January 28, 2020 Regular Meeting of Mountain View City Council

Video

Transcript

[00:10:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Good evening. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to our meeting for January 28th, 2020. Uh, we start the evening here in the chambers with a study session, so I'd like to call the meeting to order at 5 now, 46 uh, roll call, please. Or attendance?

[00:10:38] City Clerk: Sure. I'm council member. McAllister and Hicks are absent. All other council members are present. Oh, she's counselor member.

[00:10:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay, um, we move on to our study session item, which is 3.1 gun safety related issues and regulatory options, and we have a staff presentation today from Diana Facely, our new senior deputy city attorney. Welcome, and Christian.

[00:11:07] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes. Yes, thank you. I just wanted to take this opportunity to introduce Diana to the council, and say that she joined our office in the fall, and has made a terrific start, and she's gonna be presenting tonight. So thank you.

[00:11:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you.

[00:11:22] Senior Deputy City Attorney Diana Facely: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor Abbe Kohen council members. Today's study session is about gun safety related issues, regulatory options. The study session is a follow up to council September 17, 2019 meeting, in which council directed staff to return with gun safety related regulatory options that were effective, that are effective, reasonable to implement, and that staff could accomplish alongside established council priorities and work plans. Before I dive into those options, I wanted to provide the exist in a context of existing city regulations related to gun safety. There are several provisions in our city code related to gun safety, two of which are relevant for purposes of, for tonight, one is the prohibition of possessing firearms and city parks and recreational facilities. And the second is the prohibition on discharging firearms citywide. As for firearms enforcement, our police department does enforce existing state and local laws relating to gun safety and firearms, and in addition, the police department and city attorney's office work together to obtain gun violence restraining orders or GVROs and weapons petitions. GVROs are orders obtained from the court that essentially prohibit a person who has presented a propensity to be violent with guns, to take away their guns, and to prohibit them from purchasing firearms. And weapons, petitions, are in specific circumstances in which weapons, not specific to firearms, it could be any type of weapon is taken from an individual and destroyed. And then the police department also participates in gun buyback events. And last year, the city participated in an event hosted by the city of Sunnyvale, with five other jurisdictions, and essentially individuals who want to give up their unwanted guns in exchange for cash may do so at these events. And we are also participating in an event this year on February 29th in Sunnyvale. And finally, we do have an internal policy that, essentially, sets forth a protocol for how to respond to threatening behavior, for city employees, if they encounter threatening behavior, by another employee, or by non employees while they're at work. First state and federal laws, California has the strongest gun laws in the United States. The Giffords Law Center, which is a gun prevention policy organization, has graded California with an A and ranks as number one out of 50 of the states. And with that, as of January 1st of 2020, 15 new state laws went into effect, several of which is related to gun violence restraining orders, firearm safety, and also gun storage. And for the first time in a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court will be significantly weighing in on gun regulations, and the arguments were made in December of 2019, and a decision is going to be made this year, and staff is monitoring developments on this case. So, this chart is a sneak peek into the options, but I wanted to note that we did add the city of Mountain View on the right side, and to provide context as to how we compare to our neighboring cities, as to the options that I'll be going over in the upcoming slides. The first option is expanding our current prohibition of possessing firearms in parks and recreational facilities to all city properties citywide. This would be done by ordinance, and staff does recommend including exceptions, such as for peace officers. And having such an ordinance would not be a significant impact on the police department in terms of enforcement. The second option is home businesses. This regulation would prohibit firearm sales as a home occupation. The city of Mountain View does not prohibit this explicitly in our zoning ordinance, and actually, we do have existing firearm dealers who do conduct business from their homes. And to clarify, these firearm dealers do not, or typically do not conduct missus in a retail capacity. Essentially, California law requires that all purchases of firearms be done through a licensed firearm dealer. And so these licensed firearm dealers, help conduct purchases of firearms that are done from out of state, over the internet, or through private party transfers. And so they conduct the required background checks, hold the firearm for the required waiting period, which is 10 days. And there's many other regulations that they would have to comply with before a firearm can be transferred from a dealer to a purchase purchaser of a firearm. This option would require an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which would have to go to the environmental planning commission before it comes to council. And if counsel pursues this option, we would also need direction as to whether we would grandfather in those existing firearm dealers who are conducting businesses from their homes or amateurze them. Amortization is giving those, giving, um, existing uses a certain period of time to come into compliance with new regulations. After which that time, those uses would be considered illegal, and they would have to cease operation. Option three is keeping dealers away from sensitive areas. This type of regulation would impose a locational restrictions on firearm dealers. And, essentially, most cities who have these type of restrictions have a thousand require gun dealers or gun stores to be a thousand feet away from what are called sensitive uses, which tend to be places where high populations of children are, like schools, residential zones, daycares, and partss. This option would also require an amendment to the zoning ordinance, and we would request council direction on whether we would grandfather in or amortize those existing firearm dealers or gun stores that do not meet the proposed location restrictions. The last option is safe storage. So, safe storage regulations require those who are in legal possession of firearms to store their firearms in a manner that would prevent theft or accidental shootings. Most jurisdictions that have these hyper regulations are usually in the homes only, there are only two jurisdictions that have safe storage regulations as to vehicles. That's the city and county of San Francisco and the city of Oakland. Most recently, the county of Santa Clara pass an ordinance requiring safe storage of firearms in their homes and in all unincorporated areas of the county. And another neighboring city, the city of Sunnyvale, also has this regulation. If council directs staff to pursue this option, it does require an ordinance. Effectiveness of the ordinance is unclear, because it would not be possible for the police department. to actively enforce this ordinance, because there are constitutional limitations on unreasonable searches of homes and vehicles. Typically, noncompliance with this ordinance would be uncovered through an incidental criminal investigation or another law enforcement action. However, the city can, like the county did, pursue a public information and education awareness campaign to ensure that residents of the city are aware of the new regulations and to better assure compliance. At its September 17th meeting, Council did ask staff to provide information about how these options would affect staff workloads alongside established council priorities. The staff impacts vary with each option. However, those requiring zoning ordinance amendments do require additional staff resources than the other options. Council is scheduled to review its major goals, work plans next week, and potential trade-offs may be discussed at that time. So, the questions for counsel's consideration are. This council wants to have to return with an ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms and city property citywide. Discouncil wants staff to return with an ordinance prohibiting firearm sales as a home occupation, and if so, does council want to grandfather in or amortize the existing home businesses? Does counsel wants to have to return with an ordinance amending the zoning ordinance to impose locational restrictions on firearm dealers? And if so, does council have any other types of uses other than residential zones, schools, daycares, youth centers, and parks that it deems as sensitive? Also, does council want to grandfather in or amortize existing firearm dealers if this option is pursued? Or does council want staff to return with an ordinance requiring safe storage in homes, in vehicles, or in both? And if so, does council want staff to conduct a related public information and education campaign? And with that, I conclude my presentation, and I am happy to answer any questions.

[00:21:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you very much. This is a study session, so we will start with public comment first. Um, If you would like to speak on this item. Can I get a quick show of hands? It's not like a big crowd tonight yet. Okay, great. We'll have 3 minutes, and if you can come to the podium here, and also fill out a blue card, and give it to the clerk before or after your comments. We would appreciate it. So let's start off first. First individual? Come on down.

[00:21:53] Sally Lieber: Oh, thank you, darling. Good evening, counsel. I'm Sally Lieber, and I live in Mountain View. And I think that I'm a lot like my neighbors in mountain view, and the overwhelming majority of people who do actually live here, and saying that we want more regulation in this area. And I think that the four options that staff has identified are a great place to start. I would very strongly like to see existing home occupations of firearm sales, only be amortized and not grandfathered in. And I think that anyone who's been in Mountain View for a while remembers the explosion of a home that was selling ammunition and firearms back several years ago. I also want to advocate for the strongest possible protections on storage, both in the home and in automobiles. And there have been some very notable cases where firearms have been stolen from automobiles and led to very tragic ends. And also a number of cases within this county where there have been accidental shootings of children, including deaths related to firearms being in the home. And I'd like to ask that you ask staff to come back with an ordinance that would require that a firearm be locked up, anytime that it's not in the immediate control of the owner, or in the immediate control of the home. And, um, the reason for that is that, uh, more lax ordinances, uh, such as one in San Jose are simply not good enough to prevent tragedies. And we need a stronger ordinance that's more similar to the one in Sunnyvale. I actually don't think that it will require a lot of public education to get this out because so many other cities have adopted protective ordinances of these kinds. So I think that Mountain View can be both a leader and a great follower of the other cities and really take action to protect people here as they're protected in other cities. So thank you so much for considering this.

[00:24:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome up.

[00:24:26] Public Speaker: First of all, my apologies. I'm coming off a cold, so if I sound like James O. Jones, it's not my fault. I don't normally sound like this.

[00:24:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm sorry? We have a lot of that happening, right? Please don't get it.

[00:24:39] Public Speaker: Members of the council, I want to thank you for your time. Um, I want to address issue 3.one. In brief, I read the study session memo, I had to read it twice. And I was really bit kind of shocked about what I read and what I didn't read. Um, uh, literally, let me let me summarize the memo in simple terms. Well, everybody else is doing it, so we should too. That's really what the memo gets down to. There's nothing in the memo that talks or provides any data about the effectiveness of these organizations. And there's no data out there on that. There's no reason to believe that it will have an impact. The history just isn't there behind it. The council is being asked to invest time and money and actions that have already been dressed by the state. It's redundant. And without the verifiable data, to say, confirm these regulations would be effective. I'm not sure I see the value for the city, the citizens, or even for your time and money. Members of the council, I'm sure we were all children at one time. And it's one time or another, we were talking to our parents and we said, well, everybody else is doing it. And we all know what the answer they got from their parents didn't work. Um, I'm hard pressed to believe that there are no other issues in the community that don't need to be addressed. We have issues with the homeless. We have the issue of domestic violence. We have issues regarding proving fire and police services. Just the condition of the roads, and so on, and so on. There are many other matters of the council can address and can affect, can address effectively, and I want to encourage the council to confine their actions to that area. I urge the council to table this motion. It's redundant. And it can't achieve anything. There's no debt on the subject. Thank you much for your time.

[00:26:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks, speak here. Welcome.

[00:26:46] Thomas: Yes, my name is Thomas, and I've been a resident of Mountain View, since before Bob Shott moved in across the street as a newly hired police officer. I had coffee with him in his office where he'd become the chief of police, about the time Prop 13, went through. I also retired as a forensic chemist from the county crime lab, where I worked on tens of thousands of cases. I homogenized human levers from people who were beaten to death with baseball bats or killed in automobile accidents. I agree with the last speaker that this is a subject that's been over regulated in, you know, all over the state. The liberals are fond of saying, if we save one life, it's worth it. But they ignore the lives that are saved when people have the ability to protect themselves. I remember a lot of cases where people were beaten to death because they couldn't get a means of protecting themselves from an abusive partner. Even in those days, it wasn't easy. You had to wait and so forth. Uh, I think it would be much more productive if the, the city looked into some of the recent changes in the laws that, for example, increased the uh, amount that a person has to steal before it becomes a felony. I've heard of many stores, say, in Santa Cruz hardware stores and so forth that are going out of business because they have low margins of profit, and they can't absorb the losses from shoplifting because of these new laws. I've heard of people who have been arrested multiple times, and because we have release on your own regardness, instead of bail now, they've gone over, they've been released, they've gone out to rob banks multiple times. A lot of what people do. They don't realize what the, the side effects are going to be, what the real result will be. Passing more regulations doesn't help anything. Most of the kids, children that are so called shot accidentally are actually gang members. They're involved in crime themselves. You have very, very few situations where people have a firearm in a house and somebody gets in to a closet, finds it. And in my day, back when this was all orchards, people were taught about firearms, respect for them in safety and so forth. So, you know, five year old kids didn't want to pick up a gun and play with it. They knew what it was. People hunted, they killed animals, they raised animals, for each and all, they understood life and death better than people that just see death on the screen of a video game. It was a different world, but people haven't changed in their basic...

[00:29:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, speaker. Welcome up.

[00:29:57] John Hanks: Yes, John Hank's showers drive. The staff report indicates that there are enforcement challenges with this ordinance, and it refers to the Gaffords Law Center, which is no objective policy work done at that organization on firearms policy. The plain truth is that common criminals, psychopathic killers, people tend to be suicidal, are not deterred by these laws. Instead, they put burdens on otherwise law abiding gun owners who, um, who actually, in some ways, become criminalized, uh, by this type of ordinance. So I suggest to you, as the other speakers have said, you know, focus on other important city matters like community development, maintaining the public infrastructure, no need for any new gun ordinances in Mountain View. Thank you.

[00:30:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker.

[00:30:59] Stephen Goldstein: Thank you for your time. Stephen Goldstein. I haven't been here for a while, but has been doing a lot of work off site. I just wanted to say that I'm not specifically for or against any particular rule at this moment, but at the same time, to try to, in fact, bipolarize, this argument is really doing a lot of disservice to the city. It sounds me like, unfortunately, we're running into the same prom that there's recent reports discussing how, in effect, the United States has become so hyper pipolarized that we're not even at all trying to do anything regarding any common sense. The idea that you, uh, using regulations will criminalize a law abiding person for trying to own and use a firearm, that's not correct. That's hyperbolate to the extreme. The simple fact is, we do need some kind of real common sense ideas to be discussed. And I'm not trying to say that I'm for or against anything specifically at the moment, because we still are in the development stage. We haven't even yet figured out exactly what we're gonna do yet. So this is all preliminary discussion and research. We should be leaving this environment wide open, so we can get the best information we can. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you very much.

[00:32:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other speakers switching to comment? Nope. All right, then I'll bring it back to council for any questions or comments, and, um, if you could also provide your thoughts, uh, on the questions that we have here. And let's see. Let me get this. Oh, thank you, council member Ramirez, well.

[00:32:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick question for staff. So, um, in prioritizing these options. Does staff have any preliminary sense of which options would be the most impactful?

[00:33:10] Police Chief Max Bosel: So, speaking perhaps from more of the policing perspective, um, city properties and controlling firearms on city properties, would likely be the most effective from a law enforcement perspective, and that we can respond to incidents in which we receive calls for service, and if someone's in possession of a firearm, even lawfully, we can control that. The next element could be the safe storage, although there are state laws that do govern access by minors, youth, as well as safe storage and vehicles, but that would likely be the next effective, and in terms of the businesses, and home businesses, we don't have, many issues at all related to those. So, if you're asking me, my suggestion, those option number one on city properties and option number four are probably the most responsive at the initial stage.

[00:34:15] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, that's all.

[00:34:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Council member Clark?

[00:34:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was just gonna get into comments. I was just gonna say, my preference here would be, since this wasn't originally on our work plan, just wanting to address this, but not necessarily have to make significant trade offs in the other work plan items. I think, for me, the most effective, the thing that accomplishes, in my mind, doing something effective here without having to make other trade offs would be, you know, doing options one and four, where we're addressing, you know, the gaps that we have in public properties, as well as the safe storage piece, and not getting into the other two yet, that would require the zoning ordinance changes. So not that we couldn't look at those down the road, but I think if we want to do something, you know, impactful in the, um, in the near term, I'd probably move forward with options one and four at this time, and, um, you know, we can re look at the, the other two that require zoning ordinance amendments, um, at another date, that would be my preference.

[00:35:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman... Manachek.

[00:35:26] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: One quick question. In the council question. Somebody asked what was the police activity associated to firearms businesses, and I thought that was an interesting chart. And the explanation of the seven reports in... Well, actually, maybe it's most of the reports. All but one case involved prohibited person attempting to purchase firearms. And I was wondering, uh, what does that really look like? Like, somebody comes to a retail store, and tries to buy a firearm, and they're prohibited, but they leave, and then the store owner does a report, or what happens?

[00:36:17] Police Chief Max Bosel: So it's been several years since we've had that, and there's been several years since the laws, um, were in effect enacting the prohibitions of various prohibitions. So you could be a felon, you could have certain restraining order violations or other crimes that would prohibit you. And if an individual doesn't pass the background check and we become notified, the police department becomes notified of that attempted transaction. But it's after the fact.

[00:36:42] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And so it's not like you're interacting with the person, or are you?

[00:36:46] Police Chief Max Bosel: It could be that we are, however, it's not common, and in these cases, none of the individuals who are attempting to purchase a firearm received the firearm.

[00:36:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Mm hmm.

[00:36:57] Police Chief Max Bosel: So the dealers, the dealers do the background checks and then ensure the clearance prior to releasing the weapon to the individual attempting to purchase, ensuring that they're qualified and lawfully capable of possessing the gun.

[00:37:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, so I am, um, leaning toward option one. And, um, I actually was thinking that I would expand the definition, in addition to city locations, I would also say schools. That was noted somewhere in there. And I guess I'd like to see, human, this comes back to us, what specifically is a city location, when I was speaking with our interim city manager. I said, Well, gosh, streets are city property. Um, I don't think they would be included, um, but, you know, so I guess I'd like to see what the list is of, um, city property that would be included. And then at schools. I was also asking if all of these had signs, so you would know. And I guess, at parks, it says no weapons. But I guess I was under the impression that we had to sign something in order to enforce it. Is that not the case?

[00:38:18] Police Chief Max Bosel: No, not necessarily. And I also do want to note that there are there is an existing state laws that prohibit have possessing a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school zone.

[00:38:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, okay. I didn't want to make that clear yet. Great. Then we don't need to include schools, because there's a state law. I don't want to do anything that, um, there's already a state law for. that, like we've said, that's repetitive, and, um, would waste step time. Um, on four, I have sort of mixed feelings about that, because it is harder to enforce. although the concept is good, it is harder to enforce. And so if enough folks want to do that, I'm okay with it. But I do worry about the ability to enforce it. But I would say if we want to talk about any of the others, we talk about those, um, in February when we talk about overall projects that we want staff to work on, because those do involve significant time.

[00:39:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Cancel member hicks.

[00:39:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I, um, I did meet with our interim, uh, city manager and discuss this, so I have no further questions, and I wanted to thank staff. I learned a lot by reading the report. I'm ready to make my comments. I do think I'm interested in as soon as possible pursuing, I guess, what was listed as number one, which is the ordinance prohibiting possession of firearms on city property, both because our interim city managers said that would be one of the more effective one, effective and less time consuming one to implement. And also, the fourth one, which is involves storage of firearms, in part, because repeatedly, throughout my life, I've known people who've been impacted by this. I was in middle school, uh, a student was killed by, um, by playing with a gun that he thought, was, that was left out and that he thought was not loaded. And then I've also had friends who've had to ask, um, when their children are going over for play dates, whether, um, whether the parents have firearms and whether they're properly stored. So that's something that I've seen repeatedly throughout my life, and I would like to see at least some education around that. The others, I'm willing to go with, as well, and I think we might put them on our, you know, when we re examine our goals and work plan, and see whether we want to look at others, as well. Thank you.

[00:41:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh, Vice Mayor.

[00:41:05] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, I want to thank staff for the presentation and the answers to all of our questions. Um, I'm actually interested in all four items, but I think, um, priority and, um, sensitivity to staff workload is something that we will be discussing both this Saturday and next Tuesday. Um, so in light of that, I believe, um, option one and option four are two, that I would prioritize now, and then perhaps 2 and 3 would be items we can, um, look at, at a, at a later date, or we can, we can discuss next, um, next time. And then, um, one of the other items that was noted in our staff report was the city of Sunnyvale and how they've decided to regulate um, the ammunition sales. Um, maybe that can be something we discuss at a later time, but also interested in that. Thank you.

[00:42:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Counselor Ramirez, would you like to chime in?

[00:42:14] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, so I, uh, I don't disagree with anything. Anyone else has said, I think, based on staff's recommendation on what would most likely be effective prioritizing one in four, makes sense to me, and then evaluating the other options in the context of goal setting, you know, and getting a better sense of the trade-offs, seems reasonable. So I'm supportive of that. And then, um, council member McAllister's not here, but he did send in his comments that he asked me to read into the record, uh, which is that this is a very important national issue, and any clarity to guns and firearm regulation is needed. Staff report mentions a couple of things that stood out to me. One was viable gun control, and the other was staff workload impacts. I'm in favor of adopting legislation that staff can easily incorporate into our existing city ordinances. What I am concerned about is having staff work on an ordinance that is potentially viable, and that the effectiveness is unclear, if the police are unable to actively enforce the laws. So, um, I guess he didn't really say which ones he's interested in, but those are his comments.

