June 28, 2022 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council, Shoreline Regional Park Community and Capital Improvements Financing Authority

Video

Transcript

[00:01:03] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Everyone, thank you for joining us for our closed session. I am going to read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city.clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting, live, may do so at Mountain View.ludgerstar.com. youtube.com forward slash Mountain View Gov and on Comcast Channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda. Members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting to enter the zoom meeting or by phone by dialing 669-9009128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today were received directly by the city council. City attorney log will make a closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the items list for closed session.

[00:01:09] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, Mayor Ramirez. There are 3 items on the qu session agenda for this evening. Item 2. is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is 917 San Rafel Avenue. The agency negotiators are Angela Lamonica, and real property, uh, program administrator and public works director, Don Cameron. The negotiating party is a Vizen Young, under negotiation, are priced in terms of purchase. Item 2.2 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation pursuant to government code section 54956.9. The name of the case is Salarina, Navarro. Janet Stevens, Armando Car, Kovarubius, Evelyn Estrada, Gabrielle, Rango, Jamie, Alma, Aldaco, and all other similarly situated versus the city of Mountain View, United States District Court, for the Northern District of California, case number 21 dash CV dash 05381. Item 2.3 is public employee performance evaluations, pursuant to California government code section 54957 for city council appointees, the city attorney, the city clerk, and the city manager, and a conference with labor negotiators pursuant to California government code section 54957.6. The agency's designated representative for the unrepresented employees, the city attorney, the city clerk, and the city manager, is Vice Mayor Hicks. That will be all.

[00:04:05] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. See no members of the public wishing to speak. Uh, the council will now recess to close session and return to this webinar at 6.30 PM for the regular session. See you in a little bit.

[00:23:22] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Good evening everyone. Welcome to the joint meeting of the city council, Shoreline Regional Park Community, and the city of Mountain View Capital Improvements Financing Authority, of June 28, 2022. I will now read the usual announcement as required. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code section 54953E as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city.clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the city council are participating in this meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting live may do so at mountain view.letisstar.com, youtube.com forward slash mountain view gov, and on Comcast channel 26. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments. During the public comment period by visiting mountain view.gov forward slash meeting to enter the Zoom, webinar, or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 843-512-67142. Any emails received by 430 PM today, or received directly by the city council. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. Budge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

[02:01:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilman for Abby Pocah?

[02:01:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Here,

[02:01:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: can I?

[02:01:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Here,

[02:01:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member, Libert?

[02:01:16] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Sure.

[02:01:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Metachek.

[02:01:18] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah.

[02:01:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Show Walter. Council member Shel Walter? Vice Mayor Hicks?

[02:01:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Here.

[02:01:32] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[02:01:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Here.

[02:01:35] City Clerk Heather Glaser: You have a corn?

[02:01:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Well, now move on to the next item. Please note, these are presentations only. The city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. The 1st the 1st presentation is 3.one, the 50th anniversary of the passage of Title 9 of the Education Amendment of 1972 proclamation. So if someone will help me, um, bring Alison Johnson into the panel. Welcome, Allison. Thank you for joining us. We are happy to be joined this evening by Alison Johnson, executive co-director, American Association of University Women, Lost Office Mountain View, to accept this proclamation. Proclamation reads. Whereas Title 9 of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in all areas of education, protecting students and staff in any educational institutions that receive federal funds, and Title 9 has in the 50 years since its passage, expanded opportunities for women and girls in sports and in the science, technology, engineering and math, or STEM fields, and improved protections for pregnant and parenting students. And, whereas, despite progress under Title 9, according to the American Association of University Women Research, 56% of female students and 40% of male students' grades, 7 through 12 and 2 thirds of college students experience sexual harassment. And despite progress under Title 9, girls have 1200000 fewer chances to play sports in high school than boys, and less than 2 thirds of black and Hispanic girls play sports, while more than 3 quarters of white girls do. And whereas, despite progress under Title 9, only 21% of engineering majors and 19% of computer science majors are women, and the rate of women's enrollment and certain non-traditional careers remains at low levels, with some fields well below 25% in women's representation. And despite progress under Title 9, pregnant and parenting students are often steered towards separate, less rigorous schools, and whereas the U.S. Department of Education announced in 2021 that it would interpret and enforce Title 9 to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and on gender identity, an important step to ensure protections of LGBTQ plus students, and Title 9 must be strengthened and vigorously enforced to protect student civil liberties. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby recognize Thursday, June 23rd, 2022 as the 50th anniversary of the passage of Title 9 of the education amendment of 1972 in the city of Mountain View. And I urge all residents to support passage of the Gender Equity and Education Act, which would codify protections designed to help students address sex discrimination in all areas of education, and ensure educational institutions have the resources needed to comply with Title 9 regulations. Allison, would you like to say a few words?

[02:05:02] Alison Johnson: May I speak? I am so grateful to the Mountain View City Council for giving me the opportunity to recognize this proclamation. It's especially appropriate because this spring, 2 of our local high school, the Los Altos Girls softball team won the CCS softball title, and the St. Francis Girls softball team won their NorCal Division title. And 50 years ago, when I was in high school in Los Altos, and taught in Mountain View, there was no such thing as a girls' softball team, representing the high school, in either high school. Without Title 9, these girls would not have achieved this championship. They would not have achieved this recommendation, this recognition, and recognizing the anniversary of this proclamation honors their achievement, as well as the achievement of so many other women in sports, academia, and other areas in the last 50 years. Thank you very much for this proclamation.

[02:06:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for joining us to receive it. Um, and so, uh, members of the council. I will now provide comment by Mayor Hicks.

[02:06:37] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So thank you so much, Ms. Johnson, for encouraging us to recognize this 50 year anniversary. I, I, it's a week that I really feel like I need some good news in terms of women's rights, and also the news that some of our rights endure. I have to say, now I'm gonna date myself. When I went to high school, um, Title 9 had passed, but the news, apparently, had, um, not gotten to my high school in Western New York. So we did not have women's sports. My friend and I asked to be on the track team, but were denied. But I have to say, I have a sister who's 10 years younger than me, and she was able to participate in multiple sports. So, again, thank you very much for letting us celebrate this good, if old news. Thank you.

[02:07:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Abi Coca.

[02:07:36] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for, um, issuing this proclamation, and thank you, Ms. Johnson, for, um, coming being here with us today, and and to AEW for the great work that you do. Um, I'm really delighted for us to be able to, um, to mark this 50th anniversary. Um, I think it was ESPN, um, that had said the 37 words in Title and I changed the world for, um, a lot of girls and women, um, especially in the area of sports. Um, I, I never made it to the varsity level in my school years, but my daughter actually has, um, had the chance to play high school varsity sports and, um, you know, in a sport actually that is probably more popular for, for the girls and the boys. Um, so that's always like exciting for me to see, to be honest, but, um, you know, I think, um, this is just so appropriate in light of the, um, you know, the unfortunate news that we received last week, um, with the Supreme Court's decision, I think it is important for us to recognize this historic moment, um, how it has changed the lives for many, um, women and girls. Um, but I also know that there is, and has said in the proclamation, there is still a lot more work to be done to really be able to provide um, equity, um, and and and to encourage more, uh, women and girls to enter, um, sports or science or engineering, um, in the fields that we're not traditionally, um, open to to women. Um, and a lot of that has to do with, um, providing strong role models for, for young girls, um, in the form of, um, like coaches, for instance. And I serve as an honorary member of the Bay Area women's sports initiative board. And that's really a focus of, um, the organization to provide strong role models for young girls so that they will try, um, sports. And, and so, um, I hope I know that we need to continue to, um, work to to move advance forward. But I just think I really appreciate this opportunity to take a moment to celebrate this achievement that was achieved 50 years ago. Thank you.

[02:10:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member committee.

[02:10:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Well, I just want to, um, echo my thanks to you, uh, mayor, for, um, issuing the proclamation on behalf of the city. I want to thank Ms. Johnson for, um, attending our meeting and, um, persisting with us in terms of making sure that we recognize, um, the 50th anniversary of Title 9. I think it's really important. I just wanted to, um, share with her that the, League of California City's women's caucus also, um, commemory of the occasion. And I think it was really great because we were able to unveil our new logo, which is an homage to women's suffrage color. So I thought that was really great, but Mountain View, we're committed to being a community for all, and I feel like Title 9 did just that. It changed my life. I was a collegiate athlete and I know that if title 9 didn't exist. I wouldn't have been able to have that experience. So, really, um, happy to be able to, as others mention, celebrate something, um, Thank you.

[02:11:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, show Walter.

[02:11:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I was just also going to, uh, to say, I was really pleased to see the mention of the Equal Rights Amendment in, um, in this proclamation. I think that that's something that we shouldn't forget. And, um, I hope that it will get, uh, sort of a new life and, um, finally be passed. And thank you to Allison, for reminding us of this important milestone, because, um, it did change so many people's people's lives for the good. And as, you know, as an engineer on the council, the female engineer on the council, I'd like to say that, um, it, uh, it's a great career for women and and, um, encourage young girls to, uh, get into it, and, um, if they'd like to ask me questions about what it's like to be a civil engineer, please reach out. Thanks.

[02:12:04] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, Lieber.

[02:12:07] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I think we may have lost the AAUW representative, but I very much appreciate her being here, and for many years, AUW has really been a strong supporter of equality, um, looking at their groundbreaking report in 1993, the hostile hallways report, and the way that they have always stood up for forcing institutions to look at the Title 9 provisions that require them to provide pathways, for students and other athletes, to report sexual harassment and abuse. That's become even more relevant in the past several years, as we've seen some local major institutions, be forced to grapple with their, uh, their record on those, uh, issues. And so AAUW has been a very strong supporter of that. So I'm very thankful for their work. Thank you.

[02:13:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And for my part, I'm a couple of members of the council thanks me and I feel that's fully inappropriate given the history of this proclamation. Um, when, uh, I think it was Alison reached out. I actually declined it. Uh, and I had reached out to staff. We couldn't do it in time for, um, the previous council meeting, and temporally this meeting, uh, you know, occurs after, uh, the date, um, that we acknowledge. Um, and I figured, you know, we wouldn't be able to make it work. And then council member Abby Koger reached out and said, hey, Lucas, this is important you should reconsider. And you know what? You were right. And I was wrong. And I'm really glad that we did this. Uh, it is important. It's very timely. Uh, I made a bad call. Once again, standing in the way of progress is a man. Go figure. Um, any other comments, uh, if not, then, uh, we will conclude this presentation, and move on to 3.2 park and recreation month proclamation. Uh, so we'll go ahead and uh, bring John into the panel. Somebody can help me find him. There he is. Welcome, John. We are happy to be joined this evening by community services director John Marchant to accept this proclamation. Proclamation read. Whereas parts and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including the city of Mountain View. And whereas parks and recreation areas promote health and wellness, improving the physical and mental health of the community. And, whereas, parks and recreation areas promote time spent in nature, which positively impacts mental health by increasing cognitive performance and well-being, and alleviating illnesses such as depression, attention deficit disorders, and Alzheimer's, and, whereas, parks and recreation areas encourage physical activities by providing space for popular sports, walking trails, swimming pools, and many other activities designed to promote. active lifestyles. And whereas parks and recreation programming and education activities, such as out of school time programming, youth sports, and environmental education, are critical to youth development, and whereas Mountain View provides residents with access to 44 parks, including shoreline at Mountain View Regional Park, that connects to 9 miles of multi-use trails throughout the city, and whereas the city values positive gathering places, through its award-winning recreation facilities, Such as the community center, Senior Center, the View Team Center, Historic Adobe Building, 2 aquatic facilities, 3 community gardens, 2 gymnasium, athletic fields, and tennis and pickleball courts, where it ends, whereas Mountain View offers a variety of recreation programs for all ages, which strengthen community image and sense of place, strengthen safety and security, promote health and wellness, foster human development, at increased cultural unity, support economic development, community problem solving, and provide recreational experiences, and whereas the U.S. House of Representatives has designated July, as parks and recreation month. Now, therefore, I, Lucas Ramirez, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby proclaim the month of July as parks and a recreation month. Hay. John, would you like to say a few words?

[02:16:56] Community Services Director John Marchant: Yes, thank you, mayor. Thank you, counsel. I am honored to accept this proclamation on behalf of the community services department staff. I have the pleasure to work alongside a team of dedicated parks and recreation professionals who provide exceptional facilities and programs to the Mountain View community, and you mentioned a number of those facilities in the proclamation. Parks are at the center of so many experiences and memories and moments that parks and recreation staff help create. Our local parks are often our 1st experiences in nature, introduction to our favorite hobby. There are places to gather with friends, spaces to celebrate, life special moments and spots of respite and healing, and offer sites that connect us with essential community services, and so much more. Local parks have been essential throughout COVID-19 pandemic with many of our community members finding a new appreciation for these open spaces and the vital programs and services we provide, including our vaccination site and that wrapped out into our park over the last couple of years. We're fortunate to open our newest park, more a park last week, and we look forward to opening Pyramid Park later this summer that will provide almost 3 acres of new park space to the community. Also, on the horizon, we have new magical bridge playground, and aquatic center scheduled for Rainstorf Park, and have two new mini parks starting in the design process. Our city values open, spaces and natural resources, and are committed to increasing access to parks and open space for active and passive recreation uses. Our park staff take great pride in maintaining our open spaces for the community to enjoy. And thank them for their dedication to the community. Our recreation staff has worked diligently throughout the pandemic to provide safe and engaging programs and activities for our community to participate in. From summer camps to senior programming, from swim lessons to adult sports, special events to team programs, staff continues to dedicate their time to bring quality programs, uh, that have reached record high participation as we continue navigating through the pandemic. I want to sincerely thank our recreation staff for their hard work to provide programs, special events and services to the community. And finally, as a department, we're excited to embark on a number of initiatives. These include the creation of the new parks and recreation strategic plan. This plan will define a clear vision and action plan for the future of our parts and open spaces, trail systems, recreation facilities, or recreation programs, and services. We're also developing a new biodiversity strategy in urban force plan to preserve and enhance the diversity of plants, trees, and wildlife in the community, in collaboration with our public works, in community development departments. And we look forward to working with our residents, the Parks and Recreation Commission and you, the city council, to build these plans together. And once again, thank you for the opportunity to accept this proclamation, recognizing Parks and Recreation Month on behalf of the community services department staff.

[02:20:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, John, for accepting it. Yes, I completely agree. Applauses. Uh, merited. Uh, and thank you very much to uh, the park staff and all CSD staff for the incredible work that you do uh, for our community. Would any member of the council like to uh share any remarks? Bye, snare.

[02:20:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Well, John, I just want to extend a special thank you to you and have you extend it to the rest of staff, because I think you've just taken on this job several years ago at an incredibly hard time with a lot of pressure, for I will not list all the reasons, but the city is growing, and there's, and between the pandemic, when we're all going outdoors and the growth of the city, I think there's just more, well, people value perks more than ever. and there's just more pressure than ever to produce more and better parks. So, I just want to extend a thank you to you and your staff for doing that. Thank you.

[02:21:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sounds member, Lieber.

[02:21:17] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Well, I really was touched by our department heads, uh, comments about making memories, and I have to really agree, thinking back on my, um, family, some of my fondest memories, took place in in parks and around recreation, and they really are memories that grow very large for children and impact their lives. And I think we do a great job of presenting those opportunities in Mountain View, and I know that we're growing the next generation of environmentalists by providing these opportunities as well, and that's incredibly important. And I also wanted to recognize the incredible work that was done by your department during the COVID pandemic. in simultaneously presenting those opportunities for families who were using the parks in a much more intensive way. And, um, also pivoting, I think, within about a one calendar week, to opening up, um, a very large, um, mass vaccination site, and so much of the, uh, the support for that was coming from, uh, the department. And my head is really off to all of the staff, of your department, and how well they worked with, all the departments across our city organization to be able to pull that off and to provide an incredible benefit to the community. So thank you so much.

[02:22:49] Community Services Director John Marchant: Thank you. I appreciate it.

[02:22:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any other comments? If not, thank you, John, again for joining us to accept the proclamation, and job well done. We really enjoy working with you and your team. Uh, we will now move on to public comment. Um, Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on the presentation items listed on the agenda. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Be no members of the public wishing to speak. I will conclude the presentations, and move on to the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. Uh, first, council member Lieber, do you have an announcement to make?

[02:23:48] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, yes, I do. Thank you, mayor. I will be recusing myself from item 4.15, which seeks approval for an acquisition of a portion of real property located at 711 Calderon Avenue, because my personal residence is in close proximity to the site.

[02:24:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Would any member of the council like to pull an item? Council member Mattachek?

[02:24:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I'd like to pull item 4.4 and 4.16.

[02:24:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: .4 and 4.16. Thank you. So we will consider those items separately, uh, and that will apply also to, um, the public comment. We'll take the public comment for 4.4, which is the pedestrian mall and 4.16, which, um, is the Sylvan Park, uh, area improvements separately. Um. Now, we'll take public comment on the balance of the consent calendar so that everything except for 4.4 and 4.16. Uh, and uh, let me read the wording year. But any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar, except 4.4 and 4.16. If so, please click the race, hands button, and Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Um, let's go ahead and allocate 3 minutes. The 1st speaker is Robert Tux.

[02:25:24] Robert Cox: Can you hear me?

[02:25:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:25:28] Robert Cox: Okay. Um, this is on item 4.15. On behalf of Louise Katz, Jerry Steege, Mary Hodder, Al Shakwani, and the rest of the steering committee of livable Mountain View, I would like to thank the council members for bringing forth item 4.15 for the purchase of land for a new city park at 7-Eleven Calderon in old Mountain View. The acquisition of this new park would truly be an event worth celebrating, as it is the 1st new public park in our neighborhood in more than a decade. I would also like to thank Melanie Kay and the rest of my neighbors who raised public awareness of this possibility by designing and distributing signs to support the creation of the park. Our neighborhood has grown tremendously since I was 1st elected to the board of the old Mountain View neighborhood association in 2010. It is new public parks like this one that will keep our neighborhood, one of the best places to live in the Bay Area. What a wonderful way to celebrate parks and recreation month. Thank you all.

[02:26:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Steelvan Orcholano. I'm new.

[02:26:45] Siobhan Ortolano: Can you hear me?

[02:26:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[02:26:48] Siobhan Ortolano: Okay, cool. Uh, good evening. My name is Siobhan Ortoano, and I am the legal advertising manager for the San Jose Post Record. This is in reference to item 4.14. The San Jose Post record was adjudicated to publish in the city of San Jose and the county of Santa Clara on February 3rd, 1922. We publish 5 days a week, Monday through Friday, and are qualified to publish notices for the city of Mountain View, when the city adjudicated newspaper cannot accommodate timely publishing requirements. We offer a two day standard deadline and can accept orders as late as 1030 AM the day before the ad needs to publish. In addition, we also provide our ad software, ad tech, at no extra cost. With ad tech, users are able to shorten the deadline schedule and streamline the publication process, as well as view an online archive of your previous public notices. Considering our additional services, I ask that you consider awarding the legal advertising bid to both our competitor, the Daily Post as well as the San Jose Post Record. Thank you.

[02:28:00] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will return to the council for deliberation and emotion. Uh, uh, and, uh, the council should note, uh, that the uh, title of the ordinance attached to item 4.2 as well as resolutions attached to items 4.3. 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7 are included in the agenda flow in the agenda flow. If you need the language. Council member show alter.

[02:28:34] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, first, I wanted to make a comment about, um, uh, item 4.6. It is the recommended fiscal year to 20223 capital improvement program, and it's come to us before. We've dealt with it several times, but I just wanted to bring to everybody's attention the tremendous amount of work that this, um, reflects, and and to really thank all of the staff involved in it now and in the future. There's a mere 42 long page table of projects. The city staff is doing a lot. So, thank you, and that's certainly true for all the other items as well, but I wanted to particularly mention that one. And then if it's okay, I'll just go ahead and make the motion for the remainder and read the item. Is that okay, Mayor?

[02:29:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, please do.

[02:29:30] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Okay, so I'd like to adopt the staff recommendation to, um, uh, for the consent calendar 4.2. Adopt an Ordinance of the City of Mountain View, amending Chapter 2, Article 7 of the Mountain View City Code, relating to campaign finance, to be read, entitle only, further reading waived. 4.3, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, authorizing and continuing virtual meetings of city council, committees, boards, and commissions pursuant to AB 361, and making required findings to be read, entitle only, further reading waived. Um, 4.5. Adopt a resolution of intention and the city council of the city of Mountain View, to vacate public easements at 870 East El Camino, to be read, and title only, further reading wave, attachment one to the council report, and set a date for a public hearing to consider the vacation for September 13, 2022. 4.6, adopt a resolution in the city council of the city of Mountain View, adopting the recommended fiscal year, 2022, 23, Capital Improvement Project, including all amendments to existing projects, excluding the Shoreline Regional Park community, to be read, entitle only, further reading, waived, and adopt a resolution of the Shoreline Regional Park community of the city of Mountain View, adopting the recommended fiscal year, 2022, 23, Capital Improvement Program for the Shoreline Regional Park community, including amendments to existing projects to be read entitled only, further reading waived. Finally, 4.7, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, affording yo yo to the performing Arts Committee.

[02:31:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member commit.

[02:31:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks, Mayor. So I'd like to second the motion, but also abstain from item 4.one, um, the minute since I was out. Thank you.

[02:31:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? About the motion. If not, let's proceed with the roll call vote.

[02:31:49] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilman Michelle Walter.

[02:31:52] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Hi.

[02:31:53] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei?

[02:31:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:31:55] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koga?

[02:31:57] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[02:31:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[02:32:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Uh, I was the recuse on 4.15.

[02:32:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Thank you, Council member Matachek.

[02:32:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:32:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[02:32:08] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:32:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[02:32:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:32:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously for the balance of the consent calendar.

[02:32:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. So now we'll, uh, go to 4.4 resolution of intents to establish pedestrian malls on Castro Street, between West Evelyn Avenue and California Street and report on design competition. Uh, so, uh, let's, let's take public comment 1st if that's okay, and then um, we'll return for questions and deliberation. Would any member of the public like to speak on item 4.4. Uh, let's go ahead and allocate 3 minutes. Candace Larson. Candace, are you able to unmute yourself?

[02:33:08] Candace Larson: I'm I'm ahead of you guys. I'm sorry. I'm waiting for 7.2.

[02:33:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, um, no worries. We'll get there soon.

[02:33:17] Candace Larson: Okay.

[02:33:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, thank you very much. So the next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[02:33:25] Tim McKenzie: Hi, y'all. Uh, just want to say, love the pedestrian mall on Castro. It's been a gem, that Mountain View that we've been able to have through the pandemic and love to see it continuing. So thanks a lot.

[02:33:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to speak, we will return to the council for deliberation and emotion. Uh, Council member Medichex, and you hold the item, would you like to speak?

[02:33:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Yeah, so I pull the item because, um, I'm guessing a lot of us, uh, would like to share our thoughts about what we would like to see on Castro. I think we're all supportive of keeping the pedestrian wall. Um, there had been talk of having a subcommittee. Um, and I'm kind of wondering where things stand and what's the appropriate time for us to, uh, give input if we have it. Um, what's this process going to look like? Thank you.

[02:34:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Matachek.

[02:34:29] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Um, so I am aware that there's interest in forming an ad hoc uh subcommittee about uh, downtown aesthetics. Um, essentially tied to uh, the pedestrian mall in particular, and the 100 to 300 blocks of Castro Street. So we will be, we as in staff will be, uh, assessing probably over the month of July, what we think a scope could be for the ad hoc committee. So I believe that I will be talking to the mayor about that because he does have in his discretion to appoint an ad hoc committee. So I think we just need to do some legwork further on just the scope of the, the ad hoc, um, committee, and then I will ask our public works director to speak more specifically about some of the work that's underway with the pedestrian mall.

[02:35:28] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Thank you, city manager McCarthy.

