Town Square

Post a New Topic

Mayor's misfire email suggests she wants to thwart housing plans

Original post made on Mar 7, 2019

A message sent out accidentally by Mayor Lisa Matichak is being seized on as proof she is trying to undermine housing development in North Bayshore.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, March 7, 2019, 1:55 PM

Comments (134)

107 people like this
Posted by FOIA is your friend
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:14 pm

FOIA = Freedom of Information Act

Ah, her true colors finally start to show. I sincerely hope that someone uses a FOIA request to the City to compel her to see the emails about City business she is trying to "thwart."

This is beyond the pale. She needs to publicly come clean or resign. Until then, everything she does from here on out is suspect.

Shame on you Lisa.


25 people like this
Posted by SC Parent
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:33 pm

FOIA is how one obtains information from the federal government. State and local governments have different statutes that apply to them, such as California's Public Records Act.


114 people like this
Posted by SarinaB
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:33 pm

Thank you Mayor Matichak for standing for quality of life in Mountain View, and for residents. You have always supported housing where it makes sense, including your own neighborhood. You consider our community first. Any portrayal to the opposite is unfair and wrong.


17 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Rex Manor
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:35 pm

The email came from her personal gmail account, not the city account that's subject to the California Public Records Act. (FOIA only applies to the feds.)


83 people like this
Posted by Wow
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:37 pm

Mayor Matichak and Vice-Mayor Abe-Koga are reminiscent of the Trump administration in their level of incompetence and willingness to lie. These closeted right-wingers snuck onto the council and now feel empowered to come out of the shadows.

Shame on them.


56 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:38 pm

I'm sorry, Bill, but you're wrong on that point. The California Public Records Act covers public business conducted on private devices and email addresses, according to the California Supreme Court (Web Link). Certainly, attempting to thwart the implementation of the North Bayshore Precise Plan is public business.


56 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:41 pm

SarinaB, Mayor Matichak made her first foray into local politics opposing housing, as part of the Wagon Wheel Neighborhood Association. (Web Link). She opposed housing in North Bayshore and lost that election, and now that she's on council, wants to thwart it.


112 people like this
Posted by Lucas Ramirez
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:47 pm

The Mayor has indicated that she sent the email by mistake, and that the contents pertain to an unrelated subject. I believe her. I've also sent emails by mistake, responding to the wrong message or sending to the wrong recipient.

I count myself among the supporters of housing in North Bayshore. Those who share my view should continue to organize and make the case for housing. I strongly encourage you to do so respectfully and civilly.

I look forward to working on the implementation of the North Bayshore Precise Plan with the Mayor and all of my colleagues on the Council.

Lucas Ramirez
Greater San Antonio Area


60 people like this
Posted by Stop Displacing Locals
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:51 pm

"to create 9,850 new housing units in North Bayshore" How about no? Mountain View is up to their ears in construction as it is. Traffic is horrible. Infrastructure is quite literally crumbling. Don't believe me? Drive in any lane on El Camino, which is now riddled with potholes. Everyone is in such a hurry to build build build without enough time passing in between projects to let the ORIGINAL residents climatize to the rapid influx of people moving to our cities. Not to mention, there is no affordable housing for people who were born and raised here. Tech companies could set up roots anywhere, and people would flock there for jobs, no matter what state. The bay area needs no more projects and more of a backbone when it comes to these issues. The city council has been bending over to the tech companies' every whim. Good for her for trying to preserve what remains. Did I mention all the local gems being bought by companies and bulldozed for more projects? Ya'll are turning mountain view into "high rise view." >:(


14 people like this
Posted by Lisa, Are you lying now?
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:53 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


33 people like this
Posted by Jeremy Hoffman
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:55 pm

Jeremy Hoffman is a registered user.

One-bedroom rents in Mountain View went up 35% in the past year, according to Trulia.

The thousands of Mountain View community members who pay over half their income on rent, or who wake up before dawn to commute for two hours to make it to work here, are not foes to be thwarted.

They're valued members of the community to be helped.

I'm excited to have the opportunity to provide better housing opportunities for our fellow Californians. Aren't you?


4 people like this
Posted by Smoking gun!
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 2:56 pm

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


49 people like this
Posted by Doug
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:10 pm

I hate when I type the words "How are we going to thwart him?" by accident in response to someone else's message, and then send it. It's such a common problem!


56 people like this
Posted by SarinaB
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:40 pm

@Randy Guelph - easy to refer to biased old news articles. I have listened to Mayor Matichak promote thousands of housing in Whisman area to revitalize the area and add students to existing schools.
North Bayshore lacks amenities, services, schools and has unsurpassable traffic woes that housing will exacerbate - it was never a good place for more than moderate amount of housing development.


90 people like this
Posted by Love my city
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:41 pm

I’m disappointed in the negative tone of this thread. Negative national politics are infiltrating our city. Lenny, I am disappointed in your low brow tactics here. You fairly lost an election and now seem to be having a tantrum.
We don’t know what or who Mayor Matichak was referring to in her personal email. It is shameless for Lenny and those of you who blindly support this nonsense to spread this kind of slander
My guess is this hateful rhetoric is coming from the frustrated cannabis group following Tuesday’s Council meeting. Shame.


32 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:46 pm

SarinaB, I think the person upthread was right about the Trumpian tendencies. Articles you disagree with are "fake news," I guess?

She made her bones killing a development in her neighborhood because it was three stories tall. That's just a fact. She states that she supports the North Bayshore Precise Plan now, so maybe you should take up your disagreement with her about whether it's a good idea for housing to be thete, unless she's told you something different? She does seem to be saying different things in private than she does in public...


31 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:51 pm

"Love my city", yes, Lenny's low-brow tactics of forcing Mayor Matichak to send a "private email" to about a hundred people, saying how she wants to "thwart him." He's so devious! She could clear this all up by telling us all who it was meant for and what she wanted to thwart, but for some reason she was unable to clarify that.


71 people like this
Posted by Nina
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:52 pm

FORMER cc member Siegel agitating again. Taking comments out of context to tarnish an excellent mayor. Her comment never mentioned opposition to housing in North Batshore!


20 people like this
Posted by Affordable Housing Crisis!
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:56 pm

Affordable Housing Crisis! is a registered user.

Its clear that this political infighting is entertaining but it would be great if the Mountain View Voice could focus on more stories about the vulnerable people actually affected by the loss of affordable housing crisis in Mountain View. City officials like Matichak and Abe-Koga and their ilk need to be constantly reminded of the Mountain View residents who truly need protection in order to preserve the population diversity that Mountain View has left!


62 people like this
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 3:59 pm

I hope we don’t have massive amounts of housing in the North Bayshore area. Where are we going to get water, air, parking, roads, and schools for all of this.
A few years ago the city council decided that this area would not be developed for housing but then the recent city council ignored what should have been a decide issue and we voted them out.
Lenny stay out of this issue you were defeated because of pushing this sort of thing
Don’t make it hard on on the current elected officials trying do the job as voted in the last election


78 people like this
Posted by maryhodder
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:23 pm

maryhodder is a registered user.

Lisa wrote to announce@balancedmv, but that list is moderated. Her message didn't go through to hundreds or thousands. It went to Lenny, who commented on it and sent to the list.

Lisa then immediately wrote the list, which Lenny put through again, and said this:

"I made an honest mistake this morning and thought I was responding to a different email on a different topic. We have a Precise Plan in place for North Bayshore and we are working with the property owners in North Bayshore to implement the plan."

Why are we being so suspicious? We did it as a community the other night, where our former mayor expressed it of some Asian's speaking against cannabis Tuesday night (Ken Rosenberg's remark that "it's a feeling" that they are not from Mountain View). Lenny is doing it now.. on full attack. Why?

She made a mistake.. and given there are approximately 3.8 billion "he's" on the planet, and the thwarting could be anything from Scott Weiner's proposal to take away local control of zoning (with SB50 etc -- 40 bills are proposed that will do some form of this), to any number of developers or other problems the city or Lisa personally might have, such as a work issue unrelated to the city, why do we think this was about Lenny?

When Google and SyWest presented to council 10 days ago, Lisa seemed pretty in favor of housing in North Bay Shore, and just wanted the two of them to work something out, or have the city do it, so that the housing and school and other community benefit aspects are built along with the office spaces that both developers want.

So how is it that this is automatically about Lisa commenting on Lenny. She said it's not. Unless we have some evidence to the contrary, and given Lisa doesn't lie that I know of, I cannot do anything but take her statement at face value.

If there is a problem, over time it will come out. But for now, the reasonable thing to do is to take her statement as what is true. If she's for housing, which so far she has been then this whole thing is ridiculous the the MV-Voice and Mark Novak are really doing a disservice to the community.


85 people like this
Posted by Lenny was thwarted BADLY in November
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:30 pm

Note to Mayor Matichek: Lenny has been thwarted, he lost the election...by a landslide.

I honestly think he is spending every waking moment preparing for his next run,just like Donald Trump.


29 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:36 pm

Yes, Mary, that's truly the most reasonable interpretation of Mayor Matichak's remarks. "How will we thwart him," in direct response to Lenny's email about North Bayshore Housing, was equally likely to have been about any of the 3.8 billion "he's" on the planet. Why couldn't she tell us who she meant to send it to and who/what she wanted to thwart?

It simply doesn't pass the smell test, especially since up until 2016 she was aggressively against housing both in her own neighborhood AND in North Bayshore.


56 people like this
Posted by Love my city
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:36 pm

Ms. Hodder,
Thank you for bringing some intelligence to this thread. I’m not
A member of Lenny’s announce@balancedmv, but it doesn’t seem balanced to me. Sounds like Fox News. Thank you for clearing this matter up.


11 people like this
Posted by Kling-Kling Bird
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:37 pm

Kling-Kling Bird is a registered user.

Somebody just did a Hillary.


23 people like this
Posted by Jeremy Hoffman
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:46 pm

Jeremy Hoffman is a registered user.

Rodger, I'm sure you see the problem with Mountain View, Cupertino, and San Francisco's large and growing jobs-housing imbalance, right? Those workers have to live *somewhere*. If they live in Gilroy or Hayward, they will still need water, schools, and air(?). But they'll also be clogging our highways and polluting our air with their long commutes.

Infill development of medium-density, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods is actually a really good solution to a lot of these problems. A few tall buildings leave lots of open space, parks, walking paths, and waterways. People who walk or bike to work don't need roads or parking spaces. People who live in multi-family buildings use less water and electricity than people in single-family buildings.


23 people like this
Posted by writing is on the wall
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:52 pm

Ok folks, why not try and have a discussion without so much cynicism, ridicule and disrespect. Does the word civility mean anything anymore?
It doesn't matter what MTN view decides to do on a local level. When SB 50 gets passed ( the state assembly will make sure) The entire peninsula and bay area will be Manhattaized. Highrises are coming to a neighborhood near you.


65 people like this
Posted by William Hitchens
a resident of Waverly Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 4:54 pm

William Hitchens is a registered user.