[00:43:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And I would just add to that, I want to thank Steph for bringing this back and thank my colleagues for allowing us to have this study session. I know it was a mid-ear item. Um, and so I staff workload is definitely of concern, but in light of um, the incidents that we continue to see and that I seem to be increasing throughout the nation. Um, I was compelled to, you know, to ask that we discuss this issue and, uh, of gun safety. And, um, I personally am interested in all four, um, you know, and more, frankly, and the issue of, you know, redundancy, I actually think that's a good thing. Um, there, there, uh, I, when I was researching some of these, um, state laws, actually, they were, some of them were pending, um, court rulings. They were challenged in court. And at that time, Sunnyvale actually had their own local ordinances, and they were similar, but because Sunnyvale had the local ordinance, and then, you know, went through, they actually went through the court process to, um, have them upheld, they had the laws in place for their city. And so that's my my interest is that, um, I think reinforcement is is a good thing. Um, just because everybody does it, is that's really, um, when, you know, I, I think, um, these are just good, good ordinances, policies to have too, I think, that, um, the more localities, municipalities sign on to these policies, um, the more it spreads, hopefully, and, um, it does become more of a national movement. You know, I've asked the city's association to look at this. And I guess I was surprised to see that we were not on many of those lists when it came to the different policies. So I think it's time for us to join up. Um, so my preference would be to do all four, but I will, um, respect the, um, the issue of, um, workload. And I actually thought, at least with gun safety storage, um, that could actually address some of my concerns with the home businesses. Um, that was my, you know, question, or I was trying to ponder how this works. If you have a home business, like, are you allowed to have inventory? And if that, is that, like, you know, in your garage, or is it locked up, and if it's not required to be locked up, then does that open us, open up the opportunity for theft, and then, you know, what could transpire as a result of that. So I do think safety is key here. And I also agree that the education piece is very important. And, yes, so, you know, educating and forming folks on how to, um, to treat, uh, firearms, um, in a responsible manner is important. And so I would like for us to engage in those types of outreach efforts. So with that, um, it looks like, I think we have almost, I think they do have unanimous support for option one, as well as option four, and then at least four of us were interested in looking at two and three down the road. And I would agree with ammunition sales, and frankly, yeah, and this is a conversation we could have during our goal setting, but, um, I think there are many other ordinances that we could look at down the road. So does that satisfy staffs?

[00:47:26] Police Chief Max Bosel: I do have a question. For safe storage? Was it for homes and vehicles, or one or the other?

[00:47:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Those who would like home only? Home and vehicle? Laser hand? I thought, I thought there was a comment that state law covered view. And so what to what extent would we be going beyond state law?

[00:47:51] Unknown Speaker: There are state laws relating to vehicles. It would just be, in addition, or even more restrictive than those state laws. And I, sorry, I'm not too familiar with what's existing right now, but it would be in line with what the city of Oakland and the city of San Francisco probably has.

[00:48:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I see. Okay. And then, actually, Councilman Menachek, you had a comment about schools as a... Is it a, um, prohibited... Zo area, um...

[00:48:20] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Right, but then, um, we heard it was covered by state law.

[00:48:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh huh.

[00:48:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, so I dropped it.

[00:48:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Okay. So I would just say, if we're gonna do four... I would just go for homes. So, uh, actually, can I get a show of hands and homes only? Vehicles only, homes and vehicles. It's on to three, four, five. So five for both, one for vehicle only. Anything else on this?

[00:38:34] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: Yeah. Thank you.

[00:38:36] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Um, we will start our regular session. We have to, it's noticed for 6:30, so we will start in about five minutes. Thank you. Evening again, everyone. Welcome to our regular session for January 28th. I will call the meeting to order at 6:30, and we'll start with the pledge of allegiance, and if our former mayor will lead us, please.

[00:55:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. We'll move on to attendance. City clerk.

[00:55:56] City Clerk: All council members are present, except John McAllister, who's absent.

[00:55:59] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great, thank you. And my name is the Honda Item 4. The consent calendar. Uh, and there is an announcement for staff from staff. Or should I, should I just? Oh, yes, city manager, interim.

[00:56:15] Police Chief Max Bosel: Yes, we're gonna pull item 4.6 for revision of a recommendation on that item.

[00:56:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So these items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Uh, council member, Medicheck?

[00:56:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'd like to pull item 4.4 and 4.8, um, and it's mostly just, um, a comment and registering a no votes. That's not questions.

[00:56:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so, uh, 44 and 48.

[00:56:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: 4 4 and 4 8.

[00:56:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Any other members, council members, wishing to pull an item? Um, is there any member of the public? wishing to comment on any of these items? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve the balance of the content calendar. Uh, Council member Ramirez.

[00:57:20] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I move to approve the consent calendar, including 4.2, adopt an ordinance amending the zoning map for the properties located at 851 and 853 Sierra Vista Avenue, from the multifamily residential Special Design and General Industrial Districts to multifamily residential, to be read entitled only for their reading waived. 4.3, adopt a resolution, uh, acknowledging receipt of a report made by the fire chief of the Mountain View Fire Department regarding the inspection of certain occupancies, required to perform annual inspections in such occupancies, pursuant to sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 of the California Health and Safety Code to be read entitled only further reading waived. 4.7, adopt a resolution amending article four, section one of the bylaws of the downtown committee regarding member membership composition, to be read entitled only for their reading wave. And then I'm sorry, are we, so we're just going to register a novo for 4.8 or are we pulling that entirely? Did you have comments for 4.8? And 4.4?

[00:58:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I just, on 4.8, I just want to register a no vote. But on 4.4, I have a comment and also want to register a no vote.

[00:58:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so I'll add, uh, 4.8 adopt a resolution appointing members to the environmental planning commission to be read entitled only further reading waves, noting the, uh, the no vote. And so that does not include 4.4 and 4.6, which I believe have been pulled.

[00:59:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Thank you. And there's a second by Vice Mayor. Um, any other discussion on the site and the consent? If not, let's vote. Motion carries six, uh, what, six, zero, with one absinthe, and a no vote by Councilman Romatachek on 4.8. So let's go back to 4.4. Yes, counts my room.

[00:59:30] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry. So on 4.4, I sent in a question, just staff. And that was on attachment one, where it lists the, um, items that, um, might not be acceptable because there's no market for the recycled item. And I was asking, could that be updated so that, from time to time, we could revisit that list because market condition changes, market conditions change. And Steph said, yes, they could make that adjustment to that. So I'm supportive of making that adjustment. But I'm not supportive of this, so I do want to register a no vote, because, as I said, when this first came to us, I think it's just good government to every once in a while, go out to the market and get bids. And so, while we have the ability to do that part way into this, um, revisiting the contract period, for lack of a better term. I felt like we should do that at the very beginning, so I'm still registering a no vote on this one. Thank you.

[01:00:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other comments on 4.4? Any members of the public wishing to speak on 4.4, or do we too? I guess we took public comment already? Um, so if not, I will entertain emotions. For 4.4.

[01:01:01] Unknown Speaker: Can I do 4.6 as well?

[01:01:04] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Yes, if the interim city manager would like to make the minor modification. Okay, yes, please.

[01:01:13] Interim City Manager Max Bosel: On item 4.6, following discussions after finalizing the agenda with Google and the memorandums of understanding that are potential between the three parties and whether it's two or three parties on page three of the staff report. It references that, all three parties, and it would be more feasible to allow flexibility with that by having us remove the three party requirement, with the option of potentially going either to a three party or two party agreement. So, recommendation number 2 would read, eliminating, striking out between all 3 parties, and including a parentheses S for memorandums of understanding, would read as follows. Direct staff to work with Google and the housing trust of Silicon Valley to finalize a memorandums, in parentheses S, of understanding, and authorize execution thereof by the interim city manager or designate.

[01:02:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Any comments on this item?

[01:02:13] Unknown Speaker: So, um, it was an, I'll move 4.4, and then 4.6 is modified by the interim city manager.

[01:02:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, and there's a second by Councilman Ramirez? Any other comments? I'll call the question. And mission carries 6 0 with one absent. Thank you. And, uh, Councilman Armada checks, no vote on item 4.4. Great, thank you. Moving on to... Item five, oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak? One, two, three, four, five, any others? Um... All right, we'll go 3 minutes, then. Welcome up. And please fill out a blue card before or after your comments. Thank you. Start off with the first speaker.

[01:03:32] Stephen Goldsign: Stephen Gold sign, 12 year citizen of Mountain View. I just have two questions. One is, when are we going to get a formal statement regarding the, uh, rental control or affordable housing, uh, standards that are now been established regarding Senate Bill 330, because what I understand is that the city is still, uh, basically, uh, would be described as on the fence regarding if there's going to be a requirement to have a one to one, uh, substitution for every unit that's being removed for on a project, with a new one that's gonna be in the project. Because it looks to me like the law is pretty clear on that. And the 2nd question I'd like to ask is now that the Santa Clara Democratic Party has now formally rejected measure D as a ballot measure. Uh, those who are democratic, uh, party members of the city council. who will raise their hand in still supporting measure D, or are they going to comply with the party's recommendation and now reject it?

[01:04:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So we're not, um, able to comment on, on agenda items. All right, thank you. Next speaker, please.

[01:05:03] Bill Maston: Good evening, Bill Maston, local architect. The reason why I'm here tonight is actually to discuss the new 50% rooftop solar city code that was just adopted. And it's of great interest to me as an architect, as it applies to, um, multi family housing. What I actually think is we may have inadvertently created some unintended consequences that could easily be resolved. And I'll give us some examples. 50% rooftop solar actually sounds quite easy to obtain, even as an architect. But what we're realizing in our office right now is how do we define a roof, what is a roof, and whether or not, all of a roof might constitute what some people would define as a roof versus those who want to qualify, for example, that a rooftop garden isn't a roof. Rooftop garden is green open space. So, seeing how staff is always encouraging us, where it's possible, without too much privacy concern, to have rooftop gardens, to have balconies, to have courtyards above underground parking garages, all of which, by some accounts, could be strewed as a rooftop. So I'm hoping that a simple solution to this would just be having the council direct staff to interpret a roof in a way that it does not include rooftop balconies, rooftop gardens, things of those nature. That would make it a lot easier for us as architects to continue to encourage our clients to do outdoor spaces, which we all need. So thank you very much.

[01:07:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Next speaker. Welcome.

[01:07:16] Albert Jeans: Good evening, Mayor. Council members, Albert Jeans, long time resident Mountain View. Wanted to bring your attention to your attention of traffic problem, which is recurring and getting much worse. This is the intersection of Terabelle and Shoreline. You can see there was a really long line of cars, way to make a left turn on the terra bell to get in this office building and also make a U-turn. And there's often a long line of cars trying to make a right turn on a shoreline from Terabella, that goes out to Linda Vista now. This used to never happen. It happens almost every day now. And the reason why I think this is, is, for one thing, I think traffic has picked up. There are just more cars coming in. And the other reason, and this has been going on for probably 6 months to a year. See, here, here you see the cars making the U-turns. And only 4 cars made it through on that wide. There's about 20 cars here in line. It's a 2.5 minute cycle time. You can do the math. See, the cars are backed up here almost to the southbound 101 off ramp. So the reason, okay, the traffic has picked up, but there's also a signal problem here. This is a simulation I've run. So you see, Shoreline backs up by Kira. The light goes green at Avenita. takes time for that wave to propagate down, actually takes 90 seconds. Unfortunately, the light here at Terabella turns green, 60 seconds after the light turns green at Avenita. So these people get a green light, and Shawne is still stopped up, and that's why they can't move. And then, of course, the, in reality, things are worse because people end up blocking the intersection. And so all these U-turners can't make the U-turn, and they back up all the way over to the southbound 101 off ramp. So there was actually a solution to this. And I propose this twice to ask Mountain View. And for some reason, you know, I just don't get a satisfactory reply. They haven't done anything, obviously, because the problem still exists. And so let me just show you. What that looks like. Okay, this flight is synchronized with other lights on shoreline. So the solution is very simple. Just delay this flight 30 seconds. It doesn't affect flow at all, but what's these people get in when shoreline is moving? These shoreline moves. These get the green light, they can slot right in there. And then, you know, things can just keep moving. I mean, still move, you know, a large number of cars on Shoreline, just a lot of these people on Terabella, and these people trying to make a left turn, a chance to get in there. And Yeah, so I propose this twice, and I haven't gotten any satisfactory response, and they haven't acted on it either. I think it's a pretty simple solution. Of course, traffic will always be a problem, but at least this makes it a little bit easier for the people that live around that area or work there. Thank you.

[01:10:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Well, welcome, County Board of Education Trustee.

[01:10:17] County Board of Education Trustee Grace Ma: Hello. My name is Grace Ma, and I'm here to ask you to please take action to restrict youth access to flavored tobacco and e cigarettes. I'm on the Santa Clara County Office of Education, on the Board of Education, as our current mayor is, and also, along with the vice mayor's mother. And so we have a lot of education emphasis here, and spirit. And so, I wanted to let you know, and I passed out, um, two resolutions that were passed, one by the Board of Education by the county office of Ed, and then the other was by the Mountain View, Los Altos, um, high school district. And so those two resolutions support anti vaping. So basically, I wanted to let you know that we have a small but mighty group of parents that are going around to different areas and jurisdictions to trying to make sure that we can ban flavored tobacco. And I wanted to give you a couple of examples of some of the ones that are out there that are really marketed Schwartz kids, such as pink lemonade. Blueberry, lush ice, and there's even called one that's called OMG. And so these things are, you know, easy, cute, fun for kids to hide and use in classrooms. There have been reported cases of students even in 4th grade now who are getting access to these and using them on campus. So it's scary, and it's a big problem. And something that, um, we really want to nip in the bud as we can. Tobacco has a huge record, 50 years. We know the ramifications and the dangers. We'd like to nip this in the bud early so that we can save all of those lives and those useful, um, medical costs that will be long term. I have, with me, a young video producer, and so I'm going to cut my time short, but we'll take a look at her great video, which also shows the ramifications of vaping. Thank you.

[01:12:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, trusty.

[01:12:38] Julie: Hi, my name is Julie. I was a student in Mountain View in 2011, graduated in 2011, and now I am still in the area, coaching Los Altos, Mountain View and Palo Alto High School, so I have a big connection with the students, um, in this day and age, and my siblings are 8 to 10 years younger than me, so I can see how much of an impact this is making for the youth in just 10 years, and it's just starting. So I'd like to show you a video that I made. in efforts to kind of raise awareness and let people know how serious of an issue this is. It's not just, some people are doing it. A lot of people are doing, I hear, for my siblings and my, uh, players that I coach. Oh, yeah, you can just get this wherever, whenever, and, um, they say that one in 4 people are, are have tried it, but really, if you look at the numbers, it's a lot more than that. So I'm gonna play this video for you guys. and hopes to raise more awareness and get it more talked about. Is there a way we can get some sound?

[01:13:46] Unknown Speaker: No. Is there a volume?

[01:13:54] Public Speaker: Yeah, I'm not sure why the volume's not working. I apologize. Yeah, I apologize. The audio does not seem to be working.

[01:14:16] Public Speaker: Sure, yeah, I can talk. So, basically, as you guys may or may not have a scene, it's been on the news pretty much everywhere. Everyone is talking about it, and yet people are not taking it as seriously as we would hope. The biggest thing is that kids start using vapes because of the flavors. They're attracted to the flavors. It looks like candies. And I did an interview with the assistant principal in Los Altos, and she was explaining that, it's becoming a real problem at the school. Kids are wired for risk. And they, they're gonna try and experiment and use these dangerous, um, vaping devices. without understanding the consequences of what they're actually doing. A big part of it is they don't even know there's nicotine in these. And now you have a whole new generation of kids that are pretty much addicted to this nicotine. And as I spoke with parents against vaping from New York, and they were saying that their, their whole motto is, is no shame, no blame, because kids are being trapped into this, and they have no idea, what really is inside these products. So, it's really our job to do something about it and educate people about what really is inside them.

[01:15:35] Public Speaker: So, um, I'm a master students at the Academy of Art, and my goal was to kind of take a visual representation of this and to help spread this idea. So we did a photo shoot on how kids are attracted to this flavor on the right side, but how deadly it is on the left side. We spoke with a lot of, um, teachers from Los Altos High School and did interviews, and they're basically saying that, yeah, the bathroom is turned into the drooling room. And so that's another really big problem. If, um, Basically, at the end, it summarizes that if we don't do something about it, then we're just not really doing any good for these kids. They are not old enough to understand, and they need our help to kind of set regulations, to change it, and that this false information about e cigarettes cannot continue. So thank you.

[01:16:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to speak? No, if not, I will close oral communications and move. I onto item six. We actually have no public hearings, so item 7, new business. We start with 7.one amendment to the Calper's contract for all employees, adopt a resolution of intention, and introduce an ordinance, and we have staff presentation. Welcome.

[01:17:11] Ada Chain: Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Ada Chain from the Human Resources Division, um, and this is Subrah Human Resources Manager. Tonight's item is a resolution of intention and introduction ordinance to amend the Cowper's contract regarding the employee cost share. As you may know, our pensions are paid for through contributions made by both the employee and the employer. When payments reach per, they are credited to either the members or the employer's account. Currently, employees pay a portion of the employer contribution to cowpers, otherwise known as the cost share, and those cost share amounts are being credited to the employer account. We're recommending an amendment to the Cowper's contract for all employees to allow for cautious amounts paid for by employees to be credited to their individual Cowper's account. The amendment does not change the cost share amounts currently being paid for by current employees. And this is in compliance with government code section 20516. The city agreed with all bargain units to pursue a contract amendment with Cal Purs, and Classic Fire members currently already have a contract amendment in place from 2011. However, based on new laws pertain to Section 20516, and the addition of Pepper members in 2013, their contract will also need to be amended, along with all the other bargaining units. The contract amendment process is governed by Cal Purse, and the next step after council passes the resolution of intention, and the introduction ordinance is that staff will conduct an election for all members who are affected by the amendment. Staff will return with a recommendation to counsel to adopt the final ordinance on March 24, 2020. And just to note, the ordinance refers to the contract amendment as attachment 3, it should be referred to as an exhibit instead. That concludes my presentation.

[01:18:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Any questions from council members? No. If not, I'll open this up for public comment. Any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward. If not, we'll bring it back to council for deliberation, and I'll entertain a motion. Yes, Council member Mattachek.

[01:19:19] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I don't have any questions or discussions, so if you're ready, I'll make a motion?

[01:19:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, please.

[01:19:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I move that we adopt a resolution of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration, California public employees' retirement system, Calpers, and the city council of the city of Mountain View, for all employees to be read in title only for their reading waived, which is attachment one to the council report, and introduce an ordinance of the city council of the city of Mountain View, authorizing an amendment to the contract between the city council of the city of Mountain View, and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System, Cowper's, to be read entitled only, further reading, waived, and set a second reading for March 24, 2020, which is attachment 2 to the council report.

[01:20:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Is there a second? The motion by Counselor Matachek, Second by Council member Hicks, any other discussion on this item? If not, I'll call for the vote. Mission carries 6 0 with one absinthe. Thank you very much. We'll move on to item 7.2, genitorial services, requests for proposals. And I believe we have a staff presentation from Don Cameron, Public Works director, and Meta, purchasing and support services manager, and Diana Paisley. All right, welcome.

