October 22, 2019 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:22] Unknown Speaker: I played the regions to the United States America. And to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, under God. Individual, liberty, and justice for all.

[00:00:39] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Our city clerk will announce attendance.

[00:00:42] City Clerk: All council members are present.

[00:00:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. First item on the agenda is the consent calendar, and these items will be approved by one motion unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of ordinance and resolutions will be waived unless a council member requests otherwise. Does any council member wish to pull an item? Council member Hicks?

[00:01:06] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I, um, I just want to say that, uh, where, since we're voting on the consent items, I just want to comment that, um, I'll be voting yes on all the items, except the ordinance related to narrow streets, and that one, I'd like my vote to be registered as no, consistent with my prior vote. Thank you.

[00:01:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other council members wish to make comments or, um, pull an item? Council member Ramirez?

[00:01:34] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. The same comments as Council member Picks. Id like to register a no vote for that particular item. Thank you.

[00:01:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member Clark.

[00:01:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: The same, except I was gonna ask if, um, I was actually gonna, unless counsel colleagues, otherwise, I was actually gonna ask that we, um, that we pull 4.2 and vote on the 2 ordinances separately. So still vote on both, obviously, but just record separate votes on them. Or if you want to take them together, I can just make my comments either way. It's up to however the council wants to do it. But I just wanted to know upfront if we were planning to vote separately on one and 2 or if we wanted to vote on both of them together. as a single vote.

[00:02:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, since nobody really pulled it, they were just making comments. I was gonna just do it all together.

[00:02:25] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Um, so, yeah, so all, um, when we get to it, um, I guess my comment is, I'm fine with everything on the consent calendar, including the, um, the first ordinance related to bike ways, but, um, I'd just like to record a no vote on the separate ordinance on narrow streets.

[00:02:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Any other council members wishing to pull an item or make comments? Okay, seeing none. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on an item on the consent calendar? Please remember to fill out a card before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk.

[00:03:06] Lenny Siegel: Lenny Siegel housed resident of Mountain View. I would like to object to items 4.2 and 4.3. The city's policy on motor homes is intolerant, inhumane, impractical, unconstitutional. And now that you've got the narrow streets thing associated with it, dishonest, because this really isn't about traffic safety. As I observed last week, you're taking an action, you don't even know which streets are going to be affected. and you don't know where people will go once the ban is in place. That's why scores of people have pledged to circulate signatures for a referendum that will keep this measure from taking effect. That's the narrow streets ordinance.

[00:03:52] Unknown Speaker: You're not objecting to the bike lane ordinance at this point.

[00:03:56] Lenny Siegel: In terms of 4.3, safe parking, while that started out as a good idea. It is designed to fail. The idea that people have to leave every morning, you moved it back to something 9 a.m., that still doesn't make it work for people. But we are not planning a referendum on that because we're going to stop the ban, the narrow streets ordinance, and people will still be able to park on the streets. So this is your last chance as a council, the council majority, not to approve the narrow streets ordinance, because we're going to be circulating petitions. We've got 30 days to do it. We think we can easily collect the signatures of 3,700 mountain view registered voters, and that'll put it on the ballot to let the voters decide. So again, A lot of people in Mountain View consider the people living in motor homes to be our neighbors. We have homeowners, we have mobile homeowners, we have tenants, and we believe that these people have a right to stay in Mountain View. Let's figure out a way for them to do it, right, rather than just throwing them out. Thank you.

[00:05:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. You know, there's gonna be different perspectives here tonight. And as always, we want to make sure we're listening to what people say and respecting their time, and so we are not going to do any clapping or other signs of expression. So we're just going to listen.

[00:05:27] Robert Paula: Oh, good evening. My name is Robert Paula. I'd like to talk about the item 4.2, RV parking. Mark Twain is credited with saying history doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes. The SNL loan crisis of the late '80s resulted in the bankruptcy of half of the savings and loan banks in the United States. From 1986 to '95. The SNL number declined from 3,200 to 1,600. Total costs are resolved in the crisis, 160 billion. Well, was learning that crisis, changed the banking laws. So what was then, illegal? becomes legal. Then nobody goes to jail. Under Clinton, banking laws were changed. to allow banks to compete with more loosely regulated international banks. The smart people looked around for a conduit to sell the American dream of owning a house. The most popular of these investments were mortgage backed securities. Anybody with a pulse could obtain a mortgage, low down, no down, whatever they needed, paper. They securitized MBSs. are sold to investors, as low risk bonds. They were not. When the scheme started to unravel, they pulled the plug. They saw an easy way to take possession of homes on the cheap and have Uncle Sam pay for them. Sheer genius. They invented TARP. Trouble the set relief program, 700 billion bailout. The FMA, FMCC, and the government conservatorship cost 187 billion. The, uh... The, uh, death, uh, limit was raised to 11 trillion. The crisis started under bush number two, and then there under Obama. These presidents ignored the collateral damage to housing. They lacked for sophistication or were complicit in the plan. The banks were saved, and the American dream went up in smoke. The beneficiaries, hedge funds, and LLCs that wound up with massive amounts of housing. Fast forward to now. Public and private debt is at 26 trillion. The people who engineered the 2008 crisis, and subsequent bailout are now in the administration. It seems to take about 20 years in a presidential election to engineer a financial crisis. These RV and card dwellers are the direct consequence of the last crisis. The American dream has been reduced to life in an RV parked on the street. Also, the unintended consequences of evicting vehicle dwellers is a reduction of local cost labor, which, undoubtedly, will result in closure of small businesses. Mountain view will become a big office park, devoid of charm and variety. Come up with a better plan. you. With a better outcome, and let them live in peace. Thank you.

[00:08:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:08:42] Public Speaker: Good evening, Council. Mayor. I'm speaking for myself. Also, advocates for affordable housing and the League of Women voters. And I'm quoting from a recent publication of the city, the view, the headline is the three pillars of a sustainable society. And you just heard something about sustainability. I can remember when my husband and I bought our house in 1960 in Mountain View. The rule of thumb was that we shouldn't pay more than three times our income. Annual income. We stretched it a tiny bit. Today, it's more like 20 times the annual income in order to buy a house in Mountain View. And going down, rents are recently the same formula. The three pillars of the sustainable society are in the environment, economy and equity. And I'd like to read to you what it says about equity, equity, which is also referred to as social equity, relates to fairness and inclusion, such that everyone in a community. is treated equally, and shares in its well being through a variety of programs, plans, and policies. The city is actively working to achieve equity. You are faced with a vote tonight on the consent calendar that absolutely flies in the face of this goal. It is absolutely not equity. to pass the ban. Thank you.

[00:10:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:10:50] Alex Brown: Hey. Alex Brown, Santecavella, North Bay Shore, Mountain View. Since it seems pretty unobjectionable to ban the oversized vehicles on class 2 bikeways, just, is there any chance that we can just get all vehicles out of bike lanes, including construction and delivery vehicles so that I can bike safely through the city? Uh, I would like to be able to bike in bike ways without having to like to swerve into traffic because some like delivery vehicle is stop there for several hours or landscaping, which is probably the most common one. Thanks.

[00:11:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[00:11:27] Valerie Fenwick: Valerie Fenwick, Mountain View resident. I live in Rex Manor. I am on the B pack, but I'm not representing them, but I have zero recollection of any safety issues with RVs coming to us for bicycling in the last several years in front of our committee. I bike around the city myself and the RVs do not present any worse trouble than the construction vehicles or just regular cars with the, at least I don't worry about getting doored by them. Um, I think this is a pretty far stretch. I have 2 friends that live in their vehicles, often in Mountain View because of disabilities, but they stay here because they're family and support networkers here and their jobs. People live in their cars, 2 doors down from me. It's okay. I see them going to work in the morning. They live here. They are working here. You cannot afford an apartment on the minimum wage that we pay here in mountain view. There are many other ways to address this. I was here several years ago, objecting to the closure of Mountain View's last RV park as well, which is now offices. We had an opportunity to expand that area. to have sanitation, hookups, and to give people a place to live that was affordable, where they could be with dignity. And we already took that away. We've routinely taken places like where Fiesta Del Mar used to be and it was supposed to be offices and housing and restaurants, now it's just offices and a gym for employees. Mountain View is not doing any favors to its people with this ordinance. I think it's ridiculous to claim this is for bicycle safety. It's, I'm very disappointed. Thank you. very much.

[00:13:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:13:11] Maria Marokin: Good evening, everybody. My name is Maria Marokin, and I work for the Day Worker Center of Mountain View. With me today is Celerina Navarro and Maria Ventura, the Yara Day labors. They are people who work in our community. They clean houses. And one of the reasons that we are here and I want to bring these to you directly is one more time, emphasize how detrimental is the just to move people that they need to move every 72 hours. So I have tickets and tickets and they can explain the best that they can, how much detrimentalists for the budget and how much they need to deprive their children, use in order to pay these citations. So I'm going to do the best viability to translate, but pretty much the message is that besides, also I want to emphasize the importance just to have the vehicle residents living close to the parks. They have children. One of them is here now, the other ones, she's going to explain how many they have. But it's really remarkable or important. They have access to at least a green areas because if no, they need to be confined and this is a small vehicle and that is their home. And the other thing that I want to talk is, I believe that's it for now. Okay, thank you.

[00:15:17] Maria Marokin: So she just want to share, like, she's a single mother, and she's not able to drive. Her vehicle. Then she needs to be asking support from people from the community, just to be moved. So, because if not, she is going to be citations and she just want to share that with you. Gracias.

[00:16:21] Maria Marokin: So, her name is Celerina, and she shared the same, uh, concerns about the, um, um, problems for don't not be able to move other cars. So she has 3 children and she barely can make uh, the ends because she works, no, too much. So she just want to ask you if you can stop to give citations to them. And um, and actually also I want to share like uh, in our way here just to get prepared to present the best that we can. So they brought some ideas like either purpose to move their cars. is just clean the street so they can commit themselves to have the shiny street in the world. used to be clean and facilitate, use the cleaning. And also, see, the purpose is just to prove like their cars are abandoned. They're not abandoned. They have proof that they live on them. So something that I want to share with you and just thank you for all your efforts, the wonderful stuff, that you're trying to do the best that your hearts, but just keep in mind the community is supporting these fair costs, and I hope you are on our side. Thank you.

[00:17:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:17:43] Bruce England: Good evening. Bruce England, on Wisman Station Drive. And I just wanted to let you know that we do have a community-based, safe parking task force operating. We've been meeting and working on our methods and processes for the last several months. And there's information about the task force on the Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning website at mcsp.org, so you can read about what we're doing. At this point, we're continuing to meet. We're identifying locations in the city that might be used for safe parking. And we're really waiting for guidelines. coming from the city so we know how to talk to the property owners about what they're going to need to comply with. So we're very hopeful, but that's what we're looking for from you all. And if you have any questions along the way about what we're doing. Please reach out, and I'll help you out.

[00:18:32] Unknown Speaker: Is that part of the Human Relations Commission activity?

[00:18:35] Bruce England: Yeah, I should mention that, that we're talking with and also the city manager's office.

[00:18:39] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thanks.

[00:18:40] Bruce England: Mainly through HRC. Thanks.

[00:18:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[00:18:50] Job Lopez: My name is Job Lopez. And I just want, I just want here to remind each one of you that not to forget, not to long ago, Mountain View was declared a human right city. Now, we're brothers and sisters, living in arbys, have human rights. Just like you. They are your brothers and sisters. And you have to keep that in mind. Just like the ones living in a luxury homes, and a very comfort, our homes in Mountain View are your brothers and sisters, and they have rights. Do not forget the ones that do not have the same commodity that your other brothers and sisters have. I am here to remind you too, like a broken record, that each one of you has the moral obligation. to see that your brothers and sisters, the boys list, and the homeless, have the same rights, the same human rights that everyone has, that you have. So we elected you to see that they have a comfortable as much as possible life like you do. So stop the ban. Stop the band. Okay?

[00:20:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:20:34] Jamie: Hi, I'm Jamie, and I'm a high school student. I'm actually not even here for this issue, but I just wanted to let you know that I think it's disgraceful. This ban is disgraceful. And to remind you that you are here to protect all of the citizens of Mountain View, not just the ones with homes.

[00:20:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:21:00] Public Speaker: I'd like to speak for myself, and I also have something to read from a friend who's in Southern California and can't be here. I turned in a card for her. So what should I do?

[00:21:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I can do it all within three minutes.

[00:21:11] Public Speaker: Perfect. Oh, okay. This is Pam Laner, also a long term resident of Mountain View. I want to thank you for listening to the voters and making some small inroads into the on street overnight parking. I am not speaking just for myself, but echoing what I have been learning through thoughtful conversations with a number of neighbors, and others who have shared their thoughts with me. I promise to include them in my letter, as most people never get around to writing. We understand the decision to enact some guidelines came with great angst, but we applaud you for your leadership. It must have been hard to stay on course with those loud voices decrying the ban, and looking to you to solve such tremendous problems. Any reasonable person can see that this is not a ban. that nobody's home is being taken from them. We are all trying to work together to tackle this issue one step at a time in a reasonable fashion. Compromises have to be made all around for the good of all. Engaging with others regarding their feelings about this. There is a palpable sense of relief that finally, something has come to keep this from being such an onerous situation, that we could never, never hope to address the needs of those who had to accept this lifestyle. Although many were frustrated at the delay of the time the June time frame. We understand this may have been necessary to get this important first step accomplished. We trust there are no further delays or issues going forward. It is surely disappointing to get more support from companies and the community at large with the safe parking plans. You have been working on for so long. We believe now that parameters have been set. You may get more corporate support. No doubt the unlimited numbers were overwhelming to anyone trying to partner with Mountain View on this important issue. We will continue to hope it would be more positive going forward. My comments are, I appreciate very much what this council has done. This is a regional issue. And there is not a lack of compassion on this. Everybody I've talked to, and believe me, I am contact with thousands of people in this city, and they all are compassionate towards this, but they also realize we're mountain view taxpayers, and we are very willing to help those mountain view prior residents, who had an apartment or a house, and moved into a mountain view, or those that work here, to better themselves and get off the street. I don't want anyone living in an RV. And the over $2 million that we have spent so far if we spent only on Mountain View, in the parameters you have set, we could be much more constructive.

[00:23:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

[00:24:04] Lorda Frankel: Good evening. My name is Lorda Frankel, and I'm here to ask you to please put a moratorium on the 72 hour parking tickets on the RB's. Most of these people, benefit from measure B, and still a lot of them cannot be able to pay a one bedroom apartment or a studio or share rent with other people. The city of Mountain View doesn't need the $92 ticket that these people work so hard and try to make it to get food. So please, until you have a better spot and a solution for them to know, park on the streets, I ask you to put a moratorium. You don't need to delete your hands with money that is so hard to earn. Thank you.

[00:24:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, is there anyone else who wants to comment on the items on the consent calendar? Okay, seeing none. Motion is in order for the consent calendar. Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[00:25:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar, which includes 4.2, adopt an ordinance amending articles one and 8 of chapter 19 of the Mountain View City code related to oversized vehicle parking on certain streets adjacent to class 2 bike ways to be read entitled only for the reading waived. Adopt an ordinance and mending Articles one and 8 of chapter 19 of the Mountain View City code related to oversized vehicle parking on narrow streets to be read entitled only for the rating waived. And 4.3 adoption ordinance amending chapter 36 articles 17, 9, ooh, 16, 45, 6, and 8. remember my Roman numerals. And chapter 19, article 8 of the Mountain View City code, related to safe parking and emergency shelters to be read entitled only for the reading waived.

[00:26:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we have a motion by the vice mayor, and I seconded it. Council member Clark.

[00:26:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I just wanted to confirm with the city court. that, um, it sounds like council members, Hicks, Ramirez, and Clark will just be recorded as a no vote on the part 2 of 4.2, which is the, um, the ordinance related narrow streets.

[00:26:34] City Clerk: Correct. The minutes I reflect that, yes.

[00:26:36] Councilmember Chris Clark: So even though it shows yes up there, we're voting on this as a block.

[00:26:41] City Clerk: Correct.

[00:26:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Thank you.

[00:26:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, that's called a question. That passes unanimously with the no votes recorded on item 4.2. Thank you. Okay, next is oral communications, and this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section and state law prohibits the council from acting on non agenda items. Can I see how many people want to speak on non agenda items? Thank you. Okay. Each speaker will have three minutes. Did you have a presentation?

[00:27:56] Albert Jeans: Yeah, I have video show.

[00:27:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Of course.

[00:28:00] Albert Jeans: Thanks. Hi, Albert Jeans, a long time resident of Mountain View. I have a couple videos I want to show. This is a quick one. This wasn't actually on my plan, but this happened yesterday morning at 8 o'clock. It's coming back from the dog park, on Shoreline Boulevard, going south, heading towards Critton Lane. You see there's a green wife there. Watch what happens. Green, white, green, white. Whoa, what's that? Ooh. And there's a 2nd bus that did the same thing and pulled it behind me. And we know who that bus serves. Second video I wanted to show is also somewhat related. Well, it is way to traffic. As you know, I've long been a critic of the traffic impact analyses that accompanied the environment impact reports because of their failure to address current problems, and they did what the future impacts will be of all the big projects going on. So a few weeks ago, I happened to find this software on the web on the net. It's free, it's a traffic simulation software that comes out of Germany, it does microstimulation, which is the only way you can address something that's congested to the shoreline corridor. This actually models every single car. I input the traffic counts from the traffic impact analyses, which also give you the turning, you know, ratios at each intersection, and then the software goes ahead and figures out where all the cars go. And so this is the bottleneck up here at Per, on where 101 goes in here. This is Terabella, my favorite intersection. As you can see, you know, it's a little hard to see on the screen, but what happens is, you know, the car's back up here. These guys get the green white, but they can't really go too much. And then, you know, it keeps going like that. Gradually backs up and shoreline. This is this middle field shrine intersection. Safeway is over here. Mine frequently goes back that far. Middlefield is still pretty, pretty free flowing at this point. Okay, so here's, okay, so I was, you know, I was kind of doubtful of this 101 off ramp reconfiguration, so I said, okay, let me situlate and see what happens. And I was really surprised. It works. It works like crazy. I mean, this should be number one priority. Get this going as fast as possible. It takes away all the backups in North Bay Shore. And as you go, and of course, with that gone, everything in the city here flows freely. I mean, it's just amazing. And it does cut down the wait time, like they said, you know, from 20 minutes down to like two. And there's a number of reasons for that, and I can't get into that, but I learned, you know, why that is, and the simulation like this can tell you. You just learn a lot. I've run this thing 100s of times, just, you know, twitting with different parameters and stuff, you learn a lot about how traffic flows. And so now, as you saw, I mean, I can accurately replicate, you know, present conditions, and this is one example of what the future pulls, and I'll show you more later. Thank you. Stay tuned.

[00:31:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:31:19] Kat Wortham: I like the films. In council, my name's Kat Wortham from the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and I have exciting stuff to talk about tonight. As you all know, holidays are around the corner, and what's everyone's favorite holiday? Of course, Thanksgiving. Whether it's your favorite or not, we have a big run we do. at largest time turkey trot in the entire country, I'd like to invite you out for it. So I'll now read from what they told me to read. We are having a 5K run walk, 10K run, 10K wheelchair, and kids fun run. We're also having a mayor's cup competition, which is why I'm here talking to all of you tonight. So the competition in Pitts City councils against one another in a challenge to determine which city boasts the highest participation for its size category. Eligible participants include all of you lovely people, as well as city managers and mayors. And if you are out of town, you can still register and designate someone to run in your place. So we'd love to have you sign up. I represent Mountain View for the organization I work for. So it also makes me look good if you go. So just keep that in mind. I know that's a big selling point. And I have flyers that I will pass out. So thank you all very much for your time tonight and have a great meeting. Thank you.

[00:32:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, do you have a question?

[00:32:45] Unknown Speaker: No, I don't. But I do have a counterpoint. That the Spartans of Mount View High are also running a turkey trot on Thanksgiving Day and have multiple events like that. So you have options to go to San Jose or ride your bike to Mountain View and see the dairy. So there is options for you.

[00:33:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Go Spartans. Go Spartans. So anyone else who wishes to address the council on items not on the agenda. Okay, seeing none, we'll close this portion of the meeting, and we will move on to item 6.1. And this is a public hearing on ordinance, as men amending chapters 8, 14 and 24 of the city code, to adopt the 2019 California and 2018 International Codes, incorporating by reference other uniform codes, and adopt reach codes. I think that's the longest title we have ever had for a session. So did you have something you wanted to say, John?

[00:33:51] Councilmember John McAlister: I just wanted to say thank you for asking about my vest, Mayor. That, uh, there is some clarification needed for this. I took a vacation with my son golfing in Scotland. And this vest is not a Christmas vest. It is the McAllister Clan Qatardan colors. And so that's why I'm wearing it in support of the McAllister clan.

[00:34:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It's wonderful. Okay, thank you. You can wear that, yes. on Turkey Day when you're trotting. Okay, we will start with a staff presentation, and then open it up for council questions, and we'll open it up for public comment, and then bring it back to council for discussion and a vote. So, we'll start with the staff presentation.

