Joining us for our closed session.

City Attorney Logue will make a closed session announcement and then we will welcome public comment on the items listed for closed session.

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council members.

This is City Attorney Jennifer Logue.

There are two items on this evening's closed session agenda.

Item 2.1 is a conference of real property negotiators, pursuant to government code section 54956.8 regarding city lots four and eight.

Assessor parcel numbers 158-20-069 and 158-20-004.

The agency negotiators are Arne Andrews, Assistant City Manager, Don Cameron, Assistant City Manager, Christian Murdoch, Community Development Director, Amanda Rotella, Economic Vitality Manager, and Angelo LaMonica, real property program administrator.

The negotiating party is the Robert Green Company, and under negotiation or price and terms for payment of lease of real property.

Item 2.2 is a conference with real property negotiators pursuant to government code section 549 56.8.

The address of the property under negotiation is 928 Mariner Drive, Mountain View, California.

Agency negotiators are Arne Andrews, Assistant City Manager, Christian Murdoch, Community Development Director, and Angela La Monica, Real Property Administrator.

The negotiating party is the Department of the Army.

And under negotiation, our price and terms of purchase.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide public comment on the closed session items listed on tonight's agenda?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a speaker card to the assistant city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have 1.5 minutes.

Seeing none, I we will now take first virtual speakers, also seeing none.

Um the council will now recess to the plaza conference room for closed session and return to council chambers at the close to continue regular session.

Good evening, everyone, welcome to the joint meeting of the Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park commu uh community of February 24, 2026.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

All right.

The assistant city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

Councilmember Hicks.

Here.

Councilmember Kamei.

Here.

Councilmember McAllister.

Here.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Here.

Councilmember Show Walter.

Vice Mayor Clark.

Here.

Mayor Ramos.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum with all members present.

Thank you.

City Attorney Log, do you have a closed session report?

Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members, City Attorney Jennifer Logue.

Um, no final reportable action was taken in closed session this evening.

Thank you, City Attorney Logue.

Before we go on to presentations, I have my annual my not annual, my meetingly tradition of encouraging people to get involved with our city with our call to action, call to service, call to community.

And this time I'm encouraging people to join our community emergency response team or CERT.

We have free trainings.

We'll begin April 9, 2026 and will finish Saturday, April 25th, 2026.

You could register for CERT training.

Um this training covers basic skills that are important to know in a disaster and when emergency services may not be available.

CERT members receive training in earthquake awareness, disaster fire suppression techniques, digital disaster medical operations, and light search and rescue, as well as team organization and management.

Trained emergency personnel, including firefighters and emergency medical personnel teach all classes.

So you can sign up on our website.

Thank you so much.

And now we will go on to item three, presentations.

Please note these are presentations only.

The city council will not take any action.

Public comment will occur after the presentation items.

If you would like to speak on these items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant clerk city clerk now.

So we will go to our item 3.1, our American Heart Month Proclamation.

We are happy to be joined this evening by Dr.

Carol Somersill with El Camino Health and Dr.

Neil Scott, Mountain View resident, cardiologist, and innovator at the Fogarty Institute of Innovation to accept this proclamation.

Dr.

Somersil and Dr.

Scott, would you and would you please join me at the lectern?

Okay.

The proclamation reads, whereas American Heart Month, also known as Heart Health Month, is observed every February.

And whereas heart disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States with significant impacts on diverse communities and whereas American Heart Month is a time to raise awareness about risk of cardiovascular disease and the importance of healthy behaviors, such as eating a balanced diet and staying physically active and managing blood pressure.

And whereas the first Friday of American Heart Month is also National Wear Red Day as part of the American Heart Month's Go Red for Women Initiative.

Go Red Day is an ideal time to remind everyone to focus on their hearts and encourage them to get their families, friends, and communities involved.

And whereas by taking action, including screenings, lifestyle changes, and supporting research, we can reduce the burden of heart disease in our society.

Now, therefore, I, Emily Ann Ramos, Mayor of the City of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the City Council, do hereby proclaim the month of February as American Heart Month in Mountain View and urge all residents to join in this effort to make our community a healthier place.

Dr.

Somersill, Dr.

Scott, would you like to say a few words?

Sure.

I just like to thank uh the City of Mountain View for this.

Uh I'm accepting this as Carol is on behalf of El Camino Hospital.

Uh just like to say the progress that we've made over the past decades.

For instance, when I started training in the 70s, um, if you had a heart attack, a myocardial infarction, your chances of leaving the hospital alive were about 60%.

In the 70s, 80s with um new drugs and new techniques that went up to about 80%.

Uh now, if you have a heart attack today, you will you have a greater than 90% chance of leaving the hospital alive.

Here in Mountain View at El Camino Hospital, I gave you national averages.

El Camino has a much higher, significantly higher percentage of patients leaving the hospital alive.

And that's mainly because of all of the research that has been done, and El Camino Hospital actually has been a participant in a lot of those research studies, just like you would expect from a major academic center.

So we're lucky to have a community hospital that has the personnel, the physicians, the staff that operate on the same level as a major uh academic institution.

So, thank you very much for this commendation.

Okay, so we'll now take a quick picture with my colleagues up here.

Oh, with the proclamation.

Oh, of course.

Sorry.

See everyone.

Thank you, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, now we'll on item 3.2, certificates in recognition to STEM Science Technology Engineering and Math winners from the Santa Clara County 2025 Synopsis Championship Science Fair.

I am happy to acknowledge and congratulate the student recipients of the STEM Award recognition at the Santa Clara County 2025 Synopsis Championship Science Fair.

I would like to welcome Anastasia.

I'm so sorry if I'm getting this name wrong, who's in attendance to accept her certificate.

We're just double checking.

Were there any other uh certificate?

Okay, we are good.

So here is your certificate.

Thank you.

Would you like to say a few words?

Or tell us what your project was.

Um sure.

So my project is about foot and mouth disease virus that affects cloven-hoofed animals, and it's mainly a big problem in Africa, and it has large economic impacts, especially on farmers and just the reproduction.

So we are we focused on modifying an inhibitor, and this inhibitor will block the RNA, the paneline polymerase that is prone to replication, and this is what uh this is why it's a big problem in like farm animals and stuff.

So we did like synthesis and molecular dogging and stuff.

So yeah.

Thank you so much.

Let's take a quick picture with my.

We're gonna take a quick picture with my colleagues and uh oh, yes.

Oh, somebody from the science fair.

Oh, wonderful.

Uh former uh vice mayor Boris Williams.

But not amount of you, San Jose.

But we don't hold out against him.

Uh I'm Kathy Jarvis, and I'm a volunteer.

Forrest Williams is the uh chairman of the committee for public relations, and the idea of the city council recognition for these events was all his when he was on the San Jose City Council a few years back.

Thank you.

I take this opportunity to thank the mayor.

I want to thank the council members, and I want to thank the staff for all the work they've done to present to you our science fair winner for 2025.

I know all of you have views of what the world is like, but there's nothing new under the sun.

Is discovery.

And we are starting out with our students to encourage them to find those secrets that are hidden to make our lives better.

Now, there's a little thing that I want to bear, want you to take with you tonight.

There is nothing that you touch that you can touch that has not had an engineering touch to it.

So think about that.

And these students are now beyond what we've known over the years, and they were into new environments, new challenges, new opportunities, and we want to just encourage them, and I'm so happy that you guys have felt the same way and brought them here to recognize them.

Thank you very much.

You're joining us for our call.

Thank you.

Congratulations uh to all of you.

Would any member of the council like to say a few words?

Seeing none.

We will now take public comment for the presentation items.

This is the presentation items.

I know some of you are here for another item.

That is not this item.

So this is for the presentation items.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the presentation items listed in the agenda?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the assistant clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have one point five minutes.

I am seeing no in-person.

I see one raised hand in virtually.

All right, Eva.

Yeah, this is for three one.

Um this is crazy.

I think Dr.

Stock or Dr.

Scott was my cardiologist back in the day, like a few years ago.

So Dr.

Scott, shout out to you.

Um eating less four-legged animals, eating more plants, and working out more.

So kudos to you.

Happy American Heart Proclamation month.

Thank you, Eva.

Next we have uh Quinton.

You're unmuted now, Clinton.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, is this the time to speak on the uh sorry?

This is the first city council meeting I've attended.

I'd like to comment on the flock cameras.

Would that be now or not?

Uh it's in a future time, so feel free to lower your hand and we will let you know when it's time.

There's a couple of items before then.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, seeing no other comments, uh we will now move on to item number four, consent calendar.

These items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to pull an item for individual consideration.

If an item is pulled from the consent calendar, it will be considered separately following approval of the balance of the consent calendar.

If you would like to speak on these items or the next item, oral communications on non-agenda items in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant clerk now.

Would any member of the council like to pull an item?

Oh, there looks like a bunch.

Um councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'd like to pull item 4.2.

Alright, 4.2.

Um, Councilmember Schoalter.

I just wanted to make a few comments.

So is it okay if I just go ahead with those?

Or uh I want to see who else wants to pull.

Before you do that, Councilmember Hicks, was there an item you wanted to pull?

Yes, I'd like to pull 4.3.

All right.

So 4.3.

All right.

Um councilmember Schoelwalter, was there anything you want to talk about that wasn't 4.2 or 4.3?

All right.

Yes.

I just wanted to mention 4.4, the Miramonty Pump Station item, and um talk about how it's really important for us to keep up our infrastructure.

And this is a job that's important for our water supply infrastructure.

And um, people don't think about those things very much unless they're not working.

But we have to do a lot of work here to make sure that they do work properly.

So I just want to um thank the staff for bringing this forward and um wish them the best of luck with the project.

Great, thank you, Councilmember Show Walter.

Um, we will now go to public comment uh for the consent calendar items, not for item 6.1.

Friendly reminder.

Um, so would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on the consent calendar items?

If so, please click the raise hand in raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have 1.5 minutes.

All right, we'll take our first uh speaker, Jim Zarowski.

So this is good.

This is gonna sound a lot like a car commercial.

Real quick, starting now.

Everybody knows that Monoloma Park became Monoloma Elementary Field.

That we talked to the community about installation of fences, gates, and the school and the use of the school field became actively discouraged by the school district, and it caused a lot of harm in the community.

Next because of this, the monoloma Thompson area went down to 0.33 in dedicated park space.

That's about one-tenth of the Quimby ratio.

Next slide.

City, with the help of Ellen and Alison and staff purchased the property on 3538 Thompson back in 1122.

Next, it was the development has been postponed.

It's now going forward now, which we're happy about and we're thankful for.

We're thankful for this, but we're a little concerned, and I'm not gonna use any more slides, because we're being told that we're going to have a Texas developer write a proposal about how to develop this.

We went through this once with the parks and rec program.

Why are we going to use a Texas consulting company?

And go to the last slide, please.

Last slide.

Um we know as a community that's the things that we need to do in the community that we need.

We don't want to waste city resources on something that doesn't meet our needs, and we don't want to foreclose our options.

So I want to encourage that the city listed to the community first before the consultant comes back with a plan that says do we want red or yellow slides.

Thank you, Mrs.

Arrowski.

All right.

We will go to our virtual public comment.

Uh Robert Cox.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, thank you.

I just want to make a comment on item 4.2.

Thank the council for the inclusion of the pro housing city flexibility.

And uh SB 79, it should be SB 79, I think, not SB 70.

Alternative plan timelines, and um, uh good work.

Let's hope that this has some provision when it gets up to our lobbyist and state legislature.

Thank you for give me the time to speak on this.

Thank you, Mr.

Cox.

Um, we will now take it back to council for action.

Um we will start with the balance of the consent calendar, which is items 4.1 and 4.4.

We have a motion by council member Ramirez and a second by Councilmember Kamei.

Councilmember Ramirez, you have a comment?

No, I move to approve the uh balance of the consent consent calendar.

All right, we are ready for a vote.

And it's unanimous.

Yay.

Um, all right.

We will now go on to item 4.2, which was pulled by council member Ramirez.

Go ahead.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

I know we're doing public comment separately, I think, for this item, or do we do we did we take public comment for everything already?

For everything?

Okay.

Then I'm gonna go ahead and uh move to approve uh the staff recommendation uh with with uh one modification.

First, um grateful to staff for making the revisions that were uh directed by the council uh in the uh previous meeting.

Um a lot of really good additions and and I appreciate um the suggestions made by my colleagues.

I did want to clarify that my intent in making the modification to the e-bike item was uh to uh eliminate the uh language that suggests uh uh discouraging the use.

So I I wanted to clarify uh that K-21 and K-22 uh were they they're they're broad, they provide I think the flexibility that staff needs to uh make uh recommendations to our uh legislative delegation, but they were intended to replace K-20.

Uh so I'd like to move to approve the staff recommendation, excluding K-20, which was the original language related to e-bikes, um, and then separately make a comment that um I have heard that there is um at least uh a bill under consideration that would again strengthen um the state density bonus law, uh, allowing additional concessions, and I really do hope that uh the city staff working with our uh legislative delegation can uh uh prioritize either amendments to that bill or uh some alternative legislation um that would address some of the concerns that we had talked about, basically ensuring that state density bonus law concessions don't allow uh developers to uh waive or bypass or uh otherwise uh reduce uh local uh inclusion area requirements and specifically the number of affordable units and the depth of affordability.

Uh so I know that's not direction in the motion, but it's based on what I've heard about some some of the the new bills.

I hope that's something that we can continue to prioritize.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Ramirez.

Is anyone else in the docket?

All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Ramirez, seconded by Council Member Show Walter.

I believe we are ready for a vote.

And the motion passes unanimously.

Only all boats could be like this.

Um now we will go on to item 4.3.

Councilmember Hicks.

So this one is uh Thompson Mini Park, uh the professional services agreement for the planning of that park.

And I pulled it because I know there is um there is concern in the community and that people want um want to make sure that the park is planned according to the the um desires of the people living in the neighborhood.

So I pulled it so that I could uh query our staff about uh to uh give a little more information to members of the public about um about how that planning process would take place and how the community can have input.

Good evening, everybody.

Jennifer Ng, Public Works Director.

So the item before you tonight for council approval is the council action to enter into a consultant agreement with Westwood Professional Services.

Um as noted in public comment, this firm is headquartered in a different state.

However, they do have a local presence with several nearby cities, most notably Pleasanton, is where the staff that will be performing the consultant services for this project will be based out of.

We start a project off by by obtaining consultant services.

So this is the first step in moving forward with the park development.

And then one of the first orders of work that the consultant will be tasked with doing is really figuring out our um and getting off the ground our community outreach.

Um in this case, we're targeting our first community meeting with the community to happen this spring before school gets out of session so that um people don't start leaving to go on vacation and they are able to provide meaningful input.

Typically, outreach is comprised of about three public outreach meetings.

The first one will be really to sit and listen with the community, understand what the desires and needs are, provide um any constraints that the city staff has, such as budget, um, but really listen and take that information in thoughtfully so that it can be incorporated into a future concept design.

Um the consultant services contract before you is full scope for the full project.

So it's from beginning to end, starting all the way from public outreach, which is our first step, all the way to construction support services.

So through the end, uh this is for the Thomson Mini Park as the land that we currently have acquired.

I do want to note that we do um keep an eye out for potential to purchase additional land to expand this particular park area, noting that um, you know, this park is a little bit uh this park land area is a little bit uh deficient in park space.

So as we design the park, we will be giving uh direction to the consultant to make it in such a the design in such a way that is easily expandable if we are able to acquire additional property.

So high level um time frames.

We are going to be starting outreach this spring, um, in early 2027.

We will have a concept ready for the council uh to weigh in and hopefully approve.

And then by the end of 2027, we are looking to be completing final design and then rolling into construction um in early 2028.

So that's sort of the overview of the project.

Come on up and director, CSD director John Marchant would like to add a couple words.

Good evening, Council.

John Marchant community services director.

I'd like to reiterate uh part of what Director Ng was was speaking about, and our number one goal is to listen to the neighborhood, the community, the wants, the needs that we can provide in this area.

And you may also know that we're already working on some of the playground improvements to uh the monoloma actual playground that's part of the campus itself, but also available to the public um during the day while school is in session, it is available.

So we're doing a number of improvements in that area.

Um, and just want to once again reiterate that the process that's being talked about tonight, um, to develop this park is our typical park development process in which we come in and uh is first listening and then bringing options forward to the community to give their um their feedback and we can take that and start really designing the park.

So at this point, there has been no design started.

We're really starting with a clean slate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I guess in summary, I'll say I know the community some members of the community were concerned that it was a Texas-based consultant and that maybe we would do some abbreviated form of community outreach.

But I I hope that we've clarified that it's uh a firm with a local basis as well, and that we'll be doing full community outreach.

And with that summary, if there are no more comments, I'll make a motion to approve.

All right, we have a motion by council member Hicks, seconded by Councilmember Schoalter.

With no other comments, we're ready to vote.

Motion passes unanimously.

Now we will go to item five, oral communications.

This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda.

Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic within the city council subject matter jurisdiction up to three minutes during the section.

State law prohibits council from acting on non-agenda items.

If you would like to speak on this item or the next item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have 1.5 minutes.

Um I probably will add in now.

I know I wouldn't I hate to um dampen anyone's joy, but I'm gonna ask everyone please um for when the public uh when people speak in public comment, we try not to do any clapping or booing or any of that right now.

Hold it in, hold it in, you can clap after everything is done or boo after everything is done outside.

Um so we will begin with our oral communications.

Um we have Elena Tyson.

So sorry, everybody else.

Um I have about a minute and a half.

I have some pictures, I think.

Uh, thank you very much for allowing me to speak.

Um, I'm here to respectfully request that the 2022 smoking prohibition be admined uh explicitly to include duplexes.

Otherwise, making it revisable so that it can be enforced in a situation like mine.

So you can see in my backyard, I have a neighboring duplex across the way, and the distance between their backyard and mine is that common shared fence.

They have probably about five feet, they sit in their backyard and they smoke.

I did call the Mountain View Fire Department Environmental Protection Division, and the gentleman that I spoke with there said that he would go out to the complex.

The problem was it is not listed as an apartment, and it does not fall under the wording of the 2022 smoking prohibition, the way it is written for the city of Mountain View.

And so there's really nothing he can do to enforce it.

Every time they sit out there smoke, it blows into my backyard along with my neighboring units.

I have to close my door.

I can't sit in my backyard without inhaling the secondhand smoke.

And so my request to the city council is to please either adjust the wording to include duplexes, which are listed under the state of California as a multi-dwelling, multi-unit dwelling, or to adjust the prohibition's wording to include a certain amount of distance around shared fences.

Um next, please with a slide.

I have a couple more angles slides so you can see the narrow space.

Next.

That's going the other direction, and then next down on the ground where I'm sitting in my backyard, and it just blows right in.

So I'm respectfully asking you to please modify the wording in the 2022 prohibition against smoking so that I can actually enjoy my backyard.

Thank you.

All right, Dylan Rich.

And then after Dylan Rich, we have Tim McKenzie.

Good evening, City Council.

Um, I'm Dylan Rich.

I'm uh director at Palo Alto Prep School in Mountain View.

Um we're small nonprofit uh that works with students on the spectrum, students with anxiety, students with ADHD.

Um I've come several times before, but I want to continue um to make you guys aware of the sight lines.

Right now, students have to, when they come to school and leave school, uh they have to walk quite a good distance into the street before um they can see oncoming traffic.

It has caused uh many near misses uh with students in traffic.

Um please uh please try to take some kind of action.

I I don't want there to be an accident uh with our students.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Tim McKenzie.

Greetings, council.

Uh Tim McKenzie.

I use he him pronouns.

I have been a resident of the Montaloma neighborhood for over a decade at this point.

Um I'm not free on Tuesdays most days, but I'm here for another item later on.

So I wanted to use the opportunity to bring a comment forward.

Um I know that we're undergoing a city charter review, and my understanding of the plan is that there's a uh kind of a cleanup inoffensive, just sort of clean up language, make it uh smoother streamlined uh for the next cycle, and then after that, there will be a more substantive, more substantial charter review that may perhaps be more controversial, may or may not pass.

Um, I know that staff time is a premium.

I know that staff really works hard and does thorough reporting on everything uh and researching on everything.

So I ask that even while we're doing that sort of cleanup uh less large charter review that we consider the other items and start doing the research on them now, and specifically I'd like to ask that the city adopt ranked choice voting as the method that we use for our elections.

Uh we get proportional representation.

It's a way of extending and expanding democracy in a time when we are seeing it under attack.

Um, so I I don't expect that to be coming up on the upcoming charter review.

That's more minor, but I know that the research may be substantive, and I would like to ask that that be included.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next we have Karen Burke.

This is for items not on the agenda.

Yes, I came for the other one, but this is a new one.

So um thank you, Council.

I actually wanted to bring this up.

There was a uh survey that was sent out about how to improve Rangstorf Avenue for like safety considerations, and I filled it out, and it wasn't specifically addressed in one of the questions, but I put it in the other category, and I would really like it to be considered.

I have to cross with my two young children to Montaloma Elementary, right at the uh flashing yellow light signal that is just past middle field that is along Rock Street, okay?

And the speed limit is 35 miles an hour, and no one goes 35 miles an hour.

There is a uh contracted crossing guard who is there to help people cross safely, and police have advised him to make sure that we cross on the same side he's on, etc.

etc.

People constantly ignore him.

People constantly drive right past him, almost hit us, almost hit him, go around us, because they don't want to wait.

And I would like staff and council to consider with those improvements to Rainsorf Avenue that that section be lowered to 25 miles an hour and that light be considered to go to a red light, all must stop.

Because right now it's only worded as cars may not stop, cross with caution.

Well, the caution is not helping because cars are literally almost hitting us.

We've had five or more near misses.

And he tries to keep track of the license plates, but it's not working.

So that's my recommendation.

It's 25 miles an hour with all red lights stop.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Perfect timing.

Um, now we will take virtual speakers.

I see none.

Um, and therefore we are now on to item six, new business.

Uh 6.1 automated license plate reader contract.

Chinese and Spanish translation services are available for this item.

We will now hear from our Chinese interpreter.

Uh, I shangha, the Guanjong woman taking a woman changed you need a co easy out zoom co e the Gwenjonging, the Yu Yen.

Woman is a shen chang, you need one figure and take on Ko Ifu Kohida Fay and Ju Chini Sanji Hua Fayan Show Chanting Shaoin Sain in the Sangha.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now hear from our Spanish interpreter.

But I think you can necessarily mediate Zoom.

Yes, consecutivamente poder interpretar todas las socias.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, police chief Michael Canfield and Lieutenant Evan Kroll will present the item.