[01:20:56] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Oops. There we go. Just drop everything. Okay. Too many things at once. And put us into slideshow. Here we go. Thank you. Thank you. Apologies. Running up here a little too quickly. I do appreciate you making the introductions for me. I am Dawn Cameron Public Works director. We are here tonight to receive council direction for minimum requirements related to compensation and benefits to include in the janitorial services request for proposals. The city contracts for a variety of janitorial services in 42 locations throughout the city, with a wide variety of different uses involved, all total over 600,000 square feet of cleaning area for our janitorial services. The city's annual budget is $1.3 million per year to pay for these services at this time. The city's current contract with SWA was awarded in 2013. Staff is working to extend that contract to October 31st, 2020 to allow time for the RFP process we are discussing tonight. The current contract compensation benefit requirements were set by council direction in 2015. They are that the janitorial service contractor is to provide union scale wages, one week paid vacation, and other benefits in compliance with state and federal labor laws. As shown on this table, the current contract requirements actually meets or exceed union scale wages. What we want to note is that these union scale wages are effective through April 30, 2020. There is a new union agreement to be negotiated shortly between janitorial firms and the union, which will set new wages effective May 1st. The city's contracted rate rates will go up in compliance with whatever is agreed to in the new Union contract. The city's proposed RP process. The city's practice is to resolicit bids and proposals for services every 5 years, and it has been 6 years since we've gone out for a janitorial services request for proposals, so it is timely. Staff is proposing a four-year term with a one year extension option. No staff is also proposing that there would be no changes to the scope of services provided except for increased supervision for better quality control. The proposed timeline is to release the RFP in April with a new effective date of a new contract being November 1st, 2020. Staff recommends that the city continue with current contract requirements, related to compensation and benefits, namely, to follow the union scale wages, plus the city pays for a one week paid vacation as part of the contract. In doing this, we did do benchmarking with our neighboring cities, as you will see here. This is some additional and updated information from what was providing the council memo, because information continued to flow in over the last week. As you will see in terms of hourly wages in our benchmark cities, um, they range generally from $16 an hour up to $23 an hour being paid to janitorial staff, with most of them falling in the 16 to $19 an hour range. Um, it is, San Jose is a bit unique, uh, in that they have a living wage policy for all contracted services, not just janitorial, that, and our, every year they set a wage based upon their living wage policy. They have one wage, hourly wage, if there is health benefits provided, and a higher one, if there are no health benefits provided, and they require that any firms providing services to them provide a minimum of 12 paid days off, which can be a combination of vacation sick and paid holidays. None of these cities required that the firms be subject to collective bargaining agreements. San Jose is the only city to have a union representative firm, but that was not a requirement of the city of San Jose. Should the council decide that the janitorial services contractor must have employees covered under a collective bargaining agreement, the most likely agreement that this would be, would be SEIU, United Service Workers West, Northern California Maintenance Contractors Agreement, the city does not participate in negotiating any of this agreement's provisions, it is strictly between the janitorial firms, and the Union. Like the benchmark city, staff recommends city focus on compensation and benefits requirements in the RFP, rather than restricting competition to union representative firms. In doing a comparison in terms of the cost impacts to if the council were to decide they wanted to require that any proposal provide not only union scale wages, but union level benefits, this table gives a comparison of these benefits and the potential cost increases. to call out, things like vacation could be up to 3 weeks, based upon seniority, time of employment, five paid holidays, and more extensive health coverage. An overall cost analysis is to provide this full level of benefits would cost the city an additional $420,000 a year from the city's general operating fund. SCIU has proposed that the city require that any janitorial firm hired provide prevailing wage. Staff would like to clarify prevailing wage requirements. The city is subject to the state labor code prevailing wage, which is for construction related projects only. SCIU is referencing a prevailing wage in the public utilities code, and the city is not required to follow this public utilities code requirement. The prevailing wage in the public utilities code incorporates both wages and benefits, and in doing a comparison, the prevailing wage wages and benefits generally match union level wages and benefits. Thus, it would be the same cost impact to the city if the council were to choose to put in a prevailing wage requirement. The key difference is, if the council were to choose to require the public utilities code public prevailing wage requirement, is, it does not mean that the firm must be union represented. The city will include in the RP standard language that any provider must be compliant with all federal, state and local laws. However, the RFP will also call out certain state labor codes, to really call it to the attention of all proposers, namely, that they must comply with the displaced janitor Opportunity Act, which affects the retention worker retention, practices, and length of time. Should there be a change in contract to provider? One thing staff is recommending is to extend the state time of 60 days to a worker retention time of 90 days. In addition, the RFP would call out our expectations that they would be fully compliant with state labor code wage theft, and janitorial registry and sexual harassment prevention training. So, in summary, again, staff is recommending to continue with our current contract requirements about requiring union scale wages and one week vacation due to the impacts, the potential impacts of the city's general operating budget, plus to extend the worker retention period from 60 to 90 days. Should the council concur with staff's recommendation, Staff would place a placeholder of $65,000 increase in the proposed fiscal year 2021 budget to account for wage increases. Should the council choose to require that any firms proposing on the city's contract either be union represented or provide union benefits or require prevailing wage, it could cost the city, as mentioned before, about 420,000 a year, plus any increases that would occur in May for wage increases. Should this Council decide to take more, what you could call a cafeteria approach, and say, we would like to just increase wages to this amount, or add these particular benefits. Steps, preliminary analysis is, we can assume, $60,000 to $70,000 a year, additional costs for each one out, $one per hour cost increase in wages, or benefits. Next steps, after receiving counsel's direction for what to include in the RFP, will staff will complete an issue the RP by April, and we will also complete any cost analysis necessary in terms of what to place in the proposed fiscal year 2021 budget to meet the anticipated cost in janitorial services. With that, we are happy to answer any questions counsel may have.

[01:30:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any questions from council members? Okay, uh, then I will open this up to public comment. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item if you could raise your hand, please? Oh, one, two, three, four, five, six. Okay, um, I think someone wanted a little extra time. Yes. So, uh, let's see. Let's go... I'll go three minutes. And, um... Well, start off, please. Fill out a blue card before, and hand it to our city clerk before or after, and we'll start with Miss Freyle, and you wanted extra time, and you have five cards that you've handed in.

[01:31:44] Freyle: Okay. And for...

[01:31:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: As long as we have the cards, we're good.

[01:31:51] Freyle: Okay. All right. How much time here?

[01:31:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, six minutes.

[01:31:53] Freyle: Thank you. So... just open this up. I need water already. Oh, goodness. All right. So do I just hit play the way you normally would? It's like I've never done this. I've never done it. Thank you. Hi, thank you, Mayor Abi Koga, Vice Mayor Kumei, and city council. I'm excited to be here and hopeful. Um, standing here with a council that has past policies on raising the minimum wage in the past and been strong advocates for being leaders in our region on having workers' rights. Um, tonight is absolutely a night where we can start the night off strong, and, um, stand up with the community in terms of fair compensation for the janitorial workers here, requiring that they are paid prevailing wage and that, um, they be union. I want to say thank you to Dawn for an amazing report. I've been doing a lot of research the past 3 days and it's incredible to me what city staff does. and also the janitors that work here. Everyone here works really hard, and I understand that staff is overloaded with the demands of a little city that's not really a little city, but a big city. So I'm standing in solidarity with USWW workers of whom many are here. I think management might be here, so you're probably going to hear a few less worker stories. Um, but, um, they are hard-working people who are doing, um, are what make us happy when we walk in this building and see how beautiful it is and get excited about how beautiful Mountain View City, uh, council is, um, in city hall. So adopting a prevailing wage standard would just mean that they would be paid the area standard. They would be able to afford healthcare for themselves and their families, and they wouldn't have to worry about how to cover lost wages in the event of a closure due to a city holiday. So everyone's probably seen this in the staff report. But the prevailing wage is just the area standard that is officially recognized by the California Department of Industrial Relations. It's not only essential, but good for our staff and for the public. So kind of really thinking into how overloaded the staff is and, um, the staff report recommendation that more that one or 2 more managers are hired. Also, just as a psychologist speaking to some of the issues that were that might be happening is really the janitors are overloaded. Staff is overloaded. Everyone's overloaded. So this isn't really where we cut costs. Um, A contract with fair compensation, I think, is going to actually make all city staff and janitors all actually happier and therefore our city more thriving. So paying substandard wages, there is an increase to wages right now, but that's because we've been paying substandard wages so far, and it's been coming at a cost. And part of the cost is um, city staff compensate, like trying to jump in and help. Everyone is stressed and it's not a thriving workplace and that way. I'm going to let janitors share their own stories, but just to remember these are people that are standing here, and I think everyone here would say they appreciate and hope that the people who do work to keep our buildings clean are treated fairly. Anyone who thinks they should be treated fairly and compensated fairly. Could you raise your hand, have medical treatment, healthcare? That kind of stuff, basic human rights, okay. I think we have general agreement. So, we love all of our city workers, city staff, janitors. Um, I want to just speak to how much this coincides with the goals that we've set for ourselves this year in terms of protecting vulnerable populations, um, people who are living one paycheck away from, um, you know, losing rent end up displaced and there actually are externalities to that. So we end up paying these prices when we end up giving city services to people that end up on the street. which is not what we want for the people that we rely on so much. Also protecting from wage theft, the collective bargaining agreement, is really important. The wage theft coalition is all standing in solidarity with USWW. Um, sorry, I'm getting the, um, in terms of collective bargaining agreements being very powerful way to actually protect workers. And from what I understand from this company, there actually have been eroding holiday, and there are some serious issues in union, having collective bargaining power is actually incredibly important for the most vulnerable among us. And it matters in terms of mental health, another goal of ours. So there have been a lot of studies that have come out in terms of the benefits that our community has seen because of our leadership and raising the minimum wage. And it's been in the New York Times. So it's really thanks to Mountain View taking leadership and saying, just because our neighbor is doing this. doesn't mean that we should. And really, I think what we demonstrated. Um, I'm going to just go right to our legacy of leadership slide. I think what we demonstrated is that people actually stepped up around us and said, we're gonna do what's right. So if we keep kind of racing to the bottom in Silicon Valley, then we stay stuck with the staggering income inequality that we have here. And we need to break through this hypnosis, I think, of not valuing all people's work and labor and thinking it's okay for kids to not be able to, for parents not to be able to pay for their kids' healthcare and work 3 jobs at a time. Um, I'm excited to see Mountain Review be a leader in doing what is actually industry standard, what our neighbors are doing next door, and just treating the people that work here with human dignity. At the end of the day in Mountain View, we believe and stand up for human dignity. We don't save a buck on the back of workers or their children's health. Public dollars should not go to support the creation of poverty jobs in our community. Vote tonight to support the adoption of a prevailing wage standard and hire a contractor that has a collective bargaining agreement. Thank you.

[01:38:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, and thank you for being under time. Appreciate that. All right, next speaker, please. And if we can refrain from, um, any applause or other emotional outbursts. I appreciate it. Hello, welcome.

[01:38:23] Joe McDonald: Good evening, Joe McDonald again. Mountain View residents since 1960. And I support everything that Megan said, and I just want to add that we know, and staff certainly knows, that it's increasingly hard to get employees, and then to keep them. Retention is significantly compromised because of the high cost of living in Mountain View. And the congestion and pollution that's added to our air and our streets, because of long commutes, invariably ends in people deciding it's not worth it, and finding jobs where they can afford to live. We see now hiring signs all over the city. And if we don't maintain leadership with prevailing wage and contractors who have union negotiations. We will have the same problem. increasing among our janitorial staff. It's inconceivable to me that we should compromise our standards with the people who are most vulnerable, and on the bottom of the ladder of income. our employees. Thank you.

[01:40:01] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Let's speak. Welcome up.

[01:40:06] Reina Dominguez: Good evening. My name is Reina Dominguez. I'm not from Rock Street anymore. I'm from Squale Street, living in Mountain View for about 20 years. For 10 years, my husband been working, has, I'm trying to do my best on English. For 10 years, my husband worked at Hayward. And then he barely see my kids, because we have to live very early in the morning, and my, once we leave, my kids and I, my, my husband is sleeping. And then when we back to home, my husband is gone to his work. He has to live about between 4 or 2 because he starts to work at 6. So he barely see my kids. Only, uh, his, his, his, um, weekends. Oh, yeah. And then finally he found a work, a job over here, we asked WA, and everything was, okay, it wasn't, it was not a good salary, but, but it was good because, at least he can see my, my kids, picked them up on school, go to, go to doctors, appointments, go to the games, or practice games. So he helped me. I live a little bit more. But we pass, uh, We have a bad experience about, we were a big team from, for the 2nd time from the apartment, Iraq Street. So we have this struggle. And then now we live in, uh, over Skuala, we're still in Mountain View, but it's a little bit more higher. And then now we notice about the celery. So we not, we barely can afford for our rent and our expenses. But, um, So, um, So I like to ask you, um, whenever you make any contrast with this kind of companies, can you please, um, calculate or income that we can pay or rent and expenses, because now it's not only the rent that I have to pay. Also, I have to pay water and garbage. And then I thought for when this is only for homes. I never pay water and garbage and then other apartments. Uh, living in mountain view. So, um, My kids are very worry. They're always thinking about like, oh my god, I hope we hope that happens again because it was our 2nd evictions that we had. So please can you consider to bring companies that can pay to these workers, uh, health insurance. Pay vacations. Holidays, because when they don't, when they don't, when the city hall is not open, my husband don't come to work and they don't pay those days. And then we cannot go to the landlords to say, hey, please. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:43:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome up.

[01:43:26] Jeffrey Buchanan: Mayor Apakoga, members of the council. My name is Jeffrey Buchanan, the policy director at working partnerships USA, speaking on behalf of working partnerships in our Silicon Valley Rising Coalition. I like to thank you all for your thoughtful engagement on this very important issue. Certainly, Mountain View has continue to be a real leader when it comes to the issues of working people, whether it's increasing the minimum wage to really a regional standard and continued thoughtful approach around issues of wage theft. Uh, would really like to thank the staff also for all the work that's gone into uh, bringing these recommendations forward. Um, When we think about responsible contracting. It's really one of the most important ways. You as a council, uh, other local governments, even so our major employers really can impact issues of wage stagnation, uh, income inequality, uh, the lack of of real bargaining power for workers in this time. And so bringing forward this RFP today. is a very important step. We appreciate the staff's recommendation around trying to align the RFP with some of the recent changes in law here at the state and certainly at the federal level. But believe that this council can and should do more. Uh, particularly, uh, would like to encourage the council to, uh, vote on approving uh, recommendations alternative number one and alternative number three. Uh, particularly when it comes to alternative number one, a collective bargaining agreement, not only is about wages and benefits, uh, but really ensuring work or voice, ensuring that if a worker experiences wage staff, experience this harassment on the job, experiences, uh, health and safety violations, uh, that collective bargaining agreement gives workers a voice to be able to talk with management, and to be able to deal with grievances in a way that other standards may may not necessarily allow workers to have that agency. when it comes to recommendation number three. We believe that the prevailing wage recommendation that it shouldn't be in either war, the collective bargaining agreement, or the standard of prevailing wage. As Megan had stated, You know, area standard wages, this is a state standard, but it's really about dignity, ensuring that we have the wages, the benefits, the time off, that all these things is a package, that that ensures a dignified working condition that, you know, where you've heard other stories, and you will hear even more stories about folks dealing with the rising cost of living. But when it comes to having full family health insurance, uh, the difference between uh, having that prevailing wage and collective bargaining agreement where you can have full family health insurance and not having it, which is really the difference when you're talking about aside from the wage differences, but it's the biggest difference when you're talking about union and non-union contractors in the janitorial space, it's literally life and death for these families. Uh, so many hard pressures and living here in this valley. Uh, having health insurance that you depend on should not be one of those. Certainly, as a county, we've been a leader on that. I think ensuring that this kind of responsible contracting standard is here in Mountain View is another way we can do that. Thank you so much.

[01:46:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next week or welcome up.

[01:46:37] Brenda Rodriguez: Good evening, mayor and city council members. My name is Brenda Rodriguez, and I'm the organizing director for the South Bay Labor Council, which represents over 100 unions and uh, 100,000 union members in their family in Saraclana and San Benito Counties. So I'm here today to speak in support of janitorial workers and members of SCIU, United Service Workers West, to adopt alternative one and alternative three. Alternative one, as you all know, it's a requirement for employees to be covered by a collective bargaining agreement. And alternative number 3 as the inclusion of compensation requirements. We encourage the council to adopt the state recognized prevailing wage determination. As a compensation requirement, as a labor council, we firmly believe workers should be able to afford to live where they work. This is no different from Mountain View, home of tech companies such as Google, but also the home of SWA workers, like Daniela Juan, Araceli, Crispina, which some of you have heard their stories. No one should be forced to make the tough decision of having to choose between paying rent and buying medication for their children. We firmly believe our economy is as strong as our lowest paid workers, and in order to have a better mountain view, workers need a prevailing wages, for compensation, and a collective bargaining agreement. We urge you to consider alternative one and 3 and to adopt the state recognized prevailing wage. as a compensation requirement. Thank you.

[01:48:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome back.

[01:48:05] Sally Leaper: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Sally Leaper from Mountain View. And I guess as I looked at this item tonight, it really strikes me that it's just about giving people a fighting chance to exist. Because the wages that are being proposed are still uh, less than the, um, uh, a sustainable wage, a living wage that would allow people to be free of social services. And so I want to echo the other speakers that have talked about requiring a collective bargaining agreement. I think that's very important, having unionized benefits. And, um, I think to my mind, whatever we can do to not create the jobs that will require a lot of uh, financial patches later on and will give people the dignity of earning enough to simply live is very, very important. And I heard the comment that the state doesn't do prevailing wage determinations for these kinds of jobs. And I don't want to quote Bernie Sanders directly. But I actually wrote the legislation that provides for the Department of Industrial Relations to do non-construction determinations up to 3 times per year. So that was the law that we use to get higher wages for the sanitation workers in Sunnyvale. And so that's out there as a possibility for us. And I think that we really need to aim a little bit higher. Um, and I noticed that, uh, the wage to be free of of social services for uh, 2 adults to have one child. They would need to each be earning 1924 per hour. And if there's just one adult with one child, 3592 per hour. And as an average mountain viewer, I think that people have the supposition that if folks are working in city hall, that they're doing a little bit better and not having to live in a car or an RV. And so I'd ask for mercy on people that are cleaning the toilets. Thank you.

[01:50:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Welcome up.

[01:50:24] Public Speaker: Hi, thanks, uh, for being here. Um, so have I read that chart correctly, uh, the one with, like, the wages, first, I guess I just wanted to say I'm kind of embarrassed that Palo Alto has a higher, uh, upper limit than we do, just, uh, yeah, that actually made me really sad. Um, but, uh, you know, other speakers uh, put it really, really uh, well together. I think I just have to add a few things. You know, I have the benefit of being at city council meetings a lot. Some of them stretch into very early hours of the morning. And I also happen to speak Spanish. So I happen to strike up plenty of conversations with several of the people who are here at night, cleaning things up. And I am very involved in a lot of housing stuff. So I typically ask people like, hey, where do you live? Um, I've had a majority of people tell me Mountain View. And also I ask, you know, what's it like working here? Do you have, like, another job and everyone I've asked, uh, has a 2nd job. Uh, one person uh, lives in an apartment that taught speaker rents out, uh, not gamma way, but one of the many here, uh, and she doesn't get to, uh, you know, spend time with her children, uh, very much because she's working 2 jobs. So I think that's, you know, a little bit unfortunate. Um, you know, I think that how Megan essentially put it, uh, was I could not have even thought of putting it better. I don't think that public dollars should be going towards kind of propping up a poverty, you know, like, I don't know, city, regime, system, I don't know, whatever you want to call it. I think that as a city of Mountain View, we should value, you know, people's well-being, uh, people's uh, dignity, humanity, higher than the market values their wages. So I definitely ask you guys to really kind of, uh, consider and hopefully vote affirmatively on, um, you know, giving the people who service this beautiful city hall, make it really fun for us to sit here for hours, um, you know, give them a fair shake. So thanks.

[01:52:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[01:52:49] Philip Cosby: Good evening. My name's Philip Cosby, from the capital. So, you know, I'm saying Athanasius. I'm here tonight to ask the council to try to make sure that the workers under the new contract will have full medical benefits. It costs a worker, an extra $400 a month out of there, rather meager paycheck, just to cover his wife and two kids. You know, this was a non trivial thing. And I realized the city would like to say money, but that's not the way to do it. So I encourage providing full medical benefits in the new contract. Thank you.

[01:53:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[01:53:35] Vincent Burks: Hi, my name is Vincent Burks, and, first of all, I'd like to thank Amir and the council for what they do. I just want to speak a little bit here, letting it be known that I'm a security officer, and we were under our first union contract. And it has given us a voice, and it has given us a job security. And for these janitors to have that, that feeling will give them a sense of hope, um, as well as, um, their first union contract having benefits, just having the benefits would be nice, because we're realizing it, too. And also the job security, and it gives them that ease and that peace of mind. So, again, this is something that we're asking that you consider. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

[01:54:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Welcome up.

[01:54:31] Sylvia Flores: Hi, my name is Sylvia Flores, for some, uh, um, first thing, I want to thank all of you guys for all the job that you guys are doing, and, you know, taking the time to listen to not only our members, but, um, our janitors or the wives of our janitors. Um, I am a senior organizer with SCIU, USWW, and a former member of the local as well. We represent over 45,000 workers in low wages service industry throughout California. I myself, um, like I stated, as, was a member of SCIU and used to work for a security officer at the Musconi Center in San Francisco. And as an officer in San Francisco, I know that firsthand, how important it is for our city governments to take action to ensure all workers have access to good union jobs. I am here to urge the city of Mountain View to be a leader on how it treats the most vulnerable members of this community. The janitors who claim the city buildings are simply asking to have the same rights and benefits that other generers already in the county already have. Currently, the city of Mountain View pace far below the industry standards. This allows responsible contractors like SWA service groups to thrive. As a result, this competition brings down standards for all workers in the area. We are at a crisis point where some of our members work full-time jobs but have to live out of their cars. To fix this, we strongly encourage the city to adopt a prevailing wage requirement. This would provide the ability for workers to afford family healthcare benefits, as well as other basics. The industry standard does not make it worker rich. It simply provides basic stability for our workers. In 2013, the city required that janitors working at the city be covered by a collective bargain agreement. This requirement was removed in 2015. SCIU USWW strongly recommends this requirement to be included in the janitorial service RFP. A majority of janitor janitors cleaning the city, have chosen USWW as a union. Last year, workers attempted to discuss this with the company leadership, but SWA refused to even talk to the workers and walked out of the room. Janitors at the city of Manoview view, deserve the work for a to serve to work for a company that respects them and their union rights. We urge the city to take bold action to show that Mountain View is a city for all of us. Thank you very much.