Lenny once again has proven amply why he (and Pat Showalter) didn't win re-election. They want to change society in ways we Moderates don't like, just like trumpites want their own vile change.

Education: ●Studied Physics at Stanford University 1966 to 1969 (dropped out for more fashionable radical activism?)
-Students for a Democratic Society member
-Stanford Anti-Draft Union member
-April Third Movement member

I'll bet he was one of the idealists shouting through a bullhorn; more interested in pushing HIS ideal of a "fair" society and in causing trouble and occupying buildings than in studying. I studied Physics too, 1964 to 1975 (Ph.D, U of Illinois). Unlike Lenny, I kept my head down and worked my tail off. People like him give real, talented physicists a bad public image.


120 people like this
Posted by Lenny's running and this is his campaign
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 5:19 pm

Lenny's running and this is his campaign is a registered user.

Lenny's running for council after losing last year.

His tactics are to bring out the nastiest of name calling, threats (he threatened council Tuesday night) and get his band of ill tempered haters to go after anyone up for re-election in 2 years:

@Affordable Housing Crisis! "City officials like Matichak and Abe-Koga and their ilk"
@smokinggun: "She's a mole trying to do harm from the inside!"
@Lisa, Are you lying now? "Lisa, how can we tell?"
@Wow "Mayor Matichak and Vice-Mayor Abe-Koga are reminiscent of the Trump administration in their level of incompetence and willingness to lie"

These people and others are helping to make the 2020 Council election uncivil.

Mark Noack / Mountain View Voice are helping fan the flames with Fox News style hits.

Can we stop this? Doesn't it bother you that he's bullying the female council (as commented by another in a different article)?

I agree with Lucas Rameriz. We should work through issues in a civil manner.


20 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 5:24 pm

Yes, let's address this in a civil manner, like asking our unnamed friends "how can we thwart him." Civility is a beautiful thing!


11 people like this
Posted by Affordable Housing Crisis!
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 5:38 pm

Affordable Housing Crisis! is a registered user.

@Lenny's running - what bothers me is that two women with the highest rank on the Council are bullying poor people in Mountain View by approving demolitions for affordable housing redevelopment. Feminisim in the 21st century is only worthwhile if its intersectional and ensures protection for ALL women, not just upper middle class and wealthy women.

We need a NO NET LOSS of affordable housing policy in Mountain View NOW!


32 people like this
Posted by Angel
a resident of Gemello
on Mar 7, 2019 at 5:39 pm

Angel is a registered user.

The blame for the quote, "How are we going to thwart him?" goes to one person and one person only: our current mayor. It makes no difference if Lenny or the Rudy Giuliani or the Pope let the public see what was meant to be a private comment. Shame on Lisa for trying to hide behind the "out of context" excuse. It's lovely trying to see people on this list try to defend the indefensible. She is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Acting one way publicly and another privately.

Say what you will about Lenny: he's honest and tells you what he is thinking. You always know where he stands, even if you disagree with him. With Lisa, you *think* you know, but you never really do. All I ever hear from her is "I have some concerns...." She spends her life concerned.

Lisa, show some backbone and admit that you meant to thwart Lenny and all the people on the Balance Mountain View listserv. Just be honest. The truth will help you sleep at night and some people who are angry (and believe me, they are many) may actually forgive you.


52 people like this
Posted by MV resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 5:41 pm

Lenny, I know you like to follow these discussions on the Voice website, and you sometimes have participated.

Question - What makes you so absolutely certain that Lisa's comments were directed at you? "Thwart him" doesn't even make sense as a reply to a meeting announcement. Her explanation seems more plausible.

Is it possible that you were mistaken, and too quick to take it personally?


20 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:00 pm

As an outside observer, maybe I can help clarify why I think she was discussing Lenny, MV Resident. The simplest explanation to me, given Mayor Matichak's unwillingness to explain anything about her message and her past opposition to housing in North Bayshore, is that she meant to forward it on to an unnamed friend and discuss the topic of "how are we going to thwart him", with Lenny's email provided as context. A mistake of hitting "reply-all" instead of "forward".


130 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:01 pm

Siegel needs to face that he was resoundingly defeated in the last election, and stop trying to tear Mountain View apart with his self-absorption, frustration and temper tantrums. Mountain View politics now remind me of the ugliness of the Trump administration's constant conflict and anger. Just stop.

I hope Mark Noack, of the MV Voice, can attempt to imitate an actual reporter. Please stop the gossip rag or FOX "News" imitation, which throws mud and walks the narrow line of being an advocate for only one side.

Lucas Ramirez made a mature, sane and intelligent statement on how to go forward. I suggest we follow his lead, before Mountain View ends up in the same hate-filled sewer of our National politics.


29 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:05 pm

[Interested], your calls for civility ring hollow when you start out by insulting Lenny. Then pivoting into an attack on "fake news" while comparing him to Trump is the icing in the cake. A perfect bad faith argument.

The one thing I agree with you on is that Lucas Ramirez is the only person here who has genuinely called for civility, although I disagree with his assessment of Mayor Matichak's comments.


59 people like this
Posted by Observer
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:13 pm

WOW. Lenny is not willing to turn the other cheek. Nive. Does that mean he's going to weaponize Job again?

Grow up people. Lisa's email could have been meant for anyone or anything.

And can we can a non-activists press in this town? Just report what you know. Not what you don't know.


32 people like this
Posted by MV resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:16 pm

Randy - Yes, obviously that was the implication of the article, and obviously that's how Lenny took it. I'm an outside observer too, and I follow issues that are before the Council. Personally, I'd like to see NB developed with housing, as much affordable as possible, and a minimum of new office space. I guess that puts me basically in agreement with Lenny.

Lisa's unwillingness to explain what her message referred to, or to disclose the recipient, indicates to me a reasonable desire for privacy. It's true that she originally opposed dense housing in NB, but from everything I've seen, she has been on board with NB development for some while.

So, again my question for Lenny - Is it possible that you were too quick to take offense?


23 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:29 pm

She's a public figure now, and she posted "how are we going to thwart him" on a large mailing list of Mountain View residents. We deserve a better explanation than that she meant it for an unnamed person on an unrelated, unspecified topic. Buying her non-explanation just demonstrates people's motivated reasoning, in my not-so-humble opinion.


21 people like this
Posted by Liar
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 6:43 pm

Lisa should have admitted she wrote that in regards to Lenny and that she intended to send it to AbeKoga, who clearly has it out for Mr. Siegel.


67 people like this
Posted by Will Mtn View be the next iphone city?
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 7, 2019 at 7:13 pm

Lenny won't be happy until Mountain View's North Bayshore looks like Foxconn's iPhone City. I for one am highly relieved that we have a council that cares about quality of life in Mountain View.


21 people like this
Posted by Ben
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 7, 2019 at 7:24 pm

No matter what issue or recipient the Mayor meant to write about, her language is troubling. Public servants shouldn't be looking to "thwart" anyone, but to listen, debate, and resolve issues through the democratic process. This isn't Game of Thrones or House of Cards. The Mayor should apologize for treating politics like high school, and it would be extra nice if she just admitted she hit reply-all instead of forward, which is obviously what happened. Nobody buys the "taken out of context" defense.


79 people like this
Posted by Spin, Spin, Spin, making me dizzy
a resident of Bailey Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 7:25 pm

Lenny is a bully, he and his supporters will spin this as much as possible, with the help of the MV Voice (who endorsed him).



10 people like this
Posted by The Earthquake
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 7, 2019 at 7:43 pm

I am not sure if a big enough warthquake will shake the landfill sufficient to topple new "homes" in North Bayshore. And to the more solid group - such as 94040, the big corporations such as Google (where this week's " huest opinion" writer Jeremy Hoffman appears to still work) want to th Dr e build RESIDENTIAL HIGHRISES with not even onsite parking required. Residents can get ready to thwart the big corporate plan or roll over and see their neighborhoods destroyed.


6 people like this
Posted by nimby
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 7, 2019 at 8:04 pm

Build 9,850 new homes south of El Camino Real!

Yeah, right


1 person likes this
Posted by Side1
a resident of Rex Manor
on Mar 7, 2019 at 8:21 pm

They need to build higher density housing south of ECR as well.
Why limit the crowding and lack of parking to just the "other side of the tracks"?


37 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 7, 2019 at 8:38 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Mountain View needs to spend less time figuring out how to add housing and more time figuring out how to lay off their planning department, and stop adding more commercial office space and employment in the community. Stop the job growth!


7 people like this
Posted by Liar Lisa
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 7, 2019 at 11:37 pm

It is ridiculous to think that Matchiak wasn’t referring to Lenny’s desire to increase housing stocks when she forwarded his email with a desire to thwart “him”. She should have just confessed her sin and then we can move on.

At the very least, in the most unlikely case that she was neither referring to Lenny nor the goal of increasing housing, she should at least apologize for the impression she gave.

So, she either lied or she was insensitive to the rude email she sent to hundreds of people...


75 people like this
Posted by Robert Cox
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 8, 2019 at 5:36 am

I'll never forget the day after the 2014 election when staff brought the reconsideration of North Baysore housing back to EPC, of which Lisa Matichak and I were then a part. I made the motion to reopen this issue of houising in North Bayshore. As I was walking out of the meeting, I asked Lisa how she felt. She answered, "I only wish I had made the motion." In spite of how the issue had played out for her personally, I know Lisa was sincere in her desire to give the idea of housing in North Bayshore a fair reconsideration. And so I take her at her word when she says that her mistaken response to Lenny's announcement had nothing to do with his plans for housing in North Bayshore.

I also believe that there some, particularly in the state legislature, whose attempts to improve the housing situation in California are simply wrong for Mountain View, and other cities that have done so much recently to increase our housing stock. And those bad solutions need to be thwarted! So, I am glad that we have a fierce lioness Mayor Lisa Matichak looking out for us and wisely working with others on appropriate solutions to our problems!

Go Lisa! Never give up!


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 6:48 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

My humble observation:

This situation is a clear violation of the Brown Act. How? Please read the following information:

Beyond the law — good business practices

Violations of the Brown Act can lead to invalidation of an agency’s action, payment of a challenger’s attorney fees, public embarrassment, even criminal prosecution. But the Brown Act is a floor, not a ceiling for conduct of public officials. This guide is focused not only on the Brown Act as a minimum standard, but also on meeting practices or activities that, legal or not, are likely to create controversy. Problems may crop up, for example, when agenda descriptions are too brief or vague, when an informal gettogether takes on the appearance of a meeting, when an agency conducts too much of its business in closed session or discusses matters in closed session that are beyond the authorized scope, or when controversial issues arise that are not on the agenda.

The Brown Act allows a legislative body to adopt practices and requirements for greater access to meetings for itself and its subordinate committees and bodies that are more stringent than the law itself requires.

Rather than simply restate the basic requirements of the Brown Act, local open meeting policies should strive to anticipate and prevent problems in areas where the Brown Act does not provide full guidance. As with the adoption of any other significant policy, public comment should be solicited.