If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

All right, go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

I'm Mike Canfield, not views police chief.

With me is Captain Evan Crowell, and this is item 6.1, our automated license plate reader presentation.

This evening, I'll be presenting on an overview of our previous ALPR program, staff's recommendation, the previous City Council direction, as well as our systems design and implementation, the Mountain View Police Department's use of our ALPR system, as well as our auditing and access, access revelations of the system, our next steps, and our lessons learned.

For background, the proposed system that we built was designed very purposefully to have access limitations surrounding privacy, but also balance for, oh thank you, Evan.

I appreciate that.

It kept those logs for only 30 days and had no facial recognition capabilities.

There was strict external access controls built into this proposed system that required authorized uh signature approval for external access.

There was auditing abilities of this system, as well as a public transparency dash uh dashboard that everyone in the public could see that would list all of our agencies that we had granted access to.

Additionally, we built a policy based on the system's configurations and the manner in which the system was purported to function.

That meant no out of state sharing of information, no sharing of information with federal law enforcement, absolutely no use of the data for immigration enforcement, that training was required in our policy before any use could be used, and all use of the system had to be for law enforcement purposes, and there was absolutely no data sales allowed.

Staff presented our proposed uh plan, that proposed plan that I just described.

Like at that meeting, like at the public safety advisory board meeting before, and that meeting, FLOX, FLOX Safety staff was present.

The staff that we had built worked with and built that system.

At that meeting, city council authorized the city manager to enter into a one-year agreement with FLOC Safety and authorized the city manager to make modifications to the Flock Safety program, including the number of cameras and the locations of the cameras.

They uh city council authorized the police chief and city manager to adopt our policy 460 on ALPR systems, and directed staff to return to city council a year after the pilot for approval for renewal.

Additionally, uh City Council directed staff to present our auditing information in our then twice-yearly reporting to PSAB and to send that to City Council.

Before our first camera was installed, Flox team worked very closely with our staff on the onboarding process, very specifically in how they would uh or how we would authorize access for outside allied agencies within the state of California.

So agencies that uh I would approve or my designee would approve to have access, showing us uh how the portal would notify us, the manner in which they would sign a letter uh accepting the use of our policy, uh and then we would receive an email and then we would manually approve that approval, which meant that everyone, uh, to the best of our understanding that would be utilizing this system would have to go through that process, uh, and that we had close controls over who had access to our data.

And Captain Crowell will talk a little bit about how we used our data.

Thank you, Chief.

Good evening, Council.

After council approval, there were significant delays in the installation process, uh, which were due to a number of factors, uh, but those delays ultimately pushed back our project timeline.

Uh in 2025, our cameras had hundreds of uh important alerts, which include 794 alerts for custom hot lists, which are created for vehicles involved in investigations, 233 alerts for stolen vehicles entering into Mountain View, and 51 felony vehicles, meaning vehicles that were known to be associated to a felony crime and then entered in a statewide database.

Our use of flock safety generated real actionable leads in at least 87 commercial burglaries, 65 vehicle break-ins, 42 home break-ins, and resulted in at least 41 suspects being identified and/or arrested.

In addition, our staff conducted almost 25,000 searches with the Flock system between August of 2024 and December of 2025.

This information is highlighted by several significant cases that were outlined in our staff report, including the arrest of a domestic violence and carjacking suspect, rescuing a kidnapping victim, locating a missing family, including an at-risk missing adult, along with identifying and resting arresting the primary suspects of a male theft ring involving over 500 victims in Mountain View and several other surrounding counties.

Throughout the pilot program, administrators audited our FLOC system, our Flock system use, believing that the system was functioning as we had collaboratively designed.

In addition, random selections of external data were reviewed along with regular audits of our Mountain View PD internal use.

The data sets were extremely large, but we did not notice any use outside of policy during these audits.

Our internal use consistently showed throughout the entire process that professionalism and adherence to our policy.

Initially, staff and I monitored news stories about access to flock data systems outside of agencies' policies.

However, as we were monitoring those stories, we didn't see anything that alerted us to any outside of policy use or concerning access.

However, as our program progressed and as we began to audit more, we looked deeper and deeper back, and we did determine, unfortunately, that there was access from outside of the state of California early in the program in August of 24 through November of 2024.

This was a huge surprise and a shock to us.

This was contrary to our understanding, contrary to what we had been told and the communications that we had with Flock Safety, and we were shocked to learn of this data access.

We had been we received assurances about the manner in which the system was set up and the manner in which it functioned, and this fell short of that.

It's our understanding that this access was enabled or allowed through a system or a tool called nationwide lookup.

And nationwide lookup, as we have learned from speaking with numerous other law enforcement agencies, as well as the city manager speaking with her peers, that nationwide lookup was a large scale problem, both in California and likely larger abroad, that allowed folks to access data outside of their awareness and outside of their policies.

When we pressed Flock about how it could have happened, they told us that they no longer had records for how the system was turned on or how it was turned off.

However, it was turned off for us in November of 2024.

Flock safety turned it off for the whole state of California to the uh in early 2025.

However, they never notified us that this had happened.

They never notified us that it had been on, nor that they had turned it off, which was very concerning.

For context, just so you're aware, and I know it's in the staff report, but at that time we only had one camera in place.

It was at uh San Antonio and Charleston, and that was from November, sorry, August of 2024 to November of 2024.

As we looked back and continued to research, we located another system's function called statewide lookup, which worked very similar to nationwide lookup, but within the state of California.

That system also created access outside of our policies and outside of our understandings.

Essentially, other state or other cities or municipalities within the state of California could look at our data if they also had that function enabled.

This was counter to the assurances that we had been provided by Flock Safety and counter to how we had built the program.

In conversations with other law enforcement leaders and other city managers in the region, it is very clear that this is not a mountain view problem, that this is a flock safety problem and affected many other folks as well.

Based on the system not working how we had designed, not working with the assurances that we had been given, I made the decision to deactivate the cameras immediately to allow staff time to come to City Council and to allow you to make the policy decision about what to do with these cameras.

Additionally, we met with local media and shared information with our community groups, letting everybody know what we had discovered.

I want to be very clear.

Mountain View Police Department has nothing to hide.

When we discovered this information, it was very clear that we were going to be transparent and share what we had learned, both with the media, our community, and with our law enforcement partners.

We also reached out to Flock Safety and their leadership team to express both my anger and frustration, but also to inform them of the things that we had discovered to help better improve this system so it did not continue.

There are a lot of lessons learned in this pilot program.

Certainly that separating the staff that do the auditing from the staff that do the onboarding and the program implementation is important.

As is a regular check-in with the program managers from the vendor in case a vendor chooses kind of mid-program to change settings without notification.

Additionally, data is significantly easier to audit when it is smaller, and that a program like this should really scale with the auditability of the data.

And lastly, that audits should be purposefully designed to find violations of policy uh in their construct.

For our next steps, uh staff will begin to implement whatever it is that City Council directs us to do.

We'll also continue to evaluate the effectiveness and vulnerability and value of new technologies as it relates to public safety, privacy protections, and data protections and harm reduction in our community.

I will be creating a community feedbacks group or community feedback partner group to better inform those conversations to engage in dialogue with me and the department about community harm protection, crime prevention, data concerns related to new technologies and public safety.

Additionally, the police department and I will be presenting to our HRC annually on significant issues such as these.

And of course, we'll continue to collaborate with our partnering agencies and neighboring law enforcement agencies to provide essential uh protection and community safety needs as well as collaborate about data sharing and privacy.

With that council, I'll bring us to the recommendation, which is to authorize the city manager or designee to terminate the existing automated license plate reader contract with Flock Safety.

And Madam Mayor, I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you, Chief Canfeld.

Um we will now uh does any member of the council have questions.

We'll do council questions, then we'll do public comments.

Any questions?

Oh, it's not.

Oh, okay.

I'll start with Councilmember Ramirez then.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have three uh questions that you um partially addressed, but just to uh allow you the opportunity to provide some additional uh commentary.

Uh can you uh share again uh how the nationwide lookup and statewide lookup uh could have been activated without uh the knowledge or consent of uh MVPD?

That's a really great question.

Uh one we would like to know.

Uh I know this.

We are one of many agencies that had both of those activated outside of our knowledge.

To the best of my understanding, I believe there's a new news story uh about the city of Denver having the exact same problem uh that just came out today.

Now I can't speak for the validity of it, but I believe the news story just came out today.

Uh I'm confident that this is much larger than a regional problem, much larger than a California problem, but it is a big problem with the access.

We did not allow it, we weren't aware of it, we didn't uh accept it.

It came in the system without our knowledge.

Okay, thank you.

In your uh communication with Flock, what have uh Flock representatives told you?

Candidly, uh Flock representatives in private conversations, have been pretty blunt about their failures.

They've admitted that they failed, especially related to the implementation of this program for us and for other vendors.

And I agree.

I think they have absolutely failed to to perform in the way in which they assured us that they would.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

And final question.

Uh many of us, many of us wear multiple hats and uh hear from other jurisdictions uh staff and uh council members, uh, and uh you you acknowledge that it's almost certainly it is not unique to Mountain View.

Uh I'm curious about what you've heard about other jurisdictions, including uh ones that have been referenced in the media like Woodside.

So I I don't know much about Woodside's uh program.

In fact, I don't know anything about Woodside's program, their ALPR program.

Uh but what I do know is what I saw on the news, what I read in the news and what I watched in their town council meeting was uh a completely inaccurate statement about our program from a flock safety representative who either didn't know anything about our program or completely provided false information.

The program that we created had a policy in place, was implemented uh in close partnership with Flock Safety and failed to perform in the manner in which they told us, and they assured us that it would.

Thank you, Chief, and thank you, Mayor.

Those are my questions.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez.

Councilmember Hicks.

So I have just one question, but I just want to tell members of the public first that if in case you haven't been to council meetings before and and don't know the nature of this and wonder why we're asking so few questions, we do have the opportunity to ask written questions before we come to this meeting, and so this council has already asked 26 asked and had answered 26 questions.

So these are the remaining, you know, half a dozen questions that we still have.

And the the questions that we've asked previously and the answers are available to you online.

Um so my my remaining question is um you talked a little about community feedback going forward.

Can you say a little more about how you envision that happening?

You mentioned both our uh HRC and also uh other community feedback, and I like details on both.

Yeah, absolutely.

I I we have spoken in the past and been present at HRC meetings, and I I see a lot of value to that, and I believe that it would be uh important for us to continue to engage, and I think at least on an annual basis basis, if not more regularly, uh, to present on issues like this, uh, or other updates like our annual police department report to the HRC in relation to emerging technologies and public safety and the complexities uh and communities' feedback as it relates to privacy and data control.

Um, that is something that I think is a very in-depth conversation that needs to be had uh without the same confines and constraints.

So, department, you know, meeting at the department, having deep conversations about systems access, about configurations with subject matter experts within our community, as well as community stakeholders who just have very strong opinions uh about both public safety and the balance of data control, and then do you see formalizing those in any way?

I I've heard that the HRC had more interactions uh with the MVPD in the past, I may be wrong.

Um, so do you see formalizing those in any way?

And then, of course, just to let the members of the public know that that would be on the agenda, members of the public could attend those meetings, I assume.

Absolutely.

So the HRC meetings would be agendized and and uh would be structural uh and public.

The what I'm recommending for a community feedback partners group is much like my Latino Community Advisory Committee or my Faith Leaders Advisory Council.

So groups that I meet with regularly that can provide feedback, both both scheduled but also ad hoc, uh, and direct conversations about really in-depth complex issues.

Uh, those are not um council appointed boards, but those are boards that that I meet with and that have direct access to me and the information within the police department.

Okay, so let me see if I understand.

You're you're thinking of kind of doing this through two groups, one which is publicly noticed, and the other, which is uh a group.

How does that other group assembled?

It it is assembled much like the Latino Community Advisory Committee and that faith leaders group from within our community of people that are interested in the issue uh have uh a passion to be engaged and provide feedback.

And in this case, I would think it they would have either subject matter expertise in technology or strong concerns about privacy uh and public safety.

Okay, that answers my question.

Thank you.

All right, council member Schulalter.

Yes, um uh thank you for getting all this information to us.

I know that this has not been a happy subject for you.

Um I have a couple questions.

One is we ask it in the council questions, but I just really like to uh have you answer it a little bit um in the public because I think it's it's uh it's just the kind of thing everybody would would want to wonder would wonder about, and that is um how would some of these crimes have been solved if we didn't have flock cameras?

I mean, you've been solving crimes forever, right?

And so I personally have not, but the Mountain View Police Department has since 1902.

I stand corrected.

Thank you very much.

Anyway, but but you have a track record, your your organization has a good track record of solving crimes.

And that that was true before we had Flock.

So I'd like to understand a little bit about kind of what's the delta that you get with Flock.

Time, um, uh you're able to do some things you wouldn't have before, you know, that sort of thing.

And maybe if you could explain it with a specific example, that would be helpful.

Certainly.

So I I will say that the flock safety or quite frankly, it's not a proprietary technology.

ALPR systems, so license plate reader systems do provide uh an ability to uh look in an area at like a large-scale space uh and look for suspicious vehicles or vehicles associated to something that's of significance to our community, whether it's a missing person uh or a crime afoot, um, in a way that a human being just would be very pressed to do if they had to scour, maybe ask neighbors for for their cameras, or to stand on every block and look at every license plate going by.

So they provide a lot of eyes and a lot of information about who's coming in and who's leaving an area, and then some ways they provide information that would not otherwise be able to be garnered and provide leads for investigations, uh, or even like essentially the direct suspects uh in cases or missing persons, uh, in a way that nothing else can really provide easily.

Maybe an officer who happens to be lucky in the right place.

In other ways, they help support kind of traditional law enforcement investigations.

They point an officer in the right direction, and then that officer then has to maybe go and follow up on a vehicle without a license plate, but it it matches a certain type, and they may uh canvas a neighborhood, see a suspicious vehicle that then aligns with what was seen on an ALPR system and kind of pick it up from there and interviewing the person, looking to see if they're on probation or parole or kind of any number of, maybe not quite infinite, but but any you know, significantly number of different avenues that that one would go down.

Uh there are also uh technological systems and things that we do to investigate crimes, including uh digital cyber forensics.

That's a very important field.

Um, but I would say that that this is a very significant technology that both improves efficiencies and does uh does redirect officers or direct officers to suspects of crimes and victims of crimes in a really important and meaningful way.

Okay, so say my house is burgled, and um uh you you didn't have the license plate readers, but you you still had the emergency or the the um the list of uh the hot list.

Where are those hot lists come from?

So a hot list in this case is basically a license plate or a vehicle description that we we think is associated either to a crime or to somebody that we're looking for.

We would enter that into uh in this case into the flock system or into somebody else's system, and then when the car comes by, uh whether it's our camera or someone else's, it would notify them.

So in that example, uh it would not, we would not have a lead from a hot list.

We would need an ALPR system or perhaps somebody's surveillance camera or a neighbor who would have seen a car to provide that information.

You could think of this as kind of a neighbor on watch who's constantly at a kind of a significant intersection in a neighborhood, always looking for the license plate for the car from your break-in.

But let's say a break-in happened at someone's house.

I don't want to say it's yours, your house.

Let's say it's at someone's house.

Fortunately, I haven't had one.

We we would traditionally we would both look at neighbor neighbors' uh security cameras, speak to neighbors about what they saw, but also look for cameras for vehicles coming and going, and we might then try to match up a surveillance camera at a neighbor's house uh with an ALPR uh image capture of a vehicle, then to try to pair those together.

It may be the plate, it may also just be the vehicle description.

But that would be one way in which we would initiate an investigation, and then from that vehicle that provides us with a series of other leads.

It may be the person's vehicle, it may be borrowed, it could be rented, any number of things.

Okay.

Um so then going on to the uh another one which I thought is easy to understand is the one about the missing person that you put in.

That obviously you put you put that, you know, the family was concerned, they knew what their the license plate was.

It didn't have to come from a reader in that case, that's necessarily, but they knew the license, you knew the license plate, so you could put that in the system and query other people for it.

And um couldn't you do that with a kind of an old-fashioned APB or something like that as well?

Absolutely, um, Councilmember Schwalter.

We can enter a vehicle into a system uh absent an ALPR system.

Uh so we could enter it into a a state database, our collects database, but there's a million law enforcement acronyms, but we could enter a missing person or a felony vehicle or a stolen vehicle, those are entered into a state database.

In this case, what happens is a license plate reader camera, an ALPR camera is tracking is running running those uh license plates through that database.

Um you don't need that that camera to find those people.

You might need a keen observer, an officer kind of getting lucky, or or with a good sixth sense who sees a vehicle and decides to run that plate, but you would need somebody manually to enter in that license plate.

And if you've driven down El Camino at 2 p.m., it's pretty hard to manually enter in all those license plates.

So it is much harder, but it is certainly not the only way in which to someone.

Okay, thank you.

I just I just think we need to, you know, we need to think about these things as talking about what okay.

Then the other question I have, which kind of goes back a little bit to um what council member Hicks said, and that is how would the community feedback partners differ from PSAB or working with the HRC?

And I think you answered that a little bit before you answered how it would differ from how you would work.

But how would it differ from PSAB?

Well, I I think for one, uh the selection of those folks um when we're when we're working uh in our other advisory bodies, so our faith leaders advisory council, the Latino Community Advisory Committee, it's a a group that's nimble that we can meet regularly.

I can schedule a very quick meeting, or often meetings need to be canceled and rescheduled.

It doesn't have to have a work plan.

Uh it is able to be adapted to what is going on.

So you can imagine uh my Latino Community Advisory Committee has had to shift kind of topics and is issues of interest very quickly as issues related to that community have changed very quickly.

So it doesn't, it's not um, it's not tethered to a work plan in the same way, and it is much more adaptable uh in a good way uh to the to the needs of what's going on and if we're looking at emerging technologies.

Um, I think that that is really something that specifically aligns well with the ability and the importance of remaining very nimble as we review.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

I have one follow-up question from our docket of questions.

Uh question 12 in our docket.

I uh um someone asked me, may not been me.

Um, what exact data was shared nationwide and with nationwide and statewide agencies, or the names of the agencies that gained access to our data?

What were the reasons behind the searches?

And then the answer was from August to November 2024, nationwide lookup appears to have been enabled on the flock safety system, a review of the federal law enforcement access indicated the following agencies, included MVPD in their searches.

However, there's no ability to determine whether any Mount of U ALPR data was actually access.

So it was ATF offices in Kentucky, Nashville, Lingley Air Force Base in Virginia, the USGSA Office of Inspector General, like Mead, National Recreation Area in Nevada, and an Ohio Air Force Base.

Was there any indication as to what they were searching for and why they were searching MBPD data?

I don't remember the the search terms or reasons.

Uh Captain Crowell, do you recall?

I do not.

So I there was nothing that stood out in our initial review.

We didn't see anything that was, you know, immediately alarming, uh, but it I couldn't say without taking a deeper look as to what their reasons were.

What were the usual reasons for people to search our data?

Uh well crime investigations, uh burglaries.

Sometimes it's a case number.

Um the same reason that would in general I would say, the same reason that we search our data is the same reason, and the same reason we search other law enforcement agencies' data is is the same reason that agencies are searching ours.

Okay.

All right, uh Council Member McAllister.

Thanks.

So let's take current events.

Sort of tying on what Pat said, Savannah Guthrie.

That that incidents going on right now.

There you they don't they have the cameras uh accessibility to do what is doing because I see a lot of quote old-fashioned methods of tracking, talking, knocking, and so forth.

So would this this new technology be helpful in this particular instance?

Yeah, to the best of my knowledge, um, I don't know any specifics about that case, but um it looks like they are they are knocking on doors and looking for everything.

This technology uh would absolutely be key in a case like that.

I can tell you we utilized ALPR technology specifically for a kidnapping victim, a domestic violence kidnapping victim to help locate her.

Um the short answer is yes.

Uh and then the longer answer is kind of the the process that that councilman Bershow Walter was talking about, but absolutely this is a central technology for for a case that's that significant and important uh and difficult to investigate.

Is the term uh, oh, what is it?

Uh I'm looking for uh time was of the essence.

The technology will help get them to that point quicker when you're doing kidnapping or child's loss or something along those lines.

Absolutely, and and that's why Captain Crowell highlighted uh in his uh slides and also it's a in a kind of greater detail inside the the staff report, uh, some cases that time really was of the essence, some some very serious uh domestic violence suspects as well as uh a kidnapping suspect that we were very worried about.

Thank you.

All right.

We will now move on to public comments.

Um would any member on the line um would any member of the public on the line like to provide public comment on this item?

Uh please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have 1.5 minutes.

Um we will take in-person public comments first.

Um I'm gonna name like the first five names, so I'm hoping that you guys will line up so it will get quicker.

Um so we'll have Melissa Levinos starting first, followed by Karen Berkey, followed by Brandon King, followed by Kimberly Wu.

If you guys could all make your way to line up for that, and we'll start with Melissa.

Hi, my name is Melissa Lavanos, and I'm a resident of Santa Clara County.

I've never spoken at a city meeting before or attended one, but I was moved to do so today because of the importance of this moment and how critical it is that we safeguard our data and our communities.

We urge the city of Mountain View to support the staff report to permanently end their contracts with Flock, as Los Altos Hills and Santa Cruz have already done.

We applaud the city police, the city police chief for immediately turning off the cameras after learning how Flock shared our personal data with out-of-state agencies.

However, we reject the report's proposal to engage in community discussion about the positive outcomes or explorations of future use of ALPR, because mass surveillance doesn't keep our public safe, but rather endangers the lives of our most vulnerable residents.

Motivated by the chief's promise in holding Flock accountable, we further call for reimbursement for the associated Flock fees and for a city-class action lawsuit against Flock who breached our contract and shared our data, violating our trust.

We must refuse all AR ALPR contracts because we must not replace Flock with another harmful weapon of mass surveillance.

We need to do our part to protect the vulnerable in our communities.

We've seen how Flock surveillance from we've seen how mass surveillance from services like Flock have been weaponized already.

It's already happening.

It's been used to racially profile people of color, to sue people seeking reproductive health care or gender-affirming care, to endanger our neighbors by sharing their data with ICE.

We need to protect our bodily autonomy and our neighbors and our own rights to protest and to have protected speech and to a reasonable expectation of privacy without mass warrantless tracking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Karen Berkey, followed by Brandon King, followed by Kimberly, followed by Austin Marshall.

Hello, Council.

So I just want to commend the police department that on February 2nd, I believe it was, they turned off the cameras, and that's my birthday.

