Okay.

Um good evening, everyone.

Um, welcome to the Mountain View City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the Okay.

Um Good evening, everyone.

Um welcome to the Mountain View City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the Okay.

Um Good evening, everyone.

Um welcome to the Mountain View City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Um welcome to the Mountain View City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Um welcome to the Mountain View City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Um Good evening, everyone.

Um Welcome to the Mountain Bee City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Um Good evening, everyone.

Um welcome to the Mountain View City Council special meeting of August twenty-sixth, twenty twenty-five.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Good evening, everyone.

Welcome to the Mountain View City Council Special Meeting.

August 26th of 2025.

Please join me in the Page of Allegiance.

Good evening, everyone.

All right.

I think we can try to reconvene.

Hopefully the technical issues are resolved.

So we can move on to item three, which is roll call.

The city clerk will take attendance by roll call.

Councilmember Clark.

Here.

Councilmember Hicks.

Here.

Councilmember McAllister.

Councilmember Ramirez.

Councilmember Showalter.

Here.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Here.

Mayor Kameh.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Great.

Thank you very much.

So we'll move on to item four, which is our public hearing.

Item 4.1 is about our 2025 building codes update.

Assistant community development director, Lindsay Hagen, and Chief Building Official.

Nina Bizjack.

Did I say that right?

Okay.

We'll present the item.

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

We'll start with the staff presentation.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Lindsay Hagen, Assistant Community Development Director, and I'm joined tonight by Nanina Bizjack, the Chief Building official, to present the 2025 Building Codes update.

Starting with some of the background on the building codes, the formal name of the codes that we're primarily talking about tonight are the building California Building Standards Code, which is adopted as part of the California Code of Regulations or Title 24.

This code regulates various acts aspects of all building occupancies in California, including things like construction, sustainability, life safety, as well as other provisions.

It's overseen by the California Building Standards Commission, or CBSC for short, and it's updated every three years to incorporate new technologies, latest advancements, lessons learned, and enhance safety.

One is administrative or procedural in nature.

Local amendments can also be more stringent than state code provisions, but local cities have to adopt findings due to local climatic geological or topographical conditions.

Staff has incorporated those findings in attachment four to the staff report.

Talking a little bit more about the California Building Standards Code.

It's comprised of 13 parts.

Each one of these parts listed on your screen is really in and of itself individual codes.

So really this code is a pretty substantial code.

Part seven, which is highlighted on here is a new code that was brought into this 2025 cycle.

It's the California Wildland Urban Interface Code.

It's in response to a lot of the wildfires that California has seen in the last couple of years and requires certain building requirements and materials to be used in fire prone areas of California.

Mountain View is not located in any of the areas where this code is applicable.

Additionally, we want to highlight Part 11, the California Green Building Standards Code or Calgreen.

This is a code in chapter or part, I should say, that are REACH Code provisions are all located in this part.

And then lastly, just highlighting part six, which is the California Energy Code.

This is where a lot of the energy efficiency provisions lie, and when cities modify this code, it does require additional approval from a state agency.

Getting into one of those agencies and approval process, we did want to talk about cost effectiveness studies.

So this is required when a local amendment related to energy efficiency or conservation standards either are proposed in part six, the energy code I just mentioned, or in any of the other parts of the California state code.

And if an amendment is made, it does require the adoption of local findings by the city, as well as the California Energy Commission does have to approve these amendments, and that process can take anywhere from two to four months.

The study must evaluate how many years it takes to recoup the initial cost of the requirement compared to the ongoing operational outcome.

So multiple cities can use the same cost-effectiveness study as long as the local amendments are in line with the study.

And the study must demonstrate at least one cost-effectiveness effective path to comply.

So important point to that is it doesn't mean all aspects of the provision have to be cost effective, just at least one.

Staff has included a cost-effectiveness study for one of the new 2025 REACH Code provisions, the AC to heat pump, which we'll talk about in a moment.

This was prepared by the California Energy Codes and Standard Statewide Utility Program.

The study complies with the requirements of the California Energy Commission for consideration of their approval, and staff has included the necessary findings in attachment four, which also is where the study is located.

It's also an example of an amendment that's not in part six but related to energy efficiency.

That particular provision is actually part of Part 11, the Cal Green Code.

So in addition to some of the nuts and bolts of the code, it's important to talk about the current regulatory environment that we are in in relation to these the 2025 code cycle.

In particular, there are three major actions in the last two years that have fed into why staff is proposing the package of amendments we are, including REACH Code provisions for 2025 at this time.

The first is in 2023, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted rulings that established a sale prohibition on nitrogen oxide emitting water heaters and furnaces by 2027 and 2029, respectively.

To be clear, there are no current gas appliances on the market that meet a zero NOx emission.

So effectively, it's anticipated that this is really going to shift the market availability of gas-powered water heaters and furnaces in the near term.

So that is why staff has started to introduce electric pre-wiring requirements in anticipation of these appliances going electric in the near term.

In 2024, the outcome of the California Restaurant Association and City of Berkeley lawsuit came, which resulted in Mountain View having to suspend our all electric requirements related to gas appliances, as well as other cities in our region took the same action.

In its place, we adopted new electric pre-wiring requirements for new construction for all development types, which we referred to as phase one, which was adopted in 2024.

And so now, as part of the package before you tonight, we are proposing a phase two to that pre-wiring requirement as a continuation of these efforts.

And lastly, in 2025, this year we have Assembly Bill 306 and AB 130, which came to fruition.

AB306 is a reaction from the Southern California wildfires and the rebuilding efforts around them.

Essentially, AB 130, which was signed into law on June 30th of this year, effectuated AB 306 immediately.

And essentially, it prohibits amendments by this California Building Standards Codes or cities to the state code for six years that impact residential development.

Unless the amendments meet certain exceptions, a handful of them, which are listed here on your screen.

So these exceptions relate to previously adopted city amendments in place by September 30th of this year.

They're related, amendments related to emergency standards or home hardening, home hardening is essentially fireproofing or fire prevention measures in a home.

Amendments that are necessary to implement a city's adopted general plan and as part of a city adopted greenhouse gas reduction strategy while still allowing mixed-fueled residential construction.

And lastly, administrative enhancements related to processing permits, so things like reducing review timelines or adopting fee schedules, you can make amendments related to those matters.

So AB 130 is really the reason that city staff significantly accelerated the preparation of the 2025 building code update.

We calculated it was actually seven weeks from today we received the code, so it was roughly six weeks for us to get here today.

We are attempting with council's approval, of course, to introduce new code provisions and submit them to and receive acceptance by the California Building Standards Commission prior to the September 30th due date to give ourselves the greatest chance of success in adopting new local amendments to our code, including new REACH Code provisions.

So any delay in adopting code provisions at today's hearing and the tentatively scheduled reading on September 9th will lower the city's chances of receiving the necessary approval to incorporate new code provisions for implementation by January 1st of 2026 and possibly for six years.

So shifting gears into the preparation of our 2022 code updates and sort of how we adopt uh update the building code in general.

First and foremost, it takes a village really to do this work.

