December 1, 2021 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:03] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, so welcome everyone. Um, I'm going to call the meeting to order now. And do the required reading about how we're meeting virtually. Um, this meeting. We'll which is item one. This meeting will be conducted in accordance with the state of California executive order, and 2920 dated March 17th, 2020. All members of the council sustainability committee are participating in this meeting by video conference, with no physical meeting location. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments during the public comment period, for an item by signing up at mountain view.gov slash CSC underscore speakers. Any emails received by 5 PM today were forwarded to the subcommittee. Now I'll ask the assistant city manager to proceed with roll call.

[00:01:08] Audrey: Council member Abby Koga?

[00:01:10] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:01:12] Audrey: Council member show Walter?

[00:01:13] Member Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:01:15] Audrey: Council member and Cher Hicks.

[00:01:17] Chair Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:01:18] Audrey: All members are present.

[00:01:22] Chair Alison Hicks: So, uh, next we'll go to item 3, which is minutes approval. The minutes for the September 16th, 2019 meeting have been delivered to subcommittee members, and copies posted on the City Hall bulletin board. If there are no corrections or additions. A motion is in order to approve these minutes.

[00:01:56] Audrey: A motion to approve the minutes? Second? Okay. Um, okay,

[00:02:10] Audrey: so there's been a motion in a 2nd. Um, I'll take a roll call vote. Um, uh, assuming, but not, uh, assuming that the motion and 2nd are in favor, uh, council member Abby Koga? I,

[00:02:24] Audrey: Council member show alter?

[00:02:26] Member Pat Showalter: Hi.

[00:02:27] Audrey: House member Hicks?

[00:02:28] Chair Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:02:29] Audrey: That motion care. So

[00:02:32] Chair Alison Hicks: next we're going to go into item number four, which is oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the subcommittee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law um, prohibits the subcommittee from acting on non-agenda items. So would any member of the public on the line like to provide comment on a non-agenda item? If so, please click the raised hand button in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. The sustainability coordinator will keep time and indicate when the time is up. So I see 3 people who want to make general comments. Uh, and the 1st one is um, Mila Zelka.

[00:03:31] Audrey: Uh, just for clarification, um, uh, committee chair or uh, Hicks is the time limit. What's the time limit that you'd like to provide?

[00:03:39] Chair Alison Hicks: Oh, the time limit is 3 minutes.

[00:03:41] Audrey: Okay, great. Miss Selka, you've been promoted to panelists. Please feel free to unmute yourself and speak.

[00:03:56] Mila Zelka: Good evening, subcommittee members and staff. Um, my name's Nila Zelka, and I'm the CEO of a local nonprofit Manzanita Works. Our mission is to support the welfare workers and their families. And to that end, we help create and administer programs that address local gaps that stem from regional dilemmas. I want to share with you our work in transportation mode shift. We are proud to have been selected as a community-based organization, partnering with Caltrain, to distribute underutilized go passes, and can share that essential and service sector workers from this community, including staff at the Mount View Los Alto School District and Red Rocks Cafe, are using these passes right now as an alternative to driving alone. Um, we were recently hired by the city of Redwood City to engage residents in underserved populations on bike mobility and wavefinding. And on October 12th, the city of Memo Park, their council voted to endorse that all employers join our Ravenswood Transit Consortium, which is a subregional TMA. I have, um, been in talks with MV Go, we have a good relationship with them and are exploring collaboration, and have, uh, just been extended a grant from Santa Clara County to help them with community outreach relative to their climate roadmap. Our transit consortium provided free long haul shuttle service to essential workers last February and March when we were still in lockdown. And this was a shared benefit that stemmed from the workshops that we held with consortium members. Um, and there were prospective members there as well. And I mention all of this because I'm speaking tonight because I'd like to extend an invitation to you. Um, to share some of the ideas that you might have for employers in this subregion relative to mode shift. In a more candid exploratory way in one of our workshops. We also hope that you consider our organization as a potential partner, a community partner, in helping the city on the ground with any resident outreach that you're interested in, whether it's transportation mode shift, sustainability, or other. So, um, I apologize that I am calling this evening for my daughter's bedroom, but, uh, it's, uh, it's thank you so much for having, uh, this time for me to share. And if you have any questions, my email, I provided when I logged in, but I'll give it again. It's Mila, M-I-LA, at Manzanita dot works, W-O-R-K-S. Take care.

[00:07:01] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you, Mila. Now we have Juliana Pendleton. Just one minute, please.

[00:07:26] Juliana Pendleton: Hello? Uh, my name is Juliana Pendleton, and I'm the environmental advocacy assistant for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Light pollution is devastating our night skies, human health and environmental processes. 99% of those living in the US no longer experience a natural dark night. 80% of children born in the industrialized world will never know a dark night, dark enough night to see the Milky Way. In a recent UN sponsored conference, experts reported that acceleration of artificial light at night over the last 25 years was between 49% and 270% and could be as high as 400% in some places. LED fixtures have been a powerful technological advancement for our society. Reducing energy consumption, elongating bold life cycles, and substantially reducing bulb and maintenance costs. However, there has been a severe unintended consequence. Because lights are cheaper and reduce energy consumption at the bulb level, cities and public entities have taken this as an opportunity to use more light and more places more of the time. Moreover, LEDs amid a cold blue light, which is unhealthy for humans and for many species. Being exposed to blue light over a long period of time, causes sleeping orders, deteriorates mental health, and is correlated with hormonal cancers, such as thyroid and breast cancer. Along with the rest, the natural world. Humans have evolved on a day and night, daily and seasonal cycle. Just as getting enough sunlight is important for our bodily systems. So is getting enough natural darkness. We ask that you address light pollution and lighting in the sustainability framework. Please consider reducing the amount of light usage for both public and private properties, indoors and out. Light should only be used when, where, and as much as needed. Waste is not sustainable. Thank you for your time.

[00:09:39] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Juliana. And now, Shani?

[00:09:55] Shani: Good evening, chair and council members. I'm sorry, I don't have very good lighting here. Um, I wanted to thank Juliana for presenting the issue of light pollution in general and its effect on our health and our ecosystem and species. almost every week. There is another article coming out in the literature showing how lighting, and it's not necessarily light pollution, lighting in general, has severe impacts to insect populations, we're facing eliminations of insects and unprecedented, uh, scale, and ecosystem in general, in general, and it's from the deep oceans to areas that we would never suspect are going to be impacted. I think it's time to look at what we have done to address climate change, which includes daily delighting. And reconsider some of the impact, and correct, some of the things that we've done is early adopter, of, um, good ways to save energy, which, where the right thing to do, no doubt. But now we're finding that there is side effects that need to be potentially addressed. And one of the things that, um, LED allowed us to do are allowed uh, cities and private uh, property owners, companies, everybody, is to have more lighting because it's cheaper. And so, and it's easier to maintain. And so we have proliferation of lighting that was that is unprecedented and should be addressed. And so when you look at the future of a sustainability in mountain view and hopefully other cities. I know that Cupertino already has an ordinance, but that's the 1st one in our region. Um, need to look at lighting in a different light, essentially, and start thinking about how do we make it darker? And it's okay to have darker areas. People's eyes are like most other creatures can adjust to lighting regimes. We don't have to have full lighting like daylight all the time everywhere. And we can start thinking about. When do we absolutely have need light? And so light needs to be the minimum. Never maximum, always the minimum allowed, the maximum allowed, sorry. No more than rather than a minimum, in every code, have a maximum allowed. And that maximum should really be considering. Where we need the light? Do we absolutely need it? When do we need the light? Don't have any light when you don't need it. And How much? Don't have it too bright? Don't use, uh, um, Correlated, uh, color temperatures that are harmful to our ecosystems in our health, and re-examine the early adoption issues that were the right thing to do at the time, but now we know that they have side effects that should probably not be allowed. Thank you. Thank you, Shani.

[00:13:01] Chair Alison Hicks: And seems like you're, you don't need to apologize for your lighting. It was perfect for the message. Okay, so now, uh, next in line is Guida Deb.

[00:13:23] Audrey: Mr, if you are able to unmute yourself.

[00:13:26] Deb: Oh. Okay. I think I'm on.

[00:13:31] Audrey: Yes, there's a lag but you're here now. Thank you. Um,

[00:13:36] Deb: thanks for the opportunity to talk with a sustainability committee. This is this is one of the most wonderful committees in Mountain View. And um, I want to talk about uh, 2 small items. One is something we are taking up with other cities, which is, um, the ability to monitor on an annual basis, how we are doing. And the, it started with the city of Menlo Park where a citizens committee decided that they needed a way to see themselves, how they were doing each year. And so they came up with a very simple set of metrics. that is easy for staff to do that it's easy for people to comprehend. Uh rather than, you know, the tons of greenhouse gases or the amount of carbon being taken out of the atmosphere, which are all important, but which are very hard to measure. Um, and we would like to uh, present those to the sustainability committee at some point if that makes sense. Uh, there's the simpler things are like counting things that we know. How many electric vehicles we have registered in our city. How many electric chargers have been installed. How many, um, you know, some simple things like that. How many trees we planted? How many miles of green streets we have? The kind of things that everybody can understand and can relate to. Um, we have a draft of a list and we would love to share that with um, individual members. Uh, well, staff, and get comments back and to make it a list that we can all use. And that was one item. The 2nd thing I'd like to really push for is. The fact that we tend to work in silos and that's just the reality of city government. Um, but the idea of, A connected network of pedestrian and bicycle, priority streets, a way of getting around town, that's not dominated by cars. A set of slow streets. That are safe for pedestrians, they're slow, they're safe, they're safe for kids to use with bikes. They're safe for everyone to walk. And They present a recreational opportunity. As well as climate uh cooling. So the concept of a network of green streets through our city. Is something that takes working not in silos. It takes the bike committee working with the pedestrian committee working with the parks committee, working with the safe routes to school, uh, working with the green infrastructure committee. And talk about public works. So I just wanted to bring that up as I would like to see if there was a priority. I know that Mountain View has an extremely interesting list, like a matrix, but it doesn't go far enough to include the entire network for this, to get around the city. Thank you very much.

[00:16:59] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Gita. And now, Bruce England.

[00:17:23] Audrey: Mr. England, can you take yourself off of mute?

[00:17:33] Chair Alison Hicks: Oh, you're still muted. Hmm. Okay, do you hear me now?

