February 14, 2023 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:06] Mayor Alison Hicks: So good evening, everyone. Welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and the Shoreline Regional Park community of February 14th, 2023. Um, city clerk, can you call the roll?

[00:00:22] City Clerk Glaser: I'll council members present this evening.

[00:00:25] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So please note, we are now going into presentations. There are presentations only, and the city council will not take any action. Public comment will occur after the presentation items. If you'd like to speak on these items in person. Please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk right around now. So, um, Emily and Ramos, will you join the city clerk Glaser at the lectern?

[00:01:11] City Clerk Glaser: Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I state your name.

[00:01:15] Emily Ramos: Hi, Emily and Ramos.

[00:01:16] City Clerk Glaser: Do you solemnly swear or affirm?

[00:01:19] Emily Ramos: Do you solemnly swear over?

[00:01:21] City Clerk Glaser: that I will support and defend.

[00:01:22] Emily Ramos: That I will support and defend.

[00:01:24] City Clerk Glaser: The Constitution of the United States.

[00:01:26] Emily Ramos: The Constitution of the United States.

[00:01:28] City Clerk Glaser: And the Constitution of the State of California.

[00:01:30] Emily Ramos: And the Constitution of the State of California.

[00:01:32] City Clerk Glaser: Against all enemies.

[00:01:34] Emily Ramos: Against all enemies.

[00:01:36] City Clerk Glaser: Foreign and domestic.

[00:01:37] Emily Ramos: Foreign and domestic.

[00:01:38] City Clerk Glaser: That I will bear true faith.

[00:01:40] Emily Ramos: That will bear true faith.

[00:01:42] City Clerk Glaser: And allegiance.

[00:01:43] Emily Ramos: And allegiance.

[00:01:44] City Clerk Glaser: To the Constitution of the United States...

[00:01:46] Emily Ramos: To the Constitution of the United States...

[00:01:49] City Clerk Glaser: And the Constitution of the State of California.

[00:01:51] Emily Ramos: And the Constitution of the State of California, that I take this obligation freely. Did I take this obligation freely?

[00:01:58] City Clerk Glaser: Without any mental reservation?

[00:01:59] Emily Ramos: Without any mental reservation?

[00:02:01] City Clerk Glaser: Or purpose of evasion?

[00:02:03] Emily Ramos: Or purpose of evasion.

[00:02:04] City Clerk Glaser: And that I will well and faithfully.

[00:02:06] Emily Ramos: And that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties. Discharge the duties?

[00:02:11] City Clerk Glaser: Upon which I'm about to enter.

[00:02:13] Emily Ramos: Upon which I'm about to enter.

[00:02:14] City Clerk Glaser: Congratulations.

[00:02:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, uh, Council member Ramos, would you like to make any remarks?

[00:02:39] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um... I think pulling it up right now. And congratulations. Thank you. Um, I was suggest, it was suggested. I start off with 4 scores and 7 years ago. Although to be more accurate, it'd be 6 scores in one year ago, because Mountain View was founded in 1902, um, and the score is 20 years, technically. But in, in all seriousness, um, I'm approaching my term as an appointed council member with humility and gratitude. I'm extremely grateful to everyone who has encouraged me and supported me during this appointment process. It has meant the world to me. And I would not have had this incredible opportunity without you. I also recognize that an appointment is different from an election. I will need to work hard to continue to connect with everyone in our community, and to truly understand the diverse needs and concerns of all mountain view residents. So to that end, I want to acknowledge that the past month was a difficult one for our community, um, our council faced several difficult and contentious issues, mostly one major issue, and we'll continue to, to go through and, um, to make difficult decisions as we move forward. The decisions that the council made were not easy, nor were they unanimous. We have heard many different perspectives in our community. And I view all these perspectives as valid and important. I want to recognize and honor the challenging work of the council in balancing the many different opinions that were shared by many different residents about how to approach filling this vacant council seat. So, I am committed to listening intently and carefully. We have a strong history of electing city council members who are approachable and accessible to the community. And I want everyone to know that I will also be accessible, and that I will meet with anyone and any group. And it's important to me that everyone feels heard, and I owe it to our community to understand that all perspectives and the complex issues of our city. I am committed to working in good faith with all my colleagues on city council. We have a very ambitious and progressive work plan, and I'm excited and eager to be beginning to begin working on them with all of you to the benefit of our community. I have learned important lessons from each one of you through either working directly with you or observing you on the dais. I have deep respect for all of you, even though we might not agree on everything. I know that each of you have ran on the platform of priorities that you were elected to deliver on those key promises. I believe this is a wonderful thing. Innovation, creativity, and new ideas cannot happen if we all think the same way and have the same exact beliefs. I want to understand all the issues that are important to each of you, and I'm excited to be a team player in achieving our goals. And finally, I'm committed to representing everyone in our community as best as I can. I have been a unabashed advocate for the most vulnerable in our community, and I'm still passionate about that work, that we must do to keep mount of view a community for all. I know much of my polished strength is in housing and my core values still inform how I make those decisions. But I understand that my responsibility now as a council member is to represent everyone, including residents who I might not always agree with, and work on policies that I do not have the same amount of exposure to. I am now joining my colleagues on the council in the hard work of balancing many different perspectives in our city. So thank you for giving me this opportunity. I am honored and humbled to join you in service to the best city in the world.

[00:06:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: At this point, do any council members have comments that they want to make? And if you don't remember, because we haven't been in person for a while, you press the button, and I call on you. Uh, Council member Ramirez.

[00:07:11] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm still learning. Um, I know we've got a closed session coming up and there are 2 major issues, but I did want to first welcome Emily to the council. The work is challenging, and often, you will find that there are no good or easy solutions always available. You're going to upset one side or the other, whichever way you vote, but I am grateful to you for stepping up, and I look forward to working with you over the next couple of years. Welcome.

[00:07:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: Oh, uh, let's see, now, uh, council member Kameh.

[00:08:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Well, happy Valentine's Day, everyone. Just wanted to say that. Welcome to our newest colleague, your remarks, our exactly what appealed to me during the appointment process, which is we're an ambitious and collaborative council, and that you are ready to get to work whilst acknowledging that we all bring different strengths, and we're all here to learn from each other too. So, I appreciate that you're coming into that. I'm appreciative that we have a full 7 member council to tackle our very ambitious work plan, as you said. and bring the collegiality, and I think the positivity that this council brings to our region, which makes us the best city in the world. Thank you.

[00:08:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Show Walter. Oh, vice mayor, sorry.

[00:08:53] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I'm just going to be short, and I've known Emily for about 10 years, and it's been a pleasure to work with her on a variety of issues. And welcome aboard.

[00:09:05] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abbe Koga.

[00:09:07] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and my 2 will keep it short. I just want to say congratulations. Welcome aboard, and I look forward to working with you, what you said in your remarks is very spot on, and I look forward to that collegiality and us doing some good work together. Thanks. And I'll just add, I was going to, um, I was going to say, I look forward to learning from you about housing issues and the other issues that you've been involved in, but in reality, I've known you for quite some time for years, and I've been learning from you for years, and so I guess I should just say, I look forward to continue learning from you, and exchanging ideas.

[00:09:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: With that, see, uh, council member, Abbe Kogo, do you have an additional comment? Now, you just can't get your name off, okay? Okay. Struggling with being in person. So do any members of the public want to make remarks? I see Alex Brown? I see Megan Fraley. Okay, I don't need them.

[00:10:39] Public Speaker: Congratulations, and I am honored to have you as a representative of our community. I have so much deep faith in you, and I know your, I have known Emily and Ramos for some time, and I know her heart is, um, good, and her work ethic is beyond almost anything I have seen. You can see her at the Democratic volunteer center on camera at 3:00 in the morning, vacuuming. I am just saying, She works hard, and she will work hard for our city. Sorry, for outing you. But I feel like as much this is an appointment process, you have been so deeply involved in our community and talk to people, and this feels as close to democracy as it can be, and I know that you will represent us with good faith and heart, and I'm very grateful to have you. So, thank you, counsel, for recognizing that, and I look forward to the next few years with all of you. Thanks.

[00:11:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And, um, actually, now it's time for virtual speakers, and I neglected to read how to become a virtual speaker. So if you would like to become a virtual speaker, click the raised hand button in Zoom or submit a blues speaker card. Oh, no, don't do that. Um... So... seeing no raised hands. Yes, seeing no raised hands? We will close this portion of the meeting and go into closed session. Oh, closed session announcement. Well, now, City Attorney Logue will make a closed session announcement, and then the city council welcomes public comment on the items listed for closed session. City attorney lobe.

[00:12:36] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: There are two items on the closed session agenda tonight.

[00:12:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Sorry, we'll let the attorney Logue speak. Okay.

[00:12:47] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Okay. Item 2.1 is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is Gammel Way, a public street. The agency negotiators are Angela La Monica, and, uh, I mean, real property program administrator, and public works director, Don Cameron. The negotiating party is Kevin Dinardi with the Dinardi Group, and under negotiation, our price and terms of sale. Item 2.2 is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 54956.8. The property is one Amphitheater Parkway, parking lot C. The agency negotiators are Angelo La Monica, real property program administrator, and public works director, Don Cameron. The negotiating party is Google, LLC, and under negotiation are priced in terms of lease. Thank you.

[00:13:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Would any member of the public joining us either virtually or in person, like to provide comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda. If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. And we would take in-person commenters first. I'm saying that there are none. And I'm seeing no raised tans. So we will now go into closed session.

[00:14:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, good evening, everyone. Welcome back to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and the Shoreline Regional Park community of February 14th, 2023. For those joining us in person, please note that due to our hybrid environment, audio, and visio presentations, can no longer be shared from the lectern. Requests to show an audio or video presentation during a council meeting should be directed to city. clerk at mountainview.gov by 4:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Also due to our hybrid environment, we'll no longer have speakers line up to speak on an item. Anyone wishing to address the council in person, must complete a blue speaker card. Please indicate the name you'd like to be called by when it's your turn to speak, and the item number on which you wish to speak. Please complete one blue speaker card for each item on which you wish to speak, and turn them into the city clerk as soon as possible. But no later than the call for the public comment on the item you're speaking on. Instructions for addressing the council virtually may be found on the posted agenda. Now, city clerk. Will you call roll?

[00:15:50] City Clerk Glaser: All council members present.

[00:15:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Now, please join us. in the Pledge of Allegiance. Our new council member, Emily Ramos, will be leading us. Emily.

[00:16:04] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Congratulations to the flag of the United States of America. To the Republic... One nation, under God, indivisible, liberty, and justice for all.

[00:16:19] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. I'm now going to announce some advisory body vacancies, and hope that you all know some people who will apply. The city clerk's office is looking for volunteers to serve on the following advisory bodies, the rental housing commission, the public safety advisory board, the downtown committee, the Human Relations Commission, the Senior Advisory E Committee, and the Performing Arts Committee. The application period closes this Friday, February 17th at 5 p.m. And now, we'll move 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. If you'd like to speak on this item or the next item, oral communications on non agenda items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. Would any members of the council like to pull an item? Uh, Vice Mayor.

[00:17:36] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, I would like to poll item 4.10. The Grant Road and sleeper intersection improvement.

[00:17:46] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, would any other council members like to pull an item? Now. Would any members of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on any item on the consent calendar? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk. We would take in person speakers first, and I see no speakers at this time. at Also, um, This would be the time to raise your hand virtually. Uh, and I see no one raising their hand virtually. Um, So, uh, I see council member Ramirez, are you ready to make a motion?

[00:18:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Yes, thank you, Mayor. I'll move the balance of the consent calendar. I saw that excluding 4.10, which includes item 4.2, adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View amending sections of chapter 36, zoning of the city code to eliminate lot area and lot with minimums. The residential high density, R4 zoning district, for 100% affordable housing developments that receive authorization through the city notice of funding availability process, allow residential mixed use, village center development, where the general planned land use designation allows residential uses on sites within the commercial neighborhood, CN, and commercial services, CS, zoning districts, and established definitions, procedures, and standards, for such general planned mixed use village center development to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and Adopt an ordinance of the city of Mountain View, amending the zoning map from the General Industrial MM zoning district to the high density R4 zoning district. For the property is located at 57 and 67 and 87, East Evelyn Avenue, south of East Evelyn Avenue, between State Route 85 and Pioneer Way, in 1110 Terabella Avenue, 1012, Linda Vista Avenue, at the northwest corner of Linda Vista Avenue and Terabelle Avenue, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Item 4.3, adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, providing local support, and authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the middle field road, complete streets project to be read entitled only for the reading waived, and adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, providing local support and authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and committing any necessary matching funds and stating assurance to complete the Moffat Boulevard Complete Streets Project to be read entitled only for the reading waived. And adopt a resolution of the city council, of the city of Mountain View, providing local support, and authorizing the filing of an application for funding assigned to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and committing any necessary matching funds, and stadium assurance to complete the El Camino Real, El Monte, Escuela, intersection improvements, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Item 4.4, adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View, authorizing application to the Pro Housing Incentive Pilot Program, and certifying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Compliance with the Pro Housing Incentive Pilot Program requirements, and authorizing the City Manager, or designate to execute a grant agreement, if awarded, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Item 4.5, adopt a resolution of the Shoreline Regional Park community of the city of Mountain View authorizing the executive director or designnee to amend the amended and restated amphitheater ground lease agreement with Live Nation to increase the portion of Lot B that may be used for safe barking and finding these actions to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under California Government, sorry, California Code of Regulations Title 14, sections 15301 and 15061 B3, to be read entitled only for the reading waived. and adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View, authorizing the city manager or designate Designee to one. Execute a funding agreement with the county of Santa Clara for preventing an ending homelessness in Mountain View in an amount not to exceed 625,000, to amend the amended and restated amphitheater ground lease agreement with Live Nation to increase the portion of Lot B that may be used for safe parking. And, three, amend the Shoreline Ampitheater Lot B lease agreement with the county of Santa Clara to increase the number of oversized vehicle spaces that may be used for safe parking, and finding these actions to be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15301 and 15061B3, to be read entitled only for the reading wave.

[00:22:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: And do we have a seconder? We have a second or... Council member... And before we take a vote, I just want to recognize for people who have difficulty understanding bureaucrates that item 4.5 is an expansion of our safe parking spaces. So, now, everyone... Oh, the secondary disappeared. It went up. Okay, so now it's time to vote. Passes unanimously. So now we go back to 4.10. Council membership, or vice mayor?

[00:23:33] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Thank you. Yes, I've pulled this. Um, I'm sorry that I didn't, uh, let staff know about this, but, um, uh, after reading this, I sent this out to several people in my neighborhood. I live very close to this site, about three blocks away from it. So, um, I, uh, I would say in most days, I go up and down Grant Road, at least twice, three or four. There have been years when I was taking kids to and from school where I would have gone up and down Grant Road five or six times in a day. So I'm very familiar with this area. And, um, when I, uh, queried my neighbors, I was really surprised that everybody came back and said, Don't do this. And the reason they said that was because there are two stoplights that are very close together that have crossing, you know, protected crossing lights. And, um, they feel that this would encourage people to cross in a place that isn't safe, and that, you know, and that putting in these, um, you know, putting in these, um, uh, improvements would actually encourage people more. And, um, so I wanted to bring this forward, because it's very unusual for me to send out a query like that and have everybody come back really quickly and say, don't do this. So, um, I wanted to bring this forward. And one thing I would like to say, though, that I really liked saying is that with all of these bicycle improvements, they've all gone through BPAC, and that is something that is part of the process that's really important. So I was glad to see that that happened. But that said, the people in the neighborhood really question this. So, um, I would just, I was hoping, Dawn, that you would be able to explain a bit about, um, how this improvement is, how do you feel it will be in terms of encouraging people to cross in a place that's a little questionable? Um, is it turned on? Okay, thank you.