Regionally, we coordinate and participate in various groups, primarily one being Silicon Valley Clean Energy every code cycle, who helps this region with REACH Code provisions.

We also coordinate with other professional organizations, technical code experts, and of course consult other cities.

From the city side, it really truly is a collaborative effort, as there are many parts to the state code as you saw, and it requires us to really divvy up the work based on areas of specialty.

So as you can see from the list on your screen here, we really coordinate from with staff from the fire department, like the fire marshal and hazardous material staff from public works like land development and public services.

We also coordinate, of course, with many public uh building staff, including plan checkers, fire protection engineers, inspectors, the city attorney's office, as well as the sustainability division and the city manager's office.

And I'll say even this year we consulted with the police department on one section as well.

So I really just want to take a second to thank the team enough, you know, for all their work this last couple of weeks on all this effort.

Um in terms of uh sort of getting into the particulars of what we look at when we're doing this work every three years, can really be put into three buckets.

Uh, first, we remove code provisions that are no longer relevant.

So, usually these are provisions that the new state code has gotten more stringent and has absorbed that requirement.

Um, and a great example of that would be some of the 2024 pre-wiring requirements we adopted for multifamily residential and commercial kitchens have now become part of the base code.

So those are no longer local amendments.

Um, the other rationale for removing uh code provisions would be if there's been a change in how a standard is calculated or defined or applied, so it may make our local amendment moot.

Um kind of shifting to the second bucket, we uh update and adjust the code provisions to meet minimum 2025 state code provisions in this case.

We look at the new provisions and see if we need to add any new local amendments.

We have to align a lot of the references to the correct code sections because a lot of times those code sections do move around.

Um, and then we also reorganize or clarify some of our current code requirements.

A great example of this is our mandatory green building table, which is located in attachment four.

This is actually a table that outlines all of our REACH code provisions.

It's been a very popular and well-utilized table, and so we really tried to enhance it this cycle.

Um, additionally, adding any necessary administrative procedures or references.

Um, and then lastly, it's of course reviewing our reach code provisions, um, making sure to carry over any provisions that are still exceeding the new code cycle minimums, and then as well as look at any new uh REACH code provisions.

Um, sort of getting into what is a REACH code.

Um, reach codes are local building code amendments that go beyond the minimum requirements of the state building code to meet a community's environmental and sustainability goals.

So this can really range from promoting clean energy, expanding you know electric vehicle charging infrastructure, reducing waste or water, um, or pursuing other environmental objectives for this year.

An example of that would be some of the bird-friendly design standards.

Um, why the city looks to adopt REACH codes, um, a great sort of starting point is in April of 2020, the council adopted a resolution to become a carbon neutral city by 2045.

And so it's part of our work in greenhouse gas emissions.

The city does intermittently undertake an inventory.

So the table or the graph shown on your screen here is from the 2023 inventory of our greenhouse gas emissions.

And as you can see from the chart, buildings contribute to about 32% of Mountain Views greenhouse gas emissions.

And the majority of that at 22% is related to gas appliances and equipment that are in those buildings.

So an important aspect of REACH codes is really as a tool to help facilitate electric upgrades aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions in buildings in the most cost-effective way.

Moving on to the actual proposed new 2025 REACH code provisions.

For single family and duplexes, we have AC to heat pump requirements.

We have the phase two electric readiness requirements or pre-wiring requirements.

We have a zoning incentive, which I will not discuss in this present presentation further, and they're not actually included in the 2025 building code updates, but it's something that staff is pursuing and happy to answer any questions later.

And then for all development is the electric pre-wiring requirements for phase two, as well as bird-friendly design.

So getting more into the particulars of each of these provisions.

The AC to heat pump provision is related to single family residential only.

It is triggered when you're replacing or adding space cooling equipment.

And in those cases, you have sort of two paths.

You can either install a heat pump space conditioner, which is essentially a heat pump system that can do cooling and heating, and simply comply with the state code minimum requirements.

Or install an AC unit, which will only just do cooling with your gas furnace, and do other energy improvements above the state code minimums, things like greater attic insulation or air sealing of ducts.

So some of the background on this provision, it's again really in support of BACMED's recent ruling on the prohibition of nitrogen oxide producing furnace furnace sales by 2029.

There are already existing or there are already included in the 2025 Energy Code non-residential component to heat pump requirements.

And so this is a voluntary measure, this provision that is included in the 2025 Cal Green.

And so this is what staff is proposing to adopt.

This is the requirement that requires a cost effectiveness study and approval by the California Energy Commission.

There are other couple of other cities that either already have this provision in place, like the cities of Portola Valley and San Mateo.

And then San Jose and Sunnyville are currently pursuing them as part of this current cycle.

Moving on to electric readiness or pre-wiring requirements.

So this applies to all existing buildings where additions or alterations are proposed that require a building permit and a gas or propane appliance is proposed to be installed.

So it applies to all indoor, outdoor natural gas or propane appliances for single-family, multifamily hotels, motels, and non-residential development.

This requirement would require the installation of a circuit wire to meet the minimum voltage that's necessary for an electric version of the gas or propane appliance proposed to be installed, but no less than 120 volt.

It requires infrastructure to be installed from the panel to within three feet of the appliance.

It requires the labeling of these circuit as well as the panel and the line, and it would require applicants to include location and dimension of that future electric appliance on building plans.

So these provisions are very similar to our existing pre-wiring requirements.

The only additional factor is just that it applies to existing buildings and additions and alterations.

Some of the background here, this provision is proposed in lieu of Silicon Valley Clean Energy's identified 2025 pre-wiring reach requirement.

So that REACH Code provision applies only to single family.

This applies to all development.

And to be clear, this does not require someone to change the use of a gas appliance.

They can still have the appliance, but rather it prepares the property owner for the future of a future electric appliance.

And the thought being as well that installing this infrastructure at the time that other renovations are occurring is really the most cost-effective way to install that electrical infrastructure.

And the last provision that we'll talk about is the bird safe design requirements.

So this is a new set of bird safe design standards that are in an optional appendix in the state code for multifamily residential development, hotels, motels, and non-residential development for new construction and major renovations.

And really, these provisions include requirements around specific glazing requirements and other visible barrier requirements.

It identifies certain architectural design features that require the application of the building, the bird-friendly glazing, things like glass railings or passageways, requires time controlled lighting for exterior lighting or interior lighting that's visible from the exterior to be fully turned off from 2 a.m.

to dawn.

It also has a recommendation about encouraging janitorial services to occur from sunrise to sunset.

And in terms of the thresholds that are proposed for this provision, it's new construction of a structure of 10,000 square feet or greater in size.

So this aligns with our current 2022 REACH Code provision.

And then the two that we're expanding into or proposing to expand into are for existing buildings of 10,000 square feet or greater in size, that is replacing or adding 50% or more glazing on the exterior, as well as for multifamily residential, applying both A and B standards if the zoning requires bird safe design.

So really introducing this or adopting this appendix is a way to add greater clarity to our existing requirements from the 2022 REACH Code, as well as complement existing zoning requirements where bird safe design is already required for multifamily residential and non-residential, which would be in our North Bay Shore and East Wisman precise plan areas.