[00:17:42] Bruce England: Yes. It asked me to be promoted to panelists, which I did, and then it started going bonkers on me, so I don't know what happened there. Um, yeah, I just want to echo what Juliana and Johnny were saying about the lighting and just to make you aware, for those of you who aren't aware, that Green Space's envy is working with a student team at the Presidio graduate school, uh, on lighting in Mountain View in particular, and their final report will be done on the 11th. They're going to present to me and Shani and a couple other people from, um, Green Street's MB, and then we will in turn present it to all of you and other stakeholders who are interested in that. And then on what Gita was just saying, um, I don't recall Stephen in your, um, your your weekly notices for sustainability amount of view. Have you mentioned um, electric uh, snow tops, induction stovetops, cooktops? And I got one of those who are about $50 or something, you just put them on the counter next to your stove, like I have a gas range, and I basically don't use gas anymore. I just put whatever I'm cooking on that induction cooktop and it works just great. So I think, um, counting the number of those that we have in Mountain View, how many residents in Mountain View are using those might be an interesting metric to track and also to encourage people to do those and maybe establish programs for people to be able to, um, buy them more cheaply. And maybe you already have that, and I just am not remembering. Thank you.

[00:19:07] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you, Bruce. Now, we have somebody identified as 1650, et cetera. Oh, uh, star, star, star 793.

[00:19:23] Audrey: I am not seeing an opportunity to, oh, here we go. My apologies. 793 you're now able to mute yourself? Person calling in with phone number 793. Are you able to unmute? Hmm. Um, I will, um, go on to the next speaker perhaps and see if we try again with, uh, with this participant. Right. So, Kevin Ma?

[00:20:24] Kevin Ma: Evening subcommittee members. My name is Kevin Ma. My ask for the sustainability committee is to perhaps look back at our items on our capital improvement project. I learned recently that via VTAs measurement B, we have earned or awarded another $30000000 in highway improvements, or I believe perhaps given the time those were submitted. They were mainly still based off on level of service metrics rather than vehicles malls traveled. So to spend $30000000 on hiring improvement projects where we only spent about 30000000 the past years on. After transportation products is perhaps bad to encourage uh, a mode shift into non-single occupancy vehicle, uh, styles. Thank you.

[00:21:10] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Kevin. So Audrey, do you want to try 793 again?

[00:21:17] Audrey: Um, sure. All right. Person with phone number 793, you've been um, permitted to talk, and um, I believe it should just be you to unmute. There you go.

[00:21:38] Bruce Nagel: Hi, I think I'm unmuted at this point.

[00:21:40] Audrey: You are.

[00:21:42] Bruce Nagel: Yes, this is Bruce Nagel. Um, I've been a resident of Mountain View for uh, over 40 years. Um, the plan is very interesting and there's a lot of work that went into it. Um, one of the things that I think is going to be important, and there's been some level of put in this, um, but to make sure that we have metrics that ground themselves that wherever the goal is. For example, if we were going to have 0 carbon by 2045, we would look at the things that would address that, and you would show us slope of the curve going down for that. And that applies for, uh, the traffic analysis that applies for the number of EVs, um, it could apply for flood control if, depending on what we need to do in regards to, um, being able to keep things safe, given the fact that things are arising. Um, it applies to a lot of the statistics and the plans that have come forward. Um, but we have a, there's been some thought, especially in the, uh, plans for the, um, SAP 4, you know, to put in some metrics. There are some others that may work as well. But we do need to ground them in into something that says, here's where we're going, and here's how far we are along on this, so that should we find ourselves needing to do something different. Um, we know that, and if we're successful, it's some things more successful than we expect. can do more of those. Thank you for the time.

[00:23:02] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Bruce. Okay, now it's Hala.

[00:23:19] Hala: Hello, can you hear me?

[00:23:21] Audrey: We can.

[00:23:22] Hala: Hello? Good evening. Everyone. Um, Allison and Steph. Uh, my name is Halla, and I'm a member, or was a member of the environmental sustainability task force. Back in 2017. Um, I am calling because I want to bring the committee, uh, the committee's attention to the number of mature heritage trees that are being removed, uh, due to all the development projects that have been taking place in our city in the last, um, five, 6 years or so. Um, I just took a look at the report of all the projects that have been approved, uh, this year, and in, uh, consideration of approval for for, uh, the near future. And I counted 177 trees, mature heritage trees that are proposed to be removed in these projects. Um, The voice, uh, publication, about 2 or 3 months ago, published an article saying, In 2018. They had done, uh, a statistical, uh, uh, counting of the previous 3 years, so I guess it would be 2015 up to 2018, and found that there were also 1000s, 1000s of, over 2000s, I think, of trees that have been removed due to these projects, and only 60% of them were replaced by new sap, saplings and trees. Um, I would really like to have the subcommittee, um, uh, track. How many mature heritage trees are being removed in the city because I know when we did the sustainability goals, we had, uh, really, and intended to increase the green canopy and trees in our city, but if we keep removing, Removing these great resources, and putting new trees, that will take obviously many, many years, you know, 30 to 50 years before they would. really do, uh, uh, the, you know, all the great work that these uh, trees are doing now. It really were not going to be able to meet our goal. Uh, we're depriving ourselves from uh, clean air, from shade, from air purifications, uh, lowering uh, greenhouse gas emissions, uh, warming effects, et cetera. Um, so I would really like to see the committee, uh, track, the the removal of the trees. And how we can mitigate, uh, uh, this this big problem that will eventually uh, really hit us in a bad way because, as you know, these trees are not replaceable. 3 minutes? Okay, thank you so much. Thank you, Hala.

[00:26:36] Chair Alison Hicks: So I think that's it for public comments. Uh, we're moving on to agenda item number 5 now, unfinished business of which the agenda says there is none. So we'll move on to item number six, which is new business. Um, 6. is pandemic travel patterns and post-pandemic opportunities. Staff will present data on pandemic, travel pattern, patterns and discuss opportunities to leverage these lessons, post-pandemic, to achieve greenhouse gas reduction. Um, and tell me if I've got it wrong because I know some of these is switched. Is it, uh, public works director, Don Cameron, and transportation manager, Rhea, who about, am I saying it right, who about, uh, presenting the report.

[00:27:34] Ria: Uh, yeah, I'm rehearse parrot, Lo. the transportation manager for the city. Um, and so I'll be presenting on the uh, pandemic travel patterns and post-pandemic opportunities. Um, so after 20 months, in uh, in the pandemic, staff have received quite a few questions about what we can expect in the post-pandemic era. And so there's a lot of speculation of different theories. But we want to look at some of the data on what the travel patterns are right now and also some of the research that's been done on, you know, like the patterns after the pandemic. This is important because it will help us to steer investments in various things, including transportation, and also to identify opportunities, um, to create positive long-term change from the situation that we're in. So starting off with pandemic travel patterns, the MTC, which is the Bay Area's transportation agency, um, uses bridge data as a proxy for travel patterns in the Bay Area more generally. So here is the, the, the data on uh, traffic going across the bridges and as you can see relative to January 2020. Um, this, by the way, is, so this is um, from 2019, 2020 and then 2021. Um, there was a substantial drop down to like 65, uh, 65% drop in, um, uh, March of 2020 and then you can see it rebound substantially, you know, we're at about, so there's 35% and then getting to 75 to 80% by summer of 2020 and now we're back up at about 95% of pre-pandemic levels. We don't have any bridges in Santa Clara County. So, um, I wanted to check something a little bit more local and Caltrans collects data on their, um, their freeway system. This is the 101 freeway. In mountain view, the blue is 2019 data. The red is 2020 and then the green is 2021. And so you see a similar pattern. There's a 40% drop and then it comes rebound substantially by summer of 2020 and then we're back at um 90 to uh 95% um of pre-pandemic levels now. The pattern for public transit has been very different. The drop was a lot more dramatic, and the rebounding has been a lot slower. We've only rebounded to between 20 and 50%. So as you can see here, Caltrain ridership dropped by 98%. and is back only at about 20% now. Um, uh, Community shuttle dropped by about 85% and is at about 50% now, and VTA service dropped um, not service, but the ridership levels dropped by 75% and is back at about 50% now. And so this is um, this phenomenon is known as transit hesitancy. It's related to, you know, people's fears of being in enclosed spaces with groups of strangers and other things, but it has a really profound effect on transportation efficiency. Um, this slide here shows um, a simulation of the amount of real estate, the amount of space needed for 200, the same 200 people to travel uh, to pass the stopline in 2 seconds. And so you can see that a shift from transit to uh motor vehicles has very substantial effects on congestion. Basically, we're using more space, a lot more space to move less people in the Bay Area when the transit ridership levels, um, are so are still so depressed. Um, the the positive um, Peace in in pandemic travel patterns is active transportation. So for short trips, so this is, I would define this as like under 3 miles, there's been an increase in walking and biking for these short trips, um, both including recreational trips and other types of trips. And um, our Castro streets program is is kind of evidence of this interest in, in creating more walkable spaces. There's also been some research on how sticky this change in habits is. And so, um, the green up here is, um, you know, responses in terms of people's likelihood to, um, to do more walking, uh, the walking is the 1st 3 or biking is the 2nd 3 um, after the pandemic relative to, before the pandemic. So a lot more people are saying that they're likely to maintain some of these habits than the other way around. Um, staff has been asked about, um, whether this increase in active transportation and also the increase in remote work opportunities will eliminate the traffic concerns and traffic congestion concerns after the pandemic. And the short answer is no. Uh, most tech workers have not yet returned to the office, um, and are expected to return at this stage in early 2022. Um, from some of the anecdotal information we've received from people working at different um, companies, the ones that seem to serve free food, they seem to be at about 30% at the moment, the ones without free food seem to be at about 10%. And um, so when you factor, so there has been a shift to considering allowing people to work remotely for a couple of days a week, um, and then also allowing some people a, a small, uh, proportion of people to work fully remotely. So if you put those 2 things together, that would be about 60% of, um, of pre-pandemic workforce. So comparing, you know, current workforce in the office of about 10% to 30% to ramping up to about 60, 64%. That's going to be a huge increase in travel demand in traffic, um, coming into mountain view. Um, The other thing is that um, we've seen an increase um, in shift to hot desk configurations for employment. So if you have some, if you're allowing everyone to work at home for 2 days a week, Um, companies are not gonna like having the desk empty for those 2 days. Instead, there's been a shift, an accelerated shift, to hot desk configurations where there's kind of more of a rotational system within the office. And so the, the, the desks are getting moved, uh, getting used every day, the equipment is getting used every day, in a more flexible manner, and so that allows the officers to be used a lot more efficiently. From the city's perspective, what we expect is that this will result in the same number of people, like the 100% of people coming back. It just allows the companies to increase the size of their workforce using that same equipment. Um. And we expected the roadbase to fill up faster also due to induced traverty manifests associated with the pandemic. Induced travel demand is, um, an increase in travel uh, travel that occurs as a result of improved travel uh, conditions. So this is something that has been examined and proven and measured in research, um, and it has 3 different um, pieces. Um, In terms of how it relates to the pandemic, there are a number of factors that, you know, are these improved, travel conditions that we expect our already con, um, triggering, induced travel demand. So some of these things are the pandemic traffic relief. Um, the opportunities for remote work. Uh, some of the improvement transportation improvement projects, and also abundant free parking. And so it has 3 different types of effects in the near term, the immediate term, the near term, and the long term. So in the immediate term, um, people will tend to, um, travel more in the peak hour rather than spreading out or what we call, um, peak spreading across the entire day. They'll tend to drive alone instead of carpooling or taking transit, and they'll select the most direct route instead of kind of spreading themselves out across the network. In the near term, uh, there's a tendency to choose destinations that are further for all sorts of different trip purposes. To run errands with many separate trips rather than trip training, and also to have some new trips that they didn't have at all before. And in the long term, um, some of the induced uh, travel demand effects and induced investment effects include moving further from transit and the Bay Area. So purchasing a house in, you know, Sacramento instead of San Jose, because now you only have to come in 3 days a week, or even in Tahoe, purchasing a 2nd or 3rd car, and also relocating their business also to a more remote location. Um. So this, all of these 3 effects, um, have, we've already seen them happening, and there's a tendency also for these to result in an increase, like shifting people, oh, especially the last ones, the induced investment, um, is increasing um, the pattern of mega commuting. Um, so mega commutes are commutes of longer than 50 miles and there's been an increase in these associated with a pandemic. It has substantial um potential environmental impacts depending on the balance of how often they're commute, making these commutes versus the distance of the commute. Um, but the other effector is that mega commutes tend to be, um, more by, by car or even by plane as, as compared to, um, transit and walking commutes that you can do from a closer distance. Um, and so that has substantial effects in terms of both greenhouse gas emissions and all sorts of other environmental impacts which is listed here that are associated with more sprawling land juice patterns and increased travel. In balance, our staff anticipates that the things that tend to increase trips or increased travel will are likely to outweigh the things that reduce trips or travel. So some of the things that, you know, are helping to reduce trips, other increased opportunities for remote work, uh, the increased local walking and biking. On the other hand, those things that tend to increase trips, uh, the hot desk configurations, um, the increase in mega commuting, and very importantly, also transit hesitancy and reduce transit ridership levels. And we should also note that we are only currently seeing the tip of the iceberg because most tech workers have not yet returned to the office. Um, in terms of uh, the city efforts to address these um, different things and try and uh, address uh, future travel, uh, traffic congestion, uh, we have a number of uh, current and ongoing efforts, including our general plan, which integrates transportation and land use planning, and we're also currently updating the housing element. We have a number of transportation plans, and we're just about to embark on, um, uh, active transportation plan, and we have some really impressive affordable housing programs that allow people to live closer to where they work and do other things. We also have a number of transportation projects. Um, and multivodal um, improvements um, that give people, you know, provide options for getting around by something other than driving, where, um, ramping up and revamping, are safe for it to school program. And we also have travel demand management requirements, which we can impose as developments, as new developments are entitled. We're also collaborating with the transportation management association, and we have our community shuttle, and we're just about to hire a travel unit management analyst who will help to monitor our TDM programs and explore the potential for voluntary programs. In terms of potential opportunities, additional opportunities, um, some of these could include, um, augmenting outreach on transit, um, and high occupancy ridership, um, advocating for increased ETA service in mountain view, uh, developing, uh, strategies and funding options to expand the community shuttle, uh, services, and, um, also increasing our partnership with the TMA, um, for, you know, more broadly del some of the travity manned management programs, as well as, you know, potential micromobility programs. The caveat is that these are potential opportunities, but, you know, they would require additional staffing and or budgetary resources and would need to be also considered in light of the council's strategic roadmap, um, action plan priority projects. As we emerge from the pandemic, um, we do anticipate substantial challenges, um, in addressing traffic congestion, um, and our efforts to encourage active transportation, increase transit ridership and create livable places are more important than ever for achieving positive uh, long-term change in mountain view and we welcome council's input on these issues.