[02:35:30] Public Works Director Don Cameron: I'm Don Cameron, public works director. So, as I know we pointed out in the council report, is what you're doing tonight is the 1st step in establishing a permanent pedestrian mall, and is required by the California pedestrian mall law, which is to adopt a resolution of intent, to create this mall on the 1st 3 blocks of Castle Street. That kicks off a minimum 90 day public review period. And followed by a public hearing for you to be held on October 11th, where you will then take formal public comment on the creation of a pedestrian mall, and consider adopting a resolution to approve it, and eventually you have to actually adopt an ordinance. But we lay out on the accounts report all the legal requirements involved to establish pedestrian law. During that review process this summer, we'll be using that time to continue to do outreach with the business owners, the property owners, because they're key constituencies in this, as well as our community, in terms of both the process to establish a pedestrian mall and prepare for that public hearing October. But at the same time, looking forward to what we want this pedestrian mall to look like. What we do know that, and when you look around the country at other pedestrian malls, eventually, we would have to do a complete reconstruction of the street so that it no longer looks like a street. Everything's at one level. But that's going to be a major capital improvement project. It's going to take time and effort to do thoughtful design working with our community. And eventually constructing it. And that is a few years off then to move forward towards reconstructing the street. So one of the key considerations we have is, how are we going to handle this interim period or this transitional period between what we see out there today and the eventual reconstruction of the street? And for that, we've already been working with our consultant skill in developing concepts for interim design guidelines so that we can get a more aesthetically pleasing and consistent look among the 3 blocks. And these would be design guidelines that would apply then to any businesses that intend to use the street. Um, as part of, you know, activization and for their businesses. In addition to that, looking at a functional plan, the entire street may not be used for dining purposes. So as part of this functional plan, what we're looking at is how can we bring more public gathering, more public interest? So there'll be a certain amount of maybe public furniture added to it. Maybe there's a play structure. There's a lot of opportunities there we want to entertain that create activation and engagement. Another piece of the infrastructure improvements we want to make. So we don't want to overly invest in infrastructure because we're talking about a complete reconstruction of the street. But we're already starting to see some exciting ideas of how we can improve the intersection crossings to make it much nicer and connected for pedestrians while we have the cross traffic. And we can make these investments and build them into the future permanent reconstruction, how we can provide more accessibility improvements. More ramps, rent, mid block, make everything just more accessible and attractive along the street. So these are the 3 components that we're working on. Our intention is to, when we come forward for the public hearing October by then, We're ready to bring for you to forward to you what these 3 items will look like and what what are what we're recommending, because we will be looking to counsel to have, you know, approve what we want to do here before we take the next steps with it. Um, should there be an ad hoc committee set up? Uh, we can work that in, and uh, we can already start planning to meet later, late in the summer. Uh, after, you know, as part of even doing our outreach with the businesses and property owners, get some initial thoughts, and that could be a good form. to lead to a recommendation to the full council in October.

[02:40:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you so much. Um, I appreciate uh, the description of how this is all gonna work. Um, and I'm excited about, uh, this coming to fruition. Um, if there's no other comments or, um, if folks want to chime in, I'm happy to also move item 4.4. Do you want me to do that and then we can do the additional comment? So I'll move item 4.4 on the consent calendar, which is adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View to establish pedestrian malls on Castro Street, between West Evelyn Avenue, the East Leg, and Villa Street, and Dana Street, and Dana Street, and California Street, to be read entitled only further reading wave. Thanks.

[02:40:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, SmurHicks.

[02:40:52] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I'll second that motion, and I just also wanted to thank council member Matterchek for pulling the item, I had thought of doing it, but thought this is a long agenda, and maybe I wouldn't, but I think it's, you know, I think we have to give time not only to solving difficult problems in the city, but also to, uh, making sure that the community feels fully engaged on things that bring joy to living in the city, and this is one that I get comments from, and I'm sure other council members do too, from members of the public. One of the things that they say, One of the happiest things they say has come out of the pandemic. So, uh, thank you, council member Matachek, for making sure that everybody's, uh, more fully informed on, on what's happening and, uh, how they can have some input. And with that, I second the motion.

[02:41:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? If not, um, let's go ahead and take the book.

[02:41:54] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[02:41:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:41:57] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[02:41:58] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:42:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Coca?

[02:42:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I

[02:42:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: cancel my birthday.

[02:42:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:42:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber? Council membership, Walter?

[02:42:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:42:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[02:42:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:42:11] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:42:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you. Um, and now we'll move on to item 4.16. Sylvan Park trellis replacement and sand volleyball court. Um, and we'll start with public comment. Would any member of the public like to speak on this item? 4.16. Please raise your hand in the Zoom or press star 9. See no members of the public wishing to speak. Um, let's uh, return to the council, council member Metachek.

[02:42:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, I pulled this one because, um, I don't want to slow down the, uh, sand volleyball court or the terrap trellis, but, um, I did ask the question about whether or not there was public art at Silver Park, and unfortunately, that park was established before we had our public art policy, and so it doesn't have any. And so I am interested in adding some. And, um, I was thinking maybe the easiest way to do this is incorporated into the, um, sand volleyball court where there are plans for benches, um, and to have those benches go through the process where the visual arts committee, uh, does a call for artists. And so we have our artsy benches. Most people probably know I'm big on functional art as opposed to like standalone art. Um, and we have great benches at Wyandot and Mara Park. And I think it'd be great if we had some at Sylvan Park. So I'd like to see if there's support for adding the public art element to this project.

[02:43:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I'll remember, I'll be okay.

[02:43:57] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Counselor, Matt Manachek, for bringing up, um, public arts. I know you've been a big champion. Um, I would be supportive as long as it doesn't slow up the process. So, um, I guess I wanted to ask staff if we designate it as the benches in that, um, not, um, slow things down, can we continue to move as scheduled? Or, I was just saying, can we, thinking, can we just do the projects with the volleyball cord in the trellis and then do a separate project for the public art piece?

[02:44:32] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you, Council member Abikoga, and Mattachek. Um, Don Cameron again, public works director. So because we are ready to put this project out to bid, which includes specifications for the benches, it means that we would be relying on the contractor then to order the benches, and proceed forward. A public art process, the full process where we go, work with the visual arts committee to go through an artist selection process, and and through the approval, it takes many months. So if it's the council direction that you would like, um, you know, public art, focus on the benches, which does help by designating where we, where the public art would be, Staff would explore 2 options. One is, we leave the benches in for now in the construction package calling it a revocable item, meaning that if the decisions aren't made soon enough that we can install them as part of the project, we can pull them out and not to pay for them. Or we do choose to do it as a separate project, and we would have to explore this after tonight, and if you could leave it up to staff's discretion, if this is the direction we get from council, where we might choose to just, there are 4 benches in total, by the way, there's 2 for the sand volleyball court and 2 for the trellis. It could be all 4 or just 2 of them. We would pull the benches completely out of the construction contract. Let them go through the visual, uh, the public art process and do as council member Abby Koka suggested, a separate project that once the art is selected and the bridge, the bench design is figured out, then we would contract for having those benches installed. So this current project would just preserve the space for the benches. Um, there may be a slight increase of the project cost, but again, we, we can handle that down, down the line and come to you for additional funding, if needed, if this is the direction from council.

[02:46:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: That's a member of Meta Check.

[02:46:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'm fine leaving it to staff's discretion because as I said, I don't want to slow down the other elements of the project. Um, so, that's fine with me, leaving out to staff.

[02:47:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council membership.

[02:47:08] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, so I basically 2nd that. Was that emotion, council member, now to check?

[02:47:15] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sure, I'll move item 4.16. Um, with uh, the inclusion of public art, um, functional. The benches would be, um, functional art, and, um, they could either be a separate project or they could be a revocable item in the, uh, project, and we'll leave it up to staff's discretion, which is the best route to go.

[02:47:41] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Great. Second.

[02:47:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Sounded like a second. Um, so are there any remaining questions or comments? If not, thank you, council member Madishak, for making the recommendation. Let's go ahead and proceed with the vote.

[02:47:59] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Catscriber Mata check.

[02:48:00] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:48:01] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member show Walter?

[02:48:02] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[02:48:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Epicoca?

[02:48:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Hi.

[02:48:06] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei.

[02:48:08] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:48:08] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Labor.

[02:48:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[02:48:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Nice Mayor Hicks.

[02:48:12] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:48:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mia Ramirez.

[02:48:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:48:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[02:48:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you very much. Well, now proceed to item 5, oral communications. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic during this section. State law prohibits the council from acting on nonagenda items. With any member of the public on the line, like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on any matter not on the agenda? Not seeing any, so we'll close item 5 and move on to new business, item 6.one. Adopt resolutions governing employee compensation for all bargaining groups, unrepresented employees, and hourly employees. Even resources director Sura, Sue Rush, and senior human resources analyst Lindsay Bishop will present the side. Whenever you're ready. Oh, actually they need to be added to the panel. Welcome to.

[02:49:40] Human Resources Director Sue Rush: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Siraj, Human Resources Director, and joining me tonight is Lindsay Bishop, the senior human resources analyst. This evening, we are presenting new compensation packages for all city employees. The city has 4 represented groups consisting of eagles who represent management, professional, technical and clerical staff. The International Association of Firefighters represent staff in the fire department. Police Officers Association includes sworn and non-sworn classifications in the police department. And then finally, the service employees international union is comprised of maintenance, clerical, and technical classifications. In addition, the city has unrepresented employee groups, including confidential employees, police managers, fire managers, department heads, council appointees, and hourly employees. In June 2021, the city council adopted resolutions approving compensation for all employee groups for a 2 year term expiring June of 2023. The 1st year included a cost of living increase, which all referred to as colas, and one time compensation in the form of dollars or leave hours. Year 2 of the agreements included one time compensation and a reopener clause for discussing cola and equity adjustments. And so over the last few months, representatives of the city have bet with the bargaining units and worked collaboratively to reach agreements, which are being presented tonight to council. In addition to the compensation packages for year two, the city and the employee groups also mutually agreed to extend the current agreement for a 3rd year. So the proposed compensation packages include a 5% cola, effective June 26th of 2022, and a 4% cola, effective July in 2023. The city also conducted total compensation surveys for benchmark classifications. And so the proposed compensation packages include increasing the range for some positions, referred to as equity adjustments and the report, that range from 2.5% to 7%. And these equity adjustments are recommended to maintain competitive salary ranges in a highly competitive labor market. And the recommended cola and equity adjustments are reflected in the fiscal year 20223, recommended budget, and the general operating fund 5 year financial forecast, that finance staff will be presenting in the public hearing section of tonight's meeting. And so, in summary, there are 5 resolutions before council tonight for compensation and benefits for all bargaining groups, along with unrepresented and hourly employees. And I'm available to answer any questions.

[02:52:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any questions on this item or regarding the item? Um, if not, we'll turn to public comment, would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom. Or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. And again, this is regarding the, uh, uh, resolutions governing employee compensation. Uh, let's allocate 3 minutes. There is one speaker. It's the color ending in 069. Color 650 area code ending in 069. Are you able to unmute yourself?

[02:53:46] Public Speaker: I pressing star 9.

[02:53:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, it looks like, um, the color has removed their hand.

[02:54:00] Public Speaker: Hello?

[02:54:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, oh, there you. Yes, we can hear you.

[02:54:05] Public Speaker: You know, I wanted to, um, make comments just prior to this session, on open agenda, and I guess I just missed the cut off for that. So, um, I don't have any comments on this section. So, um, I still would like to make some comments uh, on as a non-agenda item at some point. Uh, thank you.

[02:54:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I would, um, so we'll go ahead and close uh, public comment, um, for items not on the agenda, please feel free to email the council at city.council at mountainview.gov. Um, unfortunately, we, we have closed, um, item 5. So now we're turning to the council. Um, let me read, uh, I will never bring the item back for council deliberation and action, and note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached. Council member Abi Koga.

[02:55:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, I just want to, um, thanks staff for. their work and all of our bargaining units for, um, their collaborative, um, work on on this, uh, agreement. As we all know, the last few years have been challenging. Um, and we were not sure of how the economy would, um, come out. Um, we've been fortunate that, um, we have been financially, um, sound. And so I think this agreement is very reflective of our, um, you know, continuing to be fiscally responsible, but also, um, wanting to recognize our staff, our employees for all of their, um, dedication, hard work, um, that they have provided um, during these COVID times to our community. Um, you know, I, I, I'm just, I'm always so proud of our, our city staff. I think we really do have the best in show. And, um, I also just wanted to acknowledge that, um, this really has, from what my understanding, it's been a very collaborative, um, congenial, um, um, endeavor to come up with these agreements. And the fact that we've been able to extend it. It's always nice to have longer, so we don't have to keep bargaining. So I appreciate that too. So, um, thank you to to, um, our entire city. organization, our staff, our bargaining units, and everyone involved in this, and I'm happy to make a motion if that is okay, is that all right? All right.

[02:56:39] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Please bear with me. Have to read some resolutions here. So I will make a motion to adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager, or designate to amend the memorandum of understanding between the eagles, the city of 2022, the city's salary plan to reflect these compensation changes to be read entitled only for everything waived. Adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager or designate to amend the memorandum of understanding between the International Association of Firefighters, local 1965 and the city for the period of July 1st, 2022, through June 30th, 2024, and advise the city's salary plan to reflect these compensation changes, to be read entitled only for their reading waived, adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager or designate, amend the memorand And, of understanding between the Mountain View Police Officers Association and the city for the period of July 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2024, and revise the city's salary plan to reflect these compensation changes to be read entitled only further being waived. Adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager, designate, amend the memorandum of understanding between the service employees, International Union, local 521, in the city for the period of July 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2024, and revise the city's salary plan to reflect these compensation changes to be read entitled only further reading waived, and adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View authorizing the city manager or designate, to modify compensation for unrepresent confidential employees, fire managers, police managers, department heads, council appointees, and hourly employees for the period of July 1st, 2022 through June 30th, 2024, and revive the city's salary plan to reflect these compensation changes to be read entitled only for the reading waved. Thank you.

[02:58:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for reading all of that. Very helpful. Council member command.

[02:58:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Council member Abbe Koga said it all? So, I'll just 2nd.

[02:58:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? If not, we'll start the vote.

[02:59:00] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Councilman Rabbi Koga?

[02:59:02] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[02:59:03] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member, Kamei.

[02:59:04] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[02:59:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Lieber?

[02:59:06] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[02:59:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[02:59:08] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[02:59:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council membership, Walter.

[02:59:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: And thank you so much to the staff.

[02:59:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Bye, Mayor Hicks.

[02:59:16] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:59:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez?

[02:59:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[02:59:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Emotion carries unanimously.

[02:59:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much, and yes, thank you all to the staff. You've been phenomenal. Uh, we will now. Include that item and proceed to 7.1. Mobile home rent stabilization ordinance, amendment, amendment related to a chord or memorandum of understanding exemption. Translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreter.

[02:59:50] Spanish Interpreter: Buenas noches. Vamos a seguir con el articulo, si te punto uno, la ordinanca de estabilicación de rita de casasos mobiles en minderelacionada conneción de acuerdo, a memorando, dentendi. The intendimiento, la presentación, estarata ducidal español, si esque ocupa traductional español, por favor, precione el globulo, que dice intercretación, al imperior de supertaya, y selecione, español. Gracias.

[03:00:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Just in community development director Wayne Chen will present the item. Once it's been promoted to the panel. Welcome, Wayne. Feel free to begin whenever you're ready.

[03:00:48] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Hello, thank you. Good evening, mayor, and council members. Let me just take a moment to share my screen. Okay, could um, can all of you see the presentation?

[03:01:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[03:01:07] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Great. Thank you very much. Um, as you mentioned, Mayor, this item is to hear a recommendation uh, regarding amending the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance, uh, regarding the accord or MOU exemption. Um, I do want to note as well that, um, we have our consultants, um, Matt Celta, uh, BAE, who helped us facilitate this process, as well as guaranteed them in, uh, outside legal counsel to the rental housing committee, who could be available for questions, um, as needed. So here's the recommendation, which is to remove the exemption for mobile home spaces and mobile home in our mobile home park. Uh that are subject to an approved accord. A brief background, uh, last September 14th, uh, council held a 1st reading of the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. This was the culmination of an effort to work on a council priority work item that was on the FY 2019 uh, 21 uh, work plan. Um, at the meeting, council uh, approved the ordinance and also directed staff to work with park owners and residents to develop uh, uh, a model accord. There was also discussion regarding the Sunnyvale process that was used, which, um, resulted in a model accord. The ordnance went into effect, um, a couple uh, uh, passed on the 2nd uh, reading, a couple of weeks later and went into effect in October. Just a brief overview of accords. There are some jurisdictions, um, in the state that use the courts, uh, which are essentially long-term, uh, lease agreements instead of rent stabilization programs to provide uh, stability to uh, mobile home residents. Where the accords are used. They've all been agreements between the park owners and the jurisdiction, it has required local approval. Um, all use one single model accord. To cover applicable parks in a jurisdiction. And uh, we were not able to find a jurisdiction that's both a rent stabilization program and an accord that simultaneously um, are in effect and covering different parks. Um, And there hasn't been a jurisdiction where, um, they started with adopting a runs the position program and then undertaken an effort to then develop a model chord, um, and providing a way for exempting parts from the adopted program. The city's um, ordinance provides um, a couple of requirements for an accord or MOU to go into effect. Again, the court is an agreement between a park owner and the city and it must be approved by council. And at least 80% of all the residents in a park mustn't vote in favor of an accord. Um, unlike other jurisdictions using accords, again, the city already has it. This is just a table that provides a high level summary of who accords protect. And in the area of mobile homes, there's really the 3 types of mobile home residents. Um, in the 1st category, the 2nd column here, uh, you have folks who own their mobile home unit, but rents the space from a park owner. Then, uh, the 2nd group are tenants who rents a unit from a mobile home owner who in turn rents the space from a park owner. And then finally, there are tenants who rent, uh, rents the unit and a space from a park owner. If the park owner happens to also own the mobile home. unit. And this just provides a summary of the um, protections that are provided for these 3 groups. The city's ordinance provides protections for all 3 groups. Under an accord or MOU. Uh, they're basically, um, relating to the relationship between a mobile home owner and the park owner, uh, um, but it doesn't provide protection, uh, for tenant to rent a unit from a local home owner. And if we're, the 3rd category of tenants, there are protections there too. There are state protections. Um, you'll see that there are, um, mobile home residency laws and there are also AB 1482 protections that were also, um, passed, I believe, last year. And the staff's review, the ordinance provides more protections than AP 1482. So in summary, under an accord, certain tenets will lose some protections, um, and all those some state protections exist, um, each RSO, um, has greater protections. This is a summary of the um, stakeholder a court process that staff implemented um, earlier this year. All of this information was provided, um, in a physical, uh, hardcopy mailing to all of the residents in all of the mobile home parks, as well as the mobile home park, um, owners. It provided an opportunity for both residents and park owners to separately share input with staff. And then to me jointly to discuss potential proposals. Uh, we did set a March 24th deadline for park owners to submit a model cord because we were um, gearing to bring this item back to council before the end of the fiscal year. During the stakeholder process, we laid out a set of principles that we believed were instrumental in helping to facilitate an effective process. First, as mentioned, the uh, accord, uh, method where it is used, have really all been a single model court in other cities. Um, we also felt that it was necessary to look at a comprehensive accord. At minimum, it's a framework for staff to be able to evaluate any proposal that we get. And the obvious comparison point, at least a starting point, is to look at what is in the ordinance and compare a proposal to what is in the ordinance. Uh, Similarly, in accord, uh, we felt should really provide substantially similar or greater benefits than the ordinance itself. To evaluate an accord and potentially recommend it for, uh, council consideration that provides lesser benefits than ordinance leads to a somewhat strange result. Uh, we looked at the likelihood of being approved by 80% of a park's residence because that is a required threshold um, in the ordinance, and it's also a way for us to convey to all of the stakeholders to, uh, work together if they could, and find time to meet and discuss proposals amongst themselves to see if something can be put together. And the city's role here is really to be a facilitator to allow space for both the owners and the residents to work amongst themselves and then to tap into city staff and our consultant team as necessary. Here's a summary of the park owner participation and their input. There was limited participation by the park owners for the duration of the process at the beginning. Um, there were 5 park owners and towards the end, there were 2 park owners representing 3 parks. Um, the primary input received was, uh, folks really wanted to be able to have each park have their own MOU and not be under a model accord. Uh, folks felt that disputes under an MOU could be resolved if it just didn't involve the city or the RC oversight or the petition process. And one park owner did state that they felt that residents should vote 1st and whatever passes, um, should then be submitted to counsel for approval. Uh, there was also limited uh, participation by the residents during the process, but for different reasons. Um, residents did express that there was fear of retaliation, if they were participating or if they weren't in favor of accords. And we did hear uh, several times that there uh, was limited incentive to participate because the ordinance already provide stability and protection. Folks were concerned of how the city would monitor or enforce an MOU, especially because the agreement is between a park owner and the city. And there was concern of no pathway for resident to get issues heard, or if they felt that the NOU was improperly implemented because they don't have the avenue of hearing officers, or the rental housing committee, if they're exempted from the ordinance. Uh, and then residents also convey there have been uh, threats of park closures, uh, for at least a couple of parks, if there is no court. So 2 park owners representing 3 parks did submit proposals by March 24th. Uh, one was for sunset at States, and another one covering 2 other parks, Sahara Village, and Santiago Goa. Staff's evaluation is that neither proposal achieves a model cord and doesn't have the park owner consensus of other park owners. And neither proposal provides or discusses how their proposal would comprehensively provide similar or greater benefits than under the orders. Here's a chart, um, that was also in the staff report, but just to go over, um, on the left are the key components that summarizes the major buckets of, uh, what is covered under the ordinance. Um, and then you have the 2nd column of what's in the ordinance. And then you have Sunset of States. We shorten it for SD proposal. Sahara Village and Santiago Villa proposal, SV. Uh, general, um, summary of resident input, and then staff's assessment, um, going across the road. So regarding the annual general adjustment. Uh, staff assessment that is unclear whether the SE proposal is more protective than the ordinance. It does depend on, um, the cost of utilities, under the ordinance, the rent does include, um, utilities, unless it's separately built. And, uh, it does appear that under the SV proposal, the ordinance is more protective. Um, uh, given that the SV proposal doesn't have uh, minimums or maximums, again, it can depend depending on the CPI situation. Um, under vacancy decontrol, uh, staff did feel that there's more evaluation that was needed to determine proposals are greater benefit than the uh, ordinance. And it also depends on the presence or lack thereof of other key components. For park owner petitions, staff's assessment that, if park owners wish to, on their own, waive their own rights, they can do so, this may or may not be a benefit for residents, especially if the park owner proposal is that it takes away the ability for residents to use the petition process, which is what the next row shows. The SE and SV proposals, um, don't include, uh, uh, a petition process, and, um, uh, without another process, um, The staff's conclusion is that the ordinance does provide a benefit here, that's not present in these, in these proposals. Pass through costs, um, is a rather complex piece, uh, we feel that more evaluation, again, is needed to determine if the proposals are greater. Uh, than the ordinance itself. Just cause evictions, the ordinance does provide, uh, uh, just cause eviction protection for the tenants and and the owners. But the SV and SV proposals don't include just cause evictions. And again, although there are, uh, some state protections, they're not as great, um, for tenants, um, than compared to the ordnance itself. So on this row, we felt that the ordinance provides greater protection. The duration of the program, it's unclear whether the durations proposed, um, are benefit or not. A lot of it depends on whether it is a program that is working. and is providing adequate protections and it's not possible to tell from this point. Um, Annual program fees, there were no program fees that were part of the proposals. And in staff's evaluation of how an accord would actually work and be implemented, especially because it's an agreement between the owner and the city. That there must be some role for the city to oversee the appropriate administration of an accord program. Um, including resources for tenants, um, uh, that would be built in, and this would include, um, also a voting process and other monitoring and enforcement provisions. Um, under administration enforcement, um, it's related, it's related. SE proposal offers a mediation program. The staff believes that there needs to be more information about how the mediation program would work, who hires them, um, how it would get paid for, um, how tenants and residents would get access, et cetera. So it could be something that is possible and could work well, but more information is needed. And for the SUV proposal, Um, there was no discussion. Both SE and SP proposals include the concept of a rent credit program, and staff feels that more information is needed to determine whether this is a benefit or not. Um, the staff is unable to determine whether, for example, the thresholds that are proposed are ones that would cover some, all, or few of the residents, um, or whether the asset limits would cover some awe or few, uh, simply because we don't have that data available. And as a result, it's not possible to determine whether the value of the rent credit. Um, uh, what that uh, value would be. So, again, this could be something of a benefit, but it's not possible to evaluate it based on the information that was provided. And so under the proposal, the other final column, SK proposal has a no part closure provision during an MOU. So, um, in summary at a high level, what the city's ordinance provides are common protections to all mobile home residents, including owners and tenants. Uh, this would be across all the parks and there would be equal protections and, uh, if certain parks are excluded, there may be unequal protections for the residents in those parks, across the parks and within the parks. Uh, the majority of the resident indicated that they had, uh, preferred the, the ordinance, um, but also staff had asked for feedback about what other alternatives or how, how they felt about what was proposed by the park owners, and, uh, staff received very little input, if any, regarding, uh, the benefits of specific proposals put forth by the SE and SV proposals. The ordinance also prevents the potential for unequal bargaining power that could be present in record negotiations, uh, and ordinance provides a common standard, which provides clarity for tenants and residents. And, uh, the one common standard, uh, provides for a more efficient programming administration, and it's therefore, it's a lower cost and complexity to administer. The impacts of accords. So the primary purpose of it accords is to protect mobile home owners. It governs the relationship between the owners of a home and of the mobile home park. But the ordinance itself protects both mobile homeowners and tenants. So exempting a park with improved cord, I mean, certain tenants may lose or have reduced benefits that would have been otherwise provided. And then more broadly, even a court does not provide comprehensive protections for the mobile owners as well, then all the residents under record may not have certain benefits that they currently have. And we think that it's possible that under accord, um, uh, that there can be confusion and certainty about what does or does not apply to them. It may be difficult to determine whether the court actually provides similar greater protections than the ordinance. We feel that we would need more data, at least to evaluate what was provided, and we would need some additional time and resources to do so. Um, the provisions in the MOUs could create um, an opportunity for park owners to perhaps purchase mobile homes. And if a mobile home owner currently lives in a unit, but wants to, for some reason, rent it out in the future, and they're under an accord, then the future tenant would not be covered under an accord. Uh, finally, uh, the court impact is, uh, uh, the increased administrative cost and complexity, and just by by way of background, um, the fees for the mobile home ordinance were just adopted at uh, 300 per space. And it's based on a total program budget of just one FTE to oversee the whole program, with other administrative costs to support it, such as hearing officers, and legal resources and other administrative costs. So we feel that it's about as streamlined as can be. Um, If there are additional pieces that include an accord, um, especially if the cord is quite different than the ordinance. Then the additional staffing and consultant resources would be required to administer the program. It could lead to a situation where a court fees would be as high as the fees. It's possible it could be even higher if it's more complex and it requires other pieces. They would need to include things that the ordinances not include, such as a voting mechanism. Um, finally, uh, the ordinance fee itself would, um, ostensibly increase for covered parks if other parks are exempted from, um, the ordinance. The staff report does provide an alternative to uh, removing the exemption uh, uh, for accords, uh, covered and record, and it would be still to have one model accord. Uh, that, of course, should clearly include, um, the following pieces, um, including fees for administration oversight, that includes the various pieces such as reviewing and approving, uh, the accord, ongoing monitoring and enforcement, again, the voting process, legal resources, et cetera. And that any proposal should state very clearly. What it does or does not include, and how it is greater, comprehensively than the ordinance itself, so it can be evaluated. Uh, We believe that additional staffing consult resources would need to be part of a process to, uh, yield, uh, a model accord. We would recommend that it be reimbursed by the park owners. And then in terms of the workload. Uh, staff is, um, envisioning and seeing, um, the next 2 to 5 years of, um, a lot of priorities to work through, including housing element programs and other priorities, and would ask council, to prioritize what those are, with the housing element programs, getting the top priority. And we feel that the earliest that we could bring this back, uh, uh, would be um, early, uh, fiscal year 2023 and 24, This current process took us 9 months to get to this point. And if it takes another, uh, 9 months, uh, using potentially a similar framework, And then there would be a voting process and council ratifying the agreement would take some additional time. Uh, but again, staff's recommendation is to remove the exemption for mobile home spaces and mobile homes in a mobile home park that are subject to and approved accord. Here's the recommendation again. This concludes staff's recommendation and happy to answer any questions.