A local policy could build on these basic Brown Act goals:

A legislative body’s need to get its business done smoothly;

THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE MEANINGFULLY IN MEETINGS, AND TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS USED IN DECISION-MAKING AT A RELEVANT POINT IN TIME;

A local agency’s right to confidentially address certain negotiations, personnel matters, claims and litigation; and

The right of the press to fully understand and communicate public agency decision-making.

AND:

Achieving balance

The Brown Act should be neither an excuse for hiding the ball nor a mechanism for hindering efficient and orderly meetings. The Brown Act represents a balance among the interests of constituencies whose interests do not always coincide. It calls for openness in local government, yet should allow government to function responsively and productively.

There must be both adequate notice of what discussion and action is to occur during a meeting as well as a normal degree of spontaneity in the dialogue between elected officials and their constituents.

The ability of an elected official to confer with constituents or colleagues must be balanced against the important public policy prohibiting decision-making outside of public meetings.

In the end, implementation of the Brown Act must ensure full participation of the public and preserve the integrity of the decision-making process, yet not stifle government officials and impede the effective and natural operation of government.

Simply put the conduct here was a violation of the Brown Act given the recent California Supreme court decision whether private email becomes public record. And that the public is not provided access to any communications that influences the decision process.

It would appear that the City Council has a VERY SERIOUS problem here.


9 people like this
Posted by This is what showed up in my inbox
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 7:21 am

Below the line, you can see Lenny's email that Lisa is responding to. Oops....reply instead of forward to her friend. Lenny is (and has always been) a community organizer. His email is about announcing a meeting of a group he started (Balance Mountain View) so they can talk about two companies (Google and Sywest) who need to work together to make housing a reality. Or the whole plan will be at risk for falling apart. There is nothing nefarious in what he is doing. He is not attacking anybody. Not Lisa. Not the current council. Nobody. His list includes reporters, too. And he provides his contact information. He is not hiding. The only secret is who Lisa is trying to protect in what is clearly an underhanded attack at a plan she is on record for trying to subvert. She is lying to Mountain View.

Perhaps because of our president's mendacity, we have grown accustomed to lies from our leaders. But we need to get to the bottom of this, because the trust in her leadership has been eroded.

@ Robert Cox...you're her closest ally not on the council. You likely know who was supposed to receive that message...or it was intended for you. Are you trying to thwart the North Bayshore Precise Plan, too? Like her, you weren't keen on housing a few years ago (in that area). Therefore, I find your words to ring hollow. You're either gullible or your in on it. And because you're still on the Planning Commission, we will be watching your votes, too.

@ The Business Man: Are you going to make a Brown Act Violation petition? Someone should and it sounds like you know what you're talking about. I doubt this rises to that level, but Brown Act violations are serious. It literally could (if she was found guilty of it) lead to jail.


Here is the emails as it came into my inbox. Make your own conclusions:
============================================

Fwd: [Announce] What to do about North Bayshore - BMV general meeting, Tuesday, March 12


Lisa Matichak <lisa.matichak@gmail.com>
12:50 AM (6 hours ago)
to Lenny, Announce

How are we going to thwart him?

On Mar 7, 2019, at 12:38 AM, Lenny Siegel <lennysiegel@sonic.net> wrote:

If you support housing in Mountain VIew's North Bayshore, please attend the Balanced Mountain View general meeting at 7 pm on Tuesday, March 12 in the Maple Room at the newly remodeled Mountain View Community Center on Rengstorff.

We formed the Campaign for a Balanced Mountain View five years ago to promote the development of housing in North Bayshore, and that vision evolved into the complete neighborhoods written into the North Bayshore Precise Plan. But as Pat Showalter says, “You can’t sleep in a plan.”

That plan is at risk. Because Google and Sywest could not agree on a joint master plan for the Gateway area, also known as Shoreline Commons, city staff has gone back to the drawing boards. Housing development, of a reduced number of units, on Google property appears to have stalled, and there are inadequate plans at this point for housing on Sywest property and in the Pear Neighborhood.

Please join us on March 12 to create a strategy for getting the North Bayshore job done.

Lenny



Lenny Siegel
650-961-xxxx
Former Mayor of Mountain View, California
LennySiegel@sonic.net
Web Link
Facebook: mvlenny
Instagram: mvlennys


23 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 8, 2019 at 7:21 am

Robert, if that's the case, it should have been easy for Mayor Matichak to simply show the email she thought she was responding to, tell us Mountain View residents what she wanted to thwart, and tell us who she meant to send it to. Instead, she's needed her friends like you and Mary to come in and workshop stories to tell, and thaf simply doesn't pass the smell test.


56 people like this
Posted by MarkF
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 8, 2019 at 7:32 am

Mayor Matichak has always stood up for quality of life in Mountain View, in all neighborhoods and has always supported housing where it makes sense. North Bayshore will be Mountain View's terrific new neighborhood - hopefully SyWest and Google get their act together to work together - which I feel sure they will.

This comment string exhibits a vicious tone that is unfortunate and not productive. I note that several posts are removed because they are actually all from the same person - under different names. Who knows, maybe this whole string is from just a handful of people :-)


23 people like this
Posted by Mtviewresident
a resident of North Whisman
on Mar 8, 2019 at 8:05 am

Mtviewresident is a registered user.

Have you people even read what the prop V does. It is nauseating! It forces private landowners to provide welfare for people who don’t qualify in any way for public assistance. Read the fine print. This is demacracy run-amuk. Very unconstitutional!


52 people like this
Posted by Lenny the ultimate NIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 8:35 am

I find it interesting that Lenny, who lives in Old Mountain View, finds it OK to pave over other parts of the city with high density, multi storey rental complexes. If you notice, OMV with pristine sidewalks, gets a lot more attention than other neighborhods. He is the ultimate NIMBY.


67 people like this
Posted by Robert Cox
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 8, 2019 at 9:16 am

@ This is what

As to my record, I was standing up for policies that supported the jobs/housing balance before Lenny Siegel was on the council:

Web Link

And I did again just recently on Terra Bella:

Web Link

I am also a strong supporter of neighborhood preservation. I have always and consistently supported both.

Enough said.


30 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 8, 2019 at 9:23 am

"@ The Business Man: Are you going to make a Brown Act Violation petition? Someone should and it sounds like you know what you're talking about. I doubt this rises to that level, but Brown Act violations are serious. It literally could (if she was found guilty of it) lead to jail. "

As usual BM posts a lot of stuff but fails to connect the dots. He makes all of these accusations of BA and FPPPC violations but he He is all bluff and never follows up. He complains about all the violations of the RHC. Staff attorneys have replied to his complaints and politely told him he is off base. Unfortunately he stubbornly refuses to accept the advice of these attorneys.

I'm no Matichak fan, and I'm certain she feels embarrassed by this miscue, but all of this nastiness is beyond the pale.

.


10 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 8, 2019 at 9:37 am

@Usual, there definitely is quite a bit of nastiness in sending emails about "how are we going to thwart him". The first step to easing tensions would be for her to be forthcoming and transparent about what she meant and who she meant it for. Instead, she pivoted to the politics-as-usual "taken out of context" excuse, while failing to provide any explanation as to what that context is.


1 person likes this
Posted by A techie
a resident of Rex Manor
on Mar 8, 2019 at 10:19 am

@Stop Displacing Locals
If you want rents to come down, we need more housing, and a lot of it. Locals are already being displaced.

Yes, tech companies can open new offices wherever they want, and yes, silicon valley needs to start saying no to them. And yes, growth in the region has been very poorly managed.

But my understanding is that NBS landowners were promised redevelopment rights for office space only, before Siegel was on the Council, that this is a done deal, and that the NBS precise plan was amended to add the 9,850 housing unit allowance, in areas that currently have no residential.

I don't see the logic in trying to walk back that amendment in order to stop displacement.


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 11:10 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BS you said:

“As usual BM posts a lot of stuff but fails to connect the dots.”

That is your choice to believe that statement and your opinion. But the public clearly can connect the dots with the information I have provided. You just want to argue against it with no explanation as to how I didn’t “connect the dots” you said:

“He makes all of these accusations of BA and FPPPC violations but he He is all bluff and never follows up.”

I am working on the letter to ask for the Brown Act investigation right now. You said:

“He complains about all the violations of the RHC. Staff attorneys have replied to his complaints and politely told him he is off base.”

Please provide examples? I never got any letters from the RHC nor the Staff attorneys to establish that claim. In fact so far, as regards to the RHC, I have been winning big time. The landlord requested an $850. Increase in rent and only got a $110 raise in rent. So it would appear you are going to have to provide a record of that claim. You said:

“Unfortunately he stubbornly refuses to accept the advice of these attorneys.”

They are not MY attorneys. They work for the City or the RHC. Why would anyone accept attorney advice that is not their own?

That didn’t make any sense.


12 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 8, 2019 at 1:35 pm

1. BM complained that the alternate on the RHC could not particate on the dais for discussion even though he can’t vote. The city attorney responded and rebuked BM and told him this was acceptable under measure V

2. BM complained that several members had not filed form 700 correctly by excluding income and listing home residences. The staff attorney rebuked BM that personal residences need not be listed and that the forms were not yet due so it was inappropriate to prematurely require disclosure.

3. BM complained that some members were violating the FPPC rule about accepting honorariums The city attorney rebuked BM and told him these individuals could receive honorariums if there work was related to the employment.

4. BM complained that RHC members were violating Measure V by not including mobile homes. A judge ruled otherwise, that the RHS had a right to exclude them.

I only attended a few RHC meetings but BM has also made claims before council. Council members and RHC members routinely dismiss his claims. As I said , he spews a lot of hot air and does not follow up by filing complaints with the appropriate body.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 1:40 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Usual BS

Again, I never filed a court case, YET, to challenge the City Attorney nor the RHC Attorneys.

THEY ARE NOT JUDGES. THEY DO NOT MAKE THAT CALL.

You are simply overstating the situation beyond the scope of the events.

None the less, I WIN on my petition, and I win on my rent control, and soon I may win on the current Mayors conduct.


13 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of North Bayshore
on Mar 8, 2019 at 1:46 pm

As someone who presently lives in North Bayshore, I am excited for Google's development plan. Being walking distance from a new entertainment and retail hub? Yes, please. More housing for Google employees (so they can leave the mobile homes for those who make less). Yes, please. Less empty warehouses and wasted space looming in North Bayshore? Yes, please.

Mountain View needs diversity in housing. If you don't like people living in RVs on your street, try advocating for more housing. If the current residents of Mountain View who can't afford a home but make a middle or upper-middle class wage have options, that will open up apartments and such for those who make less. Provide starter opportunities for new home buyers that are reasonably priced. This might allow our existing rental units to deflate in price which would ease the pressure on low-wage workers.

Lisa Matichak, if this email business was truly a mistake, prove it by showing openness to the North Bayshore plan. Show you are thinking about ALL of Mountain View's residents and not just those who currently own homes. Talk to renters. Talk to RV dwellers. Talk to people who currently live in North Bayshore. Step away from your computer and get to know ALL of the people in your community.


