►
From YouTube: February 14, 2023 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community
Description
Live Teleconference of the Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community of February 14, 2023.
A
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
Emily
and
Ramos.
Will
you
join
the
city
clerk
Glazer
at
the
lectern.
E
Thank
you,
I
I
was
suggest.
It
was
suggested
that
I
started
off
with
four
scores
and
seven
years
ago,
although
to
be
more
accurate,
it'd
be
six
scores
and
one
year
ago,
because
Mountain
View
was
founded
in
1902
and
the
score
is
20
years
technically,
but
in
in
all
seriousness,
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.
E
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.
E
So.
To
that
end,
I
want
to
acknowledge
that
the
past
month
was
a
difficult
one
for
our
community.
Our
Council
faced
several
difficult
and
contentious
issues,
mostly
one
major
issue
and
we'll
continue
to
to
go
through
and
to
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.
E
E
E
F
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
I'm,
still,
learning
I
know,
we've
got
a
closed
session
coming
up
and,
and
there
are
two
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.
A
A
G
Thank
you
well
Happy,
Valentine's
Day.
Everyone
just
wanted
to
say
that
Welcome
to
our
newest
colleague,
your
remarks
are
exactly
what
appealed
to
me
during
the
appointment
process,
which
is
we're
ambitious
and
collaborative
Council,
and
that
you
are
ready
to
get
to
work
whilst
acknowledging
that
we
all
have
bring
different
different
strengths
and
we're
all
here
to
learn
from
each
other
too.
G
So
I
appreciate
that
you're
coming
into
that
I'm
appreciative
that
we
have
a
full
seven
member
Council
to
tackle
our
very
ambitious
work
plan,
as
you
said,
and
bring
the
collegiality
and
I
think
the
the
positivity
that
this
Council
brings
to
our
region,
which
makes
us
the
best
city
in
the
world.
Thank
you.
I
A
J
A
K
Okay,
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.
You're
I
have
known
Emily,
Anne
Ramos
for
some
time
and
I
know
her
heart
is
good
and
her
work
ethic
is
beyond
almost
anything.
I
have
seen.
You
can
see
her
at
the
Democratic
volunteer
Center
on
camera
at
three
in
the
morning,
vacuuming
I'm
just
saying
she
works
hard
and
she
will
work
hard
for
our
city.
I'm,
sorry
for
outing,
you
out,
but
I
I
feel
like
it's
as
much.
K
This
is
an
appointment
process.
You
have
been
so
deeply
involved
in
our
community
and
talked
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.
Thank
you,
Council
for
recognizing
that
and
I
look
forward
to
the
next
few
years.
With
all
of
you,
thanks.
A
A
L
Okay
item
2.1
is
a
conference
with
real
property
negotiators
pursuant
to
government
code,
section
54956.8,
the
property
is
Gamel
way
a
public
Street.
The
agency
negotiators
are
Angela
Lamonica
and
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
are
price
and
terms
of
sale.
L
Item.
2.2
is
a
conference
with
real
property
negotiators
pursuant
to
government
code,
section
549-56.8,
the
property
is
one
Amphitheater
Parkway
parking
lot
C.
The
agency
negotiators
are
Angela,
Lamonica,
real
property
program,
administrator
and
Public
Works
director
Don
Cameron.
The
negotiating
party
is
Google
LLC
and
under
negotiation.
Our
price
in
terms
of
lease.
A
M
A
Okay,
good
evening,
everyone
welcome
back
to
the
Joint
meeting
of
the
Mountain
View
City
Council
and
the
shoreline
Regional
Park
Community
of
February
14
2023
for
those
joining
us
in
person.
Please
note
that,
due
to
our
hybrid
environment,
audio
and
Vizio
presentations,
we
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
pm
on
the
meeting
date.
Also
due
to
our
hybrid
environment.
We'll
no
longer
have
speakers
line
up
to
speak
on
an
item.
A
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.
N
A
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
committee
and
the
Performing
Arts
committee.
The
application
period
closes
this
Friday
February
17th
at
5
pm
and
now
we'll
move
to
the
consent
calendar.
A
A
A
F
I'll
move
the
balance
of
the
consent
calendar
as
a
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
with
minimums
at
the
residential
high
density
R4.
Zoning
district
for
100,
affordable
housing
developments
that
receive
authorization
through
the
City
notice
of
funding
availability
process.
F
Allow
residential
mixed-use,
Village
Center
development,
where
the
general
plan
land
use
designation,
allows
residential
uses
on
sites
within
the
commercial
neighborhood
cm
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
this.
The
zoning
map
from
the
general
industrial
mm
zoning
District
to
the
high
density
R4
zoning
District.
F
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
Terra
Bella,
Avenue,
1012,
Linda,
Vista
Avenue
at
the
northwest
corner
of
Linda
Vista
Avenue
and
tarabelle
Avenue.
To
be
read
entitled
only
for
the
reading
waived
item.
O
F
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
designee
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
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
15061b3
to
be
read
in
title.
A
H
H
That's
really
important,
so
I
was
glad
to
see
that
that
happened,
but
that
said
that
people
in
the
neighborhood
really
question
this
so
I
I
would
just
I
was
hoping
Dawn
that
you
would
be
able
to
explain
a
bit
about
how
this
Improvement
is
said.
How
do
you
feel
it
will
be
in
terms
of
encouraging
people
to
cross
in
a
place?
That's
a
little
questionable.
P
Do
I
is
it
turned
on
okay?
Thank
you
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
doing
covid,
and
the
turnout
has
usually
been
very
good,
very
supportive,
very
engaged
by.
P
Is
it
a
southern
Crossing
or
a
northern
Crossing,
but
I
will
say
that
the
key
reason
that
this
project
is
important
is
people.
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.
P
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
has
again
been
a
city
priority
for
a
number
of
years.
We've
all,
as
we've
heard
to
date,
is
support
for
it.
H
H
The
sinking
of
traffic
lights
on
Grant
Road
has
has
vary
considerably
over
the
years
and
sometimes
when
it
was
it,
we
had
a
period
where
they
were
turned
on
and
then
then
they
broke
and
it
took
a
while
to
get
them
fixed
and
so
people
are,
and
that
and
Grant
Road
takes
a
tremendous
amount
of
traffic
so
and
we're
and
having
lived
there
for
almost
40
years,
I
I
know
I
was
talking
to
one
of
my
neighbors
about
this.
The
amount
of
traffic
on
Grant
Road
has
always
been
a
lot.
H
You
know
it's
not
like
it's
it's
signif.
It
may
be
significantly
worse
than
it
was
before,
but
it's
always
been
a
very
heavily
trafficked
road.
So
you
know
the
flow
on
the
flow
of
traffic.
