And then I think Council member Clark, you mentioned non-residential areas. There might be... Yeah, I could support that. Regarding services. Yes, I could support city funding, this is city funding some services. I think, you know, the key, the key here is, um, I know folks have different opinions or views of what vehicle living is, um, I personally think it should be a temporary situation. It should not be a long-term housing solution for folks. So to me, you know, this is a part of trying to help folks find a more permanent solution. And a big part of that is the case management that we've already start provide, we already provide more, to get more folks, you know, through the process and to rehousing, I would support that. So even if it's not on our city lots. But I would actually like to look to the county for assistance in this as well. And hopefully we can have a partnership or a matching or some kind of partnership with the county as well as, of course, other nonprofit groups, if destination home can help us. That's great. If there are private donors who can help us. That's great. If Silicon Valley at home can help get us some corporation, corporate contributions, that would be even better. So I hope that we can do this in partnership with other organizations. I think I have a little more challenge with item 3 in terms of vehicle ownership and it's not from the lens of discrimination, but I guess I, you know, frankly, have some concerns about certain, about the, I don't know, landlord. I know what you call them, the vehicle owners who are making a profit off of, or making a business out of this, as we are hearing more and more folks renting vehicles from others. And I just, you know, I just have a fun dimensional issue with the, with that, you know, this isn't really something that we're, I don't think we're trying to promote. I don't know, maybe some are, but I personally don't want to. Um, I think, you know, we really need to continue to look for help for permanent housing solutions. So I have some challenges there. If we were to allow it. I think we should have conditions and requirements, so registration, you know, working good working conditions, frankly, you know, good livable conditions, because I've been in an RV that was pretty, it was pretty rough, and I would not want anyone to live there, and for us to allow someone to frankly profit by renting one of those RVs that I saw. I just can't personally, I can't. I can't morally, morally, just talking about morally. I cannot condone that. So that's my challenge with this item. In terms of participation. So my priority is, as others mention, the students in our children. So my priority would be for families, with students. I appreciate, and I know Dr. Rudolph is gone, but I appreciate the school district stepping up in light of the fact that we're not getting a whole lot of interest. And so I want to work with the school district. And this is outside of the questions, but if it is to help with resources to speed up their process, as Dr. Rudolph mentioned, maybe, I don't know, 5 months might be a stretch, but, you know, less than a year, I would like to work with them to do that. So, and so in the meantime, if we need to give preference to those families that are enrolled in the schools in our other lots, I'm fine to do that as well. And then if we can do live work, that would be great. That would be for the city lots in terms of private lots. Um, you know, I, I, I asked the client of questioning, um, I would be fine. if they wanted to have longer hours. Um, I think I don't think we have to put as many restrictions on the private lots. Um, I also want to say that, you know, I don't know what incentives are, but um, we know from the lazy star, our outreach that some of these folks are employees of some of our companies in the city. And I would hope that, and I don't know what it is, if it's, I think, part of it is, frankly, raising awareness to the management or the, you know, administration or the higher executives that this is a situation. But, um, I would really expect those corporations to at least house their own employees. And so, um, yeah, I don't know what it's going to take to do that, but, um, I would, you know, I would hope folks, the companies would take care of their own. And if that's a preference, they want to put on their lots. That's fine. The task force idea, you know, I very much appreciate Mr. Unknown and others at livable Mountain View folks who have expressed interest. Again, I don't know what our city role is. I think, you know, move can do that if you can outreach and get members to join from these different sectors. I think that's great. if you need the city's assistance to do that. That's fine. Um, I don't know what the goal is, and I don't think tonight is maybe necessarily the time to talk about a goal, but, um, you know, I think 6 what we have, 60 spaces, maybe 70. Um, that's a good start. You know, let's see how it goes. Like we will be almost doubling the number in the entire county. So I think for Mountain View to do that is a pretty good goal or, I mean, we're actually going to achieve it. So it's a good start and I hope that other cities will join in too. I've heard that Palo Alto, some folks in Palo Alto are talking about it, which is great. I know San Jose is looking at expanding, but, you know, there are a lot of other cities. And I mean, my feeling is if every city did one lot, we probably we'd be way farther than we are now. And that's what I would like to see happening is that we get full participation from the entire county, at least. And finally, state exemptions. Is this like legislation we would have to ask? Okay. I mean, I think if you want to pursue it, that's fine. But in light of how long it takes legislation to pass. This is not going to happen by this session, I'm sure, in September. So, I don't know how, frankly, how fruitful it would be at this point in time, but if it's, you know, I think we need to revisit whatever this program is in probably a year's time to see where we are. And at that point, if this is still necessary, perhaps we pursue it or we pursue it, you know, at the beginning of next year when the new session begins. Thanks. Council member Kumei?

[05:13:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I want to thank the staff and the community and our nonprofit partners for all the work that has already been in place as we're moving towards a safe parking ordinance. Um, and I think one of the things that I have heard in all of my conversations is how do we streamline the process and, um, I think that my colleagues have talked about, um, the shelter crisis. And so I also support option 2 going forward with By Right. I think something that I'd also like to look into is expanding the zoning district. So I think that that was something that was also brought up, but like us to look at the, uh, at the entire city and, um, for those uh, public and private lots that may be existing already. And then utilization. So one of the things we are in as well is in this crisis is, how do we fully utilize the lots that we do have and the capacity. So, some of the public comment was being able to increase the passenger vehicles, perhaps, on faith-based slots, and I'd like us to figure out how we can streamline that process for those, especially if they're already participating. Um, for a question to. Yes, I support both items, which is city funding for services on private lots as well as looking for additional funding and partnering with the county. I'm encouraged by the county's presence and willingness to talk to the private operator of the social services agency parking lot to see if that could go anywhere, still knowing that that's a private operated lot. But I think at this point we're talking about both private and public lots. So trying to encompass that. Or question 3 in terms of requiring vehicle ownership. No, I don't think that that should be a requirement. One of the things I brought up in March, um, that I witnessed firsthand was the rental of substandard, um, uh, RVs and, you know, would still like, and I believe the city talked about working with our county and state partners in terms of the enforcement of that. those who are paying rent for, um, RVs that you can't drive and don't have, um, facilities. And, um, I do think that that's important to, to, um, still look into. For the preferences, I'm encouraged by Dr. Rudolph's presence and being able to prioritize families with students. I also support the live work as well as seniors on fixed income. I think we should be looking at that. And then I also support looking into a task force or stakeholder committee, some of the other cities that we looked at as models, have a ad hoc committee, where they are looking at partnerships and available additional spots. So I think that that would be something that we should do. Thank you. Council member Clark?

[05:17:00] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's just a couple things I didn't comment on. So I'm also okay expanding the zoning industries and I just wanted to clarify. I think I think church lots, you know, some of them may technically be in residential. those should be by right. I think, and where I was getting at is even something maybe there might be other laws that are technically in residential areas. Those, if they want to go through the CUP process, you know, that you described in option one where, you know, neighbors are notified and that I'm fine with that. I don't want to just totally exclude them because there may be some that are, I don't know if the Cisco lot is like sandwiched between, you know, residential, maybe I don't know how it's, um, anyway. I just, I didn't want to preclude others from applying, but I just wanted to clarify that the churches I just do by right, wherever they are, and then the other by right would be the private watts that aren't, um, aren't in residential. And then just on the preferences, I'd say, uh, I'd look to staff for guidance on that. Maybe we use the affordable housing sort of framework and we can tweak it a little bit, but others had mentioned. So there's families, families with students or children, another one would be seniors, folks have mentioned live work and then perhaps folks with disabilities as well, or who are in sort of a particularly vulnerable category if that's something that we can do. Council member McAllister.

[05:18:35] Councilmember John McAlister: Pastor Leon. Four years ago, we started this conversation. Did you ever think you'd get to this complexity?

[05:18:45] Pastor Leon: No, either. Just a couple of churches, somebody just parked some people, so.

[05:18:49] Councilmember John McAlister: Government. Okay, so... The permitting pro I'm sorting in between option one and two, a hybrid. I think based on the controversy of this subject and where people might end up, I think it wouldn't it would be prudent to give people notice that this is going to happen in their neighborhood. I know everybody's surprised if somebody's just putting a 2nd story on their house and they're not notified that they get crazy. So I think this particular item would require a notification. People were talking about streamlining. Again, this is a temporary solution. I say it as a temporary solution because of our, and so that's why I say notification would be good if you want to streamline it. We're going to take the council's going to take the flak on it if somebody doesn't like it. And I think our city managers are overburdened as it is. So he takes us. But so somewhere in there, I think it would be a medium for me. Definitely have a notification. So permitting it, the zoning wherever is possible. Um, I think is is, I mean, we've been working on it for 4 years in Silicon Valley at home. They had These companies, they need to step up. You know, everybody says a regional approach or we need a task forks. Former mayor, Lenny Segel. He's been working with the government to try to get spots. As Dan mentioned, I was working with Google and they gave the $1000000 because of guilt, not necessarily of expedited their issue, but so it's a long process. So, you know, I think we permitting it, I think we need to get an idea. We don't want it to run. Also, by permating it, we have a sense of how long it's gonna be there, how many are there. And so somewhere along those sides I'm going with. funding. What are we trying to achieve? Are we just trying to get number of bodies off the street or are we really trying to get them to be transitioned into permanent housing? And if you say, well, we're going to have 70 people, and I already know, CSA, Don, correct me, if you're over, you know, overburdened right now. And there's not enough funding for it. So there's got to be a balance between our capacity to if our goal is to rapidly get these people into rehousing or just to be opening up an RV park in Mountain View. And that's what I don't want us to do. I want us to have those services that those individuals that are participating, and I like the phrase, service providers and case managers, including managers, those are all part of the requirement that if we're going to do this, they need to be part of the solution. They need to help themselves find the answer, and instead of having us to say, well, we got a spot for you. Go ahead and stay there for a while. Which sort of brings me to the question of how long can people participate in this safe program? Is it 60 days? We said 120 days was one transition, but we looked at 18 months for another. So, I mean, we got a, are we just going to be an open check and keep funding this until who knows when? I mean, the city does have limited funds. And if we're just going to fund a parking lot or a temporary RV park. I want some goals, define goals of what we're trying to accomplish, and are we getting there? So when we were saying, well, let's fund this one, that I'm okay with doing it, but I want to know where we're trying to achieve and how we're going to get there. Because there's other people that we could use that. And we were just talking about a $5000 item today about should we go with this nonprofit or that nonprofit. Here we're talking 100s of 1000s of dollars, would I say, city manager? He nods? Well, thank you. So that's what we got to be concerned. where my concerns are. I want, you know, I've mentioned many times, give as much money as we can for rapid rehousing, and Mr. Myers knows that, and I support that, and I continue to support that. So just putting safe parking lots for this point of safe parking. We need to be more food issue with our dollars. Number 3 available rental vehicles. You know, that one is that's a tricky one for me. You know, I would definitely want them to be owner of record and that if there was any conditions on it. I know we limit it, but who's to say that this is the right deal. I mean, safe housing is a transition. It's not permanent, it's not something that's sustainable, and if people think that we're going to do this is, hey, we give you a safe parking, you're going to be there, it's a lifestyle that we think you're going to continue on. We need to make that message clear is this is a transition. It's not sustainable, and you better be able to start thinking about something else. So if you give them a rental. I'm open on that one. But I still would like to see some clarification or registration on that standpoint. I mentioned, some of you mentioned about having a vehicle that is, make it a, you know, a apartment and say, this meat has to meet certain standards and things have to function. So I'm okay with that. Number four, I guess I'm on too. I do believe it has to tie into work living or work. I really think we need to do that. Otherwise, we're going to be a magnet for people coming in and saying, hey, you know, I'm a contractor or I'm something or whatever, but I think I think you have to have a somewhat of a track record, but I know there's a city attorney says there's a there's a fine line where could we could potentially cross on doing it that way, but I want somebody who has some roots in the city to benefit from the city. going with the families, I think is a great idea, but I think hopefully the school district will be able to solve that particular item. But I think the BM guidelines are appropriate. And should the site to private property, you know, what they're willing to do, I give them kudos. I don't think we need to, you know, I think I'm open to letting them determine within the parameters of land use issues to use their property as they see fit. I would think, you know, we see we hear a lot of people say, oh, I'm a contractor, and I'm working on a job. Well, why can't you stay at the job site or stay with your employers? And so I think that would just give them opportunities. I don't know of any private lot that has come stepped forward in 4 years. Have you Pastor Leon, heard anybody in 4 years, private life coming up?

[05:26:04] Pastor Leon: Yeah, okay.

[05:26:06] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I mean, if there's someone out there and to pay incentives, I don't know if that's, again, use good use of our money to, again, incentivize somebody that they should be doing something for the good of humanity. So that's where I stand on this. Thanks.

[05:26:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I'm going to take a turn before we circle back to folks. So on question one, I think I am in alignment with council member McAllister there. I guess I feel like it is important to notify the surrounding community, um, just like we would any other type of development and give them an opportunity to um, share their input. I also think as we heard earlier, it's an opportunity to educate folks on what safe parking is and what it's not. And hopefully the more someone knows, the more accepting they are of this. So, I would like a hybrid approach. And this is the one I said the question about, I actually think option one with noticing or a public hearing would be good. I think it's incredibly important to have services that wrap around safe parking. And while the city can contribute some additional funding, I think it's really important to find partners who can help. um But I really want to make sure As council member McAllister said, the goal is to have this as temporary and we're working toward getting folks into more stable housing. So if the funding is for that and there are others that can work with us, that'd be great. I have mixed feelings about the rented vehicles. I'm perfectly fine with like if somebody, you know, like rents a car and then they use it for years. But I don't really want somebody to create a business out of this and be taking advantage of the situation and the people who might be renting. I feel like you should be able to not only have the keys to the door, but the keys to the engine. And we're hearing that that's not always the case. Whereas if like when you rent a car, you get to use that car. You get to drive it. You don't just sit in it. So it needs to be the same, I think, with an RV. You know, there might be a, maybe you rent it from a relative or something like that. But I don't really want to enable a business where the RVs might be substandard. Um, and maybe they don't even work. Who knows? They need to be livable. And then the question of preferences, yes, I'm interested in exploring this and the groups that have been mentioned, I'm supportive of. I think if we can do something short term for students, in the schools here in Mountain View, that would be good until the school districts can come up or bring their safe parking online. I also agree with live work preferences. And For me, living in Mountain View means you were here before you are living in an RV on the public right away. And yes, if you work here, and then I agree with seniors and folks that are disabled, although I'm not sure we can do that. And I think in the, this would be for the city operated lots, in the private sites, I agree they could also do their own, whatever works for them is fine. But I do want to make sure that whatever is done does address the public health and safety concerns that we have. And so I would expect that the services would be offered to take care of the waste, um, and I guess depending upon the lot, I would not want the vehicles to be parked in such a way as to make it an unsafe condition for others. And I'm okay with looking at an expansion of areas in the city where this might make sense. And the state exemptions, although I don't feel like, you know, I'd spend a lot of time on that right now. And certainly if others feel like they can create an organization that can go talk to property owners, employers. I'm certainly not going to stop them from doing that. But I feel like I just have to echo what our city manager said. I think maybe you people don't see all the activity that goes behind on behind the scenes. And you might just, you know, read a staff reporter come to this meeting, but a lot happens to get us to this point. And I will give staff tons of kudos for all the effort that they put into trying to find additional lots. And I'd also give my fellow council members kudos for asking, I've asked too, and the answer is always no. But if you've got that silver bullet, go for it. Council member Hicks.

[05:32:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I would agree with that. I just wanted to maybe make an amendment to the preferences we've been talking about. I realize that many of the vehicle residents that I've spoken to, maybe many and several, of the vehicle residents I've spoken to, are Foothill College students. So I would hate to preclude. And then I guess I should also say, having my own children who just graduated from high school. I'm aware that children don't become instant adults with careers who can go out and rent housing immediately. Um, So I would like, I think that preferences should also extend to, you shouldn't be shut off as soon as you graduate from high school and preferences should maybe, we should look at that issue. Maybe it should extend to community college students as well. Isn't there a? Yeah. There's a SB, or AB, I forget the number. Yes, I hope that comes into fruition as well. And then we could knock that out of our preferences. So I would just like to leave the preference for, um, students going to Mountain View Wisman school district or the high school districts. Um, Because I think the community colleges need to step up.

[05:33:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Anything else? Council member Ramirez.

[05:33:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, just a couple of quick additions. So first, I would also support to the greatest extent possible, if it's legally defensible, adding a preference for folks with disabilities as well. Just a couple of questions that came up. So, um, Several folks in the public comment had suggested imposing a fee for space is that is that something we can we can do? Is that legal?

[05:34:12] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: It's something that we can look into. We're not aware of other programs that do impose a fee. I think it's typically just the agreement as opposed to a fee. I think it's worthy of exploration, at least maybe potentially as a to make this more cost neutral. And then, you know, I don't think we all have tremendous optimism that a bunch of safe parking sites will become available, but do we know if move and CSA have capacity to take on many more lots or do we need to start looking at partnerships with other service providers? We know that CSA is certainly nearing capacity, and its director, Tom Myers, here, can speak to that. We know that move has the ability, at least, based upon their current understanding to scale up during that period to 60. and then see what the next until June of 2019. Their service delivery model is targeted to 40. I think longer term, um, There are, it's amigos to Guadalupe, project we hope. Life moves is getting now they are servicing RVs. So there are more vendors, if you will, are contractors out there that are certainly qualified. At this time, we're focused on move for this portion of the program. But certainly, um, we also have moves. Amber, Amber Stein with move is also here, and she'd certainly also be happy to speak on the record on this issue as she runs the program. You want to come up, Amber? Oh, okay.

[05:35:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If you'd like, if not, that's okay. I think you've answered the question. Thank you. I appreciate it. Just the last thing. So I don't disagree with you, Council McAllister, but I have not necessarily suggesting that we start with a robust incentive program. I just think, you know, if even the reduction in various barriers through the zoning regulations is not sufficient. You know, we still need to have more safe parking available. And I think at that point it may be worth exploring the possibility of incentives. And I'm not prepared to define what those might be. I think we have to have another discussion about that. But I don't want to take that off the table. Thank you.

[05:36:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Clark.

[05:36:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, we've talked a lot, and hopefully you have, I believe, I believe we do have one formal action that we need to take. If staff has what they need for everything else, I'll do that.

[05:36:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was going to try to summarize where we were on the 1st question.

[05:36:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: Go ahead. I was just going to make the motion when we're ready.

[05:36:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So. And I know other folks have been taking notes, so, um, please let me know you've got the same conclusions that I have here. So, um, in terms of permitting, it sounds like we want to um, look at tying this to the, um, crisis and the housing crisis. and um, also take a look at, is it possible to extend that? um, as an action. And then, um, permits would be by right, and that would be, I think, you know, council member Clark is the one who put this forth that a lot of people referenced, and that is that it would be by right in churches and in private lots and non-residential areas. And that if it was in areas that are adjacent to residential areas, there would be more of a process.

[05:38:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, if it were adjacent to or actually technically in a residential, there might be some, but then they'd go through the option one. Option one. Yep.

[05:38:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. In terms of question two, funding services, yes. And we certainly want folks to partner with us on that. Rented vehicles. Yes, with the concern that we want to make sure those vehicles are inhabitable and in good shape, and that we don't want to enable a business. And then preferences, yes, we certainly do want staff to look at that. And I feel like some people ranked them and some didn't, but the categories are students in the Mountain View school districts, Mountain View Los Altos school districts. and live work preferences, seniors, and folks who might be disabled. And that would be on city sites and not necessarily on private sites that we would have greater flexibility on private sites. Anything to add to that? Then I had only a whole bunch of random comments.

[05:39:28] Unknown Speaker: Just a caveat to that. I mean, we will come back, as we said, some of them, particularly live work, needs to be further explored and some legal issues. I would just caution you, um, when you talk about students, seniors, disabled, um, you're pretty much already well over your capacity. So there's probably going to need to be a waterfall or a prioritization within your preferences. So just to caution when we come back, we'll bring that to you, but you may have to prioritize a little bit more.