So thank you for the wonderful birthday present.

Um I would like you to make sure that they get completely canceled, and I don't want any new technology of any ALPR continued in any way, shape, or form.

Um as they just demonstrated in their own data, they did have 41 arrests and a couple people were found, which is great.

Um, but that was out of more than 25,000 something scans.

Um, so this is not that big of a city, okay?

So obviously that's makes sense because we're not that big of a city.

But then in the city of San Jose, they have just gotten sued, as well as the city of Oakland, um, because all these are done without a warrant.

Okay, it doesn't matter how long you store it, doesn't matter who's using it, who has access, it's done without a warrant.

And in the city of San Jose, they specifically only had 0.2% of their millions of scans in the year of 2024, actually match the hot list of actual like suspected crime or associated vehicles with that.

So that's 99.8% of the rest of the scans are just random people living their lives.

This is mass surveillance.

It is not making anyone safer.

The can the contract needs to be completely canceled, and it needs to not be replaced by anything else.

Because I'm sorry, that's not enough data to support continuing this mass surveillance and a massive invasion of our privacy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brandon King, followed by Kimberly Wu, followed by Austin Marshall, followed by Brian Jones.

Hi, I'm Brandon, and I'm a Mountain View resident.

I'd like to urge the city of Mountain View to support the staff report to permanently end their contracts with Flock and refuse any future proposals for other ALPR systems.

We applaud our city's police chief for immediately turning off the flock cameras after learning how Flock shared our personal data without a state agencies.

However, I reject the report's proposal to engage in community discussions about the positive outcomes of ALPR and the exploration of any future use of ALPR, because the mass surveillance does not keep our public safe, but rather endangers the lives of our most vulnerable residents.

ALPR systems have shown themselves to have systemic flaws nationwide, ranging from technical mishaps that have resulted in things like guns out traffic stops for misidentified persons, including in San Francisco, spying on peaceful protesters, illegally sharing data with federal officers, and many, many more.

Mass warrantless dragnet location tracking surveillance of all persons in a community, regardless of their criminality, is not public safety, and we cannot sacrifice our constitutional rights to privacy for the dangerous illusion of security.

Not only should we terminate our flock contracts, we must refuse all ALPR contracts, and we must not replace Flock with another harmful weapon of mass surveillance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next up we have Kimberly Wu, followed by Austin Marshall, followed by Brian Jones, followed by Jenny Schroeder Schroeder.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Kimberly Wu, and I serve as a community organizer for services, immigrant rights and education network, otherwise known as Siren.

And I cede my time to Tim McKenzie.

Oh man, okay.

All right.

So when Tim gets up, I'm gonna have people who have ceded their time to just raise their hands.

You don't have to come up, but you did have to put in a speaker thing.

Um if you are in the docket to speak and have it seated to Tim.

Um just let us know very quickly and then move we'll move on from there until Tim has this.

Actually, should we just have Tim speak now?

I think it would be better to get an idea of how many people are going to cede their time, and then we can calculate how much time Tim can speak.

All right, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

All right, and all of you turned in a blue card, correct?

Mayor, the agenda provides for up to 10 minutes.

All right.

So we're we will once uh can if you guys can go to the city clerk to confirm your card.

I'm gonna have Tim come up and do his 10 minutes now.

Do you have slides, Tim?

I do not have slides.

Oh, thank goodness.

Thank you.

Uh I'm Tim McKenzie, again, still.

Sorry.

Let's let's let me confirm there first.

Mayor, do we want to call for a quick recess?

Yeah, let's do a five-minute break while we get that settled.

Uh so we will.

All right, let's have everyone get back to their seats so we can get the meeting back into order.

Um I'm calling the meeting back to order at 1955.

Um, and we can get started with our.

We're apparently we're getting two 10-minute speakers.

Um, thank you for consolidating uh many of your times.

Um, so we will now lead it up to Tim McKenzie.

Greetings, council, uh, Tim McKenzie, still, he, him pronouns.

Um, the steering committee of Silicon Valley Democratic Socialists of America.

I'd like to thank my community partners for seeding time so that we can uh go through this larger letter that we that we've put together to uh for you.

Um we are urging you as council to one support the staff's memo to terminate the city's contract with flock safety and seek reimbursement for the 154,650 dollars for the associated fees from the Flock agreement.

Two, refuse all ALPR contracts because we must not replace Flock with another harmful weapon of mass surveillance, and three sue Flock Safety Company in a class action lawsuit for breach of contract, California SB 54 violations, and data sharing, violating our residents' trust in our government.

Our presentation is supported by our submitted written proposal public comment, which was endorsed by 17 community organizations and updated based on the staff's response to questions.

These flock cameras are the equivalent of placing a GPS tracker on every resident in our city in a time when our neighbors are wrongfully criminalized and detained regardless of immigration status, when our black and brown loved ones are pulled over for the way they look, and when the federal government assaults any peaceful protester exercising their first amendment right to free speech, we must refuse an AI mass surveillance system that will threaten our human lives and mental well-being.

Mass surveillance does not keep our public safe, but endangers all our residents and visitors to the city of Mountain View.

We generally approve of the council's republic notice uh council reports public notice about the flock ALPR violations, but we strongly oppose any ALPR vendor replacement for Flock and further urge the Mountain View City Council to sue Flock for their breach of contract in violating and sharing our data residents and visitors' personal data.

The council report explains the thorough process in securing Flock Company as the city's ALPR vendor and attempts to recommend a different vendor.

However, we express the following concerns against such detrimental action, as no guardrails can prohibit any ALPR vendor from violating our fundamental constitutional rights to privacy.

Sections like initial exploration of ALPR technology, community engagement, and city council review and direction presume there is a policy that will ensure a safe ALPR vendor system.

However, no perfect policy will protect us from the harms of AI mass surveillance.

Flock does not just read license plates, but it can also extend to identify and categorize people based on height, weight, race, gender, articles of clothing, bicycles, or animals.

It would be nearly impossible to find a vendor that only captures still images, especially when Flock's AI powered cameras use the Condor model to track, pan, zoom, and tilt on people's movements.

Auditing our personal Flock data regarding ICE cooperation could produce a false negative.

According to pages four and 10 of the Department of Homeland Security's data retention policies, DHS requires vendors to not leave a trail of ICE in audit logs on any ALPR except their own.

We may not see any query results about ICE or if ICE accessed our data because ICE systematically does not leave any evidence of their wrongdoing.

The reason why we see searches related to immigration enforcement or ICE is due to side door access.

But given the given current political climate, we can only surmise that ICE is accessing our data to weaponize against our communities.

Side door access is when local police departments conduct searches on behalf of ICE or CBP.

Our local police data is shared with other police departments who may use this side door to expose our personal data to ICE.

Also, Mountain View Police Department participates in the Fusion Center of Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, where on their transparency page, which gathers and shares data, including ALPRs from other Northern California agencies to national, state, and local intelligence networks.

The specific training requirements for who can access our data are still not public information.

How can the public and the city council hold the ALPR vendor system and our staff accountable when the community is excluded in the creation and review of the policies?

How can we hold them accountable if investigations of policy violation is handled as a personnel matter through MVPD's professional standards unit?

We must redefine public safety in our constitutional right to privacy.

Mass surveillance does not keep our public safe.

When it violates the constitutional rights of every resident and visitor to our city for this dangerous illusion of security.

When our private data is weaponized to separate our immigrant families, control the bodies of those seeking reproductive services, target individuals exercising the First Amendment rights to free speech, and surveil our Muslim neighbors outside of mosques, AI mass surveillance is a dangerous threat to public safety, and no perfect vendor will protect us from the systemic fundamental harms of AI-powered cameras.

The section on vetting of Flock safety and MVPD operational data sharing procedures emphasize how the city council, city staff, and the police department proactively collaborated to prioritize resident safety when selecting a vendor.

Our issue is not with the city's meaningful work to protect us, but our issue is with Flock and with all ALPR vendors.

The technology itself is the problem.

We cannot trust Flock to act in good faith, especially when they conveniently omitted their statewide and nationwide lookup tool from our police department.

Flock's live by omission thoroughly disrespects the extensive work that the police department and city council did to convince the public in Flock safety and ensure compliance with our privacy standards.

Per the council report, Flock's lie by omission is what caused this breach in our data and broke our residents' trust.

Quote, notably, staff have since learned that both the nationwide and statewide interfaces were enabled for many other agencies that were also unaware of them.

MVPD is not an outlier in this regard.

End quote, which is why we're asking for a class action lawsuit.

We applaud the Mountain View Police Chief, thanks Mike, for immediately turning off the cameras on February 2nd and personally apologizing to us.

However, our residents have seen Flock cameras blinking their lights and are concerned that they may still be on and collecting our data.

Despite staff's assurance that no new data is being recorded and Flock is not recording license plate information, recent Flock transparency pages for Mountain View brings their note into the question because while the detected vehicles and hot list hits decreased, the number of searches increased from 556 searches to 558 searches from February 18th to February 22nd.

Our data's still being accessed and searched.

We encourage the city to explore physical barriers in covering up the cameras, effectively disabling their use because remember, we lease them, we don't own them.

Not only is Flock a deceptive company, their cameras are susceptible to being hacked in 30 seconds and have at least 51 confirmed vulnerabilities.

If we cannot trust Flock who pride themselves as the industry leader, how can we expect other ALPR vendors will meet our high standards?

Because of Flock's lie by omission, MVPD was included in federal law and search law enforcement searches from ATF offices in Kentucky and Nashville, Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, the USGSA Office of Inspector General, Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada, and an Ohio Air Force Base.

Additionally, outside agencies searches from August 2024 to December 2025 were approximately 3,070,960 compared to the 25,000 sum odd that Mountain View Police Department did, which represents over 124 times more than MVPD personnel in this time frame.

We further express grave concerns about the search terms as others can encompass a broad range of abuses against our communities, especially during this time of federally sanctioned violence when people are being executed in the street.

We strongly oppose that granting Flock worldwide wide rights to our data is a reliable service as it shows a grave violation of our Fourth Amendment constitutional right to privacy.

We further support the staff's interest in seeking reimbursement from the total 154,650 dollars that our city invested into Flock because our city's valuable money must be reinvested into community priorities like affordable housing.

In a budget crisis, our city must protect all our valuable resources and refuse to waste any money in weapons of AI mass surveillance, nor in defending ourselves from valid lawsuits that our residents may pursue for these data violations.

Finally, we urge the city council to unite with their constituents against our common enemy of Flock and sue the company for breach of contract for sharing our personal data with external agencies without our consent.

Based on the above reasons and the voices of our fellow constituents, we strongly oppose the premise of a community dialogue about the positive outcomes of the ALPR pilot program.

We were harmed.

And any exploration of any future use of ALPR in Mountain View from the next step section.

We cannot replace an AI mass surveillance camera with another weapon of mass surveillance against our communities.

ALPRs are not necessary, as per our city staff, quote, other investigative methods may have ultimately produced results in some cases.

No perfect policy can secure the safest vendor, as all AI powered cameras rely on the same mass surveillance technologies that violate fundamental constitutional rights to privacy.

We must refuse all ALPR vendors because that is truly how we keep our public safe.

Beyond our residents and previous concerns, we would like to highlight further evidence against Flock, which uh I will not be able to get through the rest of it, but uh one of my colleagues and compatriots will be coming up to finish the next bit.

Please get rid of Flock, sue Flock, no ALPRs, and I will pass on over here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

McKenzie.

Next is Melissa Denwoody.

I'm sorry if I got your last name wrong, but you will also.

Hi, I am Melissa Dinwiddy.

I'm a Mountain View constituent for 23 years, and I represent Indivisible Palo Alto Plus.

The Flock Safety Company cannot be trusted, and our government is now responsible for violations on our data.

Investigators have found Flock portal access credentials on the dark web.

Anyone with a hundred and twenty dollars can easily create a showdown account to access 24-7 live streams of our personal lives.

One user found a live stream on a children's playground, making these cameras a prime, accessible weapon for human traffickers.

FLOC's track record on security places its customers in violation of SB 34's requirement that ALPR operators maintain reasonable security procedures and practices from enabling broad searches of investigation and crime to granting CBP access to a systems, Flock has violated reasonable security measures and wrongfully misled their law enforcement partners.

Oregon Congressional Senator Ron Wyden boldly wrote to Flock CEO Garrett Langley abuses of your product are not only likely but inevitable, and Flock is unable and uninterested in preventing them.

Mass warrantless tracking of every driver to the second violates our Fourth Amendment right to a reasonable expectation of privacy.

U.S.

Supreme Court cases Carpenter versus US and U.S.

vs.

Jones affirmed that all residents have a constitutional right to privacy, even in public spaces.

Near perfect surveillance, cell phone location data, and GPS tracking on public roads gives our government a precise, comprehensive record of all aspects of our personal lives from our familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual relationships.

Organizations such as CIREN and CAR, CA and ACLU Foundation of Northern California and Electronic Frontier Foundation are suing San Jose, Oakland, and Norfolk, West Virginia for their flock contracts because these unblinking cameras retain our data for extended periods of time, stalking our residents every movement to the minute, and failing to require a valid judicial warrant before sharing our private information.

We the people refuse to waste our precious city resources defending ourselves from valid lawsuits.

The Flock Company and other ALPR vendors violate state Sanctuary California Values Values Act, SB 54, and our city's non-cooperation policies by sharing our data with ICE to deport our neighbors.

When the federal government has given ICE and CBP authorization to discriminately arrest our people based on the color of their skin or their accent and break down doors without warrants, along with physically assaulting and fatally shooting our loved ones, like Renee Nicole Good, Alex Predi, and Keith Porter Jr., we must protect our immigrant communities who have built our vibrant, bustling and diverse city of Mountain View.

However, AI powered ALPRs, including Flock Safety, threaten the safety of our immigrant loved ones by sharing our personal data with ICE, giving federal immigration authorities an accessible GPS-like weapon to deport our neighbors.

State laws prohibit data sharing with federal agencies and out of state police departments, but Flock allowed such sharing for years.

At least 75 California police agencies were sharing these records out of state as of 2023.

In 2025, San Francisco police allowed access to out-of-state agencies, and 19 searches were related to ICE.

On January 13, 2026, Santa Cruz became the first city in California to terminate their Flock contracts due to data sharing concerns with outside agencies, including federal law enforcement and ICE.

Two days later, on January 15, 2026, our neighboring town of Los Altos Hills also terminated their Flock contract.

Due to privacy concerns, cost considerations, and overall effectiveness.

We must refuse all relationships with the company who violates our city's strong non cooperation policy and will jeopardize our immigrant loved ones for the sake of a profit.

Police departments have weaponized ALPR data to racially profile black and brown communities, harass people seeking reproductive services and or gender affirming care, and target people engaging in their First Amendment right to protest.

AI cameras have high risks of false positives racially profiling innocent individuals.

In October 2025, an AI powered gun detection system at Kenwood High School in Baltimore County mistook a Doritos bag in a young black teenager's hands as a firearm, triggering an armed police response.

In another instance, a 12 year old in New Mexico was handcuffed after an ALPR camera misread the last digit of a license plate.

These things are not foolproof.

Without adequate human review, AI cameras can escalate innocent matters to armed law enforcement, inflicting psychological trauma on our black and brown communities.

And the ICE victim who had received five shots and got seven bullet holes.

Do you all remember that?

That was an ALPR Flock camera incident.

According to Electronic Frontier Foundation, companies like Flock Safety allow law enforcement agencies to stake out locations like abortion clinics or create hot lists of license plates to track in real time.

Flock's technology can also search for a vehicle based on color, make and model, even without a plate number.

Anti-abortion activists have long been documenting the place of patients and providers who visit reproductive health facilities, researching data that can now be easily cross-referenced with ALPR databases.

More than 50 law enforcement agencies across the country have conducted searches through Flock to track protest activity, going so far as to employ the terms no kings or simply protest.

For example, local law enforcement agencies have scrutinized and queried Flock nine times related to the activists of direct action everywhere, an animal rights organization known for using civil disobedience tactics.

When the authoritarian federal government is threatening to arrest and detain people for publicly speaking up against their tactics, we must not make it easier for them to use our data to target dissenting community members, undermining our nation's principles of freedom and democracy.

For these reasons and more, we urge the city council to continue your unwavering protection of our immigrant communities and boldly stand against federal overreach and AI mass surveillance.

No matter how perfect the policy, the current federal government has proven that there are no bounds to their lawless terror and violent propaganda on our communities, and we can expect and witness how they will weaponize any tool and data against our people.

Standing by our values means choosing community trust, privacy, and immigrant safety over unconstitutional hyper surveillance.

We must terminate our flock contract and reject all ALPR vendors.

Get the flock out of Mountain View City.

And will everyone who is opposed to ALPRs please stand or raise your hand?

Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Melissa.

Just to confirm with the city clerk, everyone who turned in and seated their time has already been removed from the queue.

Okay.

So we will now go back to uh one and a half minutes.

Um we have our next speaker, Cara Silver, followed by Tim Domkey, followed by Heidi Bikey.

I recognize the name, but I can't pronounce it.

Uh Lucian Eckhart.

If you guys can line up over here so that we save some time as you uh can get called.

Go ahead, Miss Silver.

Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council.

My name is Kara Silver.

I am at the co-lead of the immigrant rights action team for Indivisible Palo Alto Plus.

I'm also a public agency lawyer and I've been practicing law for over 30 years.

First of all, I want to commend Chief Canfield for the brave and community-minded uh decision that he made here.

And the um and I encourage the the city council to um do the same thing.

Flock cameras have been used to hunt immigrants.

Despite the protections of SB 54, Flock has had numerous instances of sharing data with ICE and other federal agencies, both directly and through side door requests.

During this time of federally sanctioned violence, we must protect and keep our immigrant families together by refusing to invest in artificial intelligence surveillance that can be weaponized with no clear guardrails.

Additionally, Flock cameras set us down the road of mass surveillance.

Our community should be able to drive and walk along our streets without worrying about their inf whether their information will be used and shared.

The federal government is not equipped to regulate this far-reaching technology, and even our state government is not equipped to do that either, as Governor Newsom recently vetoed a bill providing reasonable guardrails for Flock.

We have our next speaker, Tim Domkey, followed by Heidi Bike.

Um I'm very happy that Chief that you took the action to shut off the cameras.

I think you see a lot of momentum and a lot of enthusiasm tonight to get out of this relationship with Flock.

Mountain View is not the first or only community to come to this decision.

Uh and as we look at communities that were a little further ahead of us, it may not be as easy as canceling a contract.

Uh in December of this year in Eugene, Oregon, they disabled their cameras.

They made a city decision, they disabled the cameras.

Flock reactivated those cameras afterwards.

Uh in spring, I'm sorry, not Springfield, in uh Evanston, Illinois in September.

They went even further.

They removed Flock cameras from polls in their city.

Flock reinstalled them.

It may not be as simple as canceling a contract or getting our money back.

We need to not stop until these are out of our city.

They have to be disabled, they have to be removed, they have solar panels and wireless transmissions.

And as long as they are up on poles, nobody in this room, even you, Chief, have control over those cameras, as proven by some of the experiences we've had already and from other cities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Heidi Bikey, Lucian Eckhart, followed by Brandon Downey and then Serge Bontz.

Hi, I'm Heidi Bakey, and I am an over 20-year resident of Mountain View.

I also work for the Mountain View Wisman School District.

These comments are my personal comments.

Um I thank the Chief and the MVPD for turning them off.

Um, as was just stated, I have been seeing that these cameras are not always turned off, and citizens are um taking it into their own hands and taking them down.

I was just reading about um different places that people are just climbing the poles and taking them down and destroying the cameras, which maybe would violate our um our standing of having a lawsuit against Flock.

Um, being able to return everything unharmed may help that.

I also want to reiterate that no ALPR is going to be safe at this moment in the environment we're finding ourselves where our First Amendment rights are being violated, our Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are being violated.

So please, no more ALPRs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lucian Eckhart, followed by Brandon Downey, followed by Serge Bont, followed by James Kuzmal.

Hey folks, uh, I'm Lucien, uh resident of Mountain View.

Um, I'm a need to get closer to the microphone.

Yeah, of course.

Sorry, hi.

Um, yeah, so I'm a tech worker and a lot of us are concerned that there's no actual rejection of warrantless dragnet surveillance in the current proposal.

Um, we can't just take a tech company's word that they're not going to like enable unauthorized access of our data.

There needs to be like a structural physical impediment from that happening.

And with the current ALPR technology, that is not feasible, uh, unfortunately.

Um it's not good enough just to wait until like something goes wrong and then acting on it after the fact when one of our community members could be harmed by that.

Um, in so far as Mountain View is associated with the image of Silicon Valley, there's a unique opportunity and perhaps the responsibility to set an example for other cities in the area and beyond by rejecting ALPRs in general.

Um joining a lawsuit would also help with that as well.

So that's uh pretty much what I got.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Next is uh Brandon Downey, followed by Serge Bont, followed by James Kuzmal, followed by Raul.

All right.

Uh my name's Brandon.

I've lived here for 20 years.

Uh I've worked in information security for 25.

Um, if you've used a product from any number of tech companies, I've probably done a security review on it or privacy review.

And uh I'm here today to tell you that it's not just flock, uh, ALPR cameras and the tech is dangerous.

By way of analogy, some technologies are like gunpowder.

A little bit can be used for fun, think fireworks, bigger amounts even for defense when used responsibly, but store enough gunpowder and it becomes too dangerous to store in bulk around people.

This technology is the same.

It is gunpowder tech.

Um that's because there's uh tech that stores and correlates personal information about us and our location are like gunpowder.

Because um, however convincing the story from the people whose job it is to sell it, the risks of recording and keeping this data cannot be made small enough to justify the damage done when inevitably a data breach occurs.

Our inability to keep personal data safe at scale is not a theoretical risk.

The history of the last decade is the history of one data breach after another.

Uh we now live in a world where the consequences of mishandling data are dire.

Out of control agencies like ICE and DHS are desperately trying to gather as much data about us as possible to build a literal panopticon to decide who they can harass and who they can lock up.

These agencies have already added look into the camera for facial ID to your papers, please, to their demands.

We don't have to make it.

Next is Serge Bont.

Uh James Kuzmal, then Raoul, then Lana Sheridan.

Um good evening.

Uh my name is Serge Bont.

Um, I've been a resident of Mountain View for uh close to 30 years, and I've always appreciated Mountain View's tradition of good community policing.

One that makes sure that everyone treats a trust or officers so that's issues, crimes can be reported and information shared without fear.