[01:56:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Like speaker, please.

[01:56:57] Joan Vardowski: I'm Joan Vardowski, I live in Mountain View. And when I read the agenda for tonight. I came, really, for the mobile home topic. But when I saw that you were even considering lowballing, people who were working City Hall, I couldn't really believe it, I thought, This isn't true. And now I'm listening to people, and it is true. And I say, shame on you for even thinking of doing that. Thank you.

[01:57:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, next speaker. Are there any other speakers? Last call. If...

[01:57:36] Public Speaker: This is for...

[01:57:39] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, are you coming up to speak, or no? Okay. No, this is for the janitorial contract. Any other speakers for this item? If not, I will close public comment and bring it back to council for deliberation and emotion, Council member Ramirez.

[01:57:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And my apologies for running in and out of the room. I'm fighting a cold, and I'm losing. I did want to thank staff for the presentation and the opportunity to provide input on the RFP. Um, I do come to a different conclusion. And want to share that I find many of the arguments made by members of the public very compelling. The externalized cost issue, if we aren't providing a living wage, then we often will see that cost borne out in other ways through social services. You know, the dignity of work and fair compensation, the I think the fact that this city and the council, has been a leader on worker protections and labor oriented issues. And I see this as a continuation of that. But I think the most compelling argument to me is that janitorial services are essential services. There's no circumstances, I can envision where the city would not provide janitorial services, either as a contracted out or in house. And so, because of that, I feel we should treat the staff providing janitorial services the same way we treat our own in-house staff. And so I will be supporting the alternatives that members of the public had been supporting and I had reached out to the city attorney earlier to help prepare some language for that. So, I don't know if we can share that with the council.

[01:59:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, and if you would, maybe for counsel's benefit, share the language, was it related to a prevailing wage?

[01:59:45] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, yeah. So, um, I'll go ahead and, uh, so, and we, uh, I've actually worked with, uh, Dawn to uh, prepare a slide if that is uh, the type of motion or type of language that council's interested in. I would want to defer to Meta Mayor to see if you wanted to hear more comments from your comments first.

[02:00:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, I would like to take comments first, although no one is in cue right now. Is there anyone okay, counselor Clark?

[02:00:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, um, I just want to state, we're at the RFP stage here, so we should, I think, in any RFP that the city does, we should seek to obtain as much information as we possibly can, to make the right decision for, um, our workers and our residents. And so, I would like to ensure that whatever RFP standards we set, they aren't so stringent as to basically fix the result. So, I won't be supporting anything that has language that effectively limits this to one or two providers, I think we may very well get because that would actually impact the rates that they might offer us. So, um, I think it's in the city's interest, I think, in workers' interests, in, um, in taxpayers' interests, just to ensure that we get the broadest set of data back from the RFP. And if we want to go in the direction of being more generous, then and looking at packages that offer greater benefits and perhaps higher wages than we have in the past, then I'm more than open to that. But I, just from a process and good governance perspective, don't feel it's in our interest to severely limit the folks who can respond to the RFP. And to that end, I would be happy to talk about floors, maybe providing, maybe ensuring that more vacation or paid holidays are offered, I think, one week vacation is just not sufficient in my mind without paid holidays. Those are the sorts of things that I'm interested in providing floors for, but I think limiting it to solely, those who can provide a collective bargaining agreement, effectively, even if we end up going that route ultimately, really, defeats the whole purpose of the RFP to begin with. So.

[02:02:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Council member Hicks.

[02:02:25] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I'd like to hear the proposed motion before making a final decision, but I see supporting alternatives the public has spoken up for as consistent with our goals and work plan, and will probably be supporting that motion, although, of course, I'd like to hear it first.

[02:02:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members wishing to speak before I chime in? Uh, vice mayor?

[02:02:53] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Sorry, we are having technical difficulties. I can't press any of my buttons or get my screen to work, so I couldn't ask to speak until now. Um, so, when I would have been looking at the RFP, um, you know, I feel like the staff report laid things out, which was, in 2013, the expectations were said that the, um, the vendor was going to allow employees to to unionize and become a union. Um, and that did not happen. And in 2015, Council May, that council decided to choose a different option. And for me tonight, what I've been thinking about is kind of the principle of the matter, and how important it is, that if the city says they are going to do something and expect something from a vendor, that it's important that we do that. And so, I'm interested in some of the alternatives that council member Ramirez mentioned, I think it's really important to, um, keep that promise, and janitors are city employees, just like other city employees, and we should be working to, um, to have that be a priority. So, um, I think the, the one thing I've been trying to think about related to the cost associated is if there might be some flexibility in terms of should we face a recession in the future? Um, would we be able to to re-look at that contract or be able to work with, um, our janitors and treat them like employees and, um, as we have with employees in the past to to work out how we can maybe do the cost share, right? And so in part of our city council, questions that went to staff, you know, we can renegotiate our contract terms at any time for any reason. And for me, that's why I feel comfortable going forward with the different alternatives. So that's where I am and I'll hear where the mayor is and then hopefully can make a motion. Thank you.

[02:05:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, I just wanted to add my comments. Um, I was actually on this council in 2013 when we voted to originally uh, required a signing it to the master agreement. Um, I remembered the, I remembered the meeting, but I didn't remember the discussion, so I went back and looked at the tape and actually it was a, um, 5101 person absent vote. The other members of the council who were with me at the time who are still on the dais with me. Um, voted to support that as well. So it was actually an overwhelming vote to support the requirement. I was surprised, actually. I just assumed that that went on, but 3 of us had left council in 2014. And so I was surprised to see that in 2015, our decision was overturned. And that's what brings us here today. Um, I feel strongly. I felt strongly back then. If you look at the tape, you'll see that our response when we saw what the wages were, they were like $8.50 back then, and this was before the minimum wage raises, but, you know, we were all very, um, surprised at how low the wages were. I'm pleased to see that they have risen. You know, raising the minimum wage was one of my big efforts that I've championed over the years. I just feel very strongly that, um, if folks should be able to, um, earn a wage that, where that they can live on in, in this area. And as we talk about affordability and that'll be another topic later on this evening, I feel strongly that, you know, one way to approach that is by ensuring that we provide a livable wage. So, um, I will stick to my original vote from 2013. Um, I will say that I did express um, concern. Um, you know, I live through the recession and um, back then, I remembered that we had actually had to ask our vendors for a 10%, or 20% decrease in our contracts. Um, that would be my uh, request is that if we could include some kind of clause that should the economy take a downturn, we would have the ability to relook that. Seems like we can do that anyway, we can renegotiate or terminate if we have to, the contract, if there is such a situation, and just want to confirm that. And if so, I will move. I will look forward to the alternative motion, but yes.

[02:07:39] Unknown Speaker: Yes, as staff responded the question, the city can always reopen and renegotiate a contract, and request that the provider, reduce the cost of services, and the provider decides not to. The city's only recourse, then is to terminate the contract. Although language could be put in the RP and eventual contract, that the city may wish to, um, preserve the opportunity to negotiate, should there be a recession or something, um, it is very unlikely. You know, it would just be saying that this may happen. It's very unlikely any provider entering into that contract would agree in advance that they would. And if they are part of a collective bargaining agreement, um, The janitorial firm themselves would not be able to say, yes, I'm willing to reduce the cost of services without going and renegotiating a bargaining uni agreement. So it'd be a back and forth. So, it can complicate things. And as we wrote in our responses, What did happen before was there was a union representative firm, um, they actually did respond to the city's request to cut, and they did it twice in a row, and they actually took it out of their profits, and, quoting the documentation they gave us, They ended up going negative, and that's why they canceled the contract. their contract with the city. So that those are the lines that we walk, and we like to main trust with our providers. So we want to be careful, we don't set up something where we say, we are going to come to you and reduce ashy to reduce.

[02:09:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, well, then I'm fine with, um, as is, and, um, you know, I just feel that we, as the city, um, allow our employees to have collective bargaining, and we do try to pay good wages and benefits, and, uh, especially health care. Um, you know, I, given my history, I think healthcare is, um, a necessity for everyone. So I would like to be able to provide that to, um, even our our contracted employees. So, with that, actually, we have a council member, Medachek, now in Q. Let me take. Oh, I'm sorry, yesterday attorney, did you have a?

[02:10:00] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, I'm sorry to interrupt. I was just gonna offer if Ms. Cameron wanted to put it the proposed language on a screen just to get people familiar with it. And it, you know, it's not locked in. It's just for discussion purposes.

[02:10:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Um, so this is Counselor Ramirez's... proposed language, is that right? So, you...

[02:10:22] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yes, it was the concept suggested by Council member Ramirez, which we tried to work with public works to put into an accurate motion. But again, just for discussion, and...

[02:10:34] Cameron: And if I may, just explain that should the council want to do both, that the firm must have employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement, as well as require the prevailing wage. Right now, they are the same. The DIR determination prevailing wage is the same as what the city is currently paying, $16.50 an hour. And that's the union collective bargain agreement, but there can be changes in the future. It does also list minimum benefit requirements or contributions towards benefits for the employers. And at some point, you could see a difference between what is in the public utilities commission, DIR standard for prevailing wage is different than what's in the collective bargaining agreement, which is why the 2nd bullet is there, because there could be a conflict between the 2 that the higher wage rates and our benefits will be paid, should the collective bargaining agreements, wages and benefits, and the prevailing wage and benefits differ. As I said, right now, they're pretty much the same, but you don't know what could happen in the future, and that's also up to council discretion, if that's how you want a conflict. worked out.

[02:11:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. And thank you for your patience, Counselor, Amanda, check. You had a follow up question on council member Clark's comment.

[02:11:59] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Um, and I was wondering, do we have any idea, um, how many folks might submit, uh, responses to the RFP, if this was a requirement versus if this wasn't?

[02:12:16] Cameron: At this time, what we do know is that there are approximately 23 firms that are signatories to the current union master agreement, but we don't know how many of these firms actually operate in Santa Clara County are in the Bay Area, because this covers all of Northern California. So we would have, we don't know. There is a list of them. We also know that any firm out there that has multiple clients that is not currently covered in union agreement is unlikely to propose, because if they were to do so, and for to win Mountain View's contract, agree to collect a bargain agreement that would then filter through to all their employees, and they have to go back to all of their clients and renegotiate contracts with all their clients. So, um, it really would be firms that are already, uh, signatories or, or can easily become a signatory.

[02:13:17] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thanks.

[02:13:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. And before I go to you, Counselor Ramirez, I'd like to read into the record, Council member McAllister's comments, I am in favor of staff, report, recommendations. It's okay for the city to give guidelines, because we ultimately will be paying for it, but the city should not be involved in third party discussions. Council can still achieve fair working benefits, but do it in a financially prudent way. So with that, Councilman Ramirez.

[02:13:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So I just want to move the language that staff has prepared on the screen. Do you need me to read it out loud or?

[02:14:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: No, you can just refer to the staff alternate recommendation.

[02:14:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: the staff alternative recommendation.

[02:14:07] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Oh, I'll second.

[02:14:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, so we have a motion from Council member Ramirez, and second by Vice Mayer, and we have Council member Clark.

[02:14:18] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I, um, I would support, um, as the mayor said, I was on council in 2013, too, and I, maybe I mis remembering the meeting, but I think the point at which I voted to go with the collective bargaining firm was after the RFP had been done, and it was a much broader RFP, I believe, I could be mis remembering that, but I think we had a broad RFP that got us the most information that we could get, and then we ultimately decided to go with the firm that had a collective bargaining agreement, but in any case, and I may very well do that again this time, I think, at this stage, what I'm most interested in would be, like, an alternative, too, which simply states that we're setting minimum requirements, the RFP can include anyone who can meet, who can meet the compensation benefits comparable to these collective bargaining units, and will, you know, make our decision about how generous and generous, the details about how generous we want to be at the time that we have all those responses. I think that encourages the greatest amount of information, and best serves all of our interests. So if the motion is to basically be requirement or alternative one, where you're setting a minimum requirement, that it has to be a questionably bargained agreement, then I don't think we're doing ourselves a disservice. That's my piece.

[02:16:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, yes, Steph.

[02:16:02] Cameron: So, we... we can... if that's council's direction, and that's how, uh, you would like us to proceed. That is something that can be added to the RFB. Option one, option two, and we could, at some point, in the future, bring back to counsel what the, um, proposals we receive. What?

[02:16:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, as of now, the motion on the screen is what we will be voting on. Um, I would add, uh, or I just wanted to respond that, um, I think you may be right, uh, council member Clark on, uh, what we voted on in 2013. Um, but, uh, what I believe what had happened was that we did take bids, and, um, we chose a contractor, um, and gave them a year, uh, they were not a signatory, and we gave them a year to become a signatory. And if my understanding is, or if I, after that, I was, I left, but it sounds like they never became a signatory, or they did, they were going to, or there was a cost difference, and that was brought back to council. And so my, my, um, at that point, you know, given that experience, I would prefer to just go out with this in the requirement in the FRFP so that we don't have to go through that back and forth again and just, you know, make it clear that that is an expectation for our city. So that's just my comments and count if you want to respond.

[02:17:29] Councilmember Chris Clark: That's great. No, I don't want to respond. I do have a question for the motion maker, though. So, I think what was covered in alternative one, and what I would probably be more comfortable with, ultimately, is, um, covered by a collective bargaining agreement, or will become a, or is, or will become a signatory. I think what you're saying is they have to already be a signatory. So that, even if they, even if they're willing to join their, they're excluded.

[02:17:55] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, if there's a way to avoid the scenario that the mayor was just describing, if they're not currently right now, um, you know, I wouldn't mind if they were, if we had the assurance that they were going to become one. But I'm not clever enough to finesse that language from the dais. Um, so if staff has a recommendation to allow for that nuance, I'm okay with that, but, um, if there really isn't a good way of doing that from the dais, then I'll stick with the language that you've already crafted.

[02:18:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm gonna go to it. Go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. Council member, Matachek, and...

[02:18:36] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I would feel comfortable with the suggestion from Council member Clark, but, um, to avoid the situation that happened last time, um, it wouldn't be they'd become a signatory within a year. It would be, they have to be by the time, like, the contract is executed. Um, so, yeah, I think that would, um, I'd feel more comfortable with that than saying, just, they have to become one within a year or whatever it was.

[02:19:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I'm going to take that as a friendly request for a friendly amendment. Um, and then, so, Counselor Ramirez, are you... Is that an easy enough modification to make?

[02:19:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, I think, uh, Ms. Cameron's already, uh, beating me to the punch here. I think we would add the phrase prior to the effective date of the contract right after a collective bargaining agreement, and then that would be an absolute requirement before the contract was signed. So...

[02:19:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I want to give everybody a chance to review that language.

[02:19:41] Unknown Speaker: Can I ask staff a question about that, just in your experience? In sort of what you talked about earlier, if we're requiring this minimum level of pay and benefits that we just talked about, It sounds like you wouldn't expect, um, many, or, or maybe, no firms to respond, who, either weren't already signatories, or would be prepared to become a signatory, you just wouldn't get a lot of extra bids, it sounds like, in this particular scenario, from non collective bargain.

[02:20:17] Cameron: Most likely not. The situation, when SWA won the contract in 2013, is the city was their first major contract, and that put him in a position to say, okay, even SWA now has four other major city contracts, so it's an example firm that would not rebid, if it had to be a collective bargaining, because it would affect all their other contracts.

[02:20:44] Unknown Speaker: So you wouldn't, you were, basically, in this case, saying you don't necessarily have to be a signatory, isn't going to increase the number of responses, and therefore the competition.

[02:20:57] Cameron: Unless you have a situation that... Again, it's a firm that is in a situation where they would find it could work well. Again, the prevailing wage rate is virtually, right now, it's pretty much identical to the wages and benefits of the current collective bargaining agreement. If counsel just required that, you would get both union and non represent union representative firms bidding, 'cause they would all have the same basis, and then they would bid. However, if it is council's priority and desire, that the workers be covered under a collective bargaining agreement, it makes the most sense to just go ahead and put that in the RFP and avoid any confusion for company bidding if they're not prepared to sign on to a union agreement.

[02:21:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, uh, Councilman Ramirez, are you, um, comfortable with the amendment to your emotion, and is that...?

[02:22:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: What the prior to effective date of contract? Yeah, I'm not fine with that.

[02:22:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: In second year?

[02:22:08] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, an area? Yes.

[02:22:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, any other discussion on the motion on the screen? If not, I will call the question. Vice mayor, due to the technical difficulties, would you like me to record your vote?

[02:22:25] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Okay. And thank you. Yes, please.

[02:22:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And so, the motion carries... Oh, uh, 6 0 with one absinthe. Thank you very much. Would you like a recess, or should we continue? Is that? Power through? All right, we'll power through. We'll go on to our item H, our study session number two, 8.1 block. 8.1 mobile home rent stabilization. And we have a presentation. Let's see. Ah. Oh, is it Anki? Unke von Gersen? Okay.

[02:23:49] Unknown Speaker: I hate this shit.

[02:24:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, while we're waiting, um, I wanted to make an announcement that, uh, we do have translation services in Spanish, and I probably should ask maybe the vice mayor to say it in Spanish. Um, and if you do need uh, translation services, we have, um, Miss Garcia, um, here raising her hand. And if you could go to her, she would be happy to assist you. And with that, we will start, and we'll start with our staff presentation.

[02:25:11] Project Planner Anki Van Dersen: Good evening, honorable mayor and city council members. I first would like to introduce the speakers of today. It's Tim Wong, the housing and community development manager.

[02:25:21] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Could you speak up, please?