[05:40:05] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I'm there just to clarify for quite, it looks like question 3 was asked different ways. In the report, it says, should safe parking be available to rented vehicles and then the slides, it's require vehicle ownership. So when we said yes, was that yes to which way it was written?

[05:40:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I thought most people said that they would be okay if there were vehicles that are rented in the lots as long as it's not a business.

[05:40:34] Unknown Speaker: Thank you for the clarification. Yeah.

[05:40:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So yeah, that when you get to the random comments section, there were a lot. I think there was general consensus for expanding the zones to other parts of the city. There was agreement to pursue a state exemption, but not necessarily as a high priority, given the legislative process. There was support for the concept of a task force, but questions about what the city's role would be, and if others want to take that on, that's great. Those were kind of the main ones. Kimberly, do you have other key issues?

[05:41:19] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: That's what I have on my list too. As the ones that were most frequently mentioned.

[05:41:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Clark.

[05:41:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: So Home move that we adopt a resolution for city safe parking program operations for shoreline amphitheater to what B and the pioneer at one lot once permitted under a lease agreement with the valet transportation, authority to be read entitled only for the read.

[05:41:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So you have a motion by Council member Clark and a 2nd by Council member Hicks. Is there any discussion on this?

[05:41:55] Unknown Speaker: No, we did this one. We just do this and this. Does a motion include number three or just number two?

[05:42:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, I thought you read that. I read from the script, so let me go back to...

[05:42:11] Unknown Speaker: You don't have to read that one. You could just say in the staff recommendation.

[05:42:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Sorry, the staff recommendation plus what I read, which includes what I read.

[05:42:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call the question. And that passes unanimously. Okay, since it's 1130, we need a motion to continue past 10, but we'll also take a break. Well, second, all those in favor. Oof. Yeah, four. Okay, so let's take a, let's come back at 1140. I'm coming back at 1140.

[05:43:16] Mayor Lisa Matichak: All right. Okay, we'll call this meeting back to order, and we move on to item 7.2, which is oversized vehicle, parking, prohibition, ordinance, and we will start with a staff presentation.

[05:43:46] Assistant to the City Manager Kimberly Thomas: Thank you and good evening, Marin City Council members. Hello again. I'm Kimberly Thomas, assistant to the city manager, and I'll provide be providing part of this presentation. Nicole Wright, the assistant city attorney and I are going to team this one. Our brief overview will provide background ordinance requirements, including location, hours, and size, permitting and noticing, cover enforcement, some other actions and considerations we need by the council, related to a resolution on permit fees, and also an amendment to the recently adopted sanitary sewage ordinance. Bit of background, some of which was discussed previously in relation to safe parking. In March of 2019, the council did direct staff to draft a citywide oversized vehicle parking prohibition. This was to address numerous service requests, complaints, other feedback that residents have raised, following concerns about the parking and storage of oversized vehicles in the public right of way. These included safety concerns, such as obstruction of the line of sight for entering and exiting streets, obstruction for bicycle lanes, and bike paths, reduced parking availability, and other health related matters, including excessive litter, garbage, debris, sanitary sewage, and leakage, and the public rights of way, as well as generator and engine noise from RVs running during the evenings, unleashed pets, and other encroachment items associated with vehicles. One of the 1st areas that will be addressed in terms of the ordinance requirements, or whether it will be as drafted any street within Mountain View under city jurisdiction, which is how it's drafted now, this does exclude states, streets, and highways, such as El Camino Real unless approved by Caltrans. There are other Caltrans signalized intersections at freeway on ramps that are within Caltrans jurisdiction, but those do not have a parking component. Also ours. The hours is drafted now. Are for a prohibition 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. However, some other cities prohibit oversized vehicles parking only on an overnight basis. The council could similarly, similarly prohibit such parking from 2 to 6 AM, consistent with the city's general general citywide parking prohibition were assigned, which would allow oversized vehicles to park on the street during the day. This alternative is found in Attachment 5. I should also note that the summary of what other cities have done in relation to oversized vehicles is also included as an attachment. We do have that available for you also on a reference deck if you want to see how that lays out for other cities. The ordinance requirements include vehicle size recommendation. For oversized vehicles, based on dimensions used by many other cities to help address visibility issues, crowding of streets, and encroachment into bike lanes. Oversized vehicles have been defined as any vehicle or combination of connected vehicles, which exceeds 22 feet in length, 7 feet in width, or 7 feet in height. You may ask why 7 feet wide. Public works typically requires 8 feet of roadway for width for on street parking to minimize encroachment into the adjacent barc lanes, bike lanes, and vehicle lanes. However, in some areas of the city, the parking width has been reduced to 7 feet to accommodate a particular road configuration. As you know, many of our areas are narrower. For this reason, the ordinance includes a parking prohibition of oversized vehicles that are in excess of seven feet. As this is the minimum space required for on street parking. This also concurs with the police department's recommendation. The proposed definition of oversized vehicles would generally exclude passenger vans and pickup trucks. Attachments 6 and 7 show images of common vehicle sizes, and a summary of the size criteria used by other cities. It's also what I just referenced in the other slide. We can show that for you if you'd like. Now I want to hand it to Nicole to present the remaining provisions of the ordinance.

[05:48:22] Nicole: So, as Kimberly mentioned, there are two city issued permits that would be available to park an oversized vehicle in the public right of way. Excuse me. The 1st is a disability parking permit. It would be available at no cost. It is location specific to either the vehicle owner's residence, employee or facility where the person is receiving services. The location cannot impose a traffic or safety issue. It would be available to those with a disability placard or license plate, and a vehicle specially equipped and necessary to accommodate a person's disability. It would be valid for up to one year and renewable. The other park compartment is a temporary parking permit. There's a proposed fee of $10. It would also be location specific adjacent to the vehicle owner's fixed residence or a visitor of that residence or adjacent to a commercial business with the consent of the residential or business owner. Like disability parking permit. The location cannot impose a traffic visibility or safety issue. It would be valid for up to 7 days, renewable for an and renewable for an additional 7 days, with a maximum period of 14 days within a 90 day or 3 month period. Adequate signage must be installed to give notice of the parking restriction before it can be enforced. Signs will be installed at all city entry points and major corridors. And that's anticipated to take about 12 weeks to install. In addition, the city will provide broad community outreach of the parking restriction to people living in vehicles, residence, businesses, schools, neighborhood associations, and faith-based communities. The primary goal with enforcement would be to obtain voluntary compliance with the ordinance, enforcement efforts would begin with warnings and citations before evaluating whether to tow a vehicle. Towing would be done pursuant to state law and limited to those circumstances where a vehicle poses a visibility or safety concern or other exigent circumstances exist. Before towing a vehicle being used for living, the police department would offer safe parking or indoor shelter options. The ordinance would become effective in 30 days, which is our standard effective period. However, it would not be enforceable until the signage is installed, which, again, is estimated to be about 12 weeks or until, um, or that would, um, it would be installed by the end of September or early October. There are 2 options for council's consideration with respect to enforcement date. The 1st is the ordinance could become enforceable upon the commencement of operation of one or more of the city's safe parking lot. The other option is staying enforcement until January one of 2020 to allow additional outreach and increased safe parking capacity. In addition, the proposed ordinance repeals to subsections of the city code, which regulates the parking or storing of vehicles used for dwelling purposes, subsection B regulates vehicles used for dwelling on private property, and subsection C of the city code regulates vehicles on the public right of way. The subsections are not currently enforced due to constitutional concerns, and staff recommends the sections be repealed. A 2nd ordinance is also proposed, that amends the prohibition of parking of vehicles that discharge domestic sewage on the public right of way to clarify the parking prohibition. The recommended actions do not have a fiscal impact as they are fully funded in the proposed fiscal year at 2019, 2020 budget. As previously mentioned, there is a proposed $10 temporary parking permit fee. And again, there's no proposed fee for the disability parking permit. On screen are staff's recommendations. And also the alternatives that are set forth in the staff report as well. Council may wish to consider several of these alternatives that were discussed in our presentation in the staff report, including modifying the hours of the oversized vehicle parking prohibition or the enforcement date options. And that concludes staff presentation. We're happy to address any questions you may have. Thank you.

[05:52:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Do any council members have questions for staff? Council member Hicks,

[05:53:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: just one quick question. We did ask staff some questions, and one of them was whether any Santa Clara County cities currently have oversized vehicle, parking ordinances, and the answer says no, except for East Palo Alto, and East Palo Alto's not in Santa Clara County, right? So that would just be a no.

[05:53:31] Kimberly: That would be correct. And the Bay Area cities are highlighted in the chart that was included in the question and answer, and also the attachment. And then there are none within Santa Clara County, and then on our border, is East Palo Alto.

[05:53:43] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you.

[05:53:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? So I had a couple. Uh, I didn't write down what page this was on, but I think there was a proposed, uh, exemption for some vehicles for, like if you're actively loading or unloading, it was, um, 60 minutes. And I was thinking about what if somebody is moving. It seems like that takes longer than an hour. Was that what this was targeted at or would they have to get a different type of permit, like a big moving van?

[05:54:30] Kimberly: Um, I do think that when we were considering the loading and unloading, it was intended to include like a, yeah, someone moving into an apartment or into some other sort of, yeah, um, for moving purposes. And I, I think I recall that staff discussion was that the time allotted would be appropriate, but I don't know if you recall anything else.

[05:54:55] Nicole: Although I could also add to that, though, I think that the temporary parking permit could also be applied for and used for that purpose as well.

[05:55:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, yeah, because I think usually it takes longer than an hour to load or unload a moving van. And then the recommendation for buses being able to park for up to 2 hours, and that was a wide variety of buses. And I was kind of curious about the thought behind that one. So if you're like a VTA bus, you're not usually in one place for a couple hours.

[05:55:38] Kimberly: I believe a feedback. The feedback was related to providing assistance to the shuttle buses, if I recall correctly, as they can tend to park for longer periods. Nicole, if there's anything you want to add.

[05:55:50] Nicole: Yeah, excuse me. Um... I'm trying to find that language, too, so I can recall what that was.

[05:56:00] Kimberly: Yeah, I mean, I think we had two hours on there, and I think it was, yeah, I think it was mostly targeted to, like, the commercial, um, businesses or shuttle operations. Because I think there's also another exclusion for government. Well, that would be government vehicles. I'm not sure that would also include the public transit. I think public transit. Oh, that would be government. Would it? The, like, the ETA? Community or... the community shuttle or... No, would VTA buses... categories that they fall into?

[05:56:32] Nicole: I apologize. I found the exception. So public trade. So wait, so the way the exception reads it includes commercial, business, or public transit buses or commuter shuttles. So it includes all of those for no longer than 2 hours or any bus in a specifically posted bus area. So they could stay longer in a specifically posted bus area for a lot more time, otherwise they'd be limited to the 2 hours.

[05:56:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Although, couldn't they just park on their own property?

[05:56:58] Nicole: This is just as applied to the public right of way.

[05:57:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. So there's a lot that park in the public right away, right next to their private property. Why don't they park in their private property instead of us allowing them to park 2 hours in the public right away. In some areas, they're parking in the bike lane for a long time. And it causes the bike lanes, the bicyclists to go into the around them and they're pretty far into the lanes for vehicles then.

[05:57:34] Kimberly: And I think from staff, discussions on this exception, the situation that you're describing wasn't one that was contemplated or addressed in some way in terms of if they're parked on the public right away, but adjacent to their own private, their own property.

[05:57:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: property, yeah. Instead of taking up the bike lane, it seems like they should just be in their parking lot. And then I think there's a misperception about the 72 hour parking ordinance. Just in case somebody's here who doesn't know how that really works. Could you describe that?

[05:58:12] Kimberly: The 72 hour parking guideline is enforced by the police department, but there are potential misconceptions in terms of how it's enforced, and that the police department is not all and re going, they do parking enforcement is done in rounds, um, in different times and different dates. And so that's one concern, as customers will feel that we're not doing it quickly enough, and with exactly 3 days. In addition, there is the challenge that they don't need to move the 2 tents, looking at, well, they don't necessarily need to move the 2 tents. They need to have moved their vehicle, because the police department without checking their odometer and other things may not know whether or not it was too tense. That was probably not the best summary, but

[05:58:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: They actually have to drive the vehicle.

[05:59:01] Kimberly: Yes. And go a certain distance, but they can come back to the exact same spot.

[05:59:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Nearly the exact same spot. Yeah. Yes. And that's why it looks like they're not a misconception. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And the lot of shoreline. One of my colleagues looked up the concert schedule. And it ends, when was that? Like early October. So, are we, are, is that still under contract until a certain period of time, and that's why it's not available until mid November?

[05:59:37] Kimberly: Uh, I'm looking to see if uh, John Marshhonda Community Services here is here, but we have the November to the March time frame, as confirmed availability. But staff can go back and see if there's any modification that would need to be made there.

[05:59:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[05:59:52] Unknown Speaker: I believe that is the contractual obligation. If they know they're gonna be done earlier, we would certainly have a conversation with them about accessing as soon as possible.

[06:00:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Council member Clark.

[06:00:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: In the alternative language, I'm just curious, um, if there was why you went with 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. versus, you know, Paloto and Berkeley are 2 to five, summer 3 to six, what did you just find a happy medium or is 2 to 6 somewhere else in our code?

[06:00:24] Kimberly: So the 2 to 6 was taken from our code where we have a current, technically citywide prohibition where signed. Um, and that's 2 to 6 AM. So we use those same hours for the alternative link.

[06:00:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: I see. Okay.

[06:00:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[06:00:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a similar question on the 2 to 6. Where are these people going to go? I mean, so they can park during the day, but at night, they disperse to Camelot, or I don't know, where did they go?

[06:00:58] Kimberly: The ongoing challenge. If the oversize prohibition is citywide and in tandem, if you're also operating safe parking will be locations for the folks who are involved in safe parking in particular to find a spot during the day, work of school, other daytime activities that they may be involved in.

[06:01:20] Councilmember John McAlister: So, we don't know where they're gonna, they go to the next city. Anywhere but Mountain View.

[06:01:28] Kimberly: It's possible. Their normal course of business, things that they're doing during the day, would be, you know, certainly something they would continue to do. I think it will be a challenge. It's a challenge in the instance of the school district has a real concern about that as well regarding the families that may not have a place to park the RV during the day. When the city of Santa Barbara instituted their oversized ban, and they also run in tandem very long-standing safe parking program. They did do outreach to try to find daytime parking spaces, and they did end up with a limited number of them. But it is a challenging thing too.

[06:02:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, you're saying daytime. Well, during the day, they can park. It's that 2 to 6 that they can't park there. Oh, you mean for the alternate option if we if we were to go with just the 2 to 6.

[06:02:17] Kimberly: Yeah, it would be that would be a different scenario where the individuals would be, you know, driving, going to another place during that time period. It's also, you know, it would be based upon enforcement.

[06:02:29] Councilmember John McAlister: So they would be going outside of Mountain View. Okay, that's what I just... Okay. Thank you.

[06:02:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Okay, seeing none, we'll open it up for public comment. Can I see a show of hands of how many folks wish to speak? Okay, we'll give folks a minute and a half . And, um, I guess I don't have to remind folks that now we're on the 2nd topic of the oversized vehicle prohibition. But I do want to remind folks about being respectful. And carefully listening to what others have to say. And not doing applause or booing. We're just going to listen. And be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and come up to the microphone.

[06:03:28] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel representing the Housing Justice Coalition.

[06:03:32] Lenny Siegel: I had about 7 or 8 cards and had a planned a 5 minute presentation, but I'll be very brief. This proposed severe restriction on oversized vehicle parking and habitation in Mountain View is unconstitutional and outrageous. The reasons that were in the staff report, dealing with traffic and health can be solved through other means. That's why dozens of people have pledged if you reenact this on June 25th. People have pledge to collect signatures for a referendum to prevent this from being implemented. Even if you delay implementation. Or full implementation, we only have the option of doing a referendum. Now, it's, You could also say, what a woman said earlier, no ban without a plan. Council members supported the ban on March 19th because they felt they were being promised safe parking. Well, safe parking is not happening yet. We have a lot of things to figure out. So I don't understand why you're rushing. to enact something, which lawyers are telling us is unconstitutional. And our voters don't want. So we will have a referendum if you vote if you vote tonight. And on the 25th to enact this. Thank you.

[06:05:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[06:05:13] Blaine De Wansick: Hello, counsel, my name is Blaine De Wansick. I live in Mountain View, and I work as a teacher. I'm able to afford to live in the city where I grow up, where I grew up because I live with my parents, who are homeowners. I've been working with the Mountain View vehicle residents organization for the past 6 months as we work to make sure that vehicle residents are not pushed out of this city. Vehicle residents are my friends, neighbors, and community members. They are here for the same reasons that so many of us live in Mountain View. Unparalleled economic, educational, and medical opportunities. Their families, schools, workplaces, medical care, and homes are here. Vehicle residents are also here because housing is a human right, and one of the last affordable safe housing options in Mountain View is living in a vehicle. Mountain View has declared itself a human rights city. Please do not make an already impossible situation more difficult on my most vulnerable neighbors. Please do not criminalize poverty and homelessness. I urge you to vote against this unconstitutional, inhumane and immoral band tonight. I can promise you that many of us here and in Mountain View will stand against this man if you move forward with it. Thank you.

[06:06:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:06:38] Janet Stevens: Bye, counsel one more. Hi, counsel one more time. I really appreciate you being here on this late hour, and I appreciate everybody else, being able to stay here this long. Give me one second. You know, one of the things I want to address here is that I hope every one of you have not made up your opinion already, and that the words that we use are going to be effective to you, and that you're going to look into this and make a decision based on the facts after you've seen them. And I kind of doubt that's what's happening, but I hope it is. I hope you take some real time to look at the facts. This ninth circuit declared it illegal to have to not allow people to park and sleep overnight on a public parking space. So there will be consequences if you guys continue this. Number one, my name is Janet Stevens. I was born in Mountain View. I am here now because I'm having to stay with Stanford for a condition called chronic fatigue syndrome, and no one else can treat this. I wasn't able to continue to pay rent because my son's childcare was I didn't receive anymore. And so I'm forced to live in an RV and in a car. Nobody buys an RV to come live here. It's the consequences of the circumstances of the income, et cetera. And I really hope you guys pay more attention to who's really affected by here. Lifetime of trauma will happen, not only to the children, but the adults, that have to have everything unrooted from their life, the people they know, the church, their establishment, their friends, you take all that away from all these people, and not only the children, but the adults will be affected forever. And I don't think you guys are seeing the real people. There's not drug addicts. There's not for prostitutes. I've knocked on the door of every person. So I hope you guys would do a total real research on it before you make an opinion and vote on this. Thank you.

[06:08:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[06:08:20] Liza Mamadav Turchinski: Hi, my name is Liza Mamadav Turchinski, and I'm a resident of Mountain View and a senator of the Associated Students of Foothill College. Firstly, before discussing what we do with land and housing, I want to acknowledge that the territory upon which we stand is not yours to divide but indigenous alone land. I am at my core opposed to the unconstitutional oversized vehicle banner limitation, which is in reality just an egregious ban of poverty. How can you look at your constituents and decide that the people in this room don't deserve a home? I voted for you. I'm outraged, disgusted, and ashamed that the representatives I was excited to vote for in my first election are acting with such egregious, reckless disregard for basic human dignity. Housing is a human right, council members. I have constituents, too. They live in your city. They live on your streets. The largest percent of students in our population are in mountain view, and a growing number sleep in their vehicles, studying for finals in the car before coming to their morning classes. I'm here to demand you give people and our students the freedom of choice to live, while at the same time and not instead of creating sustainable solutions for truly alleviating the housing crisis. We need public housing, supportive services, and transit funding now, not criminalization. Your scare tactics will not solve homelessness. I also invite community members, council members, and organizers to attend the Foothill College Summit on student homelessness this Friday, June 14th. Participants will work with small groups, with city planners, mayors across Santa Clara County, Mark Berman, staff members, and more to brainstorm solutions, not carbonization. Please search Foothill College, summit on student homelessness for more information. Thank you.