[00:25:56] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, council members, Don Cameron, Public Works Director. So thank you for the questions, and sharing with us what you're hearing from your neighbors. I will say that this project has been a priority project for a number of years. We've been hearing from the community for a very long time that they want this project. We've had two or three community meetings, even during COVID. And the turnout has usually been very good, very supportive, very engaged by, is it a Southern Crossing or a Northern Crossing? But I will say that the key reason that this project is important is people are pedestrians are already crossing at this location. It connects directly to the park. So that's why there's an opening in the median, that even though there isn't a crosswalk there. It is being used. So in order to make this as safe as possible for bicycle and pedestrians. This project is designed to formally put in a crosswalk, put in a pedestrian hybrid beacon, which will stop vehicle traffic when cars want to... when pedestrians are ready to cross or even bicycles. And one of the things that we still have to design, because council approved as part of the concept, a Northern bicycle crossing, and that'd be something we'll be working out during design, and coming back to the council transportation committee, and having more community outreach to see if we're hitting the mark, correctly, on how we want to design that. In terms of concerns about how it may affect traffic on Grant Road, our traffic engineer has already said that it is possible, for him, he'll work closely on the signal timing, for those two adjacent intersections with signals, and how they will relate to the crossing the pedestrian hybrid beacon. But overall, this is, again, been a city priority for a number of years, we've heard to date is support for it. So little surprised that you heard concerns about it. And I would say, we are going to do more another community meeting, as we proceed into design, and that might be an opportunity for your neighbors to further talk to us about their concerns, and we can maybe address them.

[00:28:12] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, I think the concept of sinking, the crossing with the traffic lights is really important. The sinking of traffic lights on Grant Road has varied considerably over the years, and sometimes when it was, we had a period where they were turned on, and then they broke, and it took a while to get them fixed, and so people are, and Grant Road takes a tremendous amount of traffic. And having lived there for almost 40 years, I know I was talking to one of my neighbors about this. The amount of traffic on Grant Road has always been a lot. You know, it's not like it may be significantly worse than it was before, but it's always been a very heavily trafficked road. So, um, you know, the flow on the flow of traffic there is really important for the community getting around, and, um, okay, well, uh, thank you for all of that information. Appreciate it.

[00:29:24] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Abbott Koga?

[00:29:27] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I was gonna add a little to that. This has been a project. I want to say that's been around for maybe a decade or more. Um, and we've gone back and forth on this many times. I know some of your neighbors have been opposed, including a former council member. But on the whole, I've always heard more support. And the fact was, you know, when I used to admittedly drive my daughters to school once in a while, and people were crossing anyway, and, I mean, they would just look scared straight. Because it's a direct route from the Stevens Creek Trail, Trailhead, and then into Questa Park. It just was too much for folks to have to go up Grant Road to the stoplight and cross over and then come back down. And this is the direct route. So, um, knowing that people were already doing that crossing, we, and back then we didn't have the technology of the beacons and whatnot. We had put that little rest spot in the median. So I'm glad that technology has caught up now to be able to put in a safer crossing. And so I appreciate that we are here finally in being able to offer a a more, yeah, safer crossing for folks who are already been crossing and you're right, more folks may use it, but the hope is, and I remember we had actually talked about a stoplight there, but because there's 2 already close by, It wasn't realistic and so this seems like the best alternative. And so, you're right. More folks may use it. The hope is that, you know, the drivers will get used to that and be more cognitive of the cyclists and the pedestrians causing and just, you know, be safer. But and that's part of it too, is maybe it would help to slow down the traffic there. And then I think the left turn lane restriction on sleeper will definitely help as well. So.

[00:31:45] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Matter check?

[00:31:47] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, um, I just want to add that um, we have definitely taken a look at this and heard a lot of public input. I do believe, though, on balance, we've had more positive public input than concerns. And recently, we've had yet another former council member who is very close to that intersection, contact us to find out when are we going to do this? And actually several people who will be very much impacted by this. that live on sleeper or near sleeper, are very much in favor of this, because they've seen the issues at that intersection, and they want them addressed. So, um, I feel like we've also heard very positive things about this from folks right there. Thanks.

[00:32:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Kmeh.

[00:32:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, I, um, appreciate you pulling this, um, vice Samarital Walter, 'cause I do feel like this is something that I get a lot of feedback on, too, from my family lives in this area. And I think when I recall, and Ms. Cameron can correct me, this came to our council transportation committee, and it did go forward, and we recommended it to the full council unanimously, because I think there was something like three final design elements that she had put forward, and had proposed at the community meetings, so that residents had direct input. I think the configuration was considered to be, in the grade wise of intersections, the safest, and maybe Ms. Cameron can help me jog my memory, 'cause I think that might have been two years ago now. I can't recall three. Yes. Pandemic years. But I think that's why, at least, for me, as someone who had been on the transportation committee, had approved it to go forward, because it had all these different elements to it.

[00:33:35] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Thank you, council member Kameh, you are remembering correctly, is we had three different design concepts. We had a community meeting about it, received lots of input, including straw poles from the community. Then we brought those three concepts to the council transportation committee, indicating where, you know, what we were hearing from the community, was basically favoring the concept you have before you tonight. The Council Transportation Committee, though, at the time, heard a lot of comments about, since the crosswalk is on the Southern leg, asking, Can there be some kind of bicycle accommodation on the northern leg, because as you come off the trail, you're on that side of sleeper, and crossing over for Cuesta, and that led to the Council Transportation Committee, forwarding a recommendation to the full council, to approve the concept, but add a northern bicycle crossing, and return to the Council Transportation Committee after doing more community outreach as we go into design, in terms of what that northern bicycle crossing's gonna look like.

[00:34:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Oh, and counsel approved, then approved it.

[00:34:48] Public Works Director Don Cameron: Yes.

[00:34:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: So do we have additional council comments? I'm gonna also see whether members of the public, uh, want to speak on 4.10? No? No members here and no members, virtually, raising their hands. Um, So I see a motion by council member Ebekoga. Do you wanna make the motion?

[00:35:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Councilman. Yes, I'd like to move staff recommendation.

[00:35:28] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And, uh, council member Kameh?

[00:35:34] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, 2nd.

[00:35:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: And council member, Showalter?

[00:35:37] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I would just like to urge people when they come off of the Stevens Creek Trail, to go down sleeper a little ways, turn right on Yorkshire, go through the end of that court, and through the connection that goes onto Martin's, and go left on Martin's. That's a much safer way to do it. And, um, you do have to kind of know how, you know, the area. But having lived there for a while, just for your own safety, that would be better.

[00:36:15] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so now we move to vote. So, six, yes, and one no, the motion passes. Now we move to oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section, state law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. If you would like to speak on this item in person, or the next section of items listed under new business. Please submit a blue speaker card to the city clerk now. So, would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card. So... at this... Oh. We have Eva Tang. Eva?

[00:37:59] Eva Tang: Powder Council. Alright, you can hear me now. Okay. Uh, yeah, um, Hi. I, sorry, I just got through my front door, but, um, I, um, anyone who knows me knows that I'm a big fan of our library, um, including our digital collections, and I was shocked the other night when I was browsing our digital collection, and I was trying to work on my reading on this, um, uh, this text on sustainability. And, um, I tried to borrow it again because honestly, I've been working on it for like weeks. And, uh, I keep having to reborrow it. Well, honestly, it's taken me a while. But, um, I was not able to borrow it again because all of the borrows for the day had been borrowed. So, um, this is great because, one, people are utilizing our digital services, um, at our fantastic library, but also, too, it means that, uh, we got to increase our capacity, and my cat also seems to have strong feelings about that. Um, anyway, that's my comment for this item. Thank you for listening. Yielding my time to the man.

[00:39:07] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. Do we have any additional speakers? Mr. James is not speaking on this item. Okay. So seeing no additional virtual or in-person speakers, um, We will now move to new business. Uh, first, uh, notice, uh, item 6.one, which is a notice of funding availability proposals, affordable housing projects at, uh, 10, 12 Lindavista Avenue, and 96 West El Terebella Avenue, and 96 West El Real. Senior Housing Officer, Deanna Talavera, will present the item.

[00:40:13] Senior Housing Officer Deanna Talavera: Good evening, Mayor Vice Mayor council members. I'll go ahead and share the presentation. So, my name is Deanna Talbaram, the senior housing officer with the city of Mountain View. I'm joined this evening by my colleagues, Ella and Brittany, who are the planners working on each of the projects that will present on this evening. In 2014, the city council appropriated approximately $117 million to facilitate the development of 9 fully affordable housing developments for combined total of 685 housing units through the NoFA process. Even with our progress, there continues to be a need for affordable housing and the funding necessary to construct it. As such, the city of Mountain View continues to receive applications for NoFA Funding. We currently have 5 applications in the pipeline. totaling an additional 448 affordable housing units. Both projects under consideration this evening are included in that number. At this time, the city has approximately $39 million in housing funds available. And staff estimate sufficient funding is available for the current applications. Our review and evaluation of each NOFA application for funding determine that both projects meet the city goals and objectives to expand affordable housing, opportunities to households that are otherwise left out of the mountain view housing market, particularly families, as there are highly needed to and 3 bedroom units. The projects meet the city of Mountain View strategic roadmap goal of increasing the quantity and diversity of housing options, including assistance for the unhoused. And the projects meet the housing element goal of providing assistance to households at different income levels to address their housing needs. I'll start off with the project at 1012 Linda Vista Avenue. The proposed project is located on the northwest corner. of Linda Vista and Terabella Avenues. Alta Housing is proposing a 7 story, 70 unit development, with 69 affordable units for households with incomes up to 60% of the area median income and one manager unit. 25% of these units will be set aside for rapid rehousing, and another 25% will be reserved for extremely low income households earning up to 30% of the area median income. The project will be reviewed pursuant to SB 35 or Senate Bill 35, which does not require any discretionary permit, such as a use permit or design review. Additionally, it is not subject to environmental review pursuant to the California environmental quality act, otherwise known as sequel. The project qualifies for streamlined approval based on the following conditions, including, but not limited to, meeting specific affordability, conditions, complying with objective design standards, and agreeing to prevailing wages. It will not return to the city council for additional approvals. Alta Housing is proposing a 7 story modern architecture apartment complex with 2 levels of above grade garage. The project is designed to promote a welcoming corner at the intersection of Linda Vista and Terabella Avenues, and the driveway entrance to the parking garage is tucked to the north of the building. The upper stories include 2 main residential masses with a central break facing Terabella Avenue that denotes stacking corridor lounges over the courtyard entry. The massing is bookended at the north and the south. Here you'll see the site plan with views of the landscaping plan and communal spaces. The applicant has received early multi-departmental feedback on the project site plan and building design, and they'll continue to work with staff proactively to address some of the feedback and incorporate them into the plans. The project will utilize federal, state, and county funding sources, a complete list of the anticipated permanent sources of funding is included on this slide. And all to housing is requesting $10000000 from the city of Mountain View and anticipates around $9000000 from the county. The project will fall under the measure A MOU that the city has with the county of Santa Clara. Given that the city contribution is anticipated to be larger than that of the county. The city will be the eventual owner of the site and will then ground lease it back to the developer. I'll move over to the project at 96 West El Camino Real. Here, Danko Communities is proposing a 6 story, 79 unit development with 78 affordable units for households with incomes up to 60% of the area median income and one manager unit. The project will set aside 20 units for permanent supportive housing for households earning at or less than 30% of the area median income. Their design incorporates warm, high quality materials and steps down at the north and east elevations to provide appropriate transitions to the adjacent lower density residential uses. The northerly setback area along Montgomery Street will include a public sidewalk and 3 residential stoops, to complement the residential character of the adjacent mixed use sites and surrounding residential neighborhood. Driveway access to the underground parking levels also provided from Montgomery Street. This is to avoid additional curb cuts along El Camino, where new bikeway improvements are planned by the city. The image here shows the project site plan, and you'll notice a common courtyard, which will include robust landscaping in the center of the site, with new trees planted around the perimeter of the site. One heritage tree in Italian stone pine is located within the proposed building footprint, and will need to be removed to construct the project. In the southwest corner of the site, at the El Camino Real Montgomery Street intersection, an existing heritage tree will be retained and serve as the focal point for the entry point of the plaza. The applicant intends to submit the project pursuant to California Assembly Bill, 2162, also known as AB 2162, which allows eligible, affordable housing projects to undergo streamlined ministerial review. It will not be reviewed by the development review committee. It will not be decided upon at any public hearing body and is not subject to the environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, also known as Sequa. The project qualifies for this streamlined approval because of being fully affordable to households earning at or below 60% of the area meeting income. Additionally, AB 2162 is different from SB 35 in that it requires at least 25% of the units to be restricted to residents qualifying for supportive housing units, which this project does provide. Additionally, the streamlined review can be done in as little as 60 days, rather than the minimum 90 days allowed under SB 35. This project will also utilize federal, state, and county funding sources. Danco is requesting $8000000 from the city of Mountain View and approximately 6.800000 from the county of Santa Clara. It falls under the same measure AMOU that the city has with the county. And again here, given that the contribution from the city is anticipated to be larger than that of the county. The city will be the eventual owner of the site, and will then groundly sit back to the developer at the close of escrow for the permanent loans. Alta housing in Danco communities have demonstrated success in developing high quality, safe, and well designed affordable housing, not only here in Mountain View, but throughout the Bay Area. If the city council appropriates funding for the projects at both Downco and Elta, though each continue to refine their designs and funding proposals and pursue individual approvals. So tonight, we're asking that the city council approve the staff recommendation as written here on this slide. And our development teams and staff are here to answer any questions that the council may have. Thank you so much.

[00:48:44] Mayor Alison Hicks: Do any members of council have questions at this point?

[00:48:58] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Council member Ramirez.

[00:49:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, mayor. So thank you, staff, for the presentation and work on these projects. One quick clarifying question. The NoFA committee recommendation included some additional direction consistent with direction provided for the charities housing on Montecito and the, and another Alta housing project, I think, to ensure that any additional design work is cost neutral, is that also reflected in the staff recommendation?

[00:49:27] Senior Housing Officer Deanna Talavera: That was the direction from the NoFA committee, and staff has relayed that information to both of the applicants, due to the timeline, the shortened timeline between the NoFA committee meeting and the publication date for this meeting we weren't able to include it in the staff report, but direction has been given to both applicant teams. Should the council reiterate that in the motion or what would be helpful for staff?

[00:49:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I think reiterating it in the motion would be.

[00:49:56] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. Any other council members have comments or questions at this point? Okay, so I'll ask a question then. One of the things, these, both of these projects are on streets, you know, El Camino and Terabella, that it would be nice for the public when they walked out by to be able to interface with the projects at some point. I know that housing projects that are tax credit projects have trouble, including, like, ground floor restaurants or retail and so forth. But I'd like to know what efforts there have been, and I read about some, but I'd like to highlight what some of those efforts might be. I read about a gourmet kitchen that might be open to the public. And then I thought that the alta housing project included some bike repair facilities, maybe on the street that might be open to the public. I don't know if that's there anymore. And I had also heard that that might be at the El Camino Project as well. So just anything that might interface with the public. I would like to know what that might be.

[00:51:06] Senior Housing Officer Deanna Talavera: Both projects will be incorporating bike repair stations that can be easily accessible to the public. In addition, the community kitchen that you had mentioned. It's intended that community members can request use of the space for a small refundable deposit, assuming that the space is clean afterwards. But yes, it is intended that these spaces can activate, you know, the sidewalk and are allowed to be used by the public.

[00:51:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Great. That's great to hear because we are we are losing bike stores. We lost the bike store where I always had my bike repaired. I'll be coming down to this one on El Camino instead. And so I'm glad to hear that these will be friendly developments friendly to the neighbors and welcoming to neighbors as well. Thank you. Do any other council members have questions? Okay, so, um, now, do any members of the public have comments? I see, um, nobody in person, but I see Mary Hodder virtually. Mary?

[00:52:37] Mary Hodder: Hello, can you hear me?

[00:52:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: We can.

[00:52:40] Mary Hodder: Oh, thank goodness. Okay. Um, I just wanted to say that I think this is a fantastic project, and I think this is the future of building affordable housing, partnerships with grants and multiple municipal and nonprofit entities, getting involved in creating something that's great for all different sizes of housing, depending on people's life stages. This is where it's at. I don't think it is realistic ever to consider that we're going to get the 1000000 units of housing that we need on the west coast for affordable uh, categories. Um, up and down the west coast through developers. I just don't think that's ever going to happen. And I think that this is what Mountain View and other cities should be focusing on in order to meet these needs. So, um, I just wanted to say I think it's really great. Thank you.

[00:53:34] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Let's see, are there any more speakers? So, seeing no speakers, I will bring the item back for council deliberation and action. Council member Ramirez?