[03:21:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any questions from the council? Council member leave.

[03:21:14] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Yes, I have a question for staff. Uh, did the park owners at any time request uh, additional time to come up with a, a full proposal, that would, um, uh, conform to what was, what was set out by the council?

[03:21:34] Wayne Chen: Not to my knowledge, uh, we we did not receive any uh, written or verbal request to, um, provide more time.

[03:21:43] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you. And my 2nd question is, um, can you, uh, explain before we go to the public comment about what protections there are in terms of park closures? Uh, what, uh, protections are in place, such as uh, a need to rezone, et cetera.

[03:22:08] Wayne Chen: Uh, sure, let me, let me, um, take a 1st um, cut, and you mentioned rezoning, so I'll start with that. The city does have a mobile home zoning designation for mobile home parks. So, in the event that a park owner, uh, perhaps wishing to exit the business and wanting to potentially sell it and, um, the new owner wants to change its use, it would have to go through a city process. Um, um, that would include, for example, if it's to a residential use, to change the general plan, and uh, zoning designation. There are other pieces that are part of a displacement response work, including local replacement requirements, and for example, the community opportunity to purchase act and the tenant opportunity purchase act, which we will be evaluating both of those pieces, and seeing how they could apply to, um, the mobile home parks um, as well. Um, did I answer most of your question or was there another part that, um, you would like some input on?

[03:23:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Well, just in terms of, uh, addressing the, the fear and concern and the, the possibility that was held out there to our residents that, um, there would be a park closure, if, if the owners could not achieve what they wanted.

[03:23:33] Wayne Chen: Yes. Um. We do have protections to be able to protect our residents against that occurring. Yes, let me say one more thing, and perhaps I will also ask guaranteed them in to provide some additional information, but state mobile home conversion requirements, they do provide, um, they do provide provisions, um, that must be met. Um, one of them being that the fair value of the mobile home, um, units must must be paid, um, during, uh, a closure process. But, um, I'm going to turn it over to guaranteed demand to see if she can provide more color on that.

[03:24:12] Karen Tiedemann: Thank you. Good evening, Guaranteedman, with Goldfarbon Lippman. Um, yes, as Wayne mentioned under state law, there are protections for mobile home residents. Before a park can be closed, a mobile home park owner has to file a conversion impact report with the city and under state laws. It was recently amended. If the mobile homes can't be moved, then the mobile home park owner has to pay the in-place value for those mobile homes. Additionally, when the city is approving that conversion impact report, you have to make certain findings right now, and you have to make a finding about whether the closure will contribute to a shortage of housing opportunities and choices for low and moderate income households. So those are all designed to protect the mobile home residents. There's also significant, um, time noticing requirements for the residents, that in some instances is 6 month notice, other instances, is a 12 month notice. And then, and these are minimum requirements. The city can also adopt more extensive requirements.

[03:25:22] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And in addition to the state level requirements, it sounds like the city would have to make, uh, a zoning, uh, change. to be able to have the land be available for any other use.

[03:25:39] Karen Tiedemann: That's correct. My understanding, its own mobile home use.

[03:25:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you.

[03:25:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member meta check.

[03:25:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Just a few questions. Um, On page 6 of your presentation, Mr. Chen, um, you noted that, um, the accord does not provide protection for tenants who are rep, who are renting mobile homes, but, Couldn't that be written into an MLU that they would have protection similar to the MH RSO?

[03:26:20] Wayne Chen: I think, um, conceptually, um, it could be, but what we've seen in other places where, uh, in accordance been put in place, that it is, um, very difficult if not impossible to get all the, um, mobile homeowners, um, to agree to provisions in accord on top of the park owners to agree to provisions that would cover the relationship between the park owner and the mobile home owner. Um, So I think while it's conceptually possible, we have not seen it, um, be achieved in other places.

[03:26:54] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and If we did go forward with this, um, since it's a contract between the city and the park owner, what, what is the role of the, it's, it's a contract. So what's the role of the city attorney's office in all of this?

[03:27:19] Wayne Chen: Perhaps I can start um with. Because it's, um, an agreement, uh, between the 2 parties, uh, just pragmatically, we would look to have, uh, provisions to, uh, monitor, um, enforce the terms of the agreement. I know that the city has, um, uh, tools available to it, such as uh, administrative citations and, um, um, other procedures that can facilitate compliance. Um, and those could be tools as well. But I might ask if, um, the city attorney's office might have, um, uh, any comment on on this question.

[03:27:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes, sorry, let me clarify. I mean, um, the role in the creation of the MOU or the accord.

[03:28:08] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So this, Thank you, uh, council member, may I check for the clarification? Um, the city attorney's office would assist in drafting the accord and would assist in, you know, coming up with language, so we would work with staff hand in hand to to draft something that met, um, legal right. and was comparable to the ordinance. So we are working with staff. There's an attorney in my office that has been working with staff alongside on this process.

[03:28:45] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Um, and let's see. In the... MHRSL, um, I had forgotten, I didn't have time to look this up. Um, how are capital replacement costs that are not due to negligent of, you know, maintenance or non-compliance with, have the ability, health codes treated.

[03:29:09] Wayne Chen: So, um, capital replacement costs in general. The pass through or the not being passed through. If I could ask Karen to um, provide information on that.

[03:29:25] Karen Tiedemann: Thank you. Um, so the MHRSO provides that capital improvements, um, a portion of the cost of capital improvements can be passed through to the park residents. Only 50% can be passed through. There is a petition process required before they are passed through where the the park owner has to verify the cost of the capital improvements and that they are eligible capital improvements and they are amortized over the life of the capital improvements.

[03:29:57] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um. Thank you. That's it for me for right now.

[03:30:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bison Hicks.

[03:30:07] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. I just wanted to clarify a few things we've, uh, counsel has got an email, uh, from residents on this subject, and some of the, uh, questions that people had asked or points people had raised in their emails. I wanted to clarify. One is that some of the people who have, uh, communicated with me, have, um, have, uh, thought that this could be an agreement, that an accord could be an agreement between the park owner, and, uh, residents, um, and that fees could be lower, uh, than, uh, with the MHRSO, uh, And I believe that's not true, but I would like to clarify that.

[03:31:00] Wayne Chen: Thanks for the question. Just looking at the information that was provided in the, the, the 2 proposals and looking at the pieces that, although they were not it, including the proposals, the, um, actions that the city would need to undertake to oversee the, uh, agreement, and then also providing, um, other processes, such as a voting process, uh, providing resources that would take the place of, um, Uh, or provide uh, uh, hearing officers or legal resources for um, residents under in accord. And then looking at the potential, um, staff time and cost and consultant support, uh, based on that analysis, um, just on what was submitted. It seemed that, The amount of resources and fees would be comparable, at least, to the fees that are required, to implement the ordinance. Um, so we really don't see a version of an accord program that has no fees. Uh, there, there would still be, um, significant time involved to evaluate a proposal and bring it to council oversee, um, uh, on a day-to-day basis, their courts or on an annual basis, whatever it might be. And then to the extent that the, um, proposals do become a comprehensive accord, there would likely be more aspects to the accord that would need to be, um, overseen and monitoring to ensure that they're being implemented correctly. Currently, the fees for next fiscal year are $300 per space, and we would envision that it would be comparable, um, at least to that amount, uh, under an accord.

[03:32:54] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And that's under one accord, under multiple accords, what would happen to fees?

[03:33:02] Wayne Chen: Uh, Conceptually, if there are multiple chords, and if the chords are quite different than each other, then essentially, we might look at each accord as its own program. So there could be multiple programs in the, um, attempt to provide, um, resident stability. If they each have their own rules and each with their own complexities, then the cost might be more, uh, exponential, not not necessarily linear. So it, it, um, it could, um, significantly and quickly add cost and complexity if there is more than one accord, again, especially if they're quite different from each other.

[03:33:43] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you and then, uh, and then a 2nd question, uh, I've gotten people have asked, uh, how the, uh, MHRSO versus the accord, how legal disputes would be, um, would be taken care of.

[03:34:03] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Yes, under the ordinance, the tenants have the ability to file petition and have hearing officers, um, hear the case or hear the issue. Um, under the uh, uh, park owner proposals. There is a mediation component to the sunset estates proposal, but again, more information would need to, um, be received in terms of how that program would work. Um, we know the programs that we, the city implement, and the process and procedure, and who the people are who provide that service. Um, we would have to better understand what the mediation program would be under that proposal and would it go through the city or not through the city? The, um, other proposal didn't, um, site a piece that included legal resource, um, or recourse for the tenants or the residents. Um, and um, but it did include the, exclude the petition process, um, as well. So it's not clear under the SV proposal. And under the SE proposal more information will be needed to really understand how it could work.

[03:35:08] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I see. People have also raised, maybe they would have to pay for their own legal fees. Is that a potential problem under an accord, or should they have a savings account for that under an accord?

[03:35:20] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Yeah, that's part of staff's evaluation, which is, um, in a court fee, it is recommended that the fee include the cost of providing illegal resources, um, the feed then could, um, allow, for example, a contract to be entered with outside provider, uh, whether it's, um, nonprofit agency providing, again, hearing officer services, or, um, uh, uh, a nonprofit legal agency providing illegal resources, but we do feel that that has to be, um, um, covered under an accord, um, because There are resources under an ordinance. There are not really the resources or it's not clear how the resources would be part of the proposals, and that would be, um, a deletion of benefits, and to make a comparable, those benefits really should be part of an accord and paid for through fees, or some other method by the owners.

[03:36:20] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: And then thank you. And then my last question, um, is that I, I got an email saying, uh, the person says my understanding, if approved, if the mobile home park were sold, uh, under an accord, the property tax assessed when the park no longer falls under proposition 13 would go, um, from today's 36,000, uh, to an amount, the county assessor assessor estimates would be, um, somewhere between $190,000 and $625,000, um, and that those taxes would be passed on, uh, to the mobile home owners only, uh, if it were, uh, under an accord, not under the MHRSO. I am unfamiliar with that. Can anybody shed any light on whether that is true or not?

[03:37:22] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Can I ask if Karen can provide some input on that?

[03:37:28] Attorney Karen Tiedemann: Uh, certainly. So, under the accord that was proposed by some set of states, there is a pass through of property tax increases. I think the proposal is that a property tax is increased by more than 2% in any year. That increase would be passed through to the residence. It would be phased in over a five-year period, which is comparable to what is in the Sunnyvale accord. Under the MHRSO, if there was a property tax increase, the park owner could file a petition or a rent increase, um, but the rent increase would have to be based on the park owner, um, maintaining not being able to maintain their net operating income. So it would look at more than just the property taxes.

[03:38:19] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I see. So there's a little more protection under the, under the MHRSO.

[03:38:25] Attorney Karen Tiedemann: Yes, I think it probably would result in lower rent increases.

[03:38:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. That's my last question.

[03:38:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Abby Co.

[03:38:40] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I just had some questions. Um, I know we've referenced the Sunnyvale Accord process and model, um, and I know there's differences, but, um, there's mention about how, um, I guess a lot in your survey, you didn't find, um, cities that have, uh, both, uh, ordinance or an MOU. Um, but I thought my understanding was with Sunnyvale, um, If they had not had all of their home park owners signing the MOU, they would have proceeded with some kind of ordinance process. Um, is that what you also had heard?

[03:39:28] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Yes, and I, and Karen and Matt also did work in that process, but, um, that, that, that was the path, uh, because they did achieve a, um, model accord, that all the applicable uh, park owners sign onto, then, they, um, are not moving forward with that process. We do have information that currently, what they are now working on is a citywide tenant protection program, and they intend to fold, uh, uh, mobile homes that are being rented under that tenant protection program, but it isn't, um, uh, like a separate mobile home, um, ordinance for, for, for tenants, rather it's folded into a larger city wide effort.

[03:40:08] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Um, thank you. And then, um, in regards to, uh, the fee of potential administrative fee and costs. Um, I can say the, the, the initial costs might be higher than subsequent years in light of the voting process and other elements. Um, and if I remember correctly, didn't we um, subsidize the initial cost to for implementation of the mobile home ordinance. So, what difference would this be compared to what we did for, well, the ordinance?

[03:40:46] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Uh, yes, so for this current fiscal year, um, there was um, some city contribution for startup costs. The rationale was, uh, because this is an ordinance has passed through the city, but, um, uh, we're asking the rental housing committee to implement it, that, um, it would be, um, fair to, um, have a city contribution for that, but, um, for next year, um, next year's $300 per space fee does not include a city contribution, and it is intended to be uh, full uh, cost recovery. Um, from from, from this point on.

[03:41:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. I guess I, I, I feel like, um, I, I'm not sure if the cost for, I guess that we just need further analysis, the cost for implementing the ordinance, um, would be the same or, you know, comparable to administering an MOU, especially if it was just for like a single park.

[03:41:47] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: So, um, I can provide maybe some additional thinking, just, just, just for some color, um, under the ordinance because there's a petition process that's available. Um, folks can can file petition and issues get surfaced that way. Um, in addition, the, um, staff have implemented a housing and eviction health center and that provides information resources for, for folks as well and oftentimes issues can arise, arise through there. Under the proposals that's currently received. Um, as staff is kind of thinking through this. The, part of, I think, the answer to your question is sort of how active the city would monitor, um, uh, the program, um, as we look through the various proposals in terms of pass through costs and if there's a mediation program, Would the city be looking to take a passive role and only monitor it if there are issues or might we want to or need to take potentially more active role to actually go inquire and do more in-depth? Um, monitoring and and compliance checks um, to see if These pieces are being implemented correctly. Um, If there are pass through costs, we may want to, for example, request that the information of each pass through, be provided to the city for review. Um, That has not been discussed per se, but as we're looking to see if we can make sure that the accords are being implemented. It may be reasonable for us to want to have information passed to the city and then we review it. Um, under a petition process, that's just inherently part of the process of the coordinates. It would be filed with staff. We would go through the hearing officers and we would have that information. Um, so, The, the potential components might be a little bit different, or the information might get to us in different ways, but under a proposal, uh, chord process, we may want to require, um, active provision of information, for example, so we can, Be able to review the information and make sure that the, of course, are implemented, uh, accordingly.

[03:44:01] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And then finally, um, With the Sunset Estates MLU, there is a, um, The, the, the, um, I guess, proposal includes a no closure of the part during the term of the MOU. Um, So, and it would be 10 years, I guess, but, um, with the ordinance we have, I know we have, um, you know, the rezoning, we have various steps that need to be taken to close a park, but essentially, there's nothing that we, nothing that city really can do legally to prevent a park from closing. Is that right?

[03:44:51] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: I'm going to ask, um, Karen as well too. Provide and put on that.

[03:44:57] Attorney Karen Tiedemann: Um, you know, I think that's accurate. It just is a very expensive process under state law, and you do have to make findings before you can approve the closure report. But it won't have an impact on housing on your sources of housing and affordable housing. Um, so the thresholds for closure are getting significantly higher under state law.

[03:45:23] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you.

[03:45:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you Council member committee.

[03:45:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I have a few questions too. Um, this one's for um, Ms. Tiedeman, because I already asked Steph this question. Um, and you may have more information. So, um, in looking at the other jurisdictions which, um, have either mobile home park ordinances or MOUs, have you found that there's been any certain language, um, related to those who might be on fixed income or particularly those in senior communities.

[03:46:07] Attorney Karen Tiedemann: Um, I don't recall seeing any language in particular about senior communities. Uh, the Sunnyvale MOU does have a safety net program, a minimum safety net program that the park owners agreed to, to address households that are living on fixed incomes. Um, so the park owners essentially agreed that rent increases would be deferred for households that qualified. Um, and that's an unusual provision. I, there are, the other MOUs don't have that provision that I remember.

[03:46:46] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I know that Sunnyvale has 3 parks, I believe, that staff was able to find that are senior communities and many of those who live in senior communities are on fixed income. And so, um, I guess the follow-up question to that is if council is interested, would that be something that we would need to do through an MOU process or an amendment to the ordinance or how would we be able to talk about that or incorporate any kind of changes?

[03:47:20] Attorney Karen Tiedemann: Um, I think there's a couple options. Um, if you wanted to do it as part of the MHRSO, you could do that. Um, I would note that the RHC as part of the regulations on the MHRSO did adopt language with regard to um, hardship petitions for, um, households, that may face a hardship as a result of either an increase through a park owner petition for an increase or banked rent increases, um, that would allow deferral if a hardship's found. So that is already in place. It's similar to what is in place for the CSFRA. So I think you could put it in either the ordinance or the MOU, depending on which parks are covered. By which program?

[03:48:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, and then, um, this question's for staff. So when the ordinance was adopted in October. Um, what kind of outreach did we do to let people in the mobile home parks know about these changes coming forward?

[03:48:34] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: Um, thanks for the question. It was a different staff team that sort of led that process. I know I know there was a notification process. If, um, I can, uh, spend a moment to see if I can, uh, get the background on that information. I'm happy to provide an update um later on this meeting.

[03:48:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Wayne, I think I can step in. I think that a mailing was done to all mobile home park residents. About the ordinance.

[03:49:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: So this is a hard, a hard copy mailer and that was it.

[03:49:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, I believe that is the case. There's also an email list where regular updates are provided by the RHC.

[03:49:17] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: People have to opt in for that RHC list, Miss Steven.

[03:49:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, that is my understanding. RHC staff would know better, but that's my understanding. If they have an email address and people have given it to them, then they will receive regular updates.

[03:49:33] Community Development Director Wayne Chen: That's correct. Also, as part of this is that there was a, um, a stakeholder, um, process, um, through, through that that, um, was part of the development of the ordinance, and I see, um, our senior assistant, city attorney, Sandy Lee, who's part of the process, and maybe Sandy can provide more information.

[03:49:53] Senior Assistant City Attorney Sandy Lee: Uh, thank you, um, um, Wayne. Uh, so I I wasn't actually part of that process, but I'm familiar with um, the fact that there was an outreach program that was uh, engaged in over the summer before council considered the ordinance in September, so there were uh, outreach meetings with both residents and with park owners. Um, and similar, um, to the outreach we did with respect to the, the MOU process.

[03:50:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Yeah, I think, um, the vice mayor talked about, like, the volumes of which we've been receiving, um, questions, and so just want to kind of go over the different methods of outreach. And I'm assuming that this was in multilingual outreach as well. Not sure who on staff would answer that question. Yes, I'm seeing a head nodding. Okay, great. All right. Um, well, I'll save my my others, uh, for comments.

[03:50:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you. Thank you.

[03:50:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Do you mind if I take a quick turn? Thank you. So I've got a handful of questions and most of these, I think, are actually preempted by other questions asked, but, um, Wayne, this is probably for you. Council member Abi Koga asked several questions about the fees and that's of interest to me as well. So differentiate, differentiating between the one time fees, the startup fees, and then ongoing. It's pretty clear that the voting would occur only once, so that's a one time cost. The city may or may not choose to absorb that. Um, but I don't think I have as robust an understanding of what ongoing costs, uh, staff have identified, uh, in administering an MOU program. Um, I think you had mentioned, uh, resources for tenants or tenants support. Um, and then so that might be a person that could be participation in a program, uh, like Project Sentinel. Um, you know, and and and maybe there, there are similar types of things, uh, like the evaluation of, uh, a given request for a pass through, that wouldn't be through the RAC. It would be a different pro program or different types of evaluation process. Can you help me understand what other types of ongoing costs? Uh, staff may be anticipating if we wanted to create a separate MOU program.

[03:52:26] Wayne Chen: Thanks. I think there's at least 2 major areas, and this would require further development, um, if there were an accord. Um, one is more of the city staff side. So, um, part of it was in response to council member of the Cogo's question, which is, um, how active would we want to be in, uh, overseen the accords, because there isn't a natural or built-in mechanism, as part of the proposal, um, that discusses what monitoring might look like. Because, um, the, um, there's no RC oversight. There's no petition process, and there are other tools necessarily such as, um, uh, potentially a database that would monitor these, these units. Then the question is, um, would we, for example, as we go through a core development process, say, We, the city, feel that, uh, monitoring looks like X. And so we might want to say, on an annual basis, at minimum, we would want to be able to review all the records, or we want to understand, we want to see all the pass-throughs, um, that may have been, um, issued. We want to see whether all the terms that have been proposed in the court are in compliance with the terms. Um, of course, there's a passive way of doing it, which is to say, we won't do any of that, and we would just wait until, Maybe a, a tenant or resident inquires with the city and say, hey, what happens here, or is this, is this correct? Um, but I think we would, we would see a more active role potentially because The courts don't have the network built-in open site from the RC. Um, there's at least a 2nd bucket. Um, one are the resources that would be provided to tenants. So the resources that are currently available would be the petition process and hearing officers. Um, so one resource that a fee could cover would be providing the hearing officers, um, to adjudicate issues or, or paying for a mediation program. Um, Another could be, uh, legal resources, um, for folks that are in addition or separate from hearing officers, and that will have potentially some amount of cost, uh, to be determined. Um, so at least, at least those would be some, uh, fairly significant pieces, and I think, um, While some of the one time costs, um, could be more one time, um, it would still involve a fairly significant potentially amount of staff time to evaluate, um, upfront items that we would still want to somehow account for. And for a voting process, if there are durational limits, then, although sporadic, it would, um, potentially come up for a vote, for example, under the SE, um, proposal, you know, every, Every 10 years is under, uh, under that proposal. So, Um, hopefully that provides some additional color. And I'll see if um, uh, Karen has any other, uh, um, areas that she would like to add.