In contrast, I and many of of your residents are uh have no trust at our with the current uh federal uh level policing.

Um so uh uh when I saw the the you know the the fact that Flock um you know could could share information with our governments, I think that's a it's a big risk of eroding the trust that we have in in our um Mountain View police department.

So I'm very appreciative of a chief taking the courageous decision to uh to to remove flock from from Mountain View, and I urge you to to to approve this.

Uh in terms of the next steps, uh I I have similar concern than had me express about that technology in particular.

Uh so for our next step, I think you sh we should have probably a community discussion, maybe a community forum uh um held by the HRC so that all these issues can be surfaced before you you commit to to moving forward with anything like this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Bont.

James Kuzmal, followed by Raul, followed by Lana Sheridan, followed by Yun.

James Kuzmal, uh 28 year resident of Mountain View.

I just wanted to echo the comments of many of the other speakers, um, encouraging council to adopt the staff recommendation to cease the contract with Flock, and as well as to echo the comments to avoid future use of of ALPRs in the way that they've been used.

Um I can certainly, I know I personally working on a lot of advocacy for street safety, see uh a lot of value in things like very tightly targeted um red light cameras and speed cameras, but even those seeing how much vendors and the such mismanaged data that makes me nervous.

And that's this case where we have a specific purpose to the use of the automated um enforcement mechanism.

ALPRs are just sort of a generalist dragnet for all the data and are not serving a targeted purpose in the same way, which makes them as some other speakers have argued unacceptable constitutionally.

And so I would encourage council to not um r continue with this category of automated enforcement.

And I want to thank uh staff for all their work on making sure that they're responsive to community issues.

Um, and to the council for their time.

Thank you, Mr.

Kuzmal.

Next we have Raul.

If you guys can come uh down, Raul.

Going once, going twice.

Um Lana Sheridan.

All right.

Next we have Yun, followed by We Tran.

Um the council has the responsibility to apply the precautionary principle before imposing any product on the people.

The precautionary principle holds that the product has the burden of proving that it's safe and effective.

In the U.S., uh the predominant use of the principle is in the medical domain.

But um, the um in the case of master surveillance, it's more crucial to apply the precautionary principle because in this case we do not have pre free prior and um informed consent as we do in the medical domain.

Um ALPRs fail the safety and effectiveness tests miserably.

Um there have been multiple cases of APLR abuse in which external entities and um owning jurisdictions have uh used the data to track down, intimidate and retaliate against observers and critics.

As for the effectiveness, there have been a few uh rigorous statistical independent studies, and all of in all of those cases, researchers have found that no statistical evidence that ALPR deter crime or help solve crime.

Um, when you look at the so-called benefits, please can please insist on statistical um analysis that um um accounts for confounding factors, not just accept raw data that usually comes out of police or courts.

We urged you to um reject all ALPR.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have We Tran, followed by Ariel, followed by Evan Barnes, followed by Angelica Guadalupe.

Good evening, council members.

My name is We Tran, I'm executive director of CIREN.

You've already heard about our lawsuit against the city of San Jose, but I want to talk to you about another one.

Last year, the DOJ sued the state of California to try to get access to all of our unredacted voter roles.

We uh, you know, for all the bluster from the SME administration about being anti-immigrant, this action was important for us because for us to uplift the voices of immigrants, we have to get our communities registered to vote, and we want them to participate in our democracy because that's how we hold power to account.

Last December, we intervened.

Last December, we filed a motion to dismiss.

Last month we won on all counts, and the DOJ was prevented from accessing the voter order, the voter rolls for uh California residents.

One sentence in that opinion, though, stood out.

Judge David Carter stated, quote, it appears that the DOJ is on a nationwide quest to gather the sensitive private information of millions of Americans for use in a centralized federal database.

The risk of federal seizure is why we have to oppose the creation of mass surveillance locally, even if our local law enforcement shows that it stands with immigrant communities.

Each and every vulnerability, each and every weakness, each and every pathway we create that allows outside parties to access output data creates enormous risks on our residents.

We're we're really happy to see how Mountain View handled this data.

But every time we create a mass surveillance, thank you.

Next is Ariel, followed by Evan Barnes, followed by Angelica Guadalupe, followed by Urizi.

So first of all, I really just wanted to say that I I can't imagine how this happened in the first place.

I'm glad that we're all seeing our mistakes here, but I personally wish we had kept AI mass surveillance in horror sci-fi movies where it belonged.

That said, I do agree with everyone else here.

We need to get rid of flock immediately.

That includes taking down the physical cameras.

That also includes never having another contract with another similar company for a similar purpose in the future.

And preferably, again, also suing Flock for the city funds that were completely wasted on that program and misused.

Let's see, what else?

Oh, yeah.

Okay.

So let's talk about me.

I'm a law-abiding citizen.

I've literally never even had a traffic ticket.

Uh I'm not an immigrant.

I'm not coming from out of state to seek an abortion.

Um generally like an average person, except I do help organize protests, and these cameras fucking scare me.

Um, and I don't feel like normal law-abiding citizens should feel scared that they're being constantly watched by the police because that doesn't sound like a very free democratic society to me.

And I and I would really hope that that's not, you know, how anyone else sees our country, you know, as a place where you're always watched by law enforcement.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Evan Barnes, Angelica Gualupe, Yurizi, Katie Paese.

I would like to uh do a friendly reminder.

I have this trouble all the time, as my colleagues would know.

Please limit swearing to not.

Um, so thank you.

Uh go right ahead.

Hi, Council members.

My name is Evan Barnes.

Thank you for hearing me.

And uh thank you, police chief for immediately turning off the cameras.

I appreciate that.

I'm here to urge you not just to not renew the contract, but to pursue legal action against Flock.

They very clearly violated California law, and they should actually be punished for that.

Uh, I would also urge you to say no new ALPRs or automated surveillance systems at all.

Um just imagine for a minute that you found out that your neighbor had been watching you out their windows and keeping a log of every time you left for work and came back from work and the clothes you wore, and maybe what makeup you had on that day, and that they then started installing cameras along your commute and outside your gym and at your grocery store parking lot.

I think you would feel violated.

I know I certainly would.

You'd feel like they were stalking you, which they are.

But that's what Flock has been doing.

That's what automated surveillance does, is it's stalking on a mass scale.

And the fact that it's on behalf of the state doesn't make it any better.

In a lot of ways, it makes it worse because it's susceptible to abuse.

Uh I just wanted to say that humans are we're bad at understanding consequences on societal scales.

I see the compelling use case for tools like Flock in solving crimes like kidnapping.

I understand the costs of violent crime uh in 2017 when my best friends was murdered while she was at home alone in the house that we shared.

And I still, with that in mind, don't think that mass surveillance is worth it.

The trade-offs have to outweigh the costs, the benefits have to outweigh the costs.

And with Flock, they just don't.

Forty-one cases solved with the help of it is great, but they violated the civil liberties of hundreds of thousands of people who fell in the view of their cameras, and that trade is not worthwhile.

Thank you.

Next we have Angelica Guadalupe.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Angelica Guadalupe.

I'm here with Siren Youth Liberation Institute.

Um, I'm gonna repeat what a whole bunch of these people have been saying.

So I apologize.

But first of all, um we want to thank the police chief for turning them off after realizing that they were sharing our data.

Um, but not just that, but youth in Mountain View deserve to feel safe.

And with this tracking devices, and you know, being monitored, you know, being tracked, to be honest, every step we take is not safe for our youth.

And we just ask for the city to end all contracts, and um, you know, any future contracts that you guys would have with these uh companies that do survey our companies, our citizens and residents of this area.

And then um, yeah, I think that the youth deserve to feel safe, not surveilled.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Eurisi, followed by Katie Paitez, followed by Al Brooks, followed by John Scarborough.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Yuditsi, and I live in uh San Jose, but I'm here to represent Cyrin and the youth uh that I work with who also live in Mountain View.

Um as many of my peers have said, we urge the city of Mountain View to support the staff uh to support the staff report to permanently end their contracts with Flock, following the leadership of cities and Los Altos and Santa Cruz.

Um and we applaud the city police chief for immediately turning off the cameras after learning how Flock shared our personal data.

However, we reject the report's proposal to engage in community discussions about the positive outcomes of ALPR and the exploration of any future ALPR, because mass surveillance does not keep our public safe.

I know you've heard this countless times, but I'll say it one more time.

Mass surveillance does not keep our public safe.

This is a fallacy that is weaponized when there is a lot of economic turmoil because this is when people feel most vulnerable.

And so it feels like an easy way out to present this as a public safety issue.

Um, and many people want to believe that, but ultimately mass surveillance only leads to most to more violence to the most vulnerable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Katie Payitez, uh followed by Al Brooks, followed by John Scarborough, followed by Ada.

Hi, my name is Katie Blades.

I'm a senior at Miami View High School, and I'm here to represent the Siren Youth Liberation Institute.

We urge the city as Mountain View to support the staff report to permanently end their contracts with Flock.

We call for reimbursement for associated Flock fees and for a city class lawsuit action lawsuit against VOC who breached our contract and shared our data.

Flock violates our Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Flock also violates the uh California Value Act SB 54 by directly sharing with ICE or indirectly sharing with immigration authorities through fusion centers weaponizing our data to deport our neighbors.

Think about the vulnerable undocumented youth, the youth of color who are living in Mountain View, who should not live in fear.

We should be protecting this community.

And by protecting this community, is refusing to invest in AI surveillance.

As a young woman myself, I already walk in fear alone on the streets.

I wouldn't also want to add cameras looking at me while I'm walking on the streets of Mountain View.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Al Brooks, John Scarborough, Ada, then Jesus Romero.

Good evening.

I unite with essentially everyone else here in calling for an end to the flock contract and calling for the city council to not engage in any future ALPR contracts or the use of such surveillance technology.

I also want to just explore some of the fundamental principles that at play here.

Counselor McCass McAllister, earlier you raised the example of uh the Savannah go through case, a case in which uh licensed plate readers and the like have not had a meaningful impact to this point.

Um I wanna uh lift up a case in which uh license plate readers have had a meaningful impact.

It was uh raised slightly earlier, uh the case of Marimon Martinez, a an advocate against uh the occupation of our communities by border police um who was shot five times uh by border police for her advocacy.

Um content warning for gun violence and misogyny um after shooting her.

One of the officers said, I fired five shots and she had seven holes.

Put that in your book, boys.

And I think this raises the issue that we need to highlight about the ways that power concentrations are continuously causing harm in communities.

Uh those who seek power tend to take it from everyone else, and we do not need to help them.

We should be very suspicious of instances where people are seeking to use technology and new data and AI tools in order to concentrate the people's power.

And instead, we should be investing in our people and treating them as partners in public safety rather than enemies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have John Scarborough, followed by Ada, followed by Jesus Romero, followed by George Duke.

Hello, Mayor, City Council members, Chief.

I'm a long-term resident in Mountain View.

I'm really glad we have a community for all.

I'm really glad we have a lot of our community out here today.

I like the diversity we have.

It makes it a great community.

Um I agree with a lot of the stuff folks have said technologically about this technology and socially.

But what I'd like to do is set the scene.

So if you noticed a lot of dystopian movies have mass surveillance.

There's a reason for that.

Surveillance is a foundational tool for repressive systems.

From the Panopticon prison through the Stasi Secret Police in East Germany, 1984, the hunger games to repressive regimes around our around our world now.

It is a tool to repress people to repress democracy.

So it is a problem with the system, not a problem with flock.

It is a problem with surveillance and the lack of privacy that we have here.

So it's not a friendly neighbor looking out for you.

It's a Stasi police that never sleeps.

So I encourage you to continue canceling and not renew it with any other APLR or other surveillance technology.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mrs.

Scarborough.

Next we have Ada followed by Jesus Romero, followed by George Duke, followed by Yan Ming Wen.

Ada.

Ada.

Alright, seeing no Ada, Jesus Romero.

Following Jesus Romero, we have George Duke, followed by Yan Ming Wen, followed by Connor O'Brien.

Good evening.

My name is Jesus, and I'm here for a PSA and to make one suggestion.

We prefer you don't, but if you ever consider end entering any future contract with any surveillance vendor, you must require an independent third-party technical audit, not just of policy compliance, but of the actual hardware, firmware, and capabilities of every device deployed in Mount View.

I want to begin with a retake on the famous quote from Poet Dylan Thomas because it captures exactly why we're here tonight.

We cannot go gentle into that good night when it comes to civil liberties.

We must rage against the dying of the light when it comes to transparency, accountability, and the truth.

We owe it to the community to shine a light on every part of this system.

The city's own report confirms that Flock reached their contract and therefore our trust.

But it raises a deeper question.

If luck hit these features, what else might be hidden?

A cybersecurity researcher who has spent seven months analyzing flux uh theories.

I mean, yeah.

Um flux technology recently laid out a series of claims that deserves attention for verification purposes.

He states that flux license plate readers feed video into an AI model train, not just on vehicles, but on people, animals, and even bikes.

Um, I'm sorry.

Uh he claims that after training this model, Fluck expanded into full video cameras with live streaming, people detection, and vehicle detection.

He states that in early 2025, during a private seminar, Fluck announced that all the LPRs nationwide were upgraded into video cameras for free, meaning every LPR.

Thank you.

Sorry, I know it gets really fast.

Um George Duke, followed by Yan Ming Wen, followed by Connor O'Brien.

Hello, council, my name's George Duque, and um about 35 years ago, my mother uh and my older sister and I fled Columbia uh and uh landed here in Mountain View for the next 35 years.

We've lived um on Bush Street, uh Wisman area, uh Easy Street, and uh and yeah, now Tyrella.

And uh, you know, I'm raising my kids.

Um, my kids have gone to all the schools here, I went to all the schools here, and you know, I, you know, with all of this talk, I can't imagine how I would have felt uh, you know, knowing that I was being watched, uh, knowing that ICE uh was coming after uh people like my family.

And so uh I wanted to make sure that I uh came today.

Uh I didn't write anything.

I probably should have wrote something, but um, being a long uh longtime resident of Mountain View, you know, I've I've lived in Campbell and Sunnyville for a few years, but I've always come back to Mount View.

You're right, Mountain View's been my home.

I'm fortunate to have been able to raise my kids here, and um, you know, they're here so that they could understand um what what they need to know as long-term residents of Mountain View in the future um for uh when they need to come to City Council to speak uh their mind.

And so I um I hope that you guys don't uh renew a contract with uh any other vendor um and uh take everyone's uh words seriously.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Duke.

Yan Ming Wen, uh followed by Connor O'Brien, followed by Julie Meyerson, followed by Alex Brown.

Hi, I work in Mountain View just down the street.

I'd like to echo everyone else in rejecting the use of ALPR systems to surveillance.

I'd like to say that this data is too sensitive and too granular to trust any vendor with, let alone one as unreliable as Flock.

The uh the EFF reports that other ALP uh ALPR vendors, including 3M, Motorola, and more have serious vulnerabilities that allow even unskilled attackers to gain access to camera feeds and troves of the license placed data.

This is beyond just speculation.

In 2019, Perseptics, the ALPR vendor for US Customs and Border Protection experienced a massive data breach of ALPR and biometric data, including over 100,000 images of license plates.

And as we all know, despite their promises of data restriction, Flock says it retains the right to share municipal data with federal agencies such as ICE, even if local police departments restrict sharing.

These are only a few examples of the risks we take by allowing ALPR systems in our community.

I urge us to reject any future use of this technology.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Connor O'Brien, followed by Julie Meyerson, followed by Alex Brown.

Uh thank you.

Good evening.

Uh Connor O'Brien, I'm a resident of Mountain View and like Tim, a member of Silicon Valley DSA.

Uh, I wanted to ask that the council absolutely terminate the existing contract but with Flock, but also not pursue any ALPR program in the future with any other company.

Uh I wanted to emphasize one dimension of the problem with ALPRs in general that goes beyond the untrustworthiness of FLOC in particular.

The whole case for these programs hinges on the benefits that are meant to flow from participating in wide reciprocal sharing of the data with agencies outside of Mountain View.

The scale of that means even if we have perfect policies and the restrictions are perfectly implemented, it still would not be enough to prevent data from ending up at the wrong hands.

We know this because there have already been reports of local departments doing searches on behalf of federal agencies and even informally sharing uh their passwords with federal enforcement, which means that engaging in any of these networks is asking all of us to trust that not just NVPT, but every single agency or person with quote unquote legitimate access to our data uh will not share it on to federal immigration enforcement or anyone else who's not meant to have it.

It only takes a single individual weak link in that trust to compromise people's safety.

I think for the city to pursue ALPRs despite these risks would be a choice to roll the dice with the safety of our most vulnerable neighbors, in the hope that putting them at risk might buy some extra measure of security for the rest of us.

And I really hope that's not what our city stands for.

Thank you, Mr.

Connor.

Next, Julie Myerson, followed by Alex Brown.

Uh, hello everybody, my name is Julie Myerson.

I'm from Sunnyville, just down the road.

Uh first off, I want to commend you guys for um coming publicly, explaining what has happened with Flock and shutting them off.

Um I want to continue to keep those off, make sure that we get as much of the data back as we can and make sure that they can't continue to share that data.

Uh, it's kind of weird to think that our data, you know, me a citizen, uh law-abiding citizen would be um monitored every time I drive down certain roads.

That does not make me feel safer.

That makes me scared because I recognize how powerful that is, and uh in the wrong hands, and it seems to be, I mean, I just got a letter from a company I've never heard of saying that there's a data breach from some medical files that were shared.

I can't even get my doctors to share the medical information I need to share, but these dark web companies are able to get my information, and it does not make me feel good.

And I can't imagine what it would feel like if I were more vulnerable.

So thank you, and let's do more.

Thank you.

And our last in-person public speaker before we go to we have lots of Zoom ones.

So I know Mr.

Brown, go ahead.

Hi, friends.

Alright, no, I got it written down, it's gonna be fun one.

Uh first things first, shout out to 404 Media and Jason Kepler, especially for all the coverage at Flock.

Uh, same for Ben Jordan and Gainsec.

Keep up the good work.

Uh second, Mike, great job.

Uh credit where it's due for living up to your commitments and for protecting the integrity of the City of Mountain View and MVPD.

Uh third, Alfred Hitchcock warned us about birds.

Uh flocks are dangerous.

We should heed that warning.

Uh fourth, have you considered replacing Flock with all the drones that the government used to replace the birds that they murdered back in the 60s by dissolving on their own?

Uh that bird themed surveillance system seems much more battle tested.

I mean, it's like sixty years.

Uh finally, an option that could help a lot of people.

Uh, an MLPR system, where we hire people to stand at corners around the city and write down license plate numbers that they see in notebooks and the PD can just ask them to go through them when they're looking for cars.

Don't ideas.

Uh, thank you.

And I have 30 seconds left.

Okay, now we will have our um we will now have our virtual public comment.

Uh we will start out with Victor Sin.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Victor Singh Chair of the Santa Clara County chapter of the ACLU of Northern California.

Automated license please read it is the surveillance technology that makes it less safe for us, particularly immigrants, black and brown people, religious minorities, people who seeking reproductive health care or gender or family care, and protesters exercising the First Amendment's rights.

Flock's transparency portal on mountain fields data shows that less than 0.2% of the data are related to hot list.

The vast majority of the data is gathered on law abiding people going about their everyday business.

The Trump administration is looking for ways to exploit local surveillance systems in order to target immigrants and activists.

Some states are plowing through ALPR data to detect people seeking abortion.

The only type of secure data is no data.

In other words, do not gather the data to begin with.

We urge you to terminate the flock contract and end the use of ALPR immediately and permanently.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Leo.

Hi there.

Thank you.

I'm Leo.

I'm a resident of San Jose.

I also work a little bit in ITV, and through that experience, know that this sort of technology is not as safe as people who are buying it would like to believe it's very easily as other people have mentioned.

Easy to get into.

Abuse of ALPR is endangered the lives of our most vulnerable residents.

We must refuse all ALPR contracts because we must not replace Flock with another harmful weapon of mass surveillance.

Flock is not the only issue.

It's a problem with the technology and its abuses as a whole.

Police trust this technology far too much.

As explained by other speakers, false positives have already shown to be common, and these false positives often lead to an elevated police response that can also end in the harm of residents.

It's wasting city resources for the purpose of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of city residents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up we have Lucilla Ortiz.

Hi, good evening, City Council.

Thank you for having me.

Um my name is Lucina Peace, and I'm here representing Silicon Valley magazine.

First of all, I want to commend the police chief for doing the right thing as soon as he found that there was a breach and the promises that the tool um, you know, that were being used was um happening, that he turned it off right away.

Um, you know, so I want to commend him for that.

And also to repeat what he said is that this is a tool, and um, this is a tool that was developed for the purposes of profit.

And right now, the people that are giving to them the most profit is uh federal government that is leaning towards authoritarianism, and we have learned um those of what have of us who have taken history lessons.

We have learned that authoritarians abuse uh data um to kind of extort their power in any way, and that puts it all at risk.

And so I want you to think about that as you're thinking about the pros and cons of this um future contracts.

You know, well, nobody is um going to be safe, especially in this political environment that it is.

And if you are giving your money to companies that have um supported authoritarian governments, um, you know, that in itself is being complicit in this anti-government uh pursuit uh that the federal government is doing.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Eva Tang.

Hello, Council Eva Tang, formerly of the public safety advisory body, uh, old Mountain View, been here almost a decade.

I really actually haven't been happy about this despite flexing my hip mobility at you two weeks ago.

It has real quite real people at risk, people I love and have shared joy and laughter with, people with beating hearts who are part of the daily Mountain View community who fear for their lives, so they can't speak like I'm doing right now.

This PD has shown me it is not indeed committed to transparency.

I could have caught this data breach for you in December if you let me see the files, but you didn't.

External audits done at quote random intervals when the data breach wasn't caught for over a year.

Chief, you gotta be kidding me.

I teach middle school, I teach gaslighters all day.

All right.

How do I teach 12-year-olds to take accountability when my local PD doesn't?

This is a tool that puts our community at risk, and a tool that puts our community at risk is not public safety.

It is subsidized private security.

Another thing you should know is that the Department of Homeland Security has a policy on um LPRs.

The vendors are not permitted to use any of ICE's query data, and they're not even allowed to retain it.

So how would we be able to keep track of them not accessing our data?

No ALPRs, period.

We can't trust you with them.

Thank you.

I yield my time.

Thank you, Eva.

Next we have Bruce Englin.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Bruce England, moving on Wisbon Station Drive in Mountain View.

Um I'm really enjoying hearing all these comments from people, and I uh agree with a whole lot of it, and I also am even more concerned than when this meeting started.