[00:34:36] Chief Building Official Shelley Woodworth: Good evening, mayor and city council. My name is Shelley Woodworth. I'm the chief building official. To my right is Brian Jones. He's the deputy fire chief. Behind me, I have Nina Bizjak, the Development Services coordinator, and I have Farhad. Far Hammond. I got it. He is with TRC, which is a consulting firm for Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Okay. The purpose of tonight's item is to introduce an ordinance and mending chapters of the existing municipal codes to adopt 2019, California, 2018 international codes, as well as look at adopting the reach codes. The state adopts new California building standards codes every 3 years. It's known as the triannial adoption. This adoption includes multiple volumes of a 12 part code series that includes building fire, administrative, energy, electrical, et cetera. Locally, we're proposing the adoption of those codes as well as the 2018 international file code, fire code, and the property maintenance code, which are typical for us to adopt. And we are proposing the readoption of the 1997 uniform abatement of dangerous buildings. The local adoption occurs with the 2nd reading, which needs to happen no later than November 12th of 2018, and it would make these codes effective January 1st of 2020. Jurisdictions are authorized to make local code amendments. It is very typical for us to do so. It allows us to maintain the current standards of life safety within our jurisdiction, and it maintains uniformity throughout the Bay Area. It also allows us to maintain the current green building standards that we have previously adopted through the Mountain View green building code. Many of the proposed city specific amendments are a result of a statewide cost effectiveness study. TRC, the gentleman behind me, is the group that performed those studies, and it had to do with specific building prototypes, local analysis and coordination. The chart here gives you an idea of reach codes in the area, and where the different cities currently are, with the reach code, and adopting it, we only have 3 cities, as you can see, that have currently adopted a reach code, Menlo Park, San Jose, and Berkeley. So I think where the 4th one, should it pass tonight? This gives you some reach code comparisons on the EV charging requirements. So just to kind of go through it briefly. It shows what, in 2016, is the Calgreen requirements, and the 20, Proposed Calgary requirements, those requirements are passive adoptions. So should no amendments occur in a jurisdiction, as of January 1st, these would automatically become law. SPCE, which is the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Committee, has proposed their version of what they believe the EV implementation should be. Mountain View is being a little bit more aggressive, as far as the code or forward thinking. Some of it is in response to some bills that we saw that are coming through the state assembly and Senate. Other ones are based on the amount of vehicles we have. We have almost 5% of the vehicles in California registered to the city of Mountain View. This is going to give you an idea of what we are proposing for natural gas requirements. So for single family and duplexes. We are requiring or proposing to require heating and cooling for the water heater and the clothes dryer. We are allowing single or proposing to allow single families and duplex to still be allowed to use natural gas for cooking appliances, fireplaces, and fire pits. Pre-wiring is required in all of those locations, should the resonant decide to install a natural gas appliance. Keeping in mind that we do have several residents that have voluntarily already gone all electric. Multifamily, mixed use, hotel motels. We are proposing electric for heating, cooling, water heater, closed dryers, cooking appliances, and natural glass only allowed in a for-profit kitchen. Commercial restaurants are not located on an office campus. Prewiring, again, is also required. Commercial is very similar, as far as electric, heating, cooling, water, heating, clothes, dryer, cooking appliances, natural glass allowed for cooking appliances in for-profit kitchens, again, and then in 3 different categories for the building code occupancy, which would be a factory hazardous materials and laboratory occupancies, again, pre-wiring, I can answer additional questions about those occupancies if you have those later. So these are the proposals for the PV requirements, the packets that we handed out, the back pages, the replacement language for this. So, single family and duplexes, PV installation per the California Energy Code, and that there is a, for the 1st time, a verbiage that requires PV installation on single family homes and duplexes. So, but we're asking, not that they expand the PV installation, but that they expand the pre-wiring system to accommodate an all electric building at the annual consumption offset. Also, for Motov family, mixed use, hotel, motel, and commercial, We're asking for PV installation on 50% of roof area to meet the mandated California or animate the mandated California energy code. which is part 6 of the series that I referred to previously. Additionally, we were recommending as an amendment tonight to clarify that low rise residential buildings would not be required to install the 50% PV on a roof ferry, because the 2019 code has adequate requirements. So that would be part of what you would be adopting, should you take it as presented. The EV infrastructure. So, this is going to give you an example of what EV charging, installed EVReady and EV capable are. They are different things. I wanted to make sure, and we've gone through this before, but I wanted to make sure everybody on the council understood exactly what they would be adopting. There's also 3 categories of EV charging speed or capacity. There's a level one, a level two, and a level three. Level one is typical what you would see in the outlet in your home. It just happens to be in the garage. It usually takes overnight to a charger or vehicle. Level 2 is capable of charging it a much quicker speed. And level 3 is a fast charging. system that usually can be done in about 30 minutes or less. These are the proposals for the EV requirements for single family new construction. One dedicated level one circuit, one dedicated level 2 circuit. ADUs would be exempt from this requirement. Multi-use. We're proposing 15% of E2 E2 installed. Typically right now we see the developers installing 10%. So the 15% would be a reach. 85% of the remaining, we would ask for it to be EV ready. And then for the larger developments, if they have 100 or more spaces for each 100, they would have one supercharger. So one very fast level 3 charger. And then that charger would count towards that 15%. So we're not gonna ding them for that. Mixed use, residential parking. Again, similar 15, 85, and level three. Commercial parking in the mixed use would have to meet the commercial requirement. Commercial hotel motel would be the commercial requirement per table A5.106.5.3.2, which is coming right up. And there it is. It shows you that if somebody has 029 spaces, they would require one EV2 installed. It's to allow the smaller business owners to have one but not affect the parking overall in their small lots. And then if you have 10 or more, we're asking for 15%. 100 or more the level three. So you want to pay attention to the footnotes. The footnotes are going to give you some guidance as far as how that's going to be applied on each set as well site. So these are city specific amendments coming up, um, where I've previously spoken only to the reach codes. This is regarding chapter 8, 14, and 24. This is very typical information that we do every 3 years. The amendments propose for chapter 8, is to align with the 2019 green building standards, and to propose the reach codes, as I've talked to before. And we're also including Bird Safe Glass in compliance with ASAP 3. So structures greater than 10,000 square feet, and not previously required, but precise plan would now be required to provide bird save glass. We also are adopting a expedited permit process for the requirements of AB 1236 from the state of California. And we are looking to adopt a fee waiver for home improvements for individuals that are 60 years or older. This is in compliance with AB 2132. It actually wasn't required for us to adopt it as AB 1236 was, but it's something that we wanted to formalize. Also, the safety assessment placard adoption. That is something that has been available for quite a few years. It's nothing that we have ever formally adopted, but it does allow in the case of an emergency, earthquakes or large fires or anything like that that would affect multiple structures in the jurisdiction to make sure people stay out of or pay attention to those placards should something happen to their structure until we clear it. We are also reestablishing previously adopted modifications to our code that we have to align with the zoning code. We are also looking at deleting ballasted PV systems from the code. It's basically a PV system that has no attachment to the structure that it liaison based to the seismic zone we are in. We've seen some issues with that. Readopt the 97 uniform code for abatement of dangerous building. Delete the regular amendments because they're now dressed in the code as natural, um, root code language, as we know the code is reactive. So as they see things are not working in the code, they modify them. So also minor editorial changes.

[00:46:29] Deputy Fire Chief: Good evening. I'll be speaking on chapter 14 for the Fire code amendment. A few of the highlighted changes. First item we removed requirements for mobile fueling, because those are now included in the California fire code. Language amended to include more restrictive requirements that were in the toxic gas ordinance, which was previously in our chapter 24 for hazardous materials, those have now been included in chapter 4 in the California Fire Code. And we worked with a regional countywide committee to be in alignment with the other local fire agencies. So we now have the same language for restrictions on toxic gases. A few amendments to the fire sprinkler requirements. We provided language to exempt accessory dwelling units from fire sprinklers if the primary residence does not have fire sprinklers. And fire sprinklers will be required anytime there's a change in occupancy use. Any change time there's a change in occupancy or use, and that changes over 1000 square feet. Fire sprinklers will also be required for additions greater than 100% of an existing dwelling, and any time, and in any additions, where 50% of the existing building does not remain. We've also deleted some amendments, which are now addressed in standard code language, specifically, those are around the areas of operational permits, specifically the California fire code now addresses permits for production facilities, pyrotechnics, special effects, and live audiences. So since those are in the fire code, we've deleted them from chapter 14. And also, we removed some guardrail requirements on roof openings, as those are now included in standard California fire code language. And then there's some minor editorial language changes to clean up the language, and we revised the code section references. On chapter 24, which is our hazardous materials, ordinance, the major change you'll see here is the California fire code now includes a lot of the definitions and toxic gases and hazardous materials, amounts that were just in our ordinance are now included in the California fire codes. So some of our changes are what you now see in chapter 14. So they were simply deleted from chapter 24, Move to chapter 14. We've also changed the maximum civil penalty from $500 to up to $1000 per violation per day. Uh, and then, as I said, deletion of amendments, which are now addressed in the California fire code, and then some minor editorial changes to clean up existing language. So we have three recommendations for you tonight. The first one is introducing an ordinance amending chapter 8, which is the building code. The 2nd is an ordinance amending chapter 14, which is the fire code, and the 3rd being the ordinance amending chapter 24, which is the hazardous materials code. The next steps are to return to council on November 2nd, for a 2nd reading, and code adoption ultimately. And then those codes would go into effect on January 1st of 2020. So there are some alternatives. You can choose not to modify the codes. The results of that would be preemption by the state, so any amendments that we currently had would go away, and we would be enforcing the code exactly as the state has adopted it. We can choose not to adopt it or modify the local amendments, specified by you, or you can provide other direction. And that concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time.

[00:50:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. At this point, we'll open up for council questions. Council member Hicks.

[00:50:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have some interest in maybe pursuing the natural gas ban in single family homes as Morgan Hill and Berkeley have done, but I have a question about that. If we were to do that, um, my understanding is then people could have, for fireplaces, they could have wood burning devices that are, uh, EPAs certified, uh, like insert stove, palette heaters, and masonry heaters? Is that true, or if would that be true?

[00:51:13] Unknown Speaker: That is true. There is no proposal to modify the existing wood burning ordinance, and it does allow EPA approved devices to be installed in homes.

[00:51:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[00:51:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[00:51:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Um... Uh, maybe, so all this, uh, amendments and so forth. Does that also apply to remodels?

[00:51:38] Unknown Speaker: No, it applies to new construction. Um, I would say there are probably some exceptions to that. And that is when we are seeing people proposing a remodel, and their foundation does not survive, and they end up with a new structure, so then it would apply.

[00:52:01] Councilmember John McAlister: On page 7 of the staff report, it says the vehicles in Santa Clara County are registered plug-ins or EVs increased by 23% from January to October alone. 23%, depending on how you perceive it, could be high, but I always like to know the transactions. And you can get back to me on this, but do you know how many cars that sort of represents? I mean, you get, if you don't now, but just, I always like to see the number of cars or the percentage could be misleading. You have one car, the next thing you know, you got 2 and that's a 23% increase.

[00:52:35] Unknown Speaker: Yeah. And I actually have that number, but not in front of me. But I can definitely respond to that. It is something that our sustainability committee has been tracking.

[00:52:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so yeah, if you could get back to me on that one.

[00:52:47] Unknown Speaker: Of course.

[00:52:50] Councilmember John McAlister: So, is there... Are we tracking the demand for EV charging stations? I mean, we're legislating things, but do we really have a sense of the demand for EVs at this time? And I think we're doing a lot of EV ready, which makes a lot of sense in this great direction going to, but proposing these things. Where do the 2 come together at a reasonable compromise?

[00:53:17] Unknown Speaker: So we're not tracking the demand or what is being currently used? What we are doing is or what I have been doing. I will own that, is that I am tracking the assembly bills and Senate bills that are being proposed on a pretty regular basis. We have one that recently proposed EV Ready being installed in all existing multifamily and commercial parking lots. Um, We have so much construction going on right now. I didn't want to see that happen to brand new sites. That said, it was passed 100% by the Senate. And I will say 100% by the assembly, but when the individual was absent. And then we found out about 90 days ago it was vetoed by the governor. So I'm not sure where that's going to go at this point, since it clearly passed by 2/3 blow.

[00:54:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[00:54:12] Unknown Speaker: But that is something that will be monitored as.

[00:54:17] Councilmember John McAlister: The demand? Yeah, versus the supply.

[00:54:20] Unknown Speaker: I think if we started monitoring the demand, we would have to actually look at increasing staff somewhere to actually do that. But it is something council can propose.

[00:54:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And then, um, there's a comet, the deputy chief mentioned that I would like to follow up on that one. was Fire sprinklers on the houses. So right now, is it current that if you build a house over 3,500 square feet, you're required to put sprinkler. What is the requirement now for?

[00:54:52] Deputy Fire Chief: Yeah. So any new structure in the state of California is required to have fire sprinklers. Right now, if you have an addition and you create a structure that's 4,100 square feet or larger, you would also be required to install fire sprinklers. The change of occupancy is something that actually is determined by the chief building official or the fire protection engineer. It's only when it's an intensification of use, and the structure is a 1000 square feet or larger. And that is a direct reflection to a school trying to enter into a structure that was not designed for it.

[00:55:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. this something new? Because I remember putting a patio porch on my back yard, and it was so much square feet, and they were looking at the roofline to determine should a sprinkler system go in or not.

[00:55:43] Deputy Fire Chief: So that it has been massaged several times over the last three adoptions. And so we're trying to find a balance where we're not being so onerous, but we're still providing life safety to the public.

[00:55:57] Councilmember John McAlister: So, a patio room would not apply. It wasn't put out. It was just a... roof. Well, it was more a trellis, but it was just a roof over a patio.

[00:56:09] Deputy Fire Chief: It would actually have to be a closed up room. So a garage, habitable square footage, something like that. So that's what we're looking at.

[00:56:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so anything under 4,100 feet is so an existing building with a 1000 feet or more would trigger it or it's something that goes over 4,100 square feet plus a thousand?

[00:56:33] Deputy Fire Chief: So there's a 2 different criteria you're addressing. The change of occupancy is the 1000 square foot existing structure or more.

[00:56:43] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, when you say change of occupancy. If you add another addition to your house of a 1000 feet,

[00:56:49] Deputy Fire Chief: That's typically more of a commercial requirement, the 1000 square feet. 2nd residential, though. Okay, so if we're just talking residential and you're specifically speaking to when it would be requiring a residential structure, it would be when the building is 40 is created is 4,100 square feet or larger, or when you have less than 50% of the existing structure remaining, And that's it. I'm sorry.

[00:57:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so it has it has changed.

[00:57:23] Deputy Fire Chief: I'm going off of memory, but that's right. I apply this rule all the time.

[00:57:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, that was that was helpful.

[00:57:30] Unknown Speaker: That's it. Thank you.

[00:57:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: You're welcome. Vice mayor Abbe Koga.

[00:57:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And 1st of all, I just want to thank you, staff, for all of your hard work on this. I know, it was a lot in a very short time, so I appreciate the work. But, um, my 1st question has actually wanted to go back to the wood burning stove issue. I guess I wasn't clear. So is current law? Are you, it does not ban with new development with burning the stoves? Is that what...

[00:58:07] Unknown Speaker: So that is correct.

[00:58:08] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, I want to be clear though. An EPA approved stove, typically is a sort of pellet, or something that's been approved by the EPA, not to cause harm to bear, right?

[00:58:23] Unknown Speaker: So back men or Bay Area quality management district is also involved in that approval. Okay, yes. That is our current law. If you are trying to build a brick and mortar fireplace, to burn like wood, you cannot do that.

[00:58:38] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, because I know at air district, we have a grant program to replace woodburning. So I was surprised to hear that that's not banned yet, but could we locally?

[00:58:50] Unknown Speaker: Of course.

[00:58:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Great. Thank you.

[00:58:54] Unknown Speaker: It would just need to be proposed by council.

[00:58:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I could propose that. Okay, great. Um, in regards to um, the all electric and um, no, not allowing um, commercial gas stoves and commercial establishments. I learned, and I met with our clean energy staff this morning, but that Menlo Park has a, I guess their ordinance has something about that it's not allowed unless you can prove that there's no equivalent technology that would serve the purpose of the, or the intent of the business. Are you aware of that clause, that Melo Parker?

[00:59:44] Unknown Speaker: I am not aware, but possibly my consultant is.

[00:59:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[00:59:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could use the microphone. Thank you.

[00:59:54] Chief Building Official: I don't have to nail, can you?

[00:59:56] Consultant: Far high, my tears. Oh, here. Yeah.. Yeah, so they Metal Park spoke with their local building industry and their restaurant staff. And initially, there was concern that there would not be enough commercial kitchen appliances that would be able to serve a variety of cuisine types. And after further research, and after further outreach, they decided that the specific scenarios where that might occur where there may not be adequate was extremely narrow. So they made it a little more stringent and said on an as needed basis, that we'll consider exempting commercial cooking appliances.

[01:00:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, the one example I had come up with is the Brazilian steakhouse or, you know, the barbecued meat type of establishment. So, is that the kind of exemption that we might see if we were to, um...

[01:01:00] Chief Building Official: I think you have two. So I believe there's two, a lot of those are wood fired, and our woodburning ordinance also allows restaurants to have wood for, like, the pizza, establishments, the barbecue establishments, those sort of establishments. So there is that exemption in there for them that exists.

[01:01:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. But and then if we were to ban with burning, we just allow for some kind of, like, waiver.

[01:01:30] Chief Building Official: So if you wanted me to re-examine the wood burning ordinance at a later date, I would just, um, I would give you a different suite of options for you to select from. Okay. And then we could employ those into the ordinance at the 2nd reading.

[01:01:42] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, Graham. Thank you. Thank you. Going on to EV Chargers. So, um, we received the letter from Google and I was hoping to, um, I had a few questions about that. So, and I guess I received clarification too, on some of these items. But I guess one of the issues was the charging stations, um, and the spaces, the actual parking spaces we require would require with the 15% versus a charging station that has like 2 or 4 um, actual chargers. So, you know, it could be one space, but it has up to four chargers. So are we saying just the space or are we allowing for that difference of trustations where you might have multiple chargers?

[01:02:43] Chief Building Official: So, The current Mountain View green building code allows somebody to propose an alternative application of the code to the chief building official. So this happens to me quite a bit. And, um, I'm going to say probably 20% of the time I could allow something if they've proposed something reasonable. If it's not a reasonable approach, then, of course, I'm not going to approve it because it still needs to meet the intent of the code. That's the whole point. So there are some of those chargers that they're referring to that can actually charge 8 spaces. And that, I think, would be something that would meet the intent of the code. Um, so that's something they could potentially apply.

[01:03:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And that was really, I guess, my question was the flexibility in this, and I'm glad to hear you have the ability to make those exceptions, because I guess the other issue that came up, or I learned is that I guess there's a threshold at which point, like, I don't know, I don't know the technology very well, but it gets more expensive because you have to get a new Transformer, I guess. So, you know, if it's like one over that number, whatever that number is, like, do you have the ability to maybe waive that, whereas if it's 30, maybe we say, no, you have to do it. But just to have some of that flexibility, can we...

[01:04:10] Chief Building Official: There's a similar sort of evaluation that can be performed through accessibility requirements when somebody is not meeting the threshold of the state architect that is similar to what I could propose or consider. what that means is if they're proposing a $2000000 project and they've reached their capacity level for electrical. and PGE or whomever it is, um, cannot provide the transformer without a, let's say, $500, $700,000 addition to the cost of the construction, then that wouldn't be deemed reasonable. And so at that point. I could see where I could waive or adjust the requirement. I wouldn't necessarily waive it, but I would adjust it. But they would have to prove that to me. So the burden of proof always relies on the submitter.

[01:05:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. And then I, my understanding is that state building code actually requires 6% to be installed. So no matter what, we would have to have that many regards of how many.

[01:05:15] Chief Building Official: Those are minimum requirements that are to be adopted by the state.

[01:05:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. And then the last question has to do with the PVs, the photo voteix and the 50% roof area requirement. It was in the letter, but it sounds like there may be, um, alternative technologies that would meet that, um, the intent of that. Are we looking to allow for you to be able to have that ability to...

[01:05:50] Chief Building Official: So there also is, so there is already a section in the Mountain View Green building code that allows alternative means.

[01:05:58] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I heard like windows now are solar or whatever.

[01:06:01] Chief Building Official: So they were, I think they specifically spoke to roof tiles and there are windows. those are very costly, but you can do that as well. Those have been around quite a while, actually, but I've yet to see them installed in this jurisdiction.

[01:06:11] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[01:06:13] Chief Building Official: You also can provide geotherm. We have a 1000000 square foot building that we visited that is geotherm powered and it will be powered for 60 years with that geotherm. We actually have single-family homes powered by geotherm. and now... in our neighborhood, yes. Yeah. So, they can definitely propose things. I always tell people code is code and tell somebody proves to me there's something else out there that's been listed.

[01:06:39] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, right? Thank you. Thank you very much.

[01:06:41] Chief Building Official: You're welcome.

[01:06:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez.

[01:06:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I want to second the vice mayor's remarks, given how deeply impacted both building and fire art, given the development market. I just wanted to thank you for your work on this. impressive work. Just a couple of quick questions regarding the EV requirements for residential complexes where parking is assigned to a unit, how will the 15% chargers be distributed? Or is that up to how would that work?

[01:07:24] Chief Building Official: So for new construction, and that's really more towards zoning. We actually looked at a higher number at one point, but, um, the state and the zoning codes are really unbundling parking at this point. So just because you've rented a unit doesn't mean you're assigned to space, oftentimes you have to purchase that space, so it's not necessarily assigned to you. I don't know if that answers your question.