[03:55:43] Karen Tiedemann: No, um, I think you covered them when.

[03:55:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, that's helpful. I may ask about that later, but I think that gives us a sense of what types of programming may be included and have ongoing costs.

[03:56:01] Wayne Chen: Also, if I could just, um, provide one more context just as a reminder, the current ordinance, um, is one at one FTE supported by, um, legal resources and, um, hearing officers. And so, um, to the extent that we may have, um, Uh, some some additional staffing, um, and some additional consultants to, to help implement, then, um, the current ordinance provides kind of that baseline for the, the infrastructure needed to do an ordinance. The ultimate cost will will be much clearer after we determine what a comprehensive MOU would include or won't include. Um, and then we'll be able to have a much clearer picture about the level resources that would be required. Um, our starting point is assuming that it will be comparable to the ordinance fees.

[03:56:58] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Comparable because the one of the principles is the MO, you must be comparably protective to the rent stabilization ordinance. Is that right?

[03:57:07] Wayne Chen: Correct, correct. Correct.

[03:57:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, that's helpful. Thank you. Uh, let's say the council, uh, we got, an MOU that, um, doesn't require any active intervention or participation from the city. Um and so there's no fee revenue coming in. Um, and I know you, you've touched on this in, in the council, for the staff responses to council questions, but that, that would mean that the, the fees, for the other parks would have to go up correspondingly. Is that right

[03:57:45] Wayne Chen: That's what we would assume, um, it, there are, there are certain fixed costs that need to get paid for, and, um, if it's under the ordinance and there are fewer, um, um, spaces that are under it, then that those fixed costs would just need to be shared by, by fear of spaces. Um, and so, so, we would envision that those would go up accordingly, for the remaining parks under an audience.

[03:58:12] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: The fixed cost is a person, basically, right? That's a staff member that is responsible for administering the program.

[03:58:21] Wayne Chen: Correct, correct, correct. Now, um, depending on how an or, uh, an accord, um, evolves and is actually implemented. It could be possible that perhaps the, for example, the agreement for hearing officers could be, um, shared, for example, between, um, overseeing ordinance cases and, um, accord cases. Um, in that case, potentially the, The fees for the ordinance, um, spaces might not have to go up. Um, but then that would, that would then certainly mean that, um, spaces underrecord, we need to be at the same levels, um, as the, the ordinance fees, because then you're just distributing the same costs to spaces under different programs.

[03:59:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, okay, that's helpful. Um, If we were to pursue an MOU. Um, then would we have to retain the exemption provision in the rent stabilization ordinance or can we say we're going to pursue an MOU with one park owner who has demonstrated an an interest in this process and then prohibit any future park owners from going through that process? Or, or would we have to retain the provision in perpetuity?

[03:59:51] Wayne Chen: I think that would be a council determination, for example, if, you know, one of the proposals has a 10 year limit, uh, another proposal is proposing no, no durational limit, and so, I think part of council's deliberation might be, Would you desire to see? Uh, you know, what, one accord right now and and have it run its course, and then that would be it, or would you desire to have the option available ongoing, um, in the future? Uh, foreign accord to renew itself for, for another accord to, to, to come up and be proposed? Um, I think that would be the council's, uh, discretion to determine.

[04:00:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I guess, legally, could we could we treat parts differently in that way and permit one park to go through an MOU exemption process and then deny that same process to other parks?

[04:00:52] Wayne Chen: Uh, Maybe I'll see if, um, our 2 Karen have, have any thoughts, but what we may want to do is to implement some regulations about how to treat, um, future accords if the exemption remains, and that could be part of a process, so that, um, future accords can have, um, some clear, clear rules and regulations to, to go by. RT or Karen, I don't know if you have any other thoughts.

[04:01:23] Aarti Shrivastava: I think I want, um, uh, the city attorney to opine on legal, legally what we can allow, but I could just say that, I think staff has expressed their interest in having one model accord and not have different rules for different parks, because, um, it's, it's, uh, it's very hard to administer and explain.

[04:01:45] Karen Tiedemann: I think, um, The most I can say right now is that we're going to have to endeavor to provide comparable protections and comparable processes in order to avoid litigation over inequality or unequal treatment. It's, it's, we could probably avoid litigation if, if we, you know, endeavor to treat people fairly, equally, um, meeting whether you were under the ordinance or under an accord, you were getting similar protections, and, and there were similar processes in place. Um, but how exactly that works out, it would be hard to articulate that right now, so we could, it's probably something that could be done. It's just something we need to look into.

[04:02:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. That's helpful. One more legal question. Can we legally make a distinction between a senior community and a community that is accessible to anyone?

[04:03:00] Karen Tiedemann: I think that if we could articulate a basis for treating them differently. Um, I mean, we would need to articulate a basis for treating them separately or differently, and I, I'm not of what kind of standard of review, it would be subject to if we were treating them differently. It depends on, you know, how we were treating them differently. So we would definitely want to make findings, and once again, make sure that, you know, the protections and the processes were comparable. Um, and then we, and then we articulated reasons for exceptions or divergence for those, you know, senior communities or non senior communities. So it's again, it could probably be done. We would just need to carefully craft that.

[04:03:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then the last question, um, in the rent stabilization ordinance, there's provision that allows only one rent increase in any 12 month period. Um, it's ambiguous about whether that also applies when there's a turnover of a tenancy. So does that apply also to vacancy control or does that provision only apply for the annual general adjustment? Karen, would you people respond to that?

[04:04:25] Karen Tiedemann: Yes, and um, I have to admit, I now have to think about this. This is a question that has come up, um, that the RHC has tried to address. Um, it does appear to apply to both the uh, annual general adjustment and vacancy control the way it's written. Um, but I may have to go back and look at whether we address that and guidance anywhere. I feel like we have, but I can't remember at this moment.

[04:04:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay, maybe, um, That's that's helpful. And then maybe if the council were interested, uh, is that something that ought to be clarified with an amendment to the ordinance or, um, through some regulation, uh, at the RAC level? Or does it matter?

[04:05:17] Karen Tiedemann: I think either would be appropriate.

[04:05:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Great. Thank you. Those are all of my questions. Council member, I'll be good.

[04:05:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, mayor. Um, I actually wanted to, um, go back to one of Mayor's questions, um, um, and extrapolate on that, um, in regards to, um, like whether if we were to go down the path of allowing, um, a park community to come up with an MOU. Um, I think the mayor's question was, can we do one and not the other treat, how do we treat them different? Can we treat them differently, but I was thinking, um, could we instead maybe put a, like a time window and saying that you have up to this time to come up with an agreement, um, to submit to the city, and then, um, you know, that's it. Like, that would be it, and then everything else would fall under our ordinance. Um, I'm thinking with Sunnyvale. It must have been a similar situation because they had to get all 11 owners to sign, right? At some and then they were going to move forward with an ordinance if they didn't. So couldn't we do the same kind of opposite where we have the ordinance? But, you know, we can say, okay, anyone who is willing to, you know, submit an MOU proposal has up until so much time to do so. Sorry, my dog, he might be hearing my dog. Um,

[04:06:52] Karen Tiedemann: uh, thank you, council member, Avocoga. I, my only concern about imposing a time limitation is there isn't one in the ordinance right now. Right now, the ordinance provides for this exception if you can, you know, come up with an MOU. So, I feel like, it might require an amendment to the ordinance, in order to put a time restriction on it so that, you know, the ordinance didn't provide one process and by policy or practice, we're providing something else.

[04:07:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, I, I, um, I understand that, and, and I think that's the beauty of an ordinance is that we are able to amend it as opposed to like a charter amendment. So, um, yeah, so I think when I, you know, and I'm sorry, this might go into commentary, but I think we're learning as this process moves forward. So, um, you know, it seems like we do have the ability to make provisions if needed. So could we, yeah, do, I guess, like a time, you know, time window for to allow for the possibility of park communities to come up with the agreement if they desire, was the question that you answered it. So thank you. Um, the other question I had was, in terms of, um, community input, um, I was, it mentioned there was limited number of resident participation. Do you have like a ballpark number of how many residents participated?

[04:08:31] Wayne Chen: Yeah, I think, um, if I recollect, and Karen or Sandy can correct me, but, um, for the, for the, uh, Zoom meetings. Uh, there were probably between anywhere from, 12 or 20 residents that participated throughout any, any one particular meeting and some might have dropped off and some might have joined, but, That's around the ballpark and maybe, Karen or Sandy can confirm or, write a different recollection. And and they were typically the same, the same folks. Um, since there was the same court folks, and then, uh, some some new folks may may join for certain meetings.

[04:09:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: And then, um, in the Sunnyvale process, do you know? Did they outreach to the residents as well as the park owners like we did? We did.

[04:09:20] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right, thank you.

[04:09:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Archie, did you want to clarify or?

[04:09:30] Aarti Shrivastava: Yes, I just wanted to, uh, we just went through the September 14th staff report for last year's, um, uh, staff actually, um, had 2 focus groups, uh, consisting of mobile home park owners and mobile home park residents, um, in the outreach process for the original ordinance, uh, in June of last year. Um, and then when it was um, updated um, to include um, mobile homes themselves, um, there was, uh, uh, the updates were mailed, uh, to all stakeholders. The whole draft framework last June. Uh, and this was in addition to um, the emails that was sent. So there was considerable outreach done as part of the original ordinance.

[04:10:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any Remaining questions from the council? If not, um we'll turn to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. And thank you all for your patients. Um. I have suspicion they're just gonna, there we go. Um, let's go ahead and one, two, three, four, five, six. Um. Let's allocate one minute and 90, sorry, one minute and 30 seconds, um, given the number of speakers. The 1st speaker is Gail Rubino.

[04:11:19] Gail Rubino: Oh, good afternoon. For some reason, I've lost my piece of paper. Can you give me a minute, please?

[04:11:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah, got it. Sure.

[04:11:29] Gail Rubino: Thank you.

[04:11:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, if you could set it back to 90 seconds, I would appreciate it. Could you do that? Thanks.

[04:11:39] Gail Rubino: Mr. Mayor and Council, I am speaking in support of the stack recommendation for the RSO. Thank you very much for the presentation. I thought it was fabulous. My name is Gail Robino. I live in the El Dorado mobile home park in Sunnyvale. I was honored to serve as a member of the residence stakeholder group of 10 mobile home residents that negotiated with the city of Sunnyvale, and the mobile home park owners to create the Sunnyvale mobile home memorandum of understanding. If you have any questions about that process, Let me know. I was also honored to be selected by the resident stakeholder group. to serve at Bruce Stanton, the group's legal council to draft the actual terms of the agreement. My 1st point is that whenever a group has the choice of being under an ordinance or an MOU, always choose the ordinance, an ordinance is law. An MOU is not law. And as one of the council members mentioned, you will have to spend money in order to get legal remedy if there's a problem. My 2nd point is that, if you have an MOU, the relationship between the park owners in the park residence will never be equal, ever, ever, ever. An MOU will absolutely create a situation where there's not equal, um, not equal, um, power. So, the answer is clear. The city of Mountain View needs to stick with the MOU. I sorry, the, um, mobile home rent stabilization rent.

[04:13:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Gail. The next speaker is Tim McKenzie.

[04:13:20] Tim MacKenzie: Hi, all, Tim Mackenzie, he him pronouns, uh, seems like the, thank you staff. A lot of work went into this, um, on one of the last points that, uh, previous comment or made. I really appreciated in the staff report. The, uh, the mentioned that there's an inherent power differential between the mobile, uh, owner and and the people who would be entering into the agreement. So I really appreciated that work from stuff. So it sounded like it's sort of really complicated to think through administratively how an MOU would function, in comparison with the ordinance, seems simpler to just have the ordinance and follow staff's recommendation and remove the possibility for an MOU. Um, so it's still baffling to me. It took so long for neighbors and mobile homes to be covered by, uh, with rent control, but it's great to have it, and I look forward to seeing staff's recommendation go through, hopefully.

[04:14:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Sunset Estates resident. Well, the Zoom user with the name Sunset Estates resident, uh, unmute themselves.

[04:14:48] Public Speaker: Yeah, sorry about that. I thought it was all neck unmitted. So I will, yeah, I will say that owners were encouraged by park owners to attend tonight to support individual MOUs because it was better. I truly appreciated your evaluation of submitted accords. That was actually what it was going to ask for, is that it was they were compared. I had to cosign in order to get my mother to go live in a senior park. I think it's a little ridiculous, the prices of rent. So I do appreciate the discussion about a freeze on rent increases for those on fixed incomes as most seniors are. Park owners receive 1000000s of dollars a year, in some cases, pay nearly nothing for taxes, and continue to feel obligated to raise rents as much as allowed by law. The definition of reasonable rate of return needs to be reevaluated. The cost passed down to residents, from owners need to be evaluated based on their profit. So I really do appreciate any protections you can give to help protect our senior community. Thank you.

[04:15:40] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Tim Larson.

[04:15:47] Tim Larson: Thank you all. Uh, this is Tim Larson with the Mountain View Mobile Home Alliance. I have also been a part of the outreach program and helping, uh, try to get together a group of mobile home residents to investigate the MOU alternative. Um, as you have all discussed today, and the questions you have asked, uh, we all acknowledge, this is a very complex process, the, uh, um, amount of work that has gone into communicating and understanding, the differences between an MOU and an MHRSO, uh, have have been substantial. I've spent dozens of hours, all of the people that I work with have spent dozens of hours. I know city staff has spent collectively probably 100s of hours to explore the potential for a possible alternative, and what we heard is that we are very far away from anything resembling an MOU, and it just does not seem worth our time, or the city's time, to continue trying to understand what it might look like, to have an alternative, just to reiterate, you know, how far away we are. The other point I would like to make is that there are substantial, unquantified risks, especially with regards to property tax path throughs. Uh, we've heard estimates, city staff has basically said it is too complicated to provide, uh, any input on that. And so I

[04:17:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Tim. I'm sorry. You've exhausted your time and I have to be fair to everybody. The next speaker is color, uh, area code 650 ending in 069. We could hear you. Hello?

[04:17:49] Henry Whitfield: Okay, my name is Henry Whitfield. I'm gonna talk fast. Um, let's just take a 30,000 foot view of this. You've got home, uh, park owners that want to maximize their return. They don't like it, that they're restricted, and anyway, to do just that. The city is interested in protecting residents. These mobile home parks have been here for years. The people that bought these parks or got involved with them, new, the zoning was for mobile home parks. The city can use zoning to, as a weapon, you know, to say, look, if you don't like the business, sell it to somebody else, but we're not going to change this from a mobile home park. We are committed as a, we are fully committed to maintaining these parts, because they have a lot of benefits there. These people that live here have a special community that's not like apartment dwellers. It's not like single family homeowners. It's their whole life. It's their equity, and they feel, I can tell you, they have been feeling insecure for years. This has been going on and on and on. And I don't know what the reason for all of this is, but it should be put to rest once and for all. And if the city is scared about lawsuits or litigation or people closing parks, they need to step up and just say, look, here's the deal. We have mobile home parks here. They've been zoned that way forever. They're going to stay that way forever, and give us some, the people that live here, a sense of,

[04:19:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, Henry. Uh the next speaker is B. Hansen.

[04:19:34] Bee Hanson: Hi everyone. Um, I want to touch base on you with what people's expectations are. Uh, senior, uh, you know, I usually speak for seniors because seniors are known to be a vulnerable population, but in this case, everyone in a mobile home park is vulnerable, basically because of this power differential. Uh, and the power differential comes just in the language of the MHR, so, and especially the stirs, the sunset state, rent stabilization, uh, draft. Um, it is very difficult to understand. The reason for low participation is that nobody understands this stuff, as you know, uh, legal lead is very hard to wade through and understand what is real and what is not. Uh, and to get numbers out of it is, is darn near impossible, as you just saw in, in Wayne Chen. Uh, presentation, even staff, can't figure it out. Uh, and that's really by design. Um, people, uh, usually focus on what percentage, uh, annual, uh, general adjustments they get. But really, the profit is in vacancy control and pastures, and they don't know that, nobody knows this, and we need you to protect us. We need you to just read, get this, this out of the way for us, please.

[04:21:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[04:21:13] Kevin Ma: Evening counsel. Um, I support the staff recommendation to get rid of the MOU option. The point of an ordinance is to be protective of everyone past. I mean, present and future, but not past, unfortunately, and an MIU inherently is already tricky to enforce, as I was mentioned in the staff presentation, it basically requires, Much like enforcing AB-42, going to court, and going to court costs money, and that's a lot of resources that, that was already vulnerable, just do not have. The community involvement has been extensive. Um, park residents have the longest of times asked for protection. It is unfortunate that the ordinance dates it only to 2021 and not from the original work plan dates, but it is in it is in our interest to make sure that the city is doing the best to protect its citizens. And There's pretty much no chance that there's going to be an MLU that is more better than this. The entire reason we have an hour or so in their 1st place is because the owners have not acted in that way in this entire situation. So, I believe that this choice tonight is prudent and it saves everyone's time. Thank you.

[04:22:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The next speaker is Michelle.

[04:22:41] Michelle: Hi everybody. First, I'd like to thank the council for the work they've done and the city staff for the work they've done on getting the ordinance. Really appreciate that. Uh, I'm deeply concerned about the pass-throughs, especially the taxes, being on a fixed income. We really need your protection. So, I'm not in favor of, um, circumventing what's already been put in place, and I think there are too many unknowns that would also cost the city an enormous amount of money. Lots of expenses down the road. I will, uh, give it my time. Thank you very much for all your help.

[04:23:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Next speaker is Frank Kelsick.

[04:23:24] Frank Kalcic: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and Vice Mayor and Council members. My name is Frank Kelsey, and we own Sunset Estates mobile Home Park. Last September, the council passed an ordinance extending rent control in my own communities, and passing this ordinance, the council did recognize and provide for an alternate form of rent stabilization, an MOU. This type of stabilization would be an option for mobile home communities that support a format that could be specifically tailored to better reflect the individual communities needs and concerns. And MOU can address the items identified in city's ordinance in a fashion that is most important to the individual community. Without the ongoing administration and legal costs they're associated with the rank control ordinance. But most importantly, an MOU encourages participants to cooperate, and to communicate, to recognize that all parties have an interest in the stability and the viability of the community. We ask for direction from the council to engage for the city attorney's office to complete the process of finalizing the sunset state's rent stabilization MOU to answer the questions that were brought up this evening. In summary, we ask the council to provide this direction that enables a review of the MOU by the city attorney's office, and lastly, and most importantly, the ability of residents to vote and have a say in the future's Sunset Estates. Thank you.

[04:24:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Mr. Kelsik, there are several members of the council who would like to ask questions. Are you comfortable responding to the council questions?

[04:24:55] Frank Kalcic: Most certainly.

[04:24:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, fantastic. So we'll start with council member Matachek.

[04:25:01] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I do have a few questions based upon the previous conversation we had. Um, I was wondering, how similar is the way the sunset estates park, um, how similar is it operating to what was put forth in the um, proposal that you have?

[04:25:26] Frank Kalcic: Um, pre September of 21, uh, I assuming is your question relative to what's in the MOU. It would be... We tailored a number of things, I think, in the initial or the draft language to reflect residents desire for affordability. Um, we, and in doing so, we, we put in a lower AGA figure, a percentage of the CPI, and we also, um, developed a formula with the rationale for turnover rents that would result in a less than market rent. We want the same thing as our residents. Our residents want to be able to sell their home for market value, upon turnover, or with a new resident, initiating a new resident or a tenancy. We would like to be close to the market. Under that former model, we remain economically viable, and able to put money back into the community. By lowering both of those standards, that is, the pass through, and the AGA, we needed to provide some level of relief should something come up. I will say, though, in our past, in our history, our fifth year history, we have never had capital or improvement pastors.

[04:26:51] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. Um, and how many of the mobile homes in your park are rented out by the owner of that mobile home?

[04:27:04] Frank Kalcic: Uh, we do not permit subletting, and as a, uh, as ownership, we do not own any mobile homes that we rent.

[04:27:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Do you know if any of your tenants sublet?

[04:27:17] Frank Kalcic: If they're doing so, they're doing so, contrary to the rules of the community.

[04:27:22] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Oh, sorry, maybe I misunderstood. You said you don't allow subletting?

[04:27:26] Frank Kalcic: That's correct.

[04:27:28] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Ah, sorry, I didn't quite hear that correctly. Okay. Um... Let's see. Okay, that's it for me. Thank you. Thank you.

[04:27:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, are there any, so, so, other members of the council have their hand up and have since lowered them. Do other members of the council have questions for Mr. Kelsick? Um, I'm not seeing any. I did have a quick question, um, if it's okay, uh, regarding uh, the fees. Uh, so, uh, in the staff presentation and in responses to, uh, council questions, um, there, there was, uh, you know, it was, I think staff are anticipating some need for city intervention or, um, monitoring, um, and with the presumption that there's a, uh, cost recovery fee, um, if the fee that comes out of that is substantially similar to, um, the existing fee under the run stabilization ordinance, Um, how does that, um, influence um, the development of the MOU that you are proposing?

[04:28:35] Frank Kalcic: Well, I, It's my belief that the, one of the primary principles or objectives of an MOU is simplicity, and a cooperative effort, so that there are not, uh, issues of, uh, consternation or, uh, petitions for pastor and so forth. So, it's my belief, call me a bit polyannish, but I believe that I'm an honest businessman, and we, if we make it, uh, an agreement that we would live up to it. So in terms of, you know, for me, I'm a little bit... I can't understand the perspective of, uh, requiring massive oversight. I think that we have something as complex as a rent control ordinance, those petitions, pastors, lawsuits, and so forth. No shock that there's massive, uh, there's massive costs associated with that administrating, administrating such an ordinance. An MOU seeks to take a different approach so that those levels are not needed. But I do agree that there should be provisions for, you know, escalation, if you will, or oversight. Should there be violations? For example, mediation, mediation, if it's not successful, that that would translate to something that ends up in the city attorney's office. That provides a fantastic incentive for property owners such as myself to ensure that compliance is the order of the day.

[04:30:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, got it. Thank you very much. Um, there aren't any other uh, council members with their hands up. So, um, thank you, Mr. Kelsey, for, uh, responding to our questions. We appreciate it. Um, we will now proceed to the next speaker. Uh, Joan Brodowski.

[04:30:36] Joan Brodovsky: Hello. Um, I'm Joan Bodowski. I live at Sunset Estates, and I'm concerned about the lack of comments from people from here. Um, The thing that worries me most about the proposed MOU is it hasn't been negotiated between, uh, the residents and the owners. It has been, um, proposed by the owners, and he's listened, and I know that half of us are afraid to speak. We don't want to argue with them. We don't want to make him unhappy, and we don't, some of us don't like it. Uh, so I want, I just wanted to bring that out. People have referred to the imbalanced in power between an MOU, uh, uh, owner and an MOU resident, and uh, we all feel that. Uh, and that's the point I want to make. So thank you for listening.

[04:31:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Next speaker is Alex Brown.

[04:31:52] Alex Brown: Hey, friends. So imagine you have a home. Lucky, right? And you also have this tree outside your home. Lovely. Now, a limb from that tree falls off and brings a hole in your home. Oh no. So you put in the effort to fix the hole, make it all nice and pretty, finish the walls inside, the siding outside. And then you get to work debating how to pick a tarp to cover the hole. I've been a part of the stakeholder groups. I've read through multiple drafts of sirs, and the communication is sent by Tony Rodriguez. I talked to dozens of residents of all the Mountain View Parks as part of the Mobile Home Alliance. I have not seen a compelling reason to keep the Accord exclusion. I have not heard of any significant benefit to the residents of our communities. I really appreciate all the work staff is put in on this, and we appreciate your due diligence and attention. I look forward to seeing the more fruitful work you can take up once we move on from this. Thanks.