[00:53:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve the NoFA committee recommendation, which includes the additional direction to ensure that any additional design work is cost neutral.

[00:54:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Abbott Koga?

[00:54:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I will 2nd the motion.

[00:54:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: Now we move to vote. Oh, comments. Sorry. Thank you. Uh, Vice Mayor.

[00:54:27] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just want to voice my approval and support for these projects. In particular, the one on Linda Vista. We've watched that develop for maybe 5 years, and seen the innovative agreement that was put together between all the housing and public storage to provide the public storage against the freeway, and essentially buffer the residential units. I think that's going to create just a much, much nicer living environment for the individuals that live there. And then the other thing, I am just delighted about in both of these, is to see that there is a healthy number of two and three bedroom apartments. So much of our affordable housing stock is only studios or one bedrooms. So it's really nice to see some two bedroom and three bedroom, which, of course, will be better accommodation for families. So thank you.

[00:55:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Matachek?

[00:55:40] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So I want to disclose that I've been to both of these sites on my own. I appreciate that both of the applicants will continue to work with staff on refinements to the design. I do believe the one on Linda Vista, it'd be nice if it was as nice as the one in front of public storage. Um, and so, sort of, keep that in mind as you work with the applicant. And I appreciate that the city is contributing more funding than the county. So in the end, we would own both of these properties. So thank you, and I'll be supporting the motion.

[00:56:21] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Abbe Koga.

[00:56:25] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I'm very excited about these projects. Part of the was part of the NoFA committee, so we had quite a bit of extensive detail and discussion. I just wanted to highlight that there was some, well, maybe I brought it up. The issue of parking. There's quite a bit of reduction in parking, um, and, um, some concern. I have expressed, but something that I learned is that, well, with these projects that there will be TDM measures and passes, transit passes being offered, and just moving forward. I hope that we could consider making that just a requirement or mandatory requirement for all affordable housing projects to have transit passes as part of the project. Um, so, and then I appreciate council member, Manitrex, comments about design, I had some uh, comments myself, and I appreciate um, alta housing. They've been very open to my an expertise, but my very strong interest in design concepts. So, um, I do look forward to seeing a very, um, well, well designed and improved project moving forward. Thank you.

[00:57:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Kame.

[00:57:50] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you, Mayor. So, uh, just want to echo, uh, council members, uh, what she mentioned about these being, um, properties that the city will have ownership in. I always like to reiterate that, you know, my preference is that the city are the ones with the land. And I'm excited that these projects, one, is a rapid rehousing, and one's a permanent support of housing. I think that those are what I'm hoping to see more of and continue to leverage. I like the kind of the looking at the different buckets. I appreciate the 30 to 60% AMI. I think one of the things that we have been getting feedback on is, yes, always the VOI, the very low income, but trying to kind of get the other pockets within the AMI spectrum. And so I appreciate that stuff, got that feedback in addition to the, you know, unit type. So thank you very much, and I'll be supporting the motion.

[00:58:52] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so last call for council comments. We can move to vote. Passes unanimously. Now we move to item 6.2. Amendments to Mountain View City Codes section 19.72. And for this item, translation services are available via Zoom. We'll now hear from our interpreter.

[00:59:42] Interpreter: Vamos a seguir con el articulos, es punto dos, es punto de la cida de mountain view. Tolamente este articulosera interpretation, por favor selecione el global que dicentrepretation, y el idio me Español, gracias.

[01:00:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, city attorney Jennifer Logue and interim police chief Max Bozel will present the item.

[01:00:13] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Jennifer Lowe. I'm the city attorney for the city of Mountain View. And if I could ask to go to the next slide, please, I will start my presentation. As you know, we're here this evening for you to consider proposed amendments to the 72 hour parking ordinance, and I wanted to start with providing a little bit of history on how this ordinance got enacted in some legislative history about some substantive changes that were made in 1989. This 72 hour parking limit was 1st adopted in 1966. And the original language was simply to prohibit vehicles from parking on a street for more than a consecutive 72 hours. In 1989, the then city council made some substantive amendments to the ordinance section. And that, one of those amendments was to include, um, the statement that, to comply with the section, vehicles must move at least 1,000 feet every three days. I had an opportunity to review the staff report from that time back in 1989. And the purpose provided for that, those addition of the 1,000 foot, and some other language, was that the current provisions of the section 19.72 are felt to be deficient, because they do not provide adequate guidelines for the police department to determine whether or not a vehicle is in violation of the 72 hour parking limit, and the lack of definition has led to some confusion and abuses of probable violators. And so that was the basis for this substantive amendment in 1989, which added the requirement that vehicles move 1,000 feet. Next slide please. In 1990, and again in 2001, there were some minor amendments to the 72 hour parking limit ordinance in 1990. Um, publicly owned parking lots, was added to the list of locations where vehicles were prohibited from parking for 72 hours, and or for consecutive 72 hours. And then there was also some language added that it said, This prohibition shall also apply to vehicles, which have a valid parking district number two permits. I was unable to find the legislative history on that one. But I'm assuming, at that time, that there were parking district number two permits, in effect, that they still wanted the 72 hour parking limit to apply to. In 2001, there was just a deletion of the final language that said violations for this section shall be punishable by a $50 citation, and that was because enforcement of it was moved to another section, and was turned more to toes and citations defined elsewhere in the code. So that section was deleted from 19.72. Moving to the current language. The 19.72 now currently prohibits persons from parking in their vehicles for more than a consecutive 72 hours, and it maintains, um, stating that the prohibition applies to these district 2 permits, and it also maintains the requirement that vehicles move 1000 feet, or approximately 2 tenths of a mile, every 3 days. It also has some language in there that talks about, for the purpose of this section, the mileage reflected on an odometer, of the subject vehicle shall be presumed to be accurate indication of the distance that the vehicle has moved or has not been moved. Here are the primary problems that were brought to my attention with regard to the language of the ordinance as it currently stands. One, it does not state if or when a vehicle can return to the same parking spot, or the general location, after moving at least 1,000 feet, and two vehicles, modern vehicles now, are equipped with digital odometers, and therefore, you can't see those odometers unless the vehicle is started, and so police officers are unable to use odometers to determine whether or not the vehicle has moved. So, the purpose of the amendments today, are to clarify the existing law, and to somewhat modernize it, to bring it in alignment with the fact that we have now digital odometers, and to align it with existing enforcement practices that the police officers have been using and enforcing the 72 hour parking limit. Next slide, please. So the first recommendation is to define the term vehicle as used for the purposes of the 72 hour parking limit. The term is not defined anywhere in section 19.72, nor is it defined in chapter 19, Chapter 19 contains many definitions, but it does not actually define the term vehicle. And by just adding this definition, it will provide clarity to the public that this 72 hour parking limit does, in fact, apply to all vehicles across the board. And the definition that I'm recommending that you include is consistent with the definition of vehicle in the California vehicle code. So it will be what people are used to for the definition of vehicle. There is no modification other than, in the California vehicle code, it also excludes vehicles that are on rails, but I didn't find it necessary to include that exception here, because we're not talking about railroad cars. Next slide, please. Okay. The next section is helps define the applicability of the 72 hour parking limit. It makes clear that no person shall park or leave standing a vehicle on any public street. I've added the term public street, highway, alley, or publicly owned parking lot for more than 72 consecutive hours. Adding the term public makes it clear will help clarify that any vehicle that is not on a public street. So if it is pulled into a driveway, or if it's pulled into some kind of private lot, it is not subject to the 72 hour parking limit. The police officers only regulate on public property, and all provisions of the 72 hour ordinance will only apply to vehicles parked on public street. That includes the 1,000. The requirement that they move 1,000 feet. So if they're on a, if they move on to a private driveway, they are no longer subject to the terms and conditions of this ordinance. It also, I've also added some language that says, this prohibition shall apply to all vehicles parked or left standing within Mountain View City limits, unless explicitly exempt from this parking restriction by this section or another section of the code. This is to replace the language where it said that the provision shall apply to parking district number 2 permits, because I'm not sure if those are still in existence. And all this does is clarify that 72 hour will apply unless this council votes at some time later to apply an exemption for particular vehicles or particular locations within the city. And unless, until that happens, this 72 hour parking limit will apply. Next slide, please. In this next provision, I maintain the language that requires a vehicle to move 1,000 feet. It says that it must be moved or relocated to a different parking spot, at least 1,000 feet, from its current location. That's alternatives. It can move, it can drive around 1000 feet, or it can just simply relocate and park in a different spot that's 1000 feet away, either, or would be sufficient under this language. That was just to provide options and a little bit more clarity about what residents and visitors and drivers can do, with regard to this requirement. I am also recommending adding a may not return to the same parking spot for at least 24 hours after its departure. The basis for this recommendation is to align with the current practices, enforcement practices of the police officers, which, um, Chief Bosell will discuss a little bit more later, but it is when they are enforcing, if they come back and the vehicle is left in the same spot, it is sometimes, it is presumed that the vehicle did not move. And so by adding this language here that says, you may not return to the same parking spot for at least 24 hours, it prohibits, or it will hopefully prevent the accidental citation, or toe, or noticing of a vehicle that did, in fact, move. And so, it clarifies when a vehicle can move back to the same spot, but it also gives officers to return to the location to see that the vehicle is not in the same spot, and is complying with the general terms of the 72 hour ordinance. And just for clarification, it is just the same parking spot. They can return to a location near their original parking spot. Next slide, please. This section is a new section and it's essentially just the violation explained. It is sort of a reiteration of the prior section, and it just explicitly says, tells residents, or drivers, or visitors, what will constitute a violation of this ordinance? And it just says, if the vehicle has not been moved or relocated from its original location or parking spot, after 72 hours, or if less than 24 hours after being moved, it comes back to the exact same parking spot. So it just reiterates exactly what constitutes a violation under this ordinance. Next side, please. This next section, subsection E is a new addition. It just simply provides the authority under the California vehicle code that authorizes removal of a vehicle from the street for violation of the 72 hour parking ordinance. It just puts the, the authorization within the same, the same code section, so everybody knows when we say that we're doing this, you know, consistent with California law. It is identified right in the right in the ordinance, which law that is. Next slide, please. This next section is also a new, an addition, and it is consistent with current practices, it is to require providing pre-tow notice or pre-citation notice. It's prior to removing any vehicle from the street, for a violation of this 72 hour parking limit, a warning notice, advising that the vehicle will be removed or towed, for violation of this code section, if the vehicle isn't moved within 36 hours. And that is just to allow people an opportunity, at least a day and a half after receiving this notice, to come into compliance. So if someone's on vacation, they don't return to see their vehicle towed, they are given, you know, a day and a half to move, or to call a family member and ask them to move. It's just to provide a little time and it also helps, um, ensure, but the city is, um, complying with due process requirements of providing people notice before their property is is towed away and stored. Next slide, please. This next section is it maintains partly what's already in the code, which is stating that any attempt to remove or hide a chalk mark, or other markings placed by an authorized city employee for purposes of enforcement of the 72 hour parking limit, may result in the issuance of a citation or removal of the vehicle, to explain that. Chief Bosell will speak about how they mark vehicles in order to determine whether or not they've moved. I am recommending removing language that talked about pushing a vehicle, um, not being in compliance with this, and the reason why I am recommending removing that language is because there is specific California law, that addresses abatement and toe of inoperable vehicles, um, that is covered by a separate section of the California vehicle code, and it contains very explicit requirements for how you would abate and tow an inoperable, inoperable vehic as a public nuisance. And Mountain View has already adopted a comprehensive section, starting with 25.6, that follows the California law for the purposes of abatement and tow of an inoperable vehicle. So, rather than conflate the two things, a vehicle that is being pushed is really a vehicle that is inoperable, and probably should be dealt with differently, rather than being sighted and towed under the 72 hour ordinance. Or, you know, they can work with the person if their vehicle is inoperable. But it's to avoid conflating two different basis for dealing with vehicles. One is a parking violation, the other is just being an inoperable and a potential public nuisance. Next slide, please. Okay, the next slide is I am recommending adding language that will confirm that the police department, well, it's just an affirmative statement that the policeman department will comply with California vehicle code sections requiring post tow and post storage or post impoundment notice requirements. The police department already complies with these requirements, but when adopting these types of laws, it never hurts to include in the ordinance that the city is affirmatively stating that it will comply with due process requirements with regard to towing or stowing, storing people's property, private property, so I'm just recommending adding it to affirmatively show that the city of Mountain View was committed to the due process constitutional due process requirements. The last, sorry, next slide, the last, addition to this ordinance that I am recommending is just a simple statement that says, if this code section or any of its subsections conflicts with any other provisions of the code that this section will govern for purposes of the 72 hour parking limit, that is just to ensure that if there is any confusion with other, um, code provisions that this is the one that everyone can look to, if they want what will constitute a violation and what will result in a sick ticket. And then my last slide, just to share with you, I did do some research on our surrounding cities and the closest large city to Mountain View, and just to show you where Mountain View aligns, that all of these other cities, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Sunnyvale, and San Jose do have 72 hour parking limits. I've cited the exact code section, and I have shown you the distance that they require. Palo Alto requires vehicles to move five tenths of a mile. Los Altos is consistent with Mountain View, requiring movement of 1000 feet. Sunnyvale does not specify the distance, the vehicle has to move, and San Jose requires movement of 1/10 of a mile. Last light. Okay, so before I move on, I will just end with saying that council's options tonight, with regard to the proposed amendments, are you can approve the amendments and schedule it for second reading on February 28th. You can reject the proposed amendments and leave the current 72 hour parking ordinance in place, or you can propose modifications to my proposed amendments, or propose alternative and additional amendments, or you can provide other direction. So there is a variety of options available to you this evening. And now I'll turn it over to Chief Bozel to talk about enforcement.

[01:17:15] Interim Police Chief Max Bozel: Happy Valentine's Day, council. I'm Max Placell, I serve as your interim police chief. Thank you for having me tonight. So, just overviewing our 72 hour enforcement procedures. There is a distinction between this provision and a provision that we would enforce under abandoned vehicle abatement, similar to those vehicles that are inoperable. So we are not discussing what would be an abandoned vehicle. This is strictly the 72 hour enforcement procedures that we currently comply with in accordance with our policy. We do have three phased approach. The first phase is when we receive a complaint, either online, by telephone, or someone flags down one of our staff. We mark the vehicle, typically chalking the tire, and then potentially also photographing it. And that's when the 72 hour clock starts from that moment on, not when the reporting party indicates that they saw the vehicle there, but when we actually mark that particular vehicle. We return on or after 72 hours. And if the vehicle has not been moved, we then notify the owner, placing a notice on the vehicle, or if possible, making personal contact with that individual, and notifying them that they're in violation of the 72 hour ordinance, and that they could be sighted or the vehicle could be towed. We then return in another 72 hours, so 6 cumulative days, and issue a citation to the vehicle for violation of 19.72 of the city code. And then following that, if the vehicle has not been moved, the vehicle could be towed. Typically, we generally give a period of time beyond that point, more in the round of 10 days after that 1st violation is received. That's the general procedures of the phases of enforcement. The notice that we provide, that you see on your screen, and I have individual notices, if you're wanting to see them personally, provides in both English and Spanish information about both the 72 hour violation as well as abandoned vehicle abatement, the officer community services officer typically checks the box of which is most appropriate, which guides the registered owner of the vehicle in terms of the violation that they're being checked on, the vehicle is being checked on. The statistics on the next slide shows you the activity following the October 1st, I believe it was October 1st that month in which the post-COVID enforcement began. And the column is on the left, the 2 bar charts on the left represent passenger cars, and the 2 bar charts on the right, charts on the right represent oversized vehicles. This is probably an ordinance, large number of enforcement activity based on the recurrence of enforcement following COVID, so we shouldn't see these numbers in following months, but this represents when we started enforcement. Even though, for example, the passenger car enforcement went from 211 down to 12 and the oversized vehicles are more consistent. The total number is almost the same over that 3 month period, roughly 330 each. And you see a significant compliance level on the passenger car side, only 10 citations were issued, and on the oversized vehicle side, 71 citations were issued roughly 80% of the violations in this particular case. There were no vehicles towed as a part of the 72 hour enforcement, but we did have 3 vehicles over this period towed for abandoned vehicle abatement. And that's the statistics of our activity at the end of 2022. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. So, one remaining slide. I think that was my council options. I had it flipped in mind.