[02:25:22] Project Planner Anki Van Dersen: Uh... Yes, thank you. And we also have Widows Karen Tiedeman, who's our special counsel from Goldfarb and Lippmann, who's providing legal counsel for this topic, and my name is Anki Van Dersen, project planner at the Housing Department. The purpose of tonight's study is session is to provide city council with an overview of potential rent stabilization measures for mobile homes in Mountain View. and to receive input and direction from city council, as was expressed by city council in its November 12th meeting, when adopting amendments to the community stabilization and Fair Rent Act. This is a beginning conversation on this topic in a series of meetings, including stakeholder outreach meetings, and further discussions in city council, while acknowledging and recognizing that the current mobile home parks provide much needed affordable housing in the city of Mountain View. A mobile home rent stabilization ordinance applies to mobile home residents who own a mobile home and rent the site in a mobile home park on which the home is placed. A rent stabilization ordinance would regulate the amount of rent increase for the mobile home space, and at the same time providing park owners with a just and reasonable return. A little bit of background. In November 2016, voters approved the CSFRA, the community stabilization and Fair Rent Act, which went into effect on December 23, 2016. It regulates rents for multifamily rental units, built prior to 1995, and provides termination protections for these multifamily rental units built before December 23rd, 2016. In 2018, the rental housing committee adopted a resolution, finding that the CSF ray does not apply to mobile homes. A lawsuit followed, and the rental housing committee decision was upheld in court, and the court's decision is currently in appeal. In 2019, the city council adopted fiscal year in 2019,21 major goals and work plan items, including Project 2.5, including the examination and potentially developing a rent stabilization ordinance for mobile homes. In November of 2019, the city council adopted amendments to the CSFRA to be placed on the ballot on March the 3rd, and that included an express exclusion of mobile homes from the CSFRA. And separately, the city council decided to explore a separate rent stabilization ordinance for mobile homes. Before delving into policy options for a local measure, we would like to give a short overview of relevant aspects of the mobile home residency law and the unique aspects of living in a mobile home. In response to specific situation of these mobile home residents, California has adopted statewide laws, providing special protection and covers, it covers rental agreements for space, park, rules, and regulations, and transfers of mobile homes. The mobile home law does not regulate rent stabilization, but the following aspects of the MRL need to be taken into account when contemplating local rent stabilization, and we'll go over these in a little bit more detail. It provides certain exemption. Um, it does not provide vacancy, uh, control or decontrol. It does provide just cause provisions. There are noticing periods and fee pass through regulations. Exemptions. There are permanent exemption and temporary exemptions in the MRL, permanent exemptions are for any space that was originally rented after January one, 1990. Um, That means that any space that became available for the 1st time on the market after that date needs to be excluded from rent stabilization. There are also some temporary exemptions. Any mobile home owner with a lease of longer than 12 months, and any mobile home that is not used as an owner's primary residence. As an example, it's used as a vacation home. Vacancy control, decontrol. Costa Harkins prohibits local jurisdictions from regulating rents upon vacancy. This law does not apply to mobile home parks, meaning that local government can restrict space rent upon vacancy. In attachment, one to the memo, you will find an overview of local jurisdictions, showing which ones do or do not impose some type of vacancy control in mobile home parks. The MRL limits the causes for termination of mobile home residents and preempts any local regulation of just cause. The allowed just causes are some are 7, and they are some to appear in this light. Failure to comply with ordinances or laws, substantial annoyance to other residents in the park, conviction of certain crimes, failure to comply with reasonable rules and regulations, nonpayment of rent, of course, a condemnation of a park and a change of use of park. The mobile home residency law also requires a 90 day notice for any rent increase. And there is also a requirement in the MRL that allows pass through of fees and charges, separate from rent. This requirement does not apply to an annual fee to administer a rent stabilization program, so local jurisdictions can decide to allow a pass through a fee to administer such rent stabilization program. Mobile home park, owners, unlike tenants and auto rental units, are in a unique position of having made a substantial investment in a residence, which is located on a rental parcel of land, either through the acquisition of a mobile home, from a prior only, already located in a park, or through the purchase of a new mobile home, which is then assembled on site. There is a lack of mobility with regards to the mobile home itself, caused by several factors. First, it's costly to move a mobile home. Second, park owners could limit older mobile homes from being placed on vacant lots in the park, but also metropolitan areas have nearly no vacant spaces for rent. And to top that off, park construction virtually ceased by the early 80s, as alternative land use became more profitable. So due to the lack of mobility, park owners have disparate power over mobile home residents to charge high space rent increases, and as space rent increases, the mobile homes will depreciate in value, while the land value increases, and that of, of course, works vice versa. If space rent decreases, the mobile home appreciates. There is a rule of them that for every 10 month, then the $10 per month rent increase, it devalues $1,000 in the mobile home equity. Next, we would like to give an overview of automobile home rent stabilization jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. There are 96 parks in Santa Clara County and 9 cities with a total of 17,155 spaces. No new parks have been developed in the last decades due to higher density and residential use of the land. There are 23 specific senior parks with a total of 3,295 spaces, and Mountain View contains six parks with 1,130 spaces, of which about 312 plus our senior spaces. The increase of land value created a twofold pressure on mobile home parks. One is the pressure increased route to redevelop parks to other uses. Originally developed in low density are the industrial areas, and now surrounded by higher density and residential uses, um, created, uh, some protection policies. Mountain View adopted a special, general plan, land use designation and zoning for mobile home parks, and we adopted that in 2012 together with a general plan. In addition, mountain view also has protections in place, through a mobile home park conversion ordinance, to mitigate the impacts, of a park closure. Although a park owner made a site to go out of business, the underlying mobile home zoning designation would remain. If a future owner wants to use the land for another purpose, a general plan and zoning amendment would be necessary. This is a process whereby city council needs to review the proposed changes. In addition, to discontinue the use through either a park closure or conversion of the park, the owner must comply with the city's mobile home park conversion ordinance. This allows city council to adopt measures to mitigate the impact of a park closure, including the ability to require relocation assistance. A question has risen whether a majority ownership of the mobile Home Units in a mobile home park by the park owner would impact the closure or conversion of the park. Regardless of the percentage, ownership, a park owner must comply with the city's mobile home park conversion ordinance to close the park. In order to convert a park to another use, the general land use map and zoning map amendments would be necessary. The second pressure point is created through the increased value of land whereby rent prices increased. Impacts of rent increases are considerable, especially for mobile home residents that live on a fixed income. A policy option here would to establish a rent stabilization ordinance. This table provides an overview of protective ordinances for mobile homes in Santa Clara County jurisdictions. Mountain View and Sunnyvale have adopted special designation and zoning for mobile home parks, San Jose's exploring a special designation and zoning for mobile home parks. This study session is held to explore rent stabilization ordinance for mobile homes in mountain view. The MRL does not provide for rent stabilization regulations, but leaves it up to local jurisdictions, with some limitations as discussed earlier. Jurisdictions do not cover mobile homes itself. They are either rented by a resident from a private owner or the park owner. There are permanent and temporary exemption as defined in the MRL, and most jurisdictions include a form of vacancy control, variing from an allowed limited increase of a specific amount or of a percentage. Or no rent increase allowed at all. Ordinances mostly include rent increase and rent decrease petition processes, and regulate how an administration is organized. A more detailed overview of rent stabilized jurisdictions in the Bay Area and key policy components is available in Attachment One, but this gives a short overview of the major cities in Santa Clara County that have mobile home rent control. Moving to rent stabilization in Mountain View. Rent stabilization mechanisms are consistent with the council's goals to encourage a variety of housing types, prices, and densities, and preserve existing housing stocks. and assisting in providing housing for low income households. Anecdotal information indicates rent increases in the range of 3.6 to 12% annually, and increases at the time of a mobile home in place transfer ranging from 20 to 50%. Unfortunately, I was not able to retrieve data from the mobile home parks to kind of fill out this table. But I will keep on my efforts. Rent stabilization in Mountain View preserves unreasonable increases in space rents, preserves just an equitable return for park owners, preserves equity in mobile homes for mobile homeowners, and preserves affordable housing in Mountain View. If it is the desire of city council to synchronize the mobile home ordinance, with the CSFA as much as feasible. It is recommended to wait until the March ballot to determine the then currency is a free regulations, such as the AGA and a capital improvement passed through process. The following contains a discussion of potential policy options. Where feasible, the items include policy options, including options mirroring the CSFRA, streamlining for administrative purposes, and or reflect alignment with best practices, policies in California, and local jurisdictions. A Bayshier is used as a benchmark for the income expense ratio in the operation of a park, in case park owners would like to file a petition for upward adjustment of rent to guarantee a fair return. A fair return process compares earnings made before rent stabilization is adopted, with earnings made while rent stabilization measures are in place. It is recommended to set 2019 as the year to use for the base year. The base rent date is also used as a benchmark, but this one for tennis rent. It can be the basis for calculating annual rent increases, and it's also usually set during the base year. It can also be used to roll back rents if rent increases occurred after the base rent date. It's recommended to set the base rent date on September one, 2019. This mirrors the stardate in the CSF rate on which annual general rent increases can be implemented. Similarly, it is recommended to align the AGA percentage with the CSFRA. Currently, the CSFA is 100% CPI, with a minimum amount of 2% and a max amount of 5%, and a CSFA amendment ballot initiative slated for March, if passed would change the AGA to a 4% flat rate. Vacancy, control and decontrol policies and mobile home parks are different than decontrol policies and regular multifamily rental units. The MRL does not regulate vacancy decontrol, and local ordinances have to balance competing interests of park owners and residents. For an overview of uh, control policies in other cities, uh, please see attachment one. Some jurisdictions do not regulate rents, which is then decontrolled, and other jurisdictions have a variety of places, uh, to control the rent upon uh, repurchase. It could be increased to the AGA. to a set amount of money or a certain percentage. Most jurisdictions provide for a basis petition process structure. Some jurisdictions added specific capital improvement related procedures, and here, again, the recommendation is to align with the CSFRA. Again, just cause, we have to abide by the MRL, because that preempts any local regulation of just cause, and is recommended to provide copy of termination notices to the city in order to be able to track termination data, similarly to data tracking of CSFRA termination notices. As expressed by the city council in its meeting on November the 12th, 2019, regulations could include authorizing the rental housing committee with the administration of the ordinance, including the setting of an annual fee, implementing a registry, and determining disclosure and noticing policies, and establishing remedies and enforcement. Again, we recommend to align this with the CSFRA. This brings us to the questions of tonight. And does the council agree with the recommendations for policies to be included in ordnance, including aligning with disease of ray where feasible, regarding the regulation of rents, notification, notices, and administration, and is the council in favor of implementing vacancy control or decontrol of rent upon sale transfer of an in-place mobile home. Research and preparation for the regulation language will cost approximately $125,000, and based on the fiscal year, 1920 CSFA budget, it's estimated that an administrative program will run between $180 and $200,000 per year. It is recommended to base the program on a full cost recovery through the charge of annual fees, similar to the cease FRA. Next step, we are planning stakeholder meetings in February, both for the residents and the mobile home park owners, and then bring it back to the city council in early quarter two of 2020. This concludes the presentation, and we're here for questions.

[02:46:15] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Since this is a study session, we will take public comment first. So, can I get a show of hands, please, as to how many folks would like to speak on this topic? All right, um, and I know that we get additions as we go along. So, in light of that, I will set the time to one. 5 minutes. And if you could, um, fill out a blue card and give it to our city clerk before or after your comments, I would appreciate it and let's start with the 1st, um,

[02:46:52] Mark Landgraff: Yep, good evening. Vice mayor, council members, Mark Landgraff, resident of Santiago Villa, mobile home park in Mountain View. I work for an open space special district, providing what I believe to be an important public service. My income is limited mostly to annual cost of living increase, which has amounted to 2 to 3% on an annual basis. If rents rise much beyond that, I could be looking for another place to live. I suspect many of my neighbors are in more dire situations than I am. But I do want to make a bigger point here, because I know many people would be speaking on very similar topics. And I urge you to consider young people, as they are making decisions for their career path, 20 years ago, when I was considering what I would do with the rest of my life at that time, I was currently in a high tech job, making a high salary, and decided to do something in public service, because I wanted to benefit people. And I urge you to consider what young people might need to have in their lives to have affordable housing options, so that they can do the right thing with their lives and consider a path forward based on conscience rather than on cash required. Thank you very much.

[02:48:10] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you. Next speaker, and if you'd like to speak, if you could start lining up on the side here, that would help us to move things along.

[02:48:21] Hansen: Hello? The Hansen from Mountain View, Mobile Home Alliance. Uh, residents, uh, and people who have signs, can you please show? I had 50 signs, and I think that, um, there are many more people here. I just wanted to make sure that you know that we are an involved group here, and very active. So, um, I wanted to just concentrate on this one slide, because I was trying to determine what revenue is coming in, just for Santiago Villa and Sahara because of the rentals. And, uh, I was unable to do that, Pat, but I do know that there are at least 90 rentals in Santiago Villa. I don't think that Anki is going to be able to get this information, uh, information requests sent to park, no data received because that is a strategy. for the owner of these 2 parks, uh, DNza properties, uh, to uh, exaggerate expenses and, um, disguise revenue. Uh, and resist giving data to anybody who asks, uh, we have, we know that we have many more senior spaces than 312 because San Diego Villa and Sahara, uh, are actually half the population of all 6 parks, um, I think it's 564 or something like that, and we have 1130 spaces. So these are, uh, this is really significant data that can't be found. Uh, and it's specifically because of that strategy.

[02:49:59] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[02:50:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker. welcome up.

[02:50:04] Trey Borman: Yeah, I'm Trey Borman, the president of the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance, and ask, are there five people that will see their time to me to speak a little longer? Can you raise your hand? All right, can I have a little? So we actually are, we're trying to do this efficiently for you?

[02:50:17] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Actually, our policy is that you need to arrange that beforehand, so I can only give you the 90 seconds and I'll restart the class.

[02:50:26] Trey Borman: Why is it?

[02:50:27] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Our policy is that you request make that request beforehand.

[02:50:32] Trey Borman: Before what, the meeting?

[02:50:33] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes. Before this item, and that you hand in the blue cards of speakers. It's too late. So I will give you your 90s one. 5 . 5 .

[02:50:44] Trey Borman: didn't say anything about that.

[02:50:47] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: That's all we need in our policy. That's our policy since last year.

[02:50:52] Trey Borman: So let's be clear, next time, when do we do this?

[02:50:57] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Well, it's been our policy, so and it's it's in our...

[02:51:02] Trey Borman: the policy?

[02:51:03] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Yes, it is. We put this in place last year. So I will give you the minute and a half . Please do not speak out of turn. I will give you your, this is our policy. We have implemented this. It's been over a year since we've been we've been following this policy. So, well, you should know that because it is printed.

[02:51:27] Trey Borman: All right, so next time before the meeting, we have 5 people come up to you or when do they do this?

[02:51:32] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You can do it beforehand.

[02:51:34] Trey Borman: Before what, though, doing it before I speak.

[02:51:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: an agenda item. You can just go to the city clerk and ask for that.

[02:51:40] Trey Borman: Well, we didn't know how much time you were going to lot us until just like 2 minutes ago. That's it's all in...

[02:51:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It's all what? our policy. It's at the discretion of.

[02:51:49] Trey Borman: Can you confer with the city attorney? This is correct?

[02:51:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It's printed on the agenda, sir. It says, if requested in advance of the public input portion of the agenda item to the mayor or city court, a speaker who represents 5 or more members of the public in attendance, who completes cards, but elects not, and those people who like not to speak, may have up to 10 minutes to address the council, if the mayor determines that such an extension will reduce the total number of speakers.

[02:52:11] Trey Borman: So we should have locked up during the presentation, then done that?

[02:52:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: You could do it. Is that what you're saying? Before the agenda item starts.

[02:52:18] Trey Borman: So if the city attorney... We couldn't even get in the room. It was so crowded.

[02:52:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If you want to speak from it in half, I'm going to start the time.

[02:52:26] Trey Borman: All right, as long as it's noted that you're muting our voice again.

[02:52:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, um, I guess start the clock.

[02:52:33] Trey Borman: City officials, we're glad that you're finally recognizing the unique interests and concerns of the city's mobile home park residents. We've done in our own polling. 85% of the residents are seniors, veterans or disabled. It's time to recognize that mobile home parks are an essential part of the affordable housing. You've been talking about preserving in mountain view for a long time now. Many of you campaigned on it. This is now your opportunity to step up. Um, Not all parks provided data. You have to ask yourself why this is when somebody's requesting data and it's not provided. Usually there's a reason behind that. Um, Some of the points to make is that as we are making, um, an effort to align this with the CFSRA, one thing that is very different is the base year, which is 4 years later, on the ballot measure mobile homes were mentioned and specifically called out. So homeowners and park owners would have known to raise rents while in advance. So I think that should be taken under consideration. Um, Just once again, you're kicking the can. There's a march ballot. There's already another ballot measure in November. How many times are you going to use that as an excuse to do something? We need vacancy decontrol. Vacancy control? I mean, rent stabilization, vacancy control, the right of 1st refusal, tenet opportunity to purchase, parity for park owners, homeowners, renters, regarding subleasing of units. Thank you for my very short time.

[02:54:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker, please. And please are fame any outbursts.

[02:54:12] Public Speaker: I'd like to. Let's try to cut this in half. I want to agree with the goals of the council on page 5 and 6 of your study memo. But as we were part of the people that pushed measure V, which passed and had a base year of 2015 for the rollback. And since you are now expecting the RHC to administrate this ordinance, I ask out of a desire of survival. Why can't we also use the established base year of the CSFRA of October 19th, 2015, instead of this 2019. Part of the, we're going to be made part of the sea of the FRA without calling it part of it. Also, I have a question about measure D, which will be voted on this March. Measure D will make series of change to the CS of FRA. And I want to know, will that kill our ordinance if we make an ordinance? Is this ordinance to appeal, appease the mobile homeowners temporarily into hopes that if measure D passes, and we then could be made exempt of any rent control? Because measure D does say it would clarify that mobile homes are exempt. I want to say that you also should look at these mobile homes, as affordable homes that are part of your rental stock, and, as such, should be protected by the city. Realizing that these homes help many of the seniors who worked in your community and still be able to live in the city of Mountain View. Thank you.

[02:55:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker, please. Simply as refrain from clapping, I'm gonna ask you kindly, please do not have any outburst of emotion. We want to listen to everyone respectfully and quietly. Thank you. Next speaker, welcome up.

[02:56:06] Andrew Horn: Yeah, my name's Andrew Horn. I've been a resident of Santiago Villa for about three years. Um, and since I've been there, I've met a historical population of working class people and seniors that I don't think could be rehoused anywhere in the region. Um, and our lease agreements don't provide us with a great deal of protection, and I think that a lot of those people have a great, basically, all of their equity tied up in their mobile home, which, as you saw in the presentation, is tied to their space rent. And so they could really lose a great deal of their worldly wealth, pretty much instantly due to rent increase. So, um, it's really on behalf of those people that I would like to ask the council to consider the, um, stabilization, um, along the lines requested by the Mobile Home Alliance. Um, thank you.

[02:57:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. That's all. Thank you. Thanks, speaker, please. Welcome up.

[02:57:07] Kristen Anderson: Hello. Thanks for listening to everybody. My name is Kristen Anderson. And I live in the Santiago Villa mobile home park. I've been a resident here in Mountain View over 11 years, and I enjoy it very much. One of the things that, well, actually, there's 3 things that I want to bring to your attention since the owners of Santiago Villa are not forthcoming. And this probably isn't accurate, but I know when speaking to my neighbor's on both sides that rent from Santiago Villa, that their rents were 3500 for just, you know, for average is what the Santiago Villa gets. Another last year, another person I talked to when they 1st moved in, um, I think it was last year, their space rents were $2000 just for the space rent, you know, not in addition to their home. So that really concerns me, you know, I want to make sure that they can't just keep on raising that up. And then my 3rd issue is with the ability, since the mobile home owner, park owner, can rent out their new homes that they pull in, but they won't allow us to rent a room, rent a couch, or, you know, do anything like that, sub, sub running. We can't do RBB. We can't do any of that. I specifically have been told not to, or else they would evict me. Thank you.

[02:58:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Nick speaker, welcome up.

[02:58:49] Donna Ray McGee: Good evening, mayor and console. My name is Donna Ray McGee, and I am a resident at Sahara mobile village. Excuse me. I have been a Mountain View resident since 1991, and I believe it's a hair since 2007. I've been very active in the community and in our parish community and I love Mountain View a lot. I'm also a retired United States Navy reservist with 22 years of service and also a federal employee. So I know how important it is that we have rent control for renters that rent a mobile home at a mobile home park. So, I'm representing myself, plus I believe, a lot of the seniors and the renters that rent a mobile home. So please take into consideration rent control for renters who rent a mobile home. And I want to thank you for your time.

[02:59:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks, speaker, welcome up. Please.

[02:59:59] Tim Larson: Hi, my name is Tim Larson. I'm a resident of Mountain View and live in Santiago Villa. One additional point, brought up by previous speaker, but the right of mobile homeowners to sublet, when she was attorney general, Kamala Harris, wrote a notice that it was her opinion that any park must abide by the rules that it requires its tenants to abide by. And right now, that is not the situation in Mountain View, as shown by the data that Anke had. that's another point you guys might consider when you're looking at ordinances here. Thank you.

[03:00:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker.

[03:00:42] Simon Huang: Hello, thank you, Mayor. Could pull the mic up, dude. Hi, um, my name is Simon Huang. Uh, I'm a president in, uh, the Sahar mobile home. My mother and I has been living there for roughly five years, and we bought that home with my mom's horror money whenever when she immigrated to America, roughly, I believe, 15 years ago. She's been pushing cards in some places for many years to accumulate as much money for the investment of a mobile home, that roughly. With inflation that costs her more than $100,000 a dollar. plus many taxes. And, um, seeing, and for years, she's been paying increase of rent many, many, many years. And now, right now, if this rent control does not, does not implement it to mobile homes, we'll be living barely paycheck to paycheck. And right now, and right now, I can see myself doing that as well if she retired based on fixed income. Um, and also, they're also, we're neighbored by a couple nurses, um, who came home and because I live next to them for many years, they, uh, they've been doing night shift near the El Camino Real hospital and they come on really late and one of them recently engaged last year and they didn't leave because of the shift. He barely came home and had enough time for a honeymoon. And once he's not here today, but I want to speak for him today, right now. Thank you.

[03:02:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Who's next? You can fill that out afterwards, if you like, if you want to come on up and...