[06:09:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:09:57] Devin Johnson: Hello. My name is Devin Johnson. I'm here to urge city council to wait to vote on this ordinance until at least January of next year. The superintendent earlier laid out ample reason to delay premature action. He said he'd need a minimum of 5 months, but more feasibly one full year to set up preparations for student RV parking. In addition to this reasoning, the ACLU is deemed this ban unconstitutional. As the scope of its solution isn't nearly as broad enough to address this crisis, It's essentially a ban on poverty without an adequate solution. This ban would immediately displace over 200 residents who have already been displaced before safe parking is even implemented. So, again, a double displacement. We need to expand safe parking and better affordable housing programs before any kind of voting concerning this issue. Thank you.

[06:10:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:11:01] Michael Khan: Hi, my name is Michael Khan, I'm a 20 year resident of Mountain View, and a homeowner here. I also teach urban studies at Stanford, and I'm a member of the Housing Justice Coalition. I'm here to speak against a ban on oversized vehicles. I really appreciated actually. Actually, the lengthy discussion that we've just had about the safe parking ordinance and the thoughtfulness that so many of you have put into it. And so it's quite shocking to me that the council would even contemplate implementing a ban on the residents after having such a thoughtful discussion about the provisions that we still need to make and the time that we require to put those provisions into place. I thought that city manager riches comment just at the end of the last discussion was really telling because he said that if we were to prioritize all the groups that we want to give preference to the disabled, the elderly, and the families with students in schools, we'd already be way over the capacity of the safe parking program that's contemplated. So by definition, that means that if we were to implement this ban, we are displacing those groups, we're displacing RVs that have the elderly, the disabled, and students living in them. I would urge the council not to pass such a ban. Thank you.

[06:12:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:12:37] Fred Turner: Hi, my name's Fred Turner. I'm a 15 year resident of Mountain View and a homeowner with my family. And we moved here 15 years ago because we treasured the diversity of Mountain View. We could have lived almost anywhere in Silicon Valley, and this town was one that welcomed a wide variety of people, especially working class folks. And as I've sat here tonight and we've worked through the issues on the table, I've watched working class families slowly leave the room, as our kids needed to go to bed and they need to go to work in the morning. And I worry that that's a miniature of where we would be headed with this kind of a band. I think we need to be very clear. We're not talking only about the management of vehicles on streets providing inconveniences, getting in the way of public goods. We're talking about taking a class of people and moving them to anywhere but Mountain View. And I think that's something that were we to do it, we would be ashamed of. We're the town that hosts Google. We are one of the most innovative towns in America. If we can't figure out how to quiet generators, move trash, and manage human waste. Well, maybe we don't deserve the reputation that we have. Thank you.

[06:13:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[06:13:47] Stephen Nelson: My name is Stephen Nelson, I'm a 31 year resident of Mountain View, and I don't support this band happening right now, and here's the reason why. The same picture I showed you before. The Reyes family. This is one of the kinds of families that you will displace for Mountain View. It is a family that had a 10 year old in 2015 that was going to Castro school. The superintendent has asked you to delay action on this for at least 5 months. I wish you would listen to him, please. What can we do? We can figure out a better way to do this. 50 years ago, we set a goal to send men to the moon and bring them back. NASA Ames near where that RV park was. It was one of the places that allowed that to happen. We can send a move, people do the moon 50 years ago, bring them back and we can't figure out how 1st to do the safe parking ordinance in the right way, get it up and going, and then maybe do some kind of thing like this. You could, I hope, John, that you give emotion to delay this to a time 5 months from now. I hope that that motion goes ahead and gets supported. You can drop this thing. You don't have to vote against it. You can just vote to table it, right? A motion to table. So I wish you would do that. That's what the superintendent asked. Unfortunately, he couldn't be here, but I told him I would, that's what I was going to ask for also. Thank you.

[06:15:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:15:29] Staff Attorney Michael Trujillo: Evening, mayor. City counselors, my name's Michael. I'm a staff attorney with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley. I'm speaking tonight to reiterate our constitutional concerns about the proposed oversized vehicle band as we laid out in our May 7th letter that we sent in partnership with the ACLU. In short, after reviewing the text of the proposed ordinance, all of our concerns still remain. We're specifically concerned that enforcement of the band would violate the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, and excessive fines and fees, on the 14th Amendment's equal protection due process clauses, and the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the freedom of association and right to travel protected by the U.S. Constitution and California Constitution. And in fact, after reviewing the proposed ordinance, we're actually even more concerned about the effect that this would have on people with disabilities. The only disability permits available on the permit, under the proposed ordinance, would require highly burdensome showings, showings that people show that their vehicle is especially equipped, especially apart to accommodate their disability. And this, we understand is a violation of the ADA and the reasonable accommodation process that it sets up. So, while we, the last thing I'll say is just that while we propose the safe parking sites, the scale of that program is not appropriate to the scale of the need. Thank you.

[06:17:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[06:17:08] Juliet Brody: Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the city council. My name is Juliet Brody. I a lawyer at the Stanford Community Law Clinic, and I'm here on behalf of my client, the Mountain View Housing Justice Coalition. And like Mr. Trujillo, who preceded me, I'm here to underscore the arguments in a letter that we sent on June 4th, 2019, and to you. It should be in your materials, and to say that having read the actual draft language, our concerns are not allayed. I wanted to start, though, by saying something you might not expect me to say, which is, I want to say thank you to you guys, for the amazing conversation that you just had about item 7.one. That is what this body should be doing and what legislatures across the region should be doing. Biting down on the tough policy questions of how to handle the housing crisis, the shelter crisis, what to do about safe parking, all of those gnarly, tough policy questions, that's what you should be spending your time on. That's what the voters send you here to do. This ban will distract you with litigation, it just runs afoul of many provisions of the Constitution, it's going to take your attention away from the work that you are sent here to do, and send you down a path that just will not succeed in solving the problem in any way will cause more problems than it solves. Thank you.

[06:18:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[06:18:41] Taylor Williams: Good evening, my name is Taylor Williams. I'm a law student with a Stanford Community Law Clinic, also here representing our client, the Housing Justice Coalition. Following up on previous legal remarks, we urge you to consider the arguments laid out in our June 4th letter, putting forth at length analysis of 4 constitutional issues that alone each could give a judge the reason to overturn this ban. I want to spend a little bit of time focusing on just one to help illustrate those problems. The issue with the excessive fine clause. I understand not a lot of folks have heard of the excessive fine clause, but it's part of the 8th Amendment, which also bans cruel and unusual punishment. Although you haven't heard about it, Judges and courts frequently rule and interpret this clause to say that the government cannot, may not, either criminally or civilly, impose crime, uh, civil, uh, excuse me, financial penalties that are disproportionate to the crime committed, just a few months ago, the Supreme Court ruled in a case where a defendant pled guilty to heroin trafficking, that the punishment imposed, which was a forfeiture of his SUV was far too severe and disproportionate to the crime which he was convicted for. Now compare that to what's being proposed here. A parking violation where people are attempting to seek shelter using their large vehicles, will lead through citations, fines, eventual towing and impoundment fees, to the loss of a family's only asset, their greatest asset, a home, which contains all their possessions. We urge you not to vote on this ordinance. Thank you.

[06:20:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:20:18] Joan McDonald: Joan McDonald, again, for advocates for affordable housing. First, we'd like to point out that this ban is tantamount to a teacher finding a few unreleased students and penalizing the entire class. or a parent. being upset with one child's actions and punishing all of her kids. The outliers that you're concerned about can be worked with and solutions found, and you have heard some of the solutions. This is actually unenforceable because the bottom line of enforcement says prior to towing outreach to author. outreach to offer safe parking or indoor shelter options. They won't exist for everybody who is on the street. So this ban is really a displacement of hundreds of people, families and individuals, yet your top priority, all of you, was displacement. Thank you.

[06:21:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[06:21:58] Executive Director Tom Myers: Good evening, Madam Mayor Council members. I'm Tom Meyers, executive director at Community Services Agency. And I think I need to make it real clear right now that I am speaking not just as Tom Myers executive director, but the comments I've made have been vetted through my board of directors as well. I sent you my remarks earlier in the day via email, so I won't go over them verbatim. I will point out a few very key issues that I think are really important to understand. It is very rare that CSA wades into controversial issues, especially with positions as strong as we've taken on this one. But we do feel like a potential ban, especially of an immediate ban will have very devastating consequences on some of our most vulnerable people. It is definitely a myth to think that people live in RVs by choice, that all people live in RVs by choice. Some may, some don't, and some do it just out of desperation. And I think probably the most important thing I can say to you today is 2 things. One is it takes an average of 18 months for us to house a family that's in crisis that comes to us. The other thing is to make sure and understand that safe parking, while an important tool, is not the answer. So thank you very much.

[06:23:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:23:29] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask?

[06:23:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, Mr. Myers, we have a question for you.

[06:23:33] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Can't I remember, can I? Excuse my voice. I'm recovering from a cold.

[06:23:37] Unknown Speaker: I know, and you're here late when you're sick, I go. So, can you refresh our memory? How many homeless case managers, do you have, um, a CSA right now?

[06:23:51] Executive Director Tom Meyers: We currently have 2 people who are working specifically on homeless case management. We actually have started a new program at CSA where we are having all of our programs work together. So our homeless prevention people, our working with our homeless services people, our working with our senior case managers and so forth. And that helps us to serve even more people. We've also got plans to expand specifically homeless case management right now, and I've got a rather large funding request out right now to expand that because we know we are going to need more homeless case managers specifically. We're already seen an uptick in the number of homeless individuals who are coming to us for all kinds of services, not just case management services. And we did notice an uptick that happened right after the request was made to staff to come back with a draft ordinance. So we would expect that there will be even more people coming to us. It was made, the comment was made that we are very near capacity right now, and that comment is true. That does not mean, though, that we can't expand and we have plans to do that. In fact, very immediate plans to do that because we know that a ban will cause for people to come and rely on CSA for services.

[06:25:12] Unknown Speaker: Can you share how many additional case managers you're looking to have? It's almost 12.30. I'm sorry.

[06:25:24] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Well, the plan is to expand to 2 more.

[06:25:27] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So that's basically doubling the capacity.

[06:25:30] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Doubling capacity.

[06:25:31] Unknown Speaker: In addition to the other case managers who are helping to...

[06:25:39] Executive Director Tom Meyers: We have case managers that do all kinds of things, homelessness prevention, senior case management, intensive case management, and so forth. Case management. And I think that's really a key to understanding here. And we've known this all along. We provide a lot of services, whether it's food out into the community or whether it's outreach or whatever, but nothing will help a person find housing and stabilize their lives better than case management. It's that simple.

[06:26:06] Unknown Speaker: Um, so, uh, you are a member of the EAN, the emergency assistance network. And, um, I was hoping that maybe you could share one of the reflections that we've seen in the county is an uptick in homelessness in general throughout the county. And I know that EAN has been working on efforts there. Can you share with council what you've been doing in that capacity as well?

[06:26:32] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Sure, I'd be happy to the emergency assistance network for those of you that don't know as a group of 7 agencies very much like CSA spread throughout the whoops, spread throughout the county, and we try and make sure that every single zip code is covered in Santa Clara County, and we've been successful in that. And we make sure that we are working together as a network. It's not competition. It's not, it's all about making sure that we can provide the services. And if we can't provide the services, we're working with another agency that's like CSA to provide those services. All of us are have as our basic issues to make sure people have food on the table and a roof over their head. And part of that is to make sure that we are preventing homelessness before it even gets to that. And so the EAN, as we call it, the use emergency assistance network is a very important component to making sure poverty services are available to folks.

[06:27:28] Unknown Speaker: Thank you.

[06:27:28] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Yeah absolutely.

[06:27:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We have some more questions for you. Council member Ramirez.

[06:27:32] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. You didn't speak on the previous item, but I did want to ask, CSA currently does not open its parking lot for safe parking.

[06:27:43] Executive Director Tom Meyers: We've not been asked to do that, but we certainly would be more than willing to investigate that. absolutely.

[06:27:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Absolutely. I appreciate that. Thank you.

[06:27:52] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Yeah, absolutely.

[06:27:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And then I, maybe this is a bigger ask, you know, longer term, is there anything CSA could do to participate in increasing shelter capacity or finding more, you know, ongoing solutions beyond safe parking.

[06:28:11] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Absolutely, because as I said, I don't think safe parking is the answer. It's a tool, a very important tool. whether it's being done by Move Mountain View, whether it's being done by life moves and what they're doing in San Jose or whatever. It's a very important tool. It's not the answer to our problem. And so I think that we would, you know, as I said, we'd be more than willing to talk about opening our parking lot and making that part of the solution. I think we would be more than happy to talk about just about anything that you wanted to put on the table. Right now, I've got a former board member of CSA as a commercial real estate agent. And he, I've got him doing a lot of investigating on, specifically, what kinds of capital things might help to, with the situation that we've got going on right now. whether it's building more buildings. Personally, I'm not sure that capital is important. uh, services are where it's at. The only way you're going to really help people. with the services. But I think capital is absolutely essential. And I think if you wanted to work on building shelter, more shelter space as well as additional safe parking space, that's an important component too, because if you look at the number of people coming to CSA for services, about 700 right now, are coming to homeless individuals are coming to CSA for services of some kind or another. Of that, about 9% live in RVs. About 15% live in automobiles, cars. That means that about 75% or so, our people who are living rough, living on the streets. So shelter space is extremely important as well.

[06:30:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you. Council member McAllister has a few questions.

[06:30:06] Councilmember John McAlister: Sure. When you guys, when the caseworkers talk to individuals, and they talk about life choices or living choices, where does sustainability come into that conversation?

[06:30:19] Executive Director Tom Meyers: No, I'm not sure I know what you mean by sustainability.

[06:30:24] Councilmember John McAlister: their ability to stabilize their living situation. Is that what you're talking about?

[06:30:27] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Oh, absolutely. That's that's the ultimate goal. Whenever you're talking about case management. And that's the ultimate goal, whether it's homelessness prevention, stability of making sure people can stay in their homes. If it's homeless, homeless services, it's making sure that our case managers are working with them to try and get them into housing and stabilizing them there. If it's case managers that are dealing with seniors specifically, there are all kinds of specialized issues that go along with that. So, yeah, sustainability or stability is extremely important in the conversation.

[06:31:04] Councilmember John McAlister: And you've been known to relocate people or to say direct them to areas outside the county to find a sustainability or a lifestyle that's sustained. So...

[06:31:14] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Absolutely. And in fact, I can tell you, and I've said this before, as someone who grew up here in Mountain View, one of the really truly sad things is that, unfortunately, for a lot of people, the only way they can stabilize their lives is by moving out of the area, and we can assist with that if need be. But I think that the fact that people would like to stay in their hometown, the fact that we want to try and keep people here, because we value the diversity that has existed here all along, is part of the reason why we're dealing with an RV crisis in our community as well. And it's because people want to stay in this community that is their home.

[06:31:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Right. And you help and you have you guide them through these tough choices, I guess.

[06:32:01] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Absolutely. That's what a case manager's job is, is to take a case and manage it.

[06:32:06] Councilmember John McAlister: And a successful one is a sustainable or in a house somewhere.

[06:32:11] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Absolutely. Stability is the best result for everybody. if at all possible.

[06:32:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[06:32:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. And the vice mayor has questions.

[06:32:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. Thank you, and thanks for being here and thanks for being a resource. I believe your case managers have been out doing outreach with our staff and my understanding is not everybody responds.

[06:32:39] Executive Director Tom Meyers: That's very true.

[06:32:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And so what are your thoughts about those who have chosen not to respond to our outreach? You know, we had a gentleman earlier today saying he prefers to live in an RV and not in a section 8 housing that even though he has a voucher. So what are your thoughts and what do we do with them?

[06:33:04] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Well, I have to, because I'm the executive director at CSA, my concentration, and as I said in my remarks, what's important to me is to make sure that we don't lose our compassion and that we don't forget the most vulnerable in our community, but a lot, you know, someone who doesn't qualify for our services. One of the things that set CSA apart from almost any other organization that operates in town is that we fully vet folks who come in. We have a mandate and our funding requires us to serve only those people who are living in poverty. Many sources of our funding only will only allow us to serve people who are living in poverty. And so because of that, we would not serve someone who is, you know, a higher income individual or so forth. So I can't really comment on those folks who would not necessarily qualify for our services, I can only comment on those people who do qualify for our services, and many of those who are living in RVs do qualify for those services.

[06:34:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[06:34:12] Executive Director Tom Meyers: Absolutely. Thank you.

[06:34:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[06:34:23] Conor O'Brien: Uh, Conor O'Brien, uh, Mountain View resident and renter. and I wanted to speak against the span and say that it honestly feels like it's part of a pattern we've seen recently of people having to come out to city council meetings to justify to the council, why fellow Mountain View residents should be allowed to keep living in the city. And I think that something seriously is seriously wrong when that case has to be made in the 1st place, but I hope that now that vehicle residents and other folks are making the case that you are listening very closely to it and also keeping in mind, those folks who either couldn't make it out to the meeting in the 1st place, like other folks have said, can't stay at a council meeting past midnight with their kids. even from the folks you have heard. We're talking about people who have work here, who have family here, who have lives here, and I just think it's important to keep in mind the amount of disruption you're talking about if you take away their ability to continue living there, and will reconsider passing any sort of band like this until there's enough safe parking to accommodate all of the folks currently living in vehicles in Mountain View. Thanks.

[06:35:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next place.

[06:35:41] Annie Fisher: Hello, thank you all for listening to all of us. My name is Annie Fisher, and I've been a Mountain View resident since 2002. I'm a homeowner here. I have loved living in Mountain View, specifically because not only is it an incredibly diverse community where when my daughter went to school. Her teachers lived nearby and in town and were part of the community. And we had, you know, friends from who had jobs around her who had lived all their lives. We had friends who had come in, who were brand new, and Mountain View was very welcoming to everybody. I'm seeing that potentially changed tonight, and that welcome of even people who have lived here for years, go away. Um, I also really appreciate the hard work that you all have done and the complexity of working on the safe parking program. And it just shows that it will take time, and I think all of us together should be able to come up with solutions that are still kind and compassionate and see all of our residents as valued. Thank you.

[06:36:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[06:36:57] Graham Poor: My name is Graham. My name is Graham Poor. I've been a resident in Mountain Pete for about 15 years. I, you know, work at high-tech jobs. I managed to buy a house here with even needing help from my parents like 15 years ago. I never thought I'd live in a house that was worth almost $2 million, and I never thought that house would be under 900 square feet. But, um, I'm against this band. And I'm astonished. I mean, where do you think these people are gonna go? I mean, what do you think? I mean, you, mayor. What do you think is going to happen? What do you think is going to happen to that person who's living in their, in their, has to sleep in a car. And you're telling them, absolutely. I'm sorry, okay an RV. What happens to them? You find them, you tow their car, what happens to them? And I really want an answer.

[06:38:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[06:38:06] Graham Poor: What happens to them?

[06:38:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We'll be discussing the topic after we get public input.

[06:38:10] Graham Poor: You don't care.