There
is
really
important
for
the
community
getting
around
and
okay.
Well,
thank
you
for
all
of
that
information
appreciate
it.
I
I
It
was
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
even
that,
because
it's
a
direct
route
from
the
Stevens
Creek,
Trail
Trailhead
and
then
into
Cuesta
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.
I
So
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
crazy,
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.
I
The
hope
is
that
you
know
the
drivers
will
get
used
to
that
and
be
more
cognitive
of
the
cyclists
and
the
podesta
singing
and
just
you
know
be
safer,
but
and
that
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
thanks.
N
Yeah
I
just
want
to
add
that
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
lives
very
close
to
that
intersection.
Contact
us
to
find
out.
N
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
the
issues
at
that
intersection
and
they
want
them
addressed
so
I
feel,
like
we've,
also
heard
very
positive
things
about
this
from
folks
right.
There
thanks.
G
G
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
meeting,
so
that
residents
had
Direct
input.
I
think
the
configuration
was
considered
to
be
in
the
grade
wise
of
intersections
the
safest
and
maybe
miss
Cameron
can
help
me
jog
my
memory,
because
I
think
that
might
have
been
two
years
ago
now.
I
can't
recall
three
but
I.
P
Thank
you,
councilmember
kimay,
you
are
remembering
correctly
is
we
had
three
different
Design
Concepts?
We
had
a
community
meeting
about
it
received
lots
of
input,
including
straw
polls
from
the
community.
Then
we
brought
those
three
concepts
to
the
council
Transportation
committee,
indicating
where
you
know
what
the
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.
P
Asking
can
there
be
some
kind
of
bicycle
accommodation
on
the
Northern
Lake
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
this
design
in
terms
of
what
that
Northern
Bicycle
Crossing
is
going
to
look
like.
A
G
H
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
go
to
the
end
of
that
court
and
through
the
the
connection
that
goes
on
to
Martin's
and
go
left
on
Martins.
That's
a
much
safer
way
to
do
it
and
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.
J
A
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
three
minutes
during
this
section.
State
law
prohibits
the
council
from
acting
on
non-agenda
items.
A
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?
So
please
click
the
raise
hand
button
in
Zoom
or
submit
a
blue
speaker
card.
J
J
Q
People
howdy
Council,
all
right,
you
can
hear
me
now:
okay,
yeah,
hi,
I,
sorry
I
just
got
through
my
front
door
but
I.
Anyone
who
knows
me
knows
that
I'm,
a
big
fan
of
our
library,
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
system.
Q
Q
So
this
is
a
great
because
one
people
are
utilizing
our
Digital
Services
at
our
fantastic
library,
but
also
too,
it
means
that
we
got
to
increase
our
capacity,
and
my
chat
also
seems
to
have
strong
feelings
about
that.
Anyway,
that's
my
comment
for
this
item.
Thank
you
for
listening,
yielding
my
time
to
the
minute.
A
R
In
2014,
the
city
council
appropriated
approximately
117
million
dollars
to
facilitate
the
development
of
nine,
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
five
applications
in
the
pipeline
totaling
an
additional
448,
affordable
housing
units.
Both
projects
under
consideration
this
evening
are
included
in
that
number.
R
R
Our
review
and
evaluation
of
each
nofa
application
for
funding
determined
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
they're
highly
needed.
Two
and
three
bedroom
units.
R
25
of
these
units
will
be
set
aside
for
Rapid
re-housing,
and
another
25
percent
will
be
reserved
for
extremely
low
income
households
earning
up
to
30
percent
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.
R
R
Alta
housing
is
proposing
a
seven-story
modern
architecture
apartment
complex
with
two
levels
of
above
grade
garage.
The
project
is
designed
to
promote
a
welcoming
corner
at
the
intersection
of
Linda
Vista
and
Terra
Bella
Avenues
and
the
driveway
entrance
to
the
parking
garage
is
tucked
to
the
north
of
the
building.
The
upper
stories
include
two
main
residential
masses
with
a
central
break
facing
tarabella
Avenue
that
denotes
stacking
Corridor
lounges
over
the
courtyard
entry.
R
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.
R
R
The
Northerly
setback
area
along
Montgomery
Street
will
include
a
public
sidewalk
and
three
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.
R
The
applicant
intends
to
submit
the
project
pursuant
to
California
Assembly
Bill
2162,
also
known
as
ab2162,
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.
R
The
project
qualifies
for
this
streamlined
approval
because
of
being
fully
affordable
at
a
household's
earning
at
or
below
60
of
the
area
median
income.
Additionally,
ab2162
is
different
from
SB
35,
in
that
it
requires
at
least
25
percent
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.
R
R
Alta,
housing
and
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
dalco
and
Alta
they'll,
each
continue
to
refine
their
designs
and
funding
proposals
and
pursue
individual
approvals.
F
Thank
you
mayor
just
one,
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
in
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.
R
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.
I
A
J
A
Council
members
have
comments.
Question
have
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
Terra
Bella
that
it
would
be
nice
for
the
public
when
they
walked
out
by
to
be
able
to
interface
with
the
projects.
A
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.
Both.
R
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
space
is
clean
and
afterwards,
but,
yes,
it
is
intended
that
these
spaces
can
activate.
You
know
the
sidewalk
and
our
allowed
to
be
used
by
the
public.
A
Great
that's
great
to
hear
because
we
are
we're
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
and
welcoming
to
neighbors
as
well.
Thank
you
do
any
other
cameras
have
questions.
M
Hello,
can
you
hear
me
we
can?
Oh
thank
goodness.
Okay,
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
non-profit
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.
M
Don't
think
it
is
realistic
ever
to
consider
that
we're
going
to
get
the
million
units
of
housing
that
we
need
on
the
west
coast
for
affordable
categories
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
I
just
wanted
to
say,
I
think
it's
really
great.
Thank
you.
M
A
F
H
Yeah
I
just
want
to
voice
my
approval
and
support
for
these
projects,
in
particular
the
one
on
Linda
Vista
I've.
We've
watched
that
develop
for
maybe
five
years
and
seeing
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.
H
The
residential
units
I
think
that's
going
to
create
just
a
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
for
families.
So
thank
you.
N
I
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
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.
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
highlight
that
there
was
a
some
well,
maybe
I
brought
it
up,
but
the
issue
of
parking
there's
a
quite
a
bit
of
reduction
in
parking
and
some
concern
I
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.
C
I
So
and
then
I
appreciate
councilmember
that
checks
comments
about
that
design.
I
had
some
comments
myself
and
I
appreciate.
Alter
housing,
they've
been
very
open
to
my
in
expertise,
but
my
very
strong
interest
in
Design
Concepts,
so
I
do
look
forward
to
seeing
a
very
well
well
designed
and
improved
project
moving
forward.