In addition to all of the standard local amendments and reach code provisions that we've been discussing, staff also took this opportunity to do other code cleanups.

So we wanted to briefly highlight those.

We as part of this package have proposed to relocate all of the existing floodplain management regulations from chapter 8, which is our where our building code lives, to a new chapter 48, and that is included in attachment one.

This allows it to be a lot more accessible to the public and easier to find.

One last plug before we close out the presentation is since I have this platform.

Some of these are related to our reach code provisions, some of them are not.

But in general, what's on your screen here?

Silicon Valley Clean Energy has numerous rebates available for Mountain View residents, related to heat pump water heaters, HVAC induction cooktops, and other electrical upgrades, including panel upgrades.

And essentially, we're teaming up with Silicon Valley Clean Energy on those.

So with that, staff will conclude our presentation.

We do recommend that staff that council consider adoption of the four ordinances that we have attached to the staff report.

These ordinances do include local amendments and so do include the local findings that have to be made, as well as include the cost effectiveness study that was previously mentioned.

On that note, that concludes staff's presentation.

We do have various other staff and team members available for questions that I do want to mention.

We do have Daniel Lee, our chief sustainability and resiliency officer available.

Um Carrie Sandal, our fire marshals also available, farhead Faramond from TRC companies for any technical questions, as well as Napur Higher Math from Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

Um so with that conclude staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Great, thanks so much.

So we'll move on to council questions.

Does any member of the council have questions for staff?

Councilmember Hicks.

So I'm familiar with the electrification aspects of this of the proposal uh, you know, from sitting on the council sustainability committee and comfortable with them.

We've gotten uh a letter from various environmental groups asking us to tweak some of the bird safe design.

And I'm hoping we can do that.

Uh but I'm wondering, I don't want it to slow down the process at all.

So I just like I mean, I see in council questions, uh staff has been asked some questions on that subject, but I'm wondering just specifically um is you know, is that something that that we can do?

Yes, thanks for the question, council member.

Um in terms of making additional tweaks and amendments, um, that is all possible and part of the purview of council tonight.

Um it's at this council's discretion to make those amendments and specifically in relation to the bird-friendly design.

Um, I believe we received a letter uh from a couple different um groups about the suggested edits to or further amendments, I should say, to the bird-friendly design.

Um reviewing the letter, uh, they're related to removing filming requirements on glazing, removing netting requirements, um, and uh oh, making adjustments to the glass passageways, sort of trigger when that becomes required, um, as well as adding some additional uh special conditions under um sort of scenarios, architectural design details where bird-friendly glazing would be triggered.

Um, so sort of looking over this letter, uh, there is nothing of major concern from staff side and in terms of being able to incorporate these.

And just to be clear, what would happen here is if the majority of council does want to make this amendment, um staff would uh incorporate it into the second reading ordinance that we would bring forth, which is planned for September 9th.

So that would be another opportunity for council to kind of verify that staff has addressed it accordingly.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for doing not only the electrification stuff stuff so quickly, but also responding to the bird safe design and even more quickly.

Great, thank you very much.

And then um we'll go to the next questions, but I just for a quick process question um related to councilmember Hicks question, um, city attorney logue.

So if we were to make those amendments, could that be um part of the motion?

Um, or would we need to take a straw poll on that?

Just wanted to so that I can for my tracking purposes, uh, it should be part of the motion.

Great, thank you.

Okay, okay, colleagues.

So if we're interested, then who the motion maker can include that.

Councilmember Clark.

Oh no, Councilmember Sherwalter, was that you or was it?

You know, Alison asked the questions I was going to ask, so I withdrew my name.

Oh, okay, perfect.

Okay, I thought I saw something.

Council member uh Clark.

Um just one question because we had the um I don't think the bird safe does requirements where it came up at the sustainability committee meeting, they're kind of new.

Um so I'm referencing that back to the the Calgreen um sort of summary of the of voluntary um provisions that can be adopted that are summarized.

And I just wanted to clarify a couple things.

So in the in Calgreen, it says the you can use a a time switch controlled device or an occupancy center uh sensor, but in the staff presentation, it only says time controlled in lighting.

So I'm wondering if I assume you can also use occupancy sensors if you have people there after a certain hour.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Um so I'll just have two parts to the response.

Um to answer your question simply, yes.

Uh, I apologize, it might have been an oversimplification in my presentation, um, but it would be whatever's written in that appendix A5 would be applicable.

So the occupancy sensors would be fine.

Um, and then the second part, which I realized wasn't part of your question, but I will just acknowledge.

Um, so the bird-friendly design standards uh we were not aware of um at the time of the CSC meeting because we hadn't received the published 2025 state code, so we didn't know that that was an optional appendix.

So that's it came to us, we saw it, we saw the opportunity, and staff took the chance of proposing it tonight.

That makes sense.

And then the second part is related to that.

I was just trying to dig in and figure out the the appendix is the control devices, shall we program so the lights are extinguished from 2 a.m.

to dawn, with an exception for emergency lighting and lighting required for nighttime security.

But I assume if you have a group that's working there with some team halfway across the world who just works in the middle of the night that the occupancy centers override that.

This isn't like uh thou shalt have thou shalt work in darkness at three in the morning if you happen to be there working.

Yeah, it's a it's a fair question, council member.

Um yeah, no, so it's definitely not intended to be absolutely prohibitive.

Um of this, I think you do have to take a little bit of a reasonable test to in terms of how a building's occupied.

Additionally, it does have the exception in here about um life safety.

So there are certain lighting you absolutely have to have in terms of fire exiting when a building's occupied.

So there's definitely lighting that that would still occur.

I think a lot of this is about trying to encourage and then people.

Yeah, I saw some of the voluntary pieces.

It was just this is one of those things where you know if you if you're looking for uh Tulisa commercial space and you can't really use it for a few hours, um, also because daylight changes throughout the year, right?

Um so I I get the intent, the intent I agree with, I think, as long as it isn't as long as we don't um yeah, anyway, thank you.

Councilmember McAllister.

Yeah, thank you.

Um all this reach code uh took place after I uh left the council, so I'm trying to get up to speed on this thing, and it seems to elude me a little bit here.

Um but I'm more interested in some of the requirements for electrical appliances that were so I keep hearing the word voluntary, but then I hear you need to do this or do that.

And then I noticed on here it says you made the comment about new construction.

Uh people are supposed to do things or new construction or requires a building permit.

So if somebody was to replace their water heater, are they required to have a building permit?

Thank you, Councilmember.

Yes, you are required to have a permit.

We have to ensure that you've installed it per the manufacturer's uh specifications, and I also verify that it is a listed product for California, as well as any connection points for electricity or exhaust or electrification.

So I want to just replace my water heater.

So everything that you just said, how much would that cost?

Let's say the water heater costs $500.

What other costs are associated with what you just required or is being required in the potential new uh reach codes.

Yeah, let me pull up.

Sorry, excuse me, let me pull up a slide real quick.