[01:07:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I know a lot of the developments that have been approved even relatively recently, there might be one assigned space and then you can, you know, rent or lease another as needed. I don't. So it sounds like the direction we're going, though, is 100% unbundled. You would not be assigned to space. And so this wouldn't, this would be a moot point.

[01:08:13] Chief Building Official: I believe so. I'm going to say that I'm not a planner. But unbundling is something that is being proposed, and that it has been applied or being applied in new proposals, especially in the North Bay Shore. It was part of the North Bay Shore precise plan to encourage people to not have vehicles and use public transportation or other means. And that I do know, because I've asked this question before this even came up a few years ago, is how do I know that the residents that won an EV Space are able to obtain one? And they said that they really have a list that they go to and that if they find they don't have an adequate means, that the developers in this city anyway do install to meet the needs of the residents. So they don't find that they're lacking. at this point. We might have another comment here.

[01:09:07] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Yeah. Or a T-shirt of us, a assistant city manager, and a community development director. You know, Shelley and I did talk about this, and we sort of wrestled with the requirement of providing, say, 50%, a 33% EV installation, and we settled at the EV Ready, which allows somebody to get a charger. Should they want one? But more and more as we were moving towards fewer than, say, 2 spaces per unit. It was hard to get to a percentage that would allow us to say one per unit, you know? And so we did talk about where codes are moving more towards unbundling, in order to increase alternative modes of transportation, and we settled at something that we thought would be economically feasible, which is 15% yet still a higher requirement than the state. So we're going with the same percentage for all types of land use.

[01:10:06] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. And then would that apply to BMRs as well? Would they proportionately have the same number of installed EV chargers?

[01:10:16] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: Well, we are asking for 15%. And then, yeah, we could certainly look at that. Typically, we do apply these things proportionately across the board. But the 100% you be ready would make it much easier to get a charging station. in a fairly flexible manner. And we felt that was more important than actually having the every car have, you know, every space have installation.

[01:10:42] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And just to be clear, so for a rental property, I can understand, you know, the property manager, providing an EV charger, you know, as a resident needs it, but for an ownership multifamily complex, if, you know, the initial, the initial occupant cells, if the initial occupant doesn't need it, and then they sell to, you know, a subsequent occupant who does need it, would that new homeowner be responsible for the cost of installing the charger or would that be borne by the HOA or how would that work?

[01:11:20] Assistant City Manager Aarti Shrivastava: You know, I don't know how it plays out. It all depends on the way, because parking can be unbundled even in a condo. And so I think it would all depend on how the arrangement is. We can probably look into it and see how they operate if as far as EVs are concerned and get back to you.

[01:11:39] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay. That's fair And then just to be very clear. So would attached row homes fall under the single family dwelling or duplex parameters here so they would have one dedicated circuit and one level 2 EV ready or where do they fall?

[01:11:56] Chief Building Official: So they depend on construction type. So they can be either an R2 or an R3, and R2 would be considered an apartment, and R3 would be a single family residential. We require that they put 2 or they construct a structure like that, if it's considered a single family attached, with 21 hour walls, so there's really no common area, and in that case, they would be required to have the EV 2 installed, and the EV1, if they had a 2 car garage, or just the EV2, if it was a one car garage. So it really depends on the developer's choice. I will tell you that they do target creating our 3 environments for attached homes. One of the amendments is requiring them to be on their own separate parcel, which is what 95% of them do. I have one developer in particular who tries to be as economical as possible. So we've made the modification that it has to be an APM that's separate, so that that person actually owns it. Um, and that it's not a whole bunch of common area, because, and that is Cody and R2. Um, and then to back up if I could to the other question you had about a condo type of environment, I believe, is what you were speaking to, is there is an assembly, um, bill that passed, um, 2127 that should, they have issues with an HOA because apparently it's come up because it's just passed last year, that the owner of the condo is allowed to install the EV without, and the HOA cannot protest that. because that has been an issue in commercial as well as residential condos.

[01:13:36] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you. That all.

[01:13:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[01:13:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Since Vice Mayor Abbit Koga brought up the woodburning stove issue. It brought up another question for me. Now, my, the reason that I had asked about wood burning devices was that I felt that if we go to a gas ban in single family homes, as some cities have done, that induction cooktops are becoming increasingly popular, so I felt that probably most homeowners would not have a problem with that. And my understanding is that the way people have been looking at, um, wood burning fireplaces versus, um, the wood burning devices, the pellet stoves, and so forth, what is that, um, at first, people thought that, uh, the natural gas, uh, fireplaces were a step ahead, but now that we're eliminating gas. I thought that the wood burning devices like the pellet stoves would offer homeowners a similar benefit to the previous kinds of fireplaces and make people more comfortable with going to all electric. And that in many ways, they're cleaner than the other two choices. So is that kind of the way, but not being in the profession, I'm not completely sure, is that kind of the way the thinking has been evolving?

[01:15:07] Chief Building Official: I want to make sure I understand the question, so if I could redirect. So you're asking if the wood pellet stove is actually a cleaner device to use rather than straight wood burning or gas?

[01:15:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes. and I think it's my reading is that it's a complex question because the gas you simply turn on, so people tend to use it really, really frequently, much more frequently than the other 2 choices. So, yes, I'm thinking that the woodburning devices, the pellet stoves and so forth are cleaner, and I'm wondering, than the other 2 choices, maybe partly because of frequency of use. But yes, that's my question.

[01:15:49] Chief Building Official: I think that's something that we would actually have to investigate if you wanted an answer that was accurate, because it would be a guess on my part. Um, it is something that I think I want to remind counsel that it is, we come back every 3 years to these codes and so they can always be created as a more as stricter um, code as time goes on. So if we wanted to look at something like that and possibly modify the woodburning ordinance and effectively the reach codes, because that can be done out of the triennial sequence, should you desire, we can do something like that. Um, I don't want you to feel like you can't um, do something that you want to do tonight. based on a possibility of something else. So, but I don't have a specific answer. Actually, hold on.

[01:16:41] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. If the expert doesn't know, I don't know.

[01:16:44] Chief Building Official: But I can definitely investigate that for you if you'd like.

[01:16:48] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. Not at this moment, but thank you.

[01:16:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[01:16:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, the vice mayor brought up something in about technology, and then on the Google Letter. And Google makes a lot of points that are valid, I think, as technology is changing in cars, and the length is going better, or the change, da, da, da. And that goes back to my earlier question about demand versus actual building it. So, is there a room, and you sort of mention that you have discretion to, if they show the intent, is to do something. But is there anything in the code that will allow the when new technology is introduced, that it's applicable, and do we need to change anything, or can we just, as technology evolves, it's already adapted.

[01:17:42] Building Official: there's movement within the code to adapt it easily. So I think, again, the code is reactive. That's why it has changed. That's why you see the general amendments where we're deleting things or moving things around because things were or items that have been addressed by the state fire marshals group or whoever that may be. that only Santa Clara County address for a long time, now the state does overall address it. And so we can delete it from our unique code. So, I think in that regard, it's fluid enough, that every 3 years we can do that. The other pieces, as I refer to earlier, technologies are changing all the time. As a building official, if you're not a little bit fluid, you will never survive, especially in this city. So I am constantly evaluating new things. Um, if I see challenges with them, I suggest people have them listed because listed products trump the code, um, UL is probably the most common reference I can give to people, hairdryers, they know, they're used a certain way. So, um, if something is listed, and then we follow that listing and we allow them to install it and use it exactly per that listing. So if something comes around in about a year, then it may satisfy some requirement that we're having here, that we really haven't quite figured out how we're applying. But yes, we do look at new technologies and imply them.

[01:19:11] Councilmember John McAlister: So you can override the code, if it seems, if the intent is there.

[01:19:15] Building Official: One, if the intent is there too, if it's listed. I mean, that's part of what my duties are.

[01:19:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah. Okay. But also they make a point of critical mass. I mean, large, any large project will have, um, and if you're going on your requirements, that you're over a 1000 cars or something like that, you're expecting to have a large percentage potentially in your, uh, calculations to be EV vehicles, but in reality, it may not. So does that allow the big companies or big developments with the large parking, have a little more flexibility, and said, well, this is what's required, but, I mean, if they can show that we don't have that kind of demand, or is there some parameters that say, hey, you know, yes, you have so much parking that, if we're going by the, strictly by the code, you got to do this. Is there...

[01:20:07] Building Official: So demand is something usually looked at by zoning through the entitlement process. Through building code, I would have to follow the code or meet at least the intent of the code. An example was brought up regarding the chargers that can facilitate charge for 8 vehicles at one time. I refer to it, and it's not a technical term, as an octopus charger. So, because it has 8 legs or 8 arms. But something like that feasibly could be installed and meet the intent of the code. So they would still have to figure out and show me how they're going to meet that intent, but it may mean that they don't have to place a charger at every single spot, depending on how it's laid out, and they're a lot. So I would have to evaluate that.

[01:20:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, and that goes back then to what you're building is that there was a verbiage that you're going to use on parking spaces. So if you put a lot of in a parking garage like Mountain View, and we have all these EV spaces, and everything's full, but the EVs are available, hypothetically, someone could just then park in the EV and then...

[01:21:11] Building Official: That's correct.

[01:21:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[01:21:13] Building Official: And so there is some, again. And that is new from 2012. There was a Senate bill that prohibited that, and forgive me, I can't remember the number of it. But, um, this was passed in 2018, but now, if we had exact verbiage, and we would make sure we follow that, and we had a handout that showed that verbiage, if the EV was the only thing left, then you could park there. You're not gonna leave it there for 12 hours. You're going to be expected, especially if it's someplace like city hall to go down and be checking for an available space to relocate. Because you still want it to be available, especially if it's a limited amount. I think the intent there from what I've looked in the commentary is that they expect to provide all spaces with EV at one point. And so to do that, it would basically prohibit any combustible vehicle. So you have to have some sort of flexibility in that regard. So that parking space, an EV person could park there for 8 hours. The original section said it had to be a charging EV vehicle, even if you were an EV vehicle in a charging, in a in a station, and you weren't charging, you could be ticketed and towed, original language. So this new language is that, no, you can use that space to actually park, do your business and move on.

[01:22:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[01:22:34] Unknown Speaker: Okay, a lot of my questions have been asked. So I just have a couple. Um, We see some development applications where there is a fire pit and it's mostly in very large apartment complexes. Every once in a while, I feel like I've seen one, but there's a lot of development applications we don't see. So, like, how common is it to have a gas fire pit?

[01:23:01] Building Official: So, It's relatively common, actually, to have the gas fire pit to have the large fireplace out by the pool in a large community area. I do see, um, residents running gas lines to barbecues and to, and using instead of propane and to fire pits as well. It is something pretty common. It's not something that we really performed in evaluation on it, something we...

[01:23:32] Unknown Speaker: So the installation of a gas stove. We kind of did our own survey, like informal survey, and we received quite a bit of pushback. Um, and then when we went to the SVCE meeting, it was brought up in conversation that they had, um, inquired with residents and large groups like, um, development developers for mixed use and multifamily, um, regarding fire pits and, and, um, these fireplaces, it was, it was a hot button for them. Pardon the pun. It wasn't something that I actually performed that survey on. So I can speak more to the stoves and it was really SVCE that had presented the pushback from the other developers.

[01:24:18] Unknown Speaker: Okay. But it is common. Yeah, if I didn't know that. The other question is, on page 7 of the presentation, you said you could say more about those three exceptions. Uh, factory, industrial, hazardous materials and laboratories. And I'm just wondering what are those?

[01:24:38] Building Official: So, um, a laboratory, I'm going to make that when the 1st one, go backwards, um, if you remember biology in junior high. You have the little test tubes and the little flame. That is a laboratory. So laboratories are actually in schools. hazardous material and it's usually in some sort of a development situation where they're creating or inventing something and they're testing products, test tubes. You see a lot in these TV shows. And factory is also something that's more of either they're welding something, so they need that gas or they, you know, it depends on what it is. It could be a multitude of situations. So it was us exempting those that people still could perform their job. I think if the gas infrastructure fails at some point, they're going to have to find an alternative, but a lot of them don't have alternatives at this point. So creating an exemption seem to make sense. And some of these cities such as Berkeley, and I believe, Menlo Park, are saying they have gas bands, but they have exceptions for these things. So that was kind of interesting to me when I read through.

[01:25:56] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Thank you.

[01:25:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions from the council? Okay, seeing none, we will open this up for public comment. I see a show of hands of how many folks want to speak to us on this topic. Okay. Each speaker will have 2 minutes. And if you can be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak and leave it with our city clerk, that would be great. And the first speaker, come on up to the microphone.

[01:26:30] Mike Balma: Good evening. My name is Mike Balma, and I was on the first environmental sustainability task force, as well as the second, and also on the Board of Carbon Free Mountain View. And first, I want to say, strongly support the reach code effort. It's very aggressive, and that's a good thing. But I also want to put it into context, in that the mountain view and the city council took the strong action, five years ago, to join and help create Silicon Valley clean energy, to create a clean grid. That was the first major step. Now we're into the next step of moving our gas appliances, building infrastructure, and transportation over to that clean electric grid. And so, looking at new construction is definitely. a key point of that, because we're looking at the infrastructure for the next 40, 50 years. So even what we see is demand today, we need to look at the demand in 10, 20, 30 years, particularly for the EVNs, try infrastructure, 'cause that's gonna change, certainly over time. So, we're seeing this as a point in time, we also need to look at the existing building stock going forward, and through sustainability action plan, which we'll talk about further. That's going to address that. So I just want to put this in context. This is a wonderful milestone, and strongly supported, but as was discussed by various council members, there are other things that we need to look at. So I thank you for your support.

[01:28:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:28:15] Jamie: Hi, I'm Jamie, a Mountain View resident, a student at St. Francis High School and lead of the Silicon Valley Youth Climate Strikes. I'm here representing 3,000 local youth educators and passionate citizens who marched with me on September 20th because they do not believe that our government is doing enough to tackle the climate crisis. We are afraid for our futures. The planet is warming at an unprecedented rate, and people in power are not doing enough about it. Our list of demands that the striking students wrote includes aggressive reach codes, and an all out ban of natural gas. It was one of the more relevant demands for the city, and strike attendees even came up with a little chant. Hey, hey, ho ho, natural gases got to go. Thousands of us are behind this locally. Millions of us marched worldwide. San Jose has already passed reach codes, and banning natural gas altogether in new developments is on their consent calendar at their next sin as a city council meeting. Time is running out, and the youth have spoken. We need you to show leadership. We need you to act decisively. And we needed your generation to act yesterday. Thank you.

[01:29:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:29:27] Ida Rose Sylvester: Good evening. I'm Ida Rose Sylvester, board member of Carbon Free Mountain View, executive committee member of Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning, which submitted a comment letter on this topic, as well as campaign manager for the fossil free buildings campaign of Silicon Valley. My comments tonight reflect a mix of these groups' opinions and thoughts, but in my role for the fossil free buildings campaign, I focus on reach codes across our region, and I'm happy to answer any questions you have about what's going on in reach code land. Mountain View's proposed reach code ordinance is among the top 10 reach codes proposed so far in the entire state of California, and stands out with Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, and San Jose in our area. And taking a strong stance to eliminate gas from our buildings. I am very pleased to see this position. I do have some minor modifications I hope you would be willing to discuss. First and foremost, ban gas cooktops in single family residents. Following the Menlo Park example, exemptions could be given in some cases. Gas cooktops are dangerous. They are the leading cause of house fires and burns, and the leading cause of carbon monoxide poisoning. And they are potent sources of indoor air pollution, emitting fine particulate matter, formaldehyde, and nitrous oxide. Gas cooktops are also known to cause and exacerbate asthma. On the positive side, though, 92% of people who cook on induction cooktops for the first time, instantly agree that they are a better or at least as good an option. High end models now exist to appease the most gourmet of home chefs. As well, ban gas cooktops in all commercial cooking, allowing some exemptions in the case of, for example, a barbecue where there wouldn't be a better solution. Chefs such as Wolfgang Puck and Thomas Keller insist on induction in their commercial kitchens and are very successful using them. They are safer. They are much cooler, which is better for the workers and better for food safety, and they are much easier to maintain. And as well, please consider extending the reach code to major retrofits. Thank you very much.

[01:31:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:31:40] Hal Al Shawani: Hello, good evening. My name is Hal Al Shawani. I'm a resident of Mountain View. been here for over 23 years. First thing I wanted to do is thank Shelley and staff for the outstanding effort in proposing this reach code. She's in really in line of the Mountain View Sustainability Task Force, which I was part of the 2nd Task Force, which submitted their recommendations last year. I really applied all the efforts and the details that were in there. I also wanted to tell you that I remodeled my home in 2017 and finished in 2018. It is 100% electric home. I am an avid cook, and my electric stove. I converted from natural gas to electric. It works beautifully. The technology now has come long ways since, what, 40, 50 years ago when electric stovetops were popular, so no problem there. We removed the fireplace as well, because the electric heat pump that we put, which heats the house in the winter cools it in the summer, is extremely efficient. It's very quiet. It distributes the air beautifully in the house. No need for fireplaces. So I would really support the removal of fireplaces and gas, stovetops, from the reach code. Um, to other benefits. I just wanted to add that I didn't see there. There is no carbon monoxide when you have an 100% electric building. So, no need to detect it, no problem there, you know, afraid of poisoning or anything like that. And lastly, the When there's an earthquake, I don't have natural gas pipes that will burst. Thank you. That's an added benefit. Thank you so much.

[01:33:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:33:57] Brett Anderson: Thank you, Mayor, and counsel, for the opportunity to speak. I'm Brett Anderson. I'm a board member of a carbon free Palo Alto, also a member of the fossil fuel building, fossil fuel, free buildings, Silicon Valley, carbon free Silicon Valley. I've been an activist for years in this area of reducing carbon. And I really like what I'm seeing in Mountain View. This is a great proposal. I think it's great to have mandates that are clear. What you can do, what you can't do, sends a very clear message to the market. We had some experience with the incentives, reeviates, an aggressive reach code a few years ago in Palo Alto, and we haven't seen much benefit from it. So we're looking at much more drastic approaches now. And I think mandates are the way that we have to go. I think, you know, the one criticism I would have here is that the band needs to be front and center in terms of a timeline. That's the goal. We need to stop connecting buildings to the gas network. Um, something that's going to be a very ugly surprise for us is when we start having to account for the fugitive emissions from the natural gas network. There was a very recent report looking at what the natural gas emissions do, the methane that's coming from the houses that will be built with mixed fuel under the new code of California, and it can't be underestimated how bad those are for the environment. We're locking in a lot of methane, when we allow a connection to a single home or a single building. So what I would advise is that there's some milestone or some way to make that happen as soon as you feel the market is ready. We think the market is ready because, I mean, consumer reports rates, induction stoves at the top, they have scores that are unachievable by gas stoves. So the technology there, this is an education and hands-on experience issue. It's not a question of technology or solutions or supply chain or market readiness. So we can go faster together. Thank you.

[01:36:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:36:09] Gerald Pusky: Good evening, mayor, council members, Gerald Pusky from Google. We want to thank Mountain View for being leaders, sustainability, climate change, enacting the reach codes. Obviously you read the letter. So I don't have to rehash anything that we put in it. A couple of things I will point out just from that. We talked a lot, you asked good questions about the EVs. It didn't quite get registered, though. I think the importance of how this impacts the power requirements for the building. And even if it's 8 to one or 4 to one that changes the number of units, but still, your utility company would need to provide power to all of that. And that's a huge surge that they would have to be ready for. That impacts the grid, it impacts utility provisions. It's a lot of copper, for one thing. But if it's never going to be used, You know, that's a huge waste. And so we want to make sure that you're aware that all of the, you know, the power companies have to provision for that, if 100% of chargers are spaces are EV ready, and that's a pretty significant thing, because in the end, actually, the business can get penalized and fined, if the utility had to provision that much power, and then never gets used, which we think that would be the situation, even in a future of 100% electric vehicles, they don't all need to charge every day and every morning. PV, I believe you covered pretty well with your questions. There's an important part we brought in about new construction, and it's been very clear. I think people intend to supply to new construction. We just note that there are parts of the city code that says new construction rules apply even to building improvements as low as 600 square feet, and those are for public work improvements. And we want to make sure that you understand, and we all understand, is this new construction, truly new construction, or do those rules kick in in this case, and then even an internal, very small internal retrofit suddenly is hit with having to put in dig trenches, rebuild the roof and things like that. Thank you.

[01:38:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Actually, I do have a question for our vice mayor. Based upon what you said, has Silicon Valley clean energy talked about, the increasing demand and how they're gonna handle that.

[01:38:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, we did briefly, actually, if it's okay, um, Don Bray from SVCs, here, would you mind coming up and answering that question? I think it's better. I have a hard time. Still trying to... I didn't know something from SBC. He was here. It's hard to see in that back row.

[01:38:36] Don Bray: Good evening, council members. Don Bray with the Silicon Valley, Clean Energy. PG&E is on record. Now recommending all electric building codes. This has been a big development just over the last few months. They've issued letters to several cities, and you can get one, if you ask. Maybe, maybe receive one. not sure. But they're definitely making the case for the fact that there is and will be a capacity for electrification, even with the addition of all the electric vehicles that we've seen over the last few years. It's interesting, net electricity consumption is actually still going down slightly by about one% a year. So even with the incorporation of new electrification requirements, If demand does grow, I think it's going to be slowly, I mean, things just don't radically change that quickly. Um, the requirements for service planning at any given property will remain in effect, just the way they are today, and those could be expanded as a result of, say, additional um, electrical needs at a, at a new uh, building because of electrification requirements. But in general, we should be okay here. And this is really coming from PG&E that's in charge of distribution.