12 people like this
Posted by MV
a resident of North Bayshore
on Mar 8, 2019 at 4:18 pm

Regardless of where you stand on the housing issue, I am not happy to hear that our Mayor is wanting to “thwart” anyone. Not the type of person o want representing my community.


51 people like this
Posted by @YIMBY Mayor Matichak HAS met with RV dwellers
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 4:19 pm

@YIMBY Mayor Matichak HAS met with RV Dwellers through ride-alongs with outreach workers, people who are trained to engage with those living on the streets, which is something every city council member should have done by now. However Lenny Siegel admitted that he has not been on ride-alongs with Mountain View police to see what they’ve seen, but said he had met with homeless residents. Apparently he disagrees with MVPD on reasons why these people are living in RVs; so we had a mayor who was unwilling to engage with our outreach workers yet disagrees with them? What is that about? source: Web Link

Don't be so quick to assume Lisa Matichak does not care about all residents, she is responsive to everyone and is not stuck behind a compter, where do you come up with these assumptions?


53 people like this
Posted by Nina
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 8, 2019 at 5:01 pm

Mayor Matichak is intelligent and caring. In contrast Lenny is like the scorpion in the Scorpion and Friday story. His “efforts” more likely to sink the ship than to build community, trust, or housing.


12 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 8, 2019 at 5:20 pm

Try to read my posts more carefullly. I never said you filed a lawsuit. I said you make a lot of claims but ever follow through. So go ahead and file complaints With the authorities. I dare you.

In the cases I cited , do You deny making these claims and being rebuked by attorneys. Be careful how u respond, since it’s all on tape. .


3 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 8, 2019 at 6:12 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BS you said:

“Try to read my posts more carefullly. I never said you filed a lawsuit. I said you make a lot of claims but ever follow through. So go ahead and file complaints With the authorities. I dare you. “

Don’t worry, you will be in the loop. You said:

“In the cases I cited , do You deny making these claims and being rebuked by attorneys. Be careful how u respond, since it’s all on tape. .”

I did not deny anything. You are taking the claims of attorneys paid by the City of Mountain View City council or RHC as the “ultimate” authority. They ARE NOT. I simply point out that these attorneys are potential representing defendants regarding the practices I describe.

Can’t you understand that they are paid to represent the PRIVATE entity of the CITY of MOUNTAIN VIEW CORPORATION? They simply will state as much they can to persuade the public to never question their opinion. It is the public’s duty to question and challenge them given that they are not working for the public in any way.

Simply put, they will do anything to intimidate the public to not challenge the City. I will do so.


18 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 8, 2019 at 7:05 pm

As usual more BS from BM. Granted only city lawyers have responded to your complaints. I am not smarter than them and neither are you. But be my guest and file your complaints. In the mobile home case a judge did decide in favor of RHC.


13 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 8, 2019 at 8:27 pm

It's amusing, albeit unsurprising, to see the Matichak supporters clamoring for civility while at the same time calling Lenny things like "scorpion". Anything to distract from the fact that Mayor Matichak said "how are we going to thwart him", since they're unable to provide the context she desperately claimed it was taken out of. Give her a couple of days to figure out a better story, I suppose?


36 people like this
Posted by JR
a resident of another community
on Mar 8, 2019 at 8:31 pm

Building 9,500 luxury apartments will not help RV dwellers, it will only make the problem worse. You will see 9,500 rich people from out of town move in, and businesses will spring up to cater to them. Hello overpriced candy store, goodbye Fishscapes.

The solution is LESS development, not more.


4 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2019 at 5:05 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BSD you said:

“As usual more BS from BM. Granted only city lawyers have responded to your complaints.”

YES YOU ARE CORRECT You said:

“I am not smarter than them and neither are you.”

WHO EVER MADE THAT CLAIM, YOU ARE JUST BEING ARGUMENTATIVE. You said:

“ But be my guest and file your complaints.”

ITY MAY NOT BE NECESSARY. With the taint of this terrible act of bad judgement on Lisa’s part to send such a message to everyone, this may forever put her actions under so much scrutiny, she may just resign. This poor conduct indicates a lack of understanding of her role in government. I am not going to be surprised if she resigns due to “ADVICE” by the CITY ATTORNEY. You said:

“ In the mobile home case a judge did decide in favor of RHC.”

So far the only decision in court that was beneficial to a “Landlord”. Not a significant example regarding the current situation. Again. YOU ARE JUST BEING ARGUMENTATIVE FOR ARGUMENT SAKE.

Simply put Lisa’s assumption of innocence regarding honorable conduct has been destroyed.


16 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 9, 2019 at 1:40 pm

Try to stay on topic. You made a claim of a Brown Act Violation. There is none. But go ahead and file your claim


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2019 at 2:34 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BS you said:

“Try to stay on topic. You made a claim of a Brown Act Violation. There is none.”

AS I pointed out the following:

“THE PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE MEANINGFULLY IN MEETINGS, AND TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS USED IN DECISION-MAKING AT A RELEVANT POINT IN TIME;”

However, this person admitted to sending out communications intended to be kept from the public. She communicated political intent to act in violation of the Code of Conduct of the City of Mountain View by stating she wanted to attack a public citizens and citizens group for participating in their constitutional rights to discuss the public policy. Her conduct in attempting to participate in secret communications involving the public policies is directly violating the above statement. The simple fact is she made a mistake and sent this email to anE “email distribution list” and not just to those she wanted to send it to. She probably has multiple “email distribution lists” and she chose the wrong one. Again I will remind you as well:

“The Brown Act should be neither an excuse for hiding the ball nor a mechanism for hindering efficient and orderly meetings. The Brown Act represents a balance among the interests of constituencies whose interests do not always coincide. IT CALLS FOR OPENNESS IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, YET SHOULD ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO FUNCTION RESPONSIVELY AND PRODUCTIVELY.”

Her conduct cannot be defined as a responsively or productive action by government. It is her private interests being acted upon. Thus her conduct is not within the requirements of the Brown Act. It goes on to say:

“There must be both adequate notice of what discussion and action is to occur during a meeting as well as a normal degree of spontaneity in the dialogue between elected officials and their constituents.”

Her actions were secret, it was not an act to provide adequate notice to the City regarding the meetings. It clearly is NOT within the NORMAL DEGREE OF SPONTANEITY IN DIALOGUE BETWEEN ELECTED OFFICIALS. And if the conduct is in furtherance of private interests of those who are not Citizens of the City of Mountain View, they are NOT CONSTITUENTS. You know that don’t you. It goes on to say:

“THE ABILITY OF AN ELECTED OFFICIAL TO CONFER WITH CONSTITUENTS OR COLLEAGUES MUST BE BALANCED AGAINST THE IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY PROHIBITING DECISION-MAKING OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC MEETINGS. “

IN THE END, IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BROWN ACT MUST ENSURE FULL PARTICIPATION OF THE PUBLIC AND PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, YET NOT STIFLE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND IMPEDE THE EFFECTIVE AND NATURAL OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT.”

This conduct efforts to make decisions outside the public meetings, but rather act in secret and private regarding her actions as a City Councilor. It was intentional action designed to manipulate the decision making of the City Council. This action is NOT EFFECTIVE AND NATURAL OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT, and you know it. It is a designed attempt to use her office and position to act as a private interests advocate. You know that too.

Simply put you need to provide proof to establish that she did not violate the Brown Act. Your determination without any evidence or case precedence to back it up simply is arbitrary and capricious. Unless you can prove her actions were not in conflict with the Code of Conduct or you could prove that she was acting within proper code of conduct restrictions, you simply are being again ARGUMENTATIVE FOR ARGUMENTATIVE SAKE

The fact is this person has acted in such a unwise, inappropriate, and with such lack of any understanding of her actions, it seems she is on borrowed time before being ejected by the City Council for violating both the Brown Act and the City Council Code of Conduct.


71 people like this
Posted by @Lenny, take a lesson from Lucas Ramirez
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 9, 2019 at 3:38 pm

@Lenny, Suggest that you take a lesson from our new council member Lucas Ramirez. He has taken the high road on this issue. Even though he ran on a slate with you and Pat, he clearly knows what is right and wisely has chosen not to align with you in this debate. The majority of Mountain View residents are not interested in your disruptive tactics, otherwise you would have been re-elected. We see enough bullying and disruption in DC, enough already.


9 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 9, 2019 at 4:03 pm

Typical of the Matichak supporters to just personally attack Lenny over and over again. I'll remind you that she's the one who wrote "what are we going to do to thwart him". That sounds like "bullying and disruption" to me, but perhaps it's OK if the current Mayor does it?


15 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 9, 2019 at 4:21 pm

More BS from BM. You quote a lot of stuff and make totally silly inferences. Nothing she has done violates the Brown Act. Nevertheless, it’s time to get off the pot or BM BM, if you feel different show some courage and file a complaint .


1 person likes this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2019 at 7:20 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BS:

You can claim anythibng you want.

simply put, you have no basis to claim Lisa's innocence becasue you have no legal research to back it up.

Lisa created her own nightmare by acting without thinking.

It will be the end of her political career at the very least.


76 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 9, 2019 at 7:39 pm

Lisa has proven to be a thoughtful advocate for positive progress for Mountain View and HAS worked to increase housing in North Bayshore. She investigates and learns the facts of what is going on in this City and considers all residents before making decisions. There is no reason for people to dissect her words, thinking they know her intentions better than she does, so please at least pretend to be fair minded and adult. Lenny is a grown man and can defend himself - I doubt he needs Randy G frantically leaping to his defense at every word and hijacking every thread with multiple comments.
Stop trying to make this more than it is. I take Lisa at her word, as the majority do - so let's just take a cue from Lucas, grow up and move on.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 9, 2019 at 7:52 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Interested you said:

“Lisa has proven to be a thoughtful advocate for positive progress for Mountain View and HAS worked to increase housing in North Bayshore.”

She has been working on it since 2014, she has gotten nowhere because it was not a real project. You said:

“She investigates and learns the facts of what is going on in this City and considers all residents before making decisions.”

What evidence is there to prove this? The fact is that she is incapable of achieving anything if you take the North Bayshore plan into account. Which hasn’t even had a shovel used. You said.

“There is no reason for people to dissect her words, thinking they know her intentions better than she does, so please at least pretend to be fair minded and adult.”

No dissection here, here words were “"How are we going to thwart him?". Simply put this is a simple statement of hostile intent. No dissection here. You said:

“Lenny is a grown man and can defend himself - I doubt he needs Randy G frantically leaping to his defense at every word and hijacking every thread with multiple comments.”

Lenny should not have to defend himself for anything. He was not the OFFENDER in this situation. He is the victim of a secret group working to attack the citizens of the city of Mountain View. You said:

“Stop trying to make this more than it is. I take Lisa at her word, as the majority do - so let's just take a cue from Lucas, grow up and move on.”

YES take Lisa at her word and understand she said “"How are we going to thwart him?"