Thank
you.
G
Thank
you
mayor,
so
I
just
want
to
Echo
council
members.
Mata
checks,
which
she
mentioned
about
these
being
properties
at
the
city,
will
have
ownership
in
I.
Think
when
I
always
like
to
reiterate
that
you
know
my
preference
is
at
the
city,
are:
are
the
ones
with
the
land
and
I'm
excited
that
these
projects?
G
Think
one
of
the
things
that
we
have
been
getting
feedback
on
is:
yes,
always
the
the
voi,
the
very
low
income,
but
trying
to
kind
of
get
the
other
Pockets
within
the
Ami
spectrum,
and
so
I
appreciate
that
staff
got
that
feedback
in
addition
to
the
type
the
you
know,
unit
type.
So
thank
you
very
much
and
I'll
be
supporting
the
motion.
A
J
L
This
72-hour
parking
limit
was
first
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
the
statement
that
to
comply
with
the
suction
vehicles
must
move
at
least
one
thousand
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.
L
In
1990
and
again
in
2001,
there
were
some
minor
amendments
to
the
72-hour
parking
limit
ordinance
in
1990,
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.
L
L
Here
are
the
primary
problems
that
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
one
thousand
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.
L
So.
The
purpose
of
the
amendments
to
die
that
are
being
proposed
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
in
enforcing
the
72-hour
parking
limit.
L
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
the
definition
that
I'm
recommending
that
you
include
is
consistent
with
the
definition
of
vehicle
in
the
California
vehicle
code.
L
So
it
will
be
what
people
are
used
to
for
for
the
definition
of
vehicle.
There
is
no
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
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.
L
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.
L
O
L
L
This
is
to
replace
the
language
where
it
said
that
the
provision
shall
apply
to
parking
District
number
two
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
this
72-hour
parking
limit
will
apply
next
slide.
Please,
in
this
next
provision,
I
maintain
the
language
that
requires
a
vehicle
to
move
one
thousand
feet.
L
It
says
that
it
must
be
moved
or
relocated
to
it
to
a
different
parking
spot,
at
least
one
thousand
feet
from
its
current
location.
That's
Alternatives,
it
can
move,
it
can
drive
around
one
thousand
feet
or
it
can
just
simply
relocate
and
park
in
a
different
spot.
That's
a
thousand
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.
L
The
basis
for
this
recommendation
is
to
align
with
the
current
practices
enforcement
practices
of
the
police
officers,
which
Chief
bocell
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
this
language.
Here
that
says,
you
may
not
return
to
the
same
parking
spot
for
at
least
24
hours.
L
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
the
72-hour
ordinance.
L
L
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
what
constitutes
a
violation
under
this
ordinance
next
slide.
Please.
L
This
next
section,
subsection
e,
is,
is
a
new
addition.
It
just
simply
provides
the
Authority
Under,
the
California
vehicle
code
that
authorizes
removal
of
a
vehicle
from
the
street
in
for
violation
of
the
72-hour
parking
ornaments.
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.
L
This
next
section
is
also
a
new,
an
addition,
and
it
is
consistent
with
current
practices.
It
it
is
to
require
providing
pre-toe
notice
or
pre-citation
notice.
It's
prior
to
removing
any
vehicle
from
the
street,
for
violation
of
the
72-hour
parking
limit.
A
warning
notice
advising
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.
L
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
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
and
sure,
but
the
city
is
complying
with
due
process.
Requirements
of
providing
people
notice
before
their
property
is,
is
towed
away
and
stored.
L
L
L
That
is
just
to
ensure
that
if
there
is
any
confusion
with
other
code
Provisions
that
this
is
the
one
that
everyone
can
look
to,
if
they
want
to
know
what
will
constitute
a
violation
and
what
will
result
in
a
sick
ticket
and
then
my
last
slide
just
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
in
San
Jose,
do
have
72-hour
parking
limits.
L
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
one
thousand
feet.
Sunnyvale
does
not
specify
the
distance
that
the
vehicle
has
to
move
and
San
Jose
requires
movement
of
one
tenth
of
a
mile
last
slide.
S
Happy
Valentine's
Day
Council
I'm
Max
Purcell
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
a
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
a
three-phased
approach.
S
We
then
return
in
another
72
hours,
so
six
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
in
the
round
of
10
days.
After
that,
first
violation
is
received
and
that's
the
general
procedures
of
the
phases
of
enforcement.
S
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
was
October
1st.
O
S
Columns
on
the
left,
the
two
bar
charts
on
the
left
represent
Passenger
cars
and
the
two
bar
charts
on
the
right
charts
on
the
right
represent
oversized
Vehicles.
This
is
probably
a
inordinate
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.
S
The
total
number
is
almost
the
same
over
that
three-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
percent
of
the
violations.
In
this
particular
case,
there
were
no
vehicles
towed
as
a
part
of
the
72-hour
enforcement,
but
we
did
have
three
vehicles
over
this
period,
towed
for
abandoned
vehicle
abatement
and
that's
the
statistics
of
our
activity
at
the
end
of
2022.
A
F
Thank
you
mayor
and
thank
you
City
attorney
and
interim
Chief
Brazil
for
the
presentations.
Although
interim
Chief
bezel
I
will
always
remember
you,
as
interim
city
manager,
bazel
welcome
back
you've
answered
some
of
my
questions
but
and
they're
going
to
feel
a
little
pedantic,
but
I
think
they'll
be
helpful
in
in
getting
to
how
I've
come
to
the
conclusion
I've
I've
come
to.
So
you
spoke
about
the
current
procedures
for
enforcing
the
72-hour
parking
restriction,
which
I
think
was
very
helpful.
F
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
those,
if,
if
these
are
provided
in
some
other
document,
that
was
not
necessarily
provided
to
the
council.
S
S
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
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.
Okay,.
F
F
S
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
with
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
essentially
look
to
the
letter
of
the
law
more
than
the
spirit
of
law.
In
order
to
in
an
attempt
to
gain
compliance.
Okay,.
S
F
S
F
F
You're
striving
for
yes
in
the
enforcement
of
the
law.
Okay,
that's
helpful
and
I
I
asked
some
of
these
in
the
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-hr
parking
restriction.
S
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.
S
Vehicle,
it
would
likely
be
an
unreported
stolen
vehicle
because,
if
we're,
if
we
know
the
car
is
stolen,
we're
going
to
return
it
to
the
owner
or
in
or
or
Store
It
For
The
Individual
until
they
can
collect
it
in
that
particular
case.