[01:39:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Can I also, I guess, ask, or clarify that SVCE, one of our goals is to build our own supply. So, in time, would that be helping with this?

[01:40:14] Don Bray: Yes, the issue really isn't supply as much as it is the network itself. I mean, just is the local distribution infrastructure sufficient to handle the additional loads that will come on as we electrify. putting additional clean energy on the grid right now, it's getting cheaper and easier really every day. The issue is more just building out the infrastructure to receive it over time.

[01:40:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. And thank you for being here. Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:40:50] Bruce Carney: Hello, I'm Bruce Carney. I'm going to try to talk not about technology, but about political leadership. When I was in Berkeley graduate school, I took one public policy class. This was when Jerry Brown was governor the first time, and a quote was given to us that I still remember 40 years later, and that quote was, Political leadership consists of finding out where the parade is going and getting in front of it. And at the time, I thought that was terribly cynical. I was only 24, 25. But now I'm older, and I realized there's a lot of wisdom in that quote. A month or so ago, I had the opportunity to actually be in a parade led by Jamie Minden. 3,000 people, young, old, middle aged, marching from Deirdon Station to San Jose City Hall to show the political leaders throughout the region what it is that the parade wants. The parade wants a future where teenagers don't have to worry the planet will be livable when they were our age. To get there. We have to take bold steps. We have to take steps starting now that would really transform the way we live and the way energy is used. I have a story on my phone that I probably can't read, but here's what it basically said. The nation of cutter in the Middle East is beginning to air condition the outside. because it's too hot to be there. And they have infinite oil wealth and financial wealth, so they can do that. Well, we can sneer at Cutter and say, you know, that's crazy, but I would say a gas fire pit in mountain view's pleasant climate, heating the outside in an area where the air is usually just about the right temperature is equally crazy. So we need to stop doing crazy things and start doing sensible things, and passing this reach code would be a great place to start. Thank you.

[01:42:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next please.

[01:42:47] Serge Bonds: Good evening, Serge Bonds, Mountain Your residents. So, I fully support, you know, pretty much establishing that rich code and all of the things proposed. It's not very readable, to be honest. So I think one suggestions would be to have to put together kind of a fact sheet, you know, you want to build an EDU, these avenue rules, you want to build a new home. you know, these are the new rules, you know, I try to decipher through the staff report and it's, you know, some other numbers are there. Others are just references to other codes that you kind of have to look up and I think, you know, one sheet, you know, describing this would be very useful. And then I ask for a question and I'm still not clear on the requirements for solar panels on single family homes or on an EDU. I think there is a requirement to kind of pre-wire to achieve 100% consumptions offset. The challenge I have with this. I have no problem with a goer, but it doesn't seem like a very good metric. The consumption is not something I know. If I build an EU and I rent it, I have no idea what the consumption of my tenants will be. So I don't know how to prepare for this. In addition, I'm not sure if that's even feasible depending on the, you know, the orientation of the roofs or vegetations of things like this. I have 4 metro trees on my properties. You need you would be get shade from my two-story home. So I don't know that I could even build something for 100% offset, knowing that I don't even know what that consumption would be. Thank you.

[01:44:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:44:47] Dasher Leeds: Hello, my name is Dasher Leeds, I'm a conservation assistant for the Sierra Club, Lummer Pieta chapter, and I'm also a volunteer environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. I'd like to start with a thank you to the staff and consultants who have worked hard on this code. really appreciate it. And thank you as well for including bird safe glass provisions into the code. That's amazing. Our bird populations are seriously declining, and it's alarming. They need all the help that they get. In 2022, The IPCC will come out with the 6th assessment report on climate change. It's going to replace our current climate models. There's about 30 of them that they're working on. The 1st 2 have been released in September by the Institute Pierre Simone Laplace Climate Modeling Center in Paris. The models found that the Earth's surface is warming faster than we even thought it was 2 months ago. I'll quote the head of the institute, Olivier Boucher. With our two models, we see that the scenario known as SSP12.6, which normally allows us to stay under 2 degrees Celsius, doesn't quite get us there. So we're hurdling towards this tipping point. And we need action now. Things are getting worse than we even thought. And I think in this sort of situation, the, you know, the number one most obvious thing we can do is let's not make the problem more difficult for us to solve down the road. I strongly believe that every piece of natural gas infrastructure or any gas lines we put into the ground and into our homes, that's a huge liability for us in terms of cost, and in terms of human health and climate justice, it's a real tragedy. And it's something that this infrastructure is going to be stranded over time. It's going to be expensive to maintain and retrofit, and it's going to be an issue that we absolutely have to deal with. We support this reach code, and I hope we take this momentum to move toward our ultimate goal, which is the full electrification of new construction. Thank you.

[01:46:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:46:57] Bill Murphy: My name's Bill Murphy, and I've been a resident of Mountain View since the year before the earthquake. My wife and I have lived here. And I'm also a volunteer for Elders climate action, as well as Santa Clara County chapter of the climate reality project, and the 350 Silicon Valley's policy and legislation team. I'm here briefly, just say, please pass the reach codes. I think it's a great thing. I appreciate that everybody worked really hard on it. But I wanted to sort of transition to something that's just a hair off task with this. And that is, the big kahuna is retrofitting the existing infrastructures, whether it's businesses, the auto fleet and things like that. So, look forward to initiatives in Sacramento, for example, that like with electric cars, for example, Currently, the state's goal is 5000000 electric cars by 2030 out of today's current population of 14.5 million. That's actually not going to be enough for us to meet our aggregate, greenhouse gas numbers according to SB 32 and AB 32, which needs to be lower, let alone, Brown's 2018 executive order, B 48 dash 18, which sets the sun a path to be carbon neutral by 2045. For us to survive as the previous speaker said, we actually have to meet all those much more aggressive goals. So the big kahuna with respect to this conversation is what do we do about the retrofit stuff? And I'm very encouraged that as you look at ETSF 4. You see quite a bit of stuff. For example, in the building side, a number of different ways that we can actually start to address that. at this, look at that, and so forth. So I just wanted to say briefly, be resourceful in getting a share of that cap and trade money that's starting to flow. So in 2018, uh, there was 2.4000000 in cap and trade money dispersed, 600 million of that went to rate payers as rebates, which you've seen on your PG&E bills, for example. But 1800000000 was dispersed for all sorts of really cool. projects. Get your hooks into that cache. Thank you.

[01:49:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next place.

[01:49:09] Bruce Nagel: Hi, my name is Bruce Nagel. I'm a long term resident of Mountain View, and also on Carbon Free Silicon Valley, Carbon Free Mountain View, and Sustainable Silicon Valley. Two key points. One is, methane is very nasty stuff. The more we find out about, the less we like it. It's been proven to be twice. If you look at burning it and the leakage, You're getting something similar to what you get with coal. So we really need to stop doing that. And anything that this kind of code that you're putting together, I really appreciate, because it'll address that. The second thing is, is to go back to the first speaker, Jamie. We're doing this for her. And for all the people there, we need to leave this earth in a way that the rest of the people who are here now and their forebears are going to be able to survive. And we're not doing that quite yet. So we need to keep moving on that. Thanks for all the effort that you're putting into this. It's good and hopefully we'll get it passed and be able to move here and then more aggressively as time goes on. Thank you.

[01:50:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[01:50:20] Joan McDonald: Joan McDonald again. I'm speaking for myself and our personal experience in 1992, 1993, we decided that we wanted to expand our living room, and in doing that, we wanted to take down our floor to ceiling brick woodburning fireplace. And we wanted to figure out the very best alternative for a wood burning fireplace, because wood burning creates all kinds of toxic particles in the air. And so we did a lot of research, and we went out and looked at pellet fireplaces and pellet stoves, and so on. And we were just about to buy a pellet, a freestanding pellet fireplace. And that next morning, before we went out to do that, the Mercury News had a big headline on the front page, saying, research had shown that pellet stoves and fireplaces actually were more polluting than wood burning, because even though there were fewer particulates, They were much, much more concentrated. So that knocked out our idea about getting a pellet fireplace. So the next possibility was a gas fireplace, and we were very reluctant to do that. But we ended up buying one that turned out to have to have an electric ignition so that if we have a power outage, It's no good at all. So we never use it. Thank you.

[01:52:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Next, please.

[01:52:32] Scott Shell: Good evening, I'm Scott Shell with EHDD architects. We're a 65 person firm, and I've been designing all electric buildings for almost 20 years now. I think it's a great ordinance. I applaud you and staff for that. If you can find the will to make it stronger. I have two suggestions. On the fireplaces. There's 2 technologies that you can look at. There's electric fireplaces. Not my personal tastes, but I have friends that I love and admire that swear by them and that love them. There's also the eco-smart fireplaces. It's a bioethanol fireplace where you pour a liquid in kind of like a oil lamp, and you get several arrows of burn time. They're very clean and it requires no gas hook up. That's a real flame, looks great, super cool design, rock star, fireplace. On the stoves, the induction stoves are there. Electric is standard in most multifamily. It's too expensive drawing gas lines all through the building. The CEO of city ventures, one of the largest developers in the Bay Area and in California, swore by these eco-smart fireplaces and by the induction cooktops. Smud, the Sacramento municipal utilities district did a consumer outreach study. They found that people who hadn't tried an induction stove, 92% were skeptical. After they tried it, I'm sorry, 80% were skeptical. After they tried it, 92% thought it was a good stove. So the technology is there. It ready. You're not taking it away from somebody. You're just making them put in the new one, and they'll like it. Regarding fire pits. It's a tough one. People love them, but we just don't have any business doing that anymore. You see, Irvine just built a 1400 bed student just opened a 1400 bed student housing complex. They had electric barbecue grills outside and no gas pits. It looks awesome. Thank you very much.

[01:54:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thanks, please.

[01:54:32] Public Speaker: Bet you guys didn't think that I could tie this back to my normal issue. But mobile homes often have gas as the primary cooking thing, and also a lot of them have fireplaces built in. Usually they're wood burning, not always gas. Is there any way that we can, one, help electrify the mobile home parks better because a lot of them have very outdated electro infrastructure, that limits the ability to add car chargers or to fully electrify the homes and also to require any new homes to be put that are installed in existing spaces to be all electric. I personally prefer gas cooking, but I don't think anyone's personal preference should allow them to pollute the planet and destroy, you know, the lives of the future. So thanks.

[01:55:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[01:55:29] Eric Hansen: Oh, I have a letter that came in kind of late this afternoon, so I'm hopeful that gets passed out before my time starts. Um, I think that letter issues um, highlights many of the issues that Google presented earlier today. My name is Eric Hansen. I'm here representing Summerhill Housing Group tonight. My role at Summerhills, a vice president of construction, a very exciting role with the company. involved in all aspects of construction, of our multifamily projects, from buying the dirt to turning over the keys to new residents. I'm very passionate about what I do. I understand there's a lot of passion here in the room about implementing these reach codes, but I have a firm understanding of what it takes to implement these reach codes, and they'll have dramatic impacts on the viability and cost effectiveness of our projects. These reach codes represent a dramatic increase over the building codes. The building codes get upgraded every 3 years, were faced with significant upgrades, and these reach codes are going much further. If you want to talk about EV charging specifically, the code today is 3% EV charging. The code in January will be 10% if you charging. These reach codes are going to 100% EV charging. Adoption of the reach codes will increase load on a standard apartment building that we operate by 50% that is transformers, underground infrastructure, electrical rooms, all the nasty stuff that's required to run the buildings. Now, those cannot be augmented by solar batteries, any other measures out there, and we're talking about being implemented in January, and we do this all the time. And, you know, I think there's a lot of unintended consequences with the implementation of these reach codes. And, you know, we recognize the need for immediate action on climate change. We want to be a part of it, but we feel, you know, this is just too much too quick. Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer any questions from the council. I won.

[01:57:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark, yeah.

[01:57:46] Councilmember Chris Clark: How do you get from the mountain you reach code calls for furnishing 50% of all parking spots with level 2 charging to we're requiring 100% EV charging. Excuse me, where does that come from? Are you...

[01:57:57] Eric Hansen: I'm just trying to figure out where you got the proposed map we reach code effectively requires 100% UV charging. You could pull up the slide. I'll show you where it says that.

[01:58:07] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay, so it's calling for 15% level two, and the remaining, in the remaining EV ready. EV Ready means...

[01:58:15] Eric Hansen: Okay. And let's just be clear about EV ready means full electrical infrastructure to build it out. So you can't go back in later, put the underground, the transformers, and all that stuff in later. Yeah, that means today it's got to be, we don't even know if the demand's there. We could get penalized from PG&E by not even having that demand today. You know? And so, you know, this is the, you know, clearly EV adoption is going to increase. Is it ever going to get to 100%? Maybe not. You know, so we do not want to build obsolete buildings, you know, we have a responsibility to our capital partners into ourselves to, you know, meet the market demand, meet the future. But a couple years ago, people were talking about, our garage is even going to be necessary. You know, are those going to be obsolete? Now...

[01:59:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think you answered his questions, but the vice mayor has a question for you.

[01:59:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, um, The upside to going electric, I've been told is that you don't have to put in natural gas lines, which also save costs. So do you have an idea of what the cost benefit or the comparison is?

[01:59:24] Eric Hansen: Yeah, I've done extensive research on all these reach codes. Tonight, you know, obviously the most important to us is really the EV charging. Well, with respect to the gas implementation or banishing natural gas, so we do not, we are only using gas for the stoves, because we find that that's what the, you know, the demographic wants and on domestic water heating for the unit. Okay, so we only, we only furnish those 2 appliances, you know, one appliance inside the unit. And so it's about, it's about, it's about, you know, it doesn't, I would say, going to all electrical actually increase our upfront costs.

[02:00:06] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, I've heard opposites, so I just... Thank you.

[02:00:08] Eric Hansen: I'm not in here, here perspective.

[02:00:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Is there anyone else who wanted to provide us with input?

[02:00:24] Mary Dadio: Mary Dadio, Mountain View resident. And 2018, about a year and a half ago, we switched out everything except we haven't gotten to the stove yet, but we switched out the furnace and the hot water heater. And in addition to the expense of doing that, I probably spent, I don't know, 20 hours, 40 hours just doing the research, figuring out what was involved. And they're in, they work great. I love it. Um, But, um, future residents who don't have to do all that research, one by one by one, are going to thank you when you put the new reach codes in and don't have gas water heaters and don't have gas furnaces and really, truly don't have gas stoves, I'd love to have an induction stove right now. It's just a matter of time. So, be as aggressive as you can. Thank you.

[02:01:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the council? Okay, we'll close the public input portion and bring it back to the council for discussion. Vice mayor. Abi Koga.

[02:01:29] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And again, I can't thank you enough to staff and consultants for bringing this forward to us a year ago when we were talking about reach kids at Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and I want to thank Dawn Bray for being here too. Um, We weren't sure if we could actually do it in the short time frame that we had. But Sunnyvale had agreed to move forward, and so I felt that Mountain View should be in lockstep. And so I said okay, let's give it a shot. And I appreciate that my colleagues for supporting that. And Shelley in particular, but your whole staff for moving forward with this. And I really liked your response when you said, you know, if counsel wants it, we're going to make it happen, and I love that. So thank you for doing this. Um, you know, this is about our future, um, and appreciate, is it Janie for being here? Um, you know, my, I have 2 daughters in high school, and I guess they really brought to light, to me, to me, um, how important this is, because they are literally afraid that the world is gonna end during their lifetime. And I just didn't, you know, it didn't really hit me until they really, they just said that, and that's how their friends feel too. And so it's really, you know, about us, yes, but it's also about the future. And what we're doing today is our 1st step. You know, of course, we can change this every 3 years, but I think, you know, we really need to go bold and I appreciate that we're doing requirements, not incentives. I know that not all communities are there yet, but I think Mountain View is, we have heard very strongly from the community, the support for doing this. And so, I am in full support of moving forward. Just a few things that I would like to actually look at, um, change, and, you know, this issue of, well, is there going to be capacity or, you know, is there really going to be demand? Um, you know, the fact is, is that the state of California is moving forward in this direction. And it's not about whether there's gonna be, you know, demand. You know, I will say that, for instance, I serve on the Bay Area air quality management district. We have a goal of becoming 90% EVs by 2050. So these are goals that have been set. You know, the state's coming down with some pretty stringent requirements, too. And so it's not about whether, oh, people are going to be interested in buying an EV or not. It's going to be a requirement. And it's really exactly because if this is about the future. And so, you know, I appreciate the issue of, oh, costs and blah, blah, blah. But this is gonna happen at some point in time. And I looked at it as, well, you know, we could, and I do have a question about this. Like, we could, you know, relax our requirements now, knowing that down the road will probably have to tighten it up. But how many units of housing are we building now that if we don't require them to be electric, we're going to have to go back and retrofit, and that costs so much more. And, you know, the wood burning stoves, the EV charging stations, like at Bachmed, we do have funding coming down, and we are really focusing on retrofits. So I want to like cut off the number of retrofits are going to have to do down the road by making it a requirement now to go all electric. So, in the end, maybe short term, it might be an upfront cost, but down the road as a community. I think it's going to be much more cost effective if we start doing this now. City ventures. Thank you. I don't know if someone was here in Morgan Hill, they just they're building an all electric townhome community, SVCE, we just gave them an award. This is, you know, this is the market that's and that's happening. So, um, you know, I don't think we're, yeah, I think this, we just have to move forward with this. So yeah, so I actually would like to go further. Um, I would like to look at requiring electric for even single family homes, the gas stoves, um, you know, even like what Menlo Park has with the commercial buildings. You know, we can definitely make exceptions, but I think the norm should be all electric. And I would like to ban wood burning stoves. I don't know a lot about these pellet stoves, but, um, I was just reading quickly, and I think the issue there is that pellets are hard to come by. So then when you look at, you know, the transport of the supplies and so forth, it ends up not being as sufficient. So, um, you know, I just say, let's just keep it simple and say no more woodboarding, because I look at Bachman, and we have this wood burning stove replacement grant program, and we always have, like, too many applications for the amount of funding we have. And so, again, I think, well, if we're continuing to allow this, but then we're trying to get them to replace it, you know, what are we doing here? We're not moving forward if, you know, we're just trying to keep our head above water. So let's just get, you know, rid of it. And in the long run, I think it will be cost effective. So that's where I would like to go. So I support staff's recommendation with the addition of moving forward with all electric for single family homes. And now one piece to this, I did look at it, is also a equity issue. And, you know, my thought was, well, okay, you have a single family home. If you can afford $2 million single family home, and it has, you know, gas. It's like, are we saying it's okay because you can afford to, you know, emit carbon? But if you're not as, you know, wealthy or you're not as high income, then you have to, you know, follow the rules. And I guess I just don't like that kind of, um, you know, difference in, um, in requirements or based on your income level. So, yeah, I looked at it also as a social equity issue. And so even more reason for us to just move forward with all electric, I think if we're going to go all in, let's just go all in right now.

[02:08:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[02:08:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a couple questions before we get for both my comments. We've had when Governor Davis was around, we had electrical brownouts. We're having PG&E having brownouts and blackouts, you know, whatever, shutting down, and it could be going that way direction. What kind of consequences are we looking at that? What kind of backup plans do we have and so forth for those type of incidences like that? And who knows what's going to come down and natural disaster wise?

[02:08:45] City Staff: So, clearly, if somebody, or if we require all electric and if there is a brownout or a blackout, you will not have the ability to have a hot shower or have a cooking facility, et cetera. But that said, PG&E is and has made a commitment based on the letter they provided to the city to say that they will provide the power they need to implement all of the modifications we've suggested and to be a strong support. I cannot speak to the stability of their system right now. I just know what they're planning to do so that that's not really a question I can ask. That's a question that needs to be posed to PGE. But it will affect, but my consultant might have something to add. As he needs himself up here. I should go over there.

[02:09:41] Consultant: Now we're getting used to, yes. It's just short. I want to say that, yeah, moving towards an electric state does pose challenges and reliance on the poles and wires and our power generation sources. Luckily, the cost of battery storage is dropping significantly. And it is, um, becoming a common goal to have a decentralized grid network. so that if there are pieces that cannot supply in the event of wildfire mitigation, then there would be microgrids that could then support at a neighborhood level, at least critical facilities if not more. So there are solutions that would be coming online in the near future. That's what the state's working towards.

[02:10:28] Councilmember John McAlister: What do you consider near future?

[02:10:31] Consultant: So we have a mandate by 2045 to be emissions free, right, for existing building stock as well as construction. So the solutions would have to step towards that incrementally. I can't speak to exactly.

[02:10:45] Councilmember John McAlister: So we could be imposing some restrictions, but our grid won't be able to adjust to compensate for it going down. So there could be large untended consequences.

[02:11:00] Consultant: The scale at which this ordinance is addressing is a new construction, so it's in my perspective, a limited scale. Once we do go towards existing buildings, that scale will increase. And, uh, addressing existing buildings will be a more, um, incremental approach.

[02:11:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Has there been PG&E as we go down this goals to, has PG&E looked at their infrastructure and to put more utilities underground to avoid natural disasters?

[02:11:33] Consultant: I can't speak to what PG&Es plans are, but I understand that that's much more expensive, and that's not necessarily earthquake proof.