Lisa is a secret enemy of the citizens of the city of Mountain View. She has just been caught being it.


17 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 9, 2019 at 8:45 pm

Jeez, Shari, I suppose Lisa needs you scrambling to her defense? Let's be real, no one besides her supporters like you and Robert buy the "taken out of context" line. It's 2019, that's the oldest dodge in the book. She can provide the context and the intended recipients if it's true, but her unwillingness makes it clear. "How are we going to thwart him", her biggest supporters haven't even going real defense of that. We are all grown-ups here, let's not pretend we're naive children.


54 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 9, 2019 at 9:41 pm

Randy, Please stop stalking me and what I write. I am not writing to you. Perhaps if you didn't troll these threads with a clearly over-abundance of posts, your sentences would be more coherent. Example: "haven't even going real defense".
You're actually getting rather amusing.

Relax... you'll be alright. The adults will take it from here.


17 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 9, 2019 at 9:58 pm

Thank you, Shari, for demonstrating your lack of any real rational argument by lashing out. When you talk about me, I'll respond. Unfortunately, you seem to be simply filled with desperation, and still find yourself unable to post anything that doesn't just attack other people. When you have an explanation for "how are we going to thwart him", the adults in the room are ready to listen, but let's just say we won't be holding our breaths.


14 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 10, 2019 at 7:02 am

More BS from BM

“simply put, you have no basis to claim Lisa's innocence becasue you have no legal research to back it up.”

I do have legal experience. More than you. But it’s not necessary. All u have to do is understand the English language.. keep posting . Readers feel better about themselves after reading your baseless claims.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2019 at 8:43 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BS you said:

“I do have legal experience. More than you.”

I have a 75% success rate in local, state and federal court cases, but you did not know that did you?

“But it’s not necessary. All u have to do is understand the English language.”

WRONG, you cannot expect that the public ASSUMES you are correct. You MUST provide evidence and case precedence. You are nothing but an anonymous poster with no credentials. My identity is well known and my education and experience as well, but let’s give you an update

I have 2 B.S. in Business Administration; Management Information Systems and Human Resources Management from SJSU. Both required significant legal training instructed by lawyers in their fields. I have been working in information security for more than 10 years. I am accredited in handling top secret information by the U.S. Government. So your assumption that I have no expertise in the law is proven incorrect. You said:

“Keep posting . Readers feel better about themselves after reading your baseless claims.”

Again, until you PROVE otherwise, they are not BASELESS claims.

You simply want to make statements with nothing to back them up.


19 people like this
Posted by Lisa did it, not BM
a resident of Monta Loma
on Mar 10, 2019 at 9:26 am

@The Business Man: Please stop responding to everything thrown at you. You're an easy target because every time you respond, you're taking the conversation away from what this thread is about. Just let the criticisms slide off of you (regardless if they are baseless or not).

Lisa's supporters are like Trump supporters. No amount of facts are going to sway them from their cult-like following.

To Lisa's supporters: Yes, she has many admirable qualities that you found attractive in a candidate, hence the reason you voted for her. But...and this is what you all need to concentrate on...she did something wrong. She wants to politically "thwart" someone....and that someone is likely Lenny (whom you have proven you don't like) and the people on his Balanced Mountain View group. That alone is troublesome given the jobs / housing imbalance, that Lisa has promised to address. Well, at least she tries to address it publicly. It seems privately, she has different ideas. I am assuming that she continues to hold onto her 2014 view that housing in the North Bayshore area is a bad idea. Her partner on the dais, Margaret Abe-Koga certainly does. At every possible point, she tries to insert some kind of poison-pill into the legislation that would essentially make it impossible to build housing there. Superficially, it appears like she's attempting to look out for the little guy. But realistically, projects would die for their unaffordability. And that is what is troublesome here. Lisa has shown her hand...and is lying about it.


Lisa, explain how you are reading Lenny's email about the next BMV meeting, and then reply to it (instead of forwarding it to your friend/accomplice/co-conspirator/whomever) and then try to have us believe you meant to open a completely different email, then hit reply, and in that reply, say the following words: "How are we going to thwart him?" It defies credibility.

Lisa, please address this group with the truth. Out of context and meant for someone else is not believable. You are woman of intelligence and integrity. In what context would you be trying to "thwart" someone...and who is that someone? Who is the "we" in your question? Is it you and Margaret Abe-Koga? That is the most logical assumption, since you're ideologically aligned. Is it you and newcomer Ellen Kamei? If it is, you likely got her into hot water, too. We, the community are begging you Lisa. Come clean. Any further silence from you will be met with continued skepticism about your character.


If you can't answer those questions, you should likely lawyer up. You're a public servant and the rules are different now. The truth shall set you free.


36 people like this
Posted by MV resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 10, 2019 at 1:36 pm

Why such vitriol?

“Businessman,” you called her an “enemy of the citizens of Mountain View.” That’s really over the top - beyond incivility.

Randy Guelph, 15 posts saying the same thing over and over.

It appears that you think Lisa’s motives are suspect because she seems to want a level of moderation in development, rather than go full-out, with no regard for the consequences.

Apparently, in your minds that makes her an enemy, and gives you a “Gotcha” moment that you just cannot resist exploiting, even though interpreting “thwart him” as applying to Lenny’s announcement of a meeting makes no sense, given that she too supports development in NB.

I’m pretty certain that Lisa got into city politics for altruistic reasons rather than political ambition. Anyone getting into city politics would have to expect this kind of sniping. That “altruism” motivation also goes for Lenny Siegel. John Inks too, even though we don’t agree on much.

Lenny has a large-scale outlook. I’m pretty sure that he subscribes to the idea that dense infill of urban areas (like the peninsula) is necessary to avoid greenhouse gas impacts of people commuting long distances. I basically agree with that, but I would note that this gives him a common agenda with developers, who are motivated by money rather than by environmental concerns. Just saying.

Developers have never liked Lisa much.

As far as density bringing affordability, that’s not necessarily true. Developers will put up with subsidy as long as they themselves can turn an adequate profit, but they will stop building if it looks like that level of supply will drive rents down.

Many of us believe that while Mountain View must do its part in providing new housing, existing neighborhoods should not be degraded. Lisa shares that concern, I think. She is a valuable public servant.

That’s what I have to say, and I am not interested in any back-and-forth with Randy or anyone else.

Lenny, it would be a very good thing if you weighed in with a statement in favor of civility. I’m not sure why you haven’t, yet.


15 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 10, 2019 at 2:32 pm

MV Resident, you're so close to understanding it: "even though interpreting “thwart him” as applying to Lenny’s announcement of a meeting makes no sense, given that she too supports development in NB." It's almost as if Mayor Matichak, who started her political career killing off a multi-family development because it would block her views, who campaigned on opposition to housing in North Bayshore her first time around, may not be forthright with her views in public.

As an example, we have the email she mistakenly sent that asks an unnamed person "how are we going to thwart him?" She could simply tell the people of Mountain View who she wants to thwart and who she was working with to do so, if her story is true. That she refuses to do so speaks volumes.


21 people like this
Posted by Thwart corporate takeover
a resident of Rengstorff Park
on Mar 10, 2019 at 3:17 pm

I don't know who the Mayor wants to "thwart" but may realize that corporations around here have plans to take over more than just Shoreline. They want residential highrises everywhere convenient for the tens of thousands of additional employees that wish to hire for more profit.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 10, 2019 at 9:00 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to MV resident you said:

“As far as density bringing affordability, that’s not necessarily true. Developers will put up with subsidy as long as they themselves can turn an adequate profit, but they will stop building if it looks like that level of supply will drive rents down.”

Here is an admission that the housing industry will prevent affordable housing. How? It is impossible to increase affordable housing in a state where the existing shortage inflates values. This is intentional.

Also, at the same time, the private industry being unregulated investments means the public cannot bear the costs of private interests’ demands for unrealistic profits. I have been pointing this out for years.

The private industry states that if the public won’t provide them with the profits they DEMAND they will not provide housing at all.

Also, the industry drives up the prices by selective increase in the market supply, only providing the most expensive units possible. The proof is that there is as I have researched before there is a lack of 1,100 affordable housing units in Mountain View and at the same time the highest priced housing has a surplus of 1,100 units.

What is the result? The private industry expects the public to guaranty the DEMANDED profit margins. Simply put that cannot become the public policy, because there will never be any affordable housing ever because the industry will simply use the public funds as a crutch to make it not necessary to prove good business judgement.

If any public funds will be used, at the bare minimum, the public must DEMAND that proof of good business practices be provided to be eligible for any public money.

Any increase of AFFORDABLE housing will be a negative impact on the rent rates in the City. That is unavoidable.

Finally, if Lisa was an effective City Council person, the housing building regarding North Bayshore would have started at least 3 years ago. The fact was, this was never going to happen, it was a publicity stunt to promte her political career and Googles consistant gifts being provided by the City of Mountain View.

Given that the value of Google is greater than $600 Billion dollars, why should the City of Mountain view be expected to provide any “incentives” to be constructive participants of the City.

The bottom line is that the Google or Alphabet Corp has been playing the City like a prized violin and play fools of the City for years. And the City actually knows it.


30 people like this
Posted by google-leave-please
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 11, 2019 at 8:30 am

Google please leave Mountain View and take all your garbage with you.


2 people like this
Posted by another MV resident
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2019 at 3:40 pm

The goals sought by the new city council members are far more revealing than an erroneous email.
Mayor Matichak's concerned about drones, birds, and traffic. I hope as mayor she gets to hear and learn from the other half of Mountian View that has more urgent concerns.

City Council Goals Link: Web Link


6 people like this
Posted by KaceyCarpenter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 11, 2019 at 7:41 pm

KaceyCarpenter is a registered user.

Such a disappointment that Mayor of Mountain View is trying to "thwart" the former Mayor and opportunity to add housing in Mountain View. It is desperately needed.

I remember running against the Mayor in 2016 city council race discussing and debating the need for more affordable housing, rent control and telework to address the imbalance in housing, traffic congestions, and inequality in the community.

Fortunately I did not accept the $ from the special interest groups that sponsored the sitting council.

Time for residents of Mountain View to demand transparency and accountability.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2019 at 10:19 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Usual BS here is more information for your consideration:

“The Brown Act and the Perils of Electronic Communication

Kara K. Ueda is a partner with the law firm of Best Best & Krieger, LLP, and can be reached at kara.ueda@bbklaw.com or (916) 551-2822.

Local public officials are often frequent and zealous users of technology and social media. Given the rapid speed with which people can now send e-mails and text messages and post comments online, a casual e-mail conversation between two city council members or an offhand comment on a newspaper website may quickly and inadvertently turn into a “meeting” under the Brown Act.