But
if
it's
an
unreported
stolen
and
we
determine
it's
stolen
at
a
certain
point-
then
yes,
I,
think
you
know
if
it
was
cited.
S
F
L
So
an
unhitched
trailer
would
would
qualify
under
the
definition
of
vehicle,
and
so
they
could
go
the
route
of
of
the
citation
and
and
all
of
that
with
Note
providing
notice,
because
it's
it's
not
necessarily
inoperable,
it
just
requires
another
vehicle
to
Hitch
up
to
it.
So,
presumably
you
could,
you
could
put
notice
on
it
and
that
owner
would
see
it
and
would
come
hitch
up
and
and
move
it
away.
So
it
could
be
treated
under
the
72
hour
and
would
qualify
as
a
vehicle.
Okay,.
F
U
O
S
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
is
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.
S
S
F
G
Great,
thank
you,
so
I
think
I'm
going
to
keep
my
questions
to
the
document
that
Chief
brought
us.
So
it
looks
like
it's.
It
says
on
the
bottom.
I
think
this
means
it
was
revised
of
the
the
fourth
April
4th
23rd
2019.
Is
that
what
that
is?
Okay,
so
would
we,
if
we
do
something
tonight,
would
this
document
get
revised.
G
S
G
Yes,
perfect,
that
was
one
would
be
another
question
and
I
think
it's
actually
really
helpful
to
have
see
this
in
in
person
and
then
so
my
understanding
that
this
is
your
check.
This
is
your.
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.
G
T
G
G
H
H
S
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.
T
S
H
H
S
A
S
S
A
S
Well,
we
through
our
neighborhood
Event
Services
team.
We
have
connections
with
non-profit
organizations,
community-based
organizations
that
we
work
with
on
a
regular
basis.
Life
moves
Community,
Services
Agency
are
the
ones
that
come
primarily
to
my
mind
and
coordinate
referrals
to
those
organizations
for
services
that
are
provided
to
typically
people
living
in
vehicles.
A
So
that's
a
regular
part
of
contact
if
the
the
vehicle
that
you're
tagging
is
is
a
lived-in
vehicle.
Yes,
okay
and
now
for
City
attorney
log
I
have
a
question
which
is:
do
you
have
ways
of
dealing
with
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?
Yes,.
L
V
A
A
L
And
they
do
not,
and
and
that's
why
the
24,
if
it's
it's,
the
the
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
spotter
right
across
the
street.
So
it's
just
it's.
A
Think
the
part
that
people
are
reading
it
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
a
thousand
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
a
thousand
feet
from
its
current
location.
I
think
that's
the
part
that
makes
people
think
they
have
to
park
a
thousand
feet
away.
L
Sorry,
sorry,
let
me
pull
that
up
and,
and
that
and
I
did
see,
that
and
and
we
can
easily
I
thought
about
when
I
saw
that
language
I
thought
about
the
concern
and
we
can
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.
L
You
can
drive
it
around
or
you
can
relocate
it
to
another
parking
spot,
a
thousand
feet
away,
but
you
don't
need
to
stay
a
thousand
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
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
thought.
L
You
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,
if
that
is
a
sticking
point,
okay.
A
S
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
a
every
particular
case.
However,
if,
for
example,
we
don't
think
the
vehicle
is
actually
being
moved,
there
are
there
and
for
this
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.
E
I
just
had
a
follow-up
question
on
mayor
hicks's
question.
If
an
example
that
that
I've
been
hearing
a
lot
is,
sometimes
people
are
just
creatures
of
habit
and
they
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.
S
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
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.
S
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
and
clearly
it's
been
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.
S
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
for
a
coffee
to
run
and
I
mean
that
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.
S
A
A
W
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
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
a
person
in
an
apartment
complex
nearby.
He
used
to
use
our
streets
as
a
parking
lot
for
his
Craigslist.
W
You
know
used
car
business,
and
so
the
problem
I
have
with
the
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
a
thousand
feet.
He
just
drives
10
feet.
The
truck
marks
get
hidden
and
the
police
are.
You
know
none
the
wiser
that
he
didn't
go
far
and
now
he's
he
can
just
park
there,
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.
W
That
starts
revving
it
up
in
the
morning
to
warm
it
up.
You
know
those
people
just
keep
coming
back
again
again.
This
kind
of
seems
to
me
to
let
them
off
easily.
So
you
know
maybe
not
a
thousand
feet,
but
it
seems
like
they
should
not
be
allowed
to
come
within,
say
500
feet
of
their
former
parking
space
for
24
hours.
You
know
that
would
give
us
a
chance
to
put
our
cars
in
there
or
whatever
to
block
the
space
out.
W
You
know
there
is
the
issue
of
enforcement
and
how
this
gets
rep.
You
know
it's
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
the
street,
and
so
they
Park
their
car.
There's
the
other
cars
don't
block
the
street
sleeper
and
religiously.
When
the
street
sleeper
on
the
days
happens,
they
move
their
car
in
their
driveway
street
sweeper
goes
by
at
eight
in
the
morning.
W
They
put
their
car
back
out
there.
You
know,
and
that
way
we
can
guarantee
that
our
street
gets
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
ordinance
and
actively
enforce
it.
That
would
certainly
get
people
if
they
would
force
people
to
move
their
cars
at
least
once
every
two
weeks.
W
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
sleeping
day
and
that
alternates
I
think
that
was
actually
this
case
on
chrysando,
but
I
was
never
enforced,
but
it
seems
like
the
mechanism
mechanism
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.
X
Hey
friends,
so
my
main
thing
with
this
is
just
that
it
seems
like
this
is
largely
a
rule.
For
the
sake
of
rule
this
the
staff
report
did
not
have
the
initial
findings
or
a
rationale
for
the
value.
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
we
have
noticing
requirements.
We
have
a
lot
of
the
this
all
of
this
right
now
to
spending
people's
time
to
debate
this.
X
So
I
don't
know,
and
if
we're
going
to
do
this,
if
we're
going
to
impose
this
rule
on
people,
if
we're
going
to
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.
X
A
Y
Y
A
Q
We
have
a
few
points
to
bring
up.
Firstly,
I
think
the
24
hour
amendment
to
this
ordinance
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
the
thousand
foot
part
of
the
amendment
is
actually
really
a
really
big
sticking
point.
A
thousand
feet
seems
really
unnecessary
to
force
us
to
drive
our
cars
to
provable
point
that
it
is
not
abandon,
I
mean
really.
Q
Q
Please
consider
existing
a
residential
parking
permit
program,
something
similar
develop,
something
that
would
cover
both
our
area
residents
and
our
vehicle
residents,
save
our
staff
some
time
they're
a
little
overworked,
and
please
reduce
the
need
for
enforcement
as
much
as
possible.
I
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.