[02:11:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Okay, so, yeah, I'm supportive of the staff recommendation. I think it's moving ahead at a reasonable pace. It's where we want to be. I don't know that, I mean, with being able to come back in three years and visit it, that that's a clear opportunity, so if there's any unintended consequences, or we want to clean up, or demand shows a look, that, or something comes along that we want to do differently, I think that's an opportune time, but I'm 100% behind the staff report. I appreciate the work that they're doing. I know, and I support all the efficacy. Bruce approached me about a month ago before this even came along, and I said I was on board, so I appreciate everybody in the audience advocating for these particular issues. And I'm sure Jamie is aware that St. Francis is gonna be doing some remodeling, and hopefully, you're advocating that their buildings are all gonna be platinum level, and all green over there. So that's, we'll keep touch with that. But, yeah, this is a great report. I think the... We're moving forward is a great way to go.

[02:12:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Herr Clark?

[02:12:49] Councilmember Chris Clark: I have a few questions that came up during a public comment and then just looking more. So the, so the SV, you had the Matrix with the SVCE proposed on, so talking about EV requirements now. Are the EV ready spot. So you've got the 15% EV installed minimum level two. And I'm looking at multi-unit dwellings. But is the 100% EV ready? Is that all level 2 EV ready, or is it level one EV ready, or is it sort of undefined?

[02:13:23] Consultant: At this point, it is undefined and that the developer could propose something?

[02:13:27] Councilmember Chris Clark: Because that would have a big impact on the power requirement, whether it's

[02:13:30] Consultant: Yes.

[02:13:31] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah. Because it's just a basic plug versus. Yeah, okay. And then, um, the other thing related to EV charging, you mentioned during the staff report um, that you, you're Monterey state legislation, and I'm just curious how the Mountain View proposed, um, if you could just remind me how this sort of stacks up to what you're seeing in in legislation that might be coming in the next year or so, is it, um, pretty, is it ahead of that? Is it pretty aligned with that or?

[02:14:00] Consultant: For the EV?

[02:14:01] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, on the EV side, for multi, multi, multi, is really what I'm interested.

[02:14:06] Consultant: So, I mean, I refer to AB 684 that came out that passed at 100% except for the one absentee for the assembly. That was probably one of the more aggressive pieces of legislation I've seen. Um, it specifically spoke to um, retrofitting all existing multifamily and commercial parking lots um, in the state. The reason I term it as aggressive is because it specifically said to the California Building Standards Commission that we want you to come up with a solution to do this by 2022.

[02:14:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, wow.

[02:14:44] Consultant: adoption, which currently is being reviewed in Las Vegas with the ICC. And that if they want to achieve that, they wanted them to reopen this in 18 months from today. So from the adoption. So every 18 months until they came up with a solution. I haven't seen something like that before. So that was really unusual. Um, that was the reason we, proposed the EV ready. And to be clear, the chart that I have does say that the EV Ready is a proposal for a level two, but I think depending on the size of the a parking lot, I could definitely apply a level of reasonability to the intent of the code.

[02:15:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, that's what that's really what I was getting. Okay. Okay. And then, um, so the 3rd question is, um, San Jose, I've read a few, um, you know, in the, in the Matrix, um, uh, they're approved as limited gas usage, and a few folks referred to a band that's on the um, consent calendar. Can you just give us a sense of, how does that band stack up to what Berkeley did or, um, um, and are there exceptions to it or how, how is San Jose structuring it?

[02:16:04] Consultant: So I'm not well versed on San Jose. I know that San Jose Berkeley and, um... Morgan Hill, I think. Um, Morgan. No, Menlo Park. Oh. has something that's adopted. I know the other ones are being proposed. But as far as adoption, um, I do have... 10%, it looks like, shall be EVSE, 20%, EV ready, 70% of the spaces, shall be EV capable. So that's what I'm seeing, and the San Jose, I just happen to bring it.

[02:16:43] Councilmember Chris Clark: I was getting back I was getting back to natural gas. Sorry.

[02:16:45] Consultant: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you said that. Putting gears.

[02:16:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: Sorry, I was just curious. Yeah, on the natural guest ban.

[02:16:53] Consultant: I think Farhad has an answer, so let's...

[02:16:58] Farhad: So my understanding is that, well, broadly speaking, there's two types of ways to encourage electrification, one is through the energy code, which is what Mountain View is proposing, and the other is through municipal authorities or police powers, which is what Berkeley has done. So my understanding of what San Jose is done and is planning to do is that they've adopted the energy code portion. It is actually not as aggressive as what Mountain View is proposing tonight. It's incentivizing electric buildings. But there is a next step, looking at a natural gas ban within their police powers, essentially.

[02:17:35] Councilmember Chris Clark: I see. I see. Okay. And then you might be able to answer this best. So in thinking about, you know, how communities evolve toward, you know, getting folks off of natural gas. And there are some, I think, critical appliances that I've seen in sort of large multifamily that you wouldn't probably aren't at the point quite yet where it makes sense to switch, but probably will, in a few years, for example, gas boy wars that might serve the entire complex, right? So the power goes off there, known as hot water. That's a pretty big deal. I mean, is the thought that, um, you know, is there some way where we could say, you know, those sorts of, um, I think more critical appliances more than like a gas stove, for example, we could allow those as long as there's a path to electric, um, an easy path to conversion, sort of like we, I think a few communities are doing with gas stoves, like you can install them, but you still have to run the electric there so that it can be easily converted. I don't know. I'm just wondering sort of where what am I not thinking about aside from like the aspoilers, what are like the critical infrastructure components where if the power goes out, the large multifamily building or something is going to be in a rough spot.

[02:18:58] Consultant: So, with regard to your specific example, hot water is among one of the largest consumers of energy in the building. So, to have those be fueled by fossil fuels, would mitigate some of the greenhouse gas reduction would be part of this ordinance. So, That, um, you know, basically cooking and hot water are the, the primary ones that I'm familiar with, um, that... Right, and they all do require electricity to work with, uh, even in your standard grass boiler, they have electrical igniter, Pilot lights aren't even allowed anymore. in the code. And they don't run. So, yeah, that's the only ones that come to mind.

[02:19:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Understood. I'm just thinking about battery storage and how we progress toward that. and yeah, go ahead.

[02:19:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So, I'm certainly not a professional in this field, but I had heard that...

[02:19:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, so, actually, council member Kame was in the queue.

[02:20:00] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, I was just gonna ask, sorry, I was gonna ask one just related to that, but I can wait. I can go to when I'm in the queue.

[02:20:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, yeah, council member, comei.

[02:20:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Sorry, I don't have any questions for you, so...

[02:20:15] Consultant: Ill sit down.

[02:20:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah, thanks. You don't have to kneel or stand. I just... Sorry about that. Um, so, um, I want to echo the appreciation to staff on all their hard work. I also wanna, um, say thank you for all the collaboration with our different groups that have been here tonight. I think one of the most impressive things about the report is how we worked with all these different agencies and we're working together, which I think is really important. That's one of the things that I've asked in our sustainability subcommittee on how can we make sure that we're all integrated as we're trying to meet achieve common goals? And I honestly didn't have too many questions because for me, supporting the staff recommendation just kind of seems like a no-brainer. I think we, as a state, but also as a region, are moving in this direction. And, um, for me, I feel like, though, um, colleagues bring up important parts about the cost of retrofitting and, um, you know, the path to conversion, which I would like to figure out as a council, I see it as a long-term investment in our community, in our future. And to me, that's the most important part. I attended a building electric electrification forum with some of my colleagues, and it also seems like industry is moving in that direction as well as those in the workforce, who are building these. So that's where I feel confident in the recommendation in this direction that we're going in. Um, I also, I'm not sure if we'll take straw motions um, later. I defer to the mayor, but the vice mayor brought up fireplaces, commercial stoves, and kind of some other items that I would also be interested in looking at and look forward to that discussion later. Oh, and I do want to, I did hear your public comment, Alex, on electrification of mobile home parks. I heard you. Um, and I think um, you mentioned that you can bring back these items during my notes, say the 2nd reading. and I'd be interested. I don't know if that's the appropriate time as we're looking at some of the straw motions later. I'm not sure how we can integrate that, but I think that would be of interest of me as well.

[02:22:46] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: I have some comments if I could just jump in. If there are going to be substantive amendments that are beyond the staff recommendation tonight that is allowed because part of your staff report says you can modify the amendments, but it's very important to have clarity on what those are and whether the building official can find and locate and read into the record what those specific revisions are. And then if language needs to be tweaked. At the second reading on the 12th, that's possible, but they should be substantively introduced tonight. with specificity in the code.

[02:23:28] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, cute. And I'm also open to, I know that one of our council goals was looking at mobile homes in general, and perhaps it's the more appropriate place to look at it, and I'm open to that as well. I just didn't want that comment to go unnoticed because I think if we're talking about these items, we need to kind of think about them all the way across the board.

[02:23:51] Building Official: Can I speak to that quickly? Just to be clear, mobile home parks are not within my jurisdiction. It is within the jurisdiction of the state of California. And I think that's helpful, too, for the public comment that we received for everyone to know that.

[02:24:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you.

[02:24:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Hicks.

[02:24:09] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. So, to go back to, um, if Mr. excuse me, I forgot your name. Um, could come back up. Um, I also attended the, uh, building electrification forum that, uh, council member Kame, referred to. In that forum, uh, professionals in the field said that for larger apartments, um, hot water heaters could be, that they, that there were ways of dealing with that in larger apartments at this point, and one of the ways was to break down the, excuse me, this is not my field. But the boiler's into several smaller ones instead of one big one. So I just wanted your opinion, are there what current ways of dealing with it, like the speakers at that forum had told us.

[02:24:56] Consultant: Absolutely, yeah. I'm sorry if my response made it seem like there was a technical feasibility issue surrounding heat pump water heating, but absolutely electric water heating in large apartment complexes, is possible. There are a couple of different solutions. There's a few different solutions. One, you can have an individual heat punk water at each dwelling unit. You can have a heat pump water heater that is, um, serving a few dwelling units without a noticeable change, or you can have a central system that, um, Scott Shell has actually designed several of, and, uh, that requires a little more design engineering, but there are plenty of examples, um, within our region within this region that have integrated those solutions, um, mostly for affordable housing.

[02:25:44] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And they also told us, they also wanted us to note that if the electricity went out, you can't turn on your gas boiler anyway. So in that case, there's no difference. Is that correct?

[02:25:58] Consultant: All appliances in all gas primary gas fuel appliances also have electrical ignition, and rely on electricity to start. I will add the wrinkle that with your stove, you can run the gas and then light it with a match if you want to.

[02:26:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. And so with that confirmation, I'll say, I fully support the staff proposal. And thank you for all your hard work. I also, um, strongly support adding, um, an all electric provision for single family homes, um, and banning commercial gas cooktops with exceptions. I was happy to hear that there are, um, alternatives to, uh, natural gas, fireplaces, like EcoSmart and electric fireplaces, and electric barbecues. So that makes me feel comfortable. And I also think we need, in terms of, I've heard the, people say that some of the public is not yet familiar with induction cooktops and prefers gas cooktops. So in that case, I also, although I support requirements, I think we need not just sticks, but also carrots. So, on that note, I talked the other day to Nancy G, who's a, rather, whose family has been a long time downtown owner of commercial property, and she has several vacant storefronts at this point. And she said she would be enthusiastic about, she agrees that education around induction cooktops, and other electric appliances is something that people need. And she would be open to having a pop up store, doing outreach and education on those kinds of, on the appliances, you could use to transition away from natural gas and to various electric appliances. Thank you.

[02:28:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, I'm gonna take a turn here. Um, I am supportive of the staff recommendation. I really appreciate all the work that has gone into this. It was a lot of work. It was a lot of education for us, and I appreciate you describing it so clearly. So thank you for that. And if you've never been on a tour of a building with Shelley, you ought to go. She asks the most interesting questions. It's fascinating. Um, I think this is the right time to be doing this. Um, I get that it was a crunch, but it is, um, of course, we should be doing it now, so I agree when Council member Komei said this is sort of a no-brainer. And the one thing I appreciate versus, perhaps, what some other cities are doing is that we're requiring this rather than incentivizing it. And I know that there might be a press release going out about what we do here tonight, and I made sure I changed that from incentivizing to requiring every time the a different word was used. So I definitely appreciate that we're requiring it. I'm also open to talking about going further than the staff recommendation, with the all electric, single family homes. And the banning of woodburning fireplaces or stoves.

[02:29:46] Unknown Speaker: Oh, fireplaces. Fireplaces. Okay. Does that include the pellets?

[02:29:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I wouldn't post Disney. All. So you could have an electric fireplace.

[02:29:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay.

[02:29:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Or some of the other, the eco smart. fireplace.

[02:30:03] Unknown Speaker: Okay? Okay.

[02:30:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I think people like the looks of a fireplace, so I wouldn't want to say no fireplaces. I've seen two lights over there.

[02:30:13] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, maybe we could just get some clarity on the wood burning fireplaces from the building official, if that is something in this purview or not.

[02:30:20] Shelley: So, the woodburning fireplace or the woodburning ordnance is not something that's being proposed as a modification. It's something I can definitely bring back as a proposal as early as early next year, if you'd like. But it isn't something that's part of this. The red that you saw, I believe I had one council question, it's because as document processing was trying to fit all of the different ordinances in. They had to move them around. So it all turned red. So you were seeing it as like a modification, but it really wasn't being modified. It was just moved. So, um, it wasn't part of this. Okay. But I can definitely, if council gives me direction,

[02:31:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think that would be included as part of the motion to provide staff with direction to come back. Um, which is why I was saying I was supportive of that. And then, um, the commercial guest cooktops with exceptions that was also mentioned. And I also, I don't think I heard anybody talk about fire pits. But now that I know there are more than I thought there were, I'd also entertain doing something different there. So, it looks like the vice mayor is getting ready to make a motion. I see her making notes. So, um, if you've, uh, incorporated perhaps the direction, um, I've heard at least 4 people for some modifications. Okay, so, uh, Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[02:31:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Before I go into that, I did have a question, one of the members, I think it was Summerhill, who talked about projects, housing projects that have been already approved. We are not, or are we going to require them to meet these new code changes?

[02:32:09] Shelley: Anybody that has not submitted by December 23rd when we close for the winter break will be required to meet the new requirements. So we reopen on January 2nd if they submit January 2nd or later of 2020. They will be subject to these requirements.

[02:32:24] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So if we approve, because I remember we approved 1500 plus units in May, so those need to get in by December 23rd. And when you say is submit, submit the building plans as opposed to the, is that what you mean?

[02:32:39] Shelley: As opposed to entitlement? Yeah. Submit an application. No, it's that's what I was just clarifying. Okay, yeah. It's submitting them. So it is very specific. You need to submit a fully completed building application. So that includes onsites, offsites, fire, hazmat. We actually have a conference room set aside to review them, to either accept them or reject them when they try to submit that last week.

[02:33:07] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. I hope they're done when they try to... So just submitting an development application doesn't count.

[02:33:14] Shelley: No.

[02:33:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So it has to be approved. So you're applying is the application for the construction or building.

[02:33:22] Shelley: So the construction documents need to be 100% complete to the best of their ability. Clearly there's going to be comments, they're trying to, um, be compliant with multiple volumes of code, but they need to have all of their items, all their pieces as part of that submittal. They had to performed their potholine and provide their offsides, everything.

[02:33:43] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Okay, great. So if there are no other comments, and I wanted to try to make emotion, but was hoping you staff. Could you help me? Is it, um, chapter 8 that we would include the single family, all electric, single family, home, um, cook, commercial, um, the building code, specifically the Mountain View Green building code, which is, I believe, uh, division three?

[02:34:16] Shelley: Yes.

[02:34:17] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so I'll try to read this and try to insert then. I would like to make a motion to, when, introduce an ordinance, amending chapter 8, articles 1 through 14 of the Mountain View City code relating to the adoption of the 2019 California Building Codes, Incorporating by Reference Order, Other. Sorry, I can't read this. Other. International... Oh, thank you. I was trying to read the small print. Thank you. Incorporating, by reference, other international uniform codes, an adoption of the 2018 International Property Maintenance Code in 1997 uniform code for the abatement of Dangerous Buildings to be read entitled only for the reading wave to set second reading for November 12, 2019, um, and include the, uh, should I say, the requirement of all electric, uh, single family homes, electric commercial, commercial electric stovetops, unless exceptions, or with a waiver, um, process? Is that sufficient? And, um, and then bring back to council, um, a potential ban of wood burning stoves and outdoor fire pits. And then go to item two, introduce an ordinance amending, chapter 14, articles one and 2 of the Mountain View City code, relating to the adoption of the 2018 International Fire code, incorporating by reference amendments adopted by the State of California, to establish the 2019 California Fire code to be read entitled only for the reading waived and set 2nd reading for November 12, 2019, and 3 introduce an ordinance amending chapter 24, article one of the Mountain View City code, relating to hazardous materials. to be read entitled only for the reading, waived, and set 2nd reading for November 12, 2019. And I would just add, thank you to our fire chief, deputy fire chief, and our fire department for all of your work on those code adjustments.

[02:36:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Before we have voting on the motion, I would like to make sure we have clarity about a couple of the things that were added under item one, first regarding the ban on commercial, or for-profit restaurant, electric stove, with a waiver process, would it be council's intention to have those exceptions be around certain types of cuisine, for which there isn't an alternative. appliance technology, similar to what we heard in Menlo Park, that staff would come back with that specific language as part of the 2nd reading. Okay. And then with regard to the fire pits. It's my understanding that that's already not allowed for multifamily, right?

[02:37:34] Shelley: Multifamily is all electric. So that's part of the proposed reach code.

[02:37:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So for single family, could that be part of Shelly? I'm asking you, could that be part of their direction tonight rather than a return with a ban or restriction on?

[02:37:54] Shelley: I believe the direction from council just for clarity is that you want no gas installed in creation of a new single family R3, basically home? So that means no gas, fireplace, fire pits, or stoves, which are ovens, right? Which I had allowed as an exception in the original language. So I will strike that language when I come back. And then for, um, the woodbirding stove ordinance to come back sometime next year, early next year, when the city manager has room for me on the calendar.

[02:38:31] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, right. We need to look both that kind of the major goals, work plan and stuff capacity as well as the space on the tentative agenda.

[02:38:42] Shelley: Sorry, that's woodburning fireplaces, right?

[02:38:46] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Woodburning fireplaces, stoves. They also have the stove.

[02:38:49] Shelley: Okay. The pot belly stoves.

[02:38:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Those are also, yeah.

[02:38:52] Shelley: Okay. that have pellets. I am not a cook, so...

[02:38:57] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It's like a fireplace. They call it a, but it's a, yeah.

[02:38:59] Shelley: Got it.

[02:39:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, um, council member Clark.

[02:39:05] Councilmember Chris Clark: These are more clarification questions. So you're okay with sort of the Menlo Park waiver version for commercial kitchens?

[02:39:13] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:39:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Or do you want are you... Is there also a waiver process for single family homes or just no no waiver process, just no new gas connections, basically, on the single family home front? Okay. That's fine. I just want to make sure I understood. And just from Shelley, the understanding is the fire pits, whether they're for single family homes or multifamily or wherever, you can have them as long as they're not, because there are electric fire pits and all sorts. So you can still have fire pits, just no natural gas connection.

[02:39:47] Shelley: That's correct.

[02:39:47] Councilmember Chris Clark: Okay. Um, And then we just clarified the wood burning stuff. That was my other question.

[02:39:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Council member McAllister?

[02:39:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I had a clarifying question. Assistant city managers say cuisine. Couldn't that more of a cooking style? I mean, when your cake cuisine, you know, is it French or whatever, but it's, I'm thinking more of the style of how they cook. So, is the band for commercial kitchens, or the proposed exemption for commercial kitchens, with gases, very broad, so that allows them to adopt? Okay. I'm just getting clarity from them.

[02:40:26] Shelley: So if it's a style of cooking or a technique that does not have an equivalent, that's non gas operating, then that would be the...

[02:40:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, restaurants are struggling as it is now. So if we start changing something that's been going on for hundreds of years, I'd say, okay, so that's, and the question about the houses. So new construction is definitely gonna be electric. So when would this be on the houses when somebody remodels? Or when would that kick in, actually?

[02:40:56] Shelley: I think that's going to be our next issue to tackle, which is also a more challenging one, because it's going to be more...

[02:41:03] Councilmember John McAlister: You not bringing that up tonight.

[02:41:04] Shelley: No.

[02:41:05] Councilmember John McAlister: So what are you doing?

[02:41:05] Shelley: So we're new building.

[02:41:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so those single family homes are gonna be all electric. Okay, I thought that was in the code or the... Oh, okay. Okay, I support that, because I wasn't concerned where you're going. Okay. Thank you.

[02:41:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions or comments? And, um, do we need to repeat the, um, motion again? Because I want to make sure everyone is clear. Um, I think that would be good. Um, often things seem clear, and then there, um, uh, it doesn't always wind up being clear after the fact. So, would the maker of the motion like to restate, or would you like help from staff?

[02:41:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, I'll let staff. She's telling, do it.

[02:41:57] Shelley: Thank you. Okay, I'm gonna go back to slide seven, which speaks specifically to the natural gas uses as proposed. Um... So, instead, it would say single family in duplex would have electric heating, cooling, water heater, closed dryer, cooking appliances, fireplace, and fire pits. The rest of that language will be struck. Is that what you intended? Okay. And then in the commercial section. So I'm going to make up my language as I go. So natural gas allowed for cooking appliances, specifically for a cuisine, where there is no alternative. Does that sound? I may come up with something a little different. And alternatively, it might be to have it in the electric as required, with the exception than delineated, which sounds like what they did in Menlo Park.