[00:40:57] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you, Ria. That was very thorough. So do any council members have any questions on that presentation? Uh, Council member Abicoga.

[00:41:16] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, chair, and thank you, Steph, for that very in-depth, uh, report and uh, presentation, um, the information really interesting. Um, although I have to say, I've been hearing different, different um, perspectives that at various different um, venues, uh, including um, MTC. And so I think my conclusions so far is that we really don't know what's gonna happen. And, um, I think we, you know, we just have to sort of wait and see how things unfold, um, post COVID. Um, but I guess I did have some questions in regards to, um, uh, For instance, um, In regards to chance, that hesitancy, and that's something that I've been, um, involved in many conversations on, um, through BTA and MTC, but I guess I, I, I, I'm looking at that as like a near term, um, situation, but longer term, the whole, the expectation, I would think, is that people will return to transit once, um, COVID lifts or, um, and the other thing too, that came up in a piano that I was on, that was that how, Um, part of it might be just uh, marketing. Um, like the airline industry has seems to have done a good job in advertising that they're safe. It's safe to fly with the air filters and whatnot, but transit hasn't quite, you know, hasn't done that. a strong job in advertising that it's safe to ride transit. Um, so would you agree that that's, uh, More near term situation, but longer term, we could expect transit to come back.

[00:43:03] Rhea: Um, I guess the answer is I don't know. Um, the, the concern in terms of transit is, How viable is it for them to continue at at lower ridership levels for an extended period of time? Um, at what point do they start to cut services, which then uh, reduces the attractiveness of the service.

[00:43:27] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: So that's an, that's also an interesting, um, point that's been debated right now or discussed and, um, just the, um, realization through COVID of, um, how, and, you know, this is something that I, um, I, I, I, I've seen over my time on like BTA, but there was really a, um, focus on commuter. Chance travel. Um, but through, because of COVID, we've seen the shift to transit being used for daily needs or focus more on the transit dependent, um, and so, um, yeah, that, that, that could really also change, um, the future of transit service and, and service levels. Um, So, and it was interesting too, and in this panel I was on, they talked about how, um, maybe, and this was with transit operators in the Bay Area, but not focusing so much on Fairbox recovery, um, which, you know, I, we didn't really get into, so I don't know where the funding would come from other than, um, right government. Um, but, yeah, what would you, what would your thoughts be on on that? So

[00:44:44] Rhea: I guess, um, I'll start at the, at the last part and then move backwards, and you might have to remind me of the 1st part. In terms of Farebox recovery, VTA's Farebox recovery has traditionally been very poor. Caltrains has been outstanding. And it's kind of, you know, it's, caused them problems during the pandemic because they were so dependent on fair box recovery and then had such a dip. That, oh, not like a crash in their ridership levels, um, that it really, um, For a while there, it was very concerning in terms of the viability of the service. Um, In terms of the commute of travel, the different types of travelers, I think there's also a difference between VTA and Caltrain. And that's also evidence in that 98% drop in Caltrain. Caltrain riders tend to be higher income. Um, they don't, they're not as reflective of the station areas within which they're located. And um, there's less of the essential, Essential service workers who are using Caltrain, um, uh, compared to be the VTA. And so I think that's where you see quite a difference in, in those, um, the level of drop and and the recovery rates for those 2 services. And I think that that's something that Caltrain has really been working on is kind of an equity policy and making their services more attractive to lower income, um, workers and essential workers. Um, Was there something else on there as well? Um,

[00:46:14] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: yeah, so I guess, you know, we go back to the conclusion to all this is, we have, wait and see because there, I think COVID really has, you know, shifted a lot of the, the, um, focus, the, you know, the thought, the, the philosophy behind what transit should be, and, and so, um, yeah, I, I mean, it might, I actually think there's like lots of opportunity, and, um, there, you know, it's, I'm hopeful actually of the future, but. Um, my other question was, I was wondering if you've had any, um, and conversations with our companies, um, in regards to their private shuttle service. So, I've heard that, you know, they may not be returning at the same levels as they were because of the shift shift in, um, work schedules and with remote work, not everybody coming in at the same time. But I'm just wondering if you've heard anything. Um, cause it, yeah, these have been anecdotal, and I'm just wondering if there's any, yeah, data, diminitive data, um, on that, those programs.

[00:47:24] Rhea: I think I, Dawn, would you like to respond

[00:47:26] Don Cameron: to that in terms of, I can respond with what I've heard so far. Don Cameron, public works director. I can say, uh, you know, our largest employer, Google, has said that they've, they've brought everything back, and they're already running it because they really want to encourage employees as they return to the office to get back into the buses. Um, and MV Go, the free shuttle service operated by the TMA, has been operating an on-demand service, uh, and they are just continuing to, uh, monitor their membership for when they're bringing all the employees back to the office and they're prepared to ramp back up and put all the routes back into service as soon as, you know, the employment workforce is returning to the office. Including introducing that new route that they want to do just before the pandemic that is actually going to be from the San Antonio Center, up into North Bay Shore. So they were primed to expand service. Um, So, I know that there are a few other employers that run uh, services. I have not heard directly from them, but, again, my understanding is many of them are just, for some of them, waiting more until they have more employees brought back to the office. I also just want to kind of comment on, um, Council member Abikoga, your your question about, you know, is this a near-term problem on transit attestancy? We really do hope it is, but we don't know what how many years near term will take. Nobody expected the pandemic to go on for as long as it's gone on, and it's had a psychological impact on our, on our society. There is just no doubt about that. And that's one of the reasons in the opportunity slide, you saw a couple of them being, to your point, increased marketing. What can we do to really encourage people? Um, what can we do to add more, you know, see if ETA will add more service because more we can make it convenient, reliable, frequent, the easier it is. And then our community shuttle, which is a free fair shuttle, which never stopped during this whole time. And we're preparing to expand its hours. You know, it's at 50% ridership. So it's sort of a sign that, um, we can get people back, but it could take a while. Thank you.

[00:50:02] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, council member show, Walter?