Q
Another
point
that
we
like
to
make
is:
we
would
like
you
to
codify
the
process
for
working
with
community-based
organizations
such
as
reach
potential
United
effort
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.
Q
Z
Hi,
this
is
Marguerite
Layman
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
when
the
RV
settlement
happened
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
our
street.
Z
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
were
just
really
disparaging
and
wanted
these
people
who
live
in
their
RVs,
who
were
forced
to
come
here
from
this
settlement
and
the
restrictions
on
parking
they
wanted
them
to.
They
wanted
them
to
leave
and
they
didn't
really
care
where
they
went.
They
didn't
care
about
the
people
in
those
vehicles.
Z
Don't
really
myself
feel
welcome
in
I.
Think
that's
really
unfortunate
and
I
don't
want
that
to
be
neglected
or
ignored
when
thinking
about
adopting
these
amendments,
I
really
want
to
think
about
how
this
would
impact
people
who
are
my
new
neighbors,
who
I
care
about
and
who
are
vulnerable
and
who
are
already
friends,
are
even
more
vulnerable
by
the
surveillance
and
the
hostility
that
some
of
my
other
neighbors
are
targeting
towards
them.
A
AA
You
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
a
thousand
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?
AA
AA
Where
a
was
parked,
they
will
have
complied
with
a
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
would
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.
AA
That
is
at
least
a
thousand
feet
away
used
repeatedly
in
the
Amendments
is
ambiguous
as
I
and
others
read
it.
It
means
you
have
to
park
a
thousand
feet
away.
Staff
seems
to
interpret
it
as
you
either
have
to
park
a
thousand
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.
AB
Hi
hello,
this
is
Maxwell
Sutton
I
am
I'm.
Also
a
resident
of
Ortega
as
Marguerite
was
the
resident
as
well.
I
just
wanted
to
speak
on
the
Amendment
to
the
1972
code.
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
have
that
often
depend
on
street
parking
adjacent
to
their
residence,
as
a
number
of
other
folks
have
already
spoken
about.
AB
In
particular,
the
people
living
in
their
vehicles
will
face
the
greater
disruption
to
their
lives.
The
risk
of
force
displacement
every
three
days
due
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.
AB
Specifically
several
of
my
home,
owning
neighbors
have
used
the
current
interpretation,
the
vague
interpretation
of
the
72-hour
rule
to
specifically
Target
people
living
in
RVs
and
not
reporting
adjacent
vehicles.
That
seemingly
are
in
violation
of
the
same
rule.
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
the
72-hour
rule
itself
is
is
unnecessary,
but
I
specifically
believe
this
amendment
to
it
is
unnecessarily
punishing
to
people
who
deserve
protection
and
support.
AB
It
would
only
further
this
targeted
harassment,
also,
as
demonstrated
by
the
graph
of
citations
issued
over
the
last
three
months
that
was
presented.
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.
AB
V
V
I'll,
try
to
speak
clearer,
I'll,
try
to
speak
louder,
I
recently
reviewed
the
city
attorneys
side
by
side
comparison
with
the
original
city
code,
section
1972,
the
timing
of
requirements
he
was
tasked
with
to
clarify
section.
1972
suggests
that
these
parking
changes
are
directed
at
unhouse
citizens.
V
The
section
that
actually
needs
to
be
changed
is
section
19011c
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
net
law
Breakers
living
in
their
vehicles.
Having
more
in
this
fact
is
not
going
to
go
away.
It's
a
very
cold
night
and
complicating
the
already
owner
of
72-hour
parking
limit
with
changes
like
the
no
return
rule
seems
Petty
and
arbitrary.
V
M
M
She
observes
us
leaving
our
house
with
a
suitcase
getting
into
a
lift
or
Uber
to
go
to
the
airport.
It
doesn't
matter
that
we're
coming
back
in
five
days.
She
calls
us
in
immediately
we
get
a
warning
24
hours
later,
in
other
words,
one
day
after
we've
left
and
then
three
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.
M
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
chief's
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.
M
We
bring
them
to
the
car
wash
and
24
hours
later,
they're,
pretty
messy,
but
there's
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,
but
you
know
I
don't
want
to
encourage
people
like
this,
who
are
using
your
system
punitively
against
people.
We
once
got
two
tickets
times
three
cars
for
being
sick.
M
We
were
sick
for
a
few
days
and
it
was
called
in
and
you
know,
72
hours
after
the
first
tickets
went
out
the
second
set
we
were
inside
recovering
480
later.
We
also
move
our
cars
regularly
with
six
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.
M
It's
not
fun
living
in
this
situation,
where
we're
constantly
surveilled
and
frequently
ticketed,
you
know
the
72-hour
rule.
The
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.
M
We
are
subject
to
basically
a
12-hour
rule
and
then
72
hours
after
that,
you
know,
I'd
really
like
to
see
you
deal
with
problems
that
are,
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
this.
AC
Hello,
I
think
my
strongest
feeling
is
don't
decide
this
tonight.
You've
heard
so
many
you,
you
yourselves
as
counsel,
have
raised
so
many
good
questions
which
I
really
appreciate,
and
the
members
of
the
public
speaking
to
you
tonight
are
raising
so
many
questions
you
will
not
get
the
I
I
cannot
imagine,
even
though
I
have
great
respect
for
how
intelligent
and
well
informed
you
all
are
that
there's
too
much
to
sort
out
and
to
get
right.
This
needs
to
be
seen.
AC
I
think
is
very
important.
Nobody
wants
Grandma
hiking
a
thousand
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
is,
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.
AC
AC
There
needs
I'm,
happy
that
there
are
pre-tone
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,
is
being
implemented
that
there
is
a
true
pre-ticket
notice
provided
and
then,
if
you
we
are,
if
you
do
support
having
vehicles
need
to
prove
that
they
are
operable
and
can
move
a
certain
distance
before
they
return
to
a
similar
or
wherever
their
next
parking
spot
is
I.
AC
Think
there
should
be
a
way
to
call
the
police
and
say:
please
come
I've
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.
AC
U
Oh
yeah
yeah,
so
my
name
is
Sebastian
brisbois
I'm,
a
Mountain
View
resident
around
Old
Mountain
View
in
downtown
and
yeah
I
completely
disagree
with
the
amendments
to
this
slot
and
I.
Don't
think
it
should
exist
with
all
the
reasons
I've
been
presented
with
thus
far
for
it
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
law
people
are
trying
to
use.
U
Some
people
are
trying
to
use
in
the
city
to
Target
vehicle
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
Etc,
so
this
is
being
used
unjustly
and
also.
This
just
seems
ridiculous
in
this
age,
especially
during
the
pandemic.