[06:38:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[06:38:17] Pastor Brian Leong: Hello, Council Brian Leong. Pastor at Lord's Grace Christian Church and the president of Move Mountain View. And when council member McAllister talked to me in 2015, he's mentioned several times. Nobody even knew what safe parking was. We have led safe parking in this community and it has worked. We have led in May, East Palo Alto started safe parking with my help, and yesterday, Palo Alto also started the process of bringing safe parking in. And you should be proud of that. We should be proud of that as a city. I am. But I'm also appalled that this council would consider giving up our leadership role in this area by saying that we're going to follow everybody else and ban RVs instead. That's taking something that we've been given and we took as leadership and we're giving it away. And so you challenged me. to get faith communities involved. We've done it. We have foreign Palo Alto and 2 in Sunnyvale coming online, one more in Mountain View. And so as faith communities, we're going to challenge you back. Do something better. There's a lot of space between keeping everybody here in RVs and kicking everybody out. And we haven't explored any of those. Nobody in city staff has talked to the residents. Nobody's talked to us and nobody's talked to police that much yet. They've been in a rush just to get this report going. Take time, find something in between. Explore that space and make a better solution for the people. We can do better. We could be better. Thank you.

[06:39:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[06:39:55] Public Speaker: I'd like to ask for a vote for a show of hands. If it was possible to replace all the quote unquote oversized RVs with RVs that fit the mechanical specifications, Would that or would that not be acceptable to any or all of you? Show of hands?

[06:40:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, I'm sorry, we're not gonna do that.

[06:40:18] Public Speaker: What's that?

[06:40:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We don't respond to public input. We'll discuss the topic after we're done getting public input. Understand what I'm saying.

[06:40:26] Public Speaker: Yes. Yeah. Because I'm thinking it would be possible to start a business. to manufacture appropriate vehicles, to low cost, to satisfy your requirements. And would that solve the problem for everything or not? Any responses? Any questions?

[06:40:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Again, we'll discuss the topic after we've gotten public input. Everybody else is here, and anybody have anything to say or any questions? Okay.

[06:41:06] Public Speaker: Yeah, Sherry, I'm Lang Mountain View. You've put 4 years into this, and I'm very proud of you. for what you've done. I think what you've done tonight is remarkable. Um, I'm sorry that, in my opinion, you're not getting credit for everything you're doing. on this. And I am sorry about that, but I sat here listening to all this, I realize that they're organized groups that aren't going to get up here and speak, and I realize that I'm on my own, but I speak for a great number of people. And I think what you're doing is the right thing to do. As I said before, my concern were the children in schools, the 12 or 14 children that were living out of RVs, and that has been discussed tonight, and that makes me happy. I also don't feel that Mountain View needs to take on the RVs for the entire peninsula, and that's what we've been doing. And you're asking, or not, you're not asking, but people are asking the taxpayers of Mountain View to sponsor all of the RVs throughout the peninsula. Oakland has just shut down. We're going to get those over here. So if we wait a year, it's going to be a much worse situation than it is. I understand that you've had a lot of threats from attorneys tonight, but there's an inconsistency there that will stop that fast enough. Thank you.

[06:42:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[06:42:50] Amber Stein: Good evening. My name is Amber Stein, and I work with lots of love, but I come to you as an individual who is concerned about what is going on tonight. I guess my urgency to you is, please do not act out of fear. Our neighbors, some of the description that you have heard about them, is, I'm sure some people exist, that are dumping their waste, and that are not adhering to the law. But I would tell you that they are not the majority, just and they are not that different than house dwellers, at least in the year that I've been doing this work. I have not seen anyone that has been so negligent. We have one bathroom that they keep clean. We've never had to have, we've never had to clean it at all. So my urgency to you is, as Pastor Brian said, we are leading. We are leading in this mission of taking care of the people that are needy in our community. We will never be able to erase the fact that people are needy. That's just part of being human. But we can be leaders. We can really lead in this issue and show compassion and not work out of our fears or concern for those that have money above those that don't. Thank you.

[06:44:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So anyone else who wants to provide us with input on this?

[06:44:17] Public Speaker: Good evening, everyone again. Nice to see you. I'm having flashbacks. Maybe, uh, Mr. Clark or Mr. McAllister, um, feels some of that too. We were here not too long ago when we were passing Mesur V when we were talking and tenants had this issue and we came asking you to help us. you know, we, um, to delay or to stop, put some kind of halt to the rent increases, and our pleas were unheard. We had to take time of time of work. Just like today, you know, children sleeping in the out there because their parents have to be here because of their lives or being affected. So it's like, it's not a good, it's not a good flashback. It's a tiring thing that we're doing here. I'll invite you to take a different approach to those new of you in the council, to the old ones where that we've had, you know, interactions before. Try something new. Take this opportunity at the barbecue to really get to know the people and hear from them different ideas. It's appalling that, you know, some organizations were approached to see how their shuttles were going to fit in, but the RB residents. were not approached. to see what they believed and what would accommodate them. So it's a different approach and I'm asking really for time on this band. I don't even know what we're talking about about. No, to the band. Thank you. Thank you.

[06:45:57] Helen Serrick: Good evening. And yes, thank you for the work you've been doing. My name's Helen Serrick. I've lived here. I grew up here. My family moved here in 1970. And I've watched Mountain View change over the years. The RBs are a symptom of the bigger problem, and what people have been saying all evening is that we need to find a holistic and a regional approach to it. We can kick them out. We can have them move someplace else. We can screen NIMB all we want. But we're just pushing the problem over someplace else. And we need a holistic approach. I've been watching all these apartments go up and currently I'm living in the family home knowing I'm going to have to move out and I'm like, I don't know where I'm going to move because we keep building apartments that the rent is out of reach for me. I'm a teacher. I don't make that much. And at my age, I really need to focus on retirement. Where are these families to go? Where are the people at Safeway to work? Where are the people at the post office to work? People complain about the time they have to wait to get help, how there's nobody at Safeway. Well, they can't afford to live here. And so we need to look at addressing the problem and not the symptoms. It's like stopping the immigrants down south. That's not going to change. We need to look at why people are coming to the US. We need to look at why people are living in RVs and address the underlying issue. Thank you. Good night.

[06:47:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to provide input to the council on this topic? Okay, then we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to council for any additional questions and then discussion. Council member Clark.

[06:47:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I mean, assuming we're all on board with dealing with this tonight, I'll get into comments. So first, I want to start. I know emotions on these sorts of issues run high, but I just want to say there isn't the mayor or a single council member or anyone, frankly, up at this dais who doesn't care deeply about this issue or care about what happens to folks. We wouldn't be sitting here at 1245 in the morning as basically volunteers. having to be at our day jobs in 6 hours, if we and spent years on this, if we didn't care deeply about it, and we might disagree, and we're probably about to disagree. I think on a number on our approach to this, but we don't always agree on the approaches to things, and we all work together, and, you know, we, I think, ultimately do what we feel is best, and it might not always be what we feel is the best outcome, but we all, everyone up here has their hearts in the right places. And even when we disagree, I think we all understand that we're all coming from positive places. And I think we I hope that everyone will assume good intent, regardless of how they feel about what we do or what we say tonight. So with that, I'll just start by saying, I've been thinking about this a lot over the last few weeks. And I'm really, for whatever reason, you know, this really bothers me. And I think the reason that this has bothered me so much is that I don't think this is us. Um, I think that, you know, we, we as a city, whether it was the previous item, whether it's affordable housing, whether it's a number of different issues, we have a city, we as a city, have not taken the easy path, we are the easy path forward. We've always said, just like we did on the last item, we're going to spend time on this. We're going to come up with an approach that's different from other, you know, most other cities and, you know, we could do the quick and easy thing and get something done, but we're going to, instead we're going to spend the time, the resources to do it right. And I've said since the beginning, when this started several years ago that I would support stepping up enforcement when the time was right when we had, say, parking and other solutions in place. But what bothers me tonight is I never imagined that that would mean pulling out the most blunt object blunt tool, um, possible to go about that, like a citywide ban that doesn't even look at, you know, where they're look at what the most severe issues are in terms of enforcement, um, looking at phasing it in over time, looking at what streets might be allowed in the interim to help meet some safe parking need that, you know, aren't causing significant issues today. And for those who are causing issues, you know, we can address those on a case-by-case basis, or put some parameters in place. But as one of the speakers said, you know, there are absolutely bad apples out there. We all know that, but to, you know, in one fell swoop, basically ban everyone from the city and create and basically add to this housing crisis that we already have before we have all the other tools in place. is really, I think, it's just bad public policy, and it's not who we are as a city. I think we're better than that. I'm happy to work with anyone on, you know, what interim solutions might work, stepped up enforcement in certain areas. Maybe we find certain streets or areas where, you know, we can add to our safe parking capacity in the interim, and we phase this in over time. But, um, I I just think this is the wrong approach. And I just think it's unusual for us to sort of do all sorts of really innovative things on this particular topic. And then, for whatever reason, decide that a blanket ban, like the most blunt, like I said, the most blunt object we could find is the right approach to it. And I just, I think we're better than that. And I hope that we can find some sort of path 4 that is a little bit more precise and I think fair to everyone than that. especially especially our most vulnerable population. You know, I've been criticized for my votes on Rock Street and all these other things. And, you know, in those cases, we have a reasonable argument that our hands are tied or, you know, we have things that we need to follow. Here, we have broad authority. We don't have to jump to the most blunt thing that we can do. And I think doing that, especially in this case, where we're talking about some of the most vulnerable populations in our community, is just the wrong thing, especially when most of the complaints that we're getting, quite frankly, are I value the livelihoods of the most vulnerable folks in our community over the convenience of, frankly, most of the people who want us to ban the RVs are people who are sitting in, you know, 7 figure homes or can afford 3000 plus star rents. They've got their security and what they need. And really what they're talking about here is they see a few bad apples or they think they're eyesores or they're inconvenient. And for me, in this case, you know, taking a more measured approach is far more important than someone's inconvenience or things being a nice or and I just, I think there's a better path forward than this.

[06:53:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[06:53:40] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I'm not going to be as eloquent as Council member Clark, but I'll do my best. So I appreciate the sentiment that you've expressed, Chris, and I don't I don't disagree with it. I think this is a challenging issue, especially for those of you on council who have served much longer than I have. I think it's proven to be nearly impossible to meaningfully addressed, given the limited tools that we have as a municipality. So in approaching this, I've been trying to think of a framework that may be reasonable in determining what kind of policy approaches is appropriate. You know, I don't believe the intention is to be is to be punitive. I think the intention is to achieve the policy objective from the ordinance and then be sensitive to ancillary impact. And so with that, sort of the framework I've been mulling over is, you know, 1st and foremost, I don't think that anybody believes that the status quo is sustainable. And so I think whatever we do, whatever action we take tonight or, you know, over the next several months, we should be thinking about ways of sort of winding down the status quo and finding a better alternative. And I think, you know, in doing so, we'll be answering, we'll need to answer a couple of questions, right? We need to provide, to the greatest extent, we can, a pathway to stable housing for anybody currently homeless, currently living in a vehicle who would like a pathway to housing. And I think we've answered that to some extent with a much more robust safe parking program. So I think that will be helpful. That is a tool in what will need to be a larger tool kit. And I think the other The other question we'll need to answer, or maybe another way of thinking of it is developing infrastructure that could help us address this challenge longer term. One of the things that struck me and read about the homeless count is for every person that we've been able to house, 3 more folks become homeless. So the problem is getting worse. And I think, you know, yes, the state has a role to play. The county has a role to play, but I think as we've mentioned in the past, you know, we're often held accountable for the failure of other levels of government in addressing these kinds of problems. So to the, you know, in figuring out what is our responsibility in addressing this challenge, I think, you know, that's a key component of it, where will they go? And then in implementing this, I think it's important to sort of attach it to some meaningful milestones. I'm personally not supportive of immediate implementation. I think we need to be more thoughtful than that. So anticipating a challenging conversation over the weekend, I crafted what I thought might be a reasonable compromise motion, which staff was kind enough to provide in hard copy. I don't know if there's a slide of it. It's long and complex. I'm not wedded to the language. I'm open to other ideas. Council member Clark, if you have a viable alternative, I'd be very interested in hearing it. But just really quickly walking through this. It would modify the ordinance. in 3 ways. Oh, it is. Okay, thank you. I appreciate it. So it would use the alternative language for the hours, prohibiting parking between 2 AM and 6 AM. It would prohibit, it would impose the parking regulations only in residential zones. So leaving the industrial areas without the restrictions. And then it would tie the effective date to the expiration of the shelter crisis declaration that we approved in March. In my mind, it was, I think there's a very clear nexus between the challenge that we're experiencing and the fact that we don't have shelter capacity for folks who would like it or other viable alternatives. So it's hard for me to justify approving anything prior to the expiration of the shelter crisis. And I would imagine that, you know, if we get to that expiration date, which is included in the ordinance, you know, if we haven't meaningfully addressed the shelter crisis, then I presume we would extend it. So that would be those would be the proposed modifications to the ordinance. A 2nd edition would be to return for staff to return to council 6 months after the effective date to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of the ordinance. And I think effectiveness may have different meanings for different council members, but I think it would be I think it's important to do lots of check-ins over the course of this. The other staff recommendations are unchanged. And then 5 through 7 address the, I guess, the concern that's been expressed in multiple comments from the public, but we need to have a longer term plan. I don't believe that the solution to the housing crisis is people living in vehicles in perpetuity. I think we need to figure out, you know, how do we provide shelter capacity? How do we provide transitional housing? How do we provide permanent supportive housing? Who are the partners that we need to work with to achieve those things? But, you know, part of the winding down to the status quo includes creating the infrastructure to provide pathways to housing or alternative forms of shelter that are habitable. you know, that provide case work, you know, for folks to, you know, to get into more stable, sustainable situations. So again, just I'm not going to move it. I wanted to get a, you know, get a sense of where other folks were coming from, but it's, uh, it was, you know, just some thought that, you know, may may help at least provide some a trajectory for us just because I think it is a difficult issue to tackle. And I think I look forward to the discussion.

[07:00:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[07:00:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll mull that over. I wish I had it written so I could read it a little further. Oh, thank you. The, um, the most unclear part to me, if I can ask your ask you the answer to this, is declaring the end of the shelter crisis. Um, I'm not clear on how you see that happening, because we were talking earlier tonight about extending it and finding out how long we could extend it. So what are your thoughts on the shelter crisis and when you would feel comfortable declaring it ended.

[07:00:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That's a great question, and I don't have a good answer. The resolution, from what I remember, doesn't, doesn't have sort of like a any benchmark, you know, attached to it. doesn't say this is when it has an expiration date, but it doesn't provide guidance on when we have satisfactorily alleviated the shelter crisis. I think that's a determination that we would have to make as a body.

[07:01:29] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll that answer over as well. So I was going to say that I don't think I don't think we're there yet in terms of the overall ban. I don't think we have adequate safe parking, and that best practices would have in this area, I think, would have us have adequate safe parking before that we could refer people to before asking them to leave the streets. So I don't feel ready for that yet. I would, though, be open to an ordinance specifically tied, and I'm actually kind of sad and frustrated that we haven't done something specifically tied to safety issues as in sort of our division 0 plan type of safety issues. So, not near intersections, not near crosswalks. Those kind of very specific safety things. I think we could move on much quicker than the rest of what we're talking about. So that's my input at this point.

[07:02:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any others? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[07:03:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I certainly appreciate everyone's, um, thoughtfulness, and, you know, I think we are, and contrary to what some folks may have said or think, I think that this council is is one compassionate, and we wouldn't be here at one a.m. talking about this for, what, 7 hours or 6 hours now if we weren't. And so I appreciate my colleagues for being here. And wanting to work this through. And, and, um, you know, I, I appreciate, uh, Councilman Ramirez is, I do. I think this is helpful because I don't know if I wasn't comfortable with everything laid out the way it was. And so I was, you know, certainly, I came in expecting for us to have some changes to whether it's the implementation date or the enforcement date or so forth. But, um, I don't, and I appreciate council member Hicks's comments because I don't want to, um, how do you say, minimize the real impacts of safe public safety and public health that these oversized vehicles have had? I mean, you know, I I mentioned my stories. I went to Target. I go to Target to get my stuff things and before we put the signs up on Latham. When you are going out of the parking lot, and it was like a leap of faith. I was just hoping someone wasn't there to hit me because you literally cannot, I could not see on either side what was happening on the street. And so it was like just, you know, hoping, crossing my fingers that when I got out onto Latham, I wouldn't get hit. And that's a real issue. Whether it's the bike lanes and not being able to get around the oversized vehicles. You know, I was in Palo Alto with a friend whose car broke down and we had to call the towing truck. And the towing truck, she was parked in a lot, but the towing truck couldn't get out of the lot with her car because there were RVs parked like right in front, the whole street. So there are real concerns that I think we need to address. And, you know, we have, I think we can always say we need more time, but on the other hand, I feel like our community has waited for years for something. And, um, you know, frankly, they've lost patience on this. And so I believe we need to do something. If we weren't being threatened with a lawsuit, perhaps that would open opportunity for more conversation, but I feel frankly limited now about what I can even say. And so that's not very helpful, frankly. And if you really want to discuss this, then you know, I would appreciate not having threats. But we're not there now. So, um, I think we should need to move forward with something that, you know, the 2 to 6 AM, um, I know some of the other cities have that, but I guess my question to Councilman Ramirez or, you know, with anyone who might support that, I don't see how that alleviates the safety issues, because frankly, I look at more of the daytime when we have, you know, traffic safety concerns. So that's why I would look at something that's 24 hours if we're going to do that. And maybe you can, you know, if you can explain to me what your thought about that is, that would be helpful. I don't know if the 2 and 2 to 6 AM is where I see other cities doing that. Is that why those cities aren't being threatened with lawsuits? I don't know if that's, you know, if staff has an answer to that, but if someone could better explain to me the difference between a 24 hour ban versus a 2 to 6 AM ban, I would appreciate that. So I'll start with you, Counselor Ramirez.

[07:07:35] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So this comes from practical experience. One of the more challenging aspects of my day job is I get to deal with this issue in San Jose. Um, and on so San Jose doesn't use the oversized vehicle parking, um, regulations for a variety of reasons. But we do as sort of the the alternative, have overnight parking restrictions, and it's proven very effective in that case, it's whack-a-mole. You know, the folks who are living on one street, go to a different area, and then more signage is ultimately put up. But even though folks who are living in vehicles could utilize that space, you know, during the day, they don't in practice because they, as many folks have said, it is inconvenient to have to move. So it's the I think I think the the source of the problem really is sort of the permanent storage of vehicles. And I think if this, I mean, I know it could allow for folks to come back, but in, you know, I think more likely they would utilize the, assuming that, you know, the language I've crafted is what the council's interested in, in practice, the folks who are sleeping in vehicles would utilize the industrial space that would be open permanently. So that's that's, you know, my very inarticulate response, but it just sort of from the practical experience I've had working with San Jose DOT and putting up overnight signage. It's been very effective.

[07:09:19] Unknown Speaker: Does staff have any comments between the 2 to 6 or whatever, overnight hours versus a 24 hour, you know.

[07:09:30] City Staff: So, excuse me. Um, In terms of, you know, I think from the cities that we looked at, it was roughly half that did overnight and half that did 247, we don't have a understanding as to why some cities did it one way versus another.

[07:09:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Other comments from council members. Council member Komei?

[07:10:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Breaking, breaking things. So I think for me, my focus tonight is trying to find ways to be collaborative, creative, while also maintaining the, I think, council's compassion on the issue. Um, you know, one of the things that I've been struggling with is, um, which was brought up in comments was, you know, housing as a human right. And, you know, one of the things that I do think that council has been working on in creating that right to housing is we've looked at our BMR ordinance. We've approved, I think, since January, 1000s of new units of housing, with a push for included BMR units. We have prioritized displacement and middle income as council goals. And right before this, we talked about safe parking and opportunities to create more safe parking. lots and spots. So in that way, I feel that We, we, I have been pursuing as much as possible that housing opportunity, um, on a diverse, Plain. Um, the comments in terms of, um, time frame, I think is what I'll focus on right now, which is taking into account the comments from CSA, um, from the school district, I do feel like whatever action we do take tonight needs to allow enough time for more safe parking programs to come on board and those in the community will be affected to, um, be able to get into some type of program because I think when council member McAllister asked what's the goal, the goal for me is housing, stable housing, um, whether that's permanent, supportive housing, or it's a opportunity to get a section 8 voucher, that is ultimately my goal. Um, and so for me, no matter what action we take, I think that the time frame, um, is something that I feel we really need to take into account in terms of the action. So, um, with the comments, especially from the superintendent, and knowing that many of these safe parking lots won't come on board until the fall, Um, I wouldn't feel comfortable implementing any type of action until, um, the beginning of next year. Um, And I think that's just where I'm at so that we can provide the adequate services so we can get as many spaces. Um, So that's just, I guess, my initial comments.