[02:43:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: It would still have to have the prewiring. I think any natural gas is installed.

[02:43:14] Shelley: Correct, but that the that it would still be electric and the apply the cooking appliance would be listed there.

[02:43:23] Unknown Speaker: The commercial cooking appliance would be listed as electric with the 2nd line being around an exception. And if that exception is granted, there would be pre-wiring for electric.

[02:43:34] Unknown Speaker: So I'm seeing Farhad nodding behind you.

[02:43:37] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I think that yeah. I think it's going to have the electric reading exactly as it is. electric heating, cooling, water heater, clothes dryer, and cooking appliances, and then instead of having the 2nd bullet, it will have an exception listed. Exception would be gas allowed for cooking appliances and cuisine where there is no other alternative. And I would confirm that also with the Menlo Park language, since you specifically directed me to that and make sure that it is consistent or better than that language.

[02:44:06] Unknown Speaker: Great. Thank you. Great. And then the other part is to bring back. And then working.

[02:44:16] Unknown Speaker: Right. I would bring back the modification or propose modification to the woodburning ordinance that currently exists, to prohibit woodburning stoves and or fire pits within the city of Mountain View.

[02:44:32] Unknown Speaker: Great. And I think, uh, Lisa Natush, um, put that whole thing in a uh, emotion, right?

[02:44:41] Unknown Speaker: I did not.

[02:44:44] Unknown Speaker: I saw you over there typing away.

[02:44:48] City Clerk Lisa Natusch: It will be noted in the motion in the minutes, yes.

[02:44:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Sorry? You remember their typing? So I thought, oh, look at this. She's keeping her mind up with this.

[02:44:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay, she is awfully good. She is.

[02:45:01] Unknown Speaker: Just a point of clarification around the wood burning fireplace and fire pit. We currently do, have restrictions around wood burning, but there are some things that are permissible, that have been discussed earlier with regard to EPA approved, and that's what we would be looking to change. Is that I'm looking to counsel for your direction.

[02:45:24] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Right. Just to be clear that, you know, per state law, there already are, as you know, requirements or restrictions on wood burning fireplaces.

[02:45:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, any other questions or her comments? Okay, so we have the motion by the vice mayor and a 2nd vice council member Ramirez. We will call the question. And that passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you. Greatly appreciate all the work on this one. Thank you. Tomorrow. Did folks want a little break? Okay, so we will take a 10 minute break.

[02:46:06] (archive recording) Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, we'll call the meeting back to order. And the next item on the agenda is new business. 7.1, the sustainability, action plan number four. We'll start with a staff presentation, and then we'll have council questions. Then we'll open it up for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to council for discussion. And action. So we'll start with the staff presentation.

[03:00:02] Steve Attinger: Good evening, city council, and dwindling members of the public. My name is Steve Attinger, and I'm the environmental sustainability coordinator on my right is Evan Erin Brewster, who's our sustainability analyst, too. So this evening, our agenda item number 7.1 is to introduce sustainability action plan 4 for the council's consideration. So our agenda consists of the following, the recommendations will provide some background on how we got to where we are today. How the plan was developed. The goals that are overarching the plan. We'll look at kind of where our missions are today and what our proposed strategy is for reducing them. Well, look at the key actions within SAP 4. The proposed staffing changes as a result of it, the fiscal impact, some alternatives for you, and then some next steps. So our two recommendations are as follows, to adopt sustainability action plan for, for fiscal years, 201920, through 2021, 22, which is attachment 1 to the staff report. And approve a three year spending plan for the $7.5 million sustainability fund appropriated by council in June of 2019, which can be found in attachment to the council report. So, without going into excruciating detail on how we got to where we are today. Many of you know, we have a long history of environmental and sustainability awareness, just a few key highlights in 2017, 18, our community members, um, through the environmental sustainability task force, proposed 36 recommendations to the city council, and delivered those in June of 2018. Subsequent to that, the city undertook an initiative to evaluate its own sustainability program, and staff presented a strategic plan to the city council in April of this year. As a result, the direction from the council, based on that strategic plan, we presented sort of a low medium high, in terms of the city's response to climate change, and the direction from council in the April meeting was for staff to pursue a plan that was focused at the advanced level, or higher, in response to the climate crisis, prioritized actions based on cost effectiveness, returned to council with an SAP 4 plan, and then also create a spending plan for the $7.5 million. There is also an interest in moving and expanding the scope of the city sustainability program, which has historically been focused mostly on the environmental side of things. And so now there's a recognition going forward that we need to more formally incorporate social equity into the program. This SAP for draft was presented to the council sustainability committee on September 16th of this year. There was a lot of conversation and many questions. The results of that meeting can be found in the council report, along with the staff response to the committee's comments. So how the plan was developed? Fundamentally, it is based on the two major plans and actions that we've had recently, which were the task force recommendations, and then the sustainability strategic plan, and both of those initiatives undertook a very significant internal and external stakeholder engagement and feedback process. So that's one thing the council can be assured of. The new actions being proposed in SAP 4 are found in attachment one. Attachment 3 includes those new actions, but it also includes any currently, um, already existing actions that are already underway. So the new and already existing actions, we wanted to provide a broader look at all of the things that are going on within the city, in the community and in municipal operations, as far as sustainability goes, so you're getting a fuller look in attachment 3. And these actions, 81 of them, in SAP4, are centered around 27, overarching goals, that are going to put the city on a path to reduce its emissions, and also some other more broad sustainability goals. In deriving these 81 actions, the new Actions 81 new actions in the plan. We recognize that there were many different kinds of benefits that would accrue the city and the community based on the analysis that we did. And the benefits that you're seeing are those on the screen. And they range everything from direct, immediate emissions reductions, to investment, in measures, and actions that will enable future reductions. I'm specifically talking about infrastructure type projects. We looked at benefits in terms of cost savings to the city. enhancements to the city's outreach program, and then other benefits, such as consumption based emissions reductions. So, it's just important to recognize that there are many different kinds of benefits that the different actions will provide, and those are listed in the attachment. So as you mentioned, there's 27 goals across seven sectors. You're seeing those sectors on the screen. 81 proposed new actions, and, in fact, 79 already approved actions, and those that group together, again, can be found in attachment 3. So I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on each of these goals or read them. But I did want to go ahead and characterize sort of the level of actions that we are proposing in these different sector areas. Um, recognizing that transportation encompasses the largest percentage of our community emissions, around 63%, um, you'll see the largest emphasis in the transportation area. Transportation, there are nine goals, that comprise 28 new actions, and 37 existing actions. So as you can see right there, there's even a larger number of actions already underway to reduce our transportation emissions than we are even proposing in this next three year plan. From a buildings and energy perspective, which was a significant focus of the last item on the agenda, we are looking at four overarching goals, that comprise 19 new actions, and five existing actions. And again, these are going to be centered around building electrification, and looking also at ways of decarbonizing the energy supply. From a land use perspective. We are not recommending any new actions in that regard, but as you can see, that there are actually already nine existing actions in attachment 3 in the land use area. So, this is obviously an area the council is very familiar with, and has a number of, has had a number of recent conversations around land use and housing and whatnot. And so the bulk of the effort there has already underway from a land use perspective. From a zero waste perspective. Again, there are no new actions. Although there are 15 existing actions that are underway, not the least of which is our zero waste plan, which has a large number of components to it, and so that is an item that would be comprised of an existing action in the zero waste area. So achieving the city's 0 waste goals. From a water perspective, two overarching goals, one new action, and for existing actions. Second to last from a perspective, the sector of parks and ecosystems. We're looking at three overarching goals, five new actions and two existing actions. And last but not least, in the area of kind of the core sustainability programs and governance, you can see this almost rivals the transportation area. We are looking at six different goals, that comprise 28 new actions, and seven actions already underway. So where are we today? That's summarized at the top of the screen here. A draft of our 2017 community emissions shows that we are currently at about 660,000 metric tons per year. In terms of the good news, is that's about 6% below our 2005 baseline. So we're going down, and that's really good. The bad news is that from the perspective of where we should be, based on the council adopted reduction targets, we're currently about 7% above where we should be. So, below the baseline, but above where our reduction targets would have us. Now, SAP4, specifically in attachment one, provides a couple of different greenhouse gas reduction metrics. There are 2 of them specifically. First of all, there's a metrics that's related to annual GHDs reduced. And just for clarity, what that means is that's the average annual reductions in emissions, once the action has been fully implemented. The 2nd metric that's in attachment one is related to cost effectiveness. And this was specifically, again, requested by the city council in the April meeting, where we discussed the strategic plan. And what that represents is the total cost of the reductions that will be reduced through 2030. So we wanted to highlight the difference between those two metrics. And as the staff reports indicates, there is, or there can be a trade off between choosing actions that have a high cost effectiveness versus those that have a higher total GHD reduction benefit. And we've discussed that in the staff report. An important thing to understand about the reduction, um, figures in the staff report, is that these are high-level estimates, and they are based on a lot of different assumptions. They are based on best practices from other cities. So we didn't make any of this up. The numbers are, you know, based on studies from other cities that have undertaken similar actions to those which we are proposing. And then in the case where they were a larger city or different than Mountain View in some way, they've been downscaled to be appropriate for Mountain View. And then the other thing, just to bear in mind, is, again, we're presenting these numbers, these are the best calculations we have as of right now. But we will be able to derive more precise calculations once we have more fully scoped action plans for some of the actions that we're proposing. So what is our strategy moving forward? Probably not a surprise, but our focus needs to be in two primary areas that comprise 90% of our 2017 emissions, and that's transportation and natural gas. So, um, SAP4 prioritizes not only actions that will provide immediate direct greenhouse gas reductions, but also actions that enable future reductions. And again, I'm referring to the importance of investing in infrastructure projects that don't drive immediate reductions, but they will enable significant future reductions. We've talked about transportation being the largest nut, or the largest slice of the pie, and we're going to be focusing in two primary areas, first of all, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and then secondly, initiatives that will help promote electric vehicles and electric vehicle infrastructure. So those are the two big areas for our focus. And as I've mentioned, some of these proposed actions in the plan, do not have immediate benefits, but they will enable significant long term benefits. So as you are considering the plan and the different metrics we provided specifically around greenhouse gas reductions, we'd like you to bear in mind 2 important things. SAP4 was designed to be a suite of actions that collectively provide us with the best path forward to get our emissions down as quickly as possible. And secondly, it is a three-year plan. It is not an 11 year plan through 2030, which some of the greenhouse gas metrics are looking at. It is a three-year plan. However, embedded in this three-year plan, with action S 2.9, is an initiative for us to actually to go one step further, basically take the analysis from SAP 4, and come back to the council in a year or 2 with an actual plan for how we're going to reach our 2030 reduction targets. So that initiative is embedded in this plan. Within the 81 actions being proposed in this plan, I wanted to just highlight seven in those two primary areas that are noteworthy. Four from transportation and three from the building energy area. First of all, we want to accelerate implementation of bicycle infrastructure projects for the next three years, with a new, limited period active transportation CIP team. We're also proposing developing and implementing a bicycle, a citywide bicycle monitoring program, and pilot bicycle facilities project. Third, proposing installing additional EV chargers in downtown parking garages, and evaluating opportunities for additional chargers in other city facilities. And fourth, exploring the feasibility of a downtown TDM program to support small businesses and employees. And then 3 major actions in the area of buildings and energy. that we wanted to highlight, developing a reach code to incentivize and require electrification, measures in newly constructed buildings, which was item 6.1 tonight. And secondly, exploring development of a second energy upgrade mountain view type of program, which will leverage all available third party incentives and a city funded pilot program, for fuel switching rebates, to address gaps in existing programs. And then lastly, out of the seven, is developing a building energy benchmarking ordinance to address commercial energy usage, possibly including mandatory audit or retro commissioning requirements. So the plan, in order to execute on these 81 new actions, and continue to implement the 79 existing actions. The plan proposes 10 new full-time equivalent staff positions. Six of those positions are limited term. And four of those positions are proposed to be ongoing. Of the 10 positions. Six of the positions would fall in the public works area. Two positions would be in community development. And 2 positions would be in the city manager's office. So what's the fiscal impact of proposed plan? The proposed plan looks at a cost of $10.6 million over the 3 years. And that $106 million will be funded from two different buckets. The 1st one being the sustainability fund, that the council appropriated in April of this year, and we are looking for $7.2 million to come from that $7.5 million sustainability fund. And then the balance, which is 3.4 million, will come from CIP funds. So on the slide here, you're seeing a few different tables. First of all, we wanted to provide the breakdown across the three fiscal years, also broken down by the sustainability fund, and the CIP funds that I just referenced. So you're seeing how we got to the $10.6 million figure. In the lower left table, we wanted to also provide visibility into what percentage of these funds would be going toward community focused initiatives and programs versus municipal operations focused staffing and programs. So what you're seeing there is that basically 90% of the expenses would be going toward community initiatives, and about 10% would be going toward municipal operations, focused staff, or programs. And then finally, you know, how does this break down between program expenses and staff expenses? And as you're seeing there on the lower right table, it's about a 50/50 split between program and staffing expenses. So, as proposed, based on those 4 new staff positions out of the 10 for new ongoing staff positions, the plan does propose about $900,000 in annual ongoing costs that would be beginning in fiscal year 2223 and embedded in SAP 4 is an initiative for staff to go ahead and look at additional funding sources. to provide the funding for those ongoing expenses. And that was also directed by the city council in April at the April Strategic Plan meeting. So they're embedded in this plan, is an exercise to find additional funding, to sustain the program beyond this three year time frame for the plan. So the alternatives to modify the proposed plan, based on adding, removing, or changing the timeline of the proposed actions, Do not adopt the plan, or provide other direction. And just to wrap up. The couple of next steps, to highlight in the sustainability realm. As you are aware at this point, the 2nd reading of the reach code will occur on November 12th. So coming up pretty quickly. And then on December 3rd, you will see our 2 smiling faces again. And we're going to bring 3 different staff reports to you at that time. which will comprise several different things, not only our 2000 final 2017 community and municipal greenhouse gas inventories. Also our preliminary 2018 greenhouse gas inventory. And then a comprehensive discussion about potential changes to our greenhouse gas reduction targets, and also the accounting, how we're currently accounting for our emissions, and looking at things such as offsets. So all of those items will be coming to you on December 3rd. So that concludes our presentation. and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[03:21:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are there any questions from council members? Council member Hicks.

[03:21:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just wanted to, I asked most of my questions, um, via email, but I, I do have one, um, remain in question, um, the greenhouse guests, emission level, emissions levels, and targets on page 12 of your slides. Those are, that you say, you say they're below the baseline, but above target. Those are for the full city you aren't providing any per capita. Is that true?

[03:22:34] Staff Presenter: These are community wide? Absolute greenhouse gas. greenhouse gas numbers. Not per capita.

[03:22:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: And I imagine you've calc, it's pretty easy to...

[03:22:43] Staff Presenter: Yes, we have capital numbers, but our reduction targets are based on absolute numbers, and so that's why we presented the absolute numbers here.

[03:22:52] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Right. And so it's interesting to me because we've been growing in two ways, both our, you know, bedroom population and our daytime population. I'm interested in seeing that, because even though we may, I don't think that, you can tell me I'm right or wrong, but when we first set these targets, I don't know whether we were expecting to grow as much as we have. So I'm interested in that impact, and any comments you might have on that now. Did I ask that in an unclear way?

[03:23:28] Staff Presenter: Um... So... Could you... could you restate that for me?

[03:23:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Um, so, I'd like you to confirm whether we're growing much faster than when that was originally set. The targets were originally set, because I was not elected yet at that point. And I don't know by how much. And also, uh, then whether you have in front of you, any information on the per capita, which, and I also don't know whether, when you talk about per capita, is it, um, is it nighttime, daytime, both, I just feel like I need more information on that, because we may be doing a great job, but it's not, in terms of reducing per capita, uh, greenhouse gas emission, but not, it wouldn't be apparent in the reports we're getting.

[03:24:22] Staff Presenter: So I'll provide a high-level answer to that. Erin may want to jump in if she has more current numbers, but we will definitely provide a very comprehensive look. Your question in December. That's the point of it. So to your first question, Are we growing faster than when the reduction targets were set in 2008 and 2009? The simple answer to that is yes. From a per capita perspective, I don't have those numbers in front of me right now. I don't know if Erin has those numbers with her. She doesn't have those numbers with her tonight. We have those numbers upstairs. So, I can't comment just right now on the per capita numbers for 2017, but certainly will provide full disclosure on that on December 3rd.

[03:25:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. And one then simple question. Do you know electric bikes? I was really happy to say that you're encouraging those and hadn't thought that through. Are they allowed to, uh, do they ride in bike lanes or car lanes?

[03:25:32] Staff Presenter: So most, it depends on the exact type of electric bicycle. There are several different classifications, most of them that are sort of the E assist models can ride in a typical bike lane, but it is have to do with their maximum speed and other what class they are.

[03:25:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[03:25:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[03:25:58] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, thank you. On the rebate for the e-bikes, as we're done there, You have a total cost of $110,000. Was that to just develop the program, or is that part of the rebate's money in that particular item? T 3 dash six?

[03:26:17] Staff Presenter: That includes the cost of the rebates and an estimate of potential cost to administer the rebate program. There are, the reason there's a range for the cost effectiveness, is that there are models where there are no, the program is admistered directly by bicycle shops, under an agreement with the city or other models that have very low administration costs. So that was the main unknown factor in that one.

[03:26:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. There was some, uh, an item can coordinate an EV and EV charging group buyer discount program. And I remember Bruce Carney was great in getting a group by for the photo charging things. So has there been any discussion about storage of battery? I mean, we just went from this thing on the reach program or, and we're doing a lot of electronic. I mean charging stuff. So is there anything of discussing about buying large storage capacity? for people.

[03:27:28] Staff Presenter: We have not had significant conversations yet about storage. Um, it's certainly an up and coming thing, and obviously it's in use in a number of instances. That would certainly be something that we could kind of look a little bit more closely at, but in terms of what we were able to do for this plan, in terms of wanting to make sure that what we provided for you was based on other programs that we could model that had already taken place. We just weren't seeing that many yet based on the storage modeling. But that's certainly something that we have on our radar. because we recognize the importance and the complementarity, aspect of solar PV and storage and et cetera. So that's definitely something we're looking at, but just not that many modeled programs that incorporate that just yet.

[03:28:24] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, because eventually, I mean, if you're storing it, that's one of those things down the road, you buy it, it will start benefiting for us. Okay? And also on the tree canopy, years ago, and I don't know how you were going to do something, but we were on a two story house when you remodeled, you had to put a tree in. But there was... I think there was clarity on, if you remodeled a one story house that you had to put a tree on, a nutrient. So is there, is that something that you're looking at through that wave, through this particular, to say, we want to increase our tree canopy, and we'll do it through the planning. I mean, the building department.

[03:29:05] Staff Presenter: Do you wanna take this?

[03:29:08] Staff Presenter: The item, the tree canopy item you're referring to, I believe, focuses mostly on street trees, and the looking at the tree ordinance or requirements in planning would be a separate item. I know they are always looking at those considerations, but that is something we could talk to them about.

[03:29:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I'd like to see that you incorporate, you know, why just be us. I mean, everybody's putting a lot of new trees in. And the emphasis of we're taking down trees, but we're not replacing them up as quickly as we could be. So that's something that we could look into. And we were again talking about EV Chargers. Right now, is there is demand greater than supply? So I'm still curious about how, you know, there's a lot of requirements to do that, so.

[03:30:00] Staff Presenter: So the Santa Clara County did a study about, I think it was released last April, that modeled demand for EV charging countywide for various uses, single-family, multifamily, and commercial, so there are various demand scenarios under that. So that's a resource we have to help us guide our strategy locally. It's very granular down to a traffic analysis zone. And the state also has targets for EV infrastructure. I don't know to what degree that is based on existing demand. I know that the existing demand versus supply varies depending on the use. So we know that the supply is not adequate in multifamily buildings, especially to meet to encourage EV adoption among apartment dwellers. But, you know, that's different than, say, single family homes where it's...

[03:31:03] Councilmember John McAlister: I was more specifically asking our own downtown. Do we know, is there, is it more demand than there are suppliers? there more supply than demand?

[03:31:12] Staff Presenter: We know our current downtown chargers are very heavily utilized at peak hours. The capacity of our EV charging spaces exceeds the capacity of our other parking spaces. So we have that information, and we are well below the predicted demand in the countywide study for that area.

[03:31:32] Councilmember John McAlister: And one other thing on transportation, I didn't see anything in here about signals. Coordination of signals, the effectiveness of the signals and how they're set up, permissive left turn lanes. I mean, we got a lot of cars idling, so... And I know we're changing the... director fuller. We've been talking about changing our controllers to make them much more efficient and you know, coordinating them along the way. And I didn't see that in here. But maybe Director Fuller could...

[03:32:10] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah. Mike Fuller, Public Works director. We are working on that. I think we're not looking at it, really, through the lens of environmental sustainability, where we're looking at it, um, through the lens of traffic capacity, um, and traffic efficiency. There are some sustainability benefits, though, as you say, um, less delay means less idling in traffic, but, um, I I think we've seen those benefits of secondary and don't see it as a primary focus. I think the primary focus for sustainability in terms of transportation is actually getting people out of their cars. So that's really the focus here.