[01:21:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. We've covered, we've covered the options, and now it's, I see that there are council questions. Council member Ramirez.

[01:21:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, City Attorney and Interim Chief Bosell, for the presentations. Although, in interim Chief Bazelle, I will always remember you as interim city manager, Bazelle. Welcome back. You've answered some of my questions, but they're gonna feel a little pedantic, but I think they'll be helpful in getting to how I've come to the conclusion I've come to. So you've spoke about the current procedures for enforcing the 72 hour parking restriction, which I think was very helpful. One thing, and I appreciate staff providing the administrative guidelines that your officers use to enforce the law. But I am noticing that there's a bit of a mismatch, the administrative guidelines don't include all of the steps as explicitly as you provided them here. And I'm wondering if there's a reason for that, or if these are provided in some other document that was not necessarily provided to the council.

[01:22:22] Interim Chief Bazelle: Typically, policy guides the operations, then more specific procedures are defined, and those could ebb and flow. For example, in this situation, if we have flagrant violators, the timeline may not be as extended as it is in this particular document. Yes, there are training guidelines, training bulletins that provide specific instructions, in particular to those personnel that don't actively participate in 72 hour enforcement. It's more common with our community services officers who are familiar with that, so patrol officers may not encounter this as regularly. And so those documents do provide more specific guidelines than the policy itself than our manual.

[01:23:05] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. So there are written procedures elsewhere that were not provided in response to the council question.

[01:23:13] Interim Chief Bazelle: Correct. The policy was provided, but the training documents were not.

[01:23:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. And then just to be very clear, if the amendments, if the amendments are approved tonight, will the procedures for enforcing the 72 hour parking restrictions change?

[01:23:31] Interim Chief Bazelle: They could, yes. Not the framework of those procedures, but the guidance, for example, the 36 hours, and also returning to the same parking spot could be specified with more clarity to the officers who are enforcing the law.

[01:23:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So the specific numbers aside. This framework, the paradigm would be substantially similar after approval of the admittance.

[01:24:01] Interim Chief Bazelle: Correct.

[01:24:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful. Can you share whether and how discretion is used in the enforcement of the law?

[01:24:13] Interim Chief Bazelle: So typically, if it's a vehicle that is not a prior violation, We extend that courtesy of the time frame in which is defined in the procedure, which may be more time than what the law specifies, but if it's a flagrant violator, or a location in which there are complaints in which we're responding to on a more regular basis, that could be the discretion could be more restrictive. And we could, um, essentially look to the letter of the law more than the spirit of law in order to, in an attempt to gain compliance.

[01:24:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, so you wouldn't, you might be less lenient with a 1st time offender. You're not more restrictive with someone who's a repeat offender, but you would hear more closely to the law as it's currently prescribed.

[01:25:07] Interim Chief Bazelle: Correct.

[01:25:08] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: So I think what you're saying, and maybe I'll rephrase it, um, in a way that, um, if we have a first time offender education is the, for compliance, is the goal. And if the individual has been educated and we still don't gain compliance, then enforcement may be more appropriate.

[01:25:28] Interim Chief Bazelle: Okay.

[01:25:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I guess maybe what I'm getting at is one of the values that we often hear is similarly, similarly, situated parties should be treated similarly, right? That's what you're striving for in the enforcement of the law. Okay, that's helpful. And I asked some of these in the questions submitted in advance, but just to make sure everyone's on the same page. Are there accommodations for individuals who are incapable of moving their vehicles due to some medical incapacitation, or for individuals whose vehicle was stolen and later impounded because it was in violation of the 72 hour parking restriction?

[01:26:06] Interim Chief Bazelle: Yes. So if we do encounter some a situation in which we know someone is in a is disabled or are not able to move a vehicle for a particular medical emergency, absolutely, we're going to make an attempt to accommodate and even assist with that person being able to either move the vehicle or give some consideration to the situation that person's in. And in a stolen vehicle, and it would likely be an unreported stolen vehicle, because if we know the car is stolen, we're gonna return it to the owner or store it for the individual until they can collect it in that particular case. But if it's an unreported stolen, um, and we determine it's stolen at a certain point, then yes, I think, you know, if it was cited, that would be one of those cases of due process where consideration and hearing would be given to dismiss the violation.

[01:27:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And are those accommodations explicitly spelled out in the training manual or in some other written guidelines?

[01:27:08] Interim Chief Bazelle: Not specifically to my knowledge, no, but it's something we can look at more specifically, but certainly a common sense approach to the application of the law and the accommodation in those situations would be expected.

[01:27:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. I almost done. Is an unhitched trailer a nuisance and subject to more immediate approval, or is it a vehicle, even though an unhitched trailer cannot move, right, without being attached to a vehicle capable of moving, uh, and therefore subject to code section 19.72.

[01:27:47] Interim Chief Bazelle: I believe it's still considered a vehicle under the definition of code. So, an unhitched trailer would qualify under the definition of vehicle, and so, they could go the route of the citation and all of that with note providing notice, because it's not necessarily inoperable. It just requires another vehicle to hitch up to it. So, presumably, you could put notice on it, and that owner would see it and would come hitch up and move it away. So it could be treated under the 72 hour and would qualify as a vehicle.

[01:28:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. I'll get back to that later in comments. Um, and then the last question, I wish, um, Officer Jen Lee McPherson were here, but, um, I think you can speak to this. What is the procedure for responding to inhabited vehicles that have been reported for violations of the 72 hour parking restriction?

[01:28:36] Interim Chief Bazelle: So, Officer McPherson, through our neighborhood event services unit, as the primary individual responsible for that. And it's really an education, an attempt to gain compliance, in situations in which, for example, vehicles may not be operable, for whatever reason, they're referred to community services agency as an example, in an attempt to provide services to get the vehicle operable. That's also the case if they're not currently registered and need assistance, financial assistance to do that. It's also working with the individuals who are living in cars to ensure that they're in compliance with this on a regular basis. And I think that approach, especially on the education side of it, has been effective in most cases, not all.

[01:29:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Would you say that she has gone above and beyond in assisting folks who are living in vehicles when she encounters them?

[01:29:31] Interim Chief Bazelle: The anecdotally, the comments I receive, especially from community members, has been very positive with her efforts to go above and beyond and working with that community.

[01:29:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And is that written down anywhere in the training procedure or administrative guidelines?

[01:29:48] Interim Chief Bazelle: No.

[01:29:48] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. Thank you. I have many, many questions for later. Thank you.

[01:29:53] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Kme.

[01:29:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thank you. Um, so I think I'm going to keep my questions to the document that Chief brought us. So, um, it looks like it says, um, on the bottom, I think this means it was revised of the 4th, um, April 4th, 23rd, 2019. Is that what that is? Okay. So would we, if we do something tonight, would this document get revised?

[01:30:25] Interim Chief Bazelle: Yes. Yes.

[01:30:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. And just for clarification, the top portion of the document is what's left with the vehicle, the bottom portion of the document is what's used for internal tracking.

[01:30:36] Interim Chief Bazelle: Yes, perfect.

[01:30:37] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: That was one would be another question. And I think it's actually really helpful to have see this in person. And then, so my understanding that this is your check. This is your warning, right? So, but it doesn't say warning anywhere on the document. So if we have, if council has feedback for the document. Is that something we would be able to share in comments?

[01:31:04] Interim Chief Bazelle: Absolutely. We could, I mean, it will definitely have to be revised to include the 36 hour and all of that. So we could definitely add warning at the top or...

[01:31:13] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Right. Because I think if this was attached, I wouldn't, well, I don't want to get into comments. Okay, so that's really helpful.

[01:31:20] Interim Chief Bazelle: So the, it tears apart, this is for safe keeping, and we keep, we still keep these all in paper version.

[01:31:27] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: They're entered into an automated system.

[01:31:30] Interim Chief Bazelle: Yes.

[01:31:31] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. But that automated system is not available in the field, so...

[01:31:35] Interim Chief Bazelle: Right, so you take the hard copy.

[01:31:36] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. This is all very helpful. Okay, great. Thank you.

[01:31:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, vice mayor.

[01:31:47] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I was really interested in the length of time that it takes to get to either a violation or a tow. It's 10 days, right? Or approximately 10 days.

[01:32:02] Interim Chief Bazelle: Generally, yes. It could be less and it could be more.

[01:32:05] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. So how do you distinguish between a vehicle that is abandoned and a vehicle that is just parked too long? I mean, I can understand it, for instance, if the vehicle's inhabited, but say it's parked in somebody's in front of somebody's house.

[01:32:25] Interim Chief Bazelle: Well, I think a variety of signs could indicate that abandoned vehicles do not look like they're driven. There's usually a lot of dirt, a lot of debris around tires. Typically, they would not be registered in the area in which they are located. In some instances, we know them to be abandoned, because the individual who was driving it has just abandoned it, and it's just left there for a longer period of time. Whereas a vehicle that is driven looks like, I've been operating as well in terms of, the area around the car and the car itself, the distinction is when you see it, generally pretty clear. The officers also make an effort and attempt to contact the registered owner, and those that are abandoned, you usually don't get much response.

[01:33:19] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, that's the next thing I was going to ask is that seems like in this modern day, what you would do is run the plates. And you would find out who owns the vehicle, and then behave accordingly. So, what does behave accordingly mean? How would you contact the owner?

[01:33:39] Interim Chief Bazelle: Generally, you would knock on the door, if the individual, but in not all cases, is that possible, so... you can also attempt to get a telephone number, but in some cases, that's not possible.

[01:33:53] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, I don't remember that a car registration has a phone number, does it?

[01:33:57] Interim Chief Bazelle: No, it doesn't, but we can certainly use, in this modern day, the ability to get that information is more accessible than when I started to do this about 30 years ago.

[01:34:07] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Right, right. was impossible, right? Okay. And... I really appreciated seeing the statistics for the towing. What are, do you have in mind any statistics about how, what percentage of people you're able to reach, you know, after running their, their plates?

[01:34:30] Interim Chief Bazelle: I don't have that available.

[01:34:31] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay.. Thank you. It's nice to see you.

[01:34:34] Interim Chief Bazelle: Nice to see you as well. But I can say, well, I don't have those numbers that you can see by the numbers that we do generally get a large number of compliant individuals who do move their vehicles, so there is success with the efforts that the officers are making in most cases.

[01:34:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: So additional council questions. I have I have several questions. First, um, I, you use the term flagrant violations several times, and I was just curious, what, like, what's an example of a flagrant violation?

[01:35:14] Interim Chief Bazelle: Repeat violations of a number of calls that we get on an individual or a specific vehicle. The officers are familiar with folks that we receive complaints on on a regular basis. So I would say, if you need me to put a number on it, I will say more than three.

[01:35:36] Mayor Alison Hicks: So it's mostly frequency. Frequency.

[01:35:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay. Um, I've also heard, uh, and this may overlap a little with council member Romero's question, but I've heard that you interface with service providers as well, like reach potential movement, can you describe? And I've actually heard compliments on how that's done. just today. Can you tell me a little more about that?

[01:36:00] Interim Chief Bazelle: Well, we, through our neighborhood event services team, we have connections with nonprofit organizations, community-based organizations that we work with on a regular basis, life moves, community services agency, or the ones that come primarily to mind, and coordinate referrals to those organizations for services that are provided to typically people living in vehicles. So that's a regular part of contact if the vehicle that you're tagging is a lived in vehicle.

[01:36:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes. And now, for city attorney Logue, I have a question, which is, um, Do you have ways of dealing with, um, so I assume that one of the purposes of this whole ordeal is to make sure that people are not using our public streets as storage. And do you have ways of dealing with non vehicles, like storage pods that people have told me, are sometimes left out for very long periods of time.

[01:37:08] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes. So storage pods are dealt with in a separate section of our code, and in fact, I have a code enforcement matter that we're working with a pod right now. It doesn't happen to be in the street, but yes, you already have adopted ordinances that address pods.

[01:37:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay.

[01:37:30] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Pods and other similar situations.

[01:37:32] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Correct.

[01:37:33] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, correct. Boats.

[01:37:34] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Okay.

[01:37:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, good to hear. And then I'm still unclear, I've gotten a lot of email on this. This is, like, maybe the most common thing that I've been emailed in response to this particular item. Still, given the text that's recommended here, People are unclear whether they need to wait 24 hours before parking less than 1,000 feet from their initial space. They find that they read it, and they think they need to park 1,000 feet away. And they do not.

[01:38:14] Public Works Director Don Cameron: And that's why the 24, if it's the linchpin for that one is, if you read the language with regard to saying you cannot return for 24 hours, it's just the same spot. So the prohibition is only a 24 hour return to the same spot. You can return to the same vicinity. You can return to the spot directly in front of your spot or right across the street. So it's just, it's really reading that may not return to the same spot within 24 hours. And that's where it's the language that clarifies that. I think the part that people are reading that says, if the vehicle, I'm just reading off the presentation, if the vehicle isn't moved or relocated to a new parking spot, at least 1,000 feet from its current location. I think that's the part that, when one reads it, one thinks one has to park without, because it says, a new parking spot at least 1,000 feet from its current location. I think that's the part that makes people think they have to park a thousand feet away. Sorry. Sorry, let me pull that up. And I did see that. And we can easily, I thought about, when I saw that language, I thought about the concern, and we can easily remedy that. What I did was, it says, any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot for 72 consecutive hours must be moved or relocated. And it was the or, and it was to provide... It seemed limiting to just, say, move. So it just says, you can move it. You can drive it around, or you can relocate it to another parking spot 1,000 feet away, but you don't need to stay 1,000 feet away. If you needed to just rush and move your car and it's also, when you're talking about potentially lived in vehicles, they might just want to move. and not turn around and come back. Either or would be compliance with this. So it's really providing alternatives. You can just drive around for a thousand. can go run an errand, and if running that errand takes you a thousand feet away, you can come back to your vicinity, just not to the same spot. Or you can just relocate. You can just move your vehicle and park a thousand feet away. But we can, you know, you can, it wouldn't be harmful if you wanted to strike or relocate to a different parking spot. You could just leave the word moved. It was just to provide alternatives, but that could easily be remedied, if that is a sticking point.

[01:40:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, good to know, 'cause that's probably what I got most, think, what I got most email comments on. And also, given that odometers, modern odometers cannot be read anymore, how would you tell that people drove 1,000 feet? So I will let the Chief Bozelle answer that.

[01:41:15] Chief Bozelle: I think there's a variety of ways that they... It doesn't involve balloons, just... Yes, that can be a challenge, and oftentimes, as long as the vehicle appears to have moved, that suffices in the judgment of a thousand feet, and we will not measure that in every particular case. However, if, for example, we don't think the vehicle's actually being moved, there are chalk marks just might be erased. The officers can use more surreptitious methods to mark the vehicle that may not be as evident, but that may show whether or not the car is actually being driven. But the 1000 feet challenge is a good question, and that's why I think with judgment, if the vehicle is being moved, that's often considered that a 1000 foot mark.

[01:42:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Those are... All my questions, and now I see council member Romos.

[01:42:18] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I just had a follow-up question on Mary Hicks's question. If an example that I've been hearing a lot is, sometimes people are just creatures of habit and they get their coffee for 30 minutes, every day, they drive because they, whatever coffee shop they like, and they come back and they work remotely, so they don't have to actually worry about coming back so they leave, come back in the same spot, same day. What are ways that we, they can affirmly prove that they have moved before that 72 hour margin happens.

[01:42:57] Chief Bozelle: Well, if they're driving every day and they're not in violation, the vehicle, hopefully, with the chalk marks being gone, would be an indication to the officer that the vehicle is actually being driven and mobile. But if they do receive a notice in that case, the phone number on the card, they can leave a message and explain the situation and talk to the unit responsible for the marking and let them know and make that contact, and that would be a great way to clarify that particular issue.

[01:43:30] Councilmember Emily Ramos: I guess the question is, is like, how do you prove it if one side doesn't believe the other party?

[01:43:38] Chief Bozelle: Well, if the officer, again, if the officer sees that the vehicle is being driven, there's no chalk mark on the vehicle, and it's been marked, then clearly it's being moved from the particular location, so that should be a pretty bright line indicator, that the vehicle is being driven, and we have not encountered a situation, where there is not reasonableness considered. And if there's communication, I think the individual can certainly explain to the officer the circumstances in which they find themselves and only moving the vehicle for a coffee run, and that's something I think the officer can make a judgment, and look and see that the person who's driving the car is in compliance with the ordinance. And it's complaint based as well. So if there's a complaint, if there's a neighbor issue or something like that, maybe there's other extenuating circumstances, and maybe it's not even a police problem, maybe it's a mediation problem with Project Sentinel, where they can then work together to work out whatever issues might be going on in the new neighborhood.