[07:13:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[07:13:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: I'll just state some of the ideas I had and some of that might not be viable or of interest to the other council members, but Council member Ramirez. I really appreciate it. I didn't see this until tonight. I really appreciate sort of the thought and detail that you put into this. I think what I had been thinking of was, You know, I know there's been some difficulty around it, but in previous discussions, we talked about, I think most of us are on the same page in terms of, you know, in terms of increased enforcement for in areas where folks just aren't taking advantages of the services available. So if there was something tied to a registration, not a permit, but a registration with CSA or other agencies, if we were to, you know, maybe that, you know, we could have stricter enforcement for those who somehow aren't either registered through one of those agencies or taking advantages of those services. We could look at specific corridors and areas that have been the most troublesome. My hesitancy there is if you look at other jurisdictions, you know, we have to carve out Caltrans right away, if you look at other jurisdictions, the Caltrans right away is where everyone ends up. And for whatever reason, Mount View, they haven't ended up there, probably because we've been so permissive. But I don't know how, I don't know how, you know, strict or broader enforcement affects that. And I don't know. I know at one point, I think staff maybe looked into a registration process. Not necessarily, I know that permitting isn't available, but if there were some sort of hybrid there in the interim that we could look at, and then if you, and then if we eventually got to sort of the, what you had proposed, where we tie it to the shelter crisis, I think I would be more comfortable in doing something more than what we're doing today, in the interim, looking at what you've provided, you know, something even more stricter citywide, once the shelter crisis is out. The only thing that I would say is what I would be uncomfortable there is, you know, if I think we've declared the shelter crisis through whatever date is, it could be renewed if we make certain findings. I wouldn't want this to automatically take effect on that day. I would be all for doing the work on this, and having that draft ordinance available to us, and it comes back to us immediately after we that shelter crisis expires, and we don't renew it. And maybe at that point, there's a majority council who, like, okay, we've done everything, like, all the safe parking programs we're going to get are in place. We've done stricter enforcement in the near term, and this is sort of the final step. And as long as we have that discussion at that time, it doesn't just automatically kick in. That's something I could be okay with. Um, I, um, I just, I'm just not comfortable with saying, you know, deciding tonight that this is what this language is what automatically goes into effect X number of months or a year from now because a lot changes in that period. We may, frankly, want to be even stricter. I don't know. Things change. So I don't know if everyone else is, um, you know, amenable to those sorts of things, but that's what I was thinking before this meeting was, you know, if there was some way to do to start addressing the real and genuine concerns that folks have, I didn't mean to minimize those earlier, I think, um, I should have been more careful when insane. I didn't mean to minimize the concerns because there are genuine concerns. I just don't think it necessarily applies to the majority of the population out there, and I'd rather sort of address the really significant and serious concerns that folks have instead of just sort of doing a blanket solution. But that's where I'm at.

[07:17:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[07:17:58] Councilmember John McAlister: So I got some thoughts on this. sort of a little different than what has been said so far. Much of you said, a human rights, they have a right to a house or a home. Which I agree with. But do we have to be specific of where it is? Does it have to be in Mountain View? Does that have to tie into of, you know, that's, you know, everybody would like to live in certain places, but does it have to be specifically in Mountain View? We all said many people have said it's a regional issue, housing, in the Bay Area, that Mountain View's not going to solve the housing issue. which is probably the root cause for people living in RVs. So I'd like to somebody explain to me this human rights, a couple of you mention that, that what it means to you and how it relates to Mountain View. Chris, you were talking about the population that we got to watch after. I agree that there is a population that needs our help, but we have people that do it by choice. We have people that move or come here to work and then go out. So, you define your what you're trying to solve. I still have some differences, I hear different, what their goal, and it goes back to your goal. What is your goal? Is your goal quality of life for these people? Where's your goal to find a place in mountain view? And I don't see them being connected. If our real goal is to help people, we want to improve their life. And I just heard we're just sort of like chairs moving chairs on the Titanic, you go, oh, we'll move them over here, we move them over there, but does that really help their life? And I've asked Mr. Meyers many times I asked them the same question, sustainability, what are we doing? Are we just moving them up? Because these people don't like them in this neighborhood, so they move over there, but is their life any better because they move from point A to point B. And Angela, you asked about compassion. And yeah, I was we'll sit and talk about the last time we met, but if we're really looking about compassion and trying to help these people, going back 15 years, 4 years ago, that was the whole point was trying to compassionate health these people, get a better life. And the challenge. And that's my challenge still is try to help the same people, try to get a better life. And if you're looking for innovation or something new, You may have to say, if your thought is their only way their lives are going to improve is if they live in mountain view, then you're narrowing the scope of what you're trying to achieve, and you're not doing the full service to them to improve their lives. So that's the thought I was thinking about out there. And then, We have services and we spent a, in comparison to some cities, on our rapid rehousing on our services. And so we are, to some people say we're not compassionate. We are spending hard earned money to get these people a better life, a better style of living, better quality of life. So when you guys start talking about solutions, That's the kind of solution, I want to hear you talking about. Are we rolling it out? So what does that mean? So if we do something now and it doesn't take effect in 6 months? How is that improving their lives? How are they getting any better in 6 months that we haven't done now? What have you guys accomplished that we haven't accomplished in 4 years? It took us 4 years to get 8 spots for safe parking, 4 years, 8 years. So I don't see this solution really helping these people in the long run. So when you guys talk about solutions, give me something more that I could bite into, something that says these people are going to be better off, they're going to improve their lives. Their children will be better. The community still has people that can do and be part of it, but not everybody. Hard reality can't afford to live in Mountain View. And if you just think that that is your goal is, or you don't accept the reality of it, then you're not really being compassionate and caring about these people and trying to care their lives. You're maybe doing some political thing that's not realistic. So I would like to hear how we can help these folks and various stages. There are some people that don't want to be helped. I'm not too thrilled with that. Those people that come as contract workers. I'm not too thrilled with that. But those people, I've always said from the very beginning. If they want help, I'll vote for every dime that we can give them to help them get the services, to get the caseworkers, to get their overnight, you know, lodging, any of that. I'm all for it always have been. So when you please give me some direction or answers that will help answer those questions for me.

[07:23:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, Hicks.

[07:23:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'm not going to answer council member McAllister's questions. Were those directed at a particular person because I had a separate and different comment.

[07:23:36] Councilmember John McAlister: No, just in general.

[07:23:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, then I will answer your question. I think that Mr. Myers said that the caseworkers talk to people not only about living in Mountain View, but in a much wider, I think even south of San Jose, if I'm right, yes, he's not in his head. and that people from the county have told me the same, that when they do rapid rehousing, they most of the people who are rehoused or rehoused out of Mountain View. So I wasn't intending to answer your many questions, but at least I know that little piece of the answer. My, my, I had a question about, uh, council member Ramirez's, uh, proposal, um, the, the big difference seems to be that you say the provisions of this ordinance shall be effective 30 days following the, uh, expiration of the shelter crisis. And I don't remember well enough, are there specific findings for that? What do we have to? I mean, it sounds like we can't, I would, I would imagine we don't just randomly declare that whenever we want to start banning vehicles. What are the findings?

[07:24:55] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: There were findings in the original resolution that expires on June 30th. Council member Ramirez has a copy of it that facilitated that action. And so many of those were standards like the number of homelessness overall for the county, the number of overall homelessness counted living in vehicles in the city of Mountain View, and I'm going from memory here in Nicole, so correct me if I'm saying anything wrong. And in addition, um, I think Nicole and I are going to go to the same place. What is a declaration of a shelter crisis? And so what that means is it's the existence that you proclaim the existence of a situation, in which a significant number of persons are without the ability to obtain shelter resulting in a threat to their health and safety. So you make those findings. So we had a number of recitals that supported that finding, because when you declare the shelter crisis that provides some immunity from liability for negligence in the provision of emergency housing. It's not a formula of specific factual findings, but in general, you make findings to support your declaration.

[07:26:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I mean, my take on the situation is that the findings that we made are not going to be reversing themselves anytime soon. So, um, So, if we go with that, I would like to put some safety, um, you know, vision 0 related safety, uh, regulations like the ones I spoke about, the near intersections, near crosswalks, um, those kind of those kind of safety things in place. And then I had another question that I guess I'm not on top of the, the, um, the El Camino, why is why are we handling that? I know that, but, but, why, so in Palo Alto, for instance, that's where vehicles park, why would we, if the ban, as it's been proposed, the staff proposed ban would still allow, I'm not suggesting that we do this, but it would still allow people to park on El Camino. Is that not true?

[07:27:27] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: So El Camino is a state highway. And so in order for the city to regulate, excuse me, parking on a state highway, we would need Caltrans, authorization or approval to do so, or they can delegate that authority to us. And the way that it's been drafted in the proposed ordinance, would be that it would only apply to El Camino or other locations where the street or highway is under the state jurisdiction, if the city received that approval or authority was delegated to us.

[07:28:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you.

[07:28:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I appreciate what Council member Clark stated at the beginning when he was talking about the fact that we all do care. And I think there's lots of things we can point to to support that assertion, besides the fact that we're here. We've also allocated $2000000 over the past few years and have allocated a lot of staff time to this. And it's great that we've been able to help 160 families move either move into more stable housing or very close to being in stable housing, which I'd say is a significant accomplishment. But unfortunately, that hasn't really changed the situation, even though we've helped a lot of folks. And I think all of us realize that this isn't something that is sustainable the way it is now. And, um, to answer council member McAllister's question, My goal for tonight is to address the public health and safety issues that we have in our city. We've previously said we will continue to, we've allocated money to help folks that need help. So we're not talking about that tonight because we've already made those allocations. And so that will go on. But tonight I would like to address the public safety and health issues. And, um, So I'm mostly supportive of the staff recommendation with maybe a little, a few tweaks to it. Um, I am, I want to address some of the points in council member Ramirez's proposal. And the 1st is to prohibit parking between 2 and 6 a.m. So I do think some of those folks will, um, You know, still be parking on the streets. And to me, that's not addressing the safety issue if we still have these oversized vehicles parked in the bike lanes. and close to sidewalks and close to entrances for vehicles, such as the one the vice mayor mentioned, although we've put signage there, but there are lots of those places throughout the city. So I don't feel like 2 to 6 a.m. is addressing that issue for me. Um, I also appreciate that our community, I think, has been incredibly patient and um, I feel like we indicated that in March that we were going to address this when we gave staff direction to come back with an ordinance. And I don't feel comfortable not doing that. That's what we communicated to our community that we were ready to do. And so prolonging it. Um, A long time is not something that I can support. I could support that it becomes effective, you know, in the 30 days, but then we don't enforce it until the 1st safe parking lot comes online. And I think that is likely the November time frame. I could support that. But going out potentially years. is just not something, um, I think our community is willing to accept. I should say the majority of our community. And we've heard from, I've certainly heard from a lot of people. Um, Up until recently, I would say the vast majority of folks were saying, um, we want the council to address this, and it wasn't until this meeting that I felt like I heard from folks saying, no, we don't want you to do this. But I would certainly say the majority of who I've heard from has said, we want you to address this. Um, it's a it's a safety and um, health concern. So, I would be supportive of the staff recommendation with a tweak to the enforcement date. Other comments? Council member Kameh?

[07:33:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Were we going to go through... Counselor Ramirez's draft motion, before we go through the staff recommendation, or I wasn't sure I wasn't sure how you'd like to proceed.

[07:33:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, I'm happy to move it to test it. I didn't hear 4 votes for it. You know, it sounded like there was interest in different modifications. you know, and again, I'm not wedded to this language precisely. I think there may be some fundamental differences of opinion on the council. A part of me was hoping for a 7-0 vote just because I think it would be a good opportunity to demonstrate to the community that we've put a lot of thought into it, but that may not be possible and that's okay. I don't want to move it if folks aren't comfortable with this language, though.

[07:34:09] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So if I know council member Clark had some ideas. I think council member Hicks and Council member Clark had suggested some more immediate, sort of changes that would address the health and safety impacts. I don't have language for that. So I'd be interested in hearing what you would propose if there is an ordinance that we can suggest, that would, I don't know, prohibit parking or restrict parking in areas where there are very specific kinds of safety impacts. I'm not sure how we would direct that. But, um, so maybe one more round of comments. And then if we still don't have a motion on the floor, then I'll move this.

[07:34:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[07:35:06] Councilmember John McAlister: We're always going to, for, I don't think we're going to solve this shelter crisis for a long time. So, I couldn't support including that in there as a issue because that's, again, what do you, your solution is, okay, when do we start helping the people, though? If we don't move them out, how is that helping them? So I'm just going to put a couple of comments and then you guys can go from there. So declaring a shelter crisis is not a criteria for me. The 2 to 5 or 2 to 6, I don't see how that's going to help anybody because all it is is going to middle of the night, they just or during the day or somewhere along the line, they got to move. So I didn't make that it make sense for me before. I could see that we put the effect of Dave and tie it into the safe parking. But in the meantime, I would like to see restrictions on parking around parks. I know specifically along shoreline that the RVs sit there and bicyclists have to go into the traffic lanes of traffic. So I could see us doing immediate safety. I mean, safeties are concerned. Safety is one concern, but to me, long term housing solution is my main goal. But, Something was drafted along that line. Something more than a year, I don't know, a year ago, I said tough love. And the means that folks, sometimes we have to make the decisions for them, to say, to go back to sustainability of here's tough love. You just can't afford to live in Mountain View. think about something else. So if we're going to start working with this and I want to work with the council, I still like to see be able to get them their housing. And that would, right now, immediate means that they have to do work with a case worker. So that has to, they have to be engaged. And if that means being engaged, it gets them a permit to give them more flexibility of where they can stay versus those that do not want to be engaged, and those are just here to work, and they're coming for whatever time period, um, I can see how, you know, I'm not willing to, I'm more flexible on that. Those who want to be involved, engage, give them a per I mean, some kind of a permit, give them flexibility, other people, if they're not engaged, then maybe they need to move on. Or if they're looking for a job. I mean, if they're working on a job site for construction, which is a lot going on, maybe we need to talk with the construction of the contractors to help them put a housing site for them. So I'm just throwing out this. So if you're going to, if one of you guys are going to mix some things together, those are some initial thoughts that I've heard that I'm thinking right now.

[07:38:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I was wondering if, um, staff could comment on the, uh, comment that comments remember McAllister made about, give some folks, um, a permit, because I didn't think we could do that.

[07:38:43] City Staff: We can't have a permitting program to allow people to park on the public right away unless it's tied to a particular, like tied to a residence. So that's what we can have the residential parking permit program, but we've looked at the ability to tie somehow have a have a parking permit program that you could use for oversized vehicles or RVs and we don't have the authority under state law to be able to do that.

[07:39:10] Councilmember John McAlister: What if we require to get a permit and to have if they're engaged with a caseworker, 1st right of safe parking?

[07:39:20] City Staff: Well, the way that the safe parking permit is structured, the safe parking pro safe parking program is structured. Is that the participants have to an agreement? But really, this agenda item is about a parking prohibition to address the actual safety issues and visibility issues that are caused by the parking of these oversized vehicles and it's not tied to their participation in a program. It's...

[07:39:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Everything is intertwined, so it's a tough one. Vice mayor, I'll be Koga.

[07:40:00] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, um, so... a few things. I agree with Council member McAllister, um, when I was waiting over the staff report and the recommendation. My thought was that, um, even if the, um, it goes into effect in 30 days after passage of the 2nd reading, we, or I think the mayor mentioned it too. We don't really start enforcement until, I mean, it seems like November from what Dr. Rudolph mentioned. That's 5 months from now. Our lots are coming online around that time. So that would probably be the earliest that we could really start enforcement. Um, so that I'm working off of Counselor Ramirez's, um, suggestion. That's, I would change C to that. B, so I was interested in B, incorporating language prohibiting parking in residential zones. So the question is, if we were to do that, then is the 2 to 6 AM primarily for industrial commercial zones you're looking at, making that restriction.

[07:41:09] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: To provide clarity. So I had, I mean, again, you know, this was sort of weakened work, but I had been thinking about this as the overnight restriction would apply in the residential zones. And that was, again, based on sort of my experience with overnight parking restrictions being effective in achieving the stated purpose of the ordinance. And then industrial zones, we'd have to we'd have to change right now. I think there are there are overnight parking prohibitions in many of the industrial areas. So we would remove those restrictions and sort of keep that as the designated parking in the interim. And then, um, recommendation to was intended to give the council an opportunity to revisit, to see if it was actually working, if it was achieving that stated it that, um, stated, um, outcome.

[07:42:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you for that. So I still, um, I still think that we need to look at the daytime as the the real issue with safety is, you know, during the daytime when folks are out and about. So, um, I would change that. I mean, if we're going to prohibit parking in residential zones completely, it would be. I could support that with, um, but I do, um, want to take into consideration, council member Hicks's comments as well. And, um, I don't know how he designate, um, areas, intersections, whatnot. If there's a way to, you know, designate those areas and prohibit around there. That's, you know, I'd be open to that. I actually do agree with, I know, counselor McAllister's mention it many times, but parks, um, and part of the problem is that folks who want to use the parks have trouble parking around the parks, um, because the RV and I know because I live near Eagle Park, I see it. There's no parking available pretty much around the park. So maybe we limit time do time limits around parks. You know, I was also thinking about like the bike lanes and we're trying to become more like pedestrian friendly. You know, I, of course, live close downtown, so I see Shoreline Boulevard the most often. And, you know, one I thought was before we had RVs part there. I don't, I think the parking was rather minimal on Shoreline Boulevard, and then we do have that as a corridor for bike lanes. And so do we look at just time limits on Shoreline Boulevard or actually, you know, maybe even looking at eliminating parking on Shoreline Boulevard, just as we were looking at, you know, doing it on El Camino, if we really want to be serious about being more bike friendly, we really have to look at taking off the parking off the streets. So, I mean, those are other options that I would throw out there. But, I mean, if you wanted to stick with B and then look at a, um, reversing the industrial zone areas, but keeping in mind, line of sight and other safety issues, you know, I think we could work with that.

[07:44:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[07:44:28] Councilmember Chris Clark: So to say, the only thing that I would say is, um, I don't, if I was looking for like the map of residential zones, I don't, it would be hard to make a decision for me without sort of knowing what all that encompasses, you know, is that Sherwin and Croissanto, is it not, or some of the more heavily where I think some of the more issues have occurred on the parks front. Like, for example, on Shoreline, I actually don't, it isn't ideal, but I have, I think it's less of an impact to have them there at night than it is during the day because during the days, all the safety issues, people need to park there on the days and weekends to utilize the parks. So I think there might be some ability there to tweak things. But I guess at a high level, um, Council of Ramirez, you mentioned, you know, can I come up with language here and I can't, but I will refer back to, I think, when we talked about this in March. One of the options was, you know, staff could spend, it was gonna take more staff time, but they could look at, you know, some of these sort of interim options short of a full ban. We voted to move forward with the full band so they didn't do all those things. And so I'm just not, I'm not saying, I'm not saying, I'm not, you know, persecuting anyone for that decision, but it's going to be really hard for us, I think, to just sort of come up with sort of interim steps without doing that analysis. So I'd just be uncomfortable making things up aside from just sharing some of the ideas that I had. Like, you know, if you if you want to keep allowing, you know, folks there on shoreline overnight, but you want to put time limits or disallow RVs during the day or the weekends when people, when it's a safety issue and need to use lights of parks. there are all sorts of different ways to do that, but I don't think we looked into that or study that, or if you can get a card from CSA, not a permit, that's indicative of, you know, you're getting services. And so when we're taking enforcement actions, maybe we take that into account in terms of how strictly you're enforcing things. I think those are things we talked about before, but we just didn't investigate further because council decided to move forward in this direction and that was fine. It's just we just haven't vetted the other the other things to my knowledge.