Um, I I also commend the chief for having taken immediate action uh against the the flock cameras, and I also just want to mention I have great respect for Chief Canfield and many people on PD force.

I'm glad we have a PD that we do, and yet we're faced with huge challenges like this one.

As I've said a number of times, I feel that folding the PSAB was highly premature, and I think that that was done because a former council member wanted it, um, when they probably should have frankly held their tongue as they were leaving council.

Um you might reconsider that because HRC is not a replacement for PSAB, and um the um the groups that Chief Canfield brings together, those are not public meetings and there's no public record, and so that's not a replacement either.

Please revisit PSAB.

We need this kind of oversight um that you're hearing in public comment tonight.

The FOIA requests were handled uh poorly and uh cross department work.

I encourage that and lastly the transportation dashboard is uh pretty slim and not effective right now.

So I hope the PD will have a look at that and get it updated.

Thanks.

Uh, thank you, Mr.

England.

Next we have Anna Marie Morales.

Hi, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Awesome.

Good evening to the mayor and council members.

I'm Anna Marie, she her.

I've lived in our beautiful city for over 40 years.

I thank our police chief for turning the cameras off.

It is truly appreciated.

Um, that is not enough though.

I ask that they be removed permanently and not replaced with another mass surveillance system now or in the future.

There must also be real transparency and accountability.

This is an urgent matter.

You have the opportunity right now to permanently end our contract with flock safety, and you must do it.

Follow Los Altos Hills in Santa Cruz who have already acted.

Our data was shared outside the state with our without our consent.

These are not harmless licensed plate readers.

These are mass surveillance systems that track every driver's movements, building a precise record of where we go and when.

That kind of mass warrantless tracking violates our Fourth Amendment right.

It put us all at risk, especially our brown and black neighbors.

Investigators have found clock portal credentials for spell on the dark web.

This if the city claims it owns this data, then the city is responsible for protecting it and therefore must act now.

Do not reopen the door to more community discussions about future ALPR use and this permanently seek reimbursement, hold flock accountable, sue them and refuse to replace one mass surveillance.

Thank you, Anna Marie.

Next we have Michael Mull.

Sorry if I got your name wrong.

Oh no.

Uh hey, can you hear me?

I can hear you.

Great.

Thanks, everybody.

I'm Michael Moltop, a mountain view resident.

Mountain View and Mountain View PD have set up what I believe to be good ALPR guidelines.

But unfortunately, all the city's effort means nothing because with Flock, it is impossible to ensure that these guidelines are followed.

The problem is that Flock's system is trivially abusable.

In this last year, we have seen law enforcement officers using other flock's cameras to track girlfriends they thought were cheating.

We have seen California departments defying California law and sending their flock data out of state.

We have seen local law enforcement officers in Chicago literally giving their flock logins to ICE.

So ICE can use Flock, even if Flock says they don't work with ICE.

I'm gonna mildly disagree with some folks here and say that there are ways that a better company could improve this system.

Searches could require case numbers, searches could be done by departments, searches could require local approval, but Flock implements none of this and has no protections.

I would love to live in a world where we can use surveillance to catch more bad guys.

But for this surveillance to be a positive benefit, we have to be able to trust that the surveillance won't be abused.

Flock is not trustable.

Flock is the diametric opposite of a trustworthy entity.

Stop Flock surveillance, get rid of the actual cameras, ban private flock cameras.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Sam Guzman.

Hello, City Council members.

I'm here to urge you all not only to terminate the existing contract with Flock, but to terminate any and all future investment with AOPR surveillance.

This pilot program has perfectly demonstrated the fundamentally unethical, exploitative, and invasive nature of this mass surveillance technology and the myths of its possible regulation.

There is no amount of regulations, Mountain, you can propose to ensure that AOPRs don't risk our communities.

Federal agencies have been fatally attacking hacking our communities and building databases of immigrants and activists to be their next victims.

Time and time again, local police have failed to regulate their violent overreach.

Whatever promises Mountain View has made to protect our data have already been violated.

The warrantless collection of our data in itself is already a betrayal to the community.

The appropriate response is to stop entirely.

At the behest of our local law enforcement.

Please choose us.

Reject AOPRs.

Do flock and invest that money back into the communities you risk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Sebastian Brisboy.

Hello.

Can you hear me fine?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Um.

Yeah, so hi.

My name is Sebastian Brisbois.

I'm a Mountain View resident.

And um, yeah, it would be foolish to trust ALPRs after this incident.

Uh these surveillance companies do not have our best interests in mind.

They care about making money above all else, which is a concern when they handle valuable data that can be shared with others that shouldn't have access to it, whether it's on purpose or not.

One thing we've learned over the years about tech companies in general is that uh they are likely to violate our privacy and security.

So we shouldn't ever choose again to build infrastructure that can violate our privacy and safety like this.

This is especially a concern with how our federal government is, since it's constantly violating our rights and bullying private companies into bending to their will.

So it's important to remember also the false positives LPRs that the other speakers have mentioned.

And yeah, they just have a possibility of harming people, and we shouldn't be accepting that.

So I don't think this is what public safety should look like.

We have other ways to do it with housing, better roads, etc.

Thank you, Sebastian.

Next we have Hannah Leonard.

Hello, yes.

Um, can you hear me?

Okay, I'm gonna cut to the chase here.

My name is Hannah Leonard, and I'm with the Silicon Valley DSA, just like the certified hero, Tim McKinsey.

Um I'm gonna cut to the chase here and talk directly to Chief Chief Canfield.

Um speaking as an Air Force veteran who has worked on the flight line, as in someone who knows what it feels like to be charged with upholding the safety of others.

I can tell you that back in my active duty days, no one would have thanked me for repairing a mistake that endangered the security of others.

They call they call it doing it the bare minimum, and I get written up full stop.

A lot of people have thanked you for ending the flock contract, and I agree that was the like the right call.

Um, but to be honest with you, just giving constructive criticism.

In my opinion, if you want to deserve all the thanks that you've gotten here today, you need to drop your recommendation of searching for another ALPR contract entirely.

The fact that you even suggested it suggests to me that MVPD didn't actually learn the lesson that needs to be learned here.

It indicates to me that you want to normalize a technology that encourages warrantless surveillance and creates an infrastructure that is inherently endangerous.

It is an uphill battle to control ALPRs, and eventually someone who you do not want to control that technology will get their hands on it just by creating the infrastructure alone.

So please seriously reconsider uh even the notion of going back to ALPRs.

That is something that we need to get taken down if we want to live in a safe community.

Uh don't let your self get scammed, basically.

Thank you, Hannah.

Next we have Batman of San Jose.

Can you hear me?

I can hear you, Batman.

Perfect, because I'm not gonna sugarcoat this.

Like the last speaker mentioned, this is the bare minimum turning off the cameras.

If they put the cameras back up, you need to build a box around them and lock the box.

I don't care what you have to do, you need to stop this.

We've already seen the damage that flock has done across the country, and switching over to another brand of you know, fascist surveillance is not a solution here.

Good community policing should not have our neighbors watching their back 24-7.

Good community policing should involve discussions with the community.

Transparency, openness, not this backdoor overreach into our private lives.

I work in Mountain View, and I don't want to see my co-workers get taken by ice, and this tool will allow that to happen.

Tools like this will allow that to happen.

So remove any cameras that are still up.

Do not, and I repeat, do not go over to a different form of surveillance because again, the voters will remember this, and each and every one of you will be up for election at some point, and they're not to be so kind if you don't.

Thank you.

Uh, next we have Claire Witt White.

Hello.

Uh, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Hi.

Um, my name is Claire and with Silicon Valley DSA.

Um, I'd like to urge the council to cancel the flock contract.

It's my belief that Mountain View cannot guarantee compliance with SB 34 and continue using the flock cameras.

Flock safety has a known track record of poor security practices and misleading law enforcement about data sharing policies.

Mountain V's flock data have already been shared more widely than intended, and I believe that this company has already demonstrated that they are dishonest or incompetent.

And for that reason, I believe more policy violations are likely.

Even assuming that Mountain View's sharing policies are followed, it has been reported that local police departments, including 10 California departments, have conducted searches on behalf of federal authorities.

This includes SFPD, which Mountain View currently shares its flock data with.

Anyone who has viewed flock search audits has seen that a large proportion of searches have missing recent uh missing reason uh codes or use vague uh codes such as like investigation or suspect, which means that um access is completely unaccountable, and any agency um with access to Mountain V's data can search on behalf of ICE with no evidence.

Um, so yes, please protect our immigrant neighbors and all of our civil liberties and cancel the contract.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have George Lance.

Uh yes, look, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, great.

Um, I know you guys know the first amendment and the importance of not discriminating and uh viewpoint discrimination is about as bad as it gets.

Please refrain from that.

Um, and remember that you can be offensive with free speech, and if people want to say fucking stops, they can say that.

And you can't stop them.

This is free speech, the tell versus them, and so on.

Don't make me uh file a restraint against your city, because I'd be happy to do it.

Um, we have a problem with this law group, because they're trained by the same genociders in Israel that train these groups that come through and treat us all like ICE, and the rest of them are all trained by the IDF.

Um, and if there's one efficient group of um killers and authoritarians, that would be genociding Zionists Jews in Israel and uh their friends like the and the financiers that keep us enslaved in our countries.

Um, we should get away from groups like the sports.

Also, make sure that our city uh governments don't spend any money with Jeffrey and his group of Jewish supremacists on their deviant sexual perversions.

Um of the aboard there may not um in the elements about their daddy's uh the Zionists, but the rest of the world is coming uh really that they're not like the students who are supremacy, and we need to wake up to that except as we're waking up with box stuff, everybody.

It's time to take action.

Thank you, your time is up.

Um next we have Kinton.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Thank you.

Uh to the Mountain View Police Department.

Well done auditing and turning off these cameras.

So, council, you buffoons excitedly voted for the surveillance state, and now you clutch pearls and do your best surprise Pikachu face when the surveillance state is abused.

Who could have seen this coming besides everyone?

Of course, the system was abused, abused is its raison d'etre.

This company's product is an intentional Fourth Amendment violation.

This is not taking a photo in public, it is taking a photo, GPS, and timestamp tagging it and then putting it into a searchable database.

There is case law here, Carpenter versus United States, where warrantless access to timestamp cell phone location data has been rolled a Fourth Amendment violation.

Even if we decide to have some sort of public surveillance cameras, they should never be accessed without judicial oversight.

I think we've seen enough headlines about police and other parties have abused these systems that requiring an actual warrant should be table stakes.

Many people supporting these cam uh surveillance cameras will say you should not care about these cameras if you have nothing to hide.

Saying you do not care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is like saying you don't care about freedom of speech because you have nothing to say.

In conclusion, I guess better late than never.

Get these flocking cameras out of my flocking city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have our last uh uh virtual speaker, Larry Fink.

Can you hear me?

Yes, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

All right, great.

Thank you.

Uh see the time's already going.

Okay.

Um, good evening there, city members, and especially the leftist hypocrites in the audience.

I'm here to talk about the flock safety cameras.

Those license plate readers.

Um, that could finally bring some accountability to our streets.

But let's be real.

These cameras are just another brick to the police state wall.

Surveillance monster that's already out of control.

But here's the ugly truth.

The police aren't protectors, they're corrupt puppets taking orders from the left of criminals.

Well, antifa bugs riot, burn cities, and assault innocents.

The cops stand down, twiddling their thumbs because their democrat overlords tell them to.

But God forbid a white man, a Christian, or anyone daring to stand against them, show up.

They all get harassed, they get doxxed and persecuted.

Leftists get away with murder, literally, while conservators are hunted like dogs.

And let's not forget about the beautiful irony of it all.

The same leftists who are sobbing and whining about the police state cameras and fascist ice just watched the pressures for any good and Alex Pretty get lit up by federal agents in Minneapolis.

Pretty and good.

More like pretty dead and good riddance.

They stood in the way of real enforcement, played hero for illegals, and found out what happens when the machine they built finally turns on their own.

We must secure the existence of our people in a future for white children.

It's just uh it's just crazy watching these liberal retards cross.

Thank you so much for your comment.

Um, we will now, um, that was our last public comment.

Um, so I actually am gonna ask my colleagues, uh, would you rather take a break now or after or power power through?

Okay, we're powering through.

Um, what?

Alright, how how does everyone feel?

Do you want to take a break now or all right?

Let's let's let's um we will take a break after this item.

Um, huh?

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

So we have on the docket list uh council member Kamei.

Great.

Thank you.

Um so I have a few questions.

Um so for uh Chief, there was a couple council questions that asked about some of the concerns the public raised about um the blinking lights, worried about that the cameras could, you know, so operable.

And then another question about um, you know, should um council uh vote on the staff recommendation and the contract.

How fast could we expect the cameras to be removed?

So maybe if you don't mind sharing that information and answers to those questions with the public, I think that'd be helpful.

Certainly I'm gonna pass the technical question to Captain Crohn.

Okay.

In regards to the blinking lights, we were made aware of that issue.

Um we had been consistently reaching out to Flocks since Chief turned off the cameras to ensure that they were actually turned off and not collecting data.

Um they assured us they were aware of the blinking light issue.

We have not received any specific uh about what the lights were, but we've been assured that there's no data being captured.

Okay.

So we I know that there was um some conversation or some question to in the council questions about physical all barrier alternatives to covering the cameras.

So is that something that council would need to provide direction or or would need to be explored?

The second question that you also asked.

Yes.

Um the contract, I believe it states that uh cameras would need to come down in a reasonable amount of time.

An alternative that has been discussed between city staff is uh bringing in a vendor or our own staff to have the cameras removed by electricians to expedite the process, but it would be a obviously an expedited intent, but we need to see uh what the timeline would be with flock safety.

Okay.

I think given the level of interest from our community, would there be a way for us to share with the community when the cameras are removed?

Should we go in that direction?

Not trying to jump the shark on my recommendation, but pending the city council's direction, communication would not be a challenge.

Okay, that's to provide to the community.

Okay, great.

All right, well, um, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I'm gonna make a motion.

Um, and first I just wanna thank our community uh and express my solidarity.

I also want to thank our police chief and our city staff for their swift action once the unauthorized access to our data was discovered.

I appreciate the professionalism, transparency, and community focused leadership shown in this moment by our city.

Acknowledging a situation, acting quickly, and communicating openly reflects integrity and public service.

We've talked about how our city is known as a community for all, and being a community for all means telling the truth, even when it's difficult, it means choosing accountability and it means centering trust.

So tonight, as a council, we have the opportunity to act with unity.

The policy decision before us, I believe is clear.

So I'm making the motion uh to support the staff recommendation to authorize the city manager or designee to terminate the existing automatic license plate reader contract with SOF with the Flock safety, and also hoping that that will include um not looking into uh other ALPRs at this time and when the cameras are removed, being able to provide a community message so that residents know um that the cameras are no longer um in our city.

Um and I think this is all um taking into account and not lost on me just last week, February 19th was the day of remembrance, and the day of remembrance is um in to acknowledge when President Roosevelt signed executive order 9066, which led to the forced removal and incarceration of over a hundred and twenty thousand American citizens of Japanese ancestry living in the West Coast.

Families were forced to abandon their homes, businesses, and livelihoods.

No Japanese Americans were ever charged or convicted of espionage or sabotage, yet they were targeted and imprisoned simply for having a face that didn't look like everyone else's.

So at this moment, I believe it's incumbent on all of us as city council members to be vigilant in protecting both our public safety but also our civil rights, and I believe by taking this action, we can do both.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kamei.

Um, we have a motion by council member Kamei and it was seconded by Councilmember Ramirez.

And next we have on our uh docket is Councilmember Clark.

Thank you.

Um I I think I support the motion.

I just wanted to um clarify a couple or one thing and then make a um just a friendly suggestion if um if others are amenable to it.

One the the first would be um, well, I certainly agree.

I don't think we're we're going to be interested in implementing a new um ALPR solution any time soon.

Um I do um the the wording of you know looking into things um I just want to make sure that the I think I'm um as bad of a situation as this is I'm I'm really proud that we have the the chief who we that we have and the team um that he's surrounded himself with as well as our city um management leadership um and I I just want to make sure that they have uh I think that they should have the the tools and the ability to bring you know any solution to us um uh whether any technology to us that they think will help improve um the the safety of of our community um obviously I don't think we'll be interested in AOPRs uh or replacement AOPRs anytime soon, but I just want to make sure that they we're not limiting their ability to to research other things.

So as long as we clarify that, and then the only other thing that I was going to um bring up is I think it um I don't know how the termination process works with respect to the actual provision in the contract or if there's a there'd be a runoff period or something like that, but to the extent there is uh I'm happy to support the motion authorizing staff to terminate the contract if they wish.

If there's if there's some um if there's some negotiation that occurs that maybe I think before um before we open and implemented the system we had access to like a query only um uh query only account and so maybe um if there was a a way for us if if the chief and the city leadership wants to um preserve a query only ability.

Um obviously no cameras not providing data or anything like that, but still have the ability to query those databases when you know something significant happens.

Um that way we're we're still getting the benefit of that.

And obviously that we would only do that if there's no cost to it or or maybe um uh but I just uh I just want to give staff the negotiating um flexibility to uh if there's an opportunity to preserve um some of the uh the more helpful um aspects of this that doesn't involve us, you know, having cameras or providing data or spending or giving any more money to walk as part of it.

Um that might be that might be helpful.

Um so I would just suggest that we give them the ability to to do that if they wish, not not directing them to do that, just giving them the ability to do to do that as part of the termination process or or the um or the wind down process for this.

Maybe as like an interim um an intern uh an interim option.

Um those are the only two things that I suggest.

I think I'll uh likely support the motion, but if others want to chime in on those, I think that might be um that might be helpful.

Or if staff has any comments on that, they can comment on that too, whether it would be helpful or not.

Councilmember Schulwalter.

Yeah, I um I appreciate uh council member Kamei's statement.

That was very good.

Um we are really proud that the um the police department has been honest and straightforward and come forward to us with this problem.

Um and uh and it's also very interesting how this problem is so widespread.

I mean, it's not just us, it's it's many organizations.

So I hope that as we move forward with this, we will, you know, we will take this lesson to heart, but we won't necessarily take it to heart by ourselves.

We will think about, you know, what are ways that we can protect, continue to protect, but protect our residents, um, as the Mountain View police and also working with other police in in ways that you know that safeguard everybody's everybody's um liberty.

The other thing I want to talk about here is the idea of value and cost.

You know, when we first talked about this in um uh 2024, uh that's when the proposal to install these came forward, the world, our nation in particular, was in a very different place.

And um, so we heard uh on the city council, we heard about all of the safeguards that the police were putting in place, and we we thought they were a good idea.

But I think that in retrospect, we can we can say we were naive, and we should have been more skeptical.

And certainly the place we find ourselves in as a nation, I mean, it's just completely different now.

And it means that this sort of thing has to be looked at with a completely different lens than it did before.

Maybe it should have been looked at that lens before, but it's just really crystal clear now that it needs to be looked that way before.

But I just want to I want to say that I really appreciated when you first laid this out to us, you talked about what would be the value for um uh for law enforcement, and you had lots of examples, and many of them have come through.

And you talked about the cost, and the cost was in terms of money, because that's kind of where we were as in at that point.

We weren't so concerned about civil liberties, but times have changed, and now the cost for money is really inconsequential.

I mean, we don't want to spend a hundred thousand dollars on something that we shouldn't spend it on, but what's the real cost is the cost to our civil liberties, and so I think that sometimes we have a tendency to think just in terms of money, and it's really um important for all of us to remember that costs aren't just money, they're other things as well, and so that's why it's so important that we move forward with um getting rid of these cameras, and um, and also I think um we we maybe have a little bit of a um of a hole in our uh in our communication about crime statistics.

I know we do have a transparency page, and if somebody goes to that transparency page, they can see the crime statistics.

But I know um I I just get very busy, and um I I've never done that, and clearly I should have done that.

So I would just ask that moving forward maybe every year when those climb crime statistics are fresh or in in whatever time frame that you think makes sense, chief.

I would appreciate it if you would just send me an email with a little update about this is where we are this year, and this is how it changed, so that um I uh I just don't get um you know overwhelmed by day-to-day activities and forget about these things because they're very important.

So thank you, and yes, I will be supporting the um the motion.

Appreciate it, council member Hicks.

Well, I can keep this short because um the former council members have said much of what I much of what I would have said.

Thank you, Council Member Kamei for um, I think really wrapping that up in a good way.

Um, and I will be supporting the motion, and in particular, important to me are um yes, authorizing uh termination of the ALPR readers with Flock safety, also taking the cameras down.

I like the way you said expediting that process and community communicating it to the community.

Um I guess will we be securing the remaining money from the contract?

Is that implied?

I'm not sure that I heard that said, uh, thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

That will be part of uh the discussions with with legal and with staff, okay.

So we don't need to add that to the motion, but I assume that will happen.

And then most important, or equally important, uh what you said, not starting up a new contract, not shopping around, in particular to me, while the situation with ICE continues to evolve, you know, there's a state of the union going on tonight.

I don't know what's being said, and you know, the state that we're in now is not the state that I would have been able to envision five, ten, fifteen years ago.

You know, we're in uh a really novel and not good situation, and I would not want license plate readers out in while we're while we're in this particular state, and I hope we can get out of it, thank you, council member Hicks.

Councilmember McAllister, okay.

Um I'm gonna put a little context into my uh answer.

Uh I recall when I was on the council last, there was a concern among many of you in this room that we should defund the police department, and that was part of the national narrative at the time, and it seemed to have influenced a lot of people in Mountain View, and so I'm putting that in the back of my mind, and now we have a concern about privacy, and the national narrative is about ice coming along and and taking care of and going after people, and I'm totally on board with that.

I mean, uh, the abuse of the political system going right now is is outrageous, and we are community involved, we should protect him.

But sometimes we got to take a look at what we do right here in Mountain View.

We don't want, I don't want the national narrative to affect what we do, what we know how to do things.

This um, and I've been here longer than most of you, and I have trust in the Mountain View Police Department.

Um back when we were talking about defund the police back then.

I said I had trust in the police department, and with then people went out and said, Let's get aboard.

And the board went through a process, and they came out that Mountain View Police were good people, good organization.

And so I wanted to bring go back to that that they're still excellent people, and we should trust the Mountain View police.

The flock, I totally agree with what everybody's saying.

That's gotta go, but I'll also take the uh position, flock goes, technology is a tool.

Is it the right tool at this moment?

No.

Does it need a lot of work?