[03:02:35] Marcelo Kiros: Oh, everyone, my name is Marcelo Kiros, and both my fiancé and I live in More Park mobile home park. We purchased our home back in the summer of 2018 with the help of our families and much diligent saving. We both were born and raised in the Bay Area. I'm a biology teacher at a high school in South San Jose. Um, and my fiance is a nurse and a care provider. Our intention for a home is not to turn a profit, but to have a safe and stable place to live for the years to come. We believe that the community we live in includes the mobile home park owners as well as the residents, and I believe we all have a interest in maintaining financial sustainability. Um, I do not believe that the park makes decisions that are in the interest of, um, our sustainability. Most folks like me lived on fixed income and the increase in rent poses a threat to my financial sustainability. Um, I've come to terms that I live in an area that is immensely popular, competitive and expensive, and perhaps one day I might be priced out. Unfortunately, that's a really scary thought considering the fact that I purchased a home and I don't want to lose equity in my home. Ideally, if I get priced out, I would like to just break even and move on with my life. Um, so I hope that you guys make a decision that is in everyone's breast interest. Thank you.

[03:03:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. The speaker will come up.

[03:04:03] Ed Saab: Hello. My name is Ed Saab. I'm a resident of Mountain View in Moore Park. Thank you all for being here tonight, and thank you for reading the information you read, the memo, the 12 page memo. That was very useful, I thought, very informative, so I appreciate whoever was responsible for putting that together. I've lived in More Parks since I've lived in Mountain Hood for 23 years. And when I came here, I was in school, and I heard the first gentleman speak about thinking of young people. I lived there because I could afford it, and I stayed there because I like it. It's a nice place to live. And this year, my rent went up nearly five times the rate of inflation. It might go up again five times rate of inflation next month, six months from now, next year, there's no control over that. And about seven years from now, I plan to retire, but if that goes up, 15%, or five times the rate of inflation for the next five to seven years, I'm not going to retire in Mountain View, and I'd like to stay in Mountain View. There's a lot of people. I'm here with everybody here to ask for your help. We think you're having this meeting tonight to help us, and we appreciate that. And so thank you.

[03:05:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome up. Can you pull the mic down? There you go.

[03:05:13] Mary Chang: Thank you. Hi, my name is Mary. Hajja Chang, I live in Santa... Santa... Goa Villa. I am here today to tell you how much I love living in Santa... Santa... villa. One thing is, there's a lot of kids. And in my opinion, my neighbors are very nice. It's a good environment for anyone to live in. Thank you.

[03:05:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, next speaker. Want to top that? I think it's the dad.

[03:05:57] Christopher Chain: Um, honorable mayor, city council. I'm Christopher Chain. Mary's dad. I live at Sancho Gavilla. Um, I want to hear a Sherlo, my neighbor. Sorry about cheer up hearing my daughter. My neighbor's a carpenter. His wife is a preschool teacher. My other neighbor is an electrician. Next door is retired, E, A, a rideshare driver. These are the people you work so many hours to protect. I know you guys do so much and care about them. So I thank you for having the study session and the work that you put in to keep us here. And you hear a lot of emotion here because I think there's a lot of trauma and the fear that they put there's a lot of work into the equity of their home. And when the rent goes up, they know that if they can't afford to pay, at least in Santa Cavilla, then they feel forced to sell to the park at a loss. So there's a lot of fear in this room. So when you hear people angry. They're not really angry at you. really thankful for what you're doing. What you're hearing is fear, and that's coming directed at you, but I understand that you're working here to help us. Thank you.

[03:07:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome. Please.

[03:07:10] Jesse Cardinas: All right. Uh, my name is Jesse Cardinas. I've been living in Mountain View for about 7 to 8 years now, I think, coming up. Um, I currently live at Moore Park, uh, mobile home park. Me and my wife, we purchased our mobile home back about a little bit over a year ago. Uh, we did it primarily, um, because of the fear of increasing rents in, uh, at our apartment that we were living at before. Um, So we purchased a home really just for a place for our daughters to be able to go out and enjoy and just be able to call a home of their own. But, and I had her kind of argue with my wife a little bit and convince her that, hey, we're buying a home, we're going to be stable. It's okay. don't have to worry about somebody jacking up our rents. Uh, yeah, I was really naive at the time and uh, uh, she now knows truth, uh, and I don't want that to ever happen to me. You hear a lot from seniors here in the area, but really, I'm, I guess, what you would consider young. My daughter is 11. My youngest daughter is 5 years old, and I want them to keep containing growing up in Mountain View. We bought the best schools in the area. I want them to continue with that. education. Uh, and me as a father. I got to make sure I provide that for them. So please take into consideration. Uh, not only the seniors of the park, but the young families, the uh, the people with families, the people with kids, uh, because we want to stay here and we're citizens of this, uh, this city as well, so thank you.

[03:08:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Thanks, speaker, welcome.

[03:08:41] Leanne Malloy: Hello, my name is Leanne Malloy. I've lived in Mountain View for about 20 years, and I've lived in the Moor Park mobile home for about 10. One of the reasons I moved in there was, again, a serp cost certainty, as Mr. Cardine has mentioned. Um, one point I'd like to make that, um, I have not heard made yet, is although you, the CSFSA was passed, and you protect the rent of apartment residents, with buying a mobile home, we have shown a greater commitment to the city and community than transient renters. We also pay additional taxes on our homes that go to the city, that differentiate from the apartment owners themselves. So please take that into consideration when you're considering this ordinance. Thanks.

[03:09:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome up.

[03:09:40] John Ball: Oh, my name is John Ball, and thank all of you for having this meeting, and I specially want to thank Ellen, because she was the only one of the committee that responded to my email in regards to tonight. This issue, as others have brought up, have been in the council for four years, going on five. Now, if you want to talk about rolling back, rents, let's roll them back to 2015. Right now, we had double digit inflation in our rents. And this is, this is uncalled for. These these people at the same time. are taking away things from us. We don't have a laundering room anymore. We don't have heat. In our meeting hall. These are things that we all need to get together and shake these landlords to where they'll pay attention. Otherwise, Well, we know what's happened so far. Thank you.

[03:11:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker, welcome. Who's next? Is everyone spoken? Oh. You're welcome to come up, yes.

[03:11:22] Anna Marie Morales: Hi. My name is Anna Marie Morales. I have been a resident of Mountain View for 40 years now. My family first came over in 1912 from Spain on a boat. They lived in Hawaii for five years, picked some sugarcane. Went to San Francisco. A couple years later, they moved to Mountain View, where we've been ever since. After my dad passed in 2012 at the age of 86, my mother and I moved to a mobile home park, Sahara mobile. Ever since then, we've endured insane rent increases at the maximum rate. Part of what I'd really like to see is protections for, you know, this is our home. Mountain View is our home. My mom is elderly. She's disabled. She doesn't want to leave Mountain View, but with these ever increasing rent rents per month, almost impossible to, you know, make a living and try to stay here. As mobile home rental renters, my elderly and disabled mother and I bay council to take action, and past measurings to protect mobile home renters, and mobile home owners alike. Mobile home renters deserve to be protected tomb, too. A home is where your heart is. It can look like a traditional home, a condo, a mobile home, or even an RV. So I beg of counsel to please take that into consideration when coming up with measures and taking action soon. Thank you so much. Have a good day.

[03:12:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: you. Next speaker. Who's next?

[03:13:03] Sarah Gayorg: This way, Dad. Hi. Uh, good evening. My name is Sarah Gayorg. I live in Sahara Park, mobile home village. We moved in there about 7 years ago, I believe, when rents were significantly lower. thinking that it was a great option. I moved my parents out here from the greater Chicago land area, thinking, heck, you guys don't get snow here, it's going to be great. In fact, my dad is sitting here in the audience. Um, my mother couldn't make it this evening. Again, thinking that that was a good choice. My mother-in-law moved from Colorado. Again, we're gonna reference the snow. Um, she couldn't make it this evening. My sister-in-law, who's also in the audience. They live down from us, and then a good family friend of ours bought the house across the street from us. It's a great place. I don't want to have to turn to my family and my friends and tell them I asked them to do something that was a mistake. We're going to have a kid. I want to have my family there. Like this young lady Mary said, they get to play. I hear kids playing in the street all the time. It's great. I love kids, okay? Please don't tell me that I have to move, that I can't have my village there to help me raise my family. Rent control. We're renters. We have rental agreements, we have lease terms, I pay rent every month. There's an eviction process and procedure. To tell me that I pass all 3 of those tests and somehow I'm not a renter, defies logic. So please include us as exactly what we are, which is renters. Thank you very much.

[03:14:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, please. I want to make sure the front of the line is at the front. Nope, you're good? Okay.

[03:14:46] Charlene Garza: Hi. My name is Charlene Garza, and I'm a commissioner for the Santa Cruz County Mobile Home Commission. I'm also general manager of a management company that operates two mobile home communities in the city of Mountain View. I submitted a letter, which I don't think I'll have enough time to read the whole thing. on behalf of more park owners who wish they could be here today. One of the challenges they've faced is replacing infrastructure from the 1960s. This year, they passed a $75 rent increase. This was the first time they'd increased rent since 2018. They've been increasing every other year. Um, with those challenges, um, we acknowledge that it is a hardship for some residents and did implement a rent deferment program, of which 28 residents, took advantage, and, um, so they are, their rent is reduced for the first year. Um, it's the ownership of more parks wish to come up with an alternative to rent control. to work with residents in the community. Thank you.

[03:15:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Are we ready to go?

[03:16:08] Frank Kelsick: Good evening, Honorable Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council members. My name is Frank Kelsick, and I'm the managing partner for Sunset Estates, mobile home park here in Mountain View. Our family built the park in 1969. And we've operated continuously since then, oh, for over 50 years. Our business philosophy at Sunset States is simple. Maintain the community, treat people with respect, communicate, and provide value to our customers. We sometimes have our missteps, but overall believe that our community is one of the best examples of quality mobile home living in the state. Obviously, we have great concerns about the possibility of rink control being imposed on mobile homes, spaces in mountain view. Rent control places, the budgetary decision making in the hands of a bureaucracy, that is not able to respond to the specific needs of a community or its infrastructure. Much has been made tonight about the price of a mobile home upon sale. Well, a simple phrase of X dollar increase equals a Y dollar decrease is easy to say, but it's a gross oversimplification of the dynamics to go into the sale of a home. Many other, arguably greater variables affect the home's price upon sale. Location, home age, lot size, home maintenance, community appeal, and on and on. Most importantly, it's not accurate. The mobile homes in Mountain View sell for more than they were purchased for. Thank you.

[03:17:42] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, please.

[03:17:50] Doug Johnson: Madam Mayor, and council members, my name is Doug Johnson, and I'm with the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association, WMA. We represent, it's WMA is a nonprofit trade association representing the owners and operators of mobile home communities throughout the state of California. Having been found in 1945, WMA is one of the oldest, largest and most respected trade associations of its kind in the United States. WMA and its members are opposed to rank control, but we realize that housing affordability, availability, and security are important issues that must be addressed. All 6 mobile home parks located in Mountain View. Our longtime members of our association. Collectively, we want to partner with the city and its mobile home community residents to help build trust, dispel rumors and open lines of communication. So that working together, we can find an alternative approach to rank control that is fair and that protects the Mountain View mobile homeowner, park owner, and taxpayer alike. I have been with W.A. for almost 25 years, and in that time, I have helped to create many viable, long-lasting rent control alternatives in jurisdictions throughout California. I'd like to bring to your attention tonight, too, mobile home park accords one in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, and one in the city of San Dimas. They are agreements that provides stability and predictability for residents. And I would urge the council to put together a mobile home ad hoc committee so that we can sit down around a table at City Hall and find a solution that works for everybody in Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:19:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We actually have a question here.

[03:19:23] Unknown Speaker: Yep, a question for you. So you just mentioned those 2 alternatives. What specifically are they?

[03:19:29] Doug Johnson: They're basically negotiating long term leases, where everybody, all the stakeholders get together with, hopefully, a council member chairing the Mittee, the meeting, where we sit down, and we hammer out the agreements of a long term lease, or an MOU, or an accord as they have done, in San Dimas and Rancho Cucamonga. In Rancho Cucamonga, that agreement has been in place for almost 30 years, San Dimas has been in place for a couple of decades and is in the process of being renewed for another 10 years. So there are alternatives to rank control that work. And I hope the city council will get direction to move that.

[03:20:03] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. I'm sorry, we don't take questions from the audience, so only the folks who are coming up get to speak, so... thank you.

[03:20:22] Public Speaker: So, um, thank you to staff and the city council for taking up this issue. I just want to point out, one, what I'll call an unintended potential consequence of what's being proposed, and the current staff report eliminates the needs of renters. The two largest parks in Mountain View are rapidly approaching over 50% renters. So, in a situation where you go in and put protections for owners of their home. The onus then falls on the renter. I mean, if the landlord needs to repair the roads, and they can only increase rent so much on an owner, it's going to fall back on a renter. I've lived in this area for over 30 years. I've rented from my current landlord in mobile home parks for close to 20 years. I'm a renter, though, and my rent's gone up 400%. Since the early 2000s and my income has not gone up 400%. I would love to stay here. All I ask you to do is consider the needs of renters, when you're also looking at this ordinance, because as you drive down my street, it's an owner, it's a renter, it's an owner, it's a renter. If you stand in front of my house, to the right as a renter, behind me as an owner, to the left as a renter, to the left of them as an owner, to the left of them as a renter, across the street as an owner. I think you got my point. Thank you.

[03:21:58] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you so much. Thank you. Thanks, speaker.

[03:22:06] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel, former council member, as you may recall, back in 2016, I was the only member of the council at that point who supported measure v. the CSFRA. Uh, the people who wrote measure V were wise enough to choose October 15th, 2015 as a base date as a way of catching those landlords, including mobile home park owners, who might want to raise the rent to beat the clock. Well, we know at least in August of 2016, when the council was discussing putting measure V on the ballot, I expressed the opinion, uh, not being a lawyer, but expressed the opinion that measure V would indeed cover mobile home spaces because the language did not exclude them. When the rental housing committee, uh, majority of whom were basically appointed because they were against measure V, uh, ignored the advice of their legal counsel and decided to exclude mobile home spaces for measure V. Um, they, um, they went ahead and did that, and thus wiped out that date, but in fact, we know even back then, the possibility of space control was being looked at. So when you look at September 1st, 2019, that's not early enough, as you go back to August of 2016, when we 1st started talking about it, and hopefully measure D won't pass because that will wipe out, the court case that mobile homeowners are taking against the RAC for excluding them against the advice of counsel.

[03:23:41] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker, please. Please, please refrain from... Applause.

[03:23:51] Craig O'Coo: Uh, council. My name is Craig O'Coo, one of the owners, and I'm representing the family of Moffatt mobile home. And how we came about that park was, we're flower growers since 1902 in Mountain View. Grandfather had purchased these properties and helped the Buddhist Church purchase their property. to trade dirt. Travel Lodge came to us, wanted to put in a mobile home park, and so we leased it for 49 years. Um, Cranston had taken it over, ran it down, we took it back, managed it, brought it back up, uh, put over 100 million and a half. Since 2008. Two sides of my grandma and my grand aunt had died. 50% ownership had transferred. We were under Prop 13. Our property taxes, went up 500,000, and our rents are low, so we're just on the borderline of just keeping this park open. And I think this, this, we get hit with any kind of rollback or rent control, it's just, it's really gonna throw things off. Thank you.

[03:25:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, next speaker. Welcome up. Show yourself in there. Could you speak into the mic?

[03:25:17] Public Speaker: I'm older. And I voted for properly all of you. So I want you to hear us.

[03:25:24] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Could you speak into the mic, pull the mic?

[03:25:26] Public Speaker: Sorry, too. There you go. I'm bolder, and I probably voted for most of you, and I want you to hear us. because we are in bad shape. What is happening is owner, buying homes, renting them real high, and because they are renting, He can one day say, well, I have to do revelation or something. So you're out. With us owners, if he puts our rents up, we have no place to go. I'm 82 and I'm not ready to go nursing home. I shop, I cook, I visit my friends. I used to go to church. But what I'm saying. The whole thing is, we need the rent control. My question, what happened? How come we're not include in the rent country? How come? Do you have answer?

[03:26:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We can't answer right now, but we'll probably answer later.

[03:26:32] Public Speaker: So, wait, see, start. I hope you can do something. We need that rent control. And the people who rent, they need two. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. But remember...

[03:26:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Next speaker, please.

[03:26:51] Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor and Council. Sally Lieber, I live in Mountain View. And I would just say ditto to everything that was just said. And I know so many people who were either voting for measure V or voting against measure V based on the supposition that mobile homes would be a part of V. And it only made logical sense because it's a rental situation. And people who own their home in the parks have even more of a financial stake in things than people who live in a sticks and bricks environment. After all, they're only renting a parking spot. They're not renting the internal systems of a building. And so I'm very hopeful that you can keep faith with what I think is the vast majority of voters who really believe that measure V covered the parks. And, uh, align these, uh, add the clarify whatever needs to be done and adopt out of fairness the same start date for it. And I have to say that over the years, uh, since mobile home rent control was last before this dioce in 2001, we've seen a real loss of diversity in mountain view. And we've lost some of our best, most important community members. And the people in the mobile home parks are rock solid. They are a part of the city and we can never lose them. Thank you.

[03:28:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker, welcome up.

[03:28:30] Public Speaker: Hi, yeah, so I'm here to be in solidarity with my fellow renters in mobile home spaces. Um, you know, I appreciate the, uh, mobile home operators coming out here and kind of sharing their thoughts as well. Um, you know, I've never rented under them, but even if I were to, you know, just give them the benefit of the doubt and, you know, go with the fact, or assume that they really upstanding, wonderful, uh, you know, operators, um, you know, sometimes really old people who own these things die or some 3rd party corporation comes in and says, you know, I'm going to give you a lot of money. people take it. And those people aren't necessarily guaranteed to be so, you know, upstanding. So the reason why we need these public protections is because in times of hardship like this, we look to our elected officials to, you know, do the right thing for us and protect us. Um, and really, I think, you know, just my own personal opinion, I think an easier solution than going through all of this might be just to a point, uh, people to the RHC who really actually believe in rent control and want to make the program work. You know, a lot of this could have been avoided. Uh, you know, if Tom Means, who literally moved to a place called El Dorado Hills after he torpedoed this, uh, you know, uh, population here. Uh, you know, I think that if we were to just toss this back to the RHC. have them roll it back to 2015 and have them internalize the costs, we'd all be better off. So thanks.

[03:30:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Welcome up. Poo.

[03:30:10] Public Speaker: All right, city council, I'd like to say thank you for having this open discussion for everyone. Um, I've lived in Mountain View all my life. My dad brought us here and he worked for the city for many years, retired. Um, so did my mom. Um, my mom is retired. She lives in Moor Park, mobile home park, and she basically owns a home. Um, I myself am also a Navy veteran. Um, so I did my time, um, for this country, for the people of this country and for seniors. You know, I implore you, I ask you to think with your conscience, to do what's right, to help at least the seniors, because they've worked all their lives, to contribute to the to the city, to the state, pay their taxes, be honest, pay obey the rules. You know, so that's all I ask. Thank you very much.

[03:31:13] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker.

[03:31:19] Joan Brodovsky: Hello, I'm Joan Brodovsky. I'm a resident of a mobile home park, Sunset Estates. Frank Kelsey was just here to tell you his side. He's the owner of our park. But none of my colleagues at Sunset Estates have been here because we have such a terrific owner. We don't need it, but every other park does need rent control, and we all thought we were voting for Measure V and voting for ourselves. This is what people campaigned on, what everybody in the mobile home communities thought, and I think it should still be, that we fall under, what used to be measure V, and which is now the rent stabilization measure. Thank you very much.

[03:32:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other speakers wishing to comment? All right.

[03:32:19] John Waters: Hi. I'm John Waters. I live at Santiago Villa. I don't really have a lot to say. I think the whole story's been told. That's what was amazing research on Anki's part, and I appreciate that. Um, I guess the thing I wanted to say is that there's been a lot of talk about how, how we are in a unique position as mobile home owners. And it's true, we have some unique concerns and problems. Um, But at the end of the day, the economic formula is exactly the same. We are renters. Don't get confused, don't get bogged down in the details. We are renters, if you believe in rent stabilization. Then you believe that the CSFRA applies to us. As did the attorneys for the rental housing committee. Um, That's really it. Thank you.

[03:33:10] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Last call, any other speakers? Come on up.

[03:33:22] Public Speaker: I mean, I cannot speak at this. But you guys, you guys have heard plenty from me. I think I saw the questions first, staff. I'm excited to hear the discussion. I hope something happens. Thanks.

[03:33:36] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. All right, anyone else? Last call. Oh, one more?