[07:46:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Did you have something you wanted to say?

[07:46:58] City Manager Dan Rich: I don't have a profound solution. I wish I did. At some point, we probably would be good to get emotion and start tweaking it. But one thought I had was, you know, if counsel is interested in looking at some specific safety issues, you can direct us. Right now, the traffic engineer already has the authority to restrict parking and certain safety considerations, but it's a total restriction of parking. It's not a distinction between size. I believe, and Nicole and Janny can shoot me down quickly. You know, if it's counsel's direction, We could explore an ordinance that's based on safety concerns that would disallow oversize parking in specific areas, like corners, driveways, intersections, bike lanes, where there is an explicit safety concern. We don't currently have that tool. But if that's council's direction, that's something we could look at. Janny is saying, that's okay. That's not something we could do tonight. So I would urge you not to try to find, you know, those kind of interim solutions now. But if that's something you're interested in, we can do. There are some fundamental issues you need to decide whether or not you want to move forward with this, whether or not it's 247 or nighttime only. I think council member Ramirez, there are some other ideas that you all haven't really talked about that much, but you know, 5 through seven, which are other tools the city could pursue in terms of alleviating the shelter crisis and allowing right now, by right, I believe, shelters. I don't think RT is here anymore. By right, shelters are only allowed in the ML zone. You could direct us to look at other zones where shelters are available. So there are some other tools we could look at to address a shelter issue. But, you know, there's some fundamental issues you need to decide.

[07:49:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So aren't we already doing number 7 on council member Ramirez's draft motion?

[07:49:24] City Staff: Yes, staff is coordinating on an ongoing basis. All of those listed with the exception of life moves, although we do have funding that goes to them. We are in partnership in one fashion or another, on a number of service areas. There is the updated council goal as well for the new two-year cycle, to have an engagement forum, kind of a study session, to talk with others, both the partners that we are in direct contractual relationship as well as others, to share ideas and learnings in a knowledge forum.

[07:50:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I would be comfortable, um, starting with the staff recommendation, and adding to it, uh, number 5 from council member Ramirez's proposal, and, um, changing the effective date for enforcement to, um, the November time frame, once all the signs are in place. We have safe parking lot up. I don't think we need number seven. And Um, I don't think we need number 2 because that would um, That would not be needed if we've determined what the effective date is for enforcement. So the only one then that I would, um, sort of, uh, talk about, do we, is it part of this motion, or is this, what we want to do, and that's, um, increasing shelter capacity. I have no problems. I would encourage us to do that. you know? So I think I'm okay with that. But that would be more workload for staff, and we probably should have prioritized it when we did the council goals and the projects to support those goals, right? Because that number 6 is a significant amount of work, wouldn't it be?

[07:51:44] City Staff: In all likelihood, I believe it would be staff would need time to scope that, but we've begun to look at it as an informational item.

[07:51:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, would folks feel comfortable starting with the staff recommendation, um, and then the changes I suggested leveraging some of what's in, um, the draft motion. Because I'd like to hear comments on that. So it would be, um, From one, it would be, it would be 24 hours a day as opposed to 2 to 6. Um, And I think it'd be very difficult to, at least tonight. Um, say if it's residential zones only, you know, I don't think we want to craft this level of detail tonight. So, for me, Just like somebody said, you know, you prohibit one area, and it shows up in another. And to me, it's still a safety concern, no matter where it is in the city. So, I wouldn't differentiate it. That's why I'd leave it at the staff recommendation. Um, for number one with the November effective date. And then, um, I don't mind staff coming back, you know, telling us, um, it's not with an ordinance. It's not, it's just coming back to an evaluation of how things are going. And then 3 and 4 staff recommendation. 5 is okay. 6 is okay, and we're already doing seven.

[07:53:35] Unknown Speaker: And if I may, in terms of the enforcement date, just to clarify, we didn't have a specific mid-November enforcement date. It was the alternative, which is attachment nine, it would be enforced until the commencement of a safe parking lot of one or more city lots. And I just wanted to confirm that that is what we meant. But we're estimating that would be in the November time frame. I would just suggest you provide greater clarification, whether it's one or more.

[07:54:05] City Manager Dan Rich: I think if you want, we know we will have Shoreline by November 15th, we hope we will have the other one before that, but I think November 15th would be a safe date to pick that kind of guarantees you, they're both open.

[07:54:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That works for me. November 14th as the effective date for enforcement. I'll make a motion. And then I'm happy to talk about it. Council member Ramirez.

[07:54:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And I appreciate, including some aspects of the draft. I'm personally more comfortable with a more gradual phasing in. I think, um, you know, I'm reflecting upon where we're likely to be with safe parking. I'm not sure that we'll have the capacity available to accommodate the surge of demand for safe parking that I think we can probably reasonably expect, you know, if this ordinance were to go into effect. So I can't support this motion. But I appreciate the dialogue we're having, sort of hammering it out. And I really do appreciate your inclusion of 5 and six. So if it does pass, then at the very least we're working on a longer term plan to address the shelter crisis and provide the capacity for the end that need.

[07:55:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor Abi Koga.

[07:55:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I'm going to go ahead and 2nd the motion just to continue the discussion. I am supportive of the items, the motion, and I guess I just wanted to talk about the timeline or the timing of it. I think we all know, and most of us have been on ride alongs. I personally have, and, you know, everyone has acknowledged that there are different, different types of vehicle RV dwellers, vehicle dwellers. And for those who are seeking, you know, assistance to find a better housing solution. I think we're all unanimous in wanting to help those folks. Um, and it's really, frankly, those who, um, you know, choose to live in an RV to save money, um, to, you know, help their grandchildren, um, take care of their grand water, um, for childcare reasons and so forth, um, temporary to while their houses in escrow. And we've heard all the stories. And so, you know, I don't, I mean, I'm sure many of the folks in the audience have met some of the RV, the vehicle dwellers too, but I mean, there is a reality. I mean, I've seen it for myself that it isn't just folks who are, you know, down in, in, in, or need assistance, looking for assistance, for those who are, we are trying to help them. CSA has reached out to them. I mean, I don't know, you know, what folks are thinking about is the right number for safe parking spaces, but, you know, I look if I was trying to go back to the old staff report from March. And I mean, the calculation, we have 170 RVs right now, and I think it was 40% have engaged with us, or with CSA to get assistance. And, you know, that comes out to 100 folks. I think 100 vehicles or 100 folks would. And so the, um, 0 no, I'm sorry. It's the other way around. It's 68 folks, 70 folks. I'm just rounding this up. So we have about 60 spots coming online. Maybe we can squeeze 70. You know, I'm hoping that other churches will step up or, I mean, let's get, you know, going on these, if folks really think that the businesses are going to come up and step up, let's get them going. I think that for me, you know, and we've seen it too, just by talking about doing something from March to now, we're seeing movement. We're seeing the numbers drop. I just think that we have to contain this, to have, you know, put sun limits on this, or else if we just keep it open-ended, We're not gonna see progress. We're going to just, frankly, I think, you know, see it increase. And that's what we've seen for 4 years. I mean, if you ask me, and I wasn't on council the 1st 2 years and I'm not blaming the 2 who were, but, you know, if we started addressing this issue sooner, it would have been a smaller issue to deal with, frankly, right? And that's my concern is the longer we just draw this out, is it's just gonna grow? And so, you know, I'm basing this on data, on numbers, like what we're offering in terms of safe parking seems to be pretty close or adequate to what we really are seeing as the folks who want to need assistance. And then everyone else, you know, if it's your choice. I mean, it's not a choice. We all, you know, those of us who live in an rental or own a home, like we, that's the rules, we follow them. So, like, there's an equity issue here for me too. And if you don't have an option, we're trying to help you. But there are people, you know, you can you can laugh, but it's true. There are people who choose to live in RVs, and is that acceptable? And that's what we're talking about here. And, you know, in the in, in the process, there, there are public safety health issues that we have to consider that the rest of the community has spoken up to us about. And we're trying to find a balance here, folks, and I think that, you know, we have to put certain limits, and we're doing the safe parking, but, you know, we need to, and I'm going to say in Santa Barbara, when we talked about this, I think it was in March, we had the folks who run the safe parking program from Santa Barbara come up and say that you have to put restrictions on regular parking for the safe parking program to work. And that and, you know, Tom is nodding. And that's the reality. Because if you don't do that, who's gonna use the safe parking spaces, right? So, you know, we're trying to do the best we can here, folks, and we're trying to balance everything. And I think this is the best balance we can come up with. I mean, I would be open to looking at, you know, industrial zones and whatnot. You know, maybe we revisit that. I'm okay with doing that, but I think we just need to start moving on something now to match our safe parking program.

[08:01:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[08:01:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so I won't be able to support this motion. I could support something where we look at interim health and safety additional enforcement there. And you'll look at and some of the elements that Council member Ramirez has proposed that I think we could start today. But then, say, sort of the overall sort of end, endgame with a broader ban is something that comes back to us, you know, reasonably in a reasonably quick time frame after the shelter crisis. That would be sort of where I would land, but I might be in the minority.

[08:01:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Cancel member McAllister?

[08:02:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Council member, Abakoga just said something. Tom, you sort of. So it's in it, so the way to get people into the safe parking, which therefore gets some of the services is Santa Barbara's using this parking ordinance to You know, could you please?

[08:02:20] Tom Myers: Yes, I appreciate you coming because I want to. I like to point out a couple of things on that. The folks in Santa Barbara were correct that if you want to get people into a safe parking program, you do need to make it some sort of incentive to go into a safe parking program. A couple of things, though, that I think are important to point out there. One is that they had enough parking spaces available already to get people into a safe parking program. And the 2nd thing, and I think this is really important, is to understand Santa Barbara's been doing this for what, 15 years, 14 years, decade, over a decade. They've got a track record and there was a lot of fits and starts before that came up and was a successful program. It didn't immediately start out overnight. So I do think that, yes, that is correct. The Santa Barbara people were absolutely, or everything I've read about the Santa Barbara program was that, yeah, there was strong enforcement, and that was the incentive for people to use safe parking, but the safe parking was there and available already. And I'm not sure we're there yet.

[08:03:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, that's, yeah, that would be my fair assessment. That does... My goal is to get them to get services, then we got to use this to get them to this, to get to there. Oh, okay. It doesn't seem fair, but it seems, you said it works. There's some insensive. Yeah. Okay, that's something.

[08:04:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[08:04:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So I'm much more comfortable now that I've digested it with council member Ramirez's proposal, possibly beefed up with some immediate health and safety, not health, immediate safety, um, provisions like the ones I mentioned, bike lanes and intersections and so forth.

[08:04:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member commit.

[08:04:25] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So, um, I'll speak to the motion that's on the table right now since we've moved on from yours, sorry. Counselor Ramirez. Um, so, you know, I think that, um, reflecting on the response from, um, Mr. Myers and Dr. Rudolph, you know, I feel like I would be more comfortable with emotion if there was more time to get more spaces. And one of the things that I have been looking and studying is models across the entire country, um, you know, specifically looking at Santa Barbara as staff has, um, and, you know, they, in addition to their safe parking, they do have an ordinance, they also have an off-street parking ad hoc stakeholder committee, which was why I was interested in the task force when we were speaking on the prior item. They also have certain exemptions that I think staff had mentioned too, which are similar exemptions. So, It's a path that, um, or kind of 2 policy items in conjunction that I see have merit. My concern is that with, if we adopt the ordinance, as proposed with this motion in November, we will not have the adequate spaces. And I think something that I was taking in thinking and reflecting a lot about was the break in school right now and the upcoming school year in June. So, um, you know, wanting to be able to work to get, um, a lot on board and family is the ability to finish out one more year of school and be able to make plans. That would be my ideal time frame, um, for the motion as proposed. I don't, I don't know if the motion maker and the 2nder would be amenable to that, but I think that would make me more comfortable feeling that if we had the task force working with the county, working with the school district, working with CSA potentially on a lot, that we would be able to implement something where we would have more spaces for folks to go to go into, kind of reflecting on the answer of, if you're going to do the ordinance, making sure that people have a place to, to, go. Um, that would, and even if even that might not be enough, but it would be much closer to the number of spots that are necessary. So that's just kind of what would make me feel more, most comfortable.

[08:07:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think we heard Dr. Rudolph say that they could do it in 5 months if they really hustled. Um, I also think that, um, as, I think it was the vice mayor who said this, you know, if you put a deadline out there, then perhaps other folks, um, also hustle to get more, you know, they volunteer their lots and get those up and running. Um, So I don't know, I'm struggling with pushing out that date too much. Um, I definitely feel like a year from now is way too long. I'm curious what the 2nder has to say. Vice mayor Abi Koga.

[08:08:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, so, I am open to a little more time, but, you know, we talked about this in March and at that time we set a timeline as well, a deadline as well. And so, you know, I mean, we just really at some point do have to set a limit. And so, you know, whether I mean, I'm not going to quibble about a month or 2 or maybe even three. But yeah, I think a year from now is too long, get in light of the fact that we've had this conversation before the last, you know, a year already. So, Yeah, I mean, I'm open. What, what, did you want June or did you want, like, would you be okay with March, December, or December? So I've got December and June. And I'm willing to, you know, split the baby and say March, but yeah, that's where I am. I'm not a hard line. I'm not going to say hard line November, and I do understand the school district probably needs a little bit more time, even though he said 5 months, but I just don't think we can drag this out for another year. And I do think that if folks see, no, that there is a end date that folks will step up more if they're really serious about doing the safe parking programs. And, you know, I think because we didn't set a time limit, you know, we haven't had that much interest, but hopefully folks will step up their efforts to go out and do outreach and do the ask and get more safe parking locations. And that's what I'm really looking for. I just don't think, you know, it should be all dependent on one entity. It really needs to be a community wide effort. And I'm just trying to figure out how do we incentivize folks to participate? And I, you know, I like it or not, I think one way of doing that is to put a deadline.

[08:10:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I'd be open to maybe the end of the year. But I would like to see it address this year. Council member McAllister.

[08:10:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Sausage making in its best here. Okay, so... But I would, okay, I could, sorry, go along with council member committee is, I could see getting the safe parking or a good solid amount of a men place. I could see moving the date out a little bit. This is interesting to do that to get to here is really okay. counterproductive, I mean, counterintuitive, but that's what it takes to get a safe ban on or parking to get to there. But would we be able to take care of parks and would all restrictions be implemented in, say, 8 months or if there's other safety ones around parks and all the other ones that you talked about, could they be done sooner?

[08:11:39] City Manager Dan Rich: Restrictions around parks or bike lanes and those sorts of things are not explicitly in the ordinance tonight. You could provide direction for us to come back. I think if it's fairly straightforward. I mean, we would have to make findings. But the attorney won't be here to help us do that. Uh, contract. But, yeah, I think if there's clear direction on specific things, like time parking at parks or restrictions on bike lanes or, you know, those sorts of things, if you provide that direction, we could come back with something like that in the fall. Or if I

[08:12:13] Councilmember John McAlister: okay, so let me... So if take the motion, push it to effective to say December. Incorporate, I'm pushing the limits here a little bit about prohibit, include... Okay, incorporate language prohibiting parking in residential zones.

[08:12:38] Unknown Speaker: Well, that's not in the current draft ordinance, right? So staff would probably have to come back.

[08:12:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, I'm just sort of thinking with the council member Ramirez did.

[08:12:49] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, but we'd have to...

[08:12:51] Unknown Speaker: But that would be implemented when, though, if we that would be in December. Or if we did something sooner for parks or safety. Oh, he moved.

[08:13:14] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Mike Fuller, Public Works director. Just a thought about parks and bike lanes and residential zones. My fear would be having to go through almost a street by street analysis of the city to see because if we just say tonight, you know, where there are bike lanes or not, I mean, we may wind up pushing the problem somewhere we don't intend and creating another problem. It's potentially pretty complex. And so I'm a little concerned about crafting detailed citywide parking restrictions without some analysis.

[08:13:54] Unknown Speaker: Well, whatever we're going to do, they're going to push them somewhere. So, okay. So if the easier one, going back to parks and bike lanes.

[08:14:02] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: The thing that we could do tonight is add, we could restrict parking in the residential zoning districts, that's an easy fix to the ordinance.

[08:14:14] City Manager Dan Rich: And I I can see the public works director's point. I mean, if you, it depends on what are the menu of options that you want to consider. I think if we're going to do look at bike lanes and parks and residential, then the engineers would love to sit down with a map and be able to figure out how that's all going to work. And the only thing I might add to the residential areas, this has come up, I don't know, in other contexts, is mixed use areas and how we address that. So.

[08:14:45] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So what was it?

[08:14:50] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay. I'm just... You know, again, if okay, bottom line, if I get some parks on Shoreline and I think if you limit the scope, I mean, as Mike says, looking at every bike lane in the city as a pretty major undertaking with unintended consequences, but if you're talking about kind of major corridors of Shoreline, El Camino, you know, whatever, the...

[08:15:12] Unknown Speaker: about all parks? Well, parks would be so much easier.

[08:15:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, yeah, there's implications of all these, but if it's time parking immediately adjacent to parks, that's an option we discussed. We could come back to.

[08:15:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I'm just giving the maker of emotion what I could feel comfortable with. Well, I guess I don't know. Is that something we can do tonight? Our city attorney said we could do residential zones fairly easy tonight, but parks and bike lanes and other things, no.

[08:15:52] City Manager Dan Rich: You could provide direction tonight regarding the parks or bike lanes. And then the only, as Ms. Wright pointed out, it's easy to do residential zoning districts, we could modify the language that's in there, but that wouldn't address the mixed where you have both a commercial and residential.

[08:16:13] Unknown Speaker: And also, um, we've said at previous council meetings that, If you restrict residential, then is that really fair to the businesses in the, you know, commercial, industrial areas. You know, how do you choose that they're going to have concerns with people getting in and out of their driveways or people riding bikes to their businesses. is that I don't think that's really fair.

[08:16:47] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: So just on that point, not to belabor it and make it more difficult, but I will caution you that this issue many years ago actually started in the industrial area where we were getting complaints and we tried to address those complaints by signing to enforce the current ordinance, which restricts parking at nighttime, and then it just became a game of whack a mole of, you know, one street in the next street to the next street. So there are unintended consequences that you have to be thoughtful about.

[08:17:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep. Council member Ramirez.

[08:17:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So still struggling to, I mean, I'm not sure I could support the motion on the floor. But I did want to, I guess, ask the maker of the motion and anybody who is supportive. The difficulty I have also with 247 parking restrictions in the context of the ancillary impact is I'm not sure how many folks in practice would utilize the safe parking and then, you know, leave the city during the day. I feel like that's a pretty strong disincentive to participating in the safe parking program. So that's one of, I mean, I mean, we may disagree on the broader point of, you know, is the overnight parking regulation effective. But in addition to that, I feel like it also allows for the safe parking program to be effective. That would be the other concern I'd have.

[08:18:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[08:18:33] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, so I would underline that, that that's what, um, Dr. Rudolph had said at one point that if people, if families were parking in the school lots at night, they would need somewhere nearby to go during the day. So a 24 hour restriction would make that really difficult or prohibited.

[08:19:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member committee.

[08:19:01] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Um, so I'll put this out there to see if this will be a friendly amendment. Um, so to the motion at hand, um, modifying it so that it would be 2 to 6 and modifying it to include an enforcement date of January 1st 2020, would that, I mean, even before it goes to the motion and the seconder, uh, to my other colleagues, was that something that could be of interest?

[08:19:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member of Ramirez.