Um so council member, in terms of your question about water heaters, um, so these are some cost estimates that Silicon Valley Clean Energy shared with us based on um the local service territory.

So these are some average costs to replace your gas to heat pump water heaters about $7,000.

Uh to replace a gas to gas water heater is about two to three thousand.

Um part of the rationale between uh about pursuing heat pump equipment is about the long-term savings and operations and monthly payments for utilities, um, which is proven to be more cost effective with a heat pump water heater than um a gas powered one.

Um, in terms of other costs related, um, obviously there will be some minimal permitting costs.

Um it does depend on if you need other improvements as part of your upgrade.

So in some cases, somebody may need an electrical outlet or something installed.

And so that would be some additional minimal work to be done, but this price tag is the average that they've seen.

So does this price tag include where you were talking about the we know you said voluntary if they want to go to gas is a voluntary decision, and therefore they can if they wanted to go to gas to gas versus the heat pump, they may have to increase their uh attic installation.

They might have to do dual pane windows.

Is that what is that covered under what you were talking about in this instance?

Yeah, so I think another um slide I'll show you here.

This is actually pulled from the cost effectiveness study for the AC to heat pump.

So that was included in the staff report.

Um I will in the meantime ask uh Farhad from TRC companies to get promoted in the meantime while I just respond generally.

So this kind of uh snapshot provides the overall cost comparison between um keeping your AC and having a gas furnace and replacing them versus having the heat pump component.

So um over that time span.

Um, Farha, do you mind responding more specifically?

Yeah, happy to.

So uh good evening, honorable council.

My name is Farad Farm with TRC technical consultant to Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and um happy to provide some uh support here tonight.

Um I think there's there's two questions that are being asked.

One is um with a heat pump with a water heater replacement uh that requires a permit.

What is that additional cost for the electric readiness?

And what staff's providing here is uh kind of a host of options available.

One is you either provide a hundred twenty-volt circuit, and that's all that's gonna be typical uh for all water heaters unless you have a water heater that's the old type that runs on a pilot light.

So if you have that situation, you're gonna be looking at a $500 to $800 additional costs around that 120 volt circuit.

It's kind of at the high end.

You can obviously run a conduit, that's gonna be a similar cost.

Um that's what you would see.

But as you saw on the previous slide, a water heater replacement is you know, I think the council members at $500.

I it's not that not that uh inexpensive, unfortunately, even for water heater replacement.

It does cost more.

So the cost of that additional infrastructure, additional infrastructure does become a smaller portion of that like for life replacement that you'd be doing.

So that's one question I want to address.

The second question is if you are uh what's the what's the voluntary and what's the mandatory provision?

Um staff described this, but I'll just reiterate Calgran's model code.

It is a voluntary model.

It is available for local jurisdictions to adopt as mandatory, and that's what staff is proposing tonight.

So they would they will take that voluntary model designed for jurisdictions to adopt and adopted as mandatory.

What this would require, this policy would require, is when you are installing an air conditioner to have uh you know a few additional efficiency measures, so that your energy equivalent to what that heat pump would have been.

And these specific uh measures are listed here.

Um, and so that's fan efficacy, uh, reverent charge verification, duct insulation, and attic insulation as well as air sealing.

It depends on if you're replacing your ductwork or not.

Um if you are not replacing your ductwork, the additive added cost of those efficiency measures on top of the AC can range between 4,000 to 7500.

And that is by design, we we want that energy equivalency.

We also want to incentivize the heat pump adoption.

Um, this last bullet here is if you are replacing your ductwork, that could alone cost somewhere between five to ten thousand dollars.

It's already a much more expensive project, and thus the and and you have more work happening, so the additional cost of the efficiency measures is relatively lower.

Um they are still uh there, but it's not as high as if you were reusing your existing ductwork.

I hope that answers your question.

I'm available for further questions.

What about um AC is usually uh some people luxury, but just basic uh stove and a furnace.

What kind of costs are we looking at there?

Do you need a permit to change a stove?

Thank you, council member.

If you have the existing connections already in place, then it is deemed an appliance, just that is removed and replaced.

Example would be if you already have an existing 220 volt circuit, you're buying the same model that uses that same capacity, then a permit would not be required for just that swap out of that unit.

It would be required if you were going to say a larger unit and you had only a 120 volt circuit and you needed a 220, then you would need to get an electrical permit to make that modification to accommodate that new range.

What about going from gas to gas?

Replacing an older gas uh stove to a different gas stove.

Uh thank you.

It's the same kind of summary.

So there's no permit required.

No, it's not, it's only if you're going to be increasing the line size or the manufacturer's specifications are requiring a different pipe size or flow rate, then a permit would be required.

Okay.

So that item doesn't change based on what the Supreme Court decided.

So someone could replace their stove, not have to worry about it, that would still be allowed.

It's not mandatory.

So let's go back to the water heater.

You're replacing a water heater with a water heater, all the connections are the same, all the power is the same.

So there's nothing really changing is that you're taking one off and putting a new one on.

So why does that require a permit?

And if because all you're doing is replacing something that already exists.

Yeah, can some council member appreciate the question?

I think as um uh Nina highlighted before, if it's a if it's a like for like replacement, it doesn't require the building a building permit.

Um thing I do want to clarify is um none of these provisions prohibit the use of gas appliances.

The Berkeley lawsuit was very clear a city can't prohibit it.

A lot of this is these incentives or provisions are really trying to encourage the use of electric appliances or preparing for future electric appliances because of some of the rulings that we already know about from BACMED where you won't even be able to purchase a gas water heater or gas powered furnace in the near term.

So this is really a lot of these provisions are about sort of preparing people for that future time.

So everything we just talked about is not required.

I mean, your the REACH codes are um requesting you say they're required again, are there they're voluntary and you don't have to do any of that if you what I'm trying to get is the cost for seniors for other people that have been in a house that they don't have the income, and one of the fastest growing age demographics in Mountain View is the age people are growing older and people are staying in their houses longer.

And I'm trying to understand is that well, you have these rebates and you have this, but now all of a sudden I'm using a phrase called unfunded mandates that you're requiring all these people to do it, you know, additional costs just to do something simple.

And I'm trying to clarify is it really required to do all this, or is it just the city wanting people to do that versus they could still stay with the simple things and replace repairs and replacements?

Yeah, I appreciate the the question, and I think I understand.

I think um maybe a different way to frame this.

These code provisions come into play when a building permit's required.

So typically we don't see people come in and just want to install an electrical conduit and just prewire one thing.

That's not a frequent permit we see.

Oftentimes these requirements get triggered when people are doing much more major renovations and remodels.

And so that's really what is at the core of what is proposed in this package for 2025 is about encouraging and and um impacting existing buildings where those renovations are taking place.

Um there are examples that we've talked through where building permits are not required, in which case these code provisions would not apply.

It's really just when you trigger that building permit where these requirements come into play.

Um, in terms of some of the the cost concerns, I think uh I think we can all agree the cost of construction and everything is is gone high.

But um a lot of these improvements, because they're packaged with other major work, um they become kind of minuscule in the cost of things.