[03:32:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, just, okay. Do we, since you brought that up, but do we have a sense of the amount of pollution we could reduce if we got more efficient at our signals? That's sort of going.

[03:33:02] Public Works Director Mike Fuller: Yeah, we haven't really done that calculation. I know there are some grants out there that are focused on pollution and greenhouse gas reduction. We've applied for them in the past. Transportation fund for clean air comes to mind. But I don't think we've done a broad citywide calculation for any particular quarters.

[03:33:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[03:33:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh?

[03:33:26] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. So 1st I want to thank staff for the really comprehensive staff report. We've seen this in committee twice and at council once and you've able to capture so many things. I really want to say thank you. And one of the things I was hoping to get clarity on. And it was one of the council questions. And you addressed it on page 19 of the staff report, which is the discussion of moving, um, towards um, promoting plant-based diets. I know Green Mondays come to speak to us. I know there's been talk about meatless Monday. And, um, the staff rapport talks about how, um, the staff analysis, um, decided that we should, you know, increase our total over the 3 years. I was just wondering if you could share if there's any further discussions. I know staff was going to meet with different members of the community that you could share with us about the latest on the discussions related to this topic.

[03:34:32] Staff Presenter: So yes, we have actually been in fairly constant contact with a number of the community members who are interested in promoting plant-based diets within our community. And they've, they actually provided us with some number of recommendations for different areas we could be focusing in. We looked at those recommendations in detail. We looked at the cost of implementing those recommendations. A number of those items, where there were costs associated with them. The city has the ability to undertake those actions at no additional cost based on existing programs or website platforms that will be rolling out, et cetera, et cetera. So, we looked at everything being proposed. And we also, very importantly, looked at it through the lens of our current staffing capacity, even considering the couple of positions that we're recommending in the city manager's office. And we did increase funding from an original proposal of $10,000, up to $30,000 for the three years. And we feel that at this point, that represents a nice sweet spot between what we are able to undertake with the staff capacity and giving the topic as much airtime as we can. The other thing that's important to recognize is that we will be promoting the concept of plant-based diet through a number of other outreach channels, not just through the $30,000 that we are requesting for the plant-based diet in this plan. So when we go out through our normal outreach channels, and I'll give you one specific example, we have a tool that will be rolling out called community climate solutions. And that is an opportunity for the community at large to really look at their lifestyle, their entire lifestyle, and how they can live a little bit more sustainably. So a natural topic that would come up in that conversation would be a plant-based diet. So, the $30,000 is not the full extent to which the topic will be given exposure throughout our entire outreach program.

[03:36:57] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: And not to get too far into comments, but I would assume too, we're looking at grants, maybe opportunities. I feel like the county and the state are also moving towards different policies as well looking at this. And so I, you know, hopefully we can also, those can be opportunities to, as we're trying to promote. Thank you.

[03:37:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? I had a couple, I sent in a lot. I have forgotten, are we measuring GHG every year? I feel like we are, but...

[03:37:37] Staff Presenter: We are, at this point, measuring GHTs each year, yes.

[03:37:40] Unknown Speaker: Okay. And, um, you talked about some potential changes, um, to how we might do things and you specifically mentioned one, um, but are there others? Like, are we looking at changing the overall measurement to include consumption?

[03:37:59] Staff Presenter: We're looking at a number of different areas we're looking at, um, possible adoption of annual targets. We're looking at how we are calculating the targets right now, it's on a certain trajectory, and based on recommendations from the task force, we're looking at whether we would actually come back to you and say, These are the targets that you adopted, you know, about 10 years ago, and we're actually recommending a slight change to the actual numbers between now and 2050. So we'll be also presenting that information. Also one of the items, the task force asked us to look at, is sort of the whole topic of how we account and measure our emissions. and whether or not offsets should play into that conversation. So we will also include that, um, on December 3rd, conversation of faucets, conversation of... ... possibly adjusting, um, the targets themselves.

[03:39:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Okay. And then once SAP4 is adopted, How often would the council get updates?

[03:39:23] Staff Presenter: We are proposing to provide updates through the council sustainability committee on an annual basis.

[03:39:31] Unknown Speaker: Okay.

[03:39:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. There are no other questions. We can open this up for public comment. So, um, can I see a show of hands of how many folks want to address the council on this topic? Okay. Each speaker can have 3 minutes, and be sure to fill out a card and leave it with our clerk either before or after you speak. If the 1st person's ready.

[03:40:09] Public Speaker: Like Balma. Good evening. Awesome. I just gotta say, this has been a long time coming. And it's amazing in its comprehensive nature. in covering all the different areas and listening to the community feedback, when the task force feedback. I particularly want to highlight the governance elements because that's really an integration into how the city works. Having metrics within the city really will change the city culture. And I think that's part of what we need to have for the leadership and sustainability. We're showing that through some of our actions, but having it actually built in to the city culture is pretty awesome. So, thanks.

[03:40:58] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:41:06] Mohan Granalton: Good evening. I'm Mohan Granalton, Resident of Mountain View. I'm representing a couple supporters here today. They're down to two. We were 6 when we started the evening. We wanted to mainly come to say thank you to the sustainability team. I've been involved in a lot of discussions with them about the plant-based diet initiative, and we're very grateful that that initiative has been included in the plan and funded to the amount of $30,000 Once this is enacted, this will really make Mountain View a liter in the climate change discussion. We'll be one of the 1st communities to address the urgent issue of how our unsustainable food choices are really destroying the environment. So, hopefully, we'll create an example and a model for other cities to follow. So I think it's a great starting point. In addition, I would like to suggest maybe looking in the near term to expanding the program. I want to give you a little more idea of how much impact this program can have. Um, So we're not talking about, um, or expecting that we can convert the entire population in Mount View to be vegetarian or vegan. That's an unrealistic goal. But if we can do something as simple as convert, let's say we can convince 25% of our residents to eat 3 meat free meals a week. That will have the equivalent effect to taking between 3 to 5000 tons of carbon out of the atmosphere per year. That's like taking 6 to 800 cars and just making them vanish. It's a huge, it's a huge benefit for just getting people to cut back even just a little bit. And we can do that through advocacy, through film screenings, through public speaking, through cooking classes, through, you know, a lot of things that are fun and engaging in the community in addition to being educational and effective. So when you look at all the, um, all the actions in the SAP 4 plan and you look at cost-effectiveness, you'll see plant-based diet, it beats everything on that list by a factor of 10 to sometimes over a 100. It's more in terms of cost effectiveness, and that's greenhouse gas is reduced per dollar spent. So it's extremely cost effective. I think maybe what's limiting the program is a lack of staff bandwidth. So I would ask you to maybe consider adding a full-time staff person to manage this program. Um, I think uh, that could really help the program get off the ground and be very effective. But above all, we want to thank the team for including this in the plan. And thanks for hearing our comments, and I hope you will consider growing the program in the future. Thank you.

[03:43:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please. If you could speak into the microphone.

[03:44:05] Venina Champagnois: Sorry. My name is Venina Champagnois, resident of Mountain View for more than 20 years, member of the task force. Mother of four kids, wife of an avid biker, who commute to work by bike and shuttle. So I just want to thank you because I have the impression there's a change in tone, and that might be because, finally, everybody realizes the emergency of the situation. But before anything else, we need to be people. We need to live happily in a nice city. And we need to be healthy because we walk and we bike and we are safe. And we will have a planet that's not thinking because the ice is not melting. So I want to thank all of you who are trying to change the conversation. Steve, in particular, who must have been doing this as a profession for so many years. I don't even know how he still has the energy. And now, behind all of you, there is the community, there is the army in green. There is all the people who need to start being inspired and putting all the energy and the technique and the innovation and the desire to do better together. So I was part of the outreach, and I hope that the people that spoke to me at the market on Sunday morning, got a little bit of the energy to continue on the road. I hope that all the different forums and the programs that the city is starting like cool block will be the opportunity to engage. We need to get big numbers. We need to get everybody, every citizens moving. And that's the time to get older people who are not already in bed, engaged into that conversation and everybody doing a share. This will work for the equity in the city because we are too much living in a world of excess, excess in language, excess in consumption. So we need to come back to living all together and make a better world. Thank you.

[03:46:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:46:11] Bruce Carney: I'm Bruce Carney, and I'm happy to have the opportunity to speak after Vanina, because what I wanted to say, um, a year or two ago, I was at former city manager, Bruce Leedstrand's memorial service at Michael's at Shoreline, some of you may have been there as well. Bruce Leedstrand loved Paris, and apparently he and his wife had an apartment there and they went to Paris often. He came back from one of his trips there and asked a city staff member, Why don't we have sidewalk cafes in Mountain View like they do in Paris? We have better weather. And he was told that, well, in Mountain View side, what cafes are illegal. And he said, well, what would we need to do to change that? And anyone who's walked down Castro Street in the last 25 years? has seen that we were able to change that and to create a little bit of Paris on the peninsula. I would like to think that Mountain View is becoming the Paris of greenhouse gas reduction, where those who come to visit Mountain View will say, why can't we do that here? And I hope they don't find that it's illegal. And I hope they don't find that it's as hard as it has been to be the leading city. And I hope that every step that Mountain View takes along the path will make it easier for every other city to follow in our footsteps. So I want to thank you. I want to thank Steve, Aaron, all of the members of the 1st and 2nd task force, all of the members of the public, who were not part of either task force. I'd like to thank the youth of St. Francis Mountain View High School, Los Altos High School. I'd like to thank Margaret Abbe Kogo's 2 daughters, who are so concerned, and hopefully, you can go home and not tell them tonight, because they're probably in bed, but when they wake up in the morning, you can tell them that they have a brighter future, because you and your colleagues understood the change that we have to make and started us on the path. Thank you.

[03:48:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next please.

[03:48:13] Allison David: Hello, my name is Allison David. I'm a 10 year resident of the Quest of Park Neighborhood. And I just want to, um, really congratulate and and, um, give my full support behind this plan and to also say that outreach is key. I'm an environmental professional on an international scale, and I feel a little bit in my 10 years of Mountain View that I don't know enough about the incredible work that the city does. I don't know. It's because it's just not as visible as it could be. This is one of the most important things you should be involving the entire community within your outreach. And I think there's so many action groups, whether it's school green clubs, whether it's these high schools, others, who could really help you with this, not to just put it on staff and be in the government, you know, that to get a true culture shifts, the outreach is key. And this also includes Google, and getting their sustainability clubs or whoever they have to really socialize this plan, get that 50,000 employees on board with everything you're doing. And, um, so I'm just totally behind that and helping with outrage, if I can. Thank you.

[03:49:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[03:49:28] Bill Murphy: Uh, hello again. I'm Bill Murphy, a resident since 1988. And I want to just express my support for the full plan, and if there's any tweaking that we find things that might be here or there to strengthen it. I also wanted to point out similar comment that what I made earlier, if we could perhaps, it's a three-year plan, but we don't have to necessarily be locked into just this list of things, if there are serendipities that come along. Let's opportunistically spot them and seize them the moment. For example, Newsom signed in August, SB 400, which gives a $3000 subsidy for e-bikes, means tested for lower income California. It's as much of the cap and trade money as means tested or it's trying to work on disadvantaged communities. So if we've got $400,000 for any bike subsidy that's coming out of Mountain View's pocket, you might be able to opportunistically grab some of that money, funneling it through. Maybe we help people translate their way through the intricacies of the program, the application process. So that's just an example of stuff like that. Second and 3rd things that I want to say very briefly. They both kind of touch on carbon offsets, but the 1st one has to do with sort of the cost accounting of our assessment, our greenhouse gas inventory. And that is, we know that we don't track air travel, diet, or embedded carbon in material purchases and so forth. I was interviewed on KQED FM right after, um, the climate summit in 2018 by a reporter who's in, and I just filled out a questionnaire. I'm not a specialist in this stuff. She had me come to her house and fill out a carbon footprint calculator for her husband and her 2 kids. Turned out that their 2 trips a year by airplane were 2 thirds of their carbon budget. Now, they were an extreme case because they were both bicyclists, and she would commute to San Francisco from Oakland by BART. Okay, but to have such a huge fraction of a lot of mountain view people's carbon footprints be off the books, not assessed, unknown, perhaps subject to the carbon offset proposal that we're talking about. is at least discussing, which I'm grateful about. But that's something to think about. So there's this big elephant in the room that's sort of off the books, and we never really think about this. We don't estimate it. We don't have a solution for it. But it's the air travel of Mountain View residents. And also, you know, the day population coming in. Finally, the last thing was with respect to carbon offsets, I was encouraged to hear that there's some discussion about it, because I know Palo Alto for a couple of years has had basically $2 per month per family surcharge on their natural gas bills, and that's enough to run 3 carbon offset projects, ones with a sister city, ones with a dairy somewhere, they're doing something with the waist. I forget what the 3rd one is. So I know that carbon offsets are fraught, and it's only a temporary measure, but it's like a TiVo. pulls the future in. You still pull some results of reducing our carbon footprint in to the day when we actually reduce them within the 4 walls of our city. So please consider that too. Great job, everybody. Thank you.

[03:52:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Is there anyone else who wishes to address the council on this topic? Okay, seeing none will close the public input portion and bring it back to council for any further questions or discussion. Council member Ramirez.

[03:52:50] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I don't have any questions. if it's just okay to dive into comments.

[03:52:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yep.

[03:52:54] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um, so first, echoing, um, the sentiments of, uh, everyone on the council, and, and in the public, you know, I want to share my gratitude for staff, like the building code work, uh, I think this represents a tremendous amount of thought. And I know it's been in the making for many years, you know, starting with the environmental advocates in the community and the task force, many members of the council who have been serving much longer than I have, who have been pushing us through. And the council's sustainability committee who have reviewed this. There's a lot of, this is a tremendous starting point, I think. And it's not even a starting point. It's a fourth iteration of work that's been going on for a number of years. Just to start off, I support everything here. I don't have very many substantive comments. I think this is, this is amazing. And it speaks to the need to, sort of, comprehensively evaluate and dramatically alter the way that business is done in order to address the urgency of climate change. And, you know, this kind of, sort of a significant range of programmatic work, I think, is really necessary. So I support everything here. There are a couple of things I just wanted to provide some additional comments on, just to see if, you know, if there's interest in the, you know, from the council, or if this is something that staff could be, um, would be able to, to incorporate into, or as, as this sort of develops. The 1st is for S1.2 establish the sap for implementation team for metrics and reporting. One thing that comes to mind is I feel like a lot of the work that we do can easily get siloed. So, you know, we today is sort of our sustainability day, but we might have, you know, a number of weeks where we talk about things that have relevance to this work. you know, a development proposal or some other policy item that we're discussing, where sustainability is something that we don't explicitly evaluate, you know, what is the impact of the adoption of the given policy, what is the impact of approval of a given development proposal, on, you know, the councils and the city subjective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I don't know if that would necessarily fit within the purview of this program here. But, you know, I've been thinking, you know, would it be worthwhile for items where it is quantifiable, you know, to have sort of a sustainability impact statement in a staff report that says, if you adopt this, here's how it has a material benefit or not, you know, on our sustainability goals and specifically greenhouse gas, emission reduction. So if that's within the scope for this, great, if not, you know, something maybe worth exploring later on. S 4.7. So Council member Kame spoke to this, but I've been thinking about, you know, what it's not totally clear to me, what the what the program that comes out of this will look like. And so just thinking about possible iterations. I think it would be helpful when this returns to council, because I assume it will, you know, for staff to provide, you know, varying options of sort of levels of how aggressively we want to address this. And if we want to go, you know, pretty far down that route, one thing that comes to mind is, I know there are several cities that have prohibited, for instance, the use of public funding in purchasing water bottles. And I think Mountain View has a policy like that. So, if we want to be really aggressive, we can explore maybe kind of a range of this, but do we want to prohibit the use of public funds, you know, in purchasing meat or animal-based, you know, food products or something. And that would be a significant change. You know, I think that would require a lot of input from staff and, you know, a lot of thought from council, but that's the kind of transformative policy that I can see coming out of this potentially. And, you know, even newsworthy enough, where other cities will say, wow, that's a pretty dramatic action. Is that something that we want to do as well? You know, that's market shifting stuff, right? If you're taking, you know, 100s of 1000s of dollars out of that particular market. So just something to consider as staff develops that. And the last thing is, you know, as wonderful as all of these programs are, they're totally dependent on our ability to hire people to do them. And I think there's one of the charts that shows sort of a time frame, attachment one, page four. Um, the chart suggests that most of these positions can be filled, um, early next year, I guess. You know, it looks like the 2nd half of fiscal year 1920. And I think that's great, but that strikes me as incredibly ambitious, realistically, I think it'll be hard to fill all of these rules. So if I were to place a priority on anything, it would be hiring folks, because without staff to do it, you know, the programs aren't terribly meaningful. And if this is realistic, great, if there are things that the council can do to be supportive, in hiring folks, then that's something I'd be interested in. But beyond those, for preliminary thoughts, I'm very supportive of the plan, and and really grateful for the work that you've done and putting it together.

[03:58:53] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[03:58:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I also want to thank staff for all their hard work, and say that I strongly support the plan, and in addition, have a couple of small tweaks. One is P 2.3, I think, which is planting trees and managing open space. I don't have I don't have that one in front of me, but I think it talks about coordinating with canopy for the tree planting. And I also know that the Sierra Club is working on, and it talks about coordinating with Google on tree planting. The Sierra Club is taking a look at where trees might best be planted in different cities, including mountain view, to create pedestrian and bike corridors. Because I agree with the people doing that work, that in order to really, truly promote pedestrianism and biking, it's more than just safety, that having corridors that are protected by trees protected by from fumes and from being overly hot, at least that encourages me to walk further and to bike. So, I would like to, so, fairly simple thing, just adding the word next to the word canopy, add the word Sierra Club, and talk to them as well, because I think they have some pretty good plans. Um, The 2nd is, um, if I have the number right, S 4. Oh, I also agree with what council member Ramirez said on a sustainability impact statement, so that we think about this with all of our actions, I think that would be a good idea. And then S 4.7 promoting a plant-based diet. I, and you said through other channels as well. For me, in terms of creating excitement, around changing diet, for me, it's more than just vegetarianism and veganism, but also sustainable farming and farm to table, menu items or a farm to table approach to menus. And I know that some places I've lived in have more of that, and some places have a lesson of that. So, but that's one of the things that most encourages me to change my diet and other people that I know. So I hope that those things as well can be a part of that plan as you flesh it out. Thank you.

[04:01:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice Mayor Abbe Koka.

[04:01:47] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, thank you. Um, I, uh, want to echo, um, for our thanks to staff for their hard work on this very comprehensive plan. I'm on the subcommittee, so, um, had the chance to look at this earlier and asked, um, questions and, um, the comments are included in the staff report. I think this is very ambitious, but I think it's important for us to embark on this plan. being mindful that, um, especially in light of the staffing issues, um, you know, things do change and we will have to adjust accordingly based on economic conditions. But I think the key here is that, you know, sustainability should be in is will be a priority for the city. I also appreciate that I think we are focusing in the right areas, land use, buildings, and transportation, to be able to move up some of these projects. I think will really go a long way. So, um, yeah, I don't have a lot more to say, I'm happy. I mean, I will be planning to support the adoption of the plan. Um, whenever anyone wants to make a motion, I'll support it. But again, I just want to thank staff for all of your hard work. Thanks.

[04:03:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark?

[04:03:19] Councilmember Chris Clark: So, echo the vice mayor's comments, and I'll go ahead and move the staff recommendation. I think most of the comments from other council members can sort of be incorporated into this without sort of form way changing the plan. The only thing that sounds like it might need a formal vote that I personally don't feel as necessary as the sustainability action statements. Like we've gone down that path in a number of different topics, aside from sustainability, and I think it just adds to staff, works, staff's workload, and the number of reports that we have to would have to do that for, I think, is, I just think it's unnecessary. It would be, it's one of those nice to have sort of things that I don't think is worth the extra staff time to do.

[04:04:13] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I do have a question. People have mentioned when this comes back to us. Wouldn't it come back to us in a year after we've been working on it, or is it coming back to us? Yeah, but the stuff next month is not the specifics, is it? of, or tweaks to the plan itself? Those other things on the inventory.

[04:04:36] Unknown Speaker: Are you asking whether you would see this again before its adoption or...?

[04:04:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, isn't aren't we adopting it tonight?

[04:04:43] Unknown Speaker: Correct.

[04:04:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. So I've heard a couple people say, Well, when this comes back to us, you know, when you add more details to this, or that, they like to see more emphasis here or there. But basically, we'd need to give you that direction tonight.

[04:04:57] Unknown Speaker: For any, you know, more formal changes, yeah, we would need to know those tonight. Yeah. With the exception, some items, obviously, are proposing development of an ordinance or other types of items that would require coming back to council, uh, to, uh, you know, go over those specifics, but accepting those types of actions. This would be when approval happens, yes.