[08:19:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: This is this is hard. So I, um, In my mind, you know, the, the, intention is to sort of wind down sort of the the status quo. And I'm, I think that that gets closer to where I'd like to be, but I'm still, the specific reason I tied it to the declaration of the shelter crisis is there's, we we're not able to answer the question right now. What is a viable alternative for a lot of the folks living in RVs? You know, if we had greater assurance that we'd have a lot of safe parking spaces up and running by that point, I'd be a lot more comfortable. Or if, or if we kept, you know, the residential area, the industrial areas open. And I appreciate the impacts that that would have to the business community, who I agree probably wouldn't be thrilled with that outcome. But there needs to be some some give at some point while we build up the infrastructure to provide a more permanent solution to the problem. But I'm not sure we'd be there by January first.

[08:21:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[08:21:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I don't anybody can answer this question. If we go 2 to six. What is the likelihood of people actually wanting to stay in Mountain View if they have to constantly move during the day or during the night? What has anybody studied what this in other cities, has it decreased? Did the people stay? Staff, do you know? Does anybody have any idea? Have.

[08:21:34] Unknown Speaker: We don't have any significant date on that. I mean, any type of restriction on overnight parking affects the overall parking mix, and the individuals who might, you know, be parking using it for housing, but I don't have any specific data on that in terms of comparisons. What's had more impact versus others.

[08:21:52] Unknown Speaker: And correct me if I'm wrong, one of the reasons we, the 2 to 6 is also because many have you included it in their, just like us in their overnight parking guidelines. And so that's perhaps one reason why many cities have used it.

[08:22:08] Unknown Speaker: there's no magic to the time bracket, or its impact. I mean it had varying impacts. Summer as early as 9 p.m. to 6 AM. So it varies.

[08:22:20] Unknown Speaker: So on the on the 2 to 6 AM piece, there is some authority under state law under the vehicle code, I think, to prohibit commercial vehicles during that time frame. And I don't know if that's the origins, maybe for why that window of time is being applied to some other things, is pure speculation. Don't know.

[08:22:39] Councilmember John McAlister: So we don't know, just that alone could be effective in making people make decisions then of staying or leaving. You don't you don't know one way or the other. Yeah, okay.

[08:22:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Just to respond to your question. I think. I'm just thinking through a framework that might get to four. I don't even know if I would support it, but I'm just I'm trying to help. I'm trying to help. I'm trying to be helpful. I'm just trying to put it. And I'm just trying to put other combinations and options and, you know, I would be I'm fully supportive of doing things like, you know, doing the analysis and doing things as soon as we can on the health and safety front, major corridors with, you know, major bike corridors, not just any road with a bike lane, but major corridors, those sorts of things, in the very near term, even before November, if we can. near term. It sounds like we're going to have a lot of the primarily safe parking spaces up before the end of the year. If you wanted to put the nighttime restriction on in, like, as of January one, then you have sort of the forcing function where you aren't necessarily disincentivizing people from using the overnight safe parking spaces. And then if you want to revisit this full thing, at the expiration of, I think the shelter crisis, versus when it will expire June 30, 2020, that coincides with the end of the school year, which is one of the things that you'd mention. So then you have a phased approach. I'm just thinking out loud. And we're not going to have all the answers tonight, but maybe that's sort of the phased approach that sets some rough parameter and deadlines for various stages of this overnight and then the more comprehensive one. and starts to move in the direction, and then you have sort of your near-term health and safety. I know the community wants us to move on certain things quickly, and I don't disagree with that. I just disagreed with the going straight to the total band. That was my issue. But if you if you want to do those things sooner. There's obviously an implication on staff and the timing, but if you were to work through some sort of framework like that where you think about it as step one, health and safety, major transit corridors where you really need to, and maybe you also restrict some parking around parks during the daytime or weekends when they're highway, they, you know, you need parking there. Once you have safe parking coming online, then you start to implement sort of the overnight, forcing functions to get so you don't have people disincentivized from using the lots. And then if you want to revisit this in June or whenever, I'd be uncomfortable just making it automatically kick in, but you could bring that back and along with the status report of everything, you know, how's everything going? you can evaluate your options at that time and move forward then. I think we just totally made a mess of everything. But that's if I were thinking through it, that's the sort of the timeline that I would think about it for it. which shows the community that we're moving forward, especially on the really important things, they see that we have a path forward with safe parking and putting restrictions in place to make sure that that's utilized. And then if you still want to do the full full-blown ban after all of that, and you've got the data back, then so be it.

[08:26:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: When an alternative is, we still have an interim step, but it's before the end of the year, and it is around parks and shoreline and some areas, but we would ask staff, we would, not as part of this motion, but maybe separately, direct staff to come back to us with an ordinance to address the immediate concerns of parks and bike lanes. on shoreline. I know you have, and we're listening. So... I could live with like December 31st, supposed to January 1st. And but I would prefer to leave it at 24 hours. So I'll give you one. If that's okay with the 2nd. I mean, Mayor Hobby Koga.

[08:26:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I'm fine with the 24 hour time, just because I, again, it goes back to public safety, but I actually was going to try a compromise, you know, and I understand the concerns that were raised about, you know, the commercial industrial versus residential, um, you know, having looked at this, done, read the and seen the, you know, the demographics. I mean, there's definitely, to me, a tie between jobs and the folks living here. And I guess, you know, what I was thinking was that if you're a company and we have this restriction right now where there's no parking allowed. I mean, I can see why they don't think it's an issue. And if we say, well, okay, and, you know, frankly, it's happening right now. If you go to Google, there's like, I forget, there's some streets there where there's a bunch of Arby's Park there. Um, you know, if that's allowed and they start to complain and we say, when I explain to them, well, what the situation is, then maybe we get them to, they'll be incentivized to participate. You know, I worked for a corporation and, um, and there's, you know, especially a big corporation. There's many layers and, um, it was only when our, you know, frankly, the CEO came, like someone mentioned to, um, you know, the, the upper, um, executive, the higher executive about housing and, you know, why this person was late to work because they had to commute 2 hours. Did they start to connect things? And so, I, you know, and that sense, I guess, to me, I'm thinking, well, yeah, maybe we allowed in the industrial zones. Let's, you know, flip it. And because there's a tie to the jobs here. And so, you know, and I've said this, like, I would not have a real problem if a company wanted to let their employees park their RVs on their parking lots and live there. And maybe that would save us, you know, the issue of having to build these housing units. So if this is maybe, you know, a step towards that, I would be okay with it, to be frank. You know, I think there needs to be an enlightenment, an awakening by some of our, you know, businesses who are really benefiting from the folks who have are, you know, have to come a long way or have to live in their RV because they can't afford to live here. And, you know, that's why I've supported minimum wage increases and prevailing wage on development projects because there's a tie there. You know, folks should get paid well if they to be able to live here. That's not happening. So then, you know, we have to find other ways to right, deal with the issues. So I could maybe, yeah, I could live with B and then A, I guess, if you change that to just prohibiting or allowing an industrial zones, I would be, I could, I could live with that.

[08:30:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I feel like we'd accomplish the same thing by just having the enforcement date at the end of the year because their employees are going to say, hey, by the end of the year, I have to do something different. I need to, I need my employer to allow me to park in the parking lot. So I feel like we have the same forcing mechanism, but it addresses the safety issue sooner. So I prefer to just leave it at 24 hours and then no differentiation between zones and then the enforcement date at the end of the year. And I think we had 4 folks that were agreeable to that. And then we also had the then we would talk about any interim step as a separate, uh, direction to staff. I don't know if I want to

[08:31:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[08:31:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Or tweaking. So... You know, I haven't heard much from Alison. I would like to hear her thoughts as we go along. But, um, Tweaking... 2 to 6 till the end of the year. And then 24 after the start of the year. I'm just if the...

[08:32:00] Unknown Speaker: Isn't that an implementation nightmare for staff? We have to change all the signs throughout the entire city.

[08:32:11] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm just throwing a tweak out there. I'm trying to get movement. Something to be, if we're slowly moving to a direction. Some of you on the council are concerned about abruptness. I'm just saying it's a transition.

[08:32:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, I feel like we've had a transition for the past 3 years. No, we've been saying, we're working on this. People should have had, I mean, we know the folks that are in RVs right now have had some indication that were taking action tonight.

[08:32:48] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, it's sort of the... heard about this in March. to sometimes just sort of slowly move into something instead of just drop dead. So, uh, just I'm just trying to ease into this a little bit. Maybe we can get some more support on the other ends of the dais. So, Allison?

[08:33:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I guess he's asking people now. You're interviewing. you want to take over?

[08:33:19] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I strongly preferred council member Ramos's proposal, and I also think that the 24 hour prohibition doesn't work for the safe parking for, you know, since it's only nighttime, it doesn't give people a place to go.

[08:33:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, any other comments? We've got a motion and a 2nd I'm gonna call a question and then if it doesn't pass, which it may not, I would entertain other motions.

[08:34:12] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: state noble conditions now.

[08:34:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was afraid you were going to say that. Yes. So we're starting with the staff recommendation, which is, well, the key components of that, I should say, are, let me find my notes here.

[08:34:37] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: And you actually need to read the title of the ordinance and the resolutions, which is shown on screen.

[08:34:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, the title. Sounds great. Where do I find the title?

[08:34:52] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It's on the it's on the screen, actually. I think it's on the slide for the recommendations.

[08:34:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, so it's part of the recommendation. Sorry, I was looking for a step title, thinking, where is it? Okay, so introduce an ordinance, amending articles. One, 8, and 9 of chapter 19 of the mountain view, city code related to oversized vehicle parking, to be read entitled only for the waiting wait, further reading, waived, and a set a 2nd reading for June 25th, 2019. And the modifications to that would be, do I start with that? Like the staff report and then the changes I would make and then go back to 2 and three. Okay. So we're starting with the staff recommendation. And then we are changing it so the, um, I think it's set forth in attachment 10, which is the change for the enforcement date, except instead of having it read as January 1, 2020, it would be, I believe, December 31st, 2019. Okay. Because it already had 24 hours in there, and there was no zoning. Okay. And then, um, adopt a resolution amending the city of Mountain View master fee scheduled to be read entitled only for their reading waived, and that's attachment 2 to the council report. and then introduce an ordinance amending section 19.70.one to chapter 19, division 2 of the Mountain View city code related to the parking of vehicles that discharged domestic sewage on the public right of way, to be read entitled only further reading wave, and set a 2nd reading for June 25, 2019. And that's attachment 3 to the council report. And actually, I forgot. Part one also has several sections from council member Ramirez's, Ramirez's, draft motion. Um, and that would be direct staff to return to council 6 months after the effective date of the ordinance with an evaluation of the effectiveness of the ordinance. And then number five, which is in the context of city council major goals, work plan, project 2.19, update city documents per new housing laws, and future regularly scheduled modifications to the zoning ordinance as appropriate, direct staff to return to council with recommendations to allow emergency shelter as a permitted or conditional use in additional zoning districts and precise plan areas. And also, um, number six, strict staff to return to council. No later than May 2020, with a progress report regarding efforts to increase emergency shelter capacity and alleviate the shelter crisis. I think I delete and alleviate the shelter crisis, because I'm not sure. We just asking for an update, um, I'm not sure it's going to alleviate the shelter crisis. So I would just leave that part out, that those 5 words, consistent with resolution number 18301, including recommendations for possible action to increase capacity to accommodate unmet need for shelter. And where is resolution 18301. Sorry. Oh, right. The shelter crisis one. Yes. Um, okay, did I miss anything? And then, um, we would also direct staff to come back to us. Uh, after the summer break with a possible ordinance to, um, prohibit oversized vehicle parking near parks and a long shoreline. that would be implemented prior to the end of the year. Parks and Shoreline.

[08:39:25] Unknown Speaker: If I may just ask a clarifying question on that. So then we would be returning with an ordinance to prohibit, um, oversized vehicles parking near parks along the shoreline to be implemented before the end of the year, but the enforcement of the general oversized vehicle prohibition would also be enforceable by the end of the year. I a little confused in terms of the. Yeah, I heard some folks wanted to address certain areas sooner rather than later. So would it be possible to do enforcement just in certain areas around parks and along shoreline prior to the end of the year?

[08:40:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I thought that's what council member McAllister wanted to do. address certain areas sooner rather than later. We might want to talk to the public works director.

[08:40:18] City Manager Dan Rich: If we come back after the break, then that would mean, you know, 1st reading in September, maybe 2nd reading September would be effective in October. So you've got about 2 months of enforcement before the December date. I would be cautious to commit to coming back in September. I think the original direction was to come back in the fall, and we do need to do some analysis of it. But as much clarity as you can provide as possible of what you're looking for, and that would be helpful. For instance, if I may, we have a lot of parks, and some of them are not like Eagle Park on Shoreline, they're like Devonshire Park, that's on a residential street, and very different character than the issue. I think we have on Shoreline at Eagles. So a little more specificity would be helpful.

[08:41:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And if it's only like a 2 month difference, probably at the most. Is it really worth doing? So maybe I'll withdraw that as part of my motion, but I'm happy to have that discussion.

[08:41:18] City Manager Dan Rich: What I might suggest, as you direct staff to come back, at a more reasonable hour, we can have a little bit more robust conversation about what the intent of that is. And Mike and his folks can do a little thinking about it before. Then you can give us direction, say, in September, and we can come back later in the fall on that.

[08:41:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm happy to have the discussion in September, but I do appreciate that this would take a while to do, and it might not happen much before the end of the year anyway. So it seems like a use of staff time that could be better spent elsewhere. But I'm happy to have that discussion. Okay. Any comments?

[08:42:09] Councilmember John McAlister: Question?ative have a questionendment. I'm happy to... Question. Attachment five. On any street, except provided in Section C. What section C mean?

[08:42:39] Unknown Speaker: So red in conjunction with attachment one, which sets forth the rest of the proposed ordinance. I believe subsection C are the exceptions.

[08:42:48] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Yes. So it's the, it's the enumerated exemptions from the oversized vehicle parking prohibition.

[08:43:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Where page is that on? Moving fans, the attachment one. No, what page is Steph on Stafford Park?

[08:43:10] Unknown Speaker: It's in the draft ordinance.

[08:43:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'm looking at the draft order.

[08:43:14] Unknown Speaker: So attachment one on page, beginning on page three. Exemptions. Exceptions for the bottom.

[08:43:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh. So, okay, I'm gonna make an amendment. Pros emotion to amend and take into attachment five. No person shall park any oversized vehicle on any street, except as providing section C, below from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. parking restrictions of oversized vehicles shall not apply to El Camino Rio, and other Caltrans, right of weight in Mount View, unless, and then until Caltrans approves the parking restrictions are delegated, the authority to enact such restrictions to the city of Mount View. So by vehicle code section 25506.

[08:44:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So I'll 2nd that. Amend.

[08:44:37] Unknown Speaker: So it's basically characterizing this correctly. changing it from 24 hours a day to 2 AM to 6 AM. That a substitute? And then... Motion? Amendment. Motion to a man. Not a friendly. No, still.

[08:44:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I asked him if it was friendly, and he said, That just makes sense. There's no friendly per se, yeah, yeah. But I support that kind of because from the comments from the superintendent, I wouldn't want to do anything that limits their ability to bring safe parking lots forward. So, um, that's why I'll support the amendment.

[08:45:27] Unknown Speaker: So I don't feel like that addresses the safety concerns that we have. or the health concerns that we have. So, but do we need to vote on that because it's not a friendly amendment?

[08:45:41] Unknown Speaker: Yep. I think we've just got a process clarification we need here. There's a motion on the floor that wasn't and I'm really playing attorney now, so. There's a motion on the floor, what was suggested was not a friendly amendment. A substitute motion is an order, but it would have to be that. But.

[08:46:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So we're gonna proceed to vote on the motion to amend, so I will update the voting system accordingly.

[08:46:24] Unknown Speaker: Can I, I'm sorry, the question, um, what are we looking at areas? Are you restricting any areas? It's just a 2 to 6 time limit difference?

[08:46:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, no. Okay, so we need to, yeah, just have the motion to amend.

[08:47:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member, McAllister and a 2nd by council member, Kameh.

[08:47:15] Unknown Speaker: Let's, I just, it's a late hour, and I'm a little confused, because we've never done this before. We've always had a substitute motion. So, Honestly, I think the easiest thing to do, if council members McAllister's intent is the same exact motion, except night time only. Is that what you're trying to achieve? If that's the case, I would suggest you make a substitute motion that simply has that one difference, and then you vote on the substitute motion. Proceed really, it'll be a little simpler.ute. Do you want to make it a substitute motion? And that means that it would just substitute 24 to 2 to six.

[08:48:07] Councilmember John McAlister: And what so the effective date, so the motion that the mayor may continue in effect or that would be...

[08:48:14] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Well, you're subject to motion can be anything you want it to be, but what I heard is the only change you're suggesting is the 247 versus the nighttime only. So you're basically doing a substitute motion that simply changes that one provision.

[08:48:30] Unknown Speaker: Does he have to read everything, or can he just say, I'm just asking for him. Do you remember everything?

[08:48:44] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: It's been red ones, we think that's sufficient.

[08:48:47] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I read it once.

[08:48:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So some of us have already voted on the subject. Okay, so let me... Just a second. Let me just see if I can make this happen, really. Um... Just give me one moment. Okay, so you can proceed to vote, and this would be on the substitute motion, as dated by Council member McAllister. That motion fails. Uh, it was uh, To council members for council members, McAllister and Kame, and five. No. Do you like to read the names? Cancel member Clark, cancel member Hicks, vice mayor of Picoke, council member Ramirez, and me. Okay, so we go back to the original motion night that I made.

[08:50:21] Unknown Speaker: Yep, except we need to update the system. Oh. At least over there changing things as I'm looking at. Is that okay?

[08:50:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, no, that's okay. Yeah. You've got it. I was going to push if you like the button. Okay, so this is the motion I made. So we have a motion by me and a 2nd by the vice mayor. How would I tell if everybody's voted? I'm just waiting for Council member McAllister's vote? Okay. Hey, sit here or you'll find out how hard it is sometimes. Can I answer any questions for you?

[08:51:14] Councilmember John McAlister: No, but I'm not going to hit the last one.

[08:51:17] Unknown Speaker: Yeah don't abstain. abstain. We're recused. Feel me out, so you turn it on.

[08:51:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so can't question for counseling.

[08:51:40] Unknown Speaker: If it fails. If it fails, one of us will make, we'll do something tonight.

[08:51:48] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I'm just trying to... But could we come back to the original?

[08:51:54] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Yes. We can come back to the mayors. original?

[08:52:00] Councilmember John McAlister: I know, but I'm just trying to email she may tweak it a little bit. That all.

[08:52:11] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: You can do a series of motions until one fails. If you try several other one passes. Several fail. If, after several other attempts, you go back to this one, and the votes are different, then so be it.

[08:52:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That failed? Um, with Council members, Kamet, Abi Koga, and Metachek supporting, and Council members, Clark, Hicks, McAllister, and Ramirez, L. So, um, council member Ramirez.

[08:52:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll give my motion a shot. I'll make a couple of tweaks. So first, I'm going to move to introduce an ordinance amending articles one, 8 and 9 of chapter 19 of the Mountain View City code related to oversized vehicle parking, to be read entitled only further reading waived and set a 2nd reading for June 25th, 2019, incorporating the alternative language, provided attachment 5, prohibiting parking between 2 AM and 6 AM. and then incorporating whatever language staff feels is appropriate to prohibit parking in residential zones, and just to be very clear, that would mean opening up the industrial areas to parking. And then, so I'm going to change one C. So the provisions of this ordinance shall be effective. So, um, 30, uh, I'll change it this way, to address Council member Clark's concern. Upon the expiration of resolution number 18301 declaring a shelter crisis, come back to council for a check-in, and then at that time we will determine the effective date. We can keep to adopt a resolution amending the city of Mountain View master fee schedule to be read entitled only further reading waived, introduce an ordinance amending section 19.1 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 away, to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a 2nd reading for June 25th, 2019. We'll keep 5 through 7, and then we'll add a new direct staff. And then this is help me with this language. So to, in whatever way is appropriate, enhance the traffic engineers ability to apply timed parking restrictions and other regulations to improve safety. And that would be to address the concerns about parks and shoreline. And then if there are other actions that need to be taken in order to address public health and safety, whatever tools staff needs to do that, then come back to council with whatever recommendations are appropriate.