[00:50:07] Member Pat Showalter: Well, 1st of all, I'd like to congratulate you on this report. It is very difficult with the amount of uncertainty that there is to even know sort of how to get your arms around it. So, uh, I appreciate your, um, sort of analytical, uh, Um, attempt and uh, uh, doing that in a way that that makes sense. Um, at least it makes sense to me. Um, but I do have some questions. Of course. One is, um, how come, you know, hospital? never left. You know, they they stayed employed and then some the whole time and they are one of the largest employers in Mountain View. I think a lot of people think it's all tech, but isn't isn't El Camino like the 2nd highest employee employer? It's number three. Okay. Well, anyway, it's it's, they have a lot of people. So, so, so how, what has happened with, with their staff? Do we know? I'm assuming that their stuff are all back. Right, but in terms of their transportation modes, has there been mode shifts to them or are they still, you know, using the same patterns or do we know?

[00:51:21] Rhea: Yeah, I haven't heard. I'm from El Camino Hospital.

[00:51:23] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, all right. Well, just a thought to, you know, cause it's, that's one of the things that's sort of been steady. And we don't have too many things that have been constant that we can compare, you know, differences with. So that's when I I would wonder about. And then the other thing is um, Mountain View staff. Our staff has come back to work or a lot of them have come back to work, um, uh, for at least part of the time. What are we seeing with Mountain View staff's mode shifts? Do we know? Um,

[00:51:57] Audrey: we, we don't, we don't have great, um, data on that. Um, we, we know that our ride share program is basically dropped off to nothing because we had a city supported benefit on that. Um, but in terms of, um, use of our other benefits for active transportation and, uh, um, transit passes. I'd have to look into that to see what the trends might be.

[00:52:26] Member Pat Showalter: Okay. Well, I think that might be, again, you know, some interesting. statistics because the city has come back for a while. So, um, it seems to me it was July when most people started coming back. Was that right? Or maybe September, but there's at least been a couple of months for people to settle into a pattern. And um, it does take a while for people to settle into patterns.

[00:52:51] Audrey: And it really varies by kind of employee function, obviously, our, our 1st responders were, were never out and, um, some of our folks in recreation were out, um, were remote while doing online programming, and then that came back. And, um, we did have more kind of office folks, um, uh, on site when City Hall reopened to the public in July. But we, um, our target for having kind of, it's still the target at facilities like city hall to be, um, moderately staffed, not fully staffed and back, and that would be, um, in April that we would anticipate being, um, fully back, back, um, for the people who are currently telecommuting. They could continue to telecommute, similar to what Rhea presented about what some of the tech companies are doing, that people who are able to telecommute effectively would be back on site for 3 days and working remotely for 2 days. But we do have some people who are continuing to work primarily remotely.

[00:53:57] Member Pat Showalter: Well, I think it would be interesting to see how, um, how our staff is doing as time goes on. The, um, and uh, So I would hope maybe we could do some monitoring that. Um, Then I wanted to ask about this hot desk configuration. I think that's really interesting. And, um, I wanted to know whether this is, um, something that we're actually seeing. Well, even if companies would need permits to do it. Has this happened already, are they planning it? I mean, what's where are we in this process?

[00:54:37] Rhea: My understanding is that it's already happening, that they're already reconfiguring the offices. To allow for this. And

[00:54:45] Don Cameron: in answer to your question, no, they don't need any permits if they're not doing major remodeling like removing walls or something like that. So they can, you know, they can do a lot by just reconfiguring their interior spaces without major remodels. Um, I had heard that into it is fully working towards embracing towards the hot desk model, for instance.

[00:55:12] Member Pat Showalter: Okay. Um, I know I had some friends that worked at Oracle where they did that. Oh, maybe 7 or 8 years ago and it wasn't very popular. There could conceivably be some pushback, but that, that's, that's interesting. Then the other thing, I wanted to talk a little bit about, um, in terms of, of incentives, uh, for, for pushing, uh, these increases, um, in active transportation to be permanent. Um, uh, you know, how, one thing that, that, that, well, there's 2 things that, that I've always thought, uh, were very helpful in that regard. One is programming. You know, over the years, we have, um, I mean, the saves roots to school is an excellent example of programming that's been very successful. I mean, I don't know how many more kids are, Riding their bicycles to school now, but I would say there's been a 100 fold increase in the last 10 years based on my observation of just the traffic I see of kids on bikes, which is great. And hopefully, as they move into the workforce, they will continue with this habit. Um, uh, and, um, Although I do have to say that their safety standards do leave a little bit to be desired. That might be some programming you want to work on, um, using 2 hands on your bicycle, making sure you wear your helmet, you know, just basic stuff. Um, Then, uh, So, but I think things like the, the, the bike rides. that we have from time to time are really great. At, um, teaching those people who were a little reluctant to drive on streets how to do it properly and safely. And to get that psychological boost from, um, you know, from the other people on the rides that that they can handle it. So I would really like to see the city, um, uh, through parks and rec, um, really increase that kind of program. And in fact, on December 11th. We're having a bike ride out at the Baylands, um, that, um, uh, Balance Mountain View and the Silicon Valley Viking Coalition are, um, are, uh, hosting. So that's, that's the kind of thing that, and, and these bike, I think this is the 4th one and that we've had this fall and and the bike, the bike rides typically get upwards of 50 people, they're pretty popular. People have a good time And it moves and I've noticed that there are people taking part, the range and age from about 16, Do I know somebody was in their 80s on an electric bike on one of them? So, I mean, that was quite quite admirable. Okay, so, programming. I think we need to work with the parks and rec department to to do programming. Then another thing I think we need to do. Is, um, we need to, um, Uh, change how we teach people to use public transit. When my kids who are now in their mid 30s were going through the daycare programs, I mean, the day camp programs at Parks and Rec, all of the, um, uh, All of the field trips were taken on public transportation, with very few exceptions. They would get um, bus passes and um, go all sorts of places around town. And that is not standard operating procedure any longer with um, parks and my programs if I'm not mistaken. And how's the show alter?

[00:58:53] Chair Alison Hicks: You might want to save some of those for comments.

[00:58:57] Member Pat Showalter: Oh okay. I thought other people were talking about comments too. I'm sorry. Sure, I can save them for comments.

[00:59:02] Chair Alison Hicks: That's all right. I've done it myself

[00:59:04] Chair Alison Hicks: But, um, yeah, I want to hear those

[00:59:06] Member Pat Showalter: joint comments. Okay, we're going to have comments too. Okay. Well, then I will stop talking. and you should take a turn.

[00:59:15] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay. I will. I have just one question. Most of my questions have been answered, but I'm going to follow up on the sort of the local traffic questions, and you may or may not know. Are there any, uh, do you know it all shoreline use? Is that I know we looked at bridges and you pulled out some of the others like 101. But you have, since that's kind of a critical, uh, roadway in Mountain View. Do you know whether that's up to, you know, what percent, 80, 90, whatever percent it might be of its uh, pre-pandemic traffic?

[00:59:53] Don Cameron: We don't have data on our local roads at this point. I will say that, and I need to go and confirm that this happened, that in November, we were going to do gateway counts into North Bay Shore, again, just to get a sense of where we're at right now. It typically takes 6 to 8 weeks before we see the results after the counts are done and they do some analysis could even take 3 months, but I will go and confirm that those counts did occur in November so that we will have some data in early 2022 to share. In terms of what the current situation is at the gateways.

[01:00:31] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, I'll look forward to that. Thank you. Okay. So now we have uh, public comment from members of the public. So I'm just so that I can figure out how much time we have, can people who want to make public comment on this item raise your hands. And, um, Let's see. So, I'm going to give, um, seeing 5 people. I'm going to give 6 people. I'm gonna give 2 minutes for this item. And 1st in line is Bruce England. Okay,

[01:01:26] Bruce England: I think that worked. Do you hear me? Yes. Excellent. Okay, 2 minutes. Well, I'm gonna try to plow through this very quickly then. Uh, I agree with Memberabe Koga. don't know yet. And trying to rush through with solutions can be problematic, particularly if we want to build more roads and lanes and things like that, I absolutely love the idea of focusing on transit and active transportation, and we should put our focus on that. And we should be, um, asking or requiring the companies to be part of this solution. They should be at the table. I, what I fear is that we're too much in this pattern of, there's a demand for something and then we capitulate and say, okay, we're going to build more lanes. We're going to accommodate these new traffic flows instead of saying, no, no more of this. Can MoundView just draw the line and say, we're just not going to do things this way anymore, and it's up to the companies to figure out what to do with that. Adding additional requirements of their employees and adding more employees on these dynamic workspaces. If they want to do that, fine, but I don't think the city of Mountain View should accommodate that way of thinking and rather hold the line. And let them figure it out. But maybe what they'll do is they'll say, yeah, you know, this isn't going to work. We're not going to do it this way. I hope they will. I think it's also worth noting that a lot of younger workers are now questioning whether they want to work the way their parents did. Um, And I'm hearing about this an awful lot. It kind of makes sense. We're in the midst of COVID and people's lives have been upturned and they're thinking all kinds of things about their lives. We really don't know how this is all going to pan out. And I don't see a timer, so I hope I'm doing okay. The um, MBCSP members have been meeting with a staff from Google and talking about some of these things, and they mentioned just today that they are looking at um, how to look at their database of employees and dynamically structuring their shuttle service. So they put the shuttles where they need to be and not just sort of like, let's put one in Belmont, say, um, they would actually structure that based on where their employees are. So that's a good thing. Um, And that's 2 minutes? That's 2 minutes. I stop there. Okay,

[01:03:39] Chair Alison Hicks: thank you, Bruce. And now we have another Bruce, Bruce Carney.

[01:03:57] Audrey: Mr. Carney, if you're able, you can unmute yourself.

[01:04:00] Bruce Carney: Yep, thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to address you. Um, In the post-pandemic world, um, many things will have changed from the way things were 2 years ago. I'd like to ask you to think about shopping behavior. There's been sort of a local retail apocalypse, there's a lot of shopping shifted to Amazon and its competitors. I certainly see delivery trucks in my neighborhood far more frequently than I ever did before. A year and a half ago, the Starship Robots began delivering an old mountain view, groceries, restaurant food. And just today I read that Neuro, a local autonomous vehicle company, will bring me my Slurpee from 7-Eleven if I order it from the app. Um, The environmental sustainability task force believe that by this point in time, autonomous taxis and shared shuttles would be operating, obviously that has not yet happened, but I think it's not too far away. Um, I would love it if the staff could devote some time to thinking about how these trips, which tend to be short and not during peak commute hours, but do add, uh, to vehicle miles traveled, might impact uh, GHG emissions in mountain view. I really appreciate the job that they did in their presentation. Um, But if we could dig a little deeper, it might clear up the fog on the crystal ball and let us have a better understanding of what's about to happen.

[01:05:43] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, I assume you're done. Thank you, Bruce, and next we have Albert Jeans.