U
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,
but
I
could
work
more
often
and
it
makes
my
day
much
longer
and
so
on.
What
if
I
wanted
to?
U
U
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.
That's
all
please
stop
implementing
this
ridiculous
law.
AD
Hi
I'm
Anna,
Marie
I
use
she
her
pronouns
I've
lived
in
our
Beauty
beautiful
city
for
over
40
years
now,
I
actually
lived
directly
on
a
street
over
by
Shoreline,
where
we
had
three
to
four
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?
AD
A
F
You
mayor
I'll,
rip
off
the
Band-Aid
here,
so
parking
compliance
is
the
bane
of
my
existence.
It
represents
a
substantial
amount
of
the
constituent,
casework,
I
provided
in
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
a
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.
F
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
what
you
know
we're
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.
F
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
I,
don't
envy
you
Max
and
and
your
your
staff
for
having
to
to
address
most
of
what
I
feel
are
neighborhood
concerns.
F
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.
F
Similarly,
we
don't
want
an
instance
where,
because
of
an
ambiguity
in
the
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
the
our
staff
are
telling
us,
is
that
the
Amendments
will
not
change
the
current
procedures
for
enforcing
the
ordinance
and
that's
really
important.
F
If
we
were
talking
about
amendments
that
had
a
material
impact
and
how
the
ordinance
is
enforced,
then
I
might
have
some
misgivings,
but
it's
not
the
ordinance,
the
Amendments
simply
codify
at
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
amendment
says
I
understand
them
will
ensure
Equitable
treatment
of
of
similarly
situated
Vehicles,
which
will
reduce
the
legal
risk
to
the
city.
F
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
and
capable
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
in
a
training
manual,
which
is
great.
F
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
they
that
any
officer
would
do
essentially
the
same
thing
and
I
think
so
so
what
this
would
do
is
give
the
staff
the
discretion
to
Define
these
administrative
guidelines.
In
my
opinion,
it
would
simply
be
caught
a
fine
existing
practice,
and
you
know
we
can
I'm
I
want
to
hear
Steph's
perspective
on
this
too.
You
know
this.
F
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's
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
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.
F
F
AE
Thank
you,
mayor
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
Promenade
promulgate
administrative
rules
or
regulations
regarding
whatever
it
is.
I
think
that
would
be
more
in
line
and
and
Akin
to
what
Chief
bozell
said
that
we
do
already
have
in
place.
AE
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
a
simple
of
a
ref
difference
and
and
less
prescriptive.
Okay,.
F
E
You
mayor
I
hate
to
be
that
kind
of
person
that
always
brings
up
a
reference
of
a
previous
body.
They
served
on
I
feel
like
this
is
one
of
those
cases
where
we,
we
aren't
necessarily
changing
the
law,
significantly
we're
we're
clarifying
that
that
was
the
intent
of
this,
and
that's
that's.
Why
I
think
back
to
what
my
previous
body
did
is
that
we
didn't
change
law.
E
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
some
different
opinions
to
really
come
out
and
wanting
to
be
heard.
Unfortunately,
this
particular
ordinance
hits
on
three
really
strong
nerve
points
of
parking,
homelessness
and
policing,
which
are
really
strong
nerves
for
all
of
us
and
I
get
I
I.
E
There
was
a
comment
saying
we
didn't
really
say
why
we're
doing
this
other
than
clarifying,
but
the
the
72-hour
rule
is,
is
really
to
emphasize
that
the
streets
are
for
all
people
and
not
a
private
permanent
storage
space.
For
for
for
certain
people
in
in
in
my
previous
role,
this
is
where
we
would
go.
E
I
do
like
council,
member
Ramirez,
adding
explicit
references
to
administrative
regulations
and
maybe
even
revisiting
the
the
72
hour
ordinance
on
why
we
do
it.
Some
things
I
would
love
to
to
take
into
consideration.
I,
like
the
recommendation
from
one
of
the
public
comments
saying
codifying
working
with
community-based
organizations,
especially
when
you
deal
with
the
more
community
members
who
are
in
in
more
need
that
was
that
was
a
nice
thing.
E
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
that's
something
that
we
may
want
to
look
for
at
for
our
whole
city.
E
E
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,
is
concerning
I'm
happy
that
that
you
are
committed
to
ensuring
that
we
are
in
a
trying
to
find
ways
to
help,
rather
than
immediately
going
to
punishment
for
lack
of
a
better
term
and
then
there's
the
question
of
how
does
this
intersect
with
our
environmental
goals?
I?
E
Think
about
the
one
of
the
public
commenters
mentioned
about
incentivizing
car
use,
instead
of
allowing
them
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,
I,
think
about
how
I
had
an
old
job
where
we
had
a
choice
of
getting
a
parking
pass,
a
monthly
parking
pass
or
a
Caltrain
pass,
and
the
parking
pass
gave
me
more
flexibility.
E
May
disincentivize
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
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.
E
B
H
Yes,
this
is
a
very
interesting
conversation
and
there
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?
What
are
we?
Why
do
we
need
it,
and
I
was
trying
to
figure
out.
You
know
what
are
those
things
and
I
came
up
with
this
list.
H
We
don't
want.
You
know
much
as
council
member
Ramos
said
the
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
that's
not!
Okay!
That's
you
know.
That's
us!
That's
another
one
is
abandon
or
or
stored
vehicles
that
that's
not
okay,
it's
not
okay,
to
abandon
your
vehicle
on
the
street
or
your
trailer
or
your
boat
or
or
you
know
your
refrigerator.
H
Inhabited
inhabited
Vehicles
seemed
to
me
to
be
sort
of
a
different
class
and
I
I'm.
Really,
you
know
interested
in
in
how
we
can
deal
with
that,
I'm,
very
glad,
to
hear
that
we
have
a
Rel.
We
have
a
compassionate
process
to
essentially
connect
people
with
Services
and
I.
Think
that
that's
you
know
that
that
is
basically
appropriate.
H
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
there
are
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
so
so
I
find
so
I'm
concerned
that
this
this
is
a
bit
as
as
council
member
Ramirez
said.
H
L
H
H
We
really
want
it
to
say
that
it
has
to
be
moved
a
thousand
feet
not
necessarily
to
a
new
parking
spot,
that's
unnecessary
language,
so
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.
H
It's
always
good.
To
get
to
do
a
little
editing
and
first
thing
is,
as
council
member
kamay
said,
it
needs
to
say
warning
at
the
top.
That's
what
it
is.
It's
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
the
phone
number
so
I
do
think
that
that
a
warning
is
very
valuable.
People
take
but
unattended
vehicle
check.
H
I
would
look
at
this
and
say:
what
does
that
mean?
I
I
would
really
be
confused.