[01:44:50] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. So last call for council questions? Okay, seeing, uh, no more council questions now is time for public comment. We will 1st hear members of the public who are here in person, and the 1st name is Albert Jeans. Also, I would like members of the virtual public to start raising their hands so we know how many speakers there will be, and seeing not a tremendous number of speakers, we will give you three minutes.

[01:45:29] Albert Jeans: Great. Yeah, it's really great to be back here. Albert Jeans. I'm in my 40th year in Mountain View. Yeah, this is a really complicated issue. I don't think either of the current ordinance or the proposed one are perfect. There's lots of loopholes, things that, you know, have unintended consequences. But in my neighborhood, from time to time, we've had nuisance vehicles parked there. In particular, there's this person in an apartment complex nearby who used to use our streets as a parking lot for his Craigslist, you know, used car business. And so the problem I have with a revised law is that, yeah, it allows people to come back immediately to a spot close to where they were. So he doesn't even have to go 1,000 feet. He just drives 10 feet. The chalk marks get hidden, and the police are, you know, none the wiser that he didn't go far, and now he's taken to his park. There are another 36 hours. And there's other vehicles that are, you know, more of a nuisance, like somebody that has a really large pickup truck that starts revving it up in the morning to warm it up. You know, those people just keep coming back again and again. This kind of seems to me to let them off easily. So, you know, maybe not a 1000 feet, but it seems like they should not be allowed to come within, say, 500 feet of their former parking space for 24 hours. That would give us a chance to put our cars in there, whatever, to block the space out. You know, there is the issue of enforcement and how this gets, you know, enforcement by reporting. I mean, I don't report my neighbors because they sometimes have very good reasons for parking on the street. For example, they want to make sure the street sweeper can sweep a street. And so they park their car there, so that other cars don't block the street sleeper, and religiously, when the street sleeper, on the day the street sleeper happens, they move their car in their driveway. Street sleeper goes by at 8 in the morning, they put their car back out there, you know, and that way we can guarantee that our street guests swept. I think I heard online. There was a very good suggestion, and that is, instead of going this route, you know, really beef up the street sweeping ordnance and actively enforce it, that would certainly get people, it would force people to move their cars at least once every two weeks, maybe even more, you know, and that's where you, you know, all the cars on one side of the street have to be gone on street slipping day, and that alternates. I think that was actually the case on Croissanto. Um, but it was never enforced, but it seems like the mechanism is mechanism is there for that kind of policy, and that would go a long way towards clearing out abandoned vehicles and keeping people from habitually parking in one spot all the time. So thank you very much.

[01:48:16] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Alex Brown.

[01:48:31] Alex Brown: Hey, friends. So, my main thing with this is just that it seems like this is largely a rule for the sake of rule. Uh, the staff report did not have the initial findings or, like, rationale for the value that this provides no goals or metrics for, like, what this does for the city. We're going to be paying for enforcement. We're imposing a cost on people. Uh, we have noticing requirements, we have a lot of, this, all of this right now. to spending people's time to debate this, these changes to the rules, that are rules, but without a clear articulated goal, without the reason, something concrete that you can tie something to that you could propose alternatives to. Like we're talking about modifications of something that may have benefits that council members are inferring from, like, the rules themselves, but they're not stated. It's not part of the report tonight. It might be in the original enacting, but I haven't actually gone to poll, the minutes. So I don't know. If we're gonna do this, if we're gonna impose this rule on people, if we're gonna say, oh yeah, do this thing, there should be a reason. We should be able to tell them why. We should be able to say, this is the value that it provides to you as a resident of the city, this is why we have this rule in place. This is why we are costing you time and money, and effort, and pretend just safety. There are a lot of people who are hurt by this, by who are being forced to move. We should have a reason for it. And the Amendments Night don't do that. Yeah. Thank you.

[01:50:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: So are there any other in-person speakers? Would you like to speak?

[01:50:21] Andrew Koch: Yes.

[01:50:22] Mayor Alison Hicks: Come on up. And have you submitted a card?

[01:50:34] Andrew Koch: No.

[01:50:35] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, well, tell us your name, and I guess you can spin it later. Okay, thank you.

[01:50:40] Andrew Koch: Hello, everybody. My name is Andrew Koch. Um, I'm an employee uh, within Mountain View. Um, just some things I wanted to bring up are, um, at the time of the, when the citation is given. Is there any follow up from mobile response teams to kind of aid in assisting the individuals who have been citated, or, um, does the law enforcement come back? at the 72 hour rule and kind of carry out the violation. Are any resources being provided in the community, um, in an outreach kind of instance, um, as well as, I know Lucas brought up, um, people with medical conditions, having trouble moving their vehicles and things like that, um, and have, uh, the city looked at more of the mental health side of things, with people living in their vehicles, experiencing mental health crises, and our resources being provided to them in that sense, as well. and just hopes to get them to the next step, maybe not moving them around the city, but housing and patient programs, outpatient programs, and things like that. I just wanted to bring that to the table and attention. Thank you.

[01:51:59] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. And now, make out a blue card. Thank you. Okay, so if there are no more in person speakers, we'll now, uh, call virtual speakers. First, we have Eva Tang.

[01:52:20] Eva Tang: Audi council. Thanks for having me talk again tonight. This evening. I'm speaking for the Mountain View Coalition for police reform and accountability. Um, we have a few points to bring up. Um, firstly, um, I think the 24 hour, uh, amendment to this ordinance, uh, really muddies up the intention of the ordinance itself. Are we really talking about abandoned vehicles, or are we talking about people who are living in their vehicles? I really think that, um, the 1,000 foot part of the amendment is actually really a really big sticking point, um, 1,000 feet seems really unnecessary to force us to drive our cars, to prove of a point that, um, it is not abandoned. I mean, really, you could move your car 10 feet and prove that it is not abandoned. Um, I mean, if 10 feet, you know, for the sake of enforcement is too little, I don't know, 50, like, something where you can get a decent enough picture to show, like, yes, this car has moved down the block. Um, please consider existing residential parking permit programs, something similar, develop something that would cover both our area residents and our vehicle residents, um, save our staff some time. They're a little overworked. And, uh, please reduce the need for enforcement as much as possible. I hear that there are a lot of person hours involved in enforcing the 72 hour ordinance lately, and it just seems like a big headache. Another point that we like to make is, uh, we would like to codify the process for working with community-based organizations, such as reach potential, United Effort, um, the Day Worker Center. These people, affected by this ordinance, really need aid and reduce cost towing services, in order for us to not be making it harder for them to live. In addition to storage pods and trailers, What about basketball hoops? Soccer and hockey goals? Those are also things that end up on the street as well. Um, We're definitely going to need to talk more about this. I hope that you have action items for future agenda items. If this is about parking in downtown where I live, I think that we could really use some better signage to direct people over to our garages, our existing parking. It's really unutilized. Um, if that is a worry of yours. And also, can we use existing street cleaning requirements to ensure vehicles are moved when they need to. I would really like to reduce the load. We're putting on MVPD. And that's all I have for tonight. think?

[01:55:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. And. Okay, my screen does not show the next, the queue. Zoom number one PA United.

[01:55:42] Marguerite Lehman: Hi, this is Marguerite Lehman, I live on Ortega Avenue, and I would just like to share how I became aware of the 72 hour rule. It was a few months ago. Um, when the RV settlement, uh, happened, uh, or, like, went into effect. And I learned about the 72 hour rule, because a lot of homeowners on my street were really upset by RVs parking on our street. They complained, they used words like the vehicles and their residents were sketchy. They called them trash vehicles. They called people and them suspicious. They, um, were just really disparaging, and wanted these people who live in their RVs, who are forced to come here from this settlement, um, and the restrictions on parking, uh, they wanted them to, they wanted them to leave, and they didn't, uh, really care where they went. They didn't care about the people in those vehicles. Um, they just wanted them gone so that they're, uh, and they specified that it was about, um, their, the property value. Um, and so what they did was they weaponized the 72 hour rule and abused it, um, by surveilling these RV residents, taking pictures of their homes, and reporting, um, them to the abandoned vehicle hotline, citing the 72 hour rule. And they were seeking to tow fine and just otherwise forcibly displace these people who are some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Um, and I really worry that these proposed amendments, uh, to this 72 hour rule will embolden these hostile neighbors to further harass my most vulnerable neighbors who I care about. And create a really hostile neighborhood, one that I don't really myself feel welcome in. Um, I think that's really, um, uh, unfortunate and I don't want that to be neglected or ignored when thinking about adopting these amendments. Um, I really want to think about how this would impact people who, um, are my new neighbors, who I care about, who are vulnerable and, um, who are already, um, rendered even more vulnerable by the surveillance and the hostility, um, that some of my other neighbors, um, are targeting, uh, towards them. So, um, please do not accept the amendments to uh, to the, to the 72 hour rule.

[01:58:27] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Zoom number one, PA United. Oh, that was just the speaker. Okay. Steve Chesson.

[01:58:41] Steve Chesson: Can you hear me?

[01:58:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, we can. Thank you.

[01:58:45] Steve Chesson: Hello, council members. My name is Steve Chesson, and I live on Lloyd Way. I'm objecting to the part of the amendments that prohibit returning your vehicle to the same place after driving it over 1,000 feet. Apparently, none of the other cities mentioned on slide 14 of the staff presentation have that restriction. So why does Mountain View need it? And what problem are you trying to solve in the first place? What is the purpose of the 72 hour restriction? If it isn't to identify abandoned or inoperable vehicles, what is its purpose? There should be no prohibition against parking your car back in the same place if it is operable. And the restriction would do nothing to help identify inoperable vehicles. The restriction also has a flaw that is big enough to drive a truck, or maybe, I should say, an oversized vehicle through it. Consider, for example, two vehicles, A and B, parked next to each other on a street. where not much parking is available. Just before the 72 hour period ends, the owners each drive a distance of 1,000 feet, and then return to their original locations, except that A parks where B was parked, and B parks where A was parked. They will have complied with the letter of the law, as they will have driven their vehicles at least a thousand feet. And since their vehicles are not in the same spot as they were 72 hours previously, the city will not be able to presume that they have not been moved for 72 consecutive hours. All the restriction we do is force people to play such games. It accomplishes no other purpose, no other purpose. I urge you to delete it. Also, the phrase moved or relocated to a different parking spot that is at least a 1000 feet away, used repeatedly in the amendments, is ambiguous. As I and others read it. It means you have to park a 1000 feet away. Staff seems to interpret it as you either have to park a 1000 feet away, or just move the vehicle a few feet. If the latter is the intent, the second part is unnecessary. Since relocated to a different parking spot that is at least a thousand feet away, is a type of movement. It is not necessary. Please get rid of the ambiguous phrase. Thank you very much.

[02:00:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Maxwell.

[02:00:59] Maxwell Sutton: Hi, hello. This is Maxwell Sutton. Um, I am, I'm also a resident of Ortega, uh, as Marguerite was a resident as well. Um, I just wanted to speak on the uh, amendment to the 1972 code, uh, the proposed 24 hour no return amendment. I'm strongly opposed to this change. I believe this altered interpretation of the code will negatively impact folks living in their vehicles, as well as renters that often depend on street parking adjacent to their residents, as a number of other folks have already spoken about. In particular, the people living in their vehicles will face the greater disruption to their lives, the risk of force displacement every 3 days. Um, due to to targeted harassment. So given that the 72 hour rule is complaint-based already, if the new amendment comes to pass, the code would be further weaponized to criminalize and displace people that live in their vehicles. I've already seen similar behavior take place on my street specifically. Several of my homeowning neighbors have used the current interpretation, the vague interpretation of the 72 hour rule to specifically target people living in RVs, um, and, uh, not reporting, uh, adjacent vehicles, uh, that, seemingly, are in violation of the same rule. I'm of the opinion that the 72 hour rule itself, um, is is unnecessary, um, but I specifically believe this amendment to it, um, is unnecessarily punishing, uh, to people who deserve, uh, protection and support. Uh, it would only further this target harassment. Um, Also, as demonstrated by the graph of citations issued over the last 3 months that was presented, Um, it looks like oversized vehicles are disproportionately targeted and ultimately cited. I believe this stems from the already limited number of streets these vehicles can even park on in conjunction with the aforementioned coordinated reporting efforts from residents that find the vehicles to simply be unsightly. So I believe if this amendment passes, uh, these folks who live in their vehicles will be in a perpetual state of displacement already. They're in a quite precarious state with the limited number of options they have to park. Um, With this new amendment, they'll be unable to reliably find another space to park amongst the already limited options, effectively, uh, playing game of musical chairs with the, um, few streets available. And without a clear way of coordinating with the many other oversized vehicle residents, who I'm sure will be disproportionately impacted by this amendment. So, I do emphatically suggest that, uh, this amendment, uh, this uh, proposed amendment to code 1972, not be approved. Thank you.

[02:03:47] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next is be handsome.

[02:04:01] Public Speaker: Hello, counsel. I recently reviewed the city of attorneys side by side comparison, will be with completely code section.

[02:04:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: We can hear you, but not very well.

[02:04:17] Public Speaker: I'll try to speak clearer. I'll try to speak louder. That's a little bad. I recently reviewed the city attorneys side by side comparison with the original city code section 1972. The timing of requirement she was tasked with, to clarify section 1972, suggests that these parking changes are directed at unhoused services. The section that actually needs to be changed is section 19011 C of the city code, which says that no vehicle perked upon any public street shall be occupied or used for dwelling purposes. We all know that there are many so-called law breakers living in their vehicles. Ignoring this fact is not going to make full waves. It's very cold night, and complicating me already, only a 72 hour parking limit, with changes like the low return rule, seems petty and arbitrary. Army jars shouldn't have to jump through parking lots to prove that they are worthy of being a Mountain View residence. I'd like to see you reject the amendments to that reason alone. Thank you.

[02:05:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next we have Mary Hodder.

[02:05:45] Mary Hodder: Thank you, counsel. I am the person who wrote in to counsel that we have received $3600 and counting and tickets for our 3 vehicles over a 12 year period. We have a neighbor who watches our every move, and if she thinks we have left, she calls us in. Um, she observes us leaving our house with a suitcase, getting into a lift or Uber to go to the airport. Doesn't matter that we're coming back in 5 days. She calls us in immediately. We get a warning 24 hours later. In other words, one day after we've left, and then 3 days later we have a ticket. I provided you a warning and a ticket. And I realized I should have given you my plane tickets from October as well to prove that this is a problem. Um, It doesn't matter that we run out often when community officers are outside. They've told us that it's the same neighbor calling in over and over, and to the chiefs point about how the repeat offenders are the real problems. Well, apparently we are. Even though our cars are registered to our house, and they're parked right outside of our house at the curb. Our vehicles do get covered with sycamore dust because sycamores are very dirty trees. We bring them to the car wash in 24 hours later. They're pretty messy. Um, but they're still newer cars that are registered right here. We've never had an officer come to the door. We've never been called. We're in the phone book or the virtual phone book. Um, but, you know, I don't want to encourage people like this who are using your system punitively against people. We once got 2 tickets times 3 cars. For being sick. Um, we were sick for a few days and it was called in and, you know, 72 hours after the 1st tickets went out, the 2nd set. We were inside recovering. Um $480 later. We also move our cars regularly with 6 spots next to our house. And we, it seems to have no effect. And in fact, when I've talked with the community officers, They say I either need to move all the way down by Mayor Hicks house, or I need to move across the street. Um, it's not fun living in this situation where we're constantly surveilled and frequently ticketed. Um, you know, the 72 hour rule, the police have no way to check that the vehicle's already been there for 72 hours with our neighbor who calls in the minute she notices maybe fewer lights on in the house. We are subject to basically a 12 hour rule. Um and then 72 hours after that. Um, you know, I'd really like to see you deal with problems that are, um, you know, specific to residents like traffic issues and other problems that could help us much more than being, giving our neighbors more ammunition to just be punitive. Please don't do that. Thank you.

[02:08:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, Edie Keating.