[01:06:01] Audrey: Mr. James, you can unmute yourself. Can you hear me?

[01:06:06] Albert Jeans: Yes.

[01:06:07] Audrey: Great.

[01:06:08] Albert Jeans: Yeah, my screen just went bonkers for a little while. I don't know why. Yeah, I decided a few facts I just want to throw out. I didn't really have anything formal prepared like I usually do. You were worrying about Sherline traffic. Of course, I live very close to that, and I've been out there a lot of times. And I would, I'd be surprised if it was more than 10%. now. Uh, of what it used to be. It's pretty much free-flowing, you know, no backups of any kind. Most nobody in Google is still working on site. Another thing I was wondering about is, you know, you said that Caltrain ridership has gone back up to. I can't remember, 30 35%. But when you look at the Caltrain parking lot, Mountain View, it's still empty. And I'm kind of wondering why that is. Um, I picked my wife up there the other day. She sometimes goes up to San Francisco. And again, there's almost nobody coming off the train in the evening either. So I'm wondering, you know, what's causing that? Who are the people that would normally ride it that aren't riding it now leaving Mountain View? And at this meeting that Bruce talked about. Google said only about 2 to 4% of their employees actually use public transit. And that includes BTA and Caltrain. So I'm wondering, you know, how many of their writers actually use Caltrain, and if they do come to back to work, is it really going to matter whether, you know, Caltrain is still running or not? Because I think most of their people ride their buses. And again, like Google kind of, Bruce said, you know, with Google being kind of, you know, the big elephant in the room or whatever. We really should talk to them or at least city staff should talk to them as much as possible to figure out because they sound like they don't have their plans firmed up either. They're still hunting around modeling, trying to figure out what to do. And so if we can have a more collaborative approach, Maybe we can come up with a result that makes everybody happy. Thanks a lot.

[01:08:01] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Albert. Next, we have Kevin Ma.

[01:08:13] Kevin Ma: Evening again. Um, I would like to point out that the minimum emphasized the importance of land use in this discussion inherently, when you have people working from home, they will move to cheaper places because they'll realize that. If you're gonna be stuck at home, you might as well go to a place that's either cheaper or, you know, larger. You know, when I travel through SoCal, you see like $400 master plan communities. No, you know, Lake Elsinore, Riverside areas, like people will move there if there's an option. Especially given that our land use has segmented all parts of our life. We segment our work away from where we shop or where we from, we live, which I understand the importance of focusing on habits or transit, but sometimes if like the only option becomes car, you only want to take a car. Which I do hope that the city as does for the future plans of East Wisman. They show emphasize that things like free parking or lane expansions are not exactly inducive to encouraging their mode shift away from car. And that. I understand a lot of talk is on Google because Google is one of the largest, largest employers in the city, but you also have to imagine all the other small businesses where people will have to get to the business somehow. It's mainly by car at this point because, While the efforts from Commissioner Ava Koga, MTC to bring more money into the area to, you know, fund transit. Sometimes we do need more to make it more robust because the current one is a little spotty for the city, as it's somewhat traditional, unfortunate for California cities. So I do look into that and look for the future for that. Thank you.

[01:09:49] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Kevin. So next we have Daniel Holtz. You can hear me? Yes, we can.

[01:10:06] Daniel Holtz: Yeah, uh, so my main sort of comment is that, um, you know, people often have this idea of thinking of, of transit systems, it's like a, uh, traffic reduction measure or something like that. Uh, But that's not really a good way to think about it. Um, for a lot of people. It's a primary means of transportation. It's like a way of getting for A to B. Um, and it's also, you know, the most sustainable way of of getting people where they need to go. Um, and so it's it's really in the public interest. for us to be promoting, uh, taking transit, uh, and making it a quality service for people. Um, I think, uh, given the trends in traffic where everything has gone down a little bit, um, We're seeing less of a strain, you know, on our roads and everything. So, I think now is kind of the best time to be thinking about long-term changes to, uh, how we think about trans, transit around here, uh, And, you know, things like uh, reallocating, you know, certain space on the road, uh, to bicycle lanes, uh, things like that where, you know, maybe it would have been unthinkable. Uh, you know, a year ago, but now it's really something that could be feasible in some way. Uh, and so that's, that's, uh, my main comment is we should be thinking about, how can we use this to, uh, build changes, uh, to the, the transportation network in the long term, that are, you know, the stateable changes that, that we want to see people, uh, are going to build the patterns we want to see in the future. Okay,

[01:12:02] Chair Alison Hicks: thank you, Daniel. Next we have a Dina Levine. Miss Levine, you're able to speak?

[01:12:28] Audrey: Miss Levin, I think you just muted yourself. Can you unmute?

[01:12:33] Dina Levine: Uh, yes. Um, so, uh, Dean 11 with Friends of Caltrain and Seamless Bay Area. I want to, um, uh, thank Mountain View staff for doing a, uh, characteristically robust job in, in looking to, um, help keep the council and the community up to speed on, uh, you know, really important, uh, changes in the environment and things that are changing, are probably going to, uh, continue to change in ways that are difficult to predict. And so really staying on top of how things are changing is really important and helpful for the city. Um, I wanted to speak to a couple of the topics that council members raised. Um, one, uh, with regard to uh, Caltrain and in general, regional transit and and how they're thinking about fairs. Um, the United States has a long history of thinking of its transit as a service for um, higher income white collar commuters. But even before the pandemic, um, there was some questioning about that conventional wisdom. And at Caltrain, where the Fairbox recovery was high, but Caltrain never had a stable source of funding. They were board members who raised that as a problem and wished that they had funding to be able to lower the fares and diversify the ridership. Um, another pandemic recovery story, uh, we to the ferry agency, which obviously doesn't serve mountain view, but did some really innovative things to seek to recover, uh, ridership from, uh, COVID and change its fares to be the same as the other BART and bus choices that riders would have and also change the schedule to be less focused on a white collar peak commute period. And more travel throughout the day and on weekends. They saw week their weekend travel is now higher than it ever was before the pandemic. And there, uh, daily service. Um, it is, um...

[01:14:48] Chair Alison Hicks: I think the time is out. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Now we have, uh, Gida Dev.

[01:15:09] Deb: Thank you. Thanks again. Um, I'm Guito dad with the Sierra Club. I, the only point that I want to make is, it has been a fascinating discussion. Um, of behavioral changes, post-pandemic. Um, one of them, there are many issues, and I only want to address one, which is. Certain opportunities only come by. Every now and then. And one of the things we noticed during the pandemic was that while a lot of people worked from home, they ended up recreating a lot in their neighborhood, walking around a lot. I see a lot more kids on bicycles in our neighborhoods. In Redwood City, which is near where I live. And it was really nice to see families out and about in the neighborhoods again, which is something that I had missed. So I would like to encourage us to remember that every segment of transportation is important, every time you shift, 3% from one mode to another mode. You've made a difference. 5% is huge. So, um, I think, But given so many issues, given the multi dimensional benefits. From climate change to, um, You know, just the changes in the work patterns. There's so many reasons why we should seize the opportunity to look at our land use better. Streets are 30 to 40% of our land. It's huge. It's the biggest opportunity in our city to rethink things. We need space for recreation close to home. We need people to be able to walk in their neighborhoods. Where it's safe. We need kids to be able to go to school. We need people to walk to parks. So please think of the green streets. As something to keep in mind. Thank you.

[01:17:22] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Gita. And last we have Mary.

[01:17:43] Mary Dadio: Hi, this is Mary Dadio. Um, I um, wanted to, um, I really appreciated the, um, the presentation. Um, by staff. Um, and, um, Pretty frightening actually to think that, um, staff actually thinks that vehicle miles traveled, we're going to get worse instead of better as people work fewer days per week, possibility, possibly. Um, I know we're working really hard. The city's working really hard and has a whole bunch of initiatives to move us forward on active transportation and, um, I don't know if there are plans in place to start collecting, um, metrics. For people that are using active transportation, um, because we are making so many changes, it would be great to get actual numbers. Um, so if, um, I don't think that, If those numbers were available a few years ago during the environmental sustainability task force, I wasn't aware of them. And so I guess I'm wondering whether, uh, Mountain View does have plans to start trying to collect active transportation numbers to verify our progress. Um, and when those might be available. Thank you.

[01:19:03] Chair Alison Hicks: So thank you, Mary. And we come to the end of our public comment on this item. Uh, so it's time for council member comments. Um, would somebody like to start? Uh, Council member show Walter?

[01:19:25] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I got started a little before, so I'm gonna talk a little faster this time. Um, one, I think that we, we don't know. Uh, where this is all going, and I would say that, um, uh, we we really want to make a serious assessment about 6 months after people go back to work or at least 40% of people go back to work, and we have no idea when that's going to be really, because with the Omicron um, variant. I mean, we don't know what changes that's gonna, um, provide. So, I would see that as a, you know, after there's a reasonable period, so you feel like things have, You know, settled out, we should do some serious reevaluation. But in the meantime, I think there are a number of things that we can do. Um, one, uh, you know, increasing the programming for biking. I think that that, um, it's fun. It's good exercise, and, uh, it will encourage people to, um, sort of cross that Rubicon from being, uh, you know, a hesitant rider to a confident rider, and that's what we want, you know, people to do. I would like to see, um, Parks and Rec. Use public transit for, um, their programs on a regular basis. And that may mean we need to supply them with um, some sort of transit passes, um, um, I, I, you know, I would be open to sort of looking into that. Um, then the other thing I, I, I think is is interesting. is when we, you know, we want to look at everything now through an equity lens. And I do think that, um, What, whatever we can do and more the regional networks to, um, promote equity among the various kinds of transit, is a good idea. Um, and, um, I would, I would like to see that. I also think that given, I know it's not my decision, but given the poor fare box recovery of, um, of VTA buses, is it time to say, the VTA buses are a, uh, climate change, uh, program, largely, and fund them accordingly. And see if there is, you know, are some grant funds associated with that. Not, obviously that wouldn't be in Mountain View, but we, we could advocate for that. Um, and, um, then, uh, whatever we can do to, um, uh, increase the, the Mountain View shuttle, and it's, it's, um, It smells like ridership is going up Well, that's good. And, and then the other thing is, I think that we, we do have major employers here who have made, you know, um, worldwide commitments for climate goals. And, um, so I think that it would be kind of crazy for us to not, um, work with them as collaboratively as possible to, um, uh, to see if we can meet our transportation goals. I know that, um, there are very few ministerial connections where we can say, you have to do it this way. You know, that doesn't come up very often. And, um, if we are relying on that, then I think that the, um, you know, the, the, uh, the outlook looks bleak. But I don't see any reason why we need to rely on that. I think we should be attempting to collaborate with them just as, um, good citizens of our community, the region and the world. And, um, who were trying, you know, and we're all real. I mean, I think Mountain View, you know, we can feel really good that we are. Um, trying our hardest to, uh, do our part. And I think that our major employers are doing that too. So part of that should be talking to us locally about how to improve transportation. And we should, we should give it a try and, um, I don't think that we can necessarily figure that out in this conversation. It may be something we need to have a separate conversation about. But, um, I would like to see us pursue it. So thank you.