I
think
it's.
This
is
very
much
legalese
and
not
Standard,
English
and
or
or
standard
Spanish,
and
so
we
want.
You
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
communicating
to
people
in
in
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.
N
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
rule.
N
N
N
G
Great
so
I
just
wanted
to
share
because
I
think
one,
my
my
perspective
and
my
understanding
about
how
this
came
forward
tonight.
So
this
my
understanding
was
that
this
was
a
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.
G
Sorry,
oh
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
those
who
don't
know
so,
I
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
we
are
we're
trying
to
provide
that
Clarity
I.
Think
in
how
this
has
been
presented.
G
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
then
in
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
the
city
can
share
and
how
this
is
an
ordinance.
We
have
that's
complaint
driven.
G
This
is
an
ordinance.
We
have
that.
First,
you
get
a
warning
which
I
do
agree
should
be
I.
Think
that
this
this
needs
a
revision
to
it
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
of
the
workflow,
so
kind
of
saying
this.
This
begins
your
72
hours.
G
We
have
have
marked
it.
This
is
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
the
phases.
So
to
me,
those
are
the
two
things
that
I'm
looking
at
tonight,
so
I
I,
think
in
terms
of
the
the
Amendments
I'm
open
to
the
edits
that
colleagues
have
made.
I
I
think
that
we
don't
want
to
continue
to
confuse.
G
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
your
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
this
there's
no
cost
to
this.
G
G
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
it
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
punitive.
If
you're
having
neighborly
I,
don't
know
issues
I,
don't
know
how
best
to
say
it.
G
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
want
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
and
the
work
plan.
Thanks.
G
I
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.
I
Thank
you
for
the
clarifications
like
well.
When
do
I
call
do
I
call
after
72
hours
do
I
call
right
away.
You
know
how
like
and
then,
as
mentioned,
the
whole
process
does
end
up
taking
seven
to
ten
days.
If
you
go
through
it
and
and
then
this
car
will
come,
you
know
another
two
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.
I
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
and
then
to
clarify
any
language
and
also
procedures
that
we
need
to
clarify.
I
So
that's
how
I'm,
looking
at
this
I
support,
what's
being
what's
being
recommended
and
the
the
Amendments
some
of
my
colleagues
have
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
kame
mentioned,
I
think
it
really
needs
to
be
in
the
context
of
a
bigger
conversation
about
what
parking
should
be
or
or
should
be,
and
I
I
do
agree
with
council
member
matichek.
I
I
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
so
and
and
I
mean
I.
Think
we've
heard
that
from
some
of
the
members
of
the
public,
so
I
think
we
have
to
be
really
realistic.
I
I
A
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
first
I'm
going
to
say
that
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
on
what
the
purpose
is,
I
think
and
I
I
agree
that
it's
it's
really
not
about
abandoned
vehicles.
A
It's
really
about
keeping
our
streets
as
public
spaces
and
our
our
streets
are
including
sidewalks
and
so
forth,
are
about
Believe,
It
or
Not
About
30
percent
of
the
land
in
the
entire
city.
So,
as
we
go
through
Transportation
changes,
which
hopefully
we
will
over
the
next
few
decades,
it's
I
think
that
ordinances
like
this
are
about
making
sure
that
the
public
can
do
what
they
want
with
the
with
the
streets,
whether
it's
like
closing
down,
Caster
Street,
having
slow
or
share
third
streets
and
that
our
streets
don't
become
privatized,
parking
or
storage
spaces.
A
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
to
make
a
few
changes
so
that
it
would
be
less
confusing.
A
I
agree
with
Council
and
and
I
think
we're
also
on
the
cusp
of
as
several
council
members
have
mentioned,
we're
on
the
cusp
of
of
really
seeing
some
some
big
changes
with
how
we
handle
parking
and
whether
you
like
I
noted
as
council
member
Abby
Koga,
did
the
reduced
parking
with
the
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.
A
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
in
affordable
housing
in
other
places.
The
a
lot
of
this
legislation
is
coming
from
Sacramento.
So
it's
something
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
whether
you
love
it
or
hate
it,
and
so
I
I
agree
with
what
people
have
I
agree
with
members
of
the
public
and
what
people
have
said.
A
A
F
I'll
do
my
best
thank
you,
mayor
first
commentine,
on
a
couple
of
other
things
that
my
colleagues
have
said.
I
when
I
was
living
on
Gabriel
Avenue.
With
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
it
would
end
up
being
the
bad
guy
and.
F
F
You
know
part
of
the
thing
we
should
be
exploring
with
with
longer
term
discussions
about
parking
regulations
and
then
I
think
council,
member
Ramo
said,
share
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!
F
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
the
record
related
to
the
the
vehicle,
has
not
moved
or
relocated
to
a
different
parking
spot.
Can
you
help
me.
L
With
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
for
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
one
thousand
feet.
So
it
will
read
with
the
strike
it
will
read,
must
be
moved
at
least
one
thousand
feet.
F
You
know
those
are
the
kinds
of
things
I
think
would
be
helpful
to
include,
and
then
council
member
camay'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,
you
heard
the
recommendations
loud
and
clear,
and,
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.
T
F
L
H
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
the
car
had
been
moved.
In
other
words
to
I,
guess
call
the
police.
You
know
when
the
police
comes
by
to
actually
show
they'd
moved.
It
is
that
part
of
the
process
right
now
or
how
would
that
work.
S
Well,
the
observation
of
the
vehicle
and
the
chalk
marks
is
the
first
indication
that
I
refer
to
as
an
obvious
indication
where
the
vehicle's
been
moved,
but
I
don't
think
any
of
the
surreptitious
I'd
rather
not
describe.
You
know
what
we
use
when
people
are
trying
to
deceive
the
system
and
not
move
their
cars.
What
what
methods
we
used
in
order
to
help
determine
whether
or
not
the
vehicle
is
in
fact
moving.
Some
of
that
can
include
photographic
evidence.
S
H
H
F
L
If
you
want
to
add
to
the
definition
of
vehicles,
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
votes
on
trailers,
unhitched
vehicles
and
if
there's
anything
else
that
concerns
you
I
can
easily
do
that.
So
we
can.
We
can
take
what
the
California
vehicle
code
says
and
then
we
can
put
some
specific
words
in
there.
L
F
You
not
not
to
belabor
the
point
too
much.
This
is
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
net
node.
You
don't
support
that.
F
F
So
that,
if,
if
it
requires
a
substantive
amendments
to
other
ordinances,
I
don't
want
to
complicate
matters,
but
my
intent
is
that,
though,
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.
L
Yes,
my
only
concern
is
that
the
section
that
talks
about
inoperable
vehicles
or
abandoned
I'm
not
sure
how
Vehicles
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
closely
clear
about
how
we
Define
vehicle.