ABOUT THE BROWN ACT

MOST MEMBERS OF LEGISLATIVE BODIES (INCLUDING CITY COUNCILS, COMMISSIONS, BOARDS AND COMMITTEES) SOON LEARN UPON TAKING OFFICE THAT A QUORUM OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP MAY NOT MEET TO DISCUSS OFFICIAL BUSINESS UNLESS THE MEETING COMPLIES WITH THE BROWN ACT. OFTEN REFERRED TO AS CALIFORNIA’S OPEN MEETING LAW, THE BROWN ACT PROVIDES THAT MEMBERS OF A LEGISLATIVE BODY MAY HOLD A MEETING WHEN A MAJORITY OF THEM — AT THE SAME TIME AND PLACE — “HEAR, DISCUSS, DELIBERATE OR TAKE ACTION ON” AN ITEM WITHIN THEIR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.1

To hold a lawful meeting under the Brown Act, a local agency must, among other things, provide public notice about the meeting for a certain time period and ensure that the public can access the meeting. Thus, if a city council (for example) has five members, three of the five may not meet at a restaurant to discuss city business unless the city has posted public notice about the meeting and otherwise complies with the Brown Act.

The Brown Act does not prohibit individual members of a legislative body from separately providing their own comments and opinions about a matter. A commissioner may write a newspaper editorial about an item the commission approved, and a city council member may give a speech or tweet about local projects under way in the city. Nor does the Brown Act prohibit “one-way” communications where, for example, a city manager transmits a communication to the entire council by e-mail.2 The “passive receipt” of a document by public officials is different from a commission’s or city council’s collective action or discussion.

E-MAIL EXCHANGES MAY CONSTITUTE SERIAL MEETINGS

SIMILARLY, THE BROWN ACT PROHIBITS PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM DOING IN SUCCESSIVE STEPS WHAT THEY CANNOT DO IN ONE STEP. MORE SPECIFICALLY, THE BROWN ACT PROVIDES THAT A MAJORITY OF A LEGISLATIVE BODY MAY NOT USE ANY SERIES OF COMMUNICATIONS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH INTERMEDIARIES, TO DISCUSS, DELIBERATE OR TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEM OF BUSINESS THAT IS WITHIN THE LEGISLATIVE BODY’S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.3 SERIAL MEETINGS TYPICALLY OCCUR BY EITHER A “HUB AND SPOKE” OR A “DAISY CHAIN” MEETING.

Hub and Spoke Meetings

A hub and spoke meeting occurs when one person acts as the center and communicates with members of the legislative body. For example, Council Member Newman cannot call Council Member Oliver to discuss an item of city business and then call Council Member Peoples to discuss his conversation with council member Oliver. In this meeting Council Member Newman was the hub, and the other two council members were the spokes. Hub and spoke meetings may also occur by e-mail if the individual members e-mail each other instead of calling.

Daisy Chain Meetings

A SERIAL MEETING MAY ALSO OCCUR IF COUNCIL MEMBER NEWMAN CALLS COUNCIL MEMBER OLIVER TO DISCUSS AN ITEM OF CITY BUSINESS, AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER OLIVER CALLS COUNCIL MEMBER PEOPLES TO DISCUSS THE SAME THING. THIS TYPE OF COMMUNICATION IS ALSO CALLED A DAISY CHAIN MEETING. THIS TYPE OF MEETING IS PARTICULARLY LIKELY TO OCCUR BY E-MAIL DUE TO THE EASE OF FORWARDING E-MAILS.

SERIAL MEETINGS IN CYBERSPACE

The Internet provides numerous opportunities for local officials to post their thoughts and opinions about city issues. Local bloggers report on city news and sometimes provide a running commentary of council and commission meetings as they happen. And most newspapers have websites where members of the public can — and frequently do — comment on the articles. When these entries or articles are especially timely or controversial, they practically invite comments by interested residents and local officials.

As of this writing, no court has specifically ruled on the intersection of comments posted on the Internet and the Brown Act’s requirements. HOWEVER, THE SAME SERIAL MEETING RULES THAT APPLY TO E-MAIL MAY LIKELY APPLY TO OTHER ONLINE CONDUCT SUCH AS COMMENTING ABOUT ONLINE NEWS STORIES.

THE POTENTIAL DANGER WITH THE ONLINE WORLD IS THE SPEED WITH WHICH A SIMPLE COMMENT ON A BLOG, A FACEBOOK STATUS UPDATE, A PHOTO OR NEWSPAPER ARTICLE MAY RAPIDLY BECOME A DISCUSSION ABOUT CITY BUSINESS BY A QUORUM OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY. For example, a local blogger may post an entry about an upcoming planning commission agenda item. PROPONENTS AND OPPONENTS BOTH WEIGH IN ON THE BLOG COMMENTS. A PLANNING COMMISSIONER READS THE ENTRY AND ALSO POSTS A COMMENT ABOUT THE ITEM. A SECOND PLANNING COMMISSIONER ALSO DECIDES TO POST A COMMENT, AND THEN A THIRD PLANNING COMMISSIONER RESPONDS TO THE FIRST TWO COMMISSIONERS. THUS, A DISCUSSION AMONG THE THREE OF THEM ENSUES ELECTRONICALLY ON THE INTERNET.

Did the planning commissioners violate the Brown Act? At first glance, it may seem that the planning commissioners did not violate the Brown Act if the blog is available for any member of the public to read. The planning commissioners may believe that basic open government principles were followed because they were not trying to have a secret meeting to discuss official business, and anyone could read their electronic conversation. BUT THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ALSO DID NOT HAVE THEIR ELECTRONIC CONVERSATION PURSUANT TO A NOTICED MEETING UNDER THE BROWN ACT.4 INSTEAD, THEY USED A SERIES OF COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE ON AN ITEM WITHIN THEIR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION.

CONCLUSION

While the use of new technology offers important advantages in keeping individuals up to date and informed, the speed with which messages may be sent and comments posted can have drawbacks if public officials inadvertently find themselves in the midst of an e-mail conversation or conversation thread with other members of their commission or city council. THE LAW MAY EVENTUALLY CATCH UP TO THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, BUT UNTIL IT DOES PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHOULD CONTINUE TO ABIDE BY THE GENERAL BROWN ACT PRINCIPLES REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE COMMUNICATION IS IN PERSON OR ONLINE.”

Also consider:

“Emails and the Public Record and Brown Act
June 14, 2009 by firstamendment
Emails and the Public Record and Brown Act

Q: A member of a public board has been carrying on an email conversation with me about matters before the board, copying all the other members of the board on his messages to me. Is this email thread (1) a public record, and (2) a violation of the Brown Act?

A: Public Records Act

A public record is defined by Section 6252(e) of the California Government Code to include “any writing containing information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.” This is a broad definition, so if the substance of your email exchange relates to the “conduct of the public’s business,” the email exchange would fall within this definition. The next question is whether any of the exceptions to Public Records Act apply. Without knowing the substance of the email exchange, we cannot provide any guidance on this subject.

Brown Act

Assuming that the “public board” to which you refer is a “legislative body” within the meaning of the Brown Act, the section of the Brown Act barring serial meetings, Government Code section 54952.2(b), provides as follows:

EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED PURSUANT TO SECTION 54953, ANY USE OF DIRECT COMMUNICATION, PERSONAL INTERMEDIARIES, OR TECHNOLOGICAL DEVICES THAT IS EMPLOYED BY A MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY TO DEVELOP A COLLECTIVE CONCURRENCE AS TO ACTION TAKEN ON ANY ITEM BY THE MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY IS PROHIBITED.

You stated that all the members of the board were copied on the email exchange, so the issue is whether the email exchange is being used “to develop a collective concurrence as to action taken on any item.” Once again, this goes to the substance of the email exchange, so we cannot provide additional guidance on this subject. However, the following information from the California Attorney General may be useful to you.

IN CONSTRUING THESE TERMS, ONE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF THE ULTIMATE PURPOSES OF THE ACT — TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO MONITOR AND PARTICIPATE IN DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. … CONVERSATIONS WHICH ADVANCE OR CLARIFY A MEMBER’S UNDERSTANDING OF AN ISSUE, OR FACILITATE AN AGREEMENT OR COMPROMISE AMONG MEMBERS, OR ADVANCE THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION OF AN ISSUE, ARE ALL EXAMPLES OF COMMUNICATIONS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CONCURRENCE AS TO ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY THE LEGISLATIVE BODY.

The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, p. 11 (Cal. Atty General’s Office 2003).

Finally, there is an exception to the bar on serial meetings in Government Code section 54952.2(c)(1) for “individual contacts or conversations between a member of a legislative body and any other person.” The following information from the Attorney General is helpful.

The prohibition against serial meetings must be reconciled with the exemption for individual contacts and communications contained in section 54952.2(c)(1). Individual contacts or communications between a member of a legislative body and any other person are specifically exempt from the definition of a meeting. (§ 54952.2(c)(1).) The purpose of this exception appears to be to protect the constitutional rights of individuals to contact their government representatives regarding issues which concern them. To harmonize this exemption with the serial meeting prohibition, the term “any other person” is construed to mean any person other than a board member or agency employee. Thus, while this provision exempts from the Act’s coverage conversations between board members and members of the public, it does not exempt conversations among board members, or between board members and their staff.

BY USING THE WORDS “INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS OR CONVERSATIONS” IT APPEARS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WAS ATTEMPTING TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS WOULD NOT BE DEFINED AS A MEETING, WHILE STILL PREVENTING THE MEMBERS OF A BODY FROM ORCHESTRATING CONTACTS BETWEEN A PRIVATE PARTY AND A QUORUM OF THE BODY. ACCORDINGLY, IF A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC REQUESTS A CONVERSATION WITH AN INDIVIDUAL MEMBER OF THE BOARD, WHO THEN ACTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BOARD AND ITS OTHER MEMBERS IN DECIDING WHETHER TO TALK WITH THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, NO MEETING WILL HAVE OCCURRED EVEN IF THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ULTIMATELY MEETS WITH A QUORUM OF THE BODY.

The Brown Act: Open Meetings for Local Legislative Bodies, p. 13 (Cal. Atty General’s Office 2003).

I am working on my research, and this is proof. I am going to prepare a significantly pointed complaint.

I am not saying I am smarter than anyone. But I do point out again, the City Attorneys and the Attorneys for the RHC are not judges and will defend their clients whether or not they may be wrong. You know that.

I appear to be gathering enough legal research to support my complaint. It just may be enough to start an official investigation.


3 people like this
Posted by YIMBY
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 11, 2019 at 11:37 pm

@Thwart corporate takeover

The housing crisis isn't an evil corporate takeover that you're valiantly fighting against. It's 20 and 30 year olds trying to have a career while struggling with a massive housing shortage and the resultant outrageous housing costs.


6 people like this
Posted by Usual BS
a resident of Jackson Park
on Mar 12, 2019 at 6:27 am

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


12 people like this
Posted by Fred
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 12, 2019 at 6:36 am

Thwart is an interesting word and describes well these two council members handling of the Cannabis meeting last week.
Oh no, of course not. We don't want to stiff the voters and rid our city of all things Cannabis. We just want to surreptitiously thwart it to death.
Once again, if these two ladies don't like what their constituents have overwhelmingly voted for they have a duty to get out of the way and let someone else do the job. Recall early and recall often.