[04:05:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, I am supportive of this plan. I know I was a little bit frustrated that I couldn't get a hard number on, what's the impact of this? And are we really doing the things that would have the greatest impact based upon the investment that we would make in it, whether it be out of pocket dollars or people? So I feel like, you know, I'm trusting that there's enough information to say that these are the most impactful actions we can take. I would like to see a couple of tweaks to this. And I agree with some of the comments about the plant-based diet. Speaking as a lifelong vegetarian here. Um, I would like to see more emphasis in that area, so I'd be interested in having counsel direction on that if there's 4 to support that. And I think it is really important and I guess it's a little bit concerning that it's not really captured in the inventory that we do. And so when it comes back, when we talk about that in December. I think we should have a discussion about, do we change the measurement of our inventory, what's included in what's not. Because if we're going to focus on a plant-based diet, it seems like we should have it in there. I want to echo the comments about trees. I know when we've talked about these in the past, I've mentioned that it's not just about street trees, it is about all trees in the city, and I'm concerned that we have the policy that if you remove a heritage tree and a private development, and you have to replace it with another tree. Um, I'm concerned about the follow up on that. I think it could be more rigorous. And I am interested in expanding when a tree is required, as Council member McAllister mentioned, in, um, more locations than just, I didn't know it was two story versus one story. Two stories that's required, but one story. Yeah, I didn't know that. So I'd like to kind of revisit that. Because we do need to have policies and rules to get more trees in private property. Otherwise, if we just leave it a chance and, you know, asking people if they'll do it. I just don't think it's going to happen that much. Um, let's see. Did I have any other comments? That's it for me. Council member McAllister.

[04:08:08] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um, you know, we're thanking a lot of people, but I want to specifically thank the people in the audience, because you guys have put a lot of work, a lot of advocating, a lot of time talking to us, and so it's a collaborative effort, we have the community, we have staff, we have the council, we have industry. So, I mean, it took a lot of work to get here. And so that's why I appreciate all the time. I mean, you're still sitting here at 10:30, so... You got fortitude there. So we need to appreciate everybody that's doing it. I mean, I don't know of any other community that we have that much commitment from people doing the task force, not once, but twice, and keep advocating. So thank you for all your effort, because you help push us. Well, you help not push us. Well, you did. Get us to this point, which was, and it was grateful, and it's gratifying for us. One comment that I was thinking about. And so we do a lot of bonus stuff. And is there a way to get it required versus making it a bonus? I mean, if we're dedicated, if we're committed to doing certain things, just like we did with the house and the gas, just it's required. And when it comes along, it's required to do it. So... So if, you know, so if there's any of the policies are sent where it's a policy, that's, if you bonus, you can get something done. Or incentives. Yeah, versus incentives. Make it required. Required. Makes life a little easier. So those are my comments, I support it. I am appreciative of it, and let's do it. And again, I really do. Oh, one other thing. I percentages, and I mentioned this earlier before, I always see a lot of percentages, in this particular graph, you have our total, but then there's a change. I like to see the transactional, I mean, the mount. So that gives a perspective of, well, are we really moving the bar or, you know, is 5% something. So I help, to me, that makes more of an impact than saying 5%, 2%, 20%. Again, because those are, They're not detailed enough to say, hey, whoa, that's a big number versus, yeah, we want 50%, but it's a little number, so. I would like to see those. Thank you.

[04:10:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I think we have a motion by council member Clark.

[04:10:40] Councilmember Chris Clark: You know, I guess my question to staff is, I mean, we heard some things that I think typically staff would just incorporate, you know, you know, can we work with the Sierra Club on this? That's just sort of an implementation thing that may not require codification and the actual plan, but there might be, I think there are some others that may need to be codified. So, um, I didn't write them all down, but I'm happy, I'm open to friendly amendments. I just don't know what we need to sort of explicitly state in what you can just take his direction.

[04:11:20] Unknown Speaker: I'm happy to respond to that. I do have notes of what I thought I heard as the repeated themes of things that the council is hoping to see more of or something somewhat different in the plan. And I think some of those are, as you say, things that would be as we work through implementation of those actions that could be incorporated. Um, such as working with the Sierra Club in addition to canopy, around identifying tree planning locations, but that doesn't go so far as to, say, that we would have requirements for tree planning locations, or that we would be committed to, um, uh, um, I'm sorry, uh, council member Hicks, when you refer to it as pedestrian corridors, right? So that would be a significant direction for the councils to say that the purpose of the initiative would be to create pedestrian corridors as opposed to working with canopy, which we could incorporate into how we implement that existing action. So we'd be looking for council to indicate whether a majority of the council wants to do the things like have changing the requirements for where trees are planted or change the objective for tree planning to be something as significant as pedestrian corridors. I think, also, with regard to the plant based diet, there were a couple of people who expressed interest in that and what that might be, what might be more exciting to them about that. Um, but, um, if there's something that, um, council wants to dedicate more money to, um, and more significant staffing too, than we would need to hear that that's what the majority of the council would like us to do.

[04:13:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, um, I'll start and I'd like to add to the motion, uh, or put this out for discussion. that when it comes to trees, we incorporate changing the requirements through the planning process of where trees need to be planted, and that we change the follow up on heritage tree replacement, and that we also, I'm gonna do them all in big on trees. We also focus on pedestrian corridors. I would like to see that as part of the overall tree plan.

[04:14:02] Councilmember John McAlister: And I could, like, add on to that. We have a lot of trees that are dying, and so they're not heritage trees, but if, you know, something dies and replaces. That's another trees that we could restart replacing, too. But again, I agree with the idea of that, um, it's the Park and Rex has the tree program, but, you know, for trees, if they vote to have a tree taken down. Make sure that's followed up. And even on the city properties, we're doing a lot of times where we're taking down trees, but we don't follow up as effectively as we could. So just following our existing rules would be nice. But again, I concur with the mayor about looking at residential homes, any new construction, any remodeling, you know, with those treason, and then you go down a lot of streets, and you don't see any trees in the front yard or so, so... That always has a canopy, that's nice.

[04:14:56] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So to modify what you said, Council member Clark, you want us to, like, do a show of hands, and then you see what kind of support there is for that?

[04:15:03] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I mean, I think I'm... If the direction is totally changed the canopy strategy to focus on pedestrian thoroughfares. I'm probably not prepared to change the entire canopy strategy tonight, if it's to incorporate, you know, basically stating that that is, you know, one thing that we want to look at when we're developing or reviewing canopy strategy, then that's a total, that's another thing. And if we're saying, you know, we'd like to incorporate being, you know, more aggressive enforcement of heritage tree removal replacements, then that's fine as part of the overall strategy. If the ask is to, like, completely review the heritage tree ordinance, like that, to me, is more of a work plan item.

[04:15:55] Unknown Speaker: No, we weren't. mean, it's there. We just want to make sure it's simple.

[04:15:58] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, yeah. And then the plant-based diet, it looks like I think they're going to bring us back. They're going to develop a resolution and maybe I'd be happy saying as part of this, just directing the resolution language when it comes to us. You know, maybe gives us a couple of options for, you know, how aggressive we want to be, and we can sort of use that to either pick one of those or sort of come up with our own option. Like, those are all things I'm comfortable with. We can also do straw votes, but I just don't know how strongly you want to word things. But I'm open to whatever a majority wants, obviously.

[04:16:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So I wasn't suggesting that we completely change the strategy around trees. I was thinking more that we incorporate some other things into it. not like a wholesale replacement of it. And when it comes to plant-based diet. So, I guess I'm wondering, in a resolution, what does that really look like? Does the resolution specify what we're gonna do? And so that's where we would talk about the different options, and which ones we might want, and the cost?

[04:17:08] Councilmember Chris Clark: That was my assumption. Because it wouldn't be an ordinance, like we're not. But we're probably not at the level of ordaining things, but I think we could absolutely incorporate, you know, here's our strategy on this, or here's what we're doing.

[04:17:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That makes sense.

[04:17:21] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I mean, as part of bringing the item 2 council, um, we could provide different options, and then based on your direction, craft, the appropriate resolution.

[04:17:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I'm kind of assuming if we put more of an emphasis on a plant based diet that it would require more resources, and so as part of that, I think you would have to also tell us, and I would leave it up to staff to say, here are some things that we think we could scale back on a little bit so we could put more into this, because it would require additional effort.

[04:17:58] Councilmember John McAlister: I have a question for the mayor. So, you, earlier, you mentioned effectiveness and what's what comes down. So, based on your study here as a plant based diet, is that, do we get a big bang for the buck, was your phrase? Is that a Big Bang buck item that we would want to change priorities for?

[04:18:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: From a consumption based, uh, greenhouse gas inventory perspective, which is not the type of inventory that the city uses, but from a consumption based inventory, which does take into consideration air travel, uh, food choices, um, and overall purchasing habits, Plant based diet is significant, is very effective in doing that. So, from a planetary perspective, it's one of the single most effective things an individual can do.

[04:18:54] Councilmember John McAlister: And you can measure that?

[04:18:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[04:18:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Versus some of the other? Okay. And so, yes. Yeah, but it's not captured in our current inventory?

[04:19:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And again, we've heard a desire to at least have a conversation about that in December, so we can certainly bring that into the conversation, but certainly not captured in our inventory, but it is a highly effective individual item.

[04:19:16] Councilmember John McAlister: But you say globally, not locally.

[04:19:19] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, emissions from food choices. Our food supply chain comes from all over the world. So it's not like we've got a bunch of hog farms or dairy farms in Mountain View. So, but where there is a reduction in the demand for meat and dairy products, then that does reduce global greenhouse gas emissions via the supply chain.

[04:19:42] Unknown Speaker: And to clarify, we can measure the impact of such a program, even if it's not necessarily reflected in our emissions inventory. We could still, to the best of our ability, estimate the greenhouse gas emissions reduced, just like we have on attachment one for that item.

[04:20:00] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, then, if you're not, if we go down there, so we're trying to reduce our inventory, but you can't, can you measure that inventory on the plant-based diet?

[04:20:11] Unknown Speaker: The plant based diet emissions are not a part of the current inventory. They're not...

[04:20:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Can you measure them? This is the question. You can conclude them?

[04:20:23] Unknown Speaker: Well, we can include them as sort of a commentary or an appendix? They wouldn't be part of the formal inventory, because that's not part of the protocol, but we can certainly include a discussion. about the relative impact of plant based habits, as part of our inventory conversation.

[04:20:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Did that answer your question?

[04:20:46] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, no, because, well, I'll say the screen that you have on right now. Could you say that's in your total?

[04:20:52] Unknown Speaker: It would not be part of the total, because it's not part of the way we measure emissions, based on the protocol that we're following. But we can characterize...

[04:21:01] Councilmember John McAlister: No, no, that's what I was saying. You can't measure it. You can characterize it, but you can't measure.

[04:21:05] Unknown Speaker: Well, we can measure it. If we measure it, the methodology. Can we measure it to an extent? There is a bunch of assumptions that go behind the measurements. We can characterize the rough idea of what we're talking of, probably a little bit more than rough.

[04:21:19] Councilmember John McAlister: I'm just saying that any reductions that we drive based on focusing on this effort would not be indicated would not actually reduce our city's formal emissions.

[04:21:31] Unknown Speaker: But it would reduce global emissions.

[04:21:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, no, that's okay, that's the point I was trying to make. Yes, we can do it globally. But for our own city, it's...

[04:21:40] Unknown Speaker: I understand. Thank you. But we could also change our approach to our inventory and go consumption versus what we're currently using, and then it would be included in our local.

[04:21:52] Unknown Speaker: If I might suggest, since that is a broader conversation that we can better have when we talk about our our inventory measurement, and our targets when we're back in December, that we not try to scope out what the plant-based diet program would be now. I think what we've got in there is based on what we feel we can accomplish with the staffing resources that we're proposing. And we also in the staff report, um, acknowledge the fact that as we get into programs, we might find that we want to scale them up or scope them in different ways, um, based on their effectiveness and, you know, this gives us an opportunity to get started with that. And if counsel gives direction around a greater emphasis around consumption-based reductions. We would certainly look to the scope of that program and could change it at that time. But we are asking even within the actions as laid out in the plan now. that if we find an opportunity to scale up, that we have a little bit of leeway within the 7.500000 that isn't fully expended, that we could do that. We're asking for your flexibility to allow us to do that. And that's part of why we talked with the sustainability committee about coming not every 3 years, but in a year to kind of take stock and see where we are.

[04:23:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, council member Hicks.

[04:23:38] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I have a remaining question. So if we're you're coming back in December? Was that it?

[04:23:44] Unknown Speaker: To talk about Targets, goals and targets, and so forth, and we'll add some discussion of consumption based, emissions as well.

[04:23:56] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I hope that airplane use can be a part of that, if we're talking about consumption, you're assuming that? Okay, great.

[04:24:06] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so back to Council member Clark.

[04:24:14] Councilmember Chris Clark: And I think what you said before, um, I'm good with that.

[04:24:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I am too. But I'm trying to remember what 10 minutes ago it was.

[04:24:24] Councilmember Chris Clark: So it's the staff recommendation, and then we made some tweaks to trees. I think it was, it was clearly like, you know, incorporating better enforcement of the Harry's Tree ordinance. Using the planning process to increase the number of plantings.

[04:24:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, and opening and, you know, exploring. And focus on corridors.

[04:24:45] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, an additional focus on corridors and working with the Sierra Club.

[04:24:50] Unknown Speaker: With regard to the requirements in the land in the planning process, I feel like I'm, I don't quite have access to the staff input around that. I would be more comfortable if it was something more explore, um, and if it is something that, um, requires a change in our regulations, we'd have to come back to you with that.

[04:25:19] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, isn't that one of the projects for our council goals to take a look at the tree ordinance?

[04:25:30] Unknown Speaker: I don't know I think it is, but I could be wrong about that. But you could also say, until we get to that, we'd say explore things that we can do outside of updating, like just up to sort of modification of the ordinance. So, sort of...

[04:25:50] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yeah, I'm fine saying if all the things we mentioned, it is explore all these, and then staff comes back to us.

[04:25:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. I'm fine with that. Okay. Okay. And then when the plant based diet resolution comes to us, That's when we'll have the discussion about, um, what we might increase, uh, will have options there to choose from. Is there some ideas? Yeah. Yeah. Is there anything else? Okay, so we have a motion by council member, Clark, and a second by, Vice Mayor Abbe Koca. If there is no further discussion, I'll call the question. And that passes unanimously. We'll let you clap on that one.

[04:26:38] Unknown Speaker: I move that we continue past 10:00 p.m. to our last item. I didn't realize it was so late, yes.

[04:26:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you so much for all of your work on this one. It was, uh, it was a lot of information. And a lot went behind that information. Okay. Okay, find the agenda. Okay, next is item eight, which is the council staff and committee reports. Oh, Mary, do we? Yeah. Oh, sorry. Um, excuse me. If we could... Sorry, we do need to vote if we want to, um, continue past ten. Our start new topic. All those in favor? Okay. And John's gonna say no, but then we have the majority. It's really easy, John. It's just number eight. So, council, staff, and committee reports, vice mayor Abi Koga.

[04:27:40] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. So, a few weeks ago, there was a tragedy, unfortunately, at the Mountain View High School, one of the students, died by suicide, and it has to do with the Caltrain tracks. So I've received emails from quite a few parents asking if the city could look into putting cameras at the stations, which is what Palo Alto had done a few years back. And I tough to say manager about it. And, um, he's reached out to Palo Alto, but I guess I was trying to figure out, um, you know, how I should could bring this back, or, or if I can ask, you know, all of you, if you would look at, um, be willing to explore the, the, this project. I guess it'd be like a capital improvement project, possibly. Um, and yeah, allocate funds to install a camera. Is that what I would do? And I know, like, normally it could probably be part of the CIP, but I think we need, it's more, it's more urgent than, I don't, I don't really want to wait until next July to approve something.

[04:29:07] Unknown Speaker: I think if you get your colleagues' consensus, so it certainly could be something we could bring back on an agenda for discussion, and we could have an evaluation then of what the potential funding mechanism would be.

[04:29:23] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, yeah, so I guess it would be to the request would be to direct staff to explore installing cameras at the Caltrain stations, um, with a potential budget for that.

[04:29:37] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Clark.

[04:29:38] Councilmember Chris Clark: Could we start with? If you want to have an agenda, our agenda item to receive that information, that's fine, but I think just in terms of scoping it in my head, it would probably be starting by, you know, what did Palo Alto do? How did they work with Caltrans? Because they had they actually had persons there for a while, which didn't work out, it wasn't sustainable. Now they have cameras, I think. And so I just don't know what we're, I don't know how they ended up working with Caltrans. So maybe part of that is like, you know, basically how did they approach it?

[04:30:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Exactly. What was the cost?

[04:30:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: Yes. And then at that meeting, we decide whether we want to proceed with it and what sort of level of funding and that sort of and what the timeline would be.

[04:30:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So I guess it was really to get your approval to allocate staff time into looking at the possibility of installing cameras.

[04:30:37] Unknown Speaker: I think you are, um, asking for your council members, um, concurrence to have the discussion about whether to have staff allocate time.

[04:30:50] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure.

[04:30:51] Unknown Speaker: Because that's a substantive discussion and a commitment of priority that you wouldn't be able to make without it being agendized this evening.

[04:31:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, could we agenda is the possible allocation of staff time resources to look at installing cameras at the Caltrain?

[04:31:15] Unknown Speaker: So would you be wanting to bring back a memo that outlines what you believe to be the objectives and issues and opposing that question?

[04:31:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I mean, do those?

[04:31:28] Unknown Speaker: Oh, it could be a few, we could do it as a council initiated item and if I'm happy to do the one hour, or the one hour or under the one hour rule and do a memo and request.

[04:31:41] Councilmember Chris Clark: Right. Agenda is it in that form. That's what was making sense to me, but I also acknowledge that I haven't had time to think about it and the conversations that you may have had with the city manager about it.

[04:31:53] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, and I'm sorry, I brought it up when he's not here, but I also just have heard from quite a few individuals about this, so I just wanted to bring it up sooner than later.

[04:32:05] Unknown Speaker: So I feel like I'm supportive of this. I guess I feel like I don't have enough information to know that cameras is the answer.

[04:32:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure.

[04:32:15] Councilmember Chris Clark: So to me, it would be broader than that, and it would be, what could we do? Cameras might be one option, but how effective are they versus the people?

[04:32:25] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm surprised to hear that people weren't effective.

[04:32:29] Unknown Speaker: It was just... It was costly, yeah. Yes, costly. And then, originally, it was a volunteer based program. And after so many years, it just, yeah, they ran out of his team.

[04:32:42] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, but I think, you know, cameras that those wouldn't stop somebody. So anyway, I feel like I'd like to discuss this topic, so I'm supportive of putting it on the agenda.

[04:32:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay. But I'd want to know more than just the answer is cameras.

[04:33:03] Unknown Speaker: Yes. So if we could, if staff could do research on best practices. So I guess we should agendize it and decide whether we should allocate staff time to this issue.

[04:33:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. So, um, can we see a show of hands of those that are interested?

[04:33:24] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Yes.

[04:33:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, that's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Um, okay. So I attended the League of California City's Conference in Long Beach last... last week, and... I felt like there were a lot of very good sessions that I attended. I do think a lot of the sessions, the title didn't necessarily match the content. So, at times, I was switching sessions because I thought, This isn't what I thought it was about. But I felt like there were a lot of good sessions there, and I, instead of bombarding the city manager, like I hear some people might do from time to time when they attend conferences, I came back with stuff for the city attorney. And actually, for the city clerk, too, come to think of it. But I found the time there well spent. It was also good to talk to council members from our nearby communities, about issues that we're all facing, and talk to some folks I don't usually run into, but I know they're in, you know, the area. So, um, see, that's the only one I have. Council member commit?

[04:34:45] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Last week seems so long ago, I forgot. So I also attended the League of California Cities conference where I was elected the 2nd vice president of the women's caucus for the state. So really looking forward to the 100 year anniversary of women's suffrage next year and we'll be doing a lot of planning related to that.

[04:35:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Koga?

[04:35:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: For reporting for pisses, I also need to report that I attended the conference, and I'll speak, so this council member Clark, and, um, well, he may want, he may want to just say it himself, but Counselor McAllister.

[04:35:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[04:35:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I... And one of the great things about going is, the speakers were enlightening, but as the mayor mentioned that our flight, my flight, my flight down to Long Beach, it was basically a coalition... I mean, it was a gathering of local, local elected officials from Morgan Hill, Elroy, Palo Alto, Cupertino, Redwood City, and I'm sure it was easy to make a lot of connections. And it always amazes me is that how much interaction you can get by going out of town and talking to people than trying to make the time to actually see them in their own town. So, um, I was, I got appointed, reappointed to the, uh, league, uh, transportation committee because, you know, the person was there and said, yes, I like to do it again. So we took care of business, we learned some things, and we brought some things back, but it was always good to get down. Long Beach is, if we were talking the visual arts, they're a convention center, how they did the the tile in the walkways, the wide open sidewalks, the banners, the businesses, all this stuff was really, really great.

[04:36:59] Unknown Speaker: Oh, and scooters.

[04:37:01] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, that's right. I talked to somebody. So scooters. I took picture, and I sent it to Dawn, but they have little printouts, little parking for the scooters, and all it was was some tape on the ground, or some painting, and said, Here's your scooters, and most of the time, people parked in the scooters, and they weren't all over the place. So I can't wait to see some scooters popping up in downtown Mountain Dew, with a very easy solution. Parked the scooter here, and people will sometimes...

[04:37:31] Unknown Speaker: Study session next meeting.

[04:37:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes, good for us. Anyone else? Okay, so for the city attorney, is there a closed session report?

[04:37:42] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: There is no closed session report.

[04:37:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So we will adjourn this meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, October 29th, 2019, at 5 p.m. in the council chambers, 500 Castro Street.

[04:38:01] Unknown Speaker: 5 p.m. next week.

[04:38:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: This meeting's adjourned.

• ← Previous
• Next →