[04:32:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you The next speaker is A M Heart.

[04:32:56] Anna Marie Morales: Hi, it's Anna Marie. I'm with the Mountain View mobile home alliance and I'm also an over 40 year resident of our lovely city. I'd like to think city staff. I'm absolutely astounded by all the hard work they have done. It is incredible. Um, I'd like to echo would be Aunt Hansen said earlier, and I really greatly appreciate what Gail Rubina had to say as well. I really hope that this council listens to her experience with the Sunnyvale MOU. Um, I urge counsel to act tonight and listen to staff's recommendation, take that a step further, vote to remove the model accord exemption. The imbalance of power between landlords and tenants and fear of retaliation has made many of my neighbors, and the mobile home community at large silent. I hope this council also takes into consideration the feedback that Sahara and Santiago Villas, legal representative Anthony Rodriguez, said in stakeholder and general city council meetings and other communications. Um, It is clear by the incredibly limited participation in the outrageous MOU proposals from the landlords that there is not going to be one singular accord agreed upon. Um, it's a waste of SAS time finances. I urge city council to please act on this tonight. Thank you all and have a great night.

[04:34:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Next speaker is Guadalupe.

[04:34:28] Guadalupe: Hello, good evening, city council members, uh, and mayor, I want to thank you for the I want to thank you for the opportunity. Can you guys hear me? I want to thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to speak tonight, and I do want to, uh, say that I would like for city council to do away with the model accords. Uh, I would wanna, Repeat and say that uh, when the, when we had the opportunity to get the, um, Print control from mobile homes, our landlord, or owner of the space, sent out a letter, threatening us. So, please, uh, do away with the model accords, because this that way will give us security to stay and live in our beautiful city. Thank you, without the fear of threats from our landlords. Thank you.

[04:35:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are the, are there any other members of the public wishing to speak? Did the hands pop up earlier and then removed? I am not seen. Oh, uh, way, way, you are next. Wait, wait, are you able to unmute yourself?

[04:35:49] Wei Wei: Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, can you hear me?

[04:35:52] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:35:53] Wei Wei: Oh, thank, thank you for giving this my opportunity. Um, I know city, um, every year have the budget to build apartment and also like a remote, a remodeled, uh, across view park to support a low, uh, income residence by providing the below market rate apartment for them. And also I heard like the next 18 years build more such apartments to support low income people. I think mobile home residents are also among those people. But they survive, try to support the themselves. Instead of give a CVA burden. I'm not sure this is the right term. So I was wondering, um, can city help us and also how to uh, help us to not push us to the other uh, group, have to apply for the below rate apartments, and if city can do something to compensate to the lawnmower, to lower the increase of the rental. If there's a possible option. So, I was thinking to the how city can help us. Thank you.

[04:37:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Linda Lopez.

[04:37:20] Linda Lopez: Can you hear me all right?

[04:37:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[04:37:24] Linda Lopez: Good. Thank you. Thank you very much. I know it's late. Um, I just want to say that. I enjoy being surrounded by, um, people who are cooperative and of cooperative and such, but I absolutely need to go to sleep at night, having the confidence that I have the support, um, from the city of Mountain View, um, and not just because an home, um, mobile home park owner is saying it's gonna be better. That doesn't give me a lot of, uh, confidence. Though it's nice, but it's not enough, not for someone who has poured her income into purchasing a home, and I am on a fixed income, and, um, I don't think that's enough. I think what's enough for me is going to be, um, going with the MHR as opposed to the MOU. Thank you very much.

[04:38:33] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Linda. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak, uh, we will close the public comment period, and return to the council for deliberation, um, and you are not required to, but a motion is in order by Mayor Hicks.

[04:38:56] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I think council member Labor has her hand out 1st.

[04:39:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, that, that's fine. I, you, you're 1st in my list, but, uh, if you'd like, that's fine, council member lever.

[04:39:11] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor, and vice mayor. I really appreciate that. This has been a very, very, very long time coming. Uh, the 1st time that mobile home rent control was before council in Mountain View was 22 years ago. And in, uh, since 1996, I've had a number of conversations, uh, with our residents, who are in a unique, uh, economic position in terms of, uh, owning their home. Uh, but, uh, renting the space for it or now in more recent years, um, renting, uh, a mobile home from our, our, our park owners, um, something that had never really, uh, existed in Mountain View in, uh, the past years. And, um, back in October, or whenever this was last before us, I felt like we should really, uh, do the due diligence of, uh, pursuing the exploration of an MOU. We have now done that, and it has produced absolutely nothing other than... individuals being in their starting positions that they were at the beginning of this process. In the meantime, we do know that rent control is working and protecting our community members in Mountain View. And that is what our first, uh, allegiance and our work should be toward is protecting our community members. And really, uh, upping the stakes consistently to offer stronger and stronger and stronger protections. As I've been in dialogue with folks from our mobile home communities, many of whom are retired, some of whom are essential workers in our community. They are not individuals of large means. They are, by and large, folks of pretty modest means. Our retired nurses, our retired teachers, retired mechanics, who have really given their lifetime, in most instances to raising a family in our local area and to do everything that they can to be helpful neighbors, uh, to other people. And that's what I intend to accomplish for them here tonight. Um, so when the time is right, I would like to go ahead and make a motion, uh, and I know that there are others who would like to, uh, speak, but I really will be intending that we take action and that we take protective action for our community members tonight. Mayor, if you'd like me to go ahead and make the motion at this time, I can.

[04:42:28] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: I have, um, no, no preference, we can go through a round of comments or you're welcome to make a motion now if you, if you prefer.

[04:42:36] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, I'll go ahead and move that we introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance, chapter 46 of the mobile of the Mountain View city code to remove the exemption for mobile home spaces and mobile homes in a mobile home park that are subject to an approved accord, to be read entitled only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for September 13th, 2020. 2022.

[04:43:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Any additional comments, sir?

[04:43:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um,

[04:43:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, we'll move on.

[04:43:19] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, no, no worry.

[04:43:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Vice mayor.

[04:43:23] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, I 2nd that motion. I, um, you know, I found the staff report very compelling and also the comments from the public. Uh, tonight, but also over the past. Oh, gosh, I guess since I was running for office, so three or four years. Um, very compelling, you know, about, uh, regarding the need for, uh, a clean, for a clean ordinance with, uh, city protections and, uh, you know, all mobile home residents covered. Um, I, uh, feel that the, there's been some misinformation, uh, spread of about the protections of an MOU, but it was pretty clear tonight, I think, that the MHRSO is offers, you know, more protection for either less money or the same amount of money, so in terms of fees to residents. So, um, I strongly support the staff recommendation. Um, I I was, um, I did find, uh, council member Kameh's comments on, uh, provisions for people with fixed income, fixed incomes compelling. We could add that, in my opinion, either now or at some future point, if other council members wanted to. But the beauty of this being a council ordinance, the mobile home ordinance, rather than a citizen initiative, is that I intend to stay in touch with mobile home residents, and if we need to bring this back, you know, if the, um, motion passes, and we need to bring the MHRSO back for, um, further changes, council will be able to do that. So this is not the end of the story. Thank you.

[04:45:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Medachek.

[04:45:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Um, you know, we heard from a lot of residents of the Sunset Estates Park, uh, via email, and consistently, they indicate that they would like the opportunity to vote on an MOU. And, um, I know that's been more people, um, that I've heard from, that want that then have spoken at the meeting tonight. Um, and they are from the Sunset Estates Park. And it's more people than participated in the stakeholder outreach. And so I'm a little bit concerned that we wouldn't acknowledge and listen to them. Um, to just dismiss that amount of public input is troubling to me. Um, You know, it looks like there's, Only 2 park owners that were interested in an MOU. is kind of how I took uh, what Mr. Chen presented. Um, and frankly, the Sunset Estates document is more along the lines of what I was thinking and MOU might be. Um, and, you know, I kind of wish the council would have had a more in-depth discussion about this when we decided to, uh, pursue or explore and MOU, I think we could have saved staff, uh, quite a bit of time, had we done that. Um, You know, but I do think an MOU, um, can provide, um, a good balance, uh, a good level of protection. Um, it is different than the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. It might have similar elements like how the AGA is done or how things are passed through, the duration. But, you know, I don't think you can look at them, line for line, and say yes or no, they're comparable, or they provide greater or lesser protection. Um, they're different. And so I think you're trying to find a balance, um, more than anything else. Um, You know, I actually would like to allow for an MLU to be considered, and... And I can almost say, you know what? Maybe it's just one MOU. Um, and it's the one we, and what I feel more comfortable with, that was submitted, um, with some changes that I would suggest. Um, and maybe that's our model MOU. And um, if other park owners want to take advantage of it, they could. Um, but I certainly heard loud and clear from staff that, having multiple MOUs, um, is challenging. And it would consume a lot of staff time. And I, I don't necessarily want to do that. But maybe an MOU, that, um, is based on the Sunset Estates one with a few little tweaks, could be something that could be our model MOU. Um, I appreciated the discussion about, um, how much, um, enforcement, oversight is needed. And, you know, I feel like in the sunset of states, it's a unique situation where it seems like it's a very, um, Can't even think of the right word. Um, calm, harmonious, uh, situation, and it, you know, I don't think there's much uproar there. Uh, and so, you know, if the MOU is similar to what is currently happening there, then I don't see where you would need a ton of oversight. And it doesn't allow for petitions. Um, and so, you know, I could see where it would be lower cost, then, um, the mobile home rent stabilization ordinance. Um, and so actually, um, I did a quick back of the envelope calculation to figure out the fees that are being paid, and I took a quick look at the, um, budget that the RHC adopted, and I'm reading this correctly. There's a pretty big ending balance for the RHC. And backing out the fees that come from sunset estates would still result in a healthy budget for the RHC. Of course, I'd want staff to take a look at that and validate those numbers. Um, I was, you know, spending some time on that today. Um, So anyway, I am, would like to make a substitute motion that we, um, Keep the exemption in the ordinance. And that we, um, I'd say, find it an easy way to draft, uh, the MOU. And I would say we would, uh, take the sunset of state one. and keep the elements, and I'm gonna go through a list here. The annual general adjustment methodology, the vacancy control, the park owner waiving the right to petition, the pass through cost methodology, the 10 year term, and the safety net program, which I really like. Um, we would add the following terms, that the tenants waive the right to petition, because that wasn't um, specified, but I believe that was the intention, and that's what was communicated to, um, the residents. And that, um, the mobile home tenants can only be evicted for the 9 specific reasons that are in the ordinance. And then, um, we... What, they, they don't allow subletting. So, um, the, well, never mind. Um, And then we would also have the process for, um, addressing issues that 1st the residents would go to the park owner. Um, and it sounds like the park owner and residents have been able to work things out over the years if there have been issues. Um, a 2nd step would be mediation. Um, and I think they could avail themselves of the city's mediation services. And then, um, if it's still an issue, it comes to the city. And we figure out, um, an hourly fee for the city services to address any issue. Um, that way, there's cost recovery of the city's time spent on this. Um, but it's, um, trying to work things out, um, as I believe they've been working out for the past, um, well, since the park was open. Um, And, um, I think we do need to clarify, uh, the threshold for having this pass. And I know we said 80% of residents, but I would propose it's 80% of the units, and each unit gets one vote. That's how most condominium complexes work and I think a mobile home park work the same way. Um, and it's 80% of the people who vote. You know, when it comes to other elections, it's really hard to get 100% turnout. So I would say it's 80% of the people who vote. Um, and I would hope that we could have outside council draft this. Um, so that, um, where we're leaving staff of some of the, um, responsibility to do this because I know they've got a lot on their plate. Um, And I guess as a final step, maybe even before staff, um, hires maybe outside council to do this. Uh, let's check in with the sunset estates park owner to see whether or not, um, those additional terms and tweaks, um, to the existing terms, um, are acceptable. If not, then, It it doesn't go forward. But if those terms are acceptable, then we go ahead and draft the MOU. So I'm really sorry, that was a really long substitute motion. I tried to highlight the main points, but if you want me to do that again, I'm happy to.

[04:54:46] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, well, first, let's see, is, is there, because I, I, I have a suspicion. I could be wrong, but I have a suspicion that council member Shell Walter is not going to 2nd the motion, but is there a 2nd if you could just, Okay, so we do have a 2nd from council member Abi Koga? Um, um, proceed with deliberation. Um, let's, um, so I, the, one of the last things you said, council member magic is, is something that is of interest to me, and I'm tempted to invite, um, Mr. Kelsick to join us to, answer the question of whether these are terms that he'd be amenable to. Um, but let's let's go through um, comments and then, um, I'll mold over whether, um, that's an appropriate thing to do or not. Council member show alter.

[04:55:32] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yeah, I, um, I wanted to follow up on a couple of things that have been said. Um, I I do feel that our job as the city council is to, um, produce balanced programs that, you know, that protect our citizens. That's really what we're after. And having a city for everyone. And we have heard, again and again and again, about the need for rent control, and this new, and it's always complicated, when it starts, and then after things get rolling for a few years, they smooth out, and it's really not so complicated. Um, I think that we've seen that that's happened with the CSFRA. Um, but as, uh, you know, as council member Lieber said, we, you know, in in our fall deliberations, we, we, we put this idea of an MOU out, and, um, as was mentioned, one of the two mobile home park owners, there are only two owners in our community. really did go to a lot of trouble to put together an MOU. But when we look at that MOU, There are still, um, it still doesn't provide as much protection as, um, as the ordinance itself does. So, on the one hand, I applaud the staff for all the work they've done, and I applaud, also applaud Sunset Estates, and those people for all the work that they have done. But I think when we look at the products, the ordinance is more protective. And that is really the bottom line. So, um, I feel like the staff recommendation is, um, is a good one. And, um, I'm, uh, I'm happy to support that.

[04:57:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Abbe Koka.

[04:57:42] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so I did 2nd the substitute motion, um, and I want to thank Steph for all of the hard work that's been put into this, and I feel like we're almost there. Um, we just need to push a little harder. And when I, when I say, what I mean by that is that, um, you know, these questions I've been hearing about, you know, rent control, um, I mean, we have that. We have the ordinance, um, and so for me, this was about being able to provide an opportunity for park communities that want to, um, you know, have the flexibility to work together, to come up with a mutually agreed upon agreement, to, um, you know, to have that opportunity. So, I guess for me, you know, it's about giving votes an option, giving them some flexibility to, you know, be a little bit more self-deterministic, if you, if, um, if that's a, yeah, that's probably the right, um, way to describe it. But, you know, there's no one size fits all. And frankly, in anything we do. Um, and we've seen that through this whole process. Um, you know, it's unfortunate that there are some communities where there's um, maybe not as much cooperation or agreement between the owner and the residents. Um, but, you know, I think we have heard from, um, residents at Sunset Estates that on the whole, um, they do seem to have a, a, um, you know, a friendly relationship. And so for me, it's like, why not give those folks an opportunity to come up with something if they want to, um, try. And and that's really what this has been for me. Um, I think there's just been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding and misinformation about this process. I mean, I will say, like, my intention from the beginning, from that, the 1st meeting we had, was to allow for, um, you know, a park community to come forward with their, their own MOU, because it was really for me about them trying to work together and, you know, cooperate. And so, um, and I guess then going back and staff was kind enough to go back to our meeting, um, and listen to it, we weren't really clear. I know we referenced the Sunnyvale MOU, but in my mind, this art process is, you know, different from their process. It's actually kind of backwards of what Sunnyvale did. And I would say that, you know, when we talked about this, I know we talked about an ordinance, but I, you know, I was not aware of other processes and, um, you know, was not aware of Sunnyvale's MOU. And had we had, you know, presented all the options of getting to mobile home rent control. Um, you know, I might have most likely would have picked the Sunnyvale MLU process because, again, that was about working with all of the park runners, the residents to try to come up with something that is, you know, mutually agreeable. Nothing is going to be 100%. I think the 80% threshold. We put in our requirement is, you know, it's really high. And I mean, I question if it's achievable, but if it is, why not allow, you know, that community to to make to do that. Um, all the, you know, the, the, um, arguments I've heard for not doing moving forward with this option is, you know, it's complicated, takes too much time, it's gonna cost money. But, you know, let's be clear. CSFRA has been all of that too. And so, For me, it's about equity, giving folks, everyone a chance to have a voice in how they want to, have rent control or agreement, and, you know, this is, can, this is gonna go, we'll go to a vote of the residents. 80% again is really high, but if 80% of the residents agree to this, I think that's pretty, you know, solid. And these questions about, you know, I think we as a city can assist in ensuring that there is a fair voting process. Um, we do that in other cases, you know, or at least I support, um, like unionization, having a vote, you know, a voting process there. Um, so it's, it's for me about giving folks a chance, a chance to have a say. And, you know, if they don't like it, they can vote no, and the model, the ordinance is already in place, so that's the fallback. So I guess I don't really see a downside to this other than, okay, it'll take time. Some money, staff work. But again, we've done that with CSFRA and the mobile home park ordinance. So why not go, you know, just do diligence? Just do everything that we've like talked about what folks have asked us to do. Um, And, and, and, and at least I would feel at, at ease, knowing that we had seen this whole process through to the end. So that's why I'll be supporting the substitute motion. Thank you.

[05:03:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member commit.

[05:03:16] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Uh, thanks, Mayor, and and thanks to staff and thanks um, to those who gave public comment, both uh, in person and the phone calls and the emails that I received. Um, so I, I think I'd like to take a step back and and talk about my goal for for this topic, which is clarity. You know, I think that's part of why we're here tonight. When, um, measure V was put forward, it was, there was a, there wasn't clarity on the inclusion of, of mobile home parks, and then it had to go to rental housing. Um, you know, and now it's here being discussed by council. And so I really feel that all residents who are living in mobile home parks have been in an unstable situation for quite some time, years and years. And so, you know, tonight, I hope that, um, we can all get to a place where things are very clear in terms of, uh, what, what is available from, from the city. So, um, I just wanted to to also share that for me, when I'm thinking about this topic, I'm thinking about the number one priority being residents. And while we have residents who feel strongly one way. We have other residents who can feel another way. And so, um, I think that there's been robust conversation. And so the key takeaway that I received from residents who reached out to me was fear, um, about this topic and because they're, they weren't sure what was happening. And so, um, the takeaways that I have are, you know, my questions were about communications. I think that, regardless of what is decided upon tonight, I would like to recommend, and maybe this is like an addendum to whichever motion. But I would like more robust communications for all of our residents who are living in mobile home parks. I know we have a city website and I know there was some distribution, but what about the folks who maybe aren't looking in their mail walks every day or people who aren't checking their email. How are we making sure that they know? Um, because a lot of people are reached out very concerned. Um, the other item that really came to mind was, we have 6 mobile home parks, and one of them, um, is exclusively seniors, and for those who are aged in our community, those maybe people who are on fixed income. So I'm heartened to hear about what the RHC is doing in terms of the hardship petitions, but was interested in, what was mentioned related to the safety net program, perhaps, you know, I don't want to say modeled after Sunnyvale, but perhaps we can see if there's any thing there that we would like to replicate. Um, But I also know that people want to have the opportunity to age in place. And part of that, I think, is allowing them to have the opportunity to weigh in on their future. And so for that reason, I'll support the substitute motion, I don't know if it's going to be successful, and it may be different from my personal viewpoint, but for the residents who reached out to me. feeling in this place of instability, feeling in this place of fear. They all they asked was, can I at least have communication? Can I better understand what's going on? I want to have a say in the community that I live in, and I specifically made a decision to live in a senior community for my future. So, I'll support it. We'll see what happens. But I also want to say that I supported the mobile home park red stabilization ordinance as well. So I know that residents who are living in our mobile home, parts need our protections, and I'm committed to that, but I also want those who reached out to me very upset about their voice not being heard, that opportunity. Thanks, Mayor.

[05:07:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. How's the member matter check?

[05:07:34] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I think I should add a couple things that perhaps I forgot, and that is that a 3rd party would administer the voting. Um and that the park owner would pay for it.

[05:07:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And, um, I do want to know if, um, council member, Kame or council member, had any, um, amendments they wanted to make to the motion. Um, Council member Committee was talking about communication. Um, I'm certainly open to, Audifying it.

[05:08:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, Council member Abi Koka?

[05:08:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, council member. And to check, I can't remember because your mission had so many pieces, but there was an issue of an administrative fee. Um, I would support some kind of fee. I don't think it's necessarily gonna, can be or should be the same as, um, with the ordinance because I think there are some differences, but I would, you know, support, um, having stuff look at that and, and, um, including a, some kind of administrative feed to, to oversee the MOU process.

[05:08:56] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So if I could clarify what I said that, um, if there was an issue with the, uh, terms, um, a resident would 1st go to the park owner, 2nd go to mediation, and 3rd come to the city, and that there would be a, it would be cost recovery if the city got involved, um, were you talking about a fee on top of that? Or to just look at it?

[05:09:22] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, no, I think that would, well, I went, I went to staff to look at it because, um, just as, you know, there was, there were quite a few, quite a bit of initial startup fees for the ordinance. Um, it would be of interest, at least, to see how much um, there might be in startup costs.

[05:09:44] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I'm happy to include that, that staff would look at, um, are there startup costs that need to be covered, and come back to us.

[05:09:52] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thanks.

[05:09:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member committee.

[05:09:59] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Yes, I would like to add the communication, so I don't know if it's just kind of at the discretion of our communications team. I know that we also have like our quarterly the view that goes up. There's, you know, many different places, but I would like to include that.

[05:10:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Would you be a little bit more specific on what you're looking for?

[05:10:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sure. So I know that we send it to the people who opt in to, um, receiving emails about the mobile home park ordinance. I know that we sent a hard coffee to everyone who lives in a mobile home. I'm trying to think of other ways besides email and hard copy. Maybe it's too hard copy. I just worry that for the amount of outreach that we all received and for everyone kind of discussed, um, the different type of information people are receiving. How do we make sure that we are meeting people where they are? So I know we have the website. I'm not sure if.

[05:11:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: So, sorry, you're looking for more communication on the ordinance.

[05:11:10] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Um, to. I see Mr. Valsa's hand up. I think for those living in mobile home units. I would like to have greater communication about what the city is doing. in relation to mobile homes. So, whether it's the ordinance, looking at the MOU, We did hear and did see in the staff report that there's been limited participation. And so I also want to make sure that people are receiving that information. So I don't know, mayor, if we can go to Mr. Vastava to hear, um, maybe something else that we could include.

[05:11:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, uh, please, our key.

[05:11:54] Aarti Shrivastava: Sorry, I had put up my hand about something else, but I'm happy to, um, talk about communication. Um, what we've, the, the, we've kind of successively increased communication. Um, we can send out a miller to every mobile home park owner. Um, um, have outreach meetings, which we did. I believe we had, Wayne, did we have about 5 or 6 meetings for this particular one? So there were, um, 5 or 6 meetings that people could attend through Zoom, um, uh, 2 of them for were for owners and the rest for tenants, and then there was one wrap-up one as well. So we can we can do something similar. And then, of course, um, emails are just um, a belt and suspenders approach. Um, So, uh, that's essentially what we will propose to do. In this case, because it's limited, we'll probably not have 6 community meetings because we were trying to get one accord, and now since we have the elements of one, I don't think we need multiple meetings to come to agreement on the elements. But certainly it'll include outreach meetings, mailer, emails, just belt and suspenders. Everybody will get a postcard. Um, that way, there's more than one way to communicate, letting them know of the the roster of events. And how they can attack.

[05:13:24] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, no, no. Yeah, I know in the past we've done, you know, public noticing in the voice or have things that different, um, city facilities. And I only say this because I think for the amount of people who had lots of questions and that reached out to counsel. I feel like it's not incumbent on the city to make sure that we have robust answers for the questions that people have from us, and that makes me feel like we did not, we could do even more an enhanced communication.