[03:33:44] Adam Mayor: I think I'm the last one. Good name, everybody. Thank you for being here, and I'm Adam Mayor. Uh, city council members. I'm just here to tell you that I'm very proud resident of Mountain View. My family has always, we've always lived here. All 3 of my grown children. Were born in Mountain View. Uh, but I want to speak in behalf of one particular uh, daughter of mine. She is, of course, out of the state, in medical school, and I have told her maybe it's time for us to sell them of a home, sweetie. And she's like, no, mom, do not sell that home. That is my home. Mountain view is where I was born, and that's where I want to die. Please do something for us. We are homeowners, we are renters. We are people that love mountain view. I have been an avid kid for everybody who loves Mountain View. So today I'm here to advocate for me, for my family, for my children, specifically for all 3 of my kids that were born in Mountain View. Thank you.

[03:34:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. All right, anyone else? All right. If not, I will close public comment. Thank you for all of your comments, and bring it back to counsel for deliberation, and we have 2 questions, although they might be a little, there might be many parts to them. 2 questions to answer. So um, who would like to start? Actually, we only allow you to speak once. So, since you've already spoken, we have to close public comment. We have certain policies, though. We wanna make sure everybody gets a chance. All right, Counselor Ramirez.

[03:35:31] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. And sorry for keeping hitting first. I just, I want to provide some quick comments before I go blow my nose, but, um, so 1st a quick question for staff, um, just to, I think you may have touched this already, but the intention is to, is to provide an opportunity for stakeholder input into, um, whatever ordinance uh, is crafted based on the direction tonight, right? So I'm sorry. Is that better? Um, so just to, we ask the question. So, staff is planning to do stakeholder outreach with both the mobile home owners and then the park owners as well prior to returning to council with a fleshed out ordinance. And that's going to happen in February.

[03:36:21] City Staff: Yes, we try to organize that in around half February.

[03:36:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, great. Thank you. So, just higher direction tonight. Stakeholder outreach, an opportunity for both the residents and the park owners to provide some greater, or some input on the detail when it comes back to us. So, with that in mind, just very high level direction, for question one, I generally agree with the staff recommendations. I do have a preference for, um, CPI over just adhering rigidly to whatever the CSF array dictates, you know, depending on, um, uh, what happens with measure D. But I think I feel like we could probably make that decision later on, we don't need to have a fixed determination tonight. But I do think, you know, these are all appropriate. I did have a question about the rental housing committee. And again, I think that will probably depend on what happens with measure D, but right now, the status quo, I think, doesn't necessarily allow for the council to require that the rental housing committee become the governing body for the mobile home park regulation. So it would probably be an ask, I guess. And so if measure D does not pass, then if the rental housing committee continues to not want to regulate to be the regulatory entity for mobile home parks, then the responsibility would fall in the council. Is that a fair assessment?

[03:38:00] City Staff: Yeah, um, that's correct. If you want, we can post that in front of the next meeting in the rental housing committee as well.

[03:38:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Uh, I mean, other members of the council would agree with that. I think that would be a helpful question to ask, because if, you know, we provide direction that we would like the rental housing committee to concurrently administer both programs, then they have to be on board to some extent, particularly under the status quo. So, uh, you know, supportive of um, exploring rent stabilization. I am supportive of vacancy control, and, you know, I don't have numbers to provide right now. I think that will depend on the stakeholder input that we receive. There were a couple of other suggestions that I do think would be helpful to explore. at least to determine the legal defensibility for some of them. And then, you know, there was a suggestion of like a model lease or a chord sort of alternative policy. I know very little about that. And I think it would be helpful just to have some information for the council to, you know, sort of compare what that might look like with a rent stabilization policy. Um, I think uh, staff had provided some preliminary analysis on, um, uh, 1st writer refusal, topa, and then also, um, about the, uh, question of, uh, sort of, uh, for lack of a better way of describing it equity and renting out the mobile homes themselves, you know, if the park owner can do so, then why couldn't individual property owners, or similarly, or that the coroll would be prohibiting, you know, um, subletting rentals if that's something the council wants to explore. But I think I think just doing a little bit more work on that and then coming back to counsel with whether that is a legally defensible policy option would be helpful, but, um, those are my comments for now. Thank you.

[03:40:07] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman, my room, had a check.

[03:40:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Apologies for all the coughing here. Um, I'm definitely allergic to something in downtown Mountain View. So I pretty much cough at every meeting. Um, I was wondering if, um, staff had come across any other options, um, such as the one that was mentioned tonight when you were doing research for the staff report.

[03:40:38] City Staff: We have not specifically looked into that, uh, concerning that we were doing a research on possible rent stabilization ordinance, but we can definitely, uh, take that into account with our next. reporting back.

[03:40:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So you wouldn't consider, you didn't consider having an agreement, a rent stabilization, vehicle.

[03:41:01] City Staff: Um, it's, it's... No, we did not consider a long term lease agreement between the park owner and the mobile home owners. We have not considered that, but we could research that as well.

[03:41:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'm wondering if, um, our outside legal council, um, has any experience with those.

[03:41:28] Outside Legal Counsel: Good evening. Yes, I mean, I have looked at it. There are some cities that do it, essentially, what the accord is, that all the mobile home park owners enter into an agreement, with the city sometimes, and sometimes not with the city agreeing that they will raise their rents only by a certain amount. Um, So, as the speaker said, Rancho Cucamonga has one. I think there's one in Napa. There's a couple other places where this has been used. It is voluntary on the park owners. So if not all the park owners participate, it's not a completely effective strategy.

[03:42:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So it's voluntary, but if they sign it, then they're obligated, right?

[03:42:12] Outside Legal Counsel: It's a contractual obligation, okay?

[03:42:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Are there any other, um, vehicles that you are aware of? Um, that have been used to stabilize rents?

[03:42:24] Outside Legal Counsel: Uh, no, not other than the accord.

[03:42:27] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. And rent stabilization. Okay. Um, so, I'm not sure who this question is directed to, but we hear, um, quite frequently about this role of thumb on, you know, if rents go up by so much, the, uh, value of the mobile home park goes down by so much.

[03:42:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, and we did get, um, a letter today that had, um, some information from HCD that showed recent park, um, mobile home sales, um, and it showed the average for each individual, um, park in the city, and what the average, purchase price was, and then what the average selling price was over a period of time. And I guess, um, I want to know, where does that rule of thumb? Like, Was that published somewhere? Like, that there's research behind it? Where did that come from? Because it kind of feels like the data that was from HDHCD. Is kind of not in alignment with that? And so, granted, that came to us after somebody had analyzed it and put it in a form that they wanted it in. But I would like to know, I guess this is a multiple question part question. Can we get that data ourselves, so we have the raw data to see what's really happening. And then where does that rule of thumb come from? Does anybody know? Is that?

[03:44:01] City Staff: I'm not specifically, who came up with it first, but reading the letter, it also confirms that rule of them. So that was from the park owner side. But I can definitely do research where this rule of thumb originated from. And then we're...

[03:44:18] City Staff: So I don't think the letter confirmed the rule of thumb. It said that people say that there is that rule of thumb.

[03:44:26] City Staff: Okay. But... We'll definitely look into that.

[03:44:29] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But then, actually, unless it's a different letter that I haven't seen.

[03:44:32] City Staff: No.

[03:44:32] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: But it had the data that I'd like to know if we can get that raw data from HCD.

[03:44:40] City Staff: Yes, if I could chime in, yes. I tried to contact HCD today and that data is available, but it's not readily available. We'll have to work with some subdivision of HCD to obtain that data, but once we get the raw data, We'll certainly analyze it to review it against what the letter claims.

[03:45:04] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, and I'd also just like the raw data myself, so I can see any trends or, um, not just confirm that one question. Um, it would just be helpful to have that raw data. Um, so thank you. Yeah, so for the next time we talk about this, I'd love to have that raw data. Um, and the other item that has been brought up, um, via communication from different folks is, um, we hear from some residents in mobile homes that they cannot rent out anything. A couch, a room, uh, their entire unit, and then, um, someone else said, well, it's more likely that you can't rent out, basically, the space, because that's true sub leasing of something that you're already leasing. But, um, is there anything that says, um, that you can't forbid somebody to rent out a portion or the entire mobile home? Um, and is that something that's just, is it really in that contract? I'd love to see that, how it's worded. Because it sounds like that's not necessarily in all contracts.

[03:46:32] City Staff: So, I think Karen can provide some legal background, and we have no insight in what the wording is of each lease.

[03:46:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. So we can definitely ask in a stakeholder meeting. Is that, are leases, I guess they're not public?

[03:46:47] City Staff: No,

[03:46:48] Councilmember Alison Hicks: okay. okay

[03:46:50] Attorney Karen: No, I think, as one of the speakers mentioned, there is an attorney general's opinion, um, that, essentially, the park owner who owns mobile homes within that park, is subject to the same rules that the park owner imposes on the other mobile home owners. Um, so if the park owner doesn't allow the mobile home owners to rent their mobile home, then, theoretically, the park owner can't rent them. But there is a little bit of a distinction here because, uh, we don't know what the leases say, but the park owner could prohibit sub leasing of the space. And if subleasing of the space is prohibited, that rule would not apply to the park owner, because the park owner doesn't have to sublade the space because they own it. They own it. And so that's sort of the fine line that the attorney general's opinion covered. So, I think this is really an issue that every lease would have to be analyzed to determine exactly what is being prohibited, and whether those prohibitions are being applied evenly. And we don't really have the information on the leases.

[03:47:53] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. But it could also be part of, um, a modelese, if there were, if we went that direction.

[03:48:03] City Staff: Right. It could be part of an accord agreement.

[03:48:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. Yep. Um... Okay, so, um, since this is a study session, um, I... I think it's really imperative we do outreach to, um, the folks living in mobile homes, we've heard a lot today, but, um, I think it's important to do outreach. Um, and to the mobile home park owners as well. So I want to emphasize that. I am supportive of you know, continuing this. I don't want this to go on for a really long time. I think we all feel a sense of urgency to address this issue. Um, but I would like us to take a look at the accord as another vehicle, um, because I want to understand it more, and understand how it might be either better or worse than what is the alternative proposed in the staff report. I talked about getting more data, specifically the HCD data, um, and, gosh, I'm wondering if there's anything else out there. That was an incredibly, I think, useful piece of information that we received. I think it was today at around 2 o'clock. Um, and for me, responding to the staff questions, it's premature to do that, um, because I want to understand the various options first before we dive into one. So, I want to look at everything 1st before we get into that level of detail.

[03:49:54] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you, Councilman Hicks. I want to start off by thanking staff for the voluminous amount of research, and everybody who's come out and stayed until, well, so far, 9:30 tonight. Um, I have, and I think this is a tremendously important issue, and a large portion of our both affordable housing in mountain view and senior housing, affordable senior housing. So I think that it's something we have to be very careful to preserve, um, and, and I hope the rest of my council members think that as well. Um, I... One of the things I learned, or I think I learned, and maybe, I'm going to ask a question, maybe you can clarify it, is that, um, is that, um, that, uh, mobile home rent control, is that true?

[03:50:55] City Staff: That's definitely the case in California. And I think you may have, when I met with you as a briefing to prepare for tonight, you had some of the numbers. There are, like, hundreds. There's around 100 mobile home rent control jurisdictions, and I would say we have about... 12 to 15 jurisdictions in California that have apartment rent control.

[03:51:23] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you. I couldn't remember the numbers, but when you told that, when you told me that during the briefing, it just underlined to me how important this is. And it seems like we may, that it's generally recognized among cities in California, that mobile home residents are particularly vulnerable, and that it's particularly important to have mobile home rent control, even among cities that don't have apartment rent control, many of them have felt that mobile homes should be controlled, is the takeaway I had after talking to you. And I think we may be, and I certainly haven't done the research, but I think we may be the only city in California that has apartment rent control, but not mobile home rent control. And if that's the case, I would like to not be the exception anymore.

[03:52:25] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Please, can we, please, not please, refrain from... Thank you.

[03:52:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, I had... So in looking at different remedies to this, I had a question about the long term lease, it was brought up tonight, that that was a possible alternative, I thought in our briefing that you had said, I'm wondering if that would cause additional problems, because I thought that during our briefing, I had learned that if you had a lease of over 12 months, 13 months or more, then you're no longer eligible for rent control. So I'm wondering if that could get one into any kind of legal quagmire.

[03:53:11] City Staff: I'm looking at Karen, but I think we're talking about two different things. So, one estate law that states that if you have a long term lease, you cannot be subject to rent stabilization, but if in the lease itself, it stipulated what the rent is going to be, that's a different situation. So, the rent stabilization is kind of baked into that long term lease. The rent increases.

[03:53:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: So you're saying you don't need, you have that instead of the other.

[03:53:41] City Staff: Correct. Kind of front control.

[03:53:43] City Staff: Yeah, I just, I think there's a little bit of terminology that's causing some confusion, because at least the accords I've looked at, they may function like a long term lease, but they're not actually a lease. They're in agreement amongst mobile home park owners about how they will treat their tenants and the rents, that they will charge. The impact is similar to a long term lease. So, if you had an accord, you wouldn't have rent control, as you said, under state law, if you have a lease of over 12 months, you're not subject to rent control, um, presumably because the lease has fixed rent increases in it. That's the assumption behind that.

[03:54:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Well, I'm gonna have to, I might have further questions on what the advantages and disadvantages of both are. Um, and I'm, um, personally leaning towards more traditional rent control, and, um, as for, I mostly agreed with this staff report, I do, I'm, um, I also believe that I read that, uh, that vacancy, uh, control is much more common in mobile home park. This is one of your questions, mobile home park, rent control, then an apartment rent control, because of the particular vulnerabilities of mobile home park residents. That's the case in other jurisdictions, correct?

[03:55:12] City Staff: Yes.

[03:55:13] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I would prefer that we have vacancy control. I would prefer that, um, we, in terms of that we align with the CSFRA, we're feasible, but, um, as a minimum, in terms of the annual general adjustment. But I also, looking over other jurisdictions, it seems like, also, the rent caps are traditionally stricter with mobile home rent control than with apartment rent control. Is that generally what your other cities have done?

[03:55:51] City Staff: Um, yeah, I, I, uh, compared. Maybe I have this slide here. Let's see if I can get to it quick, quickly. So these are the four cities in California that have both rental unit rent control and for mobile home spaces, with a comparison of the AGAs. As you can see, they do differ between the rental unit AGAs and the mobile home AGAs.

[03:56:32] Councilmember Chris Clark: I didn't know this was such an exclusive club, by the way. Yeah, so, as a minimum, I would prefer that we stick with the current AGAs on our current CSFRA, if I'm using all those acronyms correctly. And as for the base year, I would say, I would prefer that it be consistent with the 2016 when the beginning of the CSFRA as characterized in measure V. And then the last thing is, when I spoke to mobile home residents, they were, they asked for some kind of tenant opportunity to purchase, and I know that that, I don't know whether that's possible or not, but if that's not legally possible, I would prefer some, um, to explore some sort of structure, so that if the landlords wanted to get out of the business, they could, um, there could be some alternative, uh, owner, I was in in one of my past jobs. I worked with a community land trust. So I know they're all sorts of possibilities for alternative owners, whether it be non profits, land trusts, the county, and so I'd like that to be explored in some way. And I think that's it.

[03:58:10] Unknown Speaker: Thank you, Council member Clark. So, assuming my voice holds out? Um... So, I, I think I'll just, I'll just start by saying, um, you know, my, my goal here in this is to, is to try to find a way to, um, get some parity with what the protections would have been, um, at least most of the protections would have been under, under Major V for, for these, folks, and finding a fair, a fair way to do that. Um, I think, regardless of how we feel about what's happened in the past, um, the framework that I'm, my mental model of this is, um, whether you're for against rent control, we had, um, measure V, which, um, the RHC asserted its authority to decide, one way or the other, whether or not to cover mobile homes, um, they elected, um, They elected not to cover them. and which created a bit of a quagmire here. And so part of, I know a lot of folks have not said a lot of nice things about measure D, but one of the things behind Major D, that those of us who worked on it, tried to put in it, was to very specifically say that, okay, well, that's what you did, RHC, we're taking that power away from you, and we're going to cover this ourselves. so that we can ensure that we don't have this, some years, they're covered, some years, they're not. It depends on who's on the RHC or whatever. So the impetus behind that and the reason that, um, that provision is in there was really to provide a pathway to get to what we're talking about here tonight and ensure that we have the authority as the council to mobile homes, since the RHC, at least a current doesn't seem to feel like they're included in measure V. So, that, um, and so here we are, um, trying to talk about how, at least from my standpoint, how we, um, get to the point of covering them and what those provisions do, because mobile homes, just because of state law, are sort of this unique animal, as all of you have talked about, you have space rents, you have the value of homes, you have the mobile home park owners, you have, um, a whole bunch of, um, well, you are. I don't disagree that you are renters. There are a few more, um, um, things in the mix to consider. And so, I don't know if, I don't know how far we're going into answering the questions. I think if you wanted more information, but I, I will say that just is part of that framework. I think one thing that would be helpful to have more information on going in the, um, in assessing these options in the near future, because, um, um, would be, um, a model, so we've talked about the model lease, and, and we don't have to go in this to end up tonight, but one thing I would be interested in. It sounds like the history of those things has been, it's mostly homeowners getting together, their volunteer agreements. Um, they may or may not have been very effective, and they may or may not have provided, you know, most of the same rights that tenants would have had under, um, or the, um, mobile space renters would have had, um, had they, had rent control. And I think a version of that, that I might be interested in. I'd be curious if any of this exists, would be a model waste that's basically, yes, we work with the mobile home park owners to come up with it, but ultimately, it's sort of driven by either a council or an RHC or something like that, so that you have a much stronger model lease that isn't sort of bent one way or the other. And then backed up by fairway structuring control, such that if you, you can go with the model lease. and work with everyone and try and get work with your residents to come up with something long term. And if you choose not to or that doesn't work, then rent control applies. And so it gives folks a little bit more options of flexibility. And the reason that I bring that up is just because I think, as we've heard tonight from folks who live in different mobile home parks. I think there are some mobile homeowners or mobile home park owners who, frankly, Ben, I would say, pretty good, right? They haven't raised the rent a lot over the years. and have tried to, you know, generally be good operators and generally care about the residents. There are some who, frankly, probably haven't been that way, right? And so, and one of the, one of the things is policymakers that we try to juggle is, how do you apply a policy where you want to be fair to everyone, but you also, you don't want to punish the people who've been doing the right thing just because you have some folks over here who haven't been doing the right thing. And I get that people get, yes, home park owners, just like the rest of us get old and die or sell and do all these other things. But that doesn't necessarily necessitate a broad policy stroke, right? Where you're basically sort of penalizing the folks who've, I think, done the right thing. So, anyway, if there are model leases out there, or that framework exists where it's sort of led more by the policymakers and folks who are who can really gear that more toward the residents than the homeowners, and the fallback is the is the stricter rent control, but you have an option to sort of work together and come up with a longer term solution that could apply, I would be open to that. I think the other thing I'd be open to having more information on would be, um, some sort of 1st right to purchase or, or just sort of generally where that, where that stands, because that seemed to be somewhat ambiguous. So that would be sort of a supplemental policy, but when we're getting back to rent control itself. Um, and sort of just answering the questions, I think my answers to these things may change, um, once we have more information, but I think where I'm at right now is, um, I'm fine in question one with the, with your suggestion of the, of the, the termination notices, just to have, um, the, I think you need those in order to enforce some of these things. I think, having it administered by the RHC would be ideal, but I'll just be really blunt. Right now, I don't think we have the authority to just push something over on them. And does that mean that they administer the fees, or are we transferring money from the general operating fund, to cover the, I don't know what that looks like. And I would much rather have or fees charged to the mobile homebrokers. I just I don't know those things. And I would much rather have the clarity of provisions that are in measures that we put forth that clearly allow us to charge the RHC to handle these things if we decide that we want that to happen. But anyway, that's where we're at. But I'm okay with the staff recommendation on the, on the, um, the base rent date, and, um, I think the AGA should match the, like you said, the seat, it should match the CSFRA. So whether that's, um, what it is today or what it may be, if Major Depash, I don't know, but I think the general sort of staff bent was, or the sort of suggestions there were, to the extent that we can sort of match the CSFRA. Let's do that. But I do agree. with your, um, with your, um, base rent date. I just, I can't imagine, I don't think it's fair to, um, I just don't think it's fair to go back five years. frankly, regard. Um, that's just not, um, that's just not, um, not good policy making from my perspective. And then for a question to, um, just matching the CSFRA, I, I understand that I understand the argument for vacancy control. Um, I, I had, had the CSFRA been in place, um, formal owners vacancy control wouldn't be part of it. And so I'm struggling, frankly, with with putting, with requiring a vacancy control. I could be one thing that I would be interested in, is maybe vacancy control applies in situations where, over some number of years, you've averaged a higher than average. rent increase or something like that is a way to sort of disincentivize that. But those are... Anyway, those are my initial thoughts. I think having the additional information will help inform some of these things, but, um, that's where I'm leaning right now.