Um, and I think what the rebate programs and tax credits are trying to sort of help fill some of that gap for income qualified residents, and that's why I know Silicon Valley Clean Energy as well as Mountain View, um, as well as many of the state um credits also have additional funds that they will provide uh for income qualifying residents.

So I think that's where it would trigger potentially more of the senior demographic where they have fixed incomes.

Um, and so I think resources are available to help with some of these costs.

I think the reality is if you're coming to do some of these improvements, there's a reason.

Um you're obviously in need of a replacement or some other um trigger.

So I don't know that I would necessarily sort of couch it or phrase it as an unfunded mandate.

It's more um if you trigger these requirements, you know, these are the options you have in front of you.

And I think just to clarify the AC to heat pump, there's a reason there's multiple paths put into that.

Um it's because it can get complicated.

Not every house is built the same.

Some houses don't even have duct work.

So in terms of how their you know HVAC system operates.

So that code provision has built in to it um different sort of options for those scenarios to the best ability that we can standardize it.

We've you know those code provisions have tried to.

Um, and I do want to just highlight, you know, worst case scenario with the electric readiness or even the AC to heat pump.

There are going to be scenarios where um we do have exceptions put into the the code where if, for example, um the AC to heat pump or let's say electrical pre-wiring requirements for some reason triggered the need for you to upgrade your electrical panel, and that was not part of your proposed package of improvements, um, then there's a path for us to say, you know what, um this doesn't seem appropriate for your um improvement.

That's not really our intent.

Um so we would actually not require you to have to comply with that provision.

Yeah, I I did read those you had a couple of exemptions in there.

Um that was on page seven, I think of 18 where you put in there.

So um okay.

So I under that's why I took out AC going in, because that that is a major appliance, and there is electrical and foundation, so I left that out, and most people aren't gonna be put in the they have the luxury because even though with everything getting warmer, the luxury of having an air conditioning unit uh is not gonna um so if I was to summarize it uh very simply for the person out there.

If all I'm doing is replacing my water heater or replacing my range with like kind, none of this applies.

That is correct.

Building yeah, thank you, council members.

So there would be only one exception, and the exception would be is if you currently do not meet the seismic requirements for bracing the water heater.

So if your current one is not meeting those regulations, then we do to make make sure it is earthquake compliant, and that would be something we would be inspecting the strapping strap.

Okay, I think most plumbers are putting straps on.

Okay.

Um another higher topic, please bear with me, Mayor.

I know we have a short time.

Um if we get to the point where we're gonna be having brownouts, you know, electric because there is a stress on the electrical grid right now, and we before we used to have brownouts.

How is how can you justify some of these things if all of a sudden that okay, we're gonna have brownouts so your electrical is not working so forth.

I know up at Lake Tahoe, they have power outages all the time, so they say let's go with gas because it's reliable.

Thinking of up big how will we address this?

Or is it too big for this topic?

And I'll be gladly close up and go on.

Um, it's a it's a great question, council member.

I think um part of this is about um well, let me back up.

Uh the 2025 code does include actually and introduces new requirements, particularly for single family, uh, about getting ready for battery storage systems.

Um, and there's already requirements in place to install battery storage.

So I think we will see over time that with the installation of the battery storage, um, even if there is a blackout or brownout, uh, people will still have power through that battery storage.

So I think that's one way that in general the state's trying to respond to the electrical grid.

Um, and I think overall, um sorry, lost my train of thought.

Um I think part I'll say I'll just add that um part of your question is bigger than the item before you tonight.

Yes, but I think to be fair, um a lot of this in our efforts here is really trying to find other clean energy and other sources um of energy for electricity, and um I don't know that there's a way we can really prevent them other than trying to uh deal with infrastructure improvements and expansion, which I know PGE is doing.

Okay, one last question for Silicon Clean Energy.

Why aren't since they're rebased for batteries?

If that's where we're going, why aren't we saying let's do that now?

Um good evening, everyone.

I'm Napor Aramath from Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

Uh, we don't currently offer a rebate for batteries, you're right.

Uh, but we do have some pilot programs that we have run that have installed residential customer batteries.

Um, and we are looking at uh a new program coming up in the probably in the next six months or so um where we may consider rebates for batteries.

And so if we are providing rebates for batteries, we want to make sure that those batteries are connected to the grid and are sharing power back with the grid so that you don't end up with a brownout or blackout situation.

So it's this whole concept around demand flexibility, which is kind of moving power back and forth between the battery and the grid.

Okay, thank you.

I'll rely on my council member Show Walter to advocate for batteries.

Thank you.

Great.

Does any member, any other member of council have a question?

Okay, not seeing any.

Um I just had a quick question for um staff and SVC and our consultant, which is for the outreach for the residential rebates.

Um what has uh been the outreach in languages other than English, or what have we been doing to make sure I know that the additional rebates are income qualified.

So maybe we talk about our outreach efforts and how that's been utilized and if there's more that we can do there.

Thanks.

Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Um, so I will actually ask Danielle Lee to be um promoted uh since it's her team that really runs the rebate program, and um she'd be able to shed light on that.

Good evening, council members.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, great.

Uh thank you for the question, Mayor.

Um we have been conducting outreach for the year of the heat pump water heater through community events, and we're also developing a wide range of outreach materials in partnership with our multicultural engagement program.

Um we'll be offering those in English, uh, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian, I believe.

Okay, so we don't we haven't done that outreach yet, but we're gonna be doing it.

Yeah, we're developing we've just we've developed um a whole character, a water heater character.

So we're we're rolling it out now.

Great, thank you.

And then SVCE.

Hi again.

Um, so SVCE does already provide multilingual outreach in uh four different languages.

That's our default, I think, on our website.

Um, and then we're also we've been doing a lot of um rebate promotions, uh, particularly in Spanish, and I think we're starting to do it in Vietnamese as well.

Um, so I think our latest was some TV ads and radio ads.

Um, so we are doing outreach to promote our our rebate program pretty heavily in multiple languages.

People start to engage or we have I think that's the other part, right?

Is like outreach and make sure that yeah.

Um, and so we actually also have our uh rebate application form available in multiple languages.

Um I know for sure we have it in Spanish, and we're just rolling it out in other languages.

Um, but we haven't received any um applications submitted in Spanish yet.

Uh we do know that we have a lot of clicks that came into our website from Spanish uh emails that were sent.

Um so we are getting some interest, but maybe um we don't know if those folks are bilingual and still ended up submitting an application in English or are waiting for some other other reason.

Great, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, those are my questions.

Um now we'll move on to public comment on the item.

Would any member of the public on the line to like to provide comment on this item?

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

We'll display a uh three-minute timer on the screen, and each speaker will have three minutes.

We'll start with in-person, public comment first.

So I'll call your names and just ask you to cue uh to the left of me.

Bruce Carney, Shawnee Kleinhouse, Silia Paymer, Dash Shield Leeds, and then we'll move on to uh virtual.

So first is Bruce.

Tonight.

Um in my 17th year of environmental advocacy in the city of Mountain View.

I'm very proud of what the state of California, the Bay Area, Silicon Valley Clean Energy's territory in the city of Mountain View have done over that span of years.