9 people like this
Posted by Angel
a resident of Gemello
on Mar 12, 2019 at 9:05 am

Angel is a registered user.

The job of the City Attorney and the City Attorney's office is not to protect elected officials. It's to protect the City. If Lisa committed a violation of the Brown Act, which I kinda doubt, she would have to get her own lawyer.

Having said that, a Public Records Act request to see her emails is in order so we can learn the truth of who she was emailing about public business. That is fair game. I'm sure she already deleted the offensive emails...so a subpoena is in order, to access her email from gmail.

I sincerely hope this doesn't die on the vine. We have a legal right to know the truth.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2019 at 10:00 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

In respopnse to Angel you said:

“The job of the City Attorney and the City Attorney's office is not to protect elected officials. It's to protect the City. If Lisa committed a violation of the Brown Act, which I kinda doubt, she would have to get her own lawyer.”

The City attorneys job is to:

“About Us
The City Attorney is appointed by the City Council as the Attorney for the City and legal advisor to the City Council.

The City Attorney hires subordinate attorneys to assist in the discharge of assigned responsibilities. The City Attorney's Office defends and prosecutes or retains counsel to defend and prosecute all civil actions and proceedings to which the City is a party and prosecutes all criminal actions involving the City Code. City Code Enforcement is under the direct supervision of the Assistant City Attorney. Staff is responsible for enforcing the City Code provisions relating to zoning, neighborhood preservation, and vehicles on private property.

THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REPRESENTS AND ADVISES THE COUNCIL, BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, DEPARTMENTS, AND ALL CITY OFFICIALS IN MATTERS OF LAW AND NECESSARY DRAFTS OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS, ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, CONTRACTS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S BUSINESS.

The Office is also responsible for providing legal services in connection with the Shoreline Regional Park (North Bayshore), Downtown Parking District, and Downtown Revitalization Authority.”

This is proof that the City Attorney is not a judicial office, and does not represent Citizens of the City at all. The City Attorney will perform any action it is instructed by the above clients. Simply put, the City Attorney WILL defend Lisa regarding the Brown Act. You said:

“Having said that, a Public Records Act request to see her emails is in order so we can learn the truth of who she was emailing about public business. That is fair game. I'm sure she already deleted the offensive emails...so a subpoena is in order, to access her email from gmail.”

That action will be evidence of intentional action in furtherance of a crime. She will disqualify any defense of mistake if she takes that kind of action. It is the same as shredding the accounting records with regards to an accounting firm.

So this will make the situation MUCH worse.


35 people like this
Posted by Randy G & Biz Man, take it offline!
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2019 at 3:07 pm

To Randy Guelph and Business Man,
The red light just turned on, Your time is up, give us all a break and take it offline, we have had enough of your never-ending commentary.


4 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 12, 2019 at 5:28 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

I'm sorry it's tough for people to have to face the reality of the Mayor asking an unnamed person "how are we going to thwart him" with regards to North Bayshore housing. Thankfully, this is a place of open dialogue and discussion, where we don't simply censor others because we disagree with them. You're free to propose what you think the Mayor meant by that, but for the vast majority of us it's quite clear.

Angel, if you don't want to "see it die on the vine" you can file a public records request with the city here: Web Link Make sure you share your results with Mr. Noack and the rest of us.


9 people like this
Posted by Angel
a resident of Gemello
on Mar 12, 2019 at 6:22 pm

Angel is a registered user.

@ Randy

Actually, Randy, I am hopeful that Mr. Noack does this himself. It seems reasonable that government leaders be held responsible to not only their residents, but also to the press.

Mark, are you doing this?


4 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 12, 2019 at 7:47 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Sigh, Angel, you can't rely on The Voice to do it for you, even if Mark reads these comments. Looks like it will "die on the vine" like you said...


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 12, 2019 at 8:22 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Why is the recent RHC meetings media not yet online?

March 4th meeting has not been posted?

WHY?


13 people like this
Posted by The Successful Businessman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Mar 12, 2019 at 8:45 pm

The Successful Businessman is a registered user.

Mt. View should focus on stopping the office development and issue a moratorium on any new expansion or addition to the employment numbers. Adding housing is lovely but the issue to be resolved is TOO MANY PEOPLE. Please, encourage these companies to move elsewhere--Texas would love to have them.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2019 at 5:28 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

So far, no further explanation from Lisa?

She really is a secretive comminicator


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 13, 2019 at 8:55 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

The RHC meeting audio from March 4 is silent and has no content

What is the RHC hiding?


18 people like this
Posted by Steven Nelson
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 14, 2019 at 12:49 pm

Steven Nelson is a registered user.

"how are we going to thwart him". Hey, that is Politics in a democracy. (right Roder!)

I voted for Lisa, I also voted (1st time) for Lenny. I voted for Pat (2 times). I voted for Inks once (when he was 'more rational'/'less disrespectful of the truth'). Whoever Mayor Lisa was trying to thwart is, in general, fine with me. She is trying to balance her own (personal) views with the mixed-up democratic views of her community. My community.

Thanks Councilman Rameriz! You stated your general position well.

Lenny is an old, grey fighter in politics. Been there done that (here and Berkeley '69-'73). Margaret is a clear party Democrat, who actually has a very good mind of her own. ("resign" from my elective office. sure :-) Pat is a very reasoned 'engineer'/smart community member.

All of these people are trying to work their best, in a democratic POLITICAL environment. We all hope "to thwart" people when they are proposing/organizing against Public Policies that we reason are less desirable or undesirable.

Thanks again, Councilmembers (former and current)


30 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:12 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

Lisa Matichak does NOT oppose housing. She just wants good housing, so it is her job to vet, review, require improvement and to delay and/or thwart any project she needs to until she gets that improvement. Several examples exist around Mountain View, such as in the Wagon Wheel neighborhood and at 801 El Camino Real. Improvements make life better for those who will live in a housing project and for those who live around it. Lisa has targeting many great locations to develope into housing and has worked with the Environmental Protection Commission to perfect housing ideas and plans. She strives for the best housing, max units and more parking to not cramp the neighborhood. Her thoughtful approach to housing growth is appreciated by all who truly know her record.


26 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 15, 2019 at 3:18 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

Kudos to Lucas Ramirez who knows Lisa, as he’s on City Council with her, and speaks truth to trolls!


12 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 15, 2019 at 4:13 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

It's amusing to see Lisa's defenders shift to saying that it's actually great that she wants to thwart some unnamed person who is definitely not Lenny. I'll remind you that she said it had nothing to do with city business. It's almost as if she says one thing in public, and a completely different thing in private...


25 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 15, 2019 at 8:37 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

Hey, Randy: Pure speculation on your part. Too little to go on for sound interpretation & it’s irrevelant anyway unless you’re just trying to push a newspaper’s readership with an invented scandal on the front page, or you’re just trying to stir up the trolls by chumming their foul waters. Lisa’s record speaks for itself, while a fragment of an unknown conversation can only be misleading and of zero consequence.


8 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 15, 2019 at 9:07 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

It's "irrelevant" that the Mayor stated "how are we going to thwart him" in response to Lenny Siegel advocating to make sure housing is built in North Bayshore? Why won't she tell us what she wanted to the attached, and who she thought she was sending that message to?

Her record does tell us a lot, however. She launched herself into politics by killing a housing development in her neighborhood whose three stories would obstruct her views. Then, she ran for City Council the first time on a platform of preventing any housing from being built in North Bayshore. Quite the record, indeed.


4 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 15, 2019 at 9:42 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Oh, this makes much more sense now.

"I do not like the idea of adding much of any housing north of Bayshore" - Linda Curtis, commenting in the Mountain View Voice, 2014. No wonder you trust Mayor Matichak on this.


27 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 16, 2019 at 12:13 am

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

Myself and so many well informed council members like Jac Siegel, Lisa Matichak, etc, and Environmental Protection Commissioners, and candidates like Mercedes Salem, et al, sought to protect precious wildlife in North Bayshore from habitat destruction, predation by pet dogs and cats (Burrowing Owls are in danger of complete extermination), bird strikes of high rise housing windows are deadly to fowl, etc, etc. Then I have considered the trememdous voting block formed by tech employees all living in this one area (so MV really becomes more Googleville with each passing election) yet their space there never does allow their numbers to reach critical mass for reducing traffic: They still must drive in & out for most all their daily services (like schools, all levels, & supermarkets & other stores like dry ckeaners, etc) thereby increasing traffic clog not relieving it. This is what many don’t understand & why so much planning has been worked on for years to try to make it work. Lisa has dedicated herself to this comprehensive approach, so let’s cease with the easy blasting of our finest mayor and all her outstanding efforts.


11 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2019 at 10:48 am

The Business Man is a registered user.

Linda,

Given that the city has a deficit of 1000 plus affordable units that has existed since 2014, Lisa has no evidence to prove she has been successful at providing adequate housing.

In fact given the crisis in the city, and the constant teasing of housing in Morth Bayshore for more than 5 years, she has proven to not be adequate to perform as a city council person, let alone mayor.

The fact is that she has NO proven performance to for you to make the claims you make here. Unless you can show that things are ACTUALLY improving regarding housing in this city.

The city is peristantly falling behind regarding demand. Yess some projects are moving forward, but those are NOT keeping up with the increases in demand.

We are constantly falling behind.


23 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 16, 2019 at 3:19 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

And the second layer of underground parking at 801 ECR? And the improved grounds and more services included in the build there for the convenience of especially the tenants there? I can factually state so many all over the city...


26 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 16, 2019 at 3:24 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

Also Sir Business Man, compare Mtn. View’s progress with adding housing to Palo Alto’s record and that of so many other nearby cities. We have done outstandingly in MV and PA has accomplished almost nothing.


2 people like this
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 16, 2019 at 5:33 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Linda Curtis you said:

“Also Sir Business Man, compare Mtn. View’s progress with adding housing to Palo Alto’s record and that of so many other nearby cities. We have done outstandingly in MV and PA has accomplished almost nothing.”

First you do not provide any evidence to prove your claim. It is an unsubstantiated statement. Second, simply put it is not an excuse. The City cannot compare itself to another one, it is an Apples and Oranges comparison because the geography and makeup of the 2 of them are too different.

Here is some real information from the Association of Bay Area Governments.

The 2007-2014 housing report stated that:

Mountain View had a need of Very Low housing of 571 but only had 237 which reached 42%, Low Income Housing 388 but only had 28 which reached 7%, Moderate Income housing of 488 but only had 4 which reached 1%, Above Moderate housing of 1,152 but had 2,387 or reached 207% of the needs.

Compare with current record:

Mountain View had a need of Very Low Income Housing of 814 but has only provided 120 which reached 15%, Low Income housing of 492 but has only provided 135 which reached 27%, Moderate income housing of 527 but provided no additional housing which reached 0%, and Above Moderate housing of 1,093 but has 2,004 which reached 183%.