Yes, but it is a tool for to protect all of our residents in Mountain View.

Now, when we're talking about ice, that's a particular niche people in town, but they deserve, but we all deserve the same protection, but that's what it's going at.

But I know of a personal incident where the chief came, there was a burglary ring in Mountain View, well, throughout the area, and they were targeting Indians and and Asians because they kept money and gold, and they were doing daylight break-ins and taking money, and I don't know if many people this was in uh 24, uh late at 24, and technology like this helps solve the crime, and that's important as it is a tool that will help protect our residents from these type of deals.

We also have to understand, again, the technology's not there, but thieves don't live in Mountain View.

They come in, they're we know we're a prosperous city, we have things to do.

So, whoever the criminals, they're always going all the way around.

So we need all the help we can get, and some of the technology of, you know, the old fashioned as Pat was saying, it's not gonna help us protect the whole city as a whole, and so that's important.

Uh I was having a nice conversation with Tim over here.

He says he's a scientist, and I said, Tim, you're doing something, you're doing an experiment, and uh if it fails, do you just quit?

Do you pack up?

And he goes, No, we changed it.

I said, Do you change the parameters?

Do you change some of the stuff?

And he goes, Yeah.

Well, I think we will be in that position now that we tried something, it failed, and we will wait until the technology or something that will help.

That whenever if we do decide to go down that path, maybe something.

But personal liberty is very important.

Um, and I I just I'm amazed and proud of the passion that I saw tonight.

It was just incredible.

Even those people from Ottawa City came in to say, hey, let's protect all, and that that's really nice.

Um I mean, that was that was nice of them to come down to this city to figure it out.

They know that Mountain View is a pretty uh a damn good city.

I'll say not the best, but the damn good city.

Uh so I will support the motion, um, but I also say we need to trust our police.

Don't start, and I fortunately you guys, I mean the group was pretty unanimous about Mountain View Police is good.

Flock's not good, technology's not good.

And so I would like everybody to walk away tonight, still thinking, trust our police, because with we they don't have trust.

They can't protect you, bottom line.

And whatever issues are out in the national narrative coming down, just remember these guys are there day in and day out protecting us.

And again, I've been here a lot longer, and I have not seen any of the incidences that have occurred elsewhere in the United States, elsewhere in California.

So those are my words.

Thank you, Chief.

And the newbie up here, first time up here, nice uh under fire.

So it's pretty nice.

Um, but that's it.

That's all I got to say.

Thank you, Councilmember McCallser.

Councilmember's are you good?

No, no comments.

Okay.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I wasn't in the queue.

Uh that's because I uh agree with uh the motion of the floor.

I appreciate uh Councilmember Kamei's comments uh introducing um uh the the concerns and uh appreciating uh the input from uh the community.

Um, in addition to uh I think you're a generally effective advocacy.

I appreciate the fact that you were uh very courteous and respectful and adhered to uh the mayor's request not to um you know be loud and and and applaud.

Thank you for for um I think your uh important civic participation in in um uh this important issue.

Um the only other thing I wanted to share uh since I'm in the queue involuntarily now is uh I'm grateful to uh the chief for uh being proactive on this issue, uh reiterating that this is not unique to Mountain View.

I think what is unique about Mountain View is our response.

Um, grounded in um in the community and and uh um and I think very responsive uh to the concerns that that we've been hearing tonight and and earlier.

Thank you for uh your work on this.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez.

Um, so I guess my comments.

Um, so when we considered the ALPR contract in 2024, I mentioned I had feelings about it.

I I couldn't put into words and and I got a lot of flack for saying I had feelings and I really couldn't explain it.

I had a lot of time since then to really understand why I had concerns.

I mean, like obviously what happened recently was a nice uh validation of that, but um my parents grew up under martial law in the Philippines.

It was a cis they there was a system where surveillance wasn't abstract, it was a tool to use, monitor, imitate uh intimidate and silence.

And I grew up a lot with those stories on why my parents fled the Philippines to come to the US.

Um, even though I was born in this country, I grew up with the awareness on how belonging can feel conditional.

Um I think Councilmember Kamei for sharing her story on her family, but since 2016 I've carried a passport card with me at all times.

Not because I I wasn't sure of my own status.

I was born in this country.

I I I have citizenship, but like I felt like I needed that safety blanket um to to show I belonged in case I would get picked up in the street.

And keep in mind this was 2016, this was Obama administration.

Um, and so for many immigrants and communities, the color surveillance technology carries that same historical weight.

It's it's not neutral.

Um I am glad that the police chief was proactive um in removing the cameras or taking our cameras offline.

I am hopeful that we can expedite it.

I am also hopeful that as you do your conversations.

I know some people are concerned about like those conversations could lead to other um ALPRs.

I I hope that it doesn't, quite honestly.

Um I hope that these community conversations actually draw into how can how can our police department protect our community, all of our community, um, especially with these threats from the federal government.

It is out of all the things um as mayor right now, this is the one that keeps me awake at night.

And I was scared in 2016.

I am now, it is suffocating how terrifying it is for our community now.

And I I hope you continue that conversation with those who are most vulnerable in our community on how we can we can protect them.

I uh support the motion on the floor.

I I'm glad that I'm hoping I it sounds like it's gonna be unanimous, so that's gonna be great.

Um I'm really hoping that more cities take a deeper look at their program.

I I am slightly worried that they don't have the same care that our police department has and and the push that our community has on our police department to to ensure that these that we have that kind of accountability.

Um so with that, um, once again, I will be supporting ending this contract with Locke, and I hope it is expedited, and I hope that we can uh find a way to get those cameras out.

So thank you.

And now let's move to a vote.

Oh, Councilmember Clark, want to clarify the motion?

I just wanted to clarify that so the motion is essentially the the staff recommendation, it sounds like and then um the only question is um maybe maybe to the chief.

I don't know how the termination process works.

Would it would it be helpful for you to have the authority within, you know, we're we're authorizing you to um to terminate the agreement.

Would it also be helpful for us if there's support to authorize you to um negotiate access to a to a query only ability like you had earlier?

That way you can do, you know, if there's a kidnapping or something like that, and you want to run um uh run a query through some neighboring jurisdictions that are part of the network or something like that, you'd have the ability to do that, or is that just maybe maybe that isn't helpful?

Um I just want to make sure we're giving you the the tools you feel you need.

Um during this interim period.

Uh to to answer the question, it it is helpful.

To be very clear, I am very proud of how we utilized our ALPR data.

Very confident in the manner in which it was utilized within the police department.

Um it is an important tool.

Uh it could provide significant uh leads and uh insights into important investigations.

If that's the direction of counsel, then we'll take a thoughtful approach to how that is utilized within the organization and what access controls those are uh those are provided to our folks.

Um if that's direction, certainly it would be something that we would examine utilizing.

Okay.

Yeah, it wouldn't be I guess it's up to the motion maker and the secondary.

It wouldn't it was not directing you to do that, it's just giving you the ability through the the negotiation process to to do that if you'd like, but that's up to the the motion maker and the second or whether they they want to include that or not you want me to it's essentially before we rolled out the cameras in the floor system we had query only access so that we could run, say there's a a kidnapping or a significant um event that occurs and there's a plate or something associated with that.

They could query the database of the of the of the rest of the network, so like San Francisco.

I'm maybe the chief can describe this better than I can.

But they would they would be able to get some of those hits.

So there's no data being provided by Mountain View, it's just a query only account so that they're not losing access to that database tool that they previously had access to.

If they want it, it's up to them.

Um I appreciate the suggestion.

I I guess you know uh I it would be helpful to understand can we cancel the contract and still benefit from the data?

How does that work operationally?

Um, legal question about how to cancel the contract and maintain it, I don't know.

Uh if we were to cancel the contract or amend it in some way to have us have no cameras but only a uh ability for our uh selected department members to access that data, it would provide us with the ability to have insights for significant cases, but would not provide any data into the system.

Do you think I I guess it would be helpful to to better better understand whether uh flock or other jurisdictions actually would would want to participate if we're not contributing to the to the system.

I think that would be a conversation that we would have with them.

My initial feeling is that likely uh that there is a a path for us to have access without providing any information but that's not something that we've discussed with them.

Um however that was in place as council member clerk stated prior to this pilot program uh and I believe that numerous agencies do utilize the the data without inputting any data or having any cameras do you need direction from the council to achieve this it feels like an operational matter.

So I think just to explain a little further one of the things that um most ALPR vendors do before an agency would enter a contract is they provide kind of a see what our system can provide you sort of access.

And so that's essentially what MVPD did before we entered into a formal contract.

We had no data that we were providing we had no cameras that we were providing but it allowed the um police department staff to be able to query a search even though we were not giving anything to anyone um so I think operationally that is something that um the chief could discuss as we cancel this contract I just don't think we have a resolute answer as to whether that's possible but it is something that I believe most of the vendors allow.

I think my suggestion isn't directing them to do that thou shall do that's just giving them the option to have that as part of the conversation of the transmission.

Okay.

All right we are going to Councilmember McAllister.

So I just asked the chief uh the data that we clean uh collect is for only 30 days and then it's deleted that is the standard data sharing is in the system is a 30 day um I think there are some agencies that have variations some more some less but as a a rule of thumb 30 days is those so uh council member clark's deal the most it would have last would be 30 days to cue up the information that's correct okay.

Just bring some clarity that it's only going to last 30 days or whenever we cancel it.

Councilmember Hicks Yeah I'm just a little skeptical I'm a little um confused about the implications of of this uh of how it would affect our negotiation it's we would be canceling with Flock but keeping a connection with them and I'm wondering does it expire in 30 days and then also um and then also how does this affect our negotiations with them uh for getting money back for taking the cameras down I don't think we'll have the answers to this tonight but it sounds like it might not be a path we would want to go down.

Yeah those aren't questions that I'd be able to answer immediately but I do think that there um the they are the access is potentially separate from uh the removal of the cameras etc.

I don't see one uh at first pass as being impeding the other yeah it seems like there might be a payment system for continued use it just seems like there are a whole bunch of questions we don't know the answer to and I don't feel like I can like I can um make that kind of decision right here I'm a little skeptical that it's a good idea.

Councilmember Kamei okay thanks.

Well, I guess as the motion maker, I should say if I accept.

I think I um I appreciate the sentiment, Council member Clark.

I think, given that there seems to be more follow-up and information um necessary.

Perhaps um that can I I don't feel comfortable at this time including it, but I understand the intent and I um appreciate colleagues' um input in terms of wanting to make sure that we have public safety tools that are evolved to be able to meet the needs of our residents.

I think at this time it was also agendized as a recommendation to terminate the contract.

I feel conflict in terminating a contract, but then negotiating other aspects of a contract when the staff recommendation was to terminate.

So I think at this time I'll just keep it as the staff recommendation.

And perhaps staff chief can provide an off agenda memo on the other tools that are available.

I'm assuming it's not just these query query systems anymore, that there might be other um elements to public safety that we are not aware of as a council because we are not in that line of work um day in and day out.

So that would be hopefully a compromise, Councilmember Clark.

That's perfectly fine.

I mean, if there are if there are uh if there are databases that solutions that you want to bring to us at some point, um, that's query only.

Um, you know, I'm I'd personally be fine with reviewing that.

But but yeah, if you want to just keep things simple and uh just go with the staff recommendation tonight, that's fine with me.

I just wanted to raise it.

All right, now the docket is clear.

I think we are ready for a vote on a clean motion.

Motion passes unanimously.

We will now take a 10-minute break.

We're gonna reconvene at 10 o'clock.

All right, I call the meeting back to order at 10 06 p.m.

There is uh, because it is past 10 o'clock.

We need a motion to extend past 10 o'clock.

I see.

Thank you, Councilmember Clark.

Thank you, Councilmember Kamei.

We have a motion to continue the uh meeting past 10 o'clock, moved by council member Clark, seconded by council commit Council Member Kame.

Uh, we are ready for a vote.

No.

Oh my gosh.

So uh a bare majority passing it.

Four to with uh council member Ramirez absence.

Um so now we will move on to item 6.2 fiscal year 2025-26 mid year budget status report and adjustments, fiscal year 2026-27, preliminary general operating fund forecast, and fiscal years 2025 to 27 council work plan six month project update.

Finance and administrative services director, Derek Ramponi, an assistant finance and administrative services director, Grace Zen, will present the item.

If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

All right.

All right, good evening, Mayor Ramos and Vice Mayor Clark and the council members, Dara Crampone, your Finance and Administrative Services Director.

And as you said earlier, I'm joined tonight with Grace Sang, the assistant finance and administrative services director.

Tonight's item is the fiscal year 2526 mid year budget report.

As you know, this is our standard annual mid year report where we look at how the city is doing financially for the first six months of the fiscal year and if any adjustments or changes to the adopted budget are needed.

The city has a long history of sound fiscal practices, between uh prudent budgeting practices of balancing ongoing expenditures with ongoing revenues and only using one-time revenues for one-time costs, not for ongoing expenditures.

In addition, the city makes it a priority to adopt structurally balanced budgets every year.

And in recent years, the city has experienced strong revenue growth, resulting in larger than normal operating balances at year end.

These operating balances have allowed the city to address a portion of our unfunded liabilities, such as making additional payments directly to CalPERS, to pay down the city's pension liability and to fully fund the city's post-employment benefits that are due to retirees for health insurance.

Another one of the city's financial practices is to build reserves in anticipation of potential budget constraints and to maintain sufficient funds to withstand significant temporary declines in revenue.

This slide is a reminder of the financial recognition that the city has received and continues to receive from the triple A credit rating by standard and poor's the highest rating possible to the continued recognition by national organizations for our budget document, our annual audited financial statements, and excellence in procurement as well.

All of these accomplishments are great examples of not only the strong fiscal health of the city, but also the excellent product that the city prepares in relation to the budget and reporting and procurement.

Here's a timeline, just as a reminder of where we are in the budget process.

As you can see, we're here at the mid-year budget update in February.

We'll be bringing back a preliminary review of the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget in April, as well as there will be a study session for this capital improvement program.

In May, at the end of May, we'll release the recommended budget, and then two meetings in June, two public hearings that will see adoption of the recommended budget.

Overall, the national economy entered calendar year 2026 on relatively solid footing and has remained resilient despite ongoing economic uncertainty and market volatility.

Inflation still remains a concern as consumer prices remain elevated compared to pre-pandemic levels.

Adding pressure to the inflation is the uncertainty surrounding tariffs on imported goods.

And as of recently, inflation still remains above the Federal Reserve's goal of 2%.

Consumer spending continues though to drive the be the driving force behind much of the economic activity and growth in the nation.

However, it appears that only higher income households continue to increase their purchasing while lower income households have reduced their spending due to rising costs.

With that being said, the nation faces continues to face significant potential challenges.

Changes in federal policies, federal government shutdowns, and the threat of federal funding freezes and reductions all add to the uncertainty and have potential to negatively impact economic activity and consumer confidence.

And then at the state level, the state budget is facing a shortfall of 21 billion dollars.

In order to balance the budget, the state has moved funds around and is dipping into some of the reserves.

This is another potential issue that we need to watch, as this could have a negative impact on the local economy.

Now we're turning to the local economy.

I do want to say that even though we are continuing to see signs of a slowing economy, we are doing better than others.

Other cities are experiencing similar issues as us, showing basically a slowdown in growth in revenues.

Specifically, the city of Mountain View is not experiencing the same growth rates as it has in the past, especially with property tax revenues and even other revenues that are flattening.

While unemployment remains low around 3.5%, it is higher than a year ago, but is lower than when it hit a peak of 4.1% in July of 2025.

But we are expecting local unemployment to continue to increase in the near future.

And as this impacts the City of Mountain Views locally, we see a fewer employees that are working in the city impact the sales tax revenue that is generated.

Now we're turning to the numbers for 2526.

You'll see, this is just a comparison slide of the estimated, what staff is estimating for the current fiscal year in the far right column compared to actual amounts from 2425 in the far left column and the adopted budget in the middle column for this current fiscal year.

As you can see, we the adopted budget estimated a operating balance of 743,000, and now with the mid-year amendments, we're expecting a balance of about 1.7 million at the end of this fiscal year.

Put some of that in context, just wanted to say that the you can see that the revenues are coming in slightly higher when compared to the budget for this fiscal year, but only about 0.3% higher than we budgeted at the beginning of the fiscal year.

As you can see, they're mostly expected to be the same as the adopted budget with a few increases in some of the categories, but a decrease in property tax of $2.5 million or 3%, and other local taxes, such as utility users tax, which is estimated to be 10% or $1.2 million lower than the budget.

And as you can see on this slide, sales tax is actually expected to be in line with the budgeted level of about $23 million.

Now we turn to expenditures.

They are expected to be slightly lower than the oper uh than the adopted budget, but only by 0.2% or $378,000.

As you can see on this slide, we continue to see savings in salaries and benefits.

These are in line with expected salaries savings due to normal vacancies.

This slide is a snapshot of all the other funds or some of the major funds of the city, I should say.

As you can see, really the development services fund, which is anticipated to end the year with revenue that is higher than the budget and expenditures coming in lower than budget.

As you probably recall, this is a reversal of recent trends of negative budget variances in the development services fund.

The shoreline regional park community fund is trending to have revenues that are also coming in below budget, which is mainly due to lower than expected property tax revenue.

However, expenditures are also expected to be below budget.

Here is a summary of the recommended mid-year budget adjustments by fund type.

The largest items on here are transfer of funds to reserves, as can be seen by the arrow there.

That includes $2 million to be transferred to the CIP reserve, a million to the strategic property acquisition reserve, and 1 million to the parental leave reserve.

The other large item you'll see on this page is the 11.7 million dollar decrease in revenue in the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

Of that amount, 14.2 million is actually the lower than expected property taxes, but that's offset by 2.5 million in expected investment earnings coming in higher than budget.

From further details on these adjustments, they can be found on pages 34 through 39 of the staff report and in attachments two and three.

As part of the mid-year report, staff is proposing various position changes as can be seen on this slide.

There are two new limited period positions being proposed, three new ongoing positions, and a few reclassifications of existing positions, including a reorganization of the transportation and business services division to create a new division that focuses solely on transportation and traffic.

More information on these proposed position changes can be found on pages 39 through 42 of the staff report and attachments 4 and 5.

Now we turn to fiscal year 26-27 forecast.

These details of this section start on page 43 of the staff report.

As you can see on this chart, the general operating fund revenues are flattening while expenditures continue to climb, leading to a much smaller operating balance as previously discussed.

Staff is projecting an operating balance of around 453,000, as can be seen on the far right for next year.

It should be noted that this projected operating balance does not include any 2627 ongoing budget requests that are currently under review by the city manager and budget team.

I would also like to note that this projected balance of 453,000 will likely change between now and the preview of the recommended budget in April.

Staff is currently analyzing projected revenues and expenditures and will include these updates in the April 14th item.

I would also like to point out just a few assumptions and risks that are related to the forecast.

Unfortunately, nobody has a crystal ball.

We are using current data with input from economists and others to build our forecast.

As stated earlier, revenue growth is expected to be minimal with expenditures that are increasing at a higher rate than revenues.

Some of the risks are unknowns when developing the forecast, how long will it take to get inflation back down to the 2% target?

Any uncertainty with policies that are coming out of Washington and what their impact may be on the local economy.

And it also should be noted that a recession scenario has not been included in this forecast.

Attachment one to the staff report lists out each department's performance measures and provides a six-month status update on each.

As you will recall, a few years ago, the city brought in a consultant to revamp and improve all of the performance measures for every department.

And now that we are in the second year of implementation of these performance measures, we've been monitoring them and have been updating them slightly as needed to refine them to align with uh tracking capabilities.

The final item in the staff report is attachment six, which is the six-month project update for the fiscal year's 26-20, 25-27 council work plan.

Another update on this will be provided in June.

And then just next steps on this final slide showing the next steps.

The next the next touch point for the budget will be the preliminary review of the fiscal year 26-27 recommended budget and the CIP study session on April 14th.

The first public hearing on the recommended budget will be held on June 9th, and the final public budget, public hearing and adoption of the budget and the CIP will include will occur on the 23rd of June.

We want to thank you for allowing us to present this item, and that concludes our presentation.

Grace and I are happy to assist with answering any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Raponi.

Um, does any member of the council have any questions?

Anyone?

Councilmember McAllister.

My questions are more towards the uh the performance uh criteria and that.

So I don't know if that has to do with you or will this be the time to ask those questions.

Okay, so I will.

Okay, so under community, um, community development department.

Uh item 10 number of companies receiving business assistance from the city.

So 75.

So exactly what type of assistance are these businesses receiving.

Good evening, thank you.

Um Amanda Rotella, Economic Vitality Manager.

So it's a variety of services.

Um, everything from receiving receiving support around our facade improvement grant program to support from our business ambassador team, permit facilitation, site selection support.

Um we meet one-on-one with businesses to understand their challenges and then do resource uh resource referrals.

So a whole range of services they receive.

So it's not financial, it's just knowledge and guidance.

Some of them do receive, you know, our facade improvement grant funds, but it's not just that, it's a variety of services and support.

Okay, thank you.

Um then the question for the oh, I just marked it here.

Um, let's go to public works.

Have a question for public works.

Thank you for staying.

So my question to you is more clarity.

Um your performances number of construction projects awarded and percentage of time approved bid is within 25% of the engineers' estimate.

So what does that mean?

That means that as we finish a hundred percent design plans and specs, um, our engineer or our consultant, our design consultant at that time gives us a hundred percent estimate for how much they think on bid day our project should cost.

And then so what this number is is it's a comparison between that number that the consultant gives us, say they say X project should cost a million dollars, and on bid day we get five bids, and the lowest responsive and responsible bid is you know 1.1 million dollars, then our difference is that $100,000 difference between the engineers' estimate and what we actually get for a low bid in this particular instance.

Just doing quick math, that's a 10% differential, and so it would count as being within this 25% differential in the performance measure.

So you use the word the consultant gave you a bid.

How often so how do uh do we use consultants mostly for getting us to the point, or how much do we do an in-house to get to that estimate?

The vast majority of our projects are done through consultant design.

We utilize their expertise and their um, I'll call it their embedment in the industry and keeping track of what current trends are with respect to material pricing and labor costs to give us the most as best as they can predict them the best estimate for the project at that time.

So reading this chart here, you've had 15 projects for within the first six months, and 80% of your projects come within 25% of the engineers' estimate.

That is correct.

Okay, and that is um 25% either above or 25% below.

So it's a you know, it's a plus or minus.

Is that a good number to work with?

I mean, is that I mean that could be industry standards, but is it something that we can we strive to do, or of course we just strive to do better?