[02:08:57] Edie Keating: Hello? I think my strongest feeling is don't decide this tonight. You've heard so many, you yourselves as council have raised so many good questions, which I really appreciate. And, uh, the members of the public speaking to you tonight are raising so many questions. You will not get the, I cannot imagine, even though I have great respect for how intelligent and well informed you all are, that there's too much, uh, to sort out and to get right, this needs to be seen. We need to have this come back on another Thursday night after direction in the staff and a next staff packet before this gets resolved. Everyone can see the benefit of being able to park in front of your own home. And people's driveways. Don't always provide for all of that need. So, being able to come back either to the same spot, or to any different spot, um, I think is very important. Nobody wants grandma hiking 1,000 feet with her groceries. The thing you have to also remember is that you have to craft something that gives the same rights to everyone. An RV has its own reasons, often, to want to come back to the same spot. Maybe it's close to transit that they use during the 72 hours. Maybe it's close to a fast food restaurant that works for them. Maybe they have a friend nearby, or a friendly home that lets them take a shower once or twice a week. There would be, there are such, they have the same, well, not exactly the same, but equally compelling reasons to want to stay roughly in one spot. And that, you know, that can be accomplished while still complying with the law. So, uh, this needs a lot of clarity. Um, there needs to, I am happy that there are pre-to notices. I came to this also wanting pre-ticket notices, and it sounds like that exists, and I think that's a very important thing to be very clear, uh, is being implemented that there is a true pre-ticket notice provided. And then, if you, we aren't, if you do support, having vehicles need to prove that they are operable and can move a certain distance before they return to, uh, a similar, or wherever their next parking spot is, I think there should be a way to call the police, and say, Please come. I received this notice. Please come observe me, move my vehicle compliantly. And then have the police sign off on that. I think that will be a far better and more soothing use of police time, than this exercise of hoping you've complied, and voluntarily calling the police, and hoping that works, have an option to have the police observe this.

[02:12:01] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Next, we have Sebastian Brisboy.

[02:12:19] Sebastian Brisboy: Hello?

[02:12:20] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, we can hear you.

[02:12:22] Sebastian Brisboy: Oh, yeah. Yeah, so my name is Sebastian Brisbois. I'm a Mountain View resident around Old Mountain View in downtown, and Yeah, I, uh, disagree with the amendments to this slot. And I don't think it should exist, uh, with all the reasons I've been presented with thus far for it. Um, I, it appears to be no coincidence that we're getting to this point where this is a hot topic, right after the implementation of the measure C because it seems like this is just another lot of people are trying to use. Some people are trying to use in the city to target vehicle, uh, residents, specifically, those that are living in their vehicles, to try to force them out of this town, and I think it's important to remember that laws like this can be unjust in that they target certain people more than others, and they are part of this community, they live here, they work here. They go to school here, et cetera. So this is being used unjustly. And also, this just seems ridiculous in this age, especially during the pandemic, we're staying at home, working from home is normal, and should be encouraged. Why do you need to get out and move your car? It's unproductive. It's a waste of time. And it's just a pain for people to deal with that. And also, let's say, I mean, this is something I'm trying to do like to work more often, and it makes my day much longer and so on. What if I wanted to, you know, stay home for the weekend and not go anywhere, because I have stuff to do around the house, and then I want to bike to work on, like, a Monday, and maybe the next day, but then I also have to deal with my car. That's just, um, unnecessary, I think. And also, I wonder how people who are in places where they need to park on the street and, you know, leave for more than three days, what they're supposed to do with their car, if they want to leave it behind and go on, let's say, vacation. That seems pretty ridiculous, that they'd have to plan everything around that. and can't just leave their car sitting while they're gone. Uh, that's all. Please, um, stop uh, implementing this ridiculous law. Thank you.

[02:15:11] Mayor Alison Hicks: Next, we have Anna Marie.

[02:15:18] Anna Marie: Hi, I'm Anna Marie. I use she her pronouns. I've lived in our beautiful city for over 40 years now. I actually lived um, directly on a street over by Shoreline where we had 3 to 4 RVs at all times, and it was completely pleasant. everyone was pleasant. I don't see the issue. This should not be an issue. This is a place where people call home. We shouldn't force them to get out of their home and worry about these types of things, moving their car, are they in compliance? Are they going to get in trouble? This shouldn't be happening. Please really take the time to think about this, and how we can make their lives easier, not harder. Thank you so much. Have a great night.

[02:16:04] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, seeing no more public speakers, we'll go to council commentary. Um, council member Ramirez.

[02:16:18] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I'll rip off the Band-Aid here. So, uh, parking compliance is the bane of my existence. It represents a substantial amount of the constituent casework I provided my day job. And just as an example of how much of a no win situation it is. I was thinking about, an instance, about a year ago, when my boss and I met with an neighborhood group, a conventional single family neighborhood that was suffering from an infusion of external parking demand. And they had taken the time was about a dozen people. They had prepared meticulously, around a 30 page report. That was, that had, you know, detailed descriptions of all of the cars and license plate. Most of them were Toyota Priuses. We're not talking about oversized vehicles. And so we, you know, we went back and we worked with SJPD, and, you know, were successful in getting some greater attention. And then, one of the folks who lives on the street, had their vehicle ticketed and towed because of the increased attention. They had gone on vacation for a few days, and they were very upset at us. You can't win. It doesn't matter what you do. If you're using the law to get some parking relief, then you want access to this tool, and if you're subjected to it, then you're really upset by it, because it's, you know, very inconvenient to have your vehicle cited and impounded. It is a bit of a blunt instrument, and I'll get back to that. But I think, you know, I don't envy you. Max and your staff for having to address most of what I feel are neighborhood concerns predominantly. A lot of the issues that we had heard, I think, often come from neighbors who don't know each other very well. And that leads to perhaps, you know, weaponization or an abuse of the law. Now, having said that, whether we like the ordinance or not, it exists, and it's in our Munich code, and what I was getting to, in most of the questions I had asked, is ensuring that similarly situated parties are, in fact, treated similarly. We don't want an instance where, because of an ambiguity in the law, one person who has a vehicle parked in one neighborhood is treated differently from somebody with the same vehicle in a different neighborhood or perhaps even the same neighborhood, you know, just because a different officer is responding to a complaint. And what I appreciate about the amendments, as our staff are telling us, is that the amendments will not change the current procedures for enforcing the ordinance. And that's really important. If we were talking about amendments that had a material impact on how the ordinance is enforced, then I might have some misgivings. But it's not. The ordinance, the amendments simply codify the procedures that are already in place. We may not like the ordinance, and I have a suggestion for how we deal with that in a little bit, but right now, I think the amendments, as I understand them, will ensure equitable treatment of similarly situated vehicles, which will reduce the legal risk to the city. So I do think it is prudent to adopt the amendments. I have a suggestion for a modification that I think will be helpful to addressing some of the neighborhood concerns that we've heard, and I'd be open to if there are tactical amendments to some of the numbers, as long as there's majority support for that. The one modification, I would suggest, is an explicit reference to the administrative regulations that already exist. And I wrote down some idea that we can play with, but essentially, we would add a subsection that says, something to the effect of the Mountain View Police Department will establish and promulgate administrative regulations governing enforcement of the 72 hour parking restrictions. These regulations shall include, but not be limited to the following. And it's exactly the things we've talked about. Guidelines for complaint based enforcement, accommodations for individuals, physically incapable of moving their vehicle pursuant to the section due to medical incapacitation, relief for individuals seeking to recover a stolen, an unreported stolen vehicle that has been impounded pursuant to the section, and guidelines for making reasonable accommodations for inhabited vehicles. These are things that we do today. They are, it sounds like some may be defined already, and a training manual, which is great. Why not bring it to the administrative regulations as well? Some things are practiced, but not written down. And what I would like to see is, regardless of who's responding to a report, that any officer would do essentially the same thing. And I think, so what this would do is give the staff the discretion to define these administrative guidelines, in my opinion, it would simply be called a fine existing practice. And, you know, we can, I want to hear the staff's perspective on this, too. Maybe this language is too prescriptive. Maybe it's insufficiently directive. I don't know, but I do think there's value in having written guidelines somewhere that are publicly available. So folks know, here's what this law actually means and how we're currently enforcing it, because I'm looking at the procedures that were in the presentation, and these don't feel unreasonable. One other thing that, I think, would be helpful to remember is the 72 hour parking restriction was enforced before the pandemic. Enforcement was temporarily suspended because it makes no sense to tell people to move around when we're also telling them to shelter in place. But before the pandemic, what folks on Croissanto were doing was what Mr. Chesson described, moving around tactically, right? I'll take the spot if you move here. And so, I think there are some legitimate concerns about the underlying ordinance itself. And what I would recommend is that as a separate motion, if there is interest, that we provide direction to evaluate the ordinance and its effectiveness and maybe come back with some ideas for how to address the real concerns that we're trying to address with our parking regulations. I don't want to muddy the intent of this item, which is to provide some clarity and make sure that similarly situated parties are treated similarly. So that is my too clever by half suggestion. I'd be happy to make a motion, but I think it might be helpful to get staff's perspective on this language, and I could repeat it if it's helpful. And then I'd love to hear what my colleagues have to say. Thank you.

[02:23:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: You want staff's comments first?

[02:23:05] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Thank you, mayor and council member Ramirez. So, I believe that we have had ordinances that address, or at least refer to some administrative policy, although it's typically a reference, like the city manager or their designee, shall promulgate, promulgate administrative rules or regulations regarding whatever it is. I think that would be more in line, and akin to what Chief Bozel said that we do already have in place, instead of being more prescriptive and listing it out. I believe that we can make some sort of reference to that in the ordinance and then I will work with the police department to make sure that that's posted so that that's available and people can see what's in that regulation. But I think that would be my recommendation to make it as simple of a reference and less prescriptive.

[02:24:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, that's fair. And then the clarification I would have is, will the administrative guidelines themselves be updated to reflect some of the practices that Chief Basel described that are currently not written down.

[02:24:22] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Uh, thank you, Council member Ramirez, yes. Thank you.

[02:24:29] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I'm gonna take comments from council member Ramos.

[02:24:34] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I hate to be that kind of person that always brings up a reference of a previous body they served on. Um, I feel like this is one of those cases where we aren't necessarily changing the law significantly. We're clarifying that that was the intent of this. And that's why I think back to what my previous body did, is that we didn't change law. We just clarified it. But at the same time, when we did clarify it, there was always different interpretations of it, and it caused some different opinions to really come out and wine to be heard. Unfortunately, this particular ordinance hits on 3 really strong nerve points of parking, homelessness, and policing, which are really strong, nerves for all of us. And I get, I, I, there was a comment saying we didn't really say why we're doing this other than clarifying. But the 72 hour rule is really to emphasize that the streets are for all people and not a private permanent storage space for certain people. Um, in, in, in my previous role, this is where we would go, we would do a stakeholder group and get, um, in multiple, uh, more input, because more input's always nice, um, but also trying to, um, figure out, shake out the, the issues that we have faced with, with what we have and shake out any issues and what we anticipate on having. So, um, that's one thing I would recommend whether or not we pass this ordinance as, um, it is or continue on moving it somewhere else. I do like council member Ramirez, adding explicit references to administrative regulations and maybe even revisiting the 72 hour ordinance on why we do it. Um, Some things I would, uh, love to take into consideration. I like the, um, recommendation from one of the public comments and codifying working with communities, organizations, especially when you deal with the more, um, uh, comedian members who are in more need. Um, that was, that was a nice thing. I would actually like to think that this is part of a bigger understanding of how we handle parking in our city. I know that we have the downtown precise plan, in our work plan, and one of the things that's being worked on there is the downtown parking strategy inside that. So that's something that we may want to look for for our whole city. Um, There's the strong concern I have about the weaponization of our ordinance. Um, Ms. Hodder, uh, really kind of emphasized it, and that's why I was really digging, um, in, uh, in my question to interim Chief Bozelle. Like, how can you affirmatively prove that you moved your car? Um, that makes it easier. It makes not only easier for that interaction, but it also makes people feel more at ease, that there's something that they are empowered to do, that they, I believe another public commenter, made the reference like, I hope I could prove that I complied instead of finding ways that apparently say, I did comply, and this is how I can show it. And I think I'm not entirely sure how we can do that. And you mentioned, like, things seem obvious. I'm not the kind of person that usually sees obvious as easily as others, so I get I get sympathetic with with that assumption in people who don't have that same level of understanding the obvious. Um, so that's one of the things that I'm also looking at, another impact that I am concerned about is looking at the data and how many RVs are cited compared to passenger vehicles, just looking at that data is concerning. Um, I'm happy that you are committed to ensuring that we are in a trying to find ways to help rather than immediately going to, um, punishment for like a better term. And then there's the question of how does this intersect with our environmental goals? I think about one of the public commenters mentioned about incentivizing car use instead of allowing them to think maybe they want to take the train that day, but if they already did not go anywhere the entire weekend, that's 72 hours. Uh, I think about how I had an old job where we had a choice of getting a parking pass, a monthly parking pass, and the parking pass gave me more flexibility. So I used the parking pass, of course, but it would have been nice to have that flexibility to be like, I want to do Caltrain today. Um, and having the parking rule at enforced in such a way. made this incentivize people, making that decision. We're in a point where we're hoping that people start living a car for your life, but we're at that, um, in between area where people don't quite want to let go of the car just yet. But, like, can see a future that they might not have before. So I think as we're going through, that's the things that I am looking at as we look at next steps. I actually view this as more of a start than I, because I hope this may come back, um, so that we can look at it more holistically.

[02:30:31] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Vice mayor?

[02:30:37] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, um, this is a very interesting conversation, and there are a number of layers to it. And that's as it should be, but the first layer that I don't think we've really dived into is why do we have this ordinance in the first place. What does it do for us? Why do we need it? And I was trying to figure out, you know, what are those things? And I came up with a solicit. We don't want, you know, much as council member Ramos said. The street is for everybody. It's for us to share, right? We don't want people to utilize it for personal business. It's public space. So, for instance, if a auto repair shop was using it as their storage facility, that's not okay. That's, you know, that's another one is abandoned or stored vehicles. That's not okay. It's not okay to abandon your vehicle on the street, or your boat, or, you know, your refrigerator, none of that stuff. I mean, it's just it's not okay. Um, then, uh, uh, inhabited vehicles seem to me to be sort of a different class, and I'm really, you know, interested in how we can deal with that. I'm very glad to hear that we have a compassionate process to essentially connect people with services. Um, and, um, I think that that's, you know, that that is basically appropriate. There are certain things, however, that I don't think this process is nearly strict enough about. And I think that's also important. For instance, if there's any obvious criminal behavior going on in a car or a vehicle, like if it's stolen, that should be dealt with immediately, if there's anything leaking from a vehicle, be it oil or waste or whatever, that needs to be dealt with immediately. If there's trash, that's built up around a vehicle, I think that needs to be dealt with immediately. So, to me, there's, you know, there's, um, there's certain things that we should be compassionate about. And then there are other things that we really shouldn't be compassionate about at all, because for the public good, we need to take care of them right away. And, um, so, I find, so I'm concerned that this is a bit, as, as, um, council member Ramirez said, this is a bit of a blunt instrument, and I really think we, we need to be reevaluating it. I liked the suggestion that several of, we heard several good suggestions in the public comment. One of them that Steve Chesson said about sort of truncating, part of the comments, though, it just... Do you remember what that one was?

[02:33:41] Unknown Speaker: Was it the removal of the, is it the one where it says must or relocate?

[02:33:46] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, and that was what I said earlier. We can easily scratch that and it doesn't, that would change. That would be, that would be, that would be a... That would improve it because that would mean that the issues associated with, with people coming back to park in front of their own house. I don't have a copy of it in front of me.

[02:34:06] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, yes. Yeah. If the vehicle is not moved or relocated to a new parking spot, at least a thousand feet, or approximately two tenths of a mile from its current location, within the next 36 hours, shall be conspicuency affixed.