Simply put it doesn’t matter what Palo Alto is doing. The fact is the City of Mountain View is failing to provide adequate housing period, and it has been all the fault of the City Council. I am not playing favorites with my assessment.

In the end, the City has had poor management for at least a decade. And since Lisa has been a member of the Council, she is partly to blame. I do not let Lenny off because he was there too. But you cannot claim that Lisa has accomplished anything.


23 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 17, 2019 at 11:23 am

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

First off I have seen whar our Mayor has accomplished with my own eyes. I have watchd her over many years and know her work well. She is so savve and talented in the details that perfect a project. And your impatience, I hope will push on the other end of the jobs-housing embalance: Let’s slow the mega increase in this area of huge employers (let some other cities grab up some of these untaxable product producers, cities like Stockton or Modesto or wherever) so our housing produced is marvelous and our infrastructure can keep pace in its accommodation, too!

And I do think many comparisons between the two neighboring cities can be made in that city governments do things through similar channels and these processes take time and care to do things correctly. The lay outs of both cities are amazingly similar, even sharing many of the same main streets and styles of neighborhoods.

My source of information for my previous comments about PA lagging in adding housing was the Palo Alto Daily recently.
And my main point is that if you are truly seeking facts, a small snippet of a conversation taken out of all context and not at all clear as to what it referenced is nonsense rather than revealing. Easy to criticize. What is your contribution to more housing, especially great housing? Especially in the mere two months that our new Mayor has served so far? I have done nothing so far this year, but in the past I have worked hard with planners for many projects. And most definitely, my efforts over the years pale in comparison to Lisa’s, which I have witnessed first hand.


8 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 17, 2019 at 11:35 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

For having watched her for so long, Linda, it's surprising that you don't know she's been on City Council since 2016, not just two months.

Your repeated deflections of what she meant by "how are we going to thwart him" say a lot more about Mayor Matichak's actions than your vague platitudes of "trust me, I know she's great!"


22 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 17, 2019 at 12:02 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

Dear Randy- Lisa has been Mayor gor only two months. Each mayor serves only one year in MV, not many. She was only on the council since 2016 and became mayor in the month of January of this year.
I am saying go by what you know well, especially first hand, not by assumptions of an interpretation of too little data. That’s when your thinking take the stage, not the facts. The value of the Masters of Arts & the 4 Masters of Science I completed: Empirical Method. Very valuable and applicable in nearly every instance. Try it Randy.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 17, 2019 at 12:07 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Linda,

Simply put, you have benefited significantly from her actions due to the fact you are a developer or an investor in the developers that have managed to get what meager numbers of housing built well below the demand.

The fact is you have NO PRIMARY sources for making your observation.

You don't even source the Palo Alto report, is it becasue it may actually be an opinion and not an actual article?

All I asm saying is that you have made opinions known regarding your beneficial relationship with Lisa Matichek. Given that you own an apartment complex in the City and you constantly attempt to reduce affordable apartments in the city in order to maintain the inflated property values of your assets due to chronic shortage. You disclosed this information on another website called SmartVoter.

Finally, you claim as to them being similar is completely wrong. The city of Palo Alto has a world famous private university, Stanford. Along with in many ways significantly differeant populations and needs. You are going to have to provide some proof regarding their similarities other than the off-hand claim of:

"And I do think many comparisons between the two neighboring cities can be made in that city governments do things through similar channels and these processes take time and care to do things correctly. The lay outs of both cities are amazingly similar, even sharing many of the same main streets and styles of neighborhoods."

That is simply not even demonstrating any effort to provide evidence to substantiate your claims. Why can't you provide this?

In effect you are doing nothing but protecting your interests, which are private ones, or protecting simply your friend or well known associate in your efforts.

The simple truth is that Lisa made a mistake and got caught regarding her private efforts and her role as a public official. And she cannot erase that. It simply means that an investigation is warranted regarding her conduct by an independent agency as to whether she violated eithe the Brown Act or the Political Activities laws of the state of California.




7 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 17, 2019 at 12:12 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Linda, what specific powers are vested in the Mayor that aren't held by City Council members?

The simple way to describe what you're doing is disregarding inconvenient evidence because it conflicts with your personal relationships and political allies. The rest of us who are unaffiliated have no problem understanding what she meant when she said "how are we going to thwart him." That she lacks the courage to be forthright when caught in the act tells us a lot about her true character.


26 people like this
Posted by Linda Curtis
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Mar 17, 2019 at 2:10 pm

Linda Curtis is a registered user.

BM: I am not a developer or investor in them; I am living in an apartment and always have been a renter which countradicts previous specilation that Lisa represents only home owners. She interacts with EVERYONE and is very fair!
The article about Palo Alto lagging was a recent headline on the top of the front page of that paper! You look up the date for something to do besides your endless mounting tirade.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 17, 2019 at 7:10 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

In response to Linda you said:

“BM: I am not a developer or investor in them; I am living in an apartment and always have been a renter which countradicts previous specilation that Lisa represents only home owners. She interacts with EVERYONE and is very fair!”

But you also own an apartment building don’t you? You also said:

“The article about Palo Alto lagging was a recent headline on the top of the front page of that paper! You look up the date for something to do besides your endless mounting tirade.”

For someone who claimed “The value of the Masters of Arts & the 4 Masters of Science I completed: Empirical Method. Very valuable and applicable in nearly every instance. Try it Randy.”

My father was a Doctor in Chemistry. And in my education there is a distinction from a “Primary research source” A single newspaper article is defined as qualitative data if you read the following:

Qualitative data:

What people say.; They are usually Speeches, Interviews and Conversations, and they may be captured in Videos, Audio Recordings, or transcribed into text.; What people write. ;These include Autobiographies, Memoirs, Personal Journals and Diaries, Letters, Emails, Blogs, Twitter Feeds, etc.; Images and Videos.; Maps.; Government Documents--U.S. rest of world.; Laws, Court Cases and Decisions, Treaties.; and Newspapers.”

So is this proper research? Where I have studied, qualitative reporting is not evidence unless it references quantitative data. Without quantitative data, the reporting cannot survive what is described as Peer Reviews. Those are described as:

“Peer review is the process by which an author's peers, recognized researchers in the field, read and evaluate a paper (article) submitted for publication and recommend whether the paper should be published, revised, or rejected.

Peer review is a widely accepted indicator of quality scholarship in a discipline or field. Articles accepted for publication through a peer review process meet the discipline's expected standards of expertise.

Peer-reviewed (or refereed) journals are scholarly journals that only publish articles that have passed through this review process.”

Simply put without validated quantitative data you cannot rely on just one news article that has not been peer reviewed. This is quantitative data involves Statistics and Data.; Polls, and Public Opinions.”

You have not provided any peer reviewed data, unlike what I have provided in the past. My research was sourced from the Association of Bay Area Governments website, which is a certified primary source containing verified data.

So before you try to categorize my commentary, you should take some time to reflect on your comments to validate you claims.


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 19, 2019 at 7:53 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

Any new news?


5 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 19, 2019 at 11:40 pm

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Of course there's no news, Business Man, neither you nor Angel want to actually bother to file a records request. Posting on the Mountain View Voice comments doesn't actually accomplish anything.


27 people like this
Posted by Interested
a resident of Martens-Carmelita
on Mar 20, 2019 at 2:23 am

Interested is a registered user.

I'm laughing out loud! Randy you finally made sense - and I quote you: "Posting on the Mountain View Voice comments doesn't actually accomplish anything".

I see your TWENTY SIX posts (with a pitiful amount of "likes") prove this. Yes, your postings didn't "actually accomplish anything" except prove you monopolize a subject to the point of boredom. LOL


9 people like this
Posted by Randy Guelph
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Mar 20, 2019 at 7:42 am

Randy Guelph is a registered user.

Save me from the sad desperation of being in my twilight years, posting at 2AM, and then liking my own posts... Have you come up with any good stories as to who the Mayor wants to thwart?


6 people like this
Posted by PRA Filed
a resident of Gemello
on Mar 20, 2019 at 11:07 am

PRA Filed is a registered user.

Public Record Act requests have been filed.

Lisa has to openly and honestly give up her emails for the truth to be discovered. I'm guessing that without a subpoena, that won't happen. Of course, then she'll be known as corrupt.

What say you Lisa? The public is waiting.


23 people like this
Posted by Jim Neal
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Mar 21, 2019 at 2:53 pm

Jim Neal is a registered user.

If I were Mr. Siegel, I would be very careful about calling out others for "a new low in political infighting".

When I ran for City Council, I sought Mr. Siegel's endorsement as he was a well known activist. He invited me to speak with him in his office downtown and I explained my positions to him on the topics facing the city. I also specifically mentioned that I would be proposing a "balanced" approach to housing and office space in Mountain View. Within a few weeks after that meeting, Mr Siegel announced that he was running for City Council and launched the group "Balanced Mountain View", while also seeming to co-opt many of my positions and talking points.

If Mr. Siegel had any doubt that he himself would be running for City Council, then he should have politely declined to meet with any other candidate(s) or potential candidate(s). In my opinion, that exemplifies "a new low in political infighting". However; in this case, I did "turn the other cheek", because I knew going in that politics is a dirty business and it can be expected that not everyone has the same moral and ethical standards.

With regard to Mayor Matichak, it is true that the first time she ran, she was opposed to housing in the North Bayshore. When she ran the second time, she and I talked about it at length as I was in favor of it. She had told me that this time she was more willing to consider it. I backed her campaign because of all the candidates for City Council that I met over the last 8 years, I believe her to be the most honest, the most thoughtful, and the one that cares most deeply about how Mountain View residents are affected by Council decisions.

I also know that Lisa is not one to try to impose her vision on the people, but is the opposite; her vision is informed by the wants and needs of the residents of Mountain View. She is a very rare politician, because she is an honest one.

In today's world, there is very little room for politicians who are not part of the corrupt system that seeks to crush individuality in favor of the hive mentality. My recommendation is that if you really want to know what Lisa thinks about the North Bayshore housing, just ask her.



Jim Neal
Modesto, Ca
(Formerly Old Mountain View)


Like this comment
Posted by SRB
a resident of St. Francis Acres
on Mar 21, 2019 at 7:24 pm

SRB is a registered user.

@Jim Neal

Not sure if anybody ever trade marked Balanced Mountain View but your claim might have helped elucidate the email's mystery. Maybe, it was you that the Mayor wanted to thwart? :)


Like this comment
Posted by The Business Man
a resident of Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2019 at 1:02 pm

The Business Man is a registered user.

So is anyone going to address her tonight at this next City Council Meeting?


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

After experiencing harassment, owner of Zareen's restaurants speaks out about Islamophobia, racism
By Elena Kadvany | 27 comments | 5,715 views

Don't Miss Your Exit (and other lessons from an EV drive)
By Sherry Listgarten | 12 comments | 2,050 views

Goodbye Food Waste!
By Laura Stec | 5 comments | 1,886 views

"Better" Dads and "Re-invigorated" Moms: Happier Couples
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,388 views

 

Register today!

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Learn More