[01:23:51] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, council member, show Walter, uh, council member Abbe Koga.

[01:23:59] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, chair. Um, Yeah, I definitely appreciate uh, Councilman Rochelle Walter's comments. I think, um, I mean, I agree with a lot of what she said. Um, I go back to, uh, where I started in saying that because we really don't know how things are gonna unfold. Um, it's a, I think we just need to be ready and flexible, as flexible as we can. Um, I was actually, I had a little bit more, um, positive outlook on, especially in terms of transit, of the future of transit. Um, you know, the factors that I haven't heard much of, but I remember like 10 years ago, um, when gas prices were hitting, I think it was like $4 and we saw a huge increase that I was on VTA back then and, um, I think I met this chair and we saw a huge increase in ridership because gas prices were going up. And, you know, now we're at 5 and I think almost $6 a gallon in some places. And, um, maybe because it's COVID, I just haven't heard like how that's affecting, um, you know, uh, or how it can affect, um, transit use, but my expectation is that that will definitely encourage folks to, um, you know, get back onto transit if, if gas prices continue the same way. Um, is mentioned by some of the members of the public. Um, Edina mentioned it. Um, yes, there is this, and actually, Councilman Michelle Walter. There has been this focus this last year when we talk about, you know, what has what has been innovative in transportation. It's, for me, it's been the focus on, um, equity in looking at things with an equity lens, looking at, um, you know, transit for folks who are transit dependent, who, um, you know, would were in, uh, essential workers during COVID, who were still riding transit, um, is, is, you know, mentioned, we, we focus so much, and I remember this from, again, 10 years ago, I think because we were going after Fairbox recovery. The focus at that time was commuter, commuter transit. And um, you know, COVID has really changed that. And so it'll be interesting to see how that, um, that unfolds. Um, I think the, yeah, so, um, Ms. Lowe had mentioned the interesting thing. I feel like things have been turned around like almost topsy-turvy because back then with Caltrain, who had the highest fare box recovery, they were seen as the most successful transit system. And then now, because of their high fare box recovery, you know, they've hurt, they, they, they've suffered the most. Um, So whether and it's been interesting to be at the NTC level when I see where funding is going. Um, you know, there are counties, like we're a self-help county, because we have our sales tax, but there are counties, um, like I'll say one, Solano County, for instance, that can't seem to pass a sales tax measure. Um, even with RM 3 They were one of the 2 counties that didn't pass RM3. And, and, and, and yet they tend to get more of the funding that comes from the feds or the state level that MTC distributes. Um, frankly because they've had members on MTC who've been there for 30 years. Um, And I, and so that goes to, and I talked a little bit about this when we were talking about the housing element. Um, and, um, you know, Kevin Mo, Kevin Ma mentioned it, but, um, we've been working at NTC. Um, just my realization that as, um, Santa Clara County, we're a donor county. We're not getting, I don't think, our fair share of funding because it's going to these other counties that tend to have that longer representation based on seniority. And, um, yeah, we here we are a self-help county, but because it's actually like, that's actually backfired on us, it's hurting us because they look at us as self-sufficient so that we don't need more funding. And yet, I don't see it. I don't, I think we, and we're kind of trying to come together as the South Bay delegation to have a more united voice, to advocate for our fair share. And this would be based on the fact that we're the largest county or the most diverse county. And so frankly, we have the potential for the, for new ridership. And right now, the focus, or it seems like a lot of the focus has been on existing ridership, and that's where San Francisco tends to, you know, their 50% of transit ridership is from San Francisco. So they tend to get a lot of the funding because of that. And I think we need to change that message or at least, you know, be being more vocal. And this is where I, I've been asking the transit advocates too, to join us in, um, advocating for our fair share because at the end of the day, I think if we can increase our service levels, um, will have more ridership. And I do see that the, the, you know, the bright light right now is that with the infrastructure bill, um, the state surplus, um, there is funding available. And, um, the focus for, we're trying to kind of collaborate and build consensus to, um, advocate for funding for projects that are already underway. So, for instance, Caltrain electrification, um, BART 2, you know, Silicon Valley, like I've always supported it. I just think the more transit in the South Bay the better. Um, and then even high speed rail, as we talked about, um, people living farther away. Um, yeah, if you had ice females, you could live in Fresno and commute to San Jose. So, um, I think that's the opportunity, we have this opportunity now, so it's really incumbent on us to kind of, to build our, our united voice, to advocate for, for that funding to come to, um, to our, our area. Um, so I do see that opportunity. And so I guess I'm a little bit more, um, optimistic of the of the future for transit. Um, I do appreciate Counselor Michelle Walters's comments about programming and and definitely safe routes to school. I noticed, I think it's in our, um, sustainability for item that our funding was lowered or reduced and, um, if I if I read that correctly. Um, I'm not sure why. But, um, the, uh, you know, I hope we can regain that funding. Um, the other, I guess, thought or question I had was, um, in terms, I know we put this e-scooter, um, project, permitting project on hold. Um, and frankly, I don't know if scooters are the way to go, it seems like e-bikes are actually getting more popular, and my question is, is there anything that we should be doing as a city to enable e-bikes to be more accessible or be, yeah, in our city. So, are there any, like, I don't know where e-bikes would, would run. Would they be on the car lane with a bike lane? Like, do we need to be thinking about things like that? Um, And then, uh, going back to um, some of the other topics, I think, um, whatever we can do to collaborate. With our other transit agencies to help with marketing to, you know, push out the message that transit is back, it's, um, you know, safe. I know that I think it was capturing other couple of agencies that were doing like free fares or reduced fares for a while. Um, whatever we can do to promote, um, those types of efforts and programs, I think, would be very helpful. Um, and then again, um, I'm excited that we have our legislative, um, consultant now on, on, um, who can help us with the advocacy in trying to bring in more dollars to the South Bay and even into Mountain View. And, um, I think that is really key, especially given this time of opportunity where there is funding available. So, um, and then lastly, yeah, I, I, I, I hope we can work with the companies more. Um, you know, I will, I feel like in the past, especially in terms of commuter, ridership, um, you know, public chance it was focusing on that, but then the companies came in with their private shuttles and, um, became competitors. And, um, you know, that was really unfortunate, I think, public trends had actually lost there. And I'm, you know, hoping, I guess I was hoping that maybe the private shuttles weren't coming back as quickly, and that might be opportunity to talk with the companies to see if, you know, rather than running their own shuttles programs, which they always tell me they don't want to be in the transportation business, and yet they do. I could they just invest that funding into, um, you know, our public transit system. But, um, I think, uh, I mentioned, um, you know, MTC will be looking at a, um, a ballot measure in probably 2024. Um, the assumption is that would be a sales tax measure, but, um, just like we did our business license tax, um, you know, there's a, the, gross receipts tax. I know Council member Hicks talked about that. Um, there are other options and I hope that that's where maybe we can work with our companies to be a little bit more creative and not just rely on sales tax measures, um, which frankly, you know, goes against our equity, um, initiatives. And, um, hopefully there maybe we can gain some support and work with our companies more closely. Thank you.

[01:34:31] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I'll give my comments and then kind of sum up, what I've heard, um, but 1st I just want to, uh, make a shout out to council member out by Koga for mentioning. That there are better taxes than sales taxes and that that's an equity issue because that's, um, that's one of one of my main themes. So, um, so down to the issue at hand. Um, you know, I'm, I'm, uh, I'm disappointed to hear that remote work isn't the one silver bullet to, um, solve all our climate change problems, but I can't, I can't say I ever thought it was going to be. So, um, I do agree with I think what, uh, both council members and some members of the public have said that this is a really important moment for the city to be a part of the discussion, uh, with, uh, our companies about, uh, about how people come back to work. I think that, you know, I think that, um, Of course, companies are going to arrange, uh, however, they come back for the good of the company and and hopefully for the good of the employees, but I think we really need to be a part of the discussion on, um, you know, is it good for the city as well, for, uh, climate change, or greenhouse gas emissions? And also, frankly, is it good for the neighbors of the streets that people use to commit um, to commute to to work. Um, so all of those things. And I, I, particularly in the staff report, liked the, um, let me see if I can find that, that we're going to hire a new, uh, TDM analyst and that that person could possibly, um, work on voluntary transportation demand management programs, I think that that's, you know, I think that that's important. I think, hopefully maybe, um, you know, so that I would like to beef up that area in terms of, uh, what pretty much all council people have said about this is an important moment to be engaged in. Not just sit by and watch what's happening next. Um, And then, uh, The other things, I think that I, I mean, I very, people, other council members have pretty much said it all. Um, and I just want to, uh, uh, the other way we, we could influence this, I guess, is the legislative programming. That may be another way that we can engage with companies. And I I do, I understand that we don't have entitlements to work with in terms of sort of beefing up, um, our TDMs. Uh, there isn't that ministerial connection, but I think that, uh, most, if not all of our corporations have said that they have greenhouse gas reduction goals. So I hope that we can engage with them on a more political level. Um, And, uh, and also the level of, uh, that council member Abikoga mentioned of what are they doing with their shuttles? And can that be, uh, kind of rethinking of that, be, um, something that can, uh, benefit the city as a whole and benefit, uh, a greenhouse gas reduction. And then I just agreed with what, you know, with what, uh, their council members and members of the public said in terms of, um, that, I mean, I think this is a critical moment for, uh, transportation in general, and that's a big part of our, our greenhouse gases, and that, um, you know, beefing all the different things that, that, uh, people listed for, uh, for increasing active transportation and mass transit. I'm not going to read them all off, but in particular, some of the ones that, that stood out to me were making sure that we don't, that our safe routes to school doesn't get diminished, because I think it's true that, 1st that's important, and 2nd it can, uh, incalculate some lifelong habits, um, looking into e-bikes, e-scooters, and maybe even some of these new tiny electric cars, these one person electric cars that can go on freeways. Um, and the collaborative marketing to market, uh, market transit. Um, Yeah, and then there were a lot of other good things said, but I'm not going to just read them all. Read them all off. Let me see if there's, I like the idea of parks and rec using transit passes. Um, So there's a lot there, but I think there was a lot of agreement, um, and that is my summary. Are there any other final words anybody wants to add? If not. Oh.