[02:34:31] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: So this is basically saying, it has to be moved. And what we really want to say to a new parking spot. We really want it to say that it has to be moved 1,000 feet, not necessarily to a new parking spot. That's unnecessary language. So, some of those additions, I would really like to see added to this what we do tonight. Another thing I'd like to talk about is this. Thank you so much for bringing this. It's always good to get to do a little editing. And first thing is, as council member, Kamei said, it needs to say warning at the top. That's what it is. It a warning. And it's nice to have this phone number at the top, but what are you supposed to do with that phone number? There should be a comment that says, you know, if you have questions about this, or please call the phone number. So, I do think that a warning is very valuable. People take, but unattended vehicle check. I would look at this and say, Hmm, what does that mean? I would really be confused. I think this is very much legal ease and not standard English. And, um, or standard Spanish. And so we want, you know, we want to make sure that we're communicating to people in language that's understandable to everybody. So, those are my comments right there. I think the why of the why we do anything is a question we can never stop asking ourselves. And in this case, I don't think we're quite there yet.

[02:36:14] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Mattachek.

[02:36:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So, over the years, I have had a number of residents ask me for clarification on the 72 hour rule. It's one of the more popular topics for clarification on. And so I'm actually glad we're clarifying it tonight, because the vast majority of what we're talking about here is clarifying an existing role. Although we have heard some concerns about it tonight, we have also heard support for it. And I will say, I find it somewhat ironic, that some have concerns, because they want to do long term parking on the street, as their apartment complex doesn't provide enough parking. And yet, those are the same people who are asking us to do away with parking minimums at new development. But anyway, um, I, as I said before, I think we need to keep in mind that we are clarifying an existing rule that has been on the books since, uh, was it 1966? So it's been there a very long time. It's a state law. Almost all the cities habit. Yes, there are a few variations. But in general, it's pretty much the same from city to city. Um, so, um, I am supportive of the proposed amendments. Um, I'm okay with the minor edit, to clarify, as the city attorney said. But I do think if we want to revisit this, that we should have that discussion. I think it's at our next council meeting, when we talk about our work plan. So I would not be supportive of saying we're going to do that tonight. But we could talk about putting it on the work plan in a couple weeks. Thanks.

[02:38:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Kumay.

[02:38:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, I just wanted to share, 'cause I think, one, my perspective and my understanding about how this came forward tonight. So, um, this, my understanding was that this was a, um, amendments to provide clarity and transparency for Mountain View residents about an ordinance that's been existing for 57 years. That was my understanding and how I read the staff report. In addition to that, the last time there was any type of substantial revision was, in 2001, which was, is that right? 89. Sorry, so 19, okay. 1989, which I believe is as old as council member Ramirez. Oh, 88, sorry. So, I, I, that's over 30 years for, um, those, um, who don't know. So I feel like that, to me, is also why this is coming forward, is that there's a lot that's happened in three decades for our city, and, um, we are, we're trying to provide that clarity. I think in how this has been presented, I think there's two opportunities for, quote, unquote, cleanup. I think one of them is the amendments that was clearly laid out in Attachment One, which I thought was helpful to see the existing language and then the proposed language and the other column. So I think that's one thing that we're discussing tonight. I think the other for me is cleanup in implementation. And so, when I say cleanup of implementation, I think that there is maybe more education, that the city can share, and how this is an ordinance we have that's complaint driven. This is an ordinance we have, that first you get a warning, which I do agree, should be... I think that this needs a revision to say that. And I think, too, that it could include the timeline. And so part of the discussion earlier was the implementation of the workflow. So kind of saying, this begins your 72 hours. Um, we, uh, have marked it. We've received a complaint, or perhaps that, right? We've received a complaint. This is why this is happening. And then, you know, clarification of the phases. So to me, those are the two things that I'm looking at tonight. So, I think in terms of the amendments, I'm open to the edits that colleagues have made. I think that we don't want to continue to confuse. We hope that this is the clarification, and also the transparency to the public, and how we make these edits. And for the implementation side, I don't know if that's something that we can discuss tonight, but I would love to see a revision to what residents receive, that get this. You know, I think the other is maybe a clarification that this isn't a ticket, right? Where there's no cost to this. These are the remedies. Um, maybe it's, you know, incorporating a QR code so that people can go to the actual, um, ordinance or making sure that that's also in language. Um, I think, taking a step back, we are also discussing our downtown parking strategy, we continue to talk about our residential permit parking program, and I hope that as we have these conversations where the Venn diagrams have some overlap, that we can address some of the other outlining issues that residents have brought up, because part of what I would hope, at some point, is, okay, we have our 72 hour ordinance, but we also have a residential permit program that actually works for residents, so that, um, it doesn't necessarily need to be, um, punitive, if you're having neighborly, I don't know, issues. I don't know how best to say it. That is my hope. So I want to support changes because I think we have received enough feedback over the years that changes do need to be made. I hope that we can have some discussion about kind of the education component and how we're providing clarity to our residents. And then, I do agree that if people wanted to have a further discussion than what we have forward with us tonight, that it is most appropriate to talk about it as part of goal setting in the work plan. Thanks.

[02:43:12] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Epicoga.

[02:43:15] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate my colleagues. I think you all have pretty much hit all the points, so I don't want to go over everything. I would just say that I do agree. I looked at this as really language cleanup to existing ordinance, a long-standing one. And when asked, you know, why do we have this ordinance, I think it was already stated, but I look at it as, you know, street parking is public parking and no one really should assume that they have rights or ownership to a parking spot wherever that is. And so the requirement to move it is a way, you know, it may not be a perfect way, but at least some way to indicate that. I'll say, you know, my experience, living in downtown, there's this car that comes maybe like once every couple of months and they park, they parked in front of my house, um, five, 7 days. And I actually wasn't sure too how this all worked. And now, thank you for the clarification. Like, well, when do I call? Do I call after 72 hours? Do I call right away? Um, you know, like, and then as mentioned, the whole process does end up taking 7 to 10 days if you go through it. And, um, and then this car will come, you know, now 2 months later and park across the street from me. And I get the sense that it's somebody who's maybe going on a business trip or going on vacation and they just happen to park in our neighborhood. Um, they move around, but they, you know, will park there for a week or so. So there are these, you know, different scenarios. And so I think this has been helpful to enlighten me and hopefully others of what this ordinance is about and how it's being enforced and then to clarify any language and also procedures that we need to clarify. So that's how I'm looking at this. I support what's being what's being recommended and the amendments like my colleagues have offered. And I would say, yes, I think in terms of whether we should revisit this ordinance, that should be a conversation when we discuss our work plan. And as council member Kamei mentioned, I think it really needs to be in the context of a bigger conversation about what parking should be or should be. And I do agree with council member Mattachek. You know, earlier this evening when we did the NoFA projects, I did bring up during our committee meeting the issue of reduced parking ratios because we can do that, to try to encourage folks to take transit. But, number one, there's the issue of the longevity of transit, but the reality is, is that, yeah, transit doesn't always get you to where you want to go. And so people end up having cars and if they don't have a parking space in their apartment complex or affordable housing complex, they end up parking on the streets. And I think we've heard that from some of the members of the public. So I think we have to be really realistic as to, you know, what we, what is, yeah, what we can really expect when we do these types of, um, changes or reductions in parking and what are the alternatives, what are the unintended consequences and then what are the alternatives to that? Um, so, um, I would look at it in the context of some of the other issues raised like a residential parking permit. And then, yes, the reduction of parking ratios, what, you know, is what we're doing right now, really realistic in light of the situation, transportation situation that we're in. So, um, So I would like to leave that till, I guess, 2 weeks from now. But otherwise, I do support the language changes and amendments that are being proposed this evening. Thanks.

[02:47:32] Mayor Alison Hicks: So I'll make, I'll take this space to make a few comments, and then kind of sum up a few things that I've heard. Um, first, I'm going to say that, uh, I think that I agree with what several people have said that one of the things about this staff report is that it didn't really explain why we're doing this, what's the purpose? And I've heard different comments on what the purpose is. I think, and I agree that it's really not about abandoned vehicles. It's really about keeping our streets as public spaces, and our streets, our including sidewalks and so forth, are about, believe it or not, about 30% of the land in the entire city. So, as we go through transportation changes, which, hopefully, we will, over the next few decades, I think that ordinances, like this, are about making sure that the public can do what they want with the streets, whether it's, like, closing down Caster Street, having slow or shared streets, and that our streets don't become privatized parking or storage spaces. Now, that said, I agree with council member Ramirez that this is a pretty blunt instrument for doing that. And maybe we started in the 60s when things were pretty different in terms of finding vehicles that had been, you know, standing around for a long time. So, I feel like, we've been hearing, so putting this ordinance on the agenda kind of has opened a Pandora's box, where we've heard a lot from the public, about, and rightfully so, I think, about our changing parking situation and use of the streets, and things that are working and not working about it, that go far beyond what, you know, maybe was originally envisioned when the city attorney wanted to make a few changes so that it would be less confusing. I agree with counsel, and I think we're also on the cusp of, as several council members have mentioned, we're on the cusp of really seeing some big changes with how we handle parking. Um, and whether you like, I noted as council member Abbe Koga did the reduced parking, with the, um, with the affordable housing development on El Camino, it's really pretty drastically reduced. And I think that this, the 72 hour ordinance that we have here may become an issue there, you know, residents may start reporting on each other, and I think that we may see more of that in the future. And whatever you think about reduced parking in affordable housing in other places, a lot of this legislation is coming from Sacramento. So it's something we're gonna have to deal with, whether you love it or hate it. And so I agree with what people have, I agree with members of the public, and what people have said. I think that this is something we're gonna revisit, and, frankly, I don't think we're just gonna revisit the parking scheme in Mountain View just this year on our work plan. I think we'll be continually revisiting it. That said, as other council people have said, this is what was foreseen here was clarification, and this is something that is not going to change things for people, the thousand foot moving is something that we're already doing. So, um, So that said, I've heard several suggestions. I've heard some suggestions about changing the text of the amendments. Um, and, uh, then I've also heard things about changing the form and the implementation, and that those may come later. So, with all that said, are there, this is kind of turning into a study session. But is, um, does anybody have a motion to make to clean this up, council member Ramirez?

[02:51:41] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'll do my best. Thank you, Mayor. First, commenting on a couple of other things that my colleagues have said. When I was living on Gabriel Avenue with my family years ago, we had a similar challenge with people parking on the street for long periods of time to take Caltrain to the airport, and their vehicles were there for a week, and I would end up being the bad guy and reporting them, so I think that's for especially areas adjacent to Caltrain. That's where we see, I think, a greater degree of external parking intrusion. And so I think, you know, this, the, the, the instrument itself, uh, will have different utility in different neighborhoods. And I think that's, you know, part of the thing we should be exploring with longer term discussions about parking regulations. And then I think council member Ramos had shared this first, and I wanted to echo, I appreciate MVPD's focus on compassion and opportunity to cure, and not just going and shocking and impounding vehicles right away. I think that's, personally, I believe that's the right approach and that's why I'm interested in codifying some of the existing practices because I think they're the right ones. I think you're doing your best to find that balance between giving folks an opportunity to cure a concern while also providing relief in neighborhoods that have some parking issues. So, with that, I'm going to move. The staff recommendations, which include, introduce an ordinance of the city of Mountain View. One, amending Mountain View City Code, section 1972 hours, to define the term vehicle as used therein. Add a 24 hour no return requirement, add a pre removal notice requirement, and add language requiring compliance with California vehicle code, post storage notice, and hearing requirements. And, two, finding that this code amendment is not subject to the California environmental quality act to be read entitled only further readings waived, and schedule a second reading for final adoption on February 28, 2023, with some modifications, and I'll need some help from the city attorney reading these into the record. The first is that the adjustment that, I think, if you could help me read it into the record, related to the vehicle has not moved or relocated to a different parking spot. Can you help me with?

[02:54:04] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes, so the modification that will be made is in the sentence where it says, any vehicle that has been parked or left standing in the same location or parking spot, 72 consecutive hours must be moved, striking the language that says, or relocated to a different parking spot, and then picking up at at least 1000 feet. So it will read with the strike. It will read, must be moved at least 1,000 feet.

[02:54:29] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, thank you. And then I will also add complying with the city manager's recommendation, a subsection with language that would read something like the Mountain View Police Department will establish and promulgate administrative regulations, governing enforcement of the 72 hour parking restrictions. So I won't be too prescriptive there. But I'm hoping that there's concurrence from the council, that the things that would be included are the things we were talking about, reasonable accommodations for folks who have some inability to move their vehicle, right, and can demonstrate that the accommodations for inhabited vehicles that are already in practice. Those are the kinds of things I think would be helpful, to include. And then, um, council member Kamee's recommendation to update the unattended vehicle check. And I think there were some good recommendations provided about making clear that, you know, this is the warning, and I don't want to be too prescriptive there. I think you heard the recommendations loud and clear. And that would be the motion, and then just to share, you know, I would be supportive of efforts to evaluate this ordinance, you know, more comprehensively in the context of what is it that we're trying to achieve with our parking regulatory framework. But I'll make that motion as just recorded. Thank you.

[02:56:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Mattachek.

[02:56:02] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Sorry, do you want us to say that we've seconded, or are you just going to read this?

[02:56:07] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I was going to have you say it in case...

[02:56:09] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, then I'll second it. Nope. Oh, second the motion. And I'm gonna say, I have, now that it's, uh, read and seconded. I have a question whether it sounded like the amendment that, or the change in the text that you were making is in a different place than the one that many of us had read before, so...

[02:56:31] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: I will strike it every time that shows up. So my understanding is that that whole piece to relocate to a different parking spot comes out everywhere it is shown. So the language repeats, I see. In various sections, but I will make sure that is stricken, every place it shows up.

[02:56:49] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, good. Thank you.

[02:56:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Vice mayor?

[02:56:54] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Another thing that was brought up, I think by council member, Ramos, was the idea of providing a way for, to demonstrate to the police that the car had been moved, in other words, to, I guess, call the police, you know, when the police comes by that actually show they moved it. Is that part of the process right now, or how would that work?

[02:57:20] Unknown Speaker: Well, the, um, Observation of the vehicle and the chalk marks is the first indication that I refer to as an obvious indication, um, where the vehicle's been moved, but, uh, I don't think, either surreptitious, I'd rather not describe, uh, you know, what we use when people are trying to deceive the, uh, system and not move their cars, what what, uh, methods we used in order to help determine uh, whether or not the vehicle is, in fact, moving. Some of that can include photographic evidence. You know, you can imagine the technology today could potentially be utilized. Um, But that would definitely, um, would require some thought if we go beyond those measures.

[02:58:08] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Well, if someone were to call, if someone were to call, you know, the number and talk to the policeman and say, this is what this is what I did, and I think it's moved, um,

[02:58:19] Unknown Speaker: Yes, and I can certainly discuss with staff about how that might be included in the notice.

[02:58:25] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I have a hunch this notice is probably from 1966. But...

[02:58:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yeah, we can have those discussions. Thank you. and carry the story. Then we don't necessarily have to have that in the motion. It's just sort of understanding of, it will be part of the redo of the...

[02:58:45] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yes, thank you.

[02:58:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, council members are there further comments? Council member Ramirez?

[02:58:59] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I feel very strongly that an unhitched trailer is not a vehicle because I can't get into my unhitched trailer and drive to work.

[02:59:07] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Would that require a substance, is that a future discussion, or is that... If you want to add to the definition of vehicle? So I was trying to stick with the vehicle code, because it's the safest place to start, but you could say, what it says, including boats on trailers, unhitched vehicles, and if there's anything else that concerns you, I can easily do that. So we can take what the California vehicle code says, and then we can put some specific words in there, if you want to be crystal clear about that, that's not going to be, well, we'll still be fairly consistent with the vehicle code, and then you will have spoken on specific.

[02:59:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. Not to belabor the point too much. These are the things that drive me crazy in my day job. I don't know if they drive MVPD crazy. But if there is agreement from my colleagues, I would like to explicitly exclude unhitched trailers, boats on trailers, things of that nature where you can't just jump in and drive it away, right? You have to, it feels like storage and not like that note, you don't support that?

[03:00:16] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So, if somebody leaves a boat on a trailer, uh, on a street for five days, that's okay with you?

[03:00:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: No, sorry, I don't think that that's a vehicle that would be subject to the 72 hour parking restrictions. I think that storage and should be removed immediately.

[03:00:31] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Oh, oh. Oh, okay. Sorry, I... So thank you for the clarification, but... Yeah. That's fine with me. Would there be support for... But, um, do we need to... mean... So, if it requires...