And I am so sorry that the legislature has put cities in the position where they have to act so rapidly to save six years of environmental progress.

But you are doing what needed to be done.

So thank you, staff, thank you, council, for rising to this emergency.

Um I had other remarks I wanted to make, but I want to shift focus to respond to John McAllister's question about how does this affect lower income Mountain View residents.

There's a program called Full Service Home Upgrade offered by Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

It's available to lower-income people and middle-income people and high-income people.

I recently was one of the first to go through the full service home upgrade, in which Silicon Valley Clean Energy found the contractor, supervised their work, and provided a low low fixed guaranteed fee to me.

And I thought that was fantastic.

But there's an even more fantastic option for those who are low-income and have less than half a million dollars of investable assets.

For those homeowners, they can get free heat pump water heaters and free heat pump HVAC systems and free induction cooktops or induction stoves, all through Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

They just have to apply and qualify.

And I don't know why the phone isn't ringing off the hook at SVCE, because you're not going to get a larger free deal in the Trump administration.

So you better take what you can get now in the last year out from the Biden administration.

Really, time for electrification is now.

I'm sure that Trump is going to try to make it even harder to do solar to put in offshore wind or onshore wind.

So I hope that the city council members will reach out to their constituents and tell them about the full service home upgrade program from Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

Shani Clydehouse, thank you so much, Shani Kleinhouse with the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance.

Together with the CR Club, we sent you a letter with recommendations for some changes to the bird safe design sections.

I want to say first, thank you all for your leadership and thank stuff for looking at it promptly.

We tried to keep it to comments that are really about the quality protecting birds, but not big enough, so you'll have to do public outreach or really re finding that are not there because these are pretty simple.

I don't know if you got the handout that I gave you, but um our letter is there.

And in conversation with some of you, I've seen requests for support.

So you'll see there's a table that shows you what other cities are doing, as some of them.

This is all we could do in just a very short time, but also Mountain View itself in the North Bay Shore Precise Plan has very strong requirements.

And for example, for passageways, um, the North Bay Shore Precise Plan does not even allow passageways that are made out of glass.

Never mind saying you'll have to retrofit it and use treatment, just as don't do it, which is because it's so deadly to birds.

Um there is a quite a request to not allow internal films, so I included a little bit of science that shows that they're not effective.

So we tried to give you enough information so you can adopt our recommendations.

Um I would ask you to include them as they are, not change like I know San Jose looks at 30 feet, so we put that as a comparison, but please accept our recommendations as they are.

Um and I really want to thank you again for the leadership on this.

Uh, one last thing is about the lighting.

Um the city was expected to do an um dark sky ordinance, and I don't know where it's at.

We haven't heard, so hopefully we can help and reach out to us also if there's any need for additional findings.

We can provide you with information that you may need to, if you need to change anything, just reach out to us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So I don't see Celia in the audience, so I'll move to Dasha Leeds.

Hello, my name is Dasha Leeds.

I'm the conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club Lumber Prieta chapter.

Uh, first, thank you so much for moving swiftly on this ordinance, preparing it uh to be ready for adoption before the AB 130 cutoff.

Um, and I really appreciate uh the response by both council and staff to respond quickly to the questions that we had for improvements on bird safe design.

Um we hope you can incorporate them tonight into your motion and proceed with the first reading to get that code in before the AB 130 cutoff.

Um I'm just gonna list the overall changes that we had to um A5.107.

That's the bird-friendly design code.

Um first was to remove the interior applied film as a compliance pathway, as Shanie discussed.

The interior applied film is much less effective than exterior film.

Two, to remove netting as a compliance pathway.

And then three, uh, to add to the list of special conditions.

These are features, sometimes called hazardous features that would trigger uh bird-friendly requirements, given that the ordinance would already be applicable to them.

So adding to this list of conditions, uh parallel panes of glass, such as glass passageways, atria open and enclosed, glazing adjacent to courtyards, three floors of glazing adjacent to any green roof or partial green roof, and standalone auxiliary structures or freestanding glass, plexi glass or other clear, transparent or highly reflective uh free standing structures.

Um I just want to circle back really quickly to the ACD heat pump.

Uh, we think that this code provision is really excellent and worthy of adoption as well.

Um, the absolute best time to uh install a heat pump is when you're replacing your air conditioner.

Um, when you get a heat pump, not only do you have the space cooling benefits, but you can operate that in reverse.

So you also basically have a gas space heater as well, which for residents means that if their gas space heater dies later on, they won't have to replace that appliance because they already have the electric appliance in place.

And regarding some of the resiliency concerns that you mentioned, a lot of gas appliances, I think most now new appliances, even the gas ones have electric starters.

So you actually won't see any resiliency benefit for newly installed gas appliances.

So it's actually better to future-proof Mountain View by going electric and in terms of the grid impacts, you know, this sort of gradual home electrification is really just a drop in the ocean compared to some of the larger uh movements that are happening right now.

Um so thank you so much for your time and consideration.

We hope you move swiftly with the code tonight.

Great, thank you.

Mary Davio.

Um good evening.

Um I wanted to thank staff and city council for um accelerating this, um, considering um the electrification in the building codes, because I know there wasn't a lot of time, and it it's not a simple um, not a simple, not super simple.

It um it takes a lot of work.

And so thank you for considering this.

And I do ask that you uh please approve the proposed changes to encourage electrification.

Um to meet our own uh uh climate goals, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

And you know, requesting people to install heat pump instead of AC seems like a really easy ask.

So um please uh please approve the changes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, any other in-person?

Okay, moving to virtual, we have John S.

Hi there.

Um John Scarborough.

I'm a resident of Mountain View, and I'd like to thank you for moving so quickly to get all these changes in place.

I hope the CEC and CBSC move as quickly.

Um the changes for electrification are great.

I like that they will help us get our housing stock more modernized and help give us more resilience down the line when we start having more expensive natural gas.

So uh I think we're doing our part to help our communities and you know the world be a more habitable place and be ready for the future.

So thank you very much for considering this, and I urge you to pass it quickly.

Thanks.

Great, thank you.

Our next virtual speaker is Bruce Nagel.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, first I want to thank the team coming together and working through this on short time frames in order to get these provisions in place.

You were handed a short stick, but you charged ahead gracefully in terms of moving it forward.

There have been a lot of good topics about what's in this.

One of the things that we've not mentioned as much uh is the fact that moving to getting rid of natural gas and burning it is a health benefit.

And I think we need to keep that in mind because the more gas we put and burn put into the atmosphere, the more likelihood there are for all kinds of nasty things to happen to the respiratory track of people that are documented things in regards to the things that happen to people with asthma.

Um, you know, a number of no people that have asthma, and it's not a an easy disease to live with.

So I want to thank you for that, and thank you for all the efforts of putting it together to move this forward.

And you know, I think you've had a number of good um provisions from other people on this thing.

So by all means take the whole package.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay, I saw it's cleared.

So oh, David's here in person.

Okay.

Hi, David.

Yes, you can do your blue card after.