[05:13:53] Aarti Shrivastava: Sure, we can we can even put, you know, we can put information on the website if they're not able to attend a meeting. We've done all that, but, you know, I hope people are listening. We're happy to do any outreach if this is the approach council needs to. In the end, it will go to a vote. Um, I did I did want to clarify one thing about um, the fees and administration. Um, We will need to determine what kind of staffing is necessary to oversee the program. And so the proposal will be to have a fee, and that fee is based on how, um, the CSFRA staff program basically looks at how much staff time is spent. So there's an initial amount that's collected and based on the implementation over the year, the next year's fees set. So it wouldn't just be cost recovery at the time there's a problem because we wouldn't have staff to administer it. We would have to have dedicated staff because Wayne is the only person in housing and he would not be administering this program. We would need somebody else to do that. Uh, just wanted to confirm. So it will come with a fee. Well, determine what that might be, um, and whether there be elements to, um, of synergy with the, um, uh, mobile home ordinance.

[05:15:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Um, so, uh, just to clarify that last point, uh, a charge for service is not possible. Um, and that's because we would need to have, it's a chicken and egg problem. We would need to have dedicated staffing to begin with in order to administer the program, and the only way you could have dedicated staffing is with the assurance of, of an ongoing fee. Is that right? And the amount of time.

[05:15:54] Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah, the amount of time will depend on the program itself, and they may be less time needed versus more, but, um, we can't pull staff together all of a sudden or go hire people when the problem presents itself. Um, you know, the, because we wouldn't have dedicated staff, um, to, to deal with the issue as it came up.

[05:16:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. Weisner Hicks.

[05:16:26] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Perhaps, um, those of you here tonight can already guess this. I will not be supporting the substitute motion, but I also wanted to say a little bit about why I won't be. I, um, I think that the I'm not comfortable with the sort of back of the napkin, um, sketching out of, uh, of an MOU. It makes me actually extremely uncomfortable. I don't feel I know what we're getting into or that staff is vetted at. Um, I also, and I think it will, uh, take a lot of staff time and effort to work it out further, and I think that with the, um, housing element, uh, on our plates, and all the other important, uh, housing work that we're doing, and, frankly, in my opinion, sort of a lack of staff, um, I want, I want, uh, our staff to be devoted to good, future housing projects, and not up endlessly in this particular item, when, I mean, I would be happy to have staff working more on this particular item, except that we already have a mobile home ordinance, they're all... People are already people in mobile homes will already be well covered. So, I feel that our staff, that our staff could be better devoted to other projects at this point. Thank you.

[05:17:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Uh, Ms. Shavostovo, did you want to, add anything else, your hand is still up? Um, and uh, so, maybe, would be best for me to share my thoughts because I think we're, um, I have a pretty good sense of where all the votes are landing. Um, uh, and then, and then we'll continue with the next round of, of comments. Uh, so here, here's where I have some concerns. Um, if we exempt one part from the fees, then the fees go up proportionally for the other parts. And uh, we haven't had any dialogue with the other park owners about what the ramifications. of that increase may be, and it's a pretty substantial one. Um, in the response to staff, at the council questions in advance of the meeting. It goes up almost $45 per unit, um, which is half of the fee per unit currently levied on apartments in the CSF array. I think that's non-trivial, and one thing I've learned from a park owner is that the impact of the fee per unit for a mobile home, uh, for a mobile home park, uh, is substantially greater than the impact of a given fee, uh, per door in an apartment complex because of where the rents are. Um, I think that's, that's a non-trivial impact that, I, I don't think we've sufficiently analyzed. Um, the other side of that is, if we do impose the fees. Um, one of the, uh, I think actually very good concessions included in the sunset estate's proposal is a credit, um, that is shared with each of the mobile home owners, uh, if the fee is not, uh, levied on the park. Um, but if we do impose the fee, that will have a material impact on the economic viability of the MOU. Um, which hasn't been analyzed. Um, And I, I, I wish, I think a lot of work has been done, and we've, we've done our due diligence to a point, but there are some economic realities that I, I don't think has been sufficiently analyzed, and it's very difficult as a consequence to save, with any level of confidence. Um, how a given park will be impacted, if the former occurs, or what the viability of the sunset of state's MOU would be, if the full fee is imposed, or even a substantially greater one based on, um, what we've heard from staff earlier, about the types of programming and support that may be necessary to administer the MOU. Um, I, I don't know how much more time is worth investing in this when there are so many outstanding questions. The fees are the big one for me. Um, the other thing that we talked about last time we had a major discussion about mobile homes is, I think the, the value of the MOU process is the negotiation. Um, and I wish, I said this before, but I, I, I wish we had done that in January 2020 when the council 1st directed, uh, the, the preparation of an MOU, sort of using the Sunnyvale style, um, process, and unfortunately that didn't happen. Um, and so we're, we're deprived of that meaningful back and forth with all of the stakeholder group. where we don't have, um, you know, an ordinance already in place with some base level protection. Um, and I'm very wary of unilaterally imposing a contract on, on other parties without having done that kind of robust, um, uh, you know, stakeholder engagement. Um, and the conclusion to, one of the earlier questions is I can't bring back any member of the public without allowing every member of the public an opportunity to provide input. Um, unfortunately, so there isn't a simple way to um, to answer the question of, is there, you know, some comfort with the terms that we're proposing here. Um, it, you know, it, I, it's unfortunate that we didn't already have that analysis of, do these terms make sense? Do they, um, impact the financial viability of the DMOU, is there even any value in pursuing the MOU if the park owner hasn't had an opportunity to assess the financial feasibility based on potentially hefty fees and based on additional terms that were not contemplated in the original proposal. Um, and there are some other questions, you know, concerns I have too, um, about, you know, what, what it would mean to close off the opportunity for parts to participate in the process later. Ownership changes. Um, sometimes, you know, there, there's a, a long term owner and that's great. Sometimes catastrophic things happen in an unanticipated change in ownership may occur. Um, and I think that's something that we have to be mindful of too, with with an MOU process. Um, you know, Mr. Kalsic enjoys great goodwill with his residents, and I think he's unique in that. And I really appreciate a lot of the terms that are included in the proposal, the top line numbers, 75% of CPI, for the AGA. I think it's a phenomenal concession. Um, and I just wish we had, you know, that, the, the assurance of understanding the impact of a major fee and then additional terms that weren't contemplated. Um, because then we might better understand whether that's a viable top line number to begin with for the AGA. Um, as other members of the council have already commented on, there's a lot of complexity and, you know, substantially comparable, it's very difficult to define objectively. You can reduce the AGA and provide, you know, some relief for residents. But maybe that means, you know, a higher, uh, increase with vacancy control. Um, or, you know, some other commendation of, of various levers and pulleys and buttons. Um, in short, I don't feel prepared, um, to provide meaningful direction on what an MO you should or could look like. I was hoping that the process that we've had would have produced something that we can work with and I don't feel that it has. Um, so I can't support the, the motion on the floor. Um, at least, you know, just given given the, the lack of information that we have right now. Um, Council member, Matt, check your next in line. 204 over here.

[05:25:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Uh, I'd like to call a question.

[05:25:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Uh, calling the question is a, uh, procedural motion that requires a 2 thirds vote. Um, That is my understanding. I know we've talked about this before. Um, it is a non-debatable motion. Um, and it has to be 2nded. They're a 2nd for the motion to end debate.

[05:25:43] Unknown Speaker: There is. Sure, I can second. Sure, I can second.

[05:25:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: And then just to make sure we are on the same page, city attorney, am I correct in that this is a non-debatable motion that requires a 2 thirds vote?

[05:25:59] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, I think you are, and and she's, I am assuming she's calling the question on the substitute motion, because that's the one that's on the floor. Okay.

[05:26:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: That's correct.

[05:26:09] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Um, and I think this will require a roll call, though.

[05:26:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: So this is for the point of order.

[05:26:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, for the motion to end debate.

[05:26:21] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Yes. Council member Lieber.

[05:26:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[05:26:25] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[05:26:26] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:26:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Adway Coca.

[05:26:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: No.

[05:26:31] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Kamei.

[05:26:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Ah. No, I think there were 2 other people who still wanted to talk, so I'll say no.

[05:26:44] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek.

[05:26:46] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[05:26:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council membersia Walter.

[05:26:48] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:26:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Mayor Ramirez. Yes, that motion fails. Um, so, uh, now we'll return to, um, the deliberation council member Medachek.

[05:27:03] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I just wanted to clarify that the current version of the substitute motion says that staff would come back to us with a an assessment of what the fees would be. Um, I'll just add that if you look at what has happened with apartments. The fees were higher at the beginning and then they have decreased. Um, I would expect that this one would be the same, and that hopefully they would decrease quite a bit because there wasn't really a need for petitions. clarification, you know, issues that come up. So I would assume they could go down quite dramatically. Um, I also want to respond to a comment, um, you may mayor about this being forced on others. I don't feel like it is. This is an option a park owner has, um, if they wanna use an MOU versus the ordinance. Um, they don't have to use the MOU. We are providing just an option. Um, and, um, I think that's it. Thanks.

[05:28:19] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you.

[05:28:24] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, this is unfortunate, we just had a few more folks who wanted to speak, and I think this is an important issue that everybody should have a chance to have their say. But, um, I also wanted to comment on the issue of imposition. Um, you know, I would argue that some folks will feel that the MOU that we, or the ordinance that we passed was imposed on them. And so, again, this is really about just giving folks another opportunity, an option to see if they can come up with their own agreement. And um, all of the questions that the mayor brought up. I think those are still yet to be fleshed out. You know, I don't know if this will be successful or not. But I am just asking that the process be, um, be, um, be completed. And, um, you know, this issue about staff time. Um, sure, a narrow majority added about 10 new programs to the housing element, and it seemed like that was not an issue for those folks, about staff time. And here we have one program that we're, we're trying to implement to just do our due diligence to complete this whole process. So that is what I'm asking for. And finally, for me, this is really the, you know, and it's, I know it's not in the other MOU, but the real benefit I saw with the Sunset Estates proposal. And again, I don't think that's complete either. I think there's still more work to be done, but the benefit there, that is, um, and this is what I've heard from the residents, is that they want a sense of security. They want to know that the park that they live in is going to be open for a certain amount of time. Our ordinance doesn't have that. Yes, it's a big barrier to close. But in all frankness, we have mobile home park owners, who can afford to do that? And so if a if a park community wants to have that sense of security and maybe have some, you know, other items that they're willing to exchange, why not give them that chance? And again, it's a vote. I don't know if the vote will be successful or not. If you don't like it, vote against it. But I just don't understand why we're trying to stifle people's voices or their opportunity to have a say in their future. Thank you.

[05:31:02] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any remaining questions or comments? Um, just for, for whatever it's worth. I agree. I think, I think it is a fair characterization to say that the rent stabilization ordinance is an imposition because we designed the terms, there wasn't a negotiation there. Um, and and I would agree with the characterization of an MOU as a choice. But I guess where, where I have less comfort is the, the terms that are included in the motion are not the terms that the park owner provided to us or that were negotiated between the park owner and the residents. And I, I wish, you know, if, if there were going to be an MOU, if the terms were in fact the product of a negotiation between the residents and the park owner, that's, that's the only distinction I was, um, Uh hoping to make. Um, but, but I think your, your, your characterizations are, are accurate. Um, if there are no, further comments or questions, then um, we'll begin the roll call, though. For the substitute motion, Council member Metachek?

[05:32:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[05:32:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Abi Coca?

[05:32:19] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: A.

[05:32:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Kamei.

[05:32:22] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:32:23] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Lieber?

[05:32:25] Councilmember Sally Lieber: No.

[05:32:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Shelter?

[05:32:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: No.

[05:32:29] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice Wear Hicks?

[05:32:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: No.

[05:32:32] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Mirror mirrors. No. Motion fails. 34. Thank you. Uh, so, so now we return to um, the original motion. Council member commit.

[05:32:47] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks, Mayor. Um, so may I ask, um, the motion maker and the 2nd or if we can include the item about, um, the communications, and then, um, I know that we do, Um, it was mentioned that um, HRC's doing the hardship petitions. I don't want to be overly burdensome, but I would be interested in this 18 net program as well. That can come back at a later time, but I was interested in if you entertain either of those two. Thank you.

[05:33:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member of Lieber. I think that's a question for you.

[05:33:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, well, I'm I'm always uh, interested in enhanced communications, um, as many ways as we can reach out to, um, individuals in our mobile home parks, and I'd even like to see our council neighborhoods committee, uh, do an annual meeting that is just for the parks, on mobile home issues, and bring in uh, bona fide. to talk about things, if that's the pleasure of counsel at a goal setting or wherever is the appropriate time for that. In terms of the, um, hardship exemptions, I'd like to know from, um, Ms. Tiedman, uh, is there anything in that that would disadvantage, uh, the residents in any way, shape, or form?

[05:34:23] Attorney Karen Tiedemann: Um, I'm not sure I completely understand the question. The RHC has adopted hardship provisions that include, it's considered a hardship, if you're a senior and your income is below 120% a median, there are other standards, other categories that would qualify as a hardship. Um, so mobile home residents right now, um, under the REC regulations. Have the ability to raise hardship. In response to a petitioner in response to a rent increase.

[05:35:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you. That answers my question, and I feel that that is really a benefit for the mobile home community, um, members, and, uh, so given, I think I don't need to include that in my emotion, given that it's already a benefit. Uh, under this. And I really urge an eye vote from, uh, all of our council members. I'd like to remind members of the council that this is an ordinance. It's not in our charter. And so if there's a a high quality response that comes up later, council can always, uh, consider, uh, adding it to to our approaches, but right now, we just do not have that. Thank you.

[05:35:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Just to clarify. I, um, the council member committee, you have your hand up, was that responsive to both of your requests or did you want to clarify?

[05:36:06] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, I was just, um, I wanted to thank the motion maker in the 2nd or. It sounds like the process that we have in place via RHC for the petition process is kind of a de facto, maybe safety net program, so that sounds like that's covered. And the communications is something that I was really interested in. And, you know, I, I'll support the motion, wanted to give the other one a chance, see that that didn't happen. Happy to support this, and, um, would be interested in in doing a, um, as you mentioned, like a council neighborhood, um, meeting just for mobile home parks. I think the more communication we can have, especially as we're still navigating the pandemic, you know, it's great. So thank you so much. Appreciate.

[05:36:48] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I think you've lowered your hand. Council member show, Walter, you're next.

[05:36:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Just quickly, I was going to, um, give a shout out for the use of sandwich boards with, um, posters on them. People are out walking a lot now, and, um, they see those, those, um, posters. They're very effective in my neighborhood. Thank you.

[05:37:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I've not seen any other questions or comments. Uh, Council member, Robbie, Goga.

[05:37:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I just want to point out, we actually do have done a mobile home park resident specific community meeting, neighborhood meeting. I know it's on a 2 year cycle and with COVID, things have been delayed, but for those of you who are new, we actually do have been doing that for at least as long as I've been on council.

[05:37:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you for the clarification. Um, are there any other comments or questions? Not seeing any. So, uh, let's so then this is for the the original motion. Um, let's, uh, commence the roll call, though. Council member Lieber?

[05:38:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Bye.

[05:38:11] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice mayor Hicks?

[05:38:12] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:38:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Abbe Coca.

[05:38:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: No.

[05:38:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Kamei.

[05:38:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[05:38:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek?

[05:38:23] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: No.

[05:38:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member show Walter.

[05:38:26] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:38:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Mayor Ramirez. Yeah. No, she carries 5 52. Sorry. Thank you. Um, and thank you, Steph, for, um, your presentation and uh, responses to counsel's questions. Um, uh, so we'll take a quick break, but 1st um, I'm gonna make a motion to continue the meeting past 10 o'clock. On some member command.

[05:38:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: A 2nd.

[05:38:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Um, let's take the boat. May I Ramirez? Yes. Council member Kameh? Yes.

[05:39:06] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Ebbe Coca?

[05:39:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[05:39:08] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Lieber.

[05:39:10] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[05:39:10] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Mattachek?

[05:39:12] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[05:39:13] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Cam's member, Shelter?

[05:39:15] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[05:39:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[05:39:17] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[05:39:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you very much. Would everyone like a 5 minute break or a 10 minute break?

[04:03:19] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: So 10.

[04:03:21] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, I think the 10s have it. So we'll take a 10 minute break and return at 1050. Thank you.

[04:04:30] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Welcome back. We're just up against 1050 PM. Yes, on as you see, winter. Um. I don't know if that was just me. I'm hearing the Spanish translation. Uh, well, we'll now move to item 7.2 declaration of a stage 2 water shortage emergency condition. Translation services are available for this item. We will now hear from our interpreter.

[05:49:51] Spanish Interpreter: Buenas noches, yes, cuenta de la noche, mos a seguira de lante con nuestra reunion. Vamos a seguir con el articulos jete punto dos, la declaración de una condition de mergencia de escases, de agua de tapados, Sio cupatra duction el Español, por favor, o prima, el globulo que dise interpretación y selecione el idiom español. Gracias.

[05:50:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Water resources manager, Elizabeth uh, Flagel will present the item.

[05:50:45] Water Resources Manager Elizabeth Flegel: Good evening, Honorable Mayor, members of the council. Can you see my screen okay?

[05:50:51] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Yes we can.

[05:50:52] Water Resources Manager Elizabeth Flegel: Thank you. Tonight's public hearing is to discuss the declaration of a stage 2 water shortage emergency. The city of Mountain View provides water service to the majority of residents and businesses within the city boundaries. With most water going toward residential uses and large landscape irrigation. The majority of Mountain View's water comes from the San Francisco regional water system. Mountain View also purchases water from Valley Water, operates local groundwater wells, and receives recycled water from the regional water quality control plant in Palo Alto. The state is experiencing a 3rd consecutive dry year, and the April snowpack finished at just 38% of normal. System storage is currently below normal for both of the city's wholesale suppliers. In late March, Governor Newsom signed an executive order, requiring implementation of level 2 demand reduction measures, and banning irrigation of nonfunctional turf, at commercial and industrial and institutional sites. The state water board's final regulations are now in effect. San Francisco has declared a level 2 water shortage emergency, and Valley Water adopted a 2 day per week irrigation limit. Mountain View's water shortage contingency plan was adopted by council last June and contains 4 stages of action to respond to increasing levels of drought. Mountain View has been in a stage one water shortage emergency since November. To comply with the current state regulations, Saf recommends declaration of a stage 2 water shortage at this time. Declaring a stage 2 shortage will add to the existing water use restrictions, which include actions such as the use of an automatic sprayer, and fixing leaks within 10 days. The new restrictions will prohibit nonessential water uses, such as washing down sidewalks, and irrigating during the heat of the day, and will require customers to follow, a citywide irrigation schedule. Staff proposes an address based irrigation schedule, consistent with many other parts of Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. Large landscapes will be allowed to comply using their monthly irrigation budgets to allow for operational flexibility while achieving the necessary water savings. Staff has already begun coordinating a summer outreach campaign to notify the community members of the need to save water. In conclusion, staff recommends that council adopt a resolution, declaring a stage 2 water shortage emergency condition, and directing implementation of the associated demand reduction measures.

[05:53:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. Are there any questions from the council? Council member show Walter.

[05:54:07] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Um, thank you so much for this presentation. I'm very sorry that, um, we need it, but uh, we certainly do. Um, I wanted to ask you about the communication. We talked a lot about that with the last item, and it's really pertinent with this one, too. Um, so I was wondering about the use of volunteers. I know I've gotten some postcards about saving water, and, um, uh... I... read them rather quickly, and I'm interested in water. So, you know, I mean, they have an impact, but but, um, I'm wondering about the use of volunteers. Are we, um, to assist with water conservation outreach. For instance, are we using the cool block program as a way to help get the message out and to spread the message? Have we sent messages to the neighborhood associations, to let them know that we would be glad to table at any of their social programs that we have. Um, and, um, I know that we have done that sometimes in the past, and I don't remember if it's happened this year or not, but I think that's really a, a helpful thing. And, um, And then what about library programs that I seem to remember, a couple years ago, there were quite a, there was quite a bevy of good library programs. Are we having those and what are they? And, um, Also, my final question is, is about, um, uh, getting recycled water, uh, if you're not, you know, on the North Bay Shore distribution system. I remember system. Remember, um, many years ago, there was a possibility of literally driving a water truck to the treatment plant and getting it filled up with recycled water. Is that an option, or is that viable anymore? Um, so, uh, those are just some questions. Thank you, Elizabeth.

[05:56:14] Water Resources Manager Elizabeth Flegel: Yes, thank you for your questions, Katsumovo, shelter. Um, I'll respond first to your questions about volunteers and community outreach. Um, we have been in communication and are planning more communication with the neighborhood associations, and with the sustainability community through our, um, our email list that our sustainability group sends out through their newsletter. We can certainly speak, specifically to the cool block program, to see how we might be able to utilize their outreach. Um, and then we can also offer to table at events for neighborhood associations. We are planning to table at some city events, um, but we can expand that and see what opportunities are available. With respect to the library, we have in the past certainly coordinated with them, mostly with our landscaping classes. I think they are offering some. Um, we can, we can definitely reach out to them and see what other opportunities can, um, maybe available. And then touching on your your 2nd question related to recycled water, uh, we do have a hydrant program in Mountain View where, um, construction trucks can check out or, uh, a hydrant meter, and they can fill up their construction checks here in Mountain View. Um, although the Palo Alto treatment plant, they have a truck fill station that's open to a much broader um, members of the community. And it's a simple application, and you pay a one time permit fee. I don't know the status whether there have been any changes with COVID, but we can certainly look into that and post updates on our drought web page to notify customers of what's available.

[05:58:00] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, that's great. I really think that, um, particularly the a lot of the people that have been involved in the sustainability, um, programs would be very happy to help you out at tabling, if that that could be, um, you know, a benefit. So, um... Oh, so thank you.

[05:58:24] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member, Lieber.

[05:58:28] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had a question. When, um, community members see an egregious waste of water, say that a sprinkler system malfunctions every single night in fountains, um, and floods the whole street. What can they do to bring that to someone's attention? I noticed with commercial properties, it's especially difficult to get any kind of a response.

[05:59:00] Water Resources Manager Elizabeth Flegel: Yes, thank you for the question. We do have a water waste response program. We have technicians that will respond to complaints that are submitted by community members. Some of the best ways they can reach us is to ask Mountain View. We also have a water conservation hotline. Um, and that is all, uh, and we have an email, just a generic water conservation email, they can submit, um, questions and complaints too. So those are 3 ways they can get ahold of us. And um, if you go to the Mountain View website, There is a direct link right at the top to water conservation, and that has our conservation contact information.

[05:59:40] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, great. That's very, very helpful. Thank you.

[05:59:47] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Vice Mayor Hicks. You're you're muted.

[05:59:58] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Sorry. So that leaves me with a follow-up question. Recently, all of Council got a series of pictures of Sprinklers sprinkling the sidewalk. Um, do you get those automatically sent to to you, uh, or should we send them? If they're sent, just in the way they would be if they were sent to ask Mountain View? Do you get the ones that are sent to all of Council people?

[06:00:26] Water Resources Manager Elizabeth Flegel: Yes, the communication that goes to council is forwarded to my group for response. Yes.

[06:00:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, great. Thank you.

[06:00:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions? The nun will turn to the public. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the race hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. A timer will be displayed on the screen. Seeing no members of the public wishing to speak will return to the council for deliberation and uh, the, uh, title of the resolution, um, will need to be read for emotion. I'm a member of Meta check.

[06:01:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I'm happy to make the motion that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View declaring the existence of a stage 2 water shortage emergency condition and directing implementation of stage 2 water demand reduction measures to be read entitled only further reading waived.

[06:01:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Nice mayor.

[06:01:43] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: I was going to second the motion, but council member Showalter, since this is your field, if you would like to second, feel free to.

[06:01:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member, Ginger.

[06:01:55] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you, thank you. I would like to second the motion. I appreciate that.

[06:01:59] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any questions or comments? If not, um, we'll start the vote.

[06:02:09] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[06:02:11] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[06:02:12] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council membership Walter?

[06:02:13] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:02:14] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koca?

[06:02:16] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[06:02:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Kamei.

[06:02:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[06:02:20] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Libra?

[06:02:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[06:02:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[06:02:23] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[06:02:24] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor mayors.

[06:02:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[06:02:27] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimous.