[04:07:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. And vice snare?

[04:07:28] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So I also want to thank staff. I also want to thank all the public comment tonight. We got a lot in person email. Had a lot of one-on-one meetings as we were, I'm talking about this. And as our discussion was getting started tonight. Um, I was struck with, um, you know, thinking about how the city can do a better job of implementing um, our communications with the public in terms of the public meeting process, um, and providing more clarity because we, I mean, not to speak totally for my colleagues, but I think we're very interested in hearing your voices, you being part of the process. And I felt like, oh, no, are we starting off on the wrong foot here? And so I think reflecting on that. That would be the something that I would look to staff in terms of, as we're doing, our community outreach meetings and that we provide outreach in whatever method is, whether that's email or cards, translation services, et cetera, to make sure that everyone understands and perhaps providing what the meeting process is for counseling input and the 5 cards. I think that would be a very important step forward in terms of um, having everyone feel heard. Um, and as I was reflecting on the staff report as well. One of the things that I thought I'd like to highlight, particularly in attachment one, was the protections that already exist within the city. Um, and I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison on the different jurisdictions and the protections that they have or don't have and what Mountain View has that might be unique. Um, And so I think that's just a simple, you know, adding of a column. Um, and given all the discussion tonight, um, you know, I'm comfortable moving forward with a mobile home park ordinance. And I think over the next couple months, we'll be discussing and deciding what that's going to look like. Um, The most important thing to me is that as we're creating this ordinance, we're not just reacting to the issues that are right now, but the issues that could be in 5, 10, 20 years because the reflection I've had in CSFRA is, um, many people thought that was included. Now we have to go back or we're going back with measure D because we heard a lot related to retrofitting. Um, and so if we're putting forward an ordinance, I'd really like to provide clarity and stability, both for, you know, renters, owners, and the park owners as well. I think that's a really important part of the process. I agree with council member Clark's comments in terms of having options and flexibility. Um, particularly in regard to the 2 questions. So for question one, I'm comfortable, um, with staff's direction, I do think it makes sense to try to align as much as possible with CSFRA, particularly in terms of implementation, as well as monitoring. Um, for question two. I feel like I need a, I'd like a little bit more information about the implementation of vacancy control and decontrol. Um, I think the ideas that council member Clark were bringing forward were interesting. Um, and I think Counselor Magic was also talking about others. I really want to be as holistic as we can as we're looking at this. Um, because I don't want to have to, as I was mentioning earlier, have to go back and make changes. I really want this to be a comprehensive ordinance that makes sense. And we have 6 mobile home parks, um, which are, to me, 6 unique communities. Um, and it isn't Apple's apples. So how do we create something that really truly works for all residents, whether they rent or they own or they're the operator. Thank you.

[04:11:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, I'm gonna read, uh, council member McAllister's comments. Mobile home owners do desire a more stable rent expectation. The passage of a city council ordinance is the right way to ensure this. I have seen too many unintended consequences and ambiguities when laws concerning rents were too strict to adopt and be flexible. I want counsel to be in control of the ordinance, to administrate and implement, and only give parts to the RHC, to review as needed. On question one, I would want to see the effects of aligning with the CSFRA before making a decision. I would support Bullet 1 and 2, but not give it to the RHC at this time. And then question two, not being able to hear the discussion of my fellow council members, I will hold off on that one. So, I don't. And then I will add my comments. Yeah, despite our little rocky start. I do appreciate our public members of the public for coming out this evening and sharing your comments and your thoughts. This has been, um, for me, actually, this has been a topic that, um, I've heard about, I've been asked about, um, since back in about 2004. Um, and my thoughts back then, and, um, you know, I continued to feel this way, was that, um, mobile home park residents, or mobile home parks, um, were had some unique aspects to them that were different from apartments, for instance. Um, I also, you know, was aware that there were state laws, um, that govern mobile home parks. And to be frank, I didn't know all of those laws. I didn't have all the details and information. So I was looking forward to this opportunity to learn more about what is and is not possible. Um, you know, I will say in, um, you know, I am interested in an ordinance. Um, I know there's been talk about CSFRA and whatnot, and frankly, you know, that was not something that I, on this council came up with. And so I don't feel ownership with it, to be honest. Um, you know, it stipulates how that is, um, administered by the RHC. They made their decision. The courts upheld it. So it is what it is. Frankly, you know, one of my, um, challenges with measure V was that it was a charter amendment, and making any changes would be pretty hard to do. We have to take it back to the voters. And that's frankly what we're trying to do with measure D, to clean it up, fix the technical, you know, issues. There's some gaps and loopholes. And frankly, if you ask me, the issue of mobile home parks is one of them. And I personally just have felt very, you know, strongly from the beginning that this is something that should be handled by ordnance. And that's why, you know, we were given the council or the advice that in order for us to be able to do that as a city council. We would need to put language in measure D that says, you know, clarifies that CSFRA does not cover mobile home parks. So I've heard a lot of misinformation, misconstruing of that, but that was the original intent. Council member Clark and Council member Ramirez and I were on that ad hoc committee. So our intent was to find a way for mobile home parks to have some rent stabilization, but understanding the situation with CSFRA, we wanted to make sure that we would be able to do it by ordinance. So that's why that language is in there. I know folks are trying to use it against measure D, but it's really for our trying to make sure we can figure out a way to cover mobile home parks. So I just want to clarify that. Um, I think, uh, Council member Clark did already iterate that and just want to re iterate that. So in terms of where I stand, um, I, uh, you know, question one. Um, I support moving forward and looking further into all of these items. Um, I do agree that I think we're, um, what we, I don't feel comfortable at this time, making any, um, determinations on the rent or rent date or AGA, I frankly, measure deed, you know, that might change that AGA. So I would leave that, um, for further discussion and, um, pending some decisions. Um, I think, to, to is fine. Um, three. Um, I'm actually gonna hold off on 3 as well, because, um, my thought originally was to give it to the rental housing committee, but, um, in some sense, because this council is, you know, at this point, looking to adopt an ordinance, I I'm starting to think maybe we hold on to the administration of it. So I'm gonna keep that one open as well. Um, in terms of question two. Vacancy, control, or do you control? My first inclination was to say, um, and I do, I think, that, in general, we should align, we could align with CSFRA, and on this one, because CSFRA does not include our vacancy control. My first inclination was to go that way, but I understand, and this is the uniqueness of mobile home parks and units, is that there's a space rent and the unit. And they do, you know, they do work together. And so, I understand that if you control the space rent, then that affects the value of the unit. But vice versa, frankly. So I'm open to looking at some kind of, um, control, but my, um, my biggest interest here is that, um, there's some balance. So just as the space rent going up would depreciate the unit. I guess I look at it the other way. If you decrease the space rent, then you increase the value of the unit. And I think that there should be, if you're gonna control the space rent, then there should be some kind of control on the appreciation of the unit. Or, um, we see this more and more. I mean, especially with affordable housing programs, this idea of equity share. So should there be a time of sale, maybe there's some kind of share of equity, if that's possible. So just some kind of mechanism so that, you know, we talk about fairness here. I mean, I've heard folks say it, that I think there just needs to be some consideration for that. So that's what I would ask for us to further look at. So, those are, I think those are the two questions, and I'm not sure. I mean, ask the city manager, our chief, to help me summarize where we are. I don't know if we actually have real consensus on any items at this point, but...

[04:19:22] Police Chief Max Bosel: No, I don't think it's very clear if there is. I think there's clear consensus that there is support to look at regulation of base rent. The base rent date is a little bit more unclear of whether or not there is a specific date, the council majority would be considering, whether it's the 2016 date or staff's recommendation. So I think we would need more clarity on that. I don't know if Onke has a better perspective.

[04:19:55] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Jay, we could take some straw boats, then. So on base, rent. The basement was... I can't... Does it roll back to this? The CSFRA date of 2016, or does it look at the more recent date of...? 2019? 19 So, um, and I know some of us are still undecided, so, um, is there anyone who wants to roll it back to 2016?

[04:20:28] Unknown Speaker: Sure. So, I'm... Oh, sorry.

[04:20:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: It's okay. I know... Can I, uh...

[04:20:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Council member of Calc... Magic check first.

[04:20:39] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I just wanted to add a couple things, because I spoke earlier, and that is, I appreciate council member Clark's comments about, um, there are some park owners who might be, um, more fair to their tenants than others. And so to have the option of, um, the accord, and if you don't participate in that, then, uh, a different rent control is applicable. I'd like to explore that as one of the options. And also, you know, we sent in quite a few questions, and got quite a few emails, and then obviously comment from tonight, and other conversations we've had about this. And if there was some way to make sure all that information is, um, maybe in the next staff report, because there were a lot of good things in there, um, I especially noted the one about, um, the rite of first refusal, which is one of the things the folks have asked for. Um, but the explanation we got today in the council questions, I thought, was, um, a really good response that everybody should have benefit of, um, knowing. And so, if we can somehow incorporate all these great pieces of information in the next staff report that would be wonderful.

[04:22:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, would you like, um, our legal counsel to kind of give a one minute summary of what the...

[04:22:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'd be helpful for now, if that's okay. And then also if we can include it.

[04:22:15] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: Yeah, so, one of the questions that was asked by the council is, could we include in, uh, mobile home rent ordinance, a rite of 1st refusal for, um, park residents to purchase the park? Um, so, there is a California court case that says that that's not allowed, um, because it infringes on the right of ownership. There's also an attorney general's opinion that is based on that court case. However, those are both somewhat older decisions, and there are German jurisdictions that are exploring this in different contexts. So San Francisco has this community opportunity to purchase. It's not for mobile homes, it's for multifamily buildings, and there is a limited right of 1st refusal in that ordinance. It has not been challenged to my knowledge. So there may be opportunities there, but we really need to explore the limits of what we do.

[04:23:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Great, thank you, which I'd add to my list of things we should explore for next time. Sorry, I keep on adding to the list.

[04:23:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's great. Um, Counselor, where is?

[04:23:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think it's good. Thank you. My comments, actually, were substantially similar. I'm really not comfortable right now, picking a date out of thin air or making a determination on a specific number of policy. I think there's probably a more analysis that could be done to help us determine, you know, what's legally defensible, right? 2019, 2016, I don't really know. I don't feel prepared to make that determination, but I think with staff's guidance, you know, in the next report, um, and then, you know, um, with the opportunity to to solicit input from the public, we can probably, I think we'll be better prepared to give a firm date then. So, you know, sort of like council member, Mattachek. I'm sorry to keep adding to the list, but I think that analysis will be really helpful in helping us flesh out the ordinance that comes back to us.

[04:24:17] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I'm gonna then say that we just, um, hold off on just, even voting on a base date, because I don't think we, we, maybe other than councilmarithics, the rest of us feel ready to do that. Um, the other's a notification, we didn't really talk about notification of city, to city of termination notices. Is there any one dissenting on that requirement? I don't think so. So that's unanimous. And then administration of the ordinance by the rental housing committee. Again, is there anyone, um, strongly, feeling strongly that it should go to the RHC versus coming to council. Uh, yes, council member, I had a check.

[04:25:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well, I think it depends on what we end up deciding.

[04:25:06] Unknown Speaker: Sure. So, I feel like, again, I can't answer that one until we figure out which direction we're going.

[04:25:12] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. And I agree. I'm open. I would like to learn more before I make that decision, but I just wanted to see if anyone is very, already has a decision at this time, and it doesn't seem to be that case. So, um, I think all of these are still open to, um, exploration. And then, in terms of vacancy, control, or date control. I don't know if we got, I don't think we had consensus there either, uh, for on vacancy, control decontrol.

[04:25:49] Police Chief Max Bosel: No, I don't think we have consensus on vacancy control. We have comments related to it, where there is one council member who supports it to another second who would prefer it, and then a couple comments on being requesting more information, but struggling with the requirement for vacancy control, and then aligning with the CSFRA. So...

[04:26:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. Um, you know, I'd say this is our first pass at this issue, and it is a very complicated issue, and you can see from the staff report. There's a lot of information for us to could learn, consume. So, you know, bear with us, I would say. But I think we are trying to find a path forward. So, um, we are, uh, attempting to do that. At least we have the topics that we're interested in discussing, um, just determined this evening. So, um, So we'll continue to um, explore vacancy control or decontrol. And I have the interim city manager. Please chief again.

[04:27:01] Police Chief Max Bosel: A couple other comments that we'd like clarification on. There was some 3 members who were discussing, a desire to look at options such as an accord, there's another vehicle or a model lease. Is there maybe a straw vote to have additional support for that for staff to take time to look at that?

[04:27:24] Unknown Speaker: I would be open to looking at it.

[04:27:27] Police Chief Max Bosel: And then there was two council members who commented on a tenant opportunity to purchase as an alternative, and if there is not more support for that. Or if there is support, more support for that. We get two hands on first rate of purchase.

[04:27:47] Unknown Speaker: I was gonna say, so I'm interested in that. I think I would be happy. I think the most important thing, for my mind, is preparing, sort of, the ordinance piece of this, and that, while it helps inform those things, it could be a volton that doesn't necessarily, in my mind, isn't quite as urgent as the other things. So if it's easier for staff to research that on a separate timeline, That fine with me. If it's easier to do it all at once, then I'm fine to do that, too. If they really want it in the, like, base ordinance. But, I'm flexible in terms of that, to me, isn't as urgent as, like, setting the base ear and doing all these other things that I think, um, I think it's important. I just don't think it's as time sensitive. as the other thing. Top priority.

[04:28:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. I think there's agreement there that there's interest in exploring it, but it's not... It shouldn't hold back the ordinance if that's the possibility. Council member Hicks.

[04:28:49] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, and I was gonna say one other thing on that. I think also looking, I would agree with the timing that's mentioned, but I also think that looking at related alternatives, like what's the, was it COPA in San Francisco, or other, just, it doesn't have to be, in my mind, specifically tenant opportunity to purchase, but anything within that realm, in case the owner wants to go out of this particular business.

[04:29:18] Police Chief Max Bosel: Great. And along the discussion of sub leasing. Is that also an area of topic that the council is interested in exploring further? Is there interest in that topic? One, two, three... three?

[04:29:36] Unknown Speaker: You're talking about the ability of a park space renter to rent their unit?

[04:29:42] Police Chief Max Bosel: Yes. Or, yeah, the unit, not the space, correct? It's a little, yeah. We will definite do some further exploration to see if we can get some real examines of what's happening in the parks, and then report back to you guys about that.

[04:29:57] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. So, I guess for me, it's, um, leasing and sub leasing. And I want to look at it to understand it more to know what's possible and what's not possible. Any other topics?

[04:30:15] Police Chief Max Bosel: I think we have, uh, clear enough direction to take the next step. There is blood, right?

[04:30:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Anything else from staff over here? No? We're good. All right, thank you very much. So, we will now move on to item nine, council staff, committee reports. Are there any reports from council members? No. Oh, Council member Clark?

[04:30:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: I should report that, uh, two things. One is, uh, a tended, what will sadly be, and probably my last, um, mayor's innovation project, um, annual meeting. Been going for six or seven years. It's a really good group out in Washington, D.C. And our mayor was there, too. as have prior mayors and council members as well, but it was a really good meeting, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to do it.

[04:31:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Council member Ramirez.

[04:31:21] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. So, I attended the, um, water commission meeting last week and learned that valley water is considering a ballot measure to raise revenue for a number of potential projects, and just wanted to give heads up to the council, to the extent, it's important for the city of Mountain View to loop into that process. So,

[04:31:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: audience quietly exit. We're still conducting our meeting here. Sorry, Counselor Ramirez. Please continue.

[04:31:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No worries. No worries.

[04:31:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We're not done with our meeting, so can you please wait till we finish? And then we, you can have your conversations? Council members, Ramirez?

[04:32:03] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yep. Thank you. But just to share that, that's an ongoing conversation, and if it's relevant for us to loop in, there may be opportunities to secure some funding through this ballot initiative, if it happens, to address, you know, flood attenuation, other water related issues in Mountain View as well.

[04:32:28] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. Uh, Counselor Medicheck.

[04:32:31] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I have quite a few regional board meetings to mention. I attended the Bay Area water supplying Conservation Agency board meeting, Bosca for short. And, um, we were scheduled to do a pilot of a water transfer, um, with another organization. But that did not happen because, um, of insurance purposes, um, we couldn't get insurance to cover any potential damage to any of the infrastructure. Um, but all is not lost because there is another opportunity that has presented itself. And we are looking to do a pilot water transfer, in case it's needed, in a situation where one agency has supply and the other needs some. So between Bosca and somebody else. I also attended the Silicon Valley Regional Interopability Authority board meeting, and we're making good progress in terms of having all of the towers in place. So we have good emergency communication within the county. And I attended the Santa Clara Santa Cruz Roundtable meeting, which is to address airplane noise. And we have an approved strategic plan and work plan. And at the next meeting, we will be forming some committees to take a look at, uh, like a technical working group and then the legislative group. I firmly believe we need to have some legislation to address airplane noise that I know a lot of people are very concerned about. And um, I attended the airport land use commission for the county. And it was a really interesting one this month. We talked about the San Jose Airport expansion. And also we have the opportunity to see what San Jose is doing in terms of expansion in both the downtown area and the Deerodon Station area. And then, um, let's see, this earlier this evening, um, we heard about the signal timing on Terabella and Shoreline, and I was wondering if that's something that I can mention here for follow up, uh, by staff on. Um, I'd be interested in hearing uh, what's going on there. So if we could follow up on that, that'd be great. And then, um, I don't know if our interim city manager wants to talk about some things that might be staff recommendations to add to our list of potential projects. Because, um, earlier, we had members of the audience mention the topic. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

[04:35:31] Police Chief Max Bosel: Yeah, so, uh, um, Saturday, you'll be discussing the process for the goals and projects update, and Tuesday, we'll be introducing, uh, the item, and as a part of that, staff's recommendations to initiate projects, including an ordinance for flavored tobacco and evaping. Thank you.

[04:35:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, council member. Um, I had a few items to report. Um, going back a few weeks. I went to Sacramento as part of the Bay Area air quality management district. We did a legislative day and met with some legislators about some of our priorities for this coming year. And, um, actually, we'll be having a retreat. to talk about our priorities tomorrow. Uh, I forgot the hotel at a hotel in Cupertino, but, um, if anyone is interested, it starts at 10 a.m. and you can find the information on our Bachmed.gov site. Um, one of the issues was, uh, that we're working on is, um, you may have seen it in the news, um, that there was a school, a private school in Fremont, um, that was built next to a concrete quarry. And, um, you know, we had some, uh, parents who are starting to come and, um, complain and express their concerns of the air quality. And we discovered that private schools don't have the same requirements as public schools in terms of location and making sure that the location is suitable. So, we are, that's one of the items that Bachmed is looking for a sponsor to introduce legislation on. So, I'm very interested in that personally, so I thought I'd bring that up. I also attended the mayor's innovation project with Council member Clark, and I think, I hope he finds a way to continue with the organization, one of our former council members is on the steering committee, and I don't know if they're term limits there, but that was a very interesting, there was a women's network kickoff. Um, it was really great to, um, see other female mayors throughout the country and share stories and frankly, some of the challenges that we have as females and women, um, in this position. Um, and then before the innovation project, the day before that, I attended the U.S. Conference of Mayors. And, um, I found that actually a very interesting conference. Lots of, lots of mayors from the big cities, LA, Chicago, Sacramento, throughout the country, and, you know, surprise, the hot topics are housing, homelessness, transportation, and sustainability. So, um, when we go to these conferences, I think we all, um, come out think feeling like we're not alone in this, and no matter where you are in this country. We are facing similar challenges. So, it was helpful to hear what other cities are doing. And frankly, I came out feeling like Mountain View is leading the charge in many ways, so that was exciting. Um, and I just wanted to mention move coming up, um, on Thursday, February 6th, uh, 9 a.m., I will be conducting my 1st meet up with Mac, um, at Paris Baguette Coffee Shop in downtown Mountain View, on Castro Street. Um, so I invite, uh, members of the public to please come meet me there, uh, Thursday, 9 a.m. on February 6th, and look forward to hearing what's on our residence mines. And with that, I believe. Oh, yes, is there a closed session report?

[04:39:42] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There's no closed session report tonight.

[04:39:45] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And we stand adjourned. Our next council meeting is our team building session, which will be held on Saturday, February 1st, at 1 p.m. at Shoreline Lake Boathouse, 3160 North Shoreline Boulevard, here in Mountain View. And we are adjourned at 10:15. Thank you.

• ← Previous
• Next →