I was like, I swear it was virtual and now I don't see it anymore.

Okay.

Uh yeah, yeah, I thought that Alex was gonna comment on us.

I had an extra moment for that, but apparently not.

Uh hi.

I'm uh I'm back to talk about uh single stair apartments.

Um the existing code changes you're working on seem nice.

Please continue.

That's good.

Electrification is good.

Uh but uh single stair apartments, uh, one protected exit stair per floor with uh shorter um front door to stair distances.

Uh I want to request we agendize a future item to consider case-by-case path for uh single stair development under CBC 104.11.

Um the uh the idea is to uh extend Mountain View's existing alternative materials and methods program so that case-by-case single stair proposals can be considered.

Um CBC 104.11 allows is a state law, it allows uh approval when the design complies with the intent and provisions of the code and is uh not less than the equivalent in safety.

Um so the idea is that projects would trade uh the trade they build not have the second stair, uh and in return they would uh provide improved sprinklers, uh pressurized stairways, uh caps on unit per floor.

Uh I don't have specifics I want to suggest here, just I'm I'm asking uh studying this in the future.

Um we have an existing uh alternative methods uh uh system and this would be uh I'm proposing extension for it for case-by-case approval when the um single stair design is safer than uh what uh would uh uh be available with the dual stair or what we currently allow with dual stair.

Um anyway, this uh stays within what's allowed by the state code, and it would be uh safer than the long double corridor uh buildings, uh double corridor apartments that we're getting.

They're big, they're blocky.

I know uh a lot of people don't like how uh the really really wide uh buildings we get from dual staircase requirements uh look, and uh this is a this is a solution to that.

So uh thank you.

Great, thank you.

I see a one last virtual public comment from Alex Brown.

Oh, hi friends, hi David.

I just wanted to say hi because you expect me to talk.

Also, I like birds and electrification and stairs.

Bye.

All right, that concludes public comment.

So we'll move forward with council deliberation and action.

And note that a motion approve the recommendation should also include reading the title of the ordinances attached to the report.

Councilmember Show Walters.

Thank you.

I'm trying to push the move and it's not working.

Um the motion, yeah, the motion.

I think there's I think while the clerk works on that.

Okay, perhaps maybe you can.

Yeah, well, I would just like to make a few comments, and that is um really to um echo what has been said before by other people.

The uh staff has really um taken uh sort of a Herculean effort to get this done so quickly.

When this came up uh last year, and we realized it was gonna happen.

Um the city manager's office and and the um uh the planning office just jumped into uh action.

And we are so grateful that you did that.

Um it's it's exactly what needed to be done, and but usually it's you know I mean you're usually it isn't required, but it was very important this time.

And so I I really am very grateful that this happened.

And you've put together an extremely comprehensive building code update, which is very important for the safety of Mountain View.

I think one of the things that it's always important to remember, uh, one of the jobs that cities do is we um we are the keepers of in a sense of building safety.

We can't really control what people charge to buy a structure, but we can make sure that it's built safely.

And um, it's just really the most fundamental um form of requirement of government.

And as time goes on and we know of all these changes that are happening in with our climate, it's very important for us to do what we can do to um reduce our greenhouse gases and may and at the same time make our our building supply much safer.

So thank you very much for that.

So with that, I will um I'll have to ask for some help for the bird safety, but uh like to introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View, amending the Mountain View City Code to delete Chapter 8, Article 8, floodplain management in its entirety, and adopt a new chapter 48, floodplain management, and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for September 9th, 2025.

Introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View adopting the 2024 international property maintenance code with local amendments, amending the Mountain View City Code to delete Chapter 8, Article 5, um 2021 International Property Maintenance Code in its entirety and adopt a new Article 6 Property Maintenance Code and Chapter 25, neighborhood preservation, to locate with other similar city regulations and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for September 9th, 2025.

Introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View amending Chapter 24 hazardous materials of the Mountain View City Code to streamline content and make other clarifying amendments and finding that the amendments are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for September 9th, 2025.

Introduce an ordinance of the City of Mountain View repealing the local amendments to the 2022 California Building Standards Code, adopting local amendments to the 2025 California Building Standards Code, including the 2025 California Energy Code.

Three, amending Chapter 8, Buildings and Chapter 14, fire prevention of the Mountain View City Code to comply with changes to state law.

Four adopting findings to support the local amendments, and five, finding this ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act to be read in title only, further reading waived, and set a second reading for September 9th, 2025.

And I would also like to add the um the bird uh amendments as suggested by in the letter from the CR Club and the Silicon Valley Bird Alliance.

Okay, that that is adequate.

Great.

Thank you, Councilmember Schillter, Councilmember Ramirez.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm happy to second the motion.

Okay.

Um first uh uh thank you, uh Councilmember Show Walter for including the uh uh bird safe design um amendments that were uh shared by the community.

Um I want to uh express my gratitude to staff uh for working expeditiously to advance these amendments.

I know you are working under a very truncated time frame.

It's a good um reminder and example that um the city uh can uh work with uh haste and alacrity when um uh we have to uh address uh an issue with with urgency uh as was the case here.

Um I'm grateful to members of the community who came forward and and shared uh their support for uh the amendments and I'm grateful for um all of my colleagues.

I think I'm expecting that we'll be supporting these uh unanimously.

I did want to ask uh for a friendly amendment, but very light touch thing.

Um if uh we could ask staff uh to provide uh council some information about the status of uh the single stair reform efforts at the state level and um opportunities that may exist uh locally uh to implement um changes where it makes sense and is safe.

Um I'm a little confused about would that be at a future date that's not to be included in this it's not a council meeting, it's uh maybe an email to council or uh maybe our intergovernmental uh relations team can just give the council a status update.

I know there's there's been some legislation and and studies done at the state level, and it would be I think helpful to understand what the status is and if there are um opportunities for the city of Mountain View to benefit from that work.

Well, I think that's a great idea, but I'm not sure that it needs to be included formally in the motion.

I would ask staff is it better to have it in the motion, or is it better to have it um just as a um direction for staff?

Yeah, I don't think it needs to be part of the motion for introduction of the ordinances, but I think that it can just be something that council could all agree on if you're if you're making it press, but I don't think it needs to be part of the motion.

Okay.

Kind of like an item eight request.

You can treat it like an item eight request.

Okay.

Is that a is that acceptable to you?

Does that mean we're doing it?

Yeah.

Okay.

Vice Mayor Ramos.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I just wanted to take the time to thank staff for moving expeditiously on this.

I know that it was a really tight deadline, and and we are really um really having to adjust in order to make this happen in time for that deadline.

Um, and with that in mind, I'm I'm super appreciative of the willingness to work with the to incorporate the community feedback that we got in such a uh time uh tight time frame.

Um, because our community are there our partners in policy making, and and it's kind of the point of having an open meeting where we do have this discussion and and so once again I appreciate uh your flexibility and including all these amendments, particularly the BERT amendments.

Um I wish there was a better way of calling them than just the BERT amendments, but um that as we move toward a climate resilient future.

Um thank you so much for your work on this, and I hope Mount of you continues the lead.