[01:39:58] Audrey: I don't want to preclude any council member comments. Was there any other council member comment before I try a little bit of a, you know, wrap up around what we might do with all these great ideas? Sure. Sure,

[01:40:11] Chair Alison Hicks: I think you can go for it now. Okay.

[01:40:13] Audrey: Um, I was hearing the same things that you stated being kind of common across the the 3 subcommittee members around, uh, looking at the equity needs of transit dependent, advocating for our county and cities, fair share, of federal and state transit, dollars, working with employers, around how they achieve their goals and doing more voluntarily than they have to do and being part of the solution that supports public transit. Um, uh, doing, um, you know, making sure that our programming is robust around how we support bike and, um, other, um, active transportation, including our safe routes to school program, the possible passes for, um, recreation and CSD programs and e-bike or scooter programs. Um, collaborating on marketing for transit. And then I heard at least one of you talk about the Mountain View shuttle and wanting to support that to a, uh, you know, to its fullest. And so I think we've got a good sense of the ideas. I think many of these are things like the e-bike rebate or e-bike um support is something that's in SAP 4 and it's a program that we're working on currently. Um, although, as you noted, um, uh, uh, that the scooter program was put on, on hold. Um, and what, what I think, um, I'd like to kind of check in with public works director Cameron around, um, and maybe not in real time, uh, which are the things that we feel that we have the ability to work into our existing, um, programmatic efforts and staff capacity, and which things might require additional resources. I don't know that we can comment on that real time, but I'll turn it over to you, Miss Cameron, and see if you have any comments.

[01:42:16] Don Cameron: I appreciate that. You're right. We would need to take some of this back and explore it. Uh, you know, part of it again is staffing levels, the new TDM analysts as commented on does present some opportunities. And then we do still have a transportation planner, vacancy, which is actually funded out of SAP 4. been very challenging to recruit. So when we are fully staffed. We are a lot more optimistic about starting to take on some more of these opportunities. But at the same time, I do want to add one comment so you all are aware of this. We are re-initiating the safe routes to school program. And we just had a very robust conversation with the B pack a couple nights ago about how to approach it. Yes, our funding is less. Our grant funding is less, but I'm very impressed that Maria and her team have come up with some new ideas to make better use of the funding we are getting. And working very collaborative with the schools and hopefully with the parents going forward. And, uh, so it is an effort. We are reinitiating now that the schools are back in session and intend to spend quite a bit of effort on, um, to really have a really robust safe route to school program. I'm

[01:43:40] Chair Alison Hicks: wondering whether you can also get, uh, you, you know, the new, some of the new infrastructure funding, whether any of any of that could go for safe routes to school or anything else. Oh, the one thing I forgot to mention was, was the, I liked that uh, Gita Dev from the members, member of the public, mentioned green streets. I think that that is really encourages walking and biking and that there may be funding for that. So I'm sorry I overlooked that. To me, that kind of comes with the whole package. of active transportation. Agreed,

[01:44:17] Don Cameron: and that is one of the uh, elements in the scope of work that we're looking at for the active transportation plan. Okay, thank you. Any

[01:44:28] Chair Alison Hicks: other final words? Summary. Okay, then we will be moving on to 6.2, which is sea level rise planning and regional collaboration. Staff will present on the city's latest sea level rise efforts, and next steps, including cooperation with local and regional agencies. Um, and uh, assistant public works director, Lisa Ao, um, will be presenting, you know, my script here says, Robert Wong as well? Is that true or is it just you, Lisa? It's just me for now. Yes. Okay, good. Okay. Okay,

[01:45:17] Lisa: so take it away. All right. Good evening, committee members. I'm Lisa Alice and Public Works director. Tonight I'll be presenting to you the city of Mountain View sea level rise planning and regional collaboration efforts. Raymond Wong, senior project manager. As you were, Don Cameron, public works director. They're also here to help answer questions at the end of the presentation. Um, you have received a copy of the memo in your packet, and you would find that this memo uses a council report presented to city council in June 2021. To provide you background on the subject. But I will start this presentation with some of that background information. And then provide updates since June 2021. So when you think of sea level rise, you're considering the water bodies that surround our city. This includes the San Francisco Bay. North of the city. And then Stevens Creek and Permanente Creek, which flows south to north to the bay, and collects the majority of the storm water. The naturally flows to the bay. The North Bay Shore area here shown in red, north of Highway 101, is in a low lying area, and is subject to flooding from storm water and sea level rise. In response to the flood risk in 2012, The city embarked on our 1st sea level rise study. This map, you see the potential flooding scenario from the 2012 study. The light blue area shows areas of that are at risk of flooding from a 100 year event. The orange area shows additional areas that would be flooded from a low sea level rise scenario. And the purple area on this map shows even more areas that would be flooded if there were the high sealed rise scenario. In 2018, the California Ocean Protection Council developed new guidelines for sea level rise projections. For the city of Mountain View, the new planning horizon is the year 2070. Which provides an approximate 50 year planning window. In addition, as you can see in the slide, the sea level rise projections have also substantially increased since the 2012 study. In the June 2021 study updates, staff recommended and city council approve. To plan for the high sea level right scenario. And the reasons are that we would like to align with the same design parameters that other regional projects. Um, are using since our levee systems are all interconnected. In addition, sea level rise projections have been trending upwards. And we uh, with each new assessment. This map shows the sea level rise projects from the 2021 study. Um, in addition, uh, recommended projects from a 2019 Storm Train master plan. Um, The 2012 study 2012 C level rise project list was updated with this latest information from our June study. In addition, a few scope of work from these 2012 projects have been modified. And 2 new projects were added from the storm drain master plan. The cost estimate for the 14 sea level rise projects in $2021 is $97 million. In years of construction costs. This equates to $122000000 to complete these 14 projects. Of these costs, the city currently has $11000000 An additional $11000000 is needed over the next 10 year plus. In addition to just this list of new and updated projects, the June 2021 council report provided a list of next steps. That I will now be providing you updates since June. This is project 2, the Coast KC North Levy Improvement Project. The levee is shown here in Light Blue. It's located south of Charleston Slough, and a portion upon A1. The base of the levee improvement is a part of the South Bay saw pond A1 restoration project. And this project is currently at approximately 30% design complete. This project is being conducted through a partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the California State Coastal Conservancy, That's Unlimited, and the city of Mountain View. This project is currently on whole while the design upon ATW to the east is being finalized. This is project 3, the north landfill erosion protection project, which are shown in the white lines here, south of Ponds A1 and A2W. For each pond, the base portion will be included as part of the south base salt pond reservation project. And then the city will build it to a higher elevation to meet sea level rise needs. The southwest salt pond team is finalizing the design along pond ATW, to the east and the western section, um, to the south upon A1 is on whole, similar to the coast KC levee project. It is expected that the base project at Pon ATW will be completed within 2 years. And for the city's portion, the city has a funded CIP project, a capital improvement program project. To support the city's portion of the work. Project 6 is the Lower Stevens Creek Levy Improvement Project. It's shown by the Light blue line here on this left diagram. This portion of the Stevens Creek levee is currently not FEMA flood accredited. FEMA standing for federal emergency management agency. A 30% design for the levy improvement has been completed. But with the new sea level rise projections, the levee will require additional analysis to improve it to meet new seaboard, a freeboard, seepage, and stability requirements. Staff is scheduled to issue a request for proposal in mid 2022. To hire a consultant to complete the design of the project. The design and construction components of this projects are funded. Project 9 is the sailing like access row improvement. It's a road shown here. Between sailing lake and Coast Casey detention basin. This road was recently identified as a dam by the state of California. This project will improve the safety and reliability of the room for the city's operations and maintenance activities associated with Shoreline Park and our landfill. And the upcoming soil hauling activities for the Southbase Saltpond project. Construction activity is about to start, and will be completed by February 2022. Project 10 is the satellite intake pump station modification. This pump station is located at the southern end of Charleston slough, shown here with a blow up here. Um, the Charleston Slough levee is, um, is where the pump is located. Um. And on the other side of it is the coast KC levee, shown here, and it's what's described as project 2. And as such, this project is currently in whole until um, pawn A2 W is completed. There's also project 12 sea level rise assessment. For the set of 14 projects. Staff is preparing a technical memorandum to document the flood risk vulnerability. Proposed implementation plan, detail cost estimates, and budget proposal. This work is currently funded and is scheduled to complete by June 2022. Besides the projects, um, the June update also included other C level rise work plan tasks. Such as um, for pending and upcoming projects. Staff is preparing feasibility analysis and developing a performance-based criteria. To prioritize a list of 14 projects. Higher priority projects would be considered for funding in the city's upcoming capital improvement budget planning. Secondly, as part of the city's ongoing landfill post-closure operations, and impacts from the south-based south plan project. Staff continues to analyze any groundwater impacts to the city's closed landfill. Third, staff will be looking to update the city policies to take sea level rise adaptation into consideration. This includes how the city manages flood risk, infrastructure operations and land use planning. In addition, a staff has and will continue to participate and collaborate on regional planning efforts for sea level rise. We will continue to identify funding sources for sea level rise project implementations such as grants and regional collaboration efforts. Lastly, staff will continue to monitor sea level rise changes and impacts to the city, and update the sea level rise capital improvement program every 5 years. One of the major regional collaboration efforts, with our city is a self-based saw pond project. This project will store ponds A1 and A2W to title marshes and re-establish tidal flow connection. With the bay by breaching certain sections of the levees. A more extensive gentle slope called a habitat transition zone shown here in the brown color. Will be built just north of the city limits. Besides creating diversified wildlife habitats, the project will reduce erosion risks along the city shoreline. This project is managed by partnership with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Who owns the land of the 2 ponds? The California State coastal conservancy, who's managing the day-to-day activities of the project. And Ducks Unlimited, who was hired to design and manage the construction of the project. As well as provide funding for the project. Last week, the city received the 100% draft design for the project. And the design would now be reviewed by the various departments in the city. Um, the city has been a good partner and has been very supportive of this project for over a decade. Some of the recent work that the city has assisted include the following. Uh, during the summer when the South Bay South Pine Project team had the potential to acquire soil for the project. The city issued an excavation permit in July 2021. That would allow the project to begin hauling soil onto the project site. Prior to completing the project design. Secondly, city staff has proposed. Subject to council approval, to manage the design and construction to raise the levees. South of ponds A1 and A2W above the limits of the habitat transition zone. Staff also proposes for the city to raise the bay trail north of the mitigation channel. Which is here. And restore the storm water overflow that transfers water from the mitigation channel in Japan A2W. Third, um, city staff has allowed for the expansion of the soil, uh, truck hauling route within Shoreline Park. Which will have greater impacts to shoreline park users. But will provide a more efficient truck route for the project. Besides the design, the city and the US fish and wildlife service, or working collaboratively on a memorandum of agreement. To coordinate roles and responsibilities for the project. And the city is providing a habitat easement for the project as part of the project will be constructed on city lands. These 2 agreements along with the projects that staff proposed for the city. To manage described this earlier, will be brought forth for city council consideration at the December 14th council meeting. Um, other regional efforts, um, besides the South Bay Salt Plan projects, staff is actively engaged with the shoreline project, which is analyzing strategies for the Palo Alto flood basin, which will have direct impacts to the design of pont A one, and the city-owned Charleston Slough. In addition, some of the city's neighboring agencies have also begun their sea level rise adaptation plans, some that city staff are engaged with and others that staff will soon collaborate with in the near future. So throughout this presentation, we have shared with you the threats of civil rise to the city, and how staff has been in the forefront in planning and implementing projects, to prepare the city for these changes. Staff continues to stay in close coordination with neighboring agencies. As our levees are interconnected, and potential flooding will not realize city boundaries. So we're continuing to monitor for grants and cause sharing opportunities to fund our city projects. This ends my presentation and we're open for questions. Thank you.