H
Yeah
as
part
of
this
as
part
of
this
discussion,
we
talked
about
the
need
to
look
at
to
look
at
this
holistically.
What
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
so
I
I.
A
H
Can
we
make
a
request
tonight
to
to
to
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
we
it
seems
like
over
the
year.
We
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.
AE
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
first
chance
to
have
a
pretty
in-depth
discussion
about
your
current
prior
seven
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.
AE
So
next
meeting
is
your
first
chance
to
really
take
a
bite
at
that
apple
and
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
as
part
of
this
item,
so
I
think
that
could
be
a
forum
for
you
to
bring
that
up
should
should
Council
wish
and
you
will
have
the
opportunity
to
discuss
it
in
a
few
more
meetings
beyond
the
next
council
meeting.
A
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
two
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
that
we
want
to
take
care
of.
That's
my
opinion,
council
member
Ramirez.
Thank.
F
You
mayor
I,
agree
with
your
last
statement
and
I
I,
think
and
I
support
the
the
request
for
a
broader
consider
consideration
of
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'd
like
your
list,
vice
mayor
Showalter?
How
do
we
deal
with
things
like
businesses
that
are
using
public
right-of-way
as
storage?
That's
not
easily
addressed
by
the
72-hour
parking
restriction,
it
might
Merit
some
additional
discussion.
F
You
know
my
crusade
against
boats
on
in
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.
T
A
H
Yes,
it's
been
a
busy
busy
week.
Last
Wednesday
I
went
to
the
Silicon
Valley
clean
energy
meeting,
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
to
sort
of
foster
collaboration
on
energy
issues
and
other
things.
Anyway.
H
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
our
goal
and
looks
like
we'll
be
able
to
continue
with
that,
but
it
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.
H
You
know
big
solar
farms,
the
the
exploration
of
offshore
wind.
You
know
it
was.
It
was
very
interesting
and
so
I
wanted
to
share
that.
That's
what
we've
done
and
I
will
be
forwarding
everybody.
The
presentation,
it's
quite
lengthy,
but
I-
think
you'll
you'll
enjoy
seeing
all
those
infographics
that
they
they're
quite
skilled.
H
At
putting
together
then
Thursday
I
attended
the
cities,
Association
selection
committee
and
I'm
happy
to
say
that
they
recommended
that
I
be
a
point
that
I'd
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
Abacoa
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.
H
It's
kind
of
like
our
goal,
setting
session
only
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.
H
But
this
year
we
have
an
opportunity
to
go
for
148
thousand
dollars
on
from
this
program,
and
so
it
was
good
to
hear
about
how
we
can
you
know
how
how
we,
what
that
process
is,
and
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
so.
I
Thank
you,
mayor
and
I'd
like
to
thank
Council
membership
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
it
was
very
moving.
We
had
quite
a
large
contingency
from
here
about
15
I,
put
more
than
15
firefighters
and
the
chief
was
up
there
as
well,
and
thank
you
for
for
your
staff
here
for
setting
up
the
the
streaming
into
the
council
chambers
and
for.
T
I
I
You
know
our
need
is
much
greater,
but
part
of
this
data,
collection
and
Google
is
actually
I
believe
helping
out
with
some
of
this
collection,
but
it
was
also
to
gauge
what
our
our
funding
needs
are
in
preparation
for
a
potential
Regional
Housing
measure,
and
so
we
got
a
lot
of
information
about
what
the
need
will
be
and
then
the
the
measure
is
right
now
projected
to
be
about
10
to
20
billion
dollars
in
in
bond
funding.
So
please
check
out
it's
all
on
our
MTC
website
mtc.ca.gov
and
there's
a
number
of
presentations.
I
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.
I
So
they
presented
a
an
Adu
program
that
they're
working
on
so
they're
creating
a
website
that
makes
it
easier
for
folks
to
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.
I
I
Trying
to
get
over
this
cold
see
I
attended
the
nofa
committee
meeting
the
other
day
where
we
approved
the
the
two
projects
we
approved
today
were
covered
and
then
attended
the
state
of
the
county
address
by
our
new
County
Board
of
Supervisors
president
Susan
Ellenberg,
as
well
as
the
sheriff's.
Our
new
sheriff
Bob
Johnson
swearing
in
excuse
me
in
our
re-elected
dhf
Frozen
swing,
and
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
cities
Association.
I
N
Thanks
I
participated
in
a
meeting
on
Hangar
3
on
behalf
of
the
city.
This
is
at
Moffett,
Field,
I,
don't
know
if
folks
know
this,
but
hanger
3
is
scheduled
to
be
demolished.
It
is
not
structurally
sound
and
it
really
can't
be
fixed
So.
The
plan
is
to
demolish
it,
but
as
part
of
that
they
are
going
to
create
a
website
that
has
lots
of
information
on
Hangar
3.
N
In
the
context
of
you
know,
the
greater
Moffett,
Field
and
I
just
want
to
clarify
this
is
hanger
three,
not
Hangar
One
hanger
one
is
the
one
that
is
being
reskinned
the
larger
of
the
three
hangers
out
there,
but
they
want
to
highlight
the
derigibles
that
in
the
role
they
blade
and
they're
going
to
have.
People
who
worked
at
Hangar
3
share
memories
and
capture
those
and
put
them
on
the
website.
N
So
when
we
receive
emails
that
are
sent
to
city.council
at
mountainview.gov,
key
members
of
staff
are
included
in
the
distribution
list
and
they
can
respond
on
our
behalf
and
include
us
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
one
or
all,
seven
of
us
or
anything
in
between
and
they
use
our
personal
City
emails.
N
Others
besides
us,
don't
see
those
and
you
know
I
think
sometimes
those
emails
are.
They
raise
interesting
topics
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.
N
A
I
T
T
N
N
N
In
that
instance,
you
wouldn't
I
would
say
only
if
I
mean
I
can
see
the
seven
emails
addresses
versus
oh
yeah.
If,
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?
A
So
my
additional
commenter
question
is:
how
much
value
does
this
add
versus
how
much
bureaucracy
do
you
know
how
much
staff
time
does
it
add
if
it
were
simple
and
I
I
also
see
that
City
attorney
Logan
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.
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
add
there
is.
A
L
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.
So,
if
you
see
all
seven,
if
you
see
a
majority
of
you,
it's
not
even
seven.
L
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.council
ones
so
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.
AE
N
A
E
A
G
G
And
then
we
have
appointed
an
interim
executive
director
for
track
for
the
Community
Health
Awareness
Council.
Her
name
is
Ann
eresman.
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
check
just
wanted
to
share
that.