Councilmember Hicks.

So I will start by also commending staff on the amazing speed that you worked on this.

I don't need to say it in more detail because that because everyone else has and I just wanted to also I'm gonna support the the motion, the tweaks to the motion, and also however it gets done, the stair legislation update.

Um I just wanted to use this opportunity to have a little dialogue on the important question that council member McAllister brought up and say the way I I mean I think asking how this impacts lower income seniors, etc.

is an important question.

And I just want to say that when I I have a home that's over a hundred years old, and when we redid the electricity, um, building code required that we put in a lot of outlets that we thought were completely unnecessary.

And we told them we don't want all those outlets.

And they said um you're not doing it for yourself now, you're doing it for future residents who may, you know, smart homes, etc.

may have more appliances than you do.

So we put it in for future residents.

We haven't used those outlets yet.

But um, but you know, we also put refinanced our home.

I know very I am a senior also now.

I was not them, but um I know very few seniors who can't who uh don't have money to pull out of their home.

We didn't see the impact of the additional outlets at all.

We never think about it.

Um, and it's prepared our houses prepared for the future.

So I just want to say that what we're doing here is not atypical.

It's something that is doing things the way we use homes constantly changes, requiring that they be updated for the future is pretty typical.

Um, and all that said, I see it as preparing for there's a another price point that we need to look at, which is the rising cost of our home insurance, and if we don't address the climate crisis, that's the cost that I that I really worry about.

So um with that said, I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Councilmember McAllister.

Yeah, I have a question for Silicon Valley Clean Energy.

Uh, and then uh quick comment.

Are your rebates or the dollar uh contributions?

Is that a limited time or is that something that you're going to is it a limited time offer?

Uh not currently.

So we just got an additional four million dollars from our board this August.

Our program is total of 14 million.

We've paid out uh seven million across our service territory.

So there's seven million more to go.

Um, and um we intend to continue programs in some form or shape uh to support residents as we go through this transition from gas to electric.

Um the rebate program is just one example.

Um Mr.

Carney previously also referenced a newer program that we have, which uh through which we actually send a contractor to your home and make the upgrade for you so you don't even have to worry about the rebates or finding a contractor.

Now is that program continuous going to be a permanent program?

Uh currently it's funded through 2027 okay.

Okay, thank you.

But I still like you to look at batteries because with the use of uh with the advice and counsel of Bruce Carney, we put in solar, and we would love to have a battery that we can set store that energy and get the grid working.

So hopefully somewhere down the line you'll have a rebate and I'll be knocking.

Thank you.

Um and then could you pull up slide nine?

It's the what pie chart.

Okay.

I appreciate everybody coming out and advocating for the code and bringing everything up to date.

And I agree if you're remodeling, yeah, it's a great time.

I'm remodeling a project in Carson City, and we're taking out all the galvanized plumbing and putting in all new stuff.

So it does absolutely makes great sense.

But I would still like to see some of the passion that look at the blue transportation.

And uh, this is my sidekick to say you're worrying about this, but when it comes to transportation, I don't see the enthusiasm, the need for uh to get this resolved quickly, and that's why we have an we've been working on a um multimodal uh program for the city of Mountain View, and there is 58% if we can get people out of their cars or give them options to get out of their cars.

We need to help that I know Mary's on board on this, and so please, it's a something that really deserves your transit.

It's something that can be taken care of fairly easily.

And so please focus, get the energy, get the people behind it, and let's try to reduce transportation because that's your number one.

No, I mean increase transportation options, but reduce the dependence on the so that's your largest away.

Thank you.

And I will support the motion.

Thank you.

Uh councilmember Clark, I see you in the queue again.

Yeah.

Um yeah, I just wanted to echo the thing.

It seems like just yesterday, seems like yesterday we were the sustainability committee was meeting on this, and uh you this is a Herculean effort as council member show office said to do this over the summer.

Um, so really appreciate the the time and effort that went into it.

I just had um uh not part of the motion, just just one.

Um I think the um we'll do the second reading and adopt everything if everything goes well.

Um, but there's a third step, which is the acceptance by um the CBSC and or the um the California Energy Commission, um, which I I assume will happen.

I don't know how many other cities are doing this and what their backlog will be, but maybe in our weekly update or whatever, if and when that happens, just let us know.

Just so we can kind of put it to bed and feel a little better about it, because there's just that one last step where you just never know what will happen.

So really appreciate that.

And I think um, I don't see Shawnee, but um, in case you're listening, uh, I I really um one um I know not everyone appreciates science these days, but um I I really did appreciate the science behind the uh the glazing on the uh interior versus exterior, and then the the table that you put together really quickly with the other cities really helped too.

So thank you everyone.

Great, thank you.

All right, so um echo thanks to staff.

I hear a couple things that could be some follow-up items.

I think the only thing that I'd like to elevate is um appreciative of the necessary steps that the city's taking, but also coupling that with the education and outreach component to make sure that all of those who I would just maybe categorize as like vulnerable populations, whether they're see they're seniors or um because of their um financial background, are making sure they know that the resources are available.

Um I think that that is really critical.

Um, and it's great to know that the SVCE funding is not time limited.

Um, so all the more reason to be able to promote that and excited about what our um sustainability um office is going to be uh doing.

And I think that that's also a great way for us to be promoting it in our civic leadership academies and letting them know um that that exists.

So um sounds like uh we have we have the motion with the three items, and then fifth is to include I'll just call it like the bird safer design elements that came forward to council, and then also kind of close it what I call closing the loop as as council member Clark mentioned in terms of getting that you know final adoption that we made it um before the that bill.

And then I was asking um councilmember Ramirez, the single stair bill is AB 835, state fire marshal building standards, single exit, single stairway, apartment houses report.

And so maybe what we can ask is we have you know our our state lobbying um groups and we have our our lobbying portfolio, and so maybe we can just ask for a status update if we're watching it, um that bill, and we can we can envelope it into our our portfolio of bills that we're monitoring.

Does that sound fine for colleagues?

All right, so that's everything that this motion is going to include.

Let's vote.

All right, and that passes unanimously.

Thank you again to staff and our community for um rallying behind this.

So we'll move to item five, which is our closed session announcement.

City attorney Lowe will make a closed session announcement, and then we will welcome public comment on the items listed for closed session.

Thank you.

Good evening, council members.

This is City Attorney Jennifer Log.

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

Item 6.1 is a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation under government code section 54956.9.

The name of the case is San Francisco Bay Keeper versus City of Mountain View and City of Sunnyvale, United States District Court of the Northern District of California, case number 20 CB00824.

And the second item, um, item 6.2 is public employee performance evaluations pursuant to government code section 54957 for the city attorney, city clerk, and city manager.

And there will be no final reportable action taken in closed session this evening, so there will be no report out after closed session.

Great, thank you.

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

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

We'll take in-person speakers first.

Do not see any.

And I do not see any virtual hands raised.

So I will close public comment and we'll move on to item six, our closed session.

The council will now recess to the plaza conference room for closed session and will not return to open session for adjournment.

And we will close the public session at 6 34.