[06:02:30] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah. Thank you very much. Gracias. Uh, we will now uh, proceed to 7.3 public hearing on recommend track recycling and organic break. Um, Under prop 218, utility rate increases are subject to a written protest that may be filed by affected customers. Notices went out to all utility customers as required by law, including instructions for submitting a written protest, and this hearing complies with prop 218 requirements. Written protests to the recommended rate increases received either by mail or at the city hall utility payments mail slot prior to the close of this public hearing will be counted and recorded. If valid written protest letters are received from a majority of the customers, the rates will not be increased. At the end of this hearing, we will take a short recess to enable staff to confirm the final count of valid written protests received. Assistant finance and administrative services director, Grace saying, will present the item. Welcome, Jesse and Grace. Whenever you're ready, feel free to speak in the presentation.

[06:04:10] Assistant Finance and Administrative Services Director Grace Zheng: Good evening, council member. Can anyone see my screen?

[06:04:14] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can see it. Thank you.

[06:04:16] Assistant Finance and Administrative Services Director Grace Zheng: Great. Good evening, council member and mayor. Um, my name is Grace then. and the assistant fitness administrative service director. Tonight here in front of you is the public hearing for the recommended trash and recycling organic rays increase. Utility rate increase have previously been presented to council at the June 14th budget hearing. The city follow the proposition to 18 process based on the California Supreme Court decision that determines utility services, consists of property related fees and charges. This process require a public hearing be held prior to any increases being adopted for utility rates. Notices are required to be sent out 45 days prior to the hearing day, and approximately 16,000 notices from mail on or before May 13 to utility customers. Notice must include recommended rate adjustment, calculation methodologies, and the process for submitting a protest goal. The notice then, for this year was for the trash, recycling and organics race. The legislation provide for future weight increases within prescribed limits to be approved without holding a hearing each year up to 4 additional years. This include inflationary adjustment, 3rd parties, sets our supplier, um, past 2 costs, um, and future rate increase pursuit to a schedule of adjustment notice and adopted by the city council. Last year, um, hearing in 2021 approved the rate for water and wastewater. That this, that's why at this hearing, uh, we're only asking for the, um, um, for the, um, translate and the recycling, um, increases. I think hearing, if a majority protest approximately 8000 is received. They increase the subject to the public hearing cannot be adopted without repeating the notice and hearing process. It's on 5 PM today, life pole passes have been received. You're recommending for trash and recycling rate, a 6% rate increases of this year 22 and 23. The treasure and cycling services, ecology is the perfect company that's affect selection synthesis, and every level provided for a 3.28% increase. Smart station is the one that will provide our, um, process for our collection, and, um, they are providing their increase is one% for next year. However, we have a new MOU, um, that's infected in January 2022, which, um, for the residential organic construction demo missions and source separate a lot. Passed by sports station anymore. Those costs are being handled by independent special life facilities. which the city cost increased by 23%. This increased the city total cost to be about 15% of this fund to maintain a balance of late budget. There is a sufficient balance in the balance to smooth this rate increase over the next few years. That's why we're recommending 6% increase of 2220 The proposition for 18 hearing is not required for the proposed water and wastewater rate as we mentioned it previously. Um, recommend the rate increase for 2223 are within the prescribed limited, um, that notice that we send out in. last year. This increase that we're recommending for water is 12% and wastewater for 8%. Those are mainly due to a pass to increase from our providers. For example, in water, um, 15.9%, um, increase is come from our San Francisco public utility commissioner, and 15.6% can function, Santa Clara Valley water district. And our wastewater is 8%, 6% increase is cost due to the treatment plan, and 2% is for the treatment plan capital cost. This is a comparison way up to our neighboring cities, for water, Palo Alco is more comfortable as they also receive most of their waterfronts in the system of the utility. The flow rate, al alto is also comparable as we use the same to my flat, but most that, um, alto rate does not include a 2% facility set aside for the future capital project. For trash, well, alcohol is no longer with the smart station, um, Sunnyvale is the one that using the smart station with the city. In this example here for a single family residential home, a total increase is 9.9%, which is about $19.12 increase a month. Um, there are additional comparison, um, such as for multifamily 4 units or a apartment compact of 120 units. Those in those comparison details are in page 7.77. I'm sorry, 7 dash 77 in the Misellania session, I'll recommend the budget if you're interested. So, in summary, staff, is requesting time, so, to test this document, 6% of these subtracts and recycle all late movies. A portion of this rate increased for visible year 22 and 20 B is included with the budget public hearing item amending the master fee schedule later onto my council agenda. If there is a majority protest at this hearing, this item will be removed. At the end of this hearing, the city court will provide a tally of routing forecast that we have received. Thank you. presentation.

[06:09:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the counselor? The none will turn to the, uh, well actually, we will now open the public hearing. Once public testimony concludes, written protests will no longer be accepted through the city's utility payments mail slot. Any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item. If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. The 1st speaker is, uh, let's, uh, allocate 2 minutes. The 1st speaker is Guadalupe.

[06:10:38] Guadalupe: Uh, hello, um, mayor, vice mayor, and city council members. I want to thank you for the opportunity for me to speak on this item. Uh, I would like to, um, protest on the uh, races, uh, of the utilities that you are requesting, one, because I think they're pretty excessive, especially now when everything is going up, gas, food, uh, and that definitely portrays a hardship on our family. And especially because this notice was only given in English. It wasn't given in Spanish, I'm pretty sure the most vulnerable people who are gonna be affected by this, did not get the opportunity to protest on this race because it was only sent out in English. It wasn't sent out in any other languages that we have in the city, like, Chinese, Spanish, uh, and now, um, Russian or any other languages out there that we have in the city. So that is the reason why I'm protesting. Um, and hopefully city council will uh, look into this and not vote to, um, adhere as it is a hardship on the, on the community members in the city, especially the most vulnerable. Thank you.

[06:11:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. The next speaker is Adam Jones.

[06:12:03] Adam Jones: Hi, this is Adam Jones. I'm a, I live and work in Mountain View and appreciate your asking for public comment regarding the trash recycling and organics rate increase. I certainly understand the need for rate increases. costs are going up everywhere as we know. And so I'm not necessarily objecting to the amount of the rate increase, but rather, I wanted to ask if we might be able to get more services for that. Specifically, something that always has bothered me about the Mountain View recycling program is the very limited amount of plastics that are accepted by recology. And I know we have this dirty dozen sheet that says a lot of different things that, uh, we can't recycle an anthem, I was gonna hold up here on the camera, but it seems like, uh, since I'm only talking, I have to describe them, but there's a, a bin of, uh, the tablets for the dishwasher, a cup from paneras, some spinach packaging, some other clamshell containers, and all other pile of things, all of which it says Mountain View won't accept. Whereas if we look at the similar list from Los Altos submission Trail recycling, they accept all plastics, one through seven, all the marking, and I understand that in Mountain View, you're concerned about it not being profitable to sell those items, but it seems to me that we shouldn't be so worried about selling them as we should be about actually getting them recycled so that they end up getting released and not added to the landfill. When selecting what recyclables to accept, I think Mountain View should focus less on sustainable market value, and more on creating a sustainable planet. So I hope you can expand that through the rate increase. Thank you.

[06:13:56] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much, and thank you for your perseverance. There are no additional speakers. So, I will close the public hearing and recess this meeting for 5 minutes while staff collects any protests received during the hearing. We'll come back at, um, 1119.

[04:30:06] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. It is now 1119 PM. City clerk laser, has the city received any valid written protest on the recommended utility rates?

[04:30:16] (archive recording) City Clerk Heather Glaser: The city has received 5 written protests which does not constitute a majority.

[04:30:24] (archive recording) Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I will now bring the item back for counsel deliberation in action. And note that emotion should include a finding that no majority protest has been received, and that the recommended trash, recycling, and organics rates for fiscal year 2022 to 23 shall be included with the adoption of the budget in our next agenda item. Item 7.4. Motion is in order. Council member show, Walter.

[06:19:25] Councilmember Pat Showalter: I'm going to have to council find and determine that the city has not received a majority protest for the proposed increase for trash, recycling and organics rates for fiscal year, 2022, 23, and that the recommended rates for fiscal year, 2022, 23 shall be included with adoption of the budget in our next agenda item, item 7.4.

[06:19:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Mattachek.

[06:19:52] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Second that.

[06:19:54] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any remaining questions or comments? If not, we'll take the vote.

[06:20:04] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, shall Walter?

[06:20:06] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[06:20:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek.

[06:20:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[06:20:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member MA Koga?

[06:20:12] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[06:20:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: council member Kamei?

[06:20:14] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[06:20:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Leaper.

[06:20:17] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[06:20:17] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks.

[06:20:19] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[06:20:19] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Ramirez.

[06:20:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yeah.

[06:20:22] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Ocean cares unanimously.

[06:20:26] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Well, now move on to the final item, 7.4. Adoption of fiscal year 2022 to 23 budgets, appropriations limit, fee modifications, and funding for fiscal year 2022 to 23 capital improvement projects. Administrative services director Jesse Takahashi will present the item.

[06:20:51] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Good evening, mayor mayor and council members. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen. Everyone able to see the screen?

[06:21:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can see it. Thank you.

[06:21:09] Jesse Takahashi: I'm Jesse Takahashi, a finance and administrative services director. And tonight, uh, staff is recommending the adoption of the fiscal year 2223 budgets, a process that started some 7 months ago. Council was kept informed throughout the year with quarterly budget updates and opportunities for council as well as public input. Council has provided staff with the necessary guidance and direction to allow for this balanced budget to be brought forward for adoption tonight. A public hearing on the recommended budget was held on June 14th, and resulting changes were incorporated into a budget, being adopted tonight, including allocation of an additional $1.2 million in American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA funds, as well as additional grants. The impacts of the recently concluded labor negotiations have also been included. I am pleased to report that the budget is balanced. and continues to enhance the quality of programs, services that the community has come to expect from our city. We recognize that the economic impacts from the pandemic have been quite severe. for many in the community, and we have continued to dedicate resources to addressing these needs in next year's budget. Now, as I just mentioned, counseled as directed staff to allocate additional ARPA funding at its June 14th meeting. This included increased funding for the Mountain View Solitary Fund. community workforce development and job training, economic and climate resilience support for small businesses, housing and eviction health center, broadband and additional funding for other nonprofits. And this fully allocates the $7.8 million that the city will receive as its second and final payment from the U.S. government. There were just a few additional items that are being included in the budget, since the June 14th meeting, and the largest of these is the re budget of a portion of the ARPA funding from last year, which will be used toward delinquent utility bills for residents and small businesses. The city's outlook for next year does remain positive, the general operating fund is projected to end next fiscal year with a $350000 surplus after required transfers. Council is being asked now. to take a number of actions is shown in the staff report, and that includes three separate motions. The 1st 5 recommendations will adopt the city budget, began appropriations limit, fee schedule, and utility rate changes of the item that we just covered, commit part dedication funds for capital projects, and to amend the classification and salary plans for employees. The second motion will be for the shoreline community budget, and the third motion will be for the Mountain View Capital Improvement, Financing Authority Debt Service. And before I conclude, I would just like to acknowledge the hard work of our budget team in particular Elliot Young financial analyst, Anne Trin, a senior financial analyst, and Grace saying our assistant finance, and administrative services director, all of whom did an exceptional job this past year in developing, uh, and coordinating the budget for you tonight. And I do wish to thank them for all of their efforts over this past year, in particular the last six months. And with that, that will conclude my presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions. Thank you,

[06:25:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: and we echo, uh, the gratitude to you and your team for preparing this balanced budget. Are there any questions from the council? Council member leader.

[06:25:21] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Um, thank you mayor. Uh, I have a question by adopting this budget tonight. Um, Would, uh, the ARPA, um, funded projects come back to us for appropriation, of of the money. for them. And my concern was that there were, um, several programs that were much more ad hoc and informal and coming forward at our last meeting, um, and a doubling of the community workforce development job training, um, more than doubling of the, um, uh, climate resilience support for small businesses and, um, an increase in the, uh, broadband consultant, which was not previously envisioned under the budget. So, There was little to know, um, policy planning behind the spontaneous coming forward of the proposals, although maybe very good ideas. Um, but will we actually see a developed policy proposal and then appropriate the money? On those items.

[06:26:55] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So thank you, council member Labor. Yes, the intent would be for staff to bring back. more baked proposals for counsel to react to in terms of what programs would look like in those 3 areas you just mentioned. So, the workforce development program, which you noted, the funding was doubled. The, um, program for the businesses or grants or the resiliency, sustainability initiatives, and what sort of ideas that might look like. And then the broadband initiative, which we intended that funding to go towards a consultant that would help us. So I see those, the work plan project is already on, or excuse me, the broadband project is already on your work plan. I see the other 2 projects being added to the work plan, um, at least in the next cycle, and then staff's just gonna need to spend time. And they're actually going to start likely this summer to brainstorm and reach out to some of the organizations we've heard from, at least for the workforce development piece for the small business piece. I think we need to do just more outreach, more conversations, more analysis on what a program would look like, especially given the amount of funding that council has allocated. So yes, all 3 of those would come back to council as regular business items on your agenda to appropriate and help form what the programs would be like and give staff direction.

[06:28:26] Councilmember Sally Lieber: And so just a follow-up question if, if they came back in a similar conceptual form and, um, not as developed policy, then we could, we could say, no, we'd like to devote the money to some other, um, project at that point in time would be my understanding, or, or we could raise elements of program design that we might want to see, for example, on giving away free money to businesses. We could say we don't want to businesses to be eligible if they have unmet wage and hour judgments against them or different kinds of policy features like that.

[06:29:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Correct. Or if you know, if you if you have very specific things you're interested in now, and you can give staff direction, that that's also helpful before they even go down a certain path.

[06:29:23] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[06:29:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Vice Mayor Hicks.

[06:29:31] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: My my question is, um, very overlapping with this previous question. So the only remaining piece of it, so most of it is answered. Um, the only remaining piece is that we have both two items related to small businesses, uh, Castro streets, and also economic slash climate resilience support to small businesses, and I guess I'm not sure, depending on how we scope those out, they could be overlapping. Um, and also the economic slash climate resilience. I'm not totally clear on what it, what that means, but I, um, I find the economic resilience component of that more compelling than the climate resilience portion. So I'm just wondering when we scope that out further, can we shift it more towards, can we combine the Castro streets and the other item? Can we shift it more towards economic resilience? And less droids, climate resilience? Will we have that flexibility?

[06:30:37] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, and actually, if the majority council direction is to kind of repurpose and refocus that category for the small businesses. Excuse me, if you give us that direction tonight, then I think that will actually help because staff will think about it in different terms of economic resilience as opposed to looking at some sort of sustainability program related to climate change. So, if you all want to link that to the funding that's already allocated the one. 1500000 to the Castro streets, I think it would be helpful to get that direction from council this evening.

[06:31:18] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yeah, I mean, I was gonna save those comments for my comments, not my questions, but thank you. Um, yeah, that's kind of where I'm heading that I think, you know, we have a lot of vacancies, and, and, um, that the economic resilience is, uh, top of mind for me, but I'll save the rest of that for comments. Thank you.

[06:31:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Lieber.

[06:31:45] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I'm sorry, I forgot to ask one follow up question. Um, say that we want to save a portion of the money, um, for the next breaking emergency, um, well, we have until when to appropriate these funds and or to expend them.

[06:32:08] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Uh, thank you, council member, labor. So, council has, until the end of 2024, to commit the funds, until the end of 2026 to spend the funds. So yes, you could set the money aside if you want to change what the recommendation is, you could set some money aside instead, if that's what the council wishes. Thank you.

[06:32:38] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member of Big Toga.

[06:32:41] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, so in regards to the small businesses, um, downtown businesses. Um, I know that we have the, I believe it's called the economic, vitality, revitalization initiative. Um, I, you know, I believe we have a consultant coming on board to help us, um, come up with strategies to support our small businesses, but if I understand correctly, we haven't actually allocated any expected recommendations from that. program, correct?

[06:33:21] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Yes, that is accurate. Council member Obe Koga, we have not allocated anything beyond the initial cost for the consultant to help us, which is kicking off this actually next month.

[06:33:32] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: So then, can do you need to hear from us tonight? Um, directing staff, is that, I am interested, like, my, my real interest here is to try to get things going as quickly as we can. Um, and so, uh, uh, do we need to, um, specify tonight that some of that funding could potentially go to any of the recommended strategies that the consultant comes up with?

[06:34:03] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I believe that would be helpful to staff. If we know that counsel is supportive of allocating some of that towards what's gonna come out of the economic vitality strategy, you can also give staff discretion to see how much is needed from that consultants work, and then maybe how much we might be able to put to some sort of new program, really related to small businesses in particular. So that would be helpful to get counsel's direction on that this evening.

[06:34:33] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so do I need to specify a amount, or can I give you staff discretion? Like you just said, staff discretion to come back with a dollar figure for that program?

[06:34:47] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I think it would be easier to give staff discretion because then we'll know more about what the consultant comes up with. Like, let's say you carve out a certain amount and it's more or less than that. Um, when we know more about what is gonna be in the strategy and staff can actually come up with some ideas and do a lot of outreach to businesses and community members. I think we'll know a little bit more about what some sort of, you know, economic resilience program might look like, coupled with the recommendations and the strategy. So it's probably easier to just kind of give staff broad direction, and then we can come back to council.

[06:35:26] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so, um, we we just would need to add that to an emotion that's made tonight. Okay. Thank you.

[06:35:37] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member, Matt.

[06:35:41] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I just wanted to, um, clarify the economic vitality strategy is city wide, right? Not just Castro.

[06:35:49] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Correct.

[06:35:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you.

[06:35:55] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I've got a couple of quick questions. Uh, so 1st, um, uh, am I understanding correctly that we haven't used any of the utility arrears funding?

[06:36:11] Jesse Takahashi: Yeah, that that money we had were developing, excuse me. Um, uh, a way for dispersing for over all the delinquent accounts we actually had to go through and kind of analyze account by accounts. So it's mainly a timing issue in terms of getting those applied. to the bills. And so, uh, in order not to run out by June 30, as we wanted to make sure that those got re budgeted. So that could be done, um, likely over the summertime.

[06:36:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so we do expensive. We do anticipate fully expending that funding relatively soon.

[06:36:49] Jesse Takahashi: Yes, yes. And we've actually got to match up. We've actually been able to do some collections, um, and so we're matching up the remaining balance, which is actually very close to that to that amount.

[06:37:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Oh, okay. Well, that's fortuitous. And then, um, for the CNC fund, uh, the additional 3000 I appreciate staff, um, uh, working with the council's direction on that. Uh, uh, how do you intend to? disperse that, or, are you going to reach out to, um, each of the neighborhoods to say, you know, are you, uh, you're, you're each going to get your fair share, you know, amount, or what, what, what does stats, the, the, the number is a little bit lower than I was anticipating. Um, it's, it's meaningful. You know, given the types of grants that we're, uh, we're providing, but, um, the stats have a recommended proposal for dispersing those those funds.

[06:37:50] Jesse Takahashi: I'm not sure on the specific uh proposal. If there's someone from the city manager's office. I do know that is an aggregate number for all of the neighborhood groups, and we don't anticipate they will all need that. Um, but in terms of how we would actually go about, um, you know, figuring out which one, uh, to do, we would probably likely notify them, and if they, they had, um, an issue where they were running short, they would apply, and then we would probably handle that on a request by request basis, but, um, that's how I believe it would go, and, and if someone from the city manager's office, you know, differently. Now, please add to that.

[06:38:33] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: So mayor and um, Mr. Takashi, yes, that is my understanding that this would be a 10%, excuse me, a 10% increase over uh, what's already funded. So I think what we can do is just see the demand, because it is a smaller amount. And if we see that there's more of a demand for more funds, we can always come back at midyear too. For at any time, really. Uh, but I do think that this was, the funding wasn't always spent. I think that was always the issue. So there was always remaining funding left over. Plus we're giving a 10% increase. So I think we can see what the demand is. and then come back if we need to.

[06:39:16] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's that's fair and maybe that CNC can provide um, more granular directions, but the the concern I have is, um, if a neighborhood group doesn't know about the opportunity to apply for additional funds, They may not apply for additional funds, and some of them, I think, have already, um, expended their, um, whatever the maximum, you know, uh, allocation they could get under their, their tier, and so they may think, well, we've already expended, you know, that amount of money, um, and and may not think to go back to the city unless prompted. Um, so it might be helpful to, to provide some guidance to the CNC about some equitable way of using those funds. Um, council member lever.

[06:40:05] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I had a question about the Castro streets improvements. Um, would those be limited to Castro Street? Or would, um, businesses that are on the side streets and the parallel streets to Gastro Street, that don't have the ability to triple the size of their their restaurants or business space, be able to avail themselves, um, somehow, of those amenities?

[06:40:44] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: If I may respond, thank you, Council member Lieber. The Castle Streats Improvements program. 1500000 was funding that we were buying to spend to implement the improvements that were identifying for the interim pedestrian mall. So we would use that money towards those intersection improvements that we talked about towards the accessibility improvements along the block, towards the aesthetic improvements, such as adding in public gathering places, street improvements, improved lighting along Castro, as well as helping to contribute towards a sewer upgrade that is desperately needed along that section of Castro. So, this was not a program that was intended to directly funnel money to the businesses along Castle Street. It was truly what the city was going to use it. to implement the improvements that we've identified that the city is going to make.

[06:41:42] Councilmember Sally Lieber: You could. And so I'm just concerned about things like, um, maybe it wouldn't be in that bucket at all, but issues, like, facade improvements, signage improvements, for the downtown, you know, in the large sense in which people experience it, which would include, um, the side streets that, um, have been kind of left out of the, the boon of being able to, um, you know, grow their business by 4 to 5 times the, the footprint. Um, uh, and, you know, maybe some, um, some ways of dealing with garbage that are a little more slightly, and, um, have, have fewer, um, spillover, uh, impacts and things like that. So, so if that wouldn't go in the Castro streets, uh, that would go in one of the other, um, buckets, uh, to, to try to establish some, some fairness for the, the impacts on the side street businesses.

[06:43:03] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Well, some of the improvements you mentioned are definitely options for the Castle Street's improvement program, way finding signage that includes even signage, pointing to the businesses on the side streets, definitely can be considered. I mean, our goal, though, is not to do too much sign clutter, but artfully placed, that makes people aware that downtown is more than just Castro Street can definitely be considered. Definitely strategies that improve, um, you know, the collection of garbage, not having being unsightly in this area, uh, to me, does fall into these types of, uh, aesthetic improvements and infrastructure improvements we need to support, the Castro, um, pedestrian mall. And probably, It would, you know, it's really not Castle Streets improvements anymore. It's the interim Castro Pedestrian Mall program that we're trying to give us a leg up on. And this is initial funding that we would be investing in that program to move us towards more of this interim castro pedestrian mall that we're striving towards.

[06:44:13] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Okay, thank you.

[06:44:18] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? The none? I'll turn to public comment. Would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom, or press star 9 on your phone. Timer will be displayed on the screen. Um let's allocate 2 minutes just because it's getting pretty late. The 1st speaker is Hank Dempsey. I think are you, uh, able to unmute yourself?

[06:45:03] Hank Dempsey: Can you hear me, sir?

[06:45:05] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes, we can.

[06:45:06] Hank Dempsey: Finally. Thank you. Um, Mayor Ramirez and council members. My name is Hank Dempsey. I'm calling in support of the of the budget item that you're on now, specifically the recommended use of the one. 1500000 for the Castro Streets program. I'm part of a team of leadership Mountain View students, actually. We're really interested in this question of commercial vacancies downtown. Um, and during COVID, we saw those vacancies reach, um, upwards of 20%. It was pretty bad. And I think we all saw it. Our final project ended up surveying a number of commercial real estate professionals downtown to better understand what was driving the problem. Um, what we heard, there's a lot of different causes, and it was very complex, but there was definitely some promising lines of inquiry we found that we hope the city will pursue, um, as we as we revitalize the downtown. All of this is in a final report. I'm not going to cover any of it. We've shared it with the council and city staff by email, and we just hope that it'll be useful food for thought as the revitalization goes forward. But one thing I will say, in sifting through the responses, we heard many times that the current aesthetics of the downtown were not helping to make Kestro the optimally attractive retail space that we wanted to be. And we also did hear that there were cookie cutter 88 lawsuits, that were even driving out some businesses. So I think this budget allocation for Crasher Streets is a great idea. I think it's directly responsive to a lot of the problems and ideas that we've heard, we'd love to see it go forward. And we just really thank you for looking out for the downtown. Thank you.