[08:55:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member. I sorry, vice mayor.

[08:55:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So just clarification in terms of the public, the safety and health issues, is that also a, um, I think it's June 2020 when the resolution expires or is that sooner?

[08:55:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: That would be as soon as we can realistically come back to counsel with that.

[08:55:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you.

[08:55:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[08:55:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: What was the part? Did you mention residential?

[08:55:53] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So 11 B. The parking prohibitions would only be effective in residential zones. So that's...

[08:56:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Here's why I can't support this and why I was going to do something slightly different. I'm actually, I'm not opposed to the residential zone. I don't know what residential zone means. I don't have a map in front of me. Do you have a map? I'm okay with it in concept. And so what I was, I'll just show my cards. What I was going to say is, you know, say what you said, direct staff to come back to us as soon as possible, um, fall with sort of, um, you know, key um, health and safety improvements. So in in key corridors, dryways, crossings, um, and we can we can, um, try and define those a little bit tonight. at least a portion of Eagle and Running Store Park. I don't think we need to like just ban parking, you know, on all 4 sides, but like in a substantial areas that folks can use it during the day and the weekend. And then I was going to have them bring that back to us along with the January one effective date with 2 to whatever, 2 to 6, I think it was. And when they bring when they bring back the key health and safety stuff, bring back, I'm happy to consider the residential at that time sooner than even January one if we want. But I just, I want to, I don't know what residential zone is. That's my only thing.

[08:57:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: To win your vote, I'm comfortable with that. The only thing, so just to clarify, I don't know if the traffic engineer requires council authorization to apply timed parking restrictions or other regulations because what you had so that would need to come back to council.

[08:57:51] City Staff: Traffic engineer currently has authority to restrict all parking for certain safety concerns, but time parking has to come to council for a resolution. We can't authorize the traffic engineer to install that signage as he or she determines is appropriate.

[08:58:09] City Staff: You probably could as a separate ordinance if you if we came back with... Those restrictions are actually adopted by resolution, so it's one rating. if that makes any difference to you. I could just get clarity on what timed parking restrictions we're talking about, because we have in the code, we have a bunch of different tables of different timed restrictions. And if you mean any of those, what I would propose is we can come back with a simple resolution, one reading, um, and that process, we just recently streamlined it. Um, and so it's not terribly cumbersome and I don't know that we would need to change that.

[08:58:56] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: If, if, That's what it takes to get something passed. I'm comfortable with coming back. It wasn't clear to me whether we needed to provide the traffic engineer some additional tools. It sounds like we don't need to do.

[08:59:10] City Staff: Yeah, frankly, I don't mind coming back with a resident resolution for timed parking. because that gives a little bit of airing and sometimes that's helpful because it does affect nearby people. So I'm comfortable with that.

[08:59:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Council member, McAllister.

[08:59:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Could you clarity on your one C? What's your effective date? Is it attachment 10?

[08:59:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No, very transparently council member Clark had expressed concerns about having the ordinance go into effect immediately upon the expiration of the resolution. So as the compromise, I had suggested that rather than it go into effect immediately, it would come back to council as part of a check-in, and at that time, we would determine.

[09:00:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: It would come back even sooner than that, I would say it comes back to us with the report and they'd suggest in March, April, to give us time if you want to implement the ban of Effect of July one. You have the 60 days that you need to do that then. But it would come back to council. That's what it would. It wouldn't be automatic. And the thought behind that was if the overnight piece of it. ends up having a more significant impact than we expect and you don't think you need to go to the next stage. So if you still want to take the next stage you can. But it was just, it's just not an automatic thing, I would suggest. It would come back with all the reports and statistics and everything else you get. And it would be in time to implement it on January or July one, should you wish? Is that clear to staff?

[09:00:48] City Staff: No, we're having a little trouble tracking. Because you're talking about the... perhaps we're confused about effective date and enforcement. So the ordinance wouldn't take effect, or the ordinance wouldn't be enforced. If that's the question I'm trying to track.

[09:01:09] Councilmember John McAlister: So I'm trying to get a date. I would assume it'd be the same date.

[09:01:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: It would take effective, and you could start enforcing it on July 1. We would just see it and approve it. At least 60 days out. 2020? But the overnight piece would be January one. It would be after the safe parking's up. Um, I think that's what counts from Ramirez went. I shouldn't put words in your mouth.

[09:01:33] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, is that true? I didn't interpret it that way. Um, boy, this is what happens when you try and craft emotion to win everybody's support. So, um... So, I am fading fast, friends. I know. So... Council member, Clark, if I withdraw my motion, would you make a motion that would be more coherent than mine? I'm not getting the 2nd one.

[09:02:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: It won't involve, it won't involve introducing ordinance. It'll be directing stuff to bring us back, you know, in the fall. The 1st piece of things. And part of that would be an ordinance, right? I just, I don't think you can introduce an ordinance tonight unless you know all the key. You know, residential. You know all the things that you want to specify tonight, because otherwise you're introducing new information that we'd have to have another meeting for anyway.

[09:02:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I'm not getting a 2nd debt anyway, if you want to try that, go ahead.

[09:02:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[09:02:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, I'm off. Sorry.

[09:02:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be Coco.

[09:02:52] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry, it's late, and I'm having trouble... It's early. Um, I guess I'm not sure why we can't introduce something tonight. I thought it was clear that we would do. If we said residential, or prohibited residential, but then, is it the piece about public safety and health and intersections and bike lanes that we have to bring back?

[09:03:25] City Staff: Yes. It's the... Parking, the perimeter around parks. It's the bike lane, specific parking restrictions to address the safety aspects of the oversized vehicle parking. From a staff perspective, we need more clarification on that. Then the only caveat too, we can modify the language and the proposed ordinance to restrict the parking prohibition to residential districts, residential zoning districts. However, what we aren't able to do at this early hour in the morning is figure out how that would apply to mixed use residential. So it would apply to all the R zones.

[09:04:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. And then clarification. So very early on, someone mentioned that we actually have a 2 to 6 AM restriction on the books, is that correct? So then we don't need to introduce a new ordinance. Is it just we need to enforce that?

[09:04:36] City Staff: Excuse me, I think there could, I think, a couple of things. Yes, there is something on the books that prohibits, I believe, city wide parking, 2 to 6 AM, which is enforced, where signed. There are some exceptions to that, I think, and some permitting aspects to it. So I think if I don't know if that would need to be revisited, depending on how you wanted that to be to apply.

[09:05:03] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's not just oversight vehicles, is it?

[09:05:06] City Staff: Correct. It's all vehicles. It's all vehicles. It comes out of authority in the vehicle code. It applies to all vehicles and in Mountain View, it's only enforced where there is signage.

[09:05:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right. So about an hour or two ago. Council member, Clark had a phased approach. I'm wondering if that might be the basis for...

[09:05:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: If you really want... It makes me uncomfortable, but if you really want, you feel the need to introduce an ordinance tonight, what you could do, is introduce the ordinance for the January one overnight piece, and then the other things, directing staff to come back with something in the interim if they can, if that has to take effect January one as well, then so be it. It might include the residential zones, the safety, and all the other things. Right. And then part of the, and then the other direction to staff would be what I suggested earlier, which was to, along with the report in March or April, bring back the option at that time, to, if you so choose to do the broader sort of ban effective July one, you can. Then you have the ability to introduce an ordinance tonight. You can say that that's we're progressing toward that. You're addressing, you're doing something even sooner if you want in terms of health and safety, and you've moved forward toward sort of the last step. I originally was, I was going to say, I'd feel more comfortable doing all the ordinance stuff after they brought everything back and we could incorporate residential and all the other things into it and sort of set the effective date for January one at that time. But if you just really feel strong weight, you have to introduce an ordinance tonight, then that's probably the piece that you can do most easily. It just it just makes me uncomfortable doing that without having all the other information that we could incorporate into it. That's all. If you want me to make that motion without the ordinance piece, I will. And then if, um, um, So because it doesn't involve reading all of this stuff, it would just be the motion would be to direct staff to bring back in the fall, um, key public health and safety improvements, uh, restrictions related to keep, you know, public health and safety. around RVs in, you know, dryways crossings, pedestrian crossings, key bike and pedestrian corridors. So, for example, I think Shoreline would be one of those where we would probably want to put some additional restrictions on driveways and pedestrian areas in line of sight. There, you know, California might be one. It's a bike corridor. We could just look at sort of the key corridors there. We could look specifically at Eagle and Range Store parks for daytime restrictions in certain areas so that we're providing, you know, at least a reasonable amount of doesn't necessarily have to be all 4 areas of the park or all 4 corners of the park, but it could be sections that staff think makes the most sense to have restrictions on during the day and the weekends. Or just during the day, 7 days. And then, um, and then, um, bring back sort of what, what a restriction in residential zone would look like. just so we know what that where that would impact, because I'm generally okay with that. I just don't know what all that would cover. And then, um, And then along with that, this ordinance, um, to with an effective date of January one, 2020, for a ban on RV overnight parking starting January one, 2020 from 2 to six, that's when the, say, parking starts to come online. And then also sort of state for the record that, you know, when we get all the data back in March, April, we'd like to be able to adopt an ordinance at that time, effective July one at the end of the initial shelter crisis piece in the end of the school year to move to the next phase if you so choose at that time based on the information you have in front of you. That's what the motion would be. That was a loan motion. If, yeah, I'll press the button just, and then you can amend away if you want.

[09:10:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So just to, so are you doing the master fee schedule and the discharge domestic sewage changes?

[09:10:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I can, if staff thinks that we can separate those out, they don't, if they don't reference the, the other pieces, we can do that. And we can do your other five, 6, and 7 if you want, Lucas. I can read those.

[09:10:43] City Staff: And just so the resolution amending the master fees schedule does go with recommendation one. So that one would not, but the other ordinances stand alone and could be taken separately.

[09:10:56] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, so everything I said, and I'm happy to help try and clarify if I can, plus that we introduce an ordinance amending section 1970.one to chapter 19, division 2, the Mountain View City code related to the parking of vehicles that discharge domestic sewage and the public right of way, to be read entitled only for the reading waived instead of 2nd reading for June 25, 2019. And I don't think I need to read these, but five, 6, and seven, items 5, 6, and 7 of the draft motion proposed by council member Ramirez, dated June 11, 2019, that he had provided to us at the dais.

[09:11:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we have a motion by council member, Ramirez, council member, Callistra, did you have comments?

[09:11:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a question. So are you still leaving in declaring a shelter crisis as a trigger?

[09:11:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, no, what I said was it could happen, basically, you don't have to wait until that to start the process of introducing that ordinance. What I was saying is, when they come back in March and April with the statistics and everything with how all this is going at that time, you'll have the ability to also adopt the full ban if you want effective. It'll take 60 days. It'll be effective July one. So it is, it's not directly tied to the shelter crisis anymore. It just happens to be when the 1st one expires and it's the end of the school year and I just thought that because they're bringing information back to us in March or April, that gives you the 60 days to put it in place.

[09:12:37] Unknown Speaker: Where did you get the information that's going to come in?

[09:12:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: You can always in March for April.

[09:12:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: I think it was in the staff report. I read, I swear, I saw somewhere that I could just be making things up at this point, but Steph was going to ask for clarification on what information we need to bring back in March or April.

[09:12:55] Councilmember Chris Clark: There was some sort of check in, I thought. I think what might be... Am I confusing, safe parking with my piss at this point? I think it's in Council member Ramirez's...

[09:13:07] Unknown Speaker: Yes, it's number six. In Council member Ramirez's proposal.

[09:13:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, that's where I got it.

[09:13:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[09:13:16] Unknown Speaker: Does that change your motion?

[09:13:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: If you want me to, if you want me to incorporate that or sort of codify that, that at some point in the spring,

[09:13:28] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I was hoping we'd get something sooner. That's why I was just trying to get clarification on what the direction you were going. I mean, you're saying that if by chance this passes, that we wouldn't get anything until the spring?

[09:13:44] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, you would get the overnight. So you say parking comes online November, December, the overnight the overnight band kicks in January one to incentivize that. And then what I'm saying is they can bring back in the spring this full band that we were looking at tonight. If you want to move to that stage, effect of July one, you'll be able to. But you'll have the information of the time to decide.

[09:14:06] Unknown Speaker: January 1st we get 24 hour ban, citywide.

[09:14:09] Councilmember Chris Clark: Two to six. Oh, it's it's the overnight, 2 to six. however they defined it. And then if it comes back in the spring, then we can go to the 24 seven. If you wish, yeah.

[09:14:20] Unknown Speaker: Since you're not actually introducing the ordinance, when it comes back to us, we can, we could modify the, the hours and where it's being imposed and the effect.

[09:14:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: You could. terrifying everyone, but you're going to make more modifications this. But yes, you could. When it comes back to us, you'll have the draft just like you have tonight and you want to tweak it further. You can. It's basically a continuance. It's basically we're kicking it down the road. It's a continuous to ask for more information on the residential piece on what we can do before January. And then also putting everything else in place at the same time.

[09:14:56] Unknown Speaker: So you're considering it all as one package as opposed to piecemeal. Okay, I think I got it. But yes, the cynic would say, they're just waiting 2 or 3 more months. I think I think you've clearly stated your intentions tonight, but...

[09:15:11] Unknown Speaker: So sorry, can I ask a question? So, um, Steph would bring something back to us in the fall, um, that could potentially be parks and major corridors. Um, I don't remember. I didn't write down. Did you say, um, residential rephases?

[09:15:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes, it would show where the residential parking restriction would be. Well, I'm open to the reason I'm open to considering that, but I don't know what that I just don't know what that overlay looks like, is all I'm saying. So if residential ends up like banning all of Shoreline Boulevard, then that's what would give me pause. But if residential means where we think of as like traditional neighborhoods, then that's not an issue to me. I'd be happy supporting that.

[09:15:57] Unknown Speaker: So that would be your intention is to have that take effect prior to January 1st sometime.

[09:16:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: If possible. Yeah.

[09:16:04] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. I don't think that's, I mean, realistically, staff would bring it back. It would have to have a 2nd reading. I don't think, as our city manager said, staff would bring it back in September. So October, November. So it's like it's really not that much sooner than January 1st, 2020.

[09:16:21] Councilmember Chris Clark: Fair enough. I'm not. It's not my intention to delay it more. All I'm saying is that I'd just be uncomfortable to adopting residential tonight without that wasn't even in the packet. So I just don't know what that looks like, is all I'm saying.

[09:16:35] Unknown Speaker: Regardless of when he made, I mean, the ad in motion, everything still would take effect January first. So the residential, let's say you didn't include the residential, you didn't know it. The January 1st.

[09:16:52] Councilmember Chris Clark: If staff is able to come back to us, they come in September, they come back in the fall. All the residential stuff would then be incorporated if the at that time into January one. That's my intent, or whatever date you set at the time. But yes, my intent would be the public health and safety stuff and if we wish residential would come first.

[09:17:13] Unknown Speaker: And if we not waiting till and if we imposed the initial one, it still would come back, it would still be effective January 1st. So one, we have certainty that all this stuff is included on January 1st. Under Chris's motion, it would be part of it would be certainty, but part of it would be potential.

[09:17:35] Unknown Speaker: Actually, there's no certain. And I believe that the Council member Clark's motion for January 1st was just overnight.

[09:17:44] Unknown Speaker: Well, it presumably we would, whatever you bring back to us, we would choose which elements we want to adopt, either prior to January one or all effective January one, if there isn't, if 60 days ends up being January one.

[09:17:58] Unknown Speaker: I think the public works director ones.

[09:18:01] Unknown Speaker: Just a clarification, is the intent near parks and major corridors to be 247 rather than overnight for oversized vehicles?

[09:18:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: So my intent of the parks piece, especially Shortline or Eagle and Ringsdorf, is to free up parking during the day when the parks are utilized. Others might be, but I'm not worried about the timing of the restriction between those 2 elements is different. Right. It would be 2 to 6 or whatever is what I would think. Because the overnight would kick in on January one, which would impact all of that. But in the interim, If there ends up being an interim period, It would just be daytime.

[09:18:55] Unknown Speaker: And even after the interim period.

[09:18:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, right. Well, then you could have a daytime restriction. You could restrict 24 seven at that point. Yeah, I see what you're getting at. Yeah.

[09:19:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, I'll be coga.

[09:19:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So my question is, um, the signage, the operational, how does that work if we do the 2 to 6 AM January 1st, but then 6 months later, put a 24 hour ban? Is that what you're in?

[09:19:26] Councilmember Chris Clark: If you end up going that far, then yeah, that's 11 downside is you could do that or you could, you could leave some is only overnight. I don't know, who knows what will do. then. But yes, that is that is one downside of it is. You have to re-sign all the streets. There might be some middle ground like we did when we did the stadium pilot program that if we sign it for 2 to 6 that we'd be able to not replace those signs or there might be some thing, but it does add a layer of complexity. I'd hate to commit to anything without giving it some more thought.

[09:20:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Dan, could you give him some more thoughts, please?

[09:20:13] City Manager Dan Rich: Suffice it to say that there's a likelihood that we would have to sign twice, at least in some capacity, if you, if, I mean, we can't enforce anything until it's signed. So whatever the 1st thing you do must be signed, citywide, or wherever it's effective, if you change that in a substantial way, then the signage has to reflect that until we know exactly what it was and what zones. And, you know, we're not sure, but yeah, signage could be duplicated.

[09:20:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[09:20:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, and I'm sorry, I must be fading. The 2nd council member, Clark, the 2nd the thing that comes up months later, what triggers the decision on that?

[09:21:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, so you're talking about next, you're talking about next year.

[09:21:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, there's the overnight thing that happens in January, and then the next months later, whichever month you put it on, what?

[09:21:16] Councilmember Chris Clark: It's direction to staff to bring this... is back to us.

[09:21:21] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Mm hmm.

[09:21:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: In time for, in time for it to take effect, July one, if you wish.

[09:21:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So that would be at least, what, 60 days prior.

[09:21:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: So it's direction to staff tonight to bring it back in March April time frame. And then we make a decision at that point on those items. If you make a decision at that point of is the overnight, um, is has overnight been adequate? Do we still have problems citywide that you want to move forward with the full ban on or not? You make the decision at that time based on the information that you have at that time.

[09:21:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. I'm confused what comes back in the fall.

[09:22:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: Health and safety and January one.

[09:22:07] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Health, safety, and overnight on January one. The only thing that comes back in July is the 247 versus the 2 to 6.

[09:22:13] Unknown Speaker: That's correct. So it's a phased approach where we implement interim safety regulations and then bring back an overnight ban and having our work plan to bring back the 247 band for you to review. In March or April.

[09:22:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I guess from my perspective, this seems, um, like it's going to be challenging, uh, to not only roll out, but also enforce when you, if you decide to go to the 24 hour, um, then you're saying to folks, well, it used to be 2 to 6 and now it's 24 hours. Um, I just feel like it's gotten kind of complicated. There's a way to simplify this. No. I don't know what it is. It seems very complicated.

[09:23:13] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. But we did budget a new parking guy. yesterday.

[09:23:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so we have a motion by council member Clark and a 2nd by council member Ramirez. Any further discussion or else we'll call the question. So that passes. Um, 6 to one with um, me. voting no. And everyone else, yes. We can reconsider at the next meeting. Okay. So that ends this item. And. Are there any councils, item eight, council staff or committee reports? Uh, is there a closed session report?

[09:24:37] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: As we did not have a closed session this evening, there's no closed session report.

[09:24:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So we will adjourn the city, let's say, the city council will adjourn to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, June 18th, 2019, at 5:15 PM, in the council chambers 500 Castro Street.

• ← Previous
• Next →