[03:00:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The list. Substantive, uh, amendments to other ordinances, I don't want to complicate matters, but my intent is that that class of storage would not be, like, an operable passenger vehicle, right? That it would be a nuisance and eligible for removal more expeditiously. That's the intent. If that can't be addressed in this ordinance, then I'll drop it, and I'll bring it up later.

[03:01:12] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: Yes. My only concern is that the section that talks about inoperable vehicles are abandoned. I'm not sure how vehicle is defined over there. And so excluding it here. At least if it's included here, they can do something now. It's really the other ordinance we need to... be really coercial clear about how we define vehicle.

[03:01:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I will fight this battle another time. Thank you.

[03:01:39] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, I think now, without any other comments, I think we're ready to vote. Okay, passes unanimously. So, we move on now to item eight, which is count... Oh, did you want to go? Another one. Did you want to bring them? another. Okay, vice mayor.

[03:02:13] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Yeah, as part of this, as part of this discussion, we talked about the need to look at this holistically. What are the parking regulations that actually address the concern that we have heard? And how do what is going back to sort of the why? And how do these issues relate to one another? I think that we really need to take a look at that. And, um, so I, I don't, I think that this is just sort of one part of it. And as people have said it, various different ways, this is a conversation we need to continue to have. So that's the conversation I want to bring up right now. I'd like, I move that we have a, we consider whether or not this is the best way to handle this. Or is that, I don't know. I'd appreciate some help from.

[03:03:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, are you asking that we put another item on the agenda for that we put, add this to our work plan or address something tonight? I'm not clear. Can we make a request tonight?

[03:03:33] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: I mean, we could put it on the work plan discussion, but I just feel like that work plan discussion, it's only supposed to take one meeting, and it seems like over the years, we have a laundry list of, like, 30 things to be on it. So if there's something that we all think we want to be on, you know, we want to be considered, giving staff a heads up, that we want it to be, on the work plan, and this is as good a time as any.

[03:04:00] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member, Abbe Koga? Or were you done?

[03:04:03] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor. I guess I was under the impression that we would discuss it. We most likely discuss it on the 28th when we talk about our work plan because I hear the interest in, you know, definitely I'm open to it, but I need to see it in the context of what else we have on our work plan and need to get staff's evaluation of the time, a lot that it would take staff time and even our time to discuss this. And then maybe by then to hopefully, you know, we can think about this and figure out more in detail what we are looking to tackle in this arena if it's enough of a priority for folks.

[03:04:57] Mayor Alison Hicks: Uh, city manager?

[03:05:00] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor, so, to maybe add a little bit of clarity to this. So next, the next council meeting, on February 28th will be your 1st chance to have a pretty in-depth discussion about your current 7 priorities and all of those projects that support those priorities, which is your work plan. You will see that there are a lot of projects that are rolling over into the next two-year work plan cycle. You will also have a chance to talk about this in April and again in June. So, next meeting is your first chance to really take a bite at that apple, and look at the status of those work plan items now. You could certainly bring this up at that time. But I think staff would be looking for context of what council is actually interested in, looking at as part of this item. So, um, I think that could be a forum for you to bring that up should should counsel wish. And you will have the opportunity to discuss it in a few more meetings beyond the next council meeting. So I would just say that given that it's the very next meeting and that I think at this point, people have thrown out a lot of different ideas for what, what part of parking and use of the streets we should be talking about. I feel like another several weeks will give us time to figure out exactly how we want exactly which portion of it we might want to deal with, and then fit it in with all the other projects that we want to take care of. That's my opinion.

[03:06:43] Mayor Alison Hicks: Council member Ramirez?

[03:06:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I agree with your last statement, and I think, and I support the request for a broader consideration of a parking regulatory framework, and I guess maybe what I would request of staff is some help in scoping what that might look like. Because there were specific, I mean, I'd like your list, Vice Mayor of Show Walter. How do we deal with things like businesses that are using public right away as storage? That's not easily addressed by the 72 hour parking restriction, it might merit some additional discussion. You know, my crusade against boats on trailers, things like that, where, you know, I would like to have an opportunity to fix some of these easily solved problems, you know, if we have the right tools in place. But it might be helpful for staff to tee that up and help explain to us what we would need to do to address those types of parking concerns.

[03:07:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: City manager, do you have another comment? Are there other council comments? We seem to be moving in the direction of moving on. So we're now, I think, on item eight, council staff and committee reports. Are there any reports? Vice mayor?

[03:08:04] Vice Mayor Pat Showalter: Okay. Yes. It's been a busy, busy week. Last Wednesday, I went to the Silicon Valley Clean Energy. I'm the alternate. And so it was also my time to get briefed by the director that day, and I joined the group for dinner at a key, which is very pleasant. Good way to get to know the other members and to sort of foster collaboration on energy issues and other things. Anyway, the meeting really focused on a presentation about the capacity requirements for electrical generation that are required by the PUC versus the energy that we buy and use. And apparently, they are separate requirements, and but you have to expend considerable funds to buy capacity contracts, as well as energy. And because there's so much competition, now, to buy clean energy and buy clean energy capacity, there really isn't enough capacity in the market for everyone to buy it. And so that means we will possibly be facing some penalties from the PUC because we can't buy enough capacity. That said, we have been able to date to only use clean energy, which is our goal, and looks like we'll be able to continue with that. But it is challenging. Another thing that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is doing in collaboration with other CCEs around the state is supporting the development of new energy projects, you know, big solar farms, the exploration of offshore wind, you know, It was very interesting. And so I wanted to share that, that's what we done. And I will be forwarding everybody the presentation. It's quite lengthy, but I think you'll enjoy seeing all those infographics that they're quite skilled at putting together. Then Thursday, I attended the Cities Association Selection Committee, and I'm happy to say that they recommended that I be appointed by A bag to the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. We'll see if that happens. And we also elected council member Margaret Abakoga as our representative to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to continue with that. And then on Friday, I went to the Century Club, lunch on climate restoration, Saturday, the League of Women Voters Planning meeting. As you all know, I'm pretty active in the league over the years, and that's a meeting that they have every other year. It's kind of like our goal setting session for the league, and they came up with three areas of interest that they're going to be working on, housing and homelessness, sustainability, and climate change, and, of course, voter services, and that is not a change. And then Monday, I spoke on a panel about our sustainability efforts for a webinar that was to instruct communities about how to apply for the Department of Energies, energy efficiency, and conservation block grants. These are kind of analogous to CBGD... See, wait a minute, I got the... CTBG, Grant, but unfortunately, this is only the second time, they've ever been funded. So I think everybody's hoping that this will turn out to be an ongoing thing. But this year, we have an opportunity to go for 148 $1,000 from this program. And so it was good to hear about how we can, you know, what that process is. And also, it was kind of fun to highlight some of the good things that we do for sustainability, because, really, we have quite a track record. And anyway, I just wanted to thank Danielle Lee for helping me get together some talking points. That was it. Thank you.

[03:12:38] Mayor Alison Hicks: So congratulations on your selection, or near selection, recommendation. Um, and on yours, too. Uh, so, uh, now it's council member Abbe Koga.

[03:12:51] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Mayor, and I'd like to thank Councilman Rachel Walter for covering the clean energy board meeting for me as I was in Tyler, Texas, to attend the memorial for our fallen fire captain Greg Cooper. And, um, it was very moving. We had quite a large contingency from here, about 15, more than 15 firefighters, and the chief was up there as well. And thank you for your staff here for setting up the streaming into the council chambers and for all of the all of you attended. The family was very moved by the support shown. I attended a few other meetings. Bafa. So Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. Um, there was a presentation on, uh, the, they're doing a data collection of, um, how many affordable housing units are in the pipeline for development in the Bay Area. And it's actually quite a large number. I think it was about 45,000. You know, our need is much greater. But part of the data collection. And Google is actually, I believe, helping out with some of this collection, but it was also to gauge what our funding needs are in preparation for a potential regional housing measure. And so, um, we got a lot of information about, um, what the need will be. And then the measure is right now projected to be about 10 to $200000000 in bond funding. So, um, Please check out. It's all on our MTC website, MTC.ca.gov. And there's a number of presentations. I think you might find interesting regarding all of this work that's being done. At the cities association meeting. We had a presentation from our housing planning collaborative staff. And so this is a, we've hired this, this group to help all of the cities with things like the housing element. And they're also working on collective efforts. So they presented an ADU program that they're working on. So they're creating a website that makes it easier for folks to, um, access how to build an ADU if they're interested. So there's actually templates on already approved ADU designs that you can, you know, pick out which one you might like. And I think you can customize it. And then they're going to continue to update that with more and more information just to make it easier for folks who are looking to build an ADU to do so. They're also, we're talked about, they're interested in doing a nexus study for impact fees. So I know we do our own usually, but they're offering to do one collectively for all of our cities. So some of the smaller cities, especially, would benefit from something like that. Excuse me, trying to get over this cold. Let's see. I attended the NoFA committee meeting the other day where we approved the 2 projects we approved today were covered. And then, um, attended the state of the county address by our new county board of supervisors, president, Susan Ellenburg, as well as the sheriff's, our new sheriff, um, Bob Johnson swearing in. Excuse me, in our... reelected DA, Jeff Rosen swing. And, uh, I guess it was last, late last month, early this month. The days are kind of blending in. And then I'm sorry, going back to the city's association. So the goal is here is to get back to business as usual after several years of kind of operating under unusual circumstances. And one of the things that we've done and we were able to do is set our priorities for the association. And this year, we will be focusing on sustainability and resilience slash climate protection, mental health, housing, and gun safety. And we create committees around these priorities. The board members are asked to join, but they're actually open to anyone. Any council numbers who might be interested in working on these issues. So, please let me know if anyone is interested. Thank you.

[03:17:49] Mayor Alison Hicks: Thank you. Council member Mattachek.

[03:17:53] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Thanks. I participated in a meeting on hangar 3 on behalf of the city. This is at Moffat Field. I don't know if folks know this, but Hangar 3 is scheduled to be demolished. It is not structurally sound, and it really can't be fixed. So, um, the plan is to demolish it, but as part of that, um, they are going to create a website, uh, that has lots of, uh, information on Hangar 3 in the context of, you know, the greater Moffat field. And I just want to clarify, this is Hangar 3, not Hangar 1. Hangar one is the one that is being, um, re skinned, um, the larger of the three hangers out there. But, um, they want to highlight the dirigibles that, uh, and the role they played, and they're gonna have, um, people who worked at Hangar 3, share memories, and capture those, and put them on the website. So it seems like it's going to be pretty comprehensive, but if there's anything anyone is interested in seeing on it, be sure to let me know. And let's see. The other topic I wanted to bring up is council correspondence. So, um, When we receive emails that are sent to city.council at mountainview.gov, um, key members of staff are included in the distribution list, and they can respond um, on our behalf and include us, um, and also those emails, get packaged, and posted for each meeting. So you can see the correspondence that we've received. But if somebody sends an email to, um, one or all 7 of us or anything in between, um, and they use our personal city emails, um, others, um, besides us, don't see those. And, you know, I think sometimes, um, those emails are, They raise interesting topics, um, and concerns and issues. And so I was thinking, well, gosh, maybe they should also be included in the packets that are posted. But, we'd have to figure out a process for how that would work. So I guess I'm wondering if folks are interested in looking at this and should we refer it to the CPPC to figure out and bring it back to council. Or is it something you just are not interested in talking about or pursuing or addressing at this time? So I guess that's a question.

[03:20:51] Mayor Alison Hicks: Okay, so I have speakers in the queue, but they were not lined up to answer this question. Does anyone want to answer this question? Council member Abico.

[03:21:10] Councilmember Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, um, I... I guess my concern is that sometimes my or my impression is that, um, you know, constituents might write to us specifically for some reason. And so I don't know, I mean, it's more like trying to understand the constituent's intent, which would be very difficult to do, but I guess I would be a little cautious about sharing something if the constituent, you know, it wasn't intending. Like, I would think that if a constituent wanted all of us to see something, they would send it to all of us, but there must be a reason why that goes directly to one of us. So, um, I, I, yeah, I would hesitate, frankly, to try to figure out how to make it more public if, I guess I was thinking personally that it would be if it went to all 7 of us individually. Um, you know, where others might argue, well, if it's 4 or more, um, then it's a council majority, so maybe it should be public, everything that's sent to us is public anyway. if somebody files a public records request. But, um, I personally was thinking that it would have to go to all seven of us individual, and maybe they just didn't realize that you could use the shortcut, city dot council. So how would we know if it's gone to all 7 of us? If it's going to just me? Oh, in that instance, you wouldn't. I would say only if, I mean, I can see the 7 email addresses versus... Yeah, if it's, you see all seven of them, then to me, that says it, they meant for it to go to everybody. But if somebody emails you separately, I often say to people, if it's something they want us to act on, you know, did you send this to all seven of us individually, you know, sort of as a heads up to staff that, okay, here comes seven requests from us. So my additional comment or question is, how much value does this add versus how much bureaucracy, you know, how much staff time does it add? If it were simple, And I also see that City Attorney Logue has a comment, but if it were simple, you know, super simple, because I do think sometimes people choose one or the other, they don't know that they can email using the council address. If it were super simple, I'd go for it, but if it's complicated, I'm not sure how much value added there is. We can, but honestly, I'm not going to do that. I go through my email pretty quick. Somebody else could. Yes. And that's my question, how much do people want to do that?

[03:24:09] Mayor Alison Hicks: as a city attorney log?

[03:24:12] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: So I just wanted to provide one little piece of clarification, is that if you do, and I saw some of that in the 72 hour, right, where it was to each of you individually, and then also maybe city dot council, or me at it or something, if it is related to an agenda item, specifically, and you know for sure it's related to an agenda item, and you see that it's gone to each of you individually, you can see all your names, you should definitely forward that to the city clerk, because by law, We actually have to make that available to the public. So that is the one circumstance that you want to be careful. That was part of my Brown Act training, and it's kind of, you know, I'm trying to keep boards and commission, and council members sort of to be alerted to that when we won't see it. Maybe we were not included on it. So if you see all if you see a majority of you. It's not even seven. If you see a majority of you on the email, and it's related to an agenda item, definitely forward that to the clerk, and she will handle that the way she handles the city doctor. council ones. But other items, day to day, you know, too many potholes in my street. That's a different issue. It's just the agenda items. That's, yeah.

[03:25:21] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So I'm sorry, I should clarify, I did mean just agenda items.

[03:25:26] Mayor Alison Hicks: And city manager.

[03:25:28] City Manager Kimbra McCarthy: Thank you, mayor. So if I may clarify, I would ask that one of you forward it. So the clerk isn't getting 7 emails. So if maybe Mayor, if you could forward that. Or designate someone too, because I know that it can get unwieldy. Designates someone.

[03:25:48] Mayor Alison Hicks: Yes, go. That is within your purview. happy to do it. Okay. Okay, do we have more opinion on this one? Okay. Council member committee. Oh, you got... You got one up. Uh, council member, Ramos.

[03:26:08] Councilmember Emily Ramos: Sorry, this is actually just a follow up question. Do we need to make any formal action for that? We're good? Or good? I just wanted to double check. Thank you.

[03:26:17] Mayor Alison Hicks: So, uh, my formal action is council member, Matachek. You are my designate. Alright. Okay, thank you. Council member Kameh.

[03:26:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. I just want to give my report, which is, um, I attended the VTA PAC meeting last Thursday. We talked about how VTA is modernizing their bus stops to be more accommodating to weather elements and those who ride. I'm sure that went to the full board. Um, and then, um, we have appointed an interim executive director for Chak for the, um, Community Health Awareness Council. Her name is Anne Aersman. She was the executive director of Project Cornerstone for a long time, been in the community quite a bit. And so we are working with her to find a permanent executive director for Czech. Just wanted to share that. Thank you.

[03:27:13] Mayor Alison Hicks: Are there any more reports? Okay. Then, uh, we're moving to item number 10? Adjournment. The next city council meeting will be held in person. Oh, sorry, closed session report number nine. Uh, item number nine. City Attorney Logue, do you have a closed session report?

[03:27:34] City Attorney Jennifer Logue: There is no closed session report this evening.

[03:27:37] Mayor Alison Hicks: And now, uh, item number 10. Adjournment, the next city council meeting will be held in person with a virtual component on February 28, 2023. This meeting is adjourned at 9:44 p.m.

• ← Previous
• Next →