It's it's data that we use in-house really to track how our consultants are doing.

Um, personally, in my experience, any any low bid that comes in about 10% or so of the engineer's estimate.

That that's pretty good.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, uh, city manager's office.

This is the um item 17.

Exit to permanent housing from city funded homeless programs.

I was just is there a dollar amount?

Well, maybe our finance director, is there a dollar amount for that particular program?

I'm trying to find it real quick.

City managers number uh 17.

Oh, we have a volunteer coming down at the dollar.

Um Audrey Ramberg, uh assistant city manager.

Um the city's investments in our programs from Stably Housed include our safe parking program, which is um approximately a million dollars in city funding per year.

Um, in addition, there are um contributions in partnership with the county for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing, and I don't remember the precise dollar amounts for those, but they're um in the amount of um around a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Okay, the reason I asked is I'm again being nitpicky.

Well not just just being me, that you did 60 people uh exited permanent housing, and I'm just trying to say how much it cost us to uh to get 60 people into permanent housing.

So I just see how we're doing with our money as it and the programs that we're doing are a good uh worth of value.

So if you could get to that to later on, that'd be appreciated.

Sure.

And I think uh one other thing I uh I don't know if it's a comment, but the fire department or is that uh question?

City even I believe you had a comment.

Comment, okay.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Council Member Show Walter.

I just have a couple I just have a couple of questions.

Um, and there are things really that were in the answers, but I I just want to share them because I think they're they're sort of an interesting change.

One is the four million dollars, I think uh 34 question 34.

The staff report says appropriate 4.1 um million dollars in the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund for Administrative Overhead, provides increased funding for administrative overhead costs based on updated uh cost allocation study.

Can you tell us a little bit about that cost allocation study and and what the um impacts of that are throughout the city?

Yeah, thanks for the question.

So this uh we two years or a year ago we conducted a uh independent cost allocation plan study, which basically looks at all the administrative costs throughout the city and uh determines who's benefiting from those costs, which departments or funds of the city are benefiting from, and it's specifically if you think about um Shoreline as a standalone agency.

Um we provide accounting services, uh the financial accounting services, IT, human resources, police and fire, all those costs would be you know should be borne by um a separate agency like that that receives those services.

And so we had not done a study in 10 years, and as a result of that study, we um it was determined that in increased uh charges need to be allocated throughout the city to different funds, and so as a result, that's what we're bringing to the council tonight.

That Shoreline should be paying four million dollars more at mid-year for those types of overhead and administrative fees, including police and fire and the ones I mentioned.

Well, that that makes good sense.

Is there some sort of an industry standard for how frequently you update that kind of thing?

Yes, uh every five years.

Every five years, okay.

Um but but time goes by so quickly when you have to do studies like that.

It's really hard to keep up with that kind of thing.

Okay, then the other questions I have relate to the council work plan, and um one of them was the first one was the city code cleanup.

I thought we had kind of done the cleanup that we were going to do when it was it was taken care of.

You would it's not you're carrying it, council member show Walter.

So there's been uh a few items related to the code cleanup, and actually the next item on tonight's agenda is part of this work plan item.

Um code cleanup for our small businesses.

You know what?

I didn't ask that question completely enough.

I'm sorry.

That's why it didn't make sense.

Yeah, I got that.

I read that, but but I was thinking the reach code part, the reach code part we have completed.

Is that not the case?

That is a very resounding yes.

We completed it.

We completed it in August of 2025.

Well, that's what I was worried about.

Yeah, you're right.

We are doing um commercial code updates here, and that's very important, but I um I didn't lose any sleep over that, whereas I did lose sleep over the reach code earlier.

Um, and then so that's really that's and then there was a council question about the volunteer framework, and the answer was that you would attempt to get it back in time for this council.

Very much appreciated.

Thank you.

Thank you, council member Show Walter.

Any other questions?

All right, we will now take it to public comment.

Would any member of the public online like to comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone.

A timer will be displayed on the screen.

Each speaker will have one point five minutes.

I'll reiterate that this item is on the mid-year budget.

I have one hand raise, a George Lance.

Yes.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Okay, great.

This budget seems okay with me.

One thing I will say is from a citizen's perspective, it's important that we know who we're doing business with.

And when we do these budgets, I think from a from a commoner's perspective, the numbers get a little bit hard to understand.

They all seem like they're six million.

And it's hard to know what's what, but these numbers could be just the same as two hundred and seventy-one thousand, and you wouldn't know the difference.

Most people don't know the difference there.

Um, and there's important things that people are thinking about as far as like who we're doing business with, and um in this age, people want to make sure, and and there should be an audit to make sure that the groups that we give our money to our top 20 um clients and recipients.

We need to make sure that these people are not in bed with the same Jeffrey Epstein types that do Jewish supremacy and deviant set.

Thank you for your comments.

That ends public comments.

Um, next we have council member, we'll bring it back to council to Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

First, uh, I want to share uh my appreciation and gratitude uh to staff for preparing the document and uh for the recommendations that you've made.

Uh this is um uh a fantastic mid-year budget review.

Uh the projections are concerning, right?

We we have to be mindful and and prudent, and I think that's something that uh the future council will certainly take to heart.

Um, but the recommendations in the mid-year are uh uh excellent and uh again very uh community-minded thinking about a lot of the um uh the challenges that that many are facing um related to uh you know federal government uncertainty um uh the the attacks by the federal government uh homelessness and uh the you know sort of myriad uh economic hardship uh uh issues that that many are contending with.

Um so I just want to say thank you for uh in particular expanding uh library hours uh for jump starting uh the direct financial assistance program uh for uh the the grants that are being provided to uh CBOs that serve the in-house.

These are remarkable things that you don't typically see in a mid-year um uh budget update.

So I wanted to highlight those.

There are other uh good things that that other members of the council have highlighted as well.

Um I think uh many will appreciate the public art administrator uh that you're recommending to fund.

So there's there's a lot of really good stuff, and I I wish we could um uh project a little bit more uh vocally to the community, some of the things that we're uh we're recommending.

Um so I'm going to read uh the motion.

Um and this is a another good example of why we need to amend the charter, incidentally, so that way we don't have to do this every single time.

But I'm gonna make one modification.

So first I'll move to uh approve the staff recommendations, including adopt a resolution of the city council of the city of Mountain View One, amending the fiscal year 2025-26 adopted budget to reduce revenue appropriations by two million one hundred and seventy seven thousand three hundred and seventy dollars in the general operating fund, increase revenue appropriations by two million dollars in the capital improvement reserve, increase revenue appropriations by one million dollars in the strategic property reserve, increase revenue appropriations by one million dollars in the parental leave reserve two, appropriate two million dollars in the city attorney's office, a liability self-insurance fund for litigation cases, appropriate two million dollars in the general operating fund for a transfer to the capital improvement reserve, appropriate one uh 1.8 million dollars in the public works department wastewater fund for wastewater treatment costs, appropriate one million dollars in the general operating fund for a transfer to the strategic property acquisition reserve, appropriate one million dollars in the general operating fund for a transfer to the parental leave reserve, appropriate three hundred thousand dollars in the general uh fund parental leave reserve for the parental leave program, appropriate one hundred and eighty-five thousand dollars in the city manager's office, general non-operating fund for revenue measure consulting services, pilot funding for local organization, and uh homelessness prevention program, uh, and so there I will make a modification to increase the uh funding for homeless prevention program from the recommended one hundred thousand dollars to one hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and I'll explain that later, uh appropriate $150,000 in the Finance and Administrative Services Department, general non-operating fund for revenue measure consulting services and transient occupancy tax audit, appropriate $148,300 in the community services department, general non-operating fund for active net fees, power washing services and landscape maintenance services, appropriate $125,000 in the public works department, general non-operating fund for facilities services, appropriate $74,200 in the public works department, general operating fund for facilities maintenance supervisor position and transportation division position reclassifications, appropriate $70,400 in the community development department, general operating fund for public art administration administrator position, appropriate $48,000 in the human resources department, general non-operating fund for staff training, appropriate $10,500 in the public works department, solid waste fill, solid waste landfill for $544 acres fund for permit fees, three, amending the fiscal year 2025 to 26 adopted budget to transfer and appropriate $155,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve to CIP 23 to 26, uh, 23-26, citywide uh travel demand uh model update, transfer and appropriate $105,000 from the construction and conveyance tax funds to CIP 23-13, annual real estate technical and legal services, transfer and appropriate $100,000 from the Capital Improvement Reserve to CIP 26-13 planned and emergency facilities, and four amending the fiscal year 2025 to 26 adopted budget to transfer $18,300 from the information technology department general operating fund to the city clerk's office general operating fund for net file services net zero impact to be read in title only further to be read in title only further reading waived.

We're halfway there.

Adopt a resolution of the Board of Directors of the City of the Shoreline Regional Park Community amending the fiscal year 2025 to 26 adopted budget to one reduce revenue appropriations by 11,665,100 in the shoreline regional park community fund.

Two transfer and appropriate four four hundred and seventy five thousand dollars from the shoreline regional park community fund to twenty CIP 26-10 shoreline landfill gas cap and leach a thank you uh leachate maintenance and three appropriate four million one hundred uh one hundred thousand three hundred and seventy dollars in the shoreline regional park community fund for administrative overhead, appropriate $136,800 in the public works department, shoreline regional park community fund for the transportation analysis project and facilities maintenance worker position, appropriate $44,800 in the community development department, shoreline regional park community fund for the public art administrator position, and appropriate $27,300 in the community services department shoreline regional park community fund for landscape maintenance services to be read in title only, further reading waived.

Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View authorizing the city manager or designee to amend the City of Mountain View's salary plans for regular and hourly employees to be read in title only further reading waved.

Adopt a resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View.

One, authorizing the addition of ongoing positions, 1.0 full-time equivalent or FTE public art administrator position in the community development department, 1.0 FTE facilities maintenance maintenance supervisor in the public works department, 1.0 FTE lead security services guard, and 1.0 Librarian 2 FTE in the library department.

Two, authorizing the addition of limited period positions through the end of fiscal year 2026 to 27.

1.0 FTE limited period account clerk 2 position in the finance and administrative services department, 1.0 FTE limited period uh senior human resources analyst position in the human resources department.

Three, authorizing reclassification of 1.0 FTE Deputy City Attorney position to 1.0 FTE city, sorry, senior assistant city attorney position, 5.0 FTE parks and open space worker 2 positions in 5.2 5.0 FTE trails and open space worker two positions.

1.0 FTE senior IT analyst position in the IT department to 1.0 FTE senior systems analyst position in the Finance and Administrative Services Department, 1.0 FTE Transportation Planner position to Chief Transportation Officer position, 1.0 FTE Transportation Planner position to Associate Transportation Planner position and four authorizing a title change for 2.0 FTE transportation planner positions positions to be read in title only further reading waived.

So the the reason for the modification is uh because after um uh speaking with um the uh housing director Wayne Chan and with the city manager um we were talking about uh some um uh some of the impacts of uh federal decisions in particular that have a disproportionate impact to um uh some in our community who uh are at risk of uh potential uh displacement and other uh economic hardship um and uh in consultation with um with both the housing director and and the uh city manager uh a modest increase of funding to that uh direct financial assistance program I think would would help to uh mitigate uh some of that impact um and uh you know we will also be able to talk more about that program uh in the context of the budget adoption later in the year but just seeing the program get started I think is very encouraging uh very welcome um again I can't uh emphasize enough how uh how grateful I am uh to all of you for putting together uh a remarkable um uh set of recommendations in this mid-year budget uh review thank you.

Thank you council member Ramirez next we have council member clerk uh council member Hicks so I guess I didn't know what I was seconding when I seconded it but I but I I will continue to second it with that amendment I support that um and um you did uh Councilmember Ramirez you did a great job of summing up why we should why we should support this budget um I was just gonna call out my favorite things in it um some of which you did but uh I was particularly happy to see that we're adding a public art administrator position because uh the people I know in the on the visual arts committee have been calling for that uh and also telling me that all the cities around us all have that and that it can be an important part as we densify we should become we should enhance our cultural component and that it's also a good way to um encourage economic vitality in our entertainment district so um so that's one item that I um have been advocating for and strongly support along with many other things in the budget I also particularly like seeing the um increase to uh parks and open space worker and trails and open space worker given that um given our biodiversity plan and the planning and the expansion of our trails, I was super happy to see that and also power washing because um because my neighbors ask me about that all the time.

I live near the downtown and they want power washing very badly.

So those are my favorite things.

Thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

I see City Manager McCarthy is on talking.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to clarify uh council member Romera's um addition of the extra $50,000 for the direct relief program.

So what the uh budget recommendation is is uh using $35,000 for the unfunded amount.

So it's tacking on the 50 to that, so it's really 85,000.

So I just wanted to clarify that for our finance team since you read all that in the record.

So if that could also be reflected in the recommendation as well, that's the actual amount.

Sounds good, sounds good.

Councilmember Schoalter.

Yeah, I just wanted to um weigh in and thank the staff for producing this report.

There was there's a lot to it, and I know that um, you know, of course, the people that are sitting up here at the Dais had a great deal of work and and can contributed to it, but you know, there were people from every department who contributed to this, and I um I really appreciate your um you're getting all this information to us.

As I was saying to somebody outside in the hall, you know, um, us looking at the budget is really one of the most important responsibilities that the city council has, and so getting the information um put in a form where we can digest it, uh, is uh is is really really important for us to do our jobs well.

So thank you for doing that.

And then talking about favorite things, power washing.

Very, you know, I I too have heard people complain about that, and particularly in the in the uh the parking lots, uh the parking structures.

Um it's not a big thing, but it makes it makes a difference.

And then the other thing I I wanted to thank you the um for going and doing the allocation, the administrative fees allocation.

It's just really important to keep up with that sort of cost and how it's distributed and um keep it up to date so no one gets surprised, um, and then I also wanted to thank you for this um chart in particular, well, for the the new positions, but particularly this chart.

You have uh slide 14 that sort of explains them.

Um that really uh you know that really depicted it well, and um I um I'm particularly excited that the these um positions reflect our our continued um value in transportation, and you know, active transportation, bikes, trails, but also our transportation system and how we're making this you know more um more prominent and better, you know, hopefully better organized by this this um uh these changes, and I I really applaud that.

Thank you for doing that.

I know you've heard people talk about that a lot.

So I'll be very happy to um support the motion.

Thank you, Councilmember Showalter, Councilmember McAllister.

You know, I like to thank uh council member Hicks for reminding me of the public art physician.

I've been advocating for that for oh since 2014.

So I mean, we got it through the gate, sort of.

But um I travel a lot, a lot of you do, and we go to all these cities and we see the art, and sometimes the art is a place maker, have people come to it, the the pioneer.

Um in Salt Lake City.

Only express, you know, she's taking her picture next to all that.

But I mean, there's stuff um a lot of it does, and we need that vitality.

We need something to make us stand out, and I think that's great.

Now we just need to let them go and do it, and if there's people that want to do it for free, let them do it, and so that's great.

Um I did want to follow up on a comment that the fire department did, and this is something in the context of consequences of some of our actions, and it says, and I'll let me read it to you, the average response time is below the required response time of seven minutes and fifty nine seconds established by the County of Santa Clara Emergency Medical Service.

This is the fire department getting to some.

The average travel time for the first unit uh for the first due unit to arrive for a building fire is three minutes and thirty-two seconds, which is great.

But here comes the kicker.

Population growth has contributed to below target travel times over the past ten years.

The population has increased by eight percent, while on average, call volume has increased by 44%, which implies an exponential relationship between population increase and call volume.

And so I've always said before we start doing all this housing, we said we got to make sure our foundation is strong, and they're not we're putting anything in jeopardy.

So here is an example of we're building, but what are we doing on the other side of the fire department to take care of the people getting help?

And it is transportation, but it's the traffic.

The more people we're bringing in, the more traffic, the slower the response time.

So always if we're thinking about safety, we're doing something.

To me, safety is prominent.

That that if we build, we have that foundation, we have the transportation available there to take care of it.

And this is a war, you know, a red flag to say let's make sure that if we're doing this building this housing, we are able to get take care of these people going forward.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Do we have any more comments before we go take our vote?

Seeing none, let's take our vote, and it's unanimous.

All right, we move on to our next item.

Um item seven, public hearing seven point one, small business streamlining and other minor zoning code updates.

Assistant community development director Lindsay Hagen, and economic vitality manager Amanda Rotella will present the item.

If you would like to speak on this item in person, please submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk now.

All right, we are ready for your staff presentation.

Good evening, Mayor Ramos Ramos and Council Members.

I'm Lindsay Hagen, Assistant Community Development Director, and I'm here tonight with uh Amanda Rotella, economic vitality manager, to present the proposed amendments to chapter uh 2636.

Sorry, it's late of the city code, also known as the zoning code, related to streamlining permit procedures for certain small businesses and other minor code amendments.

Um the package of proposed zoning code amendments before you implement various actions from the economic vitality strategy and with the purpose of reducing certain zoning barriers experienced by businesses.

Specifically, the amendments implement actions 1B7, 4A6 and Strategy 5D, which are shown here on your screen.

Um they center around removing two of the largest barriers to small businesses in Mountain View, which is permitting and parking.

Specifically, the proposed amendments remove change of use permit requirements and include a reduction in the required number of parking spaces for retail and personal service uses.

And for certain small footprint land uses, the amendments propose waiving requirements for a conditional use permit and from requiring new or additional parking spaces to be provided on existing sites.

So implementing this package of amendments removes city permit and regulatory requirements that disproportionately impact small businesses and instead simplifies the process to support these businesses in choosing Mountain View to locate.

In addition to the economic vitality strategy, staff has initiated these amendments to implement the council work plan to complete some city code cleanups.

The proposed amendments update inconsistent language and modify or add new land uses and definitions to reflect modern land use terms and advance a more user-friendly zoning code.

Additionally, staff routinely prepares minor code amendments to align our zoning code with state and federal laws, improve consistency and transparency, and update procedures.

One of the major components of the zoning code amendments tonight includes establishing a new small footprint land use streamlining framework.

City staff reviewed the last five years of planning use permits.

So this includes change of use permits, conditional use permits, and provisional use permits, to identify a list of activating land uses that could benefit from streamlining.

As outlined in the staff report, we identified that over a third of the use permits that we have processed are represented by four primary land uses.

They're listed here on your screen.

They include retail, restaurant, personal service, which is like hair salon, nail salon, massage type uses, as well as indoor recreation and fitness centers.

These uses all bring foot traffic and activation that in turn bring vibrancy to commercial areas.

So staff is proposing to geographically focus the streamlining provisions for these small footprint land uses within the city's existing commercial zoning districts as shown in the map on your screen and in attachment three of the report.

It's important to note that the package of amendments before the council tonight do not include any changes to precise plans.

These changes we are discussing would only impact a precise plan if the specific precise plan refers back to the zoning code.

In the commercial districts where these four uses are currently allowed, either permitted or conditionally permitted, staff is proposing these uses be permitted if they meet a list of objective operational standards, which I will talk about in a moment.

So if a business complies with these three criteria, so they include one of these qualifying land uses, they're located in one of these commercial zones, and they meet the operational standards, then no conditional use permit is required, and no new or additional parking is required beyond what exists on the site.

This streamlining would allow a business to submit directly for a building permit, and that would save you know anywhere from six months or more of time as well as $10,000 or more in permit fees or other carrying costs on the unoccupied leased space.

So touching briefly on the operational standards, they're listed here on the screen.

So these standards were developed through a review of the conditions of approval of past permits as well as our city code requirements.

These standards include a maximum tenant space size of 4,000 square feet, compliance with other applicable codes and laws, as well as basic objective requirements related to loading, solid waste, outdoor activities, noise, and any change in ownership.

To further implement the economic vitality strategy, the proposed amendments also include changes to parking standards and permit requirements.

So first, to stay competitive in the retail market regionally, staff recommends updating the minimum parking standards for retail and personal services from one parking space per 180 square feet, which is our standard today, to one space per 250 square feet.

This update is based on the survey of 10 cities in our region, which were summarized in the staff report.

So through staff's research, you know, Mountain View was identified to have the highest parking requirement for these two types of uses, and frankly, there's no need for the city to have such a high standard.

Second, staff recommends removing change of use permit requirements from the zoning code entirely, which is a planning use permit approved at staff level.

This permit can be a burden for businesses and a confusing step in the process when you're proposing a change from one permitted use to another permitted use.

It also can make what should be a ministerial permit process discretionary and where a condition could be applied.

So if approved, both of these changes would have impacts in all commercial and industrial zoning districts and not just for small footprint businesses.

And again, the changes to parking standards would only impact precise plan areas if the precise plan specifically refers back to the parking standards in the zoning code.

In addition to implementing the economic vitality strategy, the package of proposed zoning amendments include a comprehensive set of minor cleanups which have been drafted to improve consistency and usability and to add new land uses or update existing land uses with modern business types and definitions.

The proposed cleanups can be generally categorized in the areas shown on your screen.

Most of the amendments include broad updates to the residential, commercial, and industrial land use tables and the parking standards table to align land use category names throughout the code to match with definitions, to use similar formatting, grammar, and capitalization, to clearly list all land uses with a parking standard, and to incorporate appropriate references to sections where definitions and applicable requirements can be found.

It should be noted that the intent behind this package of cleanups was not to introduce a bunch of new regulations but rather clarify, simplify and modernize existing regulations.

Speaking a little bit more specifically into the land use changes, land use terminology changes, these proposed amendments add greater clarity to the zoning code, and they can sort of be categorized in four different ways.

One is adding new land uses.

A good example of this is adding a new public recreation land use to distinguish recreational facilities managed by a public agency versus privately operated facilities.

So as part of this package, staff is proposing that land use designation as well as permitting it in all zoning districts.

Another package of these amendments includes combining similar land uses under an existing or renamed land use category.

So an example of this would be the community assembly, which is a proposed new land use name that combines a series of assembly uses that we have in the code for things such as meeting halls or fraternal or social clubs and community centers.

Another category is sort of renaming an existing land use category to reflect a modern or more inclusive reference.

Good example of this is replacing the land use name of churches with a more inclusive term of religious institutions, because as we know, in a diverse community like Mountain View, there are more religions that practice outside of than just churches.

And so using the term religious institutions is more inclusive.

And lastly, a major component of these code cleanups is to carry the same land use category name across the entirety of the zoning code so that a user can easily track where a given use is allowed, where the what that parking requirement is and what the definition of that land use is.

So a number of updates were done in the industrial zoning district land use table to replace outdated or unclear land use terms with existing land use terms used elsewhere in our code.