[06:46:39] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, uh, and I would encourage uh, members of the council who haven't yet had the opportunity to read through that report. Um, it is very, uh, insightful, um, and uh, well research, so thank you very much to, uh, you and your colleagues for preparing it and sharing it with us. The next speaker is Alex Brown. Alex, as you are speaking, we cannot hear you.

[06:47:17] Alex Brown: Well, that seems to happen to everyone. This is my turn. Okay. Hey, everybody. Uh, I'm all for the city investing in businesses. I just think if we're investing, it should be an investment and that we should get a stake and a return and that it shouldn't just be paying for things that people otherwise deferred in terms of their investment in their businesses, in the health of their infrastructure. And that we should take an active role in maintaining a vibrant downtown environment community. Uh, but it shouldn't just be handouts, it shouldn't just be giving away and it shouldn't be subsidizing like poor business operations otherwise. So thanks.

[06:47:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Being no other members of the public wishing to speak, uh, will return to the council for, uh, deliberation and note that a motion to approve, the recommendation should also include reading the title of the resolutions attached. Council member labor.

[06:48:15] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, mayor. Um, some some comments that I have, um, I would like to, um, See us really stay flexible on the community workforce development, job training, and maybe be able to fold in, one of our economic strategies was trying to promote, uh, micro enterprise, for our, um, community members that, uh, would like to avail themselves of the cottage food laws, or, um, do other kinds of, um, small, small business that can fit around their lives. And I have not seen us bring anything back on that. But I don't want to make, um, a half a million dollar investment, you know, just sight unseen on various things. Um, the other one is the, the economic and um, climate resilience support to small businesses. I want us to, uh, keep that flexible so that we get back, uh, uh, a real policy proposal and program design on that, so we know that what we're, um, committing money to. Um, like the previous speaker, I am not interested in giving a 3rd scoop, which was what we heard back from staff, that on round one, they got a certain cadre of businesses that needed help, round two, the same folks came forward, who needed help. And they anticipated that round three would be the same people with still a failing business that need help again. So, um, I I would like to see how we can be very, um, directive of that, um, and make sure that we're not just getting, you know, poorly maintained businesses that have had a lack of investment over the years, um, that are coming forward because it's free money that somebody's trying to shovel out the front door. And, um, make sure that we really, um, can see a firm policy proposal on that. And I'm, I'm very, um, uh, much in support of the, uh, the broadband, um issue, the broadband, um, consultant. Uh, I think council member, Kame, brought up the, uh, the need for that previously, and I think that, um, The pandemic has shown us how critical that is. Um, for, uh, for school, for people working at home, um, for other, um, kinds of community objectives and and moving the community forward. Um, So those would be my, um, my comments on those, and I'd be happy to make emotion when the time is right. you.

[06:51:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Council member Abi Koga.

[06:51:30] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. Um, again, as always, thank you to staff for the hard work to put into, um, bringing the budget for it and I'm very pleased that, um, the, the status of our budget, um, and especially, um, pleased about, um, having some extra funding to be able to, um, continue to provide assistance, um, as we try to recover from COVID. Um, I just wanted to, uh, I guess in my mind, uh, I had certain, uh, a vision of how these, um, extra funds put to the, Economic, resiliency, support, and then, I guess, Castro Streets, um, Funds, programs, um, would be, and, um, and I guess if we need to clarify, that's, um, you know, that's, that's fine. Um, my interest here is, um, to, Make sure that the economic vitality strategy moves forward as quickly as possible. And, um, you know, I I guess I have a little of a different take. Um, when COVID hit, you know, we tried to provide relief to, um, as many folks as possible. And in my mind, that meant, um, individuals, and that's why we did the rent relief program and, um, CSA and the solidarity fund, and GBI, but also for businesses. And, um, you know, I guess I just, I having run a small business a long time ago, I know how difficult it is to run a small business and, um, you know, if you're successful, that's great, but oftentimes small businesses are, are struggling and through COVID, there was a lot of struggle. And that's why we saw a lot of businesses close. But as we're trying to recover, you know, for the businesses that survived, I say, congratulations and thank you for sticking it out. And if they need a little bit of assistance to, you know, refresh their, the, their, as facade, you know, the aesthetics of their, their, um, storefront or, or to be able to, you know, pay for job training. That's what I wanted to do. That's what I want to do by offering some financial assistance. But in addition, and this may perhaps be part of the strategy, or I'm hoping to, you know, I have over time, for years, talked about the need for us to look at downtown specific, but, you know, we have a lot of arcane rules and requirements that are cost prohibitive, and, um, you know, and we heard about them during COVID. And so part of this funding, for me, is intended to be used to try to, you know, is to, um, streamline our permitting process or look at, you know, changing some of those requirements, um, like the facade improvement. requirements that can cost over half a $10000 for some small businesses. So it's a lot of things. Um, but I think it's very specific to, you know, the strategy. Um, and some of the, yeah, the rules and regulations and modifying those, um, adding reflexibility to, you know, uses. And then on top of that, if there's need for some financial assistance, um, to, you know, make those improvements, then I think we should be able, we should be willing to provide that. So, um, that's my intent with at least a half a $1000000 in the, uh, resilience support fund, and then I don't, it sounds like there might be flexibility in the Castro streets fund for that too. I would include the side streets, not just Gastro Street. Um, so I'm gonna leave that to staff, but that's my intent. Um, you know, I, I don't, I hope that other council members will chime in. Um, regarding job training, uh, yes, again, you know, I look forward to staff coming back to us with options. Um, one that came up at our council sustainability committee, I think it was the vice mayor who brought it up and and, um, there's a similar program that we're doing at Silicon Valley Clean Energy, but, you know, what about job training for clean, um, clean energy jobs to get folks, you know, we don't have enough contractors who know how to put heat water pumps in. So there's definitely a need there. And again, there's, you know, clean energy has the program, but it can certainly be enhanced. Um, I think that I've heard the community colleges are working on that too. I know we heard from some like Foothill College. in the last couple weeks about their interest in partnering with us. So my expectation there is that we look at these offerings and see who we can partner with. I don't think we need to create our own program, honestly. You know, I would just like to help partner and enhance some existing programs that will meet some of the needs that we have identified. So I think those were the 2 areas. I just wanted to clarify. And, and, um, I just also say, I wanted to thank Mr. Dempsey and the Leadership Mountain View Group for their report. Um, that's really along the lines of what I was thinking about, you know, what are some of the improvements, the, um, changes, revisions we need to look at making in, um, the, our downtown area. So, um, you know, I think we can use that as a foundation and hopefully our, um, consultant can incorporate those ideas and then I don't know which fund, but, you know, from either of these 2 funds, we can fund some of those strategies. Thanks.

[06:57:41] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Bye, Smear Hitch.

[06:57:45] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: So I think I'm, I'm generally agreeing with the direction this is taking. We're kind of refining more some of the, the broad buckets of money and, uh, and we'll probably do further refinement for the ones that, uh, become items on our work plan, our, our items on our work plan. Um, as for the broadband, um, I, you know, I, I fully support, um, what people have been saying, and I think there are some pockets of the city that have, um, that are underserved, in terms of broadband. At the same time, I want to make sure that I think laying fiber is very expensive. Often companies do it themselves. I certainly don't want to be subsidizing, you know doing something very expensive. The city, doing something very expensive that companies would do. So I'm hoping when we further refine that. You know, we make sure that it's targeted properly towards need. The second item I'll comment on is the workforce development. Yeah, I agree, we don't want to, um, completely create programs of our own, instead partner with other groups. I am, um, I have heard there's a need for more training regarding electrification. Uh, building electrification, as, uh, council member, Advocoga was saying, uh, because probably we will be doing that in other cities, as well. I also have heard that, uh, Foothill College has, uh, um, a, gosh, I don't know exactly what it's called. It's a, it's a, it's a plant and, uh, landscaping, uh, that's the nature of the program. And it may partner well with, or pair well with some of the biodiversity things that we in other cities are doing. So I don't know if that's, uh, uh, type of training that would be, um, job training that would be, uh, good to look into as well. And then I've also heard that there needs to be more that we're going to have, unfortunately, a growth of need for women's healthcare and women's reproductive healthcare, and I don't know if that's something. So those are 3 ideas, and I hope we scope that out more specifically in the future. And then the last thing I'll comment on is the, um, economic resilience support for small businesses. I did appreciate during the, uh, during the, the heart of the pandemic that we were supporting small businesses that had difficulty getting through that. I would like in the future, if it were mostly, um, uh, targeted or or had more of a plan behind it, something along the lines that, um, that the, uh, leadership Mountain View folks, uh, Senator Report, also, there's an urban land institute had a report with a lot of, um, good suggestions for, uh, how to, uh, revive our downtown and improve right downtown. So I'm hoping that it can be something that is a little more planned and targeted and targets aesthetics as well. for that particular item. Thank you.

[07:01:21] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[07:01:24] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. Um, I would like to make sure that whatever help we provide for small businesses, uh, supports small businesses throughout the city, I think we need to remember that we have small businesses that are not on Castro or the side streets, and they have also, uh, been struggling during the pandemic and might need a little bit of help. And so I want to make sure we are not just focused on Castro Street. Thank you.

[07:01:57] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Very, I'll take a quick turn and then we'll come around for another round. Um, to, I agree. So 1st thank you, staff, for preparing this. Um, a lot of really, uh, beneficial investment planned and um, I think we've, uh, we've certainly come a long way from 2020. Um, I agree with, uh, As a member, Abe Koga, and support the, um, recommendations for the ARPA funds, and agree also with, um, the vice mayor and council member, Mattachek. Uh, I think for for small business, uh, support. It's important to keep in mind that especially during the pandemic, maybe less relevant now, but a lot of that was to help make the payroll, you know, so it was helping keep people employed. Um, and I think, you know, there's certainly different different ways of supporting businesses and agree very strongly that we need to think citywide as well. Um, and then for workforce and um, workforce development and job training. Um, I, I agree very strongly with, um, with council member Abe Koga and that we need to leverage partnerships. Uh, and the intention, I think, is, you know, not to create our own program, but to make the money go as far as possible. And if there's another program that we can, we can take advantage of that already enjoys some, um, some meaningful investment or there's a coalition of organizations that can participate. I think, you know, the $500,000 that we've allocated will go a long way in helping, um, Mountain Vee residents who currently don't have access to, uh, you know, tremendous job opportunity that exists here, uh, get the credentialing and the training that they need, um, to move upward economically. Um, so I think this is a very strong uh, package, and I hope the council supports it, and I look forward to um, seeing where staff, um, is able to, to go with, with these allocations. Council member labor.

[07:03:59] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. I, I very much appreciate everyone's comments, and, um, I think they're adding a lot of input for staff that's quite, quite valuable, and I very much appreciate, um, staff's work on, on bringing this budget together. Um, so I'd like to uh, go ahead and move that we adopt a resolution of the city council, the city of Mountain View, adopting the fiscal year 2022 dash 23, city budget, and appropriations for the adopted, fiscal year 2022, and 2023 capital improvements projects, including amendments to existing projects, but excluding the shoreline regional park community to be read entitled only further reading waived. And second, that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, adopting the fiscal year 2022 to 2023 appropriations limit, to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, mending the city of Mountain View, master fee schedule, to be read in title only. For the reading waived, and that we adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager or designate to amend the classification and salary plans for regularly regular and hourly employees for fiscal year 2022 to 2023 to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[07:05:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Council member matter check.

[07:05:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Second that.

[07:05:43] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments? If not, um, we'll take the vote.

[07:05:58] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Liever?

[07:06:00] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[07:06:02] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[07:06:04] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[07:06:05] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koga?

[07:06:06] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I

[07:06:07] City Clerk Heather Glaser: can't remember Kamei.

[07:06:09] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[07:06:10] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Can't member, show Walter?

[07:06:12] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[07:06:13] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Nice Mayor Hicks.

[07:06:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[07:06:15] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mayor Amirez.

[07:06:17] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[07:06:18] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Notion carries unanimously.

[07:06:22] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: You very much. I think we have. Unless I'm mistaken, we have 2 additional actions, right? Shoreline regional park community and then the capital improvements financing. Uh, Council member, Abikoka?

[07:06:34] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. That's what I thought. I heard. Wasn't quite sure, so, um, yes, I'll go ahead and make the other 2 motions. So, um, one is to adopt a resolution of the Mountain View Shoreline Regional Park community, adopting the fiscal year, 20223 Shoreline Regional Park community budget, and appropriations for the adopted fiscal year, 20223 Capital Improvement projects, for the Shoreline Regional Park community, including amendments to existing projects to be read entitled only, for the reading waived, and adopt a resolution of the Mountain View Capital Improvements, Financing Authority, adopting the fiscal year, 2022, 23 budget for debt service payments to be read entitled only, for the reading waived. Thank you.

[07:07:15] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Bye, Mary.

[07:07:17] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: A 2nd that.

[07:07:20] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. If there are no further questions or comments, um, we'll take the boat as well.

[07:07:28] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Abbe Koca?

[07:07:29] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[07:07:30] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Vice Mayor Hicks?

[07:07:32] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes.

[07:07:33] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, can I?

[07:07:35] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes.

[07:07:36] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member labor?

[07:07:37] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Hi.

[07:07:38] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member Mattachek?

[07:07:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[07:07:41] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Council member, show Walter.

[07:07:42] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Yes.

[07:07:43] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Mira Ramirez.

[07:07:45] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Yes.

[07:07:46] City Clerk Heather Glaser: Motion carries unanimously.

[07:07:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Thank you. Uh, staff, uh, thank you very much. Um, if there's nothing else, we'll uh, allow you to probably remain at home. If you're not home, go home and go to sleep because it's very late. Um, thank you. We will now proceed to counsel staff committee reports. Weisner Hicks, your hand is fill up.

[07:08:14] Vice Mayor Alison Hicks: Um, I can give a short report. We had the council sustainability committee, where we considered 3 items. One was to accelerate our climate neutrality goals, and the staff is recommending, looking at 2035, and doing it somewhat regionally. And they will be scoping that out more, and, uh, returning to us. We also had a report on, uh, sort of, as we come out of the pandemic, uh, traffic, and, uh, so we had a report on that as well, and then we also had a report and update on, um, on sea level rise. And, uh, I... I may let council members show all their share details on that, but basically, there will be an ongoing forum for, um, both elected officials and for staff on that. Thank you.

[07:09:27] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Council member Lieber.

[07:09:32] Councilmember Sally Lieber: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I also have some items on sea level rise that I would love to comment on, but I'm gonna, uh, put those out through other channels. Um, because of the overwhelming importance of, um, some of the things that have happened this week. Not that sea level rise isn't incredibly important to us here. Um, but just looking out over the, the political landscape, and, um, in particular, I'm thinking of, uh, 2 disastrous Supreme Court, uh, decisions in New York rifle and pistol association, V Bruin, and in Dobbs V. Jackson. Um, I think that the decision New York rifle and pistol is going to, um, really add to the work of government being protective of our own community members, and, uh, there's much that we can do and will be doing despite this ruling within our community. And I stand very ready to do that. In terms of Dobbs V. Jackson, and the real, uh, attempt to, uh, take away fundamental rights from a majority of Americans, I think, is something that we all have to, uh, stand up to. I really, um, look at the things that I've achieved in my life in terms of, um, being in the, uh, state assembly and, um, being able to author laws like the California Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and being able to put into place, uh, protections for, uh, individuals who have, uh, developmental and cognitive disabilities, and how they get treated in court, and they're getting a fair day in court. to be able to be witnesses, uh, in terms of their own, uh, sexual abuse and and other crimes against them. And even things like, uh, raising the statewide minimum wage. And I'm very mindful that had I not been able to, uh, access a, uh, a safe, legal, and accessible abortion that I would have done exactly none of those things. And so I'm going to do everything in my power to fight back against this incursion, onto majority rights, and there is a piece of legislation in the state legislature, SCA 10, that is moving very quickly, uh, through the legislature. So I'm not gonna suggest that we take an affirmative position on it now, because I feel that it's clear that it will go to the governor in the next couple days, and that he will sign it. But it will place a measure on the November ballot to ensure, not just through case law, uh, but within our Constitution, that there is a permanent legal right for Californians, to abortion, and two contraception, into privacy, in these matters. And so I'd like to tee this up, that when we come back, at our earliest convenience, when this is a ballot measure, that we take a vote of support on this, um, I think it's really time for us to use all of the tools that are, uh, at our disposal, and particularly that we step up in every way possible as, uh, elected officials. to really say that we are going to ensure that, uh, California remains, uh, a city on the hill, a beacon to other states, and to people in need, that we stand up for privacy, and we stand up for individual rights for women. And, uh, other people that are, uh, impacted by this decision. And, um, so that's what I wanted to discuss with you tonight, and, and I, uh, I appreciate counsel allowing me to have this microphone. Um, I have a personal commitment now to bringing this message forward, um, anytime that I am given a microphone in any context. And, um, so again, I would really like to see us, uh, take up the ballot measure that comes from SCA 10. When it comes when we next meet as a body, and make sure that we have coverage on that. Thank you so much.

[07:14:36] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. And staff, do you need a straw motion, or is that something you can prepare for the council when we return?

[07:14:47] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: I think a straw motion would be good just because this isn't on your platform, so just a show of hands would be great.

[07:14:53] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Okay, let's go ahead and do that. Raise your hand if you support. Um, the city taking a position on that constitutional amendment. I'm Florida. There is unanimous. Thank you. I, I, I had a suspicion you would be, uh, so unanimous support for that. Um, thank you very much. Uh, Council member Abi Koga.

[07:15:11] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mary. I just want to report out on some regional board meetings. Um, the city's association had a special board meeting to appoint a new acting executive director. Shelly Sir Kay. Some of you may know her. She is also in the Los Alto school district board. Um, so she has started um, and will be uh, with us till at least the end of this calendar gear. Um, at MTC. Uh, I know I've reported this a number of times. Um, the Bay Area, it's part of the Bay Area, housing finance authority, but um, both MTC and A bag have directed, um, that we move forward in preparation for a housing bond measure for 2024, um, that outlines to that bond is a $100000000000 general obligation bond. Um, from that, San Jose, would, the city of San Jose alone would receive about $1000000000 and then the rest of Santa Clara County, the other 14 cities, would receive $12000000000 And then, um, they have a rest, the remainder would be. divided up amongst the other 8 counties in the Bay Area. So that is moving forward. Um, you know, we talked about how this could, um, affect our own plans. Um, but it is, um, I'd say it's, we're moving forward on this. Um, and then finally, from Silicon Valley, clean energy, you may have seen the press release, but, um, we have allotted $140000 for technical and financial assistance to multifamily properties, um, to add electric, um, vehicle charging chargers. So, um, any, uh, property with 4 more units can apply for up to $45,000 to be able to um, install new EV charging stations. Um, so there is an application process and, um, you have to be a part of this program, um, that offers the technical assistance. Anybody interested? Uh, please visit SV Clean Energy.org slash multi-family hyphen charging, um, for more information. Thanks.

[07:17:49] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council membership.

[07:17:54] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Well, basically, I like to sort of bring up 2 things. One is, um, 1st of all, I'd really like to thank everybody for their um, their reports, particularly Margaret. The thing that upsets me about your reports, Margaret, though, is that I'm too tired at this point in the meeting to take all this information in, and I would really like to receive it as an email. I was instructed by a previous, uh, city attorney that, um, sending out, uh, emails to everybody with this information was a, um, a problem with the Brown Act. And I would really like our new city attorney to revisit that, because, um, I just don't think it makes any sense. So that's the first thing I want to talk about. And I hope other people will... I think we mentioned this in brief, very briefly at the, at the council retreat, but I just would like to bring it up again, 'cause, 'cause Margaret's, uh, report was such a good example of all those things I'm gonna forget that I know a lot to forget. Um, but anyway, so there's that. And then the other thing I wanted to share is that I attended the A Bag General Assembly meeting, um, last week. I'm the alternate, and Ellen was still on leave. Ellen, we're very glad you're back. Welcome back. Um, and there are three things I wanted to share, uh, much as the information related to the, um, uh, the bond measure that Margaret talked about earlier. One of the things that I thought was really interesting is that we don't want to have any competing bond measures. It's really in our best interest to function as a region on this. And so, um, that's just the, in addition to what you had to say, Margaret, that's what I'd add that I heard there. And there was a presentation, which I'd be glad to share with everybody. Second, we heard from Brad Paul, he's the local services director, and there's quite a laundry list of, um, of, uh, services that A BAG supplies to local government. Um, one of the ones that I have personally found helpful is the Bay Ren program. And that is a program to encourage and support conservation, and it supplies a lot of information on, uh, uh, contractors and, um, appliances and just background information about electrifying, um, your house that I found useful. And then the third was a presentation on A Bag's work plan and budget. And, um, A Bag, the new budget director is a gentleman named Derek Hansell. And I think the old budget director had been there for many years. So, you know, he was filling some big shoes. Apag has a, um, budget of $45 million, but I think it has a, uh, sort of an outsize, um, impact as an agency because, uh, of its, uh, you know, because it connects so many cities, and because, um, uh, the of its working with Met. Anyway, I mean, the MTC. Anyway, the budget is currently balanced. They're asking for a 6% dues increase, which we voted to pass. But the take home message was really that, um, although it's balanced this time, um, they don't really think that it's going to remain balanced. They described it as structurally deficient. And so, um, the president of A bag is going to be convening a retreat of the executive board shortly to talk about, you know, how A bag's funding can be shored up for, um, the next decade or so. And, and then there'll be a, um, a special general assembly meeting in the fall to deal with that issue. So, um, that's my report. Thank you.

[07:22:01] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. Council member Commé.

[07:22:05] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Thanks for the welcome back. Pat. It's good to be back. Um, and I have 2 things to report. So last week, we had a convening of our ad hoc subcommittee on race equity and inclusion, and we had 2 updates. One was related to our race equity and inclusion action plan. And the other was an update from our county partners about anti, um, their anti-racism education campaign, as well as the hate crimes task force. I thought some key takeaways were that we had supervisor Otto Lee come, let us know about how the task course has been, um, going and want to thank council member Abbe Kuga, who I think was an early, um, participant in the task force. And then for the educational, the anti-racism educational campaign. It sounded like the county had quite a few new like divisions and departments that had been created. Um, and that there's a lot of new information, trainings that are available to both us as elected, our city staff, as well as residents. And so we've asked them to like share that information with us so we can like disseminate the information. Um, that was like, um, some some key takeaways there. Um, also last week we had um, an emergency, um, um, cities association, convening about some bills that are moving through the legislature, and I just wanted to share with everyone what those bills are. It's A B 2011, which is a Buffy Wicks bill. It's about affordable housing and high roads act high road jobs act of 22. Um, AV 2097, which is a Friedman bill about residential and commercial development related to parking requirements. We also, um, heard about SB 897. It's a Waikowski bill, about ADUs. And we also had, um, another bill, um, SB 833, which is Senator dot about community resiliency plans. So, um, Those are items that are on our legislative watch list. And so I just wanted to, um, call everyone's attention to that. And I know Ms. Gilmore sent us an update about, um, bills that were tracking, but also wanted to let folks know that these are ones that are of interest to our city's association. I wanted to share that as well. Thank you.

[07:24:42] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. City attorney. See your hand up.

[07:24:47] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to, um, very quickly respond to council member Shell Walters request. Um, I actually did consider reconsider this issue, and Heather and I have worked out a way, in which, um, you can share documents with each other from your committee meetings. Um, Heather will send an email to the entire council. Um, but essentially, you will send your documents to her, and she will send them to the council with a BCC so that way you don't reply all and accidentally talk about it. But we can facilitate the sharing, um, of these types of documents, so that when you come to this, this item, you can talk about it and have documents in hand.

[07:25:28] Councilmember Pat Showalter: Thank you. I really appreciate that. That's great.

[07:25:34] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Thank you very much. If you don't like what your attorney says. Get a different attorney. Um, let's see here. Uh, City Attorney Log, do you have a closed session report?

[07:25:46] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: There's no closed session report this evening.

[07:25:50] Mayor Lucas Ramirez: Fantastic. Well, um, thank you everyone for persevering. It's been a long evening. It's been a long half a year, but we've done a tremendous amount of work in collaboration with our staff in our community, and I just want to share that I'm grateful for all of you. Um, and with that, uh, the council will head into a summer recess. Uh, and our next council meeting will be held on August 30th, 2022. Until then stay healthy. The meeting is adjourned at 1226 AM. Take care, everyone.

• ← Previous
• Next →