[01:59:00] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you so much, Lisa. Do any council members have questions? Okay, I'm giving it a moment, but I don't see any questions. So we can go to do any, would any members of the public who'd like to speak on this issue? Um, please raise your hands. I see one person. So we'll, we'll give that 2 minutes and. Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead. And it would be Gidadab.

[01:59:57] Deb: Thank you once again. Um, Sustainability committee and staff. I wanted to. Compliment, The city of Mountain View, on a couple of things that are very difficult for other cities to comprehend. And one of those is the habitat, Setback along the bay. It's an issue that, I think, was very farsighted of, um, the specific plan for the North Bay show area to include the habitat setback along the bay and along the creeks. It allows for a great deal of resilience. As sea levels are unpredictable. And I wish you would trumpet this to other cities. We, we're not able to try to convince them of the importance of this East Palo Alto. Moffat Park. Uh, a number of cities, South San Francisco. Important, that that is a really important thing, and the other part that I really appreciate is, um, making it easy for trucks to haul soil to these areas. There's been a very seminal study on the bay and sea level rise that sediment and clean soils are the most important issue. I see Patio Walter, nodding. And this is such an important issue when we have the possibility of using clean soils that exists inland. And to allow truck routes to get there. So I want to say how much we appreciate it. And finally, on the issue of groundwater, I know that Moffat Park is doing a study of their groundwater. Right now, um, using San Francisco estuary institute. We are trying to encourage East Palo Alto to do the same. And I think that's a really important issue when there are toxics. And potential toxics involved along there because we know this is a very low lying area. We are planning to start small town here. So we need that information. Thank you.

[02:02:09] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Gita. And now Shani Kleinhouse. Ms. Kleinhouse, you can unmute.

[02:02:34] Shani: Thank you. Um, I wanted to thank Lisa for an excellent presentation from other cities, um, that I see, uh, in this area and how they prepare for, uh, sea level rise, I think, your way ahead of the curve, and as Gita said, some other cities, have a lot to learn from mountain view. Um, There are a few things I wanted to mention, and one, again, Guita already said it, but the cost of dirt is no longer dirt cheap. It's very, very expensive. And in some areas. Uh, the estimates for the increase in how much, uh, there it will cost to create horizontal levees, and those transitional zones or ecotones, uh, has increased in San Jose for the phase one, from $190000000 to $5600000 mostly because there is no, uh, cheap, clean dirt available for the levee, and they had to reduce the scope of the project and also only do 3 out of 5 sections. So you're well, well ahead. Uh, one other thing I wanted to mention is uh, in Palo Alto, they're doing a small section of horizontal levee using, um, water from the water pollution control plant to use, to plant the horizontal levy. And the idea is also to create habitat. But we, As the city, to make sure that bringing people to the Bay Trail, on top of the levee will not disrupt the endangered species and other wildlife that are using it, and they had a really enlightening. Um, seminar or not a couple of weeks ago. And they show that a lot of ducks will absolutely avoid any area where they can see people walking on the levee. And so that, I think, should be a consideration. In planning is uh, providing people with access is really, really important, but access can be a point access rather than all along the trails, month of levy. Thank you.

[02:04:48] Chair Alison Hicks: D 11? Can you ask me? Dana? Okay, yes. Great.

[02:05:14] Dana: Thank you very much. City council members and staff, um, uh, many thanks to Mountain View for really, uh, uh, thoroughly engaging with, um, climate resilience. Um, Also, thanks for really focusing on taking a regional approach. Um, as our shorelines connect from community to community, if each community looks out for itself, will wind up pushing water into the next community over. So regional approach is very important. And, um, uh, one question I have, uh, following up the staff presentation that talked about which document was used and the continuous updating of the projections is that, uh, look like Mountain View is using the highest level rise projection, and I very quickly looked up, uh, some of the source documents that are being used for that, and a number of years ago, um, Some of the projections were based on a international model, uh, called uh, RCP 8.5, which was a call to business as usual scenario, and it anticipated things like coal continuing to increase through 2050, um, whereat, like, and in terms of progress on climate, um, we haven't made anywhere near as much progress as we need to. But the most dire scenarios from several years ago are also very clearly not happening. And so depending on what the assumption was, it's important to look, because, um, the most severe impacts may be, like, too severe. Um, but we're, we're still, you know, in, in, uh, situation where a lot of sea level rise is expected. Um, so I can, I can, send up, Comment in writing on, on what I just said, um, but I, I hope that staff continues to look at updating to scenarios that look like they are going. Thank you.

[02:07:29] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Adana. Very interesting, and I see Raymond Wong nodding his head, yes. Uh, next, Eileen McLaughlin.

[02:07:45] Audrey: I really don't know why it sometimes takes so long. Okay, Eileen, can you unmute yourself?

[02:08:03] Eileen McLaughlin: Now it gave me the ability. Thank you very much for your patience. Um, I'm, um, Eileen McLaughlin. I represent the citizens committee to complete the refuge. And, and 1st I want to promise you that I did not have a meeting with Shani and Gita in terms of, uh, what I want to say, but basically it's, it's highly complimentary of how the city of Mountain View has, has this history and has developed this very, uh, you know, consistent and persistent plan for managing towards sea level rise. So I want to complement the city. I wanted a couple other points that have al- that weren't mentioned. I want to compliment the city for taking on the high level of sea level rise, the 3.5 foot, and using that as your, your measuring and, and that's normally not done in other cities. And the other is that you actually are updating your CIP plan every 5 years so that you're looking at sea level rise, you're making the changes in the adjustments. I wish this could be a case study for the other cities on how to do it. We've been asking them to take such actions and they have not. So I want to compliment you on all of that. I do want to add on the point of groundwater that we are encouraging cities to do that. And not just along the shoreline, and this is outside, perhaps the public works purview directly, but is that in the areas where companies are developing, that they should be looking at the groundwater status, we need where they will build. So that there is some kind of measure of what the status is and where, how far down the salt water is, salt water underground, if it does start coming in, we'll do some damage to infrastructure, underground, infr structure. So it's a good forward looking action in terms of development. Um, but anyway, on the other, other than that, congratulations for it. Nice talk.

[02:10:16] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Eileen. Okay, so now we're back for to council for comments. To any members of council have comments on this item? Uh, council member show, Walter?

[02:10:32] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was a little slow on the draw. I do have a question, so I'm going to start with that. Um, and I was just hoping that you would describe, uh, I think it's Raymond who takes part, but it might release it too. Um, who takes part in the regional uh, effort? I think it's charge. And if you could talk to us a little bit about what that is and kind of the level of oversight that is.

[02:10:56] Lisa: Raymond, it participates in that, so.

[02:10:58] Raymond Wong: Great. Yes, um, so, uh, good evening. I'm Raymond Wong here. So, um, I have been uh, supporting the city like uh, for the different regional collaboration effort, uh, charge is one of those. So the charge program has been established for a number of years is stuffed with like a female, like a Cafe Schaefer, and a couple other, like I start with the program, and then cover, continue to expand on, to become a much larger regional airport. Um, so the charge program in the nutshell is um, to bring in like all the different agency, um, or the different like a municipality, like a together, uh, to look at sea level rights as a regional problem. So for example, groundwater is like one of those topics, uh, kind of a pretty hot topic and it include like academia, SFEI and other, uh, to work on like a different of those, um, issues and how it applied to Bay Area as a whole and also like a different region. It has like a workshops that are organized, like over the year. Um, I have to admit like during the pandemic, uh, since I, it got like a slow down a little bit. But as a staff, like me and also a couple folks at the city, they participate to some of those like a regional, like an effort, conferences and also discussion for the meeting to discuss like a different project. I remember one of those exercises very worthwhile. Like each of us go to the board, look at the South Bay area or other like a region to actually map out all the projects and all the things that are going to implement the area so that they can combine and create this regional map. And it's the ice opener because you can see how each project connects to each other. For example, many of our working, mountain view, how that connecting to the partner for basin, uh to the west. So, like a dose of effort is worthwhile, not only for us to understand like what is the issue that we want to work together, but more importantly, to have this, like a type of consistent approach. um to look at like how we can collaborate regionally so that we won't run the situation like a one side you build much higher with your like a protection system and then the other is much lower. So that's something that we have been actively engaging and we look forward to continue participating in those original efforts.

[02:13:13] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Raymond.

[02:13:15] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, yeah, thank you, thank you for sharing that information. And also, Raymond, thank you for doing it, because I know that it takes a lot of time and effort, but it is, you know, I remember I took part in it when it got founded, and it was professionally very exciting to be working kind of at the cutting edge of really a, you know, a worldwide problem and trying to figure out, you know, how, how it applies regionally. So, charge, which is a very strange acronym. I don't have, it's it's coastal, um, hazardous assessment. Group, I think is what it is. But anyway, um, So, so charge is taken care of or we hope it will be taken care of. The regional, the technical connections, you know, making sure that, um, uh, our project matches the safer bay project, matches all the shoreline project, ma- message, and it matches all the ones, you know, around the bay, and also that, what, what, what, one um, community does