A good example of this is the public quasi-public recreational use.

The term quasi public is quite an odd term that can be quite unclear.

And so staff has proposed replacing that term with existing land use categories that represent the equivalent use mentioned elsewhere in our code.

So in this case, replacing it with indoor recreation and fitness centers, outdoor recreation, and public recreation.

With these updates, staff has proposed to maintain the existing permit requirements already established in the code and simply just update the referenced land use names.

City staff met with various members of the business community to verify that the proposed amendments before council tonight would have meaningful improvements.

So that included one-on-one meetings with brokers, property owners, consultants, and business owners, as well as meeting with the development community and the chamber of commerce.

Staff received unanimous feedback with that the proposed amendments are our positive improvements to support the retail and service services business community.

In addition, the business community expressed interest in city staff expanding the streamlining provisions into certain precise plan areas.

And so if these amendments are approved tonight, staff will prepare a second reading of the ordinance for March 10th.

If that is approved, then the code updates would become effective in early April.

Additionally, these changes may uh require text changes to various precise plans to ensure consistency with the zoning codes.

So staff will undertake this effort as resources and workload allow.

Um and also staff will be evaluating expanding the express permits MV building permit program to incorporate these four land uses.

For council members who are not as familiar with that program, um this program allows for a more condensed review for building permits and includes a scheduled Zoom meeting with city staff reviewers and the applicants.

In conclusion, staff recommends that the city council adopt an ordinance amending uh City Code Chapter 36 as presented tonight, and find that these amendments are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act as described in the staff report.

Um that concludes staff's presentation, and we are available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does uh any member of the council have any questions?

Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I love having back to back uh positive items.

So thank you again for for uh the work uh to uh prepare uh these amendments, all of them are very good.

Um a couple of quick questions.

The um I asked uh the last two questions um in the uh packet submitted uh in advance of the meeting.

Uh staff responded saying that yes, the uses that I um asked about uh should be permitted in the referenced commercial standard uh commercial districts, um, and it and then says uh uh it says the staff will include this cleanup in a future package of zoning code amendments.

And I I guess what I'm curious to understand is it feels like it's just changing CUP2P in the land use matrices.

Is there is there something more complicated than that?

Is there a reason why we couldn't just fold them in tonight?

Appreciate the question, um, council member.

So uh there is state law provisions that say um if an item goes to an ordinance goes to EPC or in our case EPC planning commission and then to council.

If EPC didn't consider that item, it can't be included as part of this.

And in this case, those two those particular items that you highlighted are ones that were not proposed change areas for this text amendment package, and so it wouldn't be able to be incorporated in this package.

Um your memory might be better than mine, but I I the child care facilities one in particular.

I remember asking about when we were updating, I think it was the uh commercial residential arterial district.

This was a few years ago.

Uh, and in that case, the the change was made the night of the meeting.

So I'm I'm curious to understand the difference, you know, why in that case we were able to make that change, which is which is a trivial change immediately, and in this case, like what's what's different between the two.

Um, unfortunately, it might be a little challenging for me to answer that only because I don't know the particulars of the package of the CRA amendments that were that you're mentioning, but in general, um, it is in state code that um substantial changes to items that were brought before the EPC can't be made by council without being referred back to the EPC essentially.

Is it substantial even though this is mandated by state law?

I may refer to either the director or the city attorney, but um that's my understanding of of why we couldn't move forward with this proposed amendment or this ask.

Good evening, honorable mayor, vice mayor, and council members Christian Murdoch, community development director.

Uh, I think fundamentally it's it's a legal question, and I don't want to put the city attorney on the spot.

We may want to give her an opportunity to consider this.

I think in reviewing and responding to the council question, we were trying to be conservative and not uh jeopardize this package, which is uh time sensitive and important for some of our business members, uh, and was part of the motivation for us to focus on this and get it to the council as quickly as possible.

Um, in the event that we're not able to incorporate those further amendments tonight, um, this is something we can try to prioritize in light of council interest uh as far as a next batch of cleanup items.

Uh the main concern again to reiterate was not slowing down this process and potentially having to refer back to the environmental planning commission.

Thank you.

I I guess now I'm I'm curious.

So we we basically can't make any changes at all then, right?

Any change would require going back to the EPC.

No, not quite.

The issue uh in the government code is issues not considered for recommendation to the council.

So uh, you know, whether to make something uh permitted or conditional use that's proposed to change.

If council disagrees with that recommendation, um they have the progress to change it.

It's these other areas that weren't really the discussion and focal point of the recommendation from the EPC that are of greater concern to me and that would benefit from a legal opinion.

Um I think those are the only questions I have.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Ramirez, Council Member McAllister.

So you came out with a small print of 4,000.

So anything above that will stay the status quo.

Uh in terms of whatever is currently in our code, it would still follow that process, yeah.

Okay, and will that be reviewed at it sometime?

Um, I mean, as part of these package of amendments and this work that we do, city staff continually looks at this.

I think this is the first time we're taking a step like this, so we'd like to see how it plays out before considering any further amendments.

But yeah, that's it could be considered in the future.

Um, will there be discretion on the part of the community service director to those properties that are bigger than 4,000 square feet to maybe look at some like waivers or something along that line?

Um so there isn't that level of discretion here.

I think the intent behind a lot of these amendments is to add sort of that objective, clear direction on what what the requirements are.

Um so adding in a discretionary review process wasn't really the intent or approach of you know this package.

Um, but as I said, is as we see how this rolls out and how this plays out, um, you know, tweaking it in the future is a possibility.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, that is it for council questions.

We will now go to public comment.

Would any member of the public joining us virtually or in person like to provide comment on any item on this uh or provide comment on this item?

If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or submit a blue speaker card to the assistant city clerk.

We will take in-person speakers first.

Each speaker will have one point five minutes.

The first uh speaker is Vladim Osipo, followed by Tim Bago and then followed by Peter Katz.

I'm from Oispoya Academy.

You can see our Balea school and 1495 with a coming real.

I am resident of Mountain View in Bale School.

He's uh resident as well.

Uh I kindly ask uh to the city council members is uh update city uh building quote because uh more than one year I'm seeking in you a space for my ballet school, and um I need a large open space without any cologne and pillars in sight.

Currently, uh there are a lot of um light industrial manufacturing building, so it's uh zoning zoning is not allowed for then studio, unfortunately.

No conditional use permit, uh nothing.

Only uh recreation zoning is allowed uh for dance studio or uh general commercial zoning after conditional use permit.

But I need the large open space uh for dance.

Uh as for as for parking, it's a great idea because uh currently I must have uh one parking lot for two students.

If I have one uh hundred students at 50 parking sort, it's like um uh plaza, but asking price, it's a normal.

It's very expensive for me.

Thank you for your thank you.

Next we have Tim Vago.

Good evening, council members.

I'm Tim Vago.

I am the manager of rank store center, which I guess colloquially is known as where the Costco is.

Um I'm here just to uh voice my support for this item on the agenda.

I mean, uh the streamlining and the zoning code updates are gonna be extremely important for improving small business here in Mountain View.

Um, I think that the zoning code had become a little antiquated.

Uh there were current uses that uh really weren't allowed.

For example, last year we had a resident of Mountain View who wanted to open a Pilates studio at Rankstorf Center, and just found that she couldn't get it done and decided to open it up in Sunnyvale.

So um, you know, just streamlining the permitting process is going to reduce a lot of frustration for tenants that would like to locate and operate here in Mountain View.

Um I know that the staff has taken a lot of time to reach out to the broker and development community community and has you know kind of heard of what we had to say and has incorporated that into these uh zoning code updates, um, you know, and everything is going the uh I want to say that the updates um are they seem to be very reasonable and accommodating to what we need.

Thanks.

Thank you, Peter Katz.

Thank you, Mayor and esteemed council members, Peter Katz, Mountain View Chamber of Commerce.

I want to thank you very much for staying late.

I mean, even though the title of this is minor changes, these really are going to have an important impact.

And so thank you all for staying late and also thank you very much to the staff for all of the work that they've done on uh business streamlining.

Um we're grateful because the chamber also has been consulted on a number of times on this a number of times, and overall we see this code cleanup as being overdue, necessary, and very beneficial, especially to our small businesses.

Um, as noted, there is a number of outstanding issues in the zoning code, and only some are addressed by this, but they're the important ones, and we need to get them done because unfortunately they become barriers to our ability to attract the kind of businesses that residents want and need in Mountain View.

The zoning code needs updating to reflect modern business trends and to support the vitality of our commercial areas and retail centers, many of which have struggled to fill the vacancies over the years.

The proposed changes will provocatively and proactively remove zoning barriers, encourage a number of popular businesses to locate in our shopping centers and commercial areas.

We also often hear from our members that Mountain View has is a reputation for being a tough place to do business.

This will really help.

So let's keep it going.

We'll and extend these changes to our precise plan and expand to more of the elements.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Katz.

We will now move on to virtual public comment.

We have James Kuzmal.

Good evening, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Good evening, council.

Uh, thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Since there are parking minimums on the table, I wanted to add a reminder that price minimums are essentially no good public policy purpose in a city like Mountain View, where we have a great many alternatives and you don't want to discourage single occupancy vehicle use.

I would encourage Mountain View to do better than the um middle of the pack for retail parking spaces rather than just improving to one space for 250 gross square feet for retail uses, at least go to the one per 400 that Berlin game has, if not even less parking.

And I don't see any reason at all we should be requiring parking for retail businesses that are less than two or three thousand square feet.

Um and as a general comment, I have very little interest in streamlining uh bars or liquor stores, but I do find it odd that we continue to require parking for establishments where we expect people to buy or consume alcohol.

Um I realize that is actually just a zoning code cleanup and not actually a new parking minimum, but it is bizarre to still see that sticking around in the zoning code.

Thank you.

Thank you, James.

Next we have George Lance.

Oh, and he's gone.

All right, now we will take it back to council.

Um for questions and deliberation.

Please note that a motion to approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinance attached to the report.

And I see uh council member Kamei.

Uh thanks, Mayor.

So um I made the motion, so um maybe I can read it and then I'll give a couple comments if that's okay.

Just Councilmember Ramirez did the last one, so I feel like I have to have to help be equitable in the weight that we're all carrying.

Um so I uh move to adopt an ordinance of the city council of the city of Mountain View, amending chapter 36 zoning of the Mountain View City Code to implement the economic vitality strategy by streamlining permit processes for certain active small footprint land uses, remove change of use permit requirements and reduce minimum parking standards for retail and personal service uses to make other modifications, clarifications, and technical corrections throughout the chapter to align land uses in the residential commercial and industrial zones with parking standards and definitions to improve consistency and clarity and to modernize definitions and land uses to align with current business trends and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act as recommended by the environmental planning commission to be read in title only for the reading waived and set the second reading for March 10th, 2026, attachment one to the council uh report.

Uh so just a big thank you to staff.

I feel so excited that uh things that we're talking about.

We're implementing and changing.

Um particularly related to um our city code, which I know is council member's number one priority, and as well as to implement our economic vitality strategy.

Um thank you to um Mr.

Katz in the chamber, um, your chamber members for the input, um, but also the collaboration, I would say, um, to make all of things these a reality.

Um, and then the only other thing I wanted to add was just thank whoever asked all these um child care center questions and our council questions.

Um it's exciting to have to see what we did on the budget and now to see what we're doing with our small business streamlining and other code amendments because I feel like we're kind of meeting the moment where uh our community has given us a lot of feedback and we're pivoting and moving things forward based off of that feedback that we're receiving in real time.

I think for a government entity, we're moving pretty swiftly.

Um but on the child care part.

Um, I know that there was a couple, there was an assembly bill that was mentioned, a couple other comments on how we can streamline, and I would just ask staff, I think that's been a priority, particularly over the last few years where council's been trying to ask that whether it's in our all affordable housing developments or other city-owned properties, and how we can be a partner in um bringing more child care opportunities to the city.

So I know that there was like reference to you know square footage issues, um, sounds like this bill is held uh in concurrence right now.

This um AB 752.

But if we, you know, if it falls into as well as like our legislative platform, a letter of support on these bills like this that we would want to implement.

Um, I'd also be interested in that.

So just wanted to to add that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kameh.

She has made the motion and it was seconded by Council Member Ramirez, who is next up in the docket.

Would like to speak to your second.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thank you, Councilmember Kamei for making the motion.

I agree with your uh your observations and and comments um I wanted to speak uh also to uh some of the specific recommendations made by uh staff I think uh I I appreciate that we focused on the two biggest hurdles identified by the business community to uh to uh opening and and operating a business in in the city uh the change of use uh permit um is a big deal and it's a great thing to uh eliminate that obstacle um I also agree and I support the the the recommendation and and uh and I am proud to second the motion made by councilmember Kamei um regarding the parking adjustments but I do think uh one thing to consider you know as we continuously uh review and adjust our modifications in in some cases uh a high parking standard simply means that a business cannot locate in an existing shopping center for instance so it's it's a de facto um uh prohibition and in some cases that the parking requirements even as proposed as modified um are still uh an insurmountable barrier and thinking about some of the smaller shopping centers that don't have as much parking um where you you might have uh an opportunity for a thriving business because there's a lot of foot traffic for instance but we're we're requiring people um essentially to uh we're sort of trying to induce that demand and saying you must you know drive here to benefit from this business but because the parking may be too high what we end up doing is preventing a business from occupying a vacant space that would otherwise serve that neighborhood um I I used to live um in the uh late lathe and Mesquela area and there were some older shopping centers there that don't have a tremendous amount of parking and uh there are some uh long-standing vacancies in those shopping centers I think about those shopping centers in particular that might benefit from um uh further adjustments or review of the parking um uh I appreciate uh but I got uh some uh information from the city attorney I I I'm curious to this is something that I would love to understand over time maybe not necessarily tonight for for something that it is not actually a change but is required under state law it's it's peculiar to me that we'd have to go back to the planning commission but if that's the law then it's the law.

But if there is a way to to incorporate the uh the modifications if you know under further review staff finds an exception for compliance with state law or something hopefully could be included when it comes back on the second reading.

But um I think this is this is great work.

Happy to support it looking forward to uh continuing work on this as we continue to implement the economic vitality strategy um and uh we'll be voting yes thank you.

Thank you council member Ramirez Councilmember McAllister.

Okay here's Debbie Donner um just a heads up on the parking uh as one that requires parking because I have a business and I have a lot of young families that come by.

Filing that balance on parking is very important because if you don't have enough parking you don't have the business won't survive.

And so you have sort of have a competing uh between the tenant and the landlord the landlord says hey you got plenty of parking but when all of a sudden it's filled up there's not enough parking and the business will fail.

So it's always you want to go 400 or whatever.

Yeah so the tenant you know landlord says yeah come on in you got plenty and then when it happens it fails so be careful about how you work at that um percentages some big parking uh like the uh ringstorf center has a lot of parking well on a Costco it's crazy you can walk around so just be cautious of the the need that small businesses need parking, big or small, and the the uh concept that people won't drive if they want to get there, they're still gonna drive.

We haven't gotten to the point where our transportation system is going to be uh eliminate people trying to drive.

So just be aware of and I've already had the conversation with the community's uh development director about parking, and yes, we hopefully will get more businesses in there, but the consequences is will they survive?

And we are seeing a lot of businesses go down.

Uh on the deal on daycare, as one that owns a daycare, uh, there's more businesses, more daycares are going out.

So now I've always bring this up that we're talking about it.

People don't realize that you could have the indoor space, but there's the outdoor requirement that's very important too.

And there's a ratio, so even though you can put it somewhere, you got to make sure you have the outside, and so that's always a delicate balance.

And well, again, with traditional TK, the transitional kindergarten, it's making it tough for small business child cares to exist because they can go to the school and get it for free.

So I appreciate it.

I think yes, everybody's point is going in the right direction.

Is it making it easier for the gentleman at the ringstar center?

Yeah, you get some people in there, you do have plenty of parking uh certain times of the day before it costs it opens up.

But um, I appreciate that you're coming in needing it.

The uh shopping center on Grant Road has a lot of vacancies on that one next to the uh city sports and so forth.

So hopefully this will make life easier for people to come in.

They say, Yeah, you can do it, and uh that's what we need.

We need some more businesses coming through, and it serves our population.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember McAllister.

Councilmember Hicks.

Well, I think this is a great ending to the meeting, and I will I'm thrilled to be supporting the motion and really happy to see I've been looking forward to seeing streamlining like this for some time for the um change of uses.

Um I I like the reduction in parking to the average.

I think it could maybe even go below average, but we can see how that rolls out.

Um I know that makes you happy, Joan.

Uh and um let's see what else.

Oh, I like the mentions of indoor recreation.

I think that's uh a an up and coming use uh and that I'm glad that that was included in this update, and um I agree with the comments on uh child care is supporting child care legislation as appropriate, and I wanted to also thank Mr.

Katz and members of the business community who've stayed with us until almost 11 30 at night to get this done, and also staff.

I know you're required to stay here, but thank you for doing so.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Hicks.

And with that, no other comment.

Let's let's take it to a vote.

And it was unanimous, yay.

I the irony is not lost on me that the only non-unanimous vote this time was the move past 10.

So all right, we now will move on to item eight council staff and committee reports.

Do we have any council staff and committee reports?

I I'm seeing I'm seeing papers hand out, I'm assuming because it's water is council member show Walter.

Uh go ahead.

You've got it.

All right.

Well, I wanted to um just share a couple of meetings that I attended.

I uh the day after our last meeting, February 11th.

I went to the Silicon Valley Um Clean Energy Board, and um we uh we approved an agreement for technical assistance for the development of community grants, which we get, and um we received an update on Silicon Valley Clean Energy's communications and marketing strategy, and we also received um uh reports on how grants had been used in our community, and somebody from Silicon Valley Clean Energy will be coming uh sometime in the next couple months and make a you know a presentation and public comment about it, and there's special sheets that um you know that uh show how much our community used and and um and how much energy we saved.

So that's good.

Um, the other thing is we had a presentation on um uh kind of the Brown Act and some rules with the Brown Act.

So if you want to see that, that's on the presentation page um one through 11.

I I thought it was it was helpful.

Um, then uh on February 19th, we had a BC DC meeting, and I wanted to share this um this uh state of the estuary um uh fact sheet with you.

The state of the estuary is a, it's been a conference that's held every other year for at least 30 years.

And the idea is is literally to say, you know, what is the state of the estuary?

How clean is it?

How are we meeting all the we do a lot of monitoring and how are we doing on that monitoring?

And so this is every two years they've had a conference and they put out this report.

Well now we're moving into sort of the modern age, and it's a um it's an interactive, um, it's an interactive uh web page, but this is kind of the fact sheet associated with it, and I thought it was quite attractive, and um it's kind of fun to see.

For instance, do you all know that it's actually safe to swim in the bay?

I mean, when most of us moved here, that wasn't true, but it's true now, and that's a cool thing.

It's too cold, mind you, but anyway, that's not the problem.

Okay, um, so I wanted to share that, and um then I also um want to uh thank oh at BCDC we're working on new um permitting guidelines to modernize our processes just like we're doing here and um so that we can do a better job and make it easier for staff and permittees.

And since BCDC is a state agency, we have to go through a very specific lengthy process to do that, and then the rules we approve have to be um approved by the state attorneys' general general office.

So that will take a while, but still in all, it's a you know it's a good thing that we're we're working on because we really need to have people do a lot of projects like we are doing to promote um sea level rise protection, and um the uh the permitting for them is really onerous.

I mean it's just very, very hard.

So anything we can do to make that easier is in everybody's best interest.

Okay, and then last Friday, February 20th, I had a great day.

Um we had the celebration.

Um several of you were there.

Thank you for coming.

Um the mayor spoke too.

We had a celebration at the construction completion of Pond A2W and the opening of our new 1.2 mile trail that essentially extends the Stevens Creek Trail out into the bay.

Um it's uh I understand it's quite windy out there, so you might want to time your walks when it's not too windy because it's really exposed.

I mean, there's no, you know, there's no trees or anything, but the view from out there is is really amazing.

And um, so I think we're all gonna enjoy that.

And um we've gotten some great coverage in the voice and the Mercury News.

It was on the front page of the local section today on the Mercury News.

And um I uh I also want to make sure to thank some of our staff members who have been involved in this for a long time.

I myself have been involved in it for over 15 years with my hat on as a as a staffer at Valley Water and here and and on BC DC.

Um, but I I certainly wasn't alone.

Um lots of people have worked on it a long time, and um, so this was kind of a reunion for the South Bay Salt Pond program as well as a celebration of this one, but it's a stars in mountain view that we should really be um thanking for their service on this, is um is really Raymond Wong.

He's a um PhD engineer who has um really led the charge on this for many many years, and um make sure that we do a good job from an engineering point of view and from a scientific point of view.

Lisa Al is the assistant um uh public works director, and she uh provides a lot of leadership.

And then Brady Rubush, who is the shoreline park manager, has done many, many, many, many things to deal with the logistics of um this project on the edge of Shoreline Park.

And he um he's really just very, very well respected by all the people involved, which says a lot for the quality of work he does.

So, you know, I I um I uh just wanted to share that with everybody and if anybody would like a tour of um of this project or or a walk, I'd I'd be glad to take him out there.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, Councilmember Show Walter.

Any other item eights?

Uh Councilmember Kameh.

Yeah, sorry, I just wanted to to disclose so um last uh February 12th, the Cities Association had our um legislative advocate or legislative action committee.

Um, many cities have just um adopted their legislative advocacy platform and so uh we'll be sure to share those bills um with city staff if we want to take positions on those.

Um we had a presentation from assemblymember um Patrick Ahrens on the bills he'll be introducing.

Um, and then um last week attended the um Cal Cities Board meeting February 19th and 20th, held in Berkeley, um sitting on the Cal Cities Um board as the representative for our peninsula division for the 36 cities.

Thanks.

Thank you, Councilmember Kamei.

Um, I will report out that I went to the new frontier lunar new year celebration.

Uh the new frontier is the mobile home park that's in that area um next to like Sunset Estates and all that Sullivan Parkish area.

And then um uh like Councilmember Show Walter, I was also there at the celebration that we got our South Bay salt pondness.

Um and then uh shortly after that I ran off to uh represent our city for uh Congressman Licardo's press conference.

He uh set aside about two million dollars for affordable housing for us, so yay us.

Um hopefully we will get more money, please.

Um, and so with that I don't see any other reports.

We are good.

Oh, all right, so um uh we'll adjourn this meeting.

The next city council meeting will be held on March 10th, 2026.

This meeting is adjourned at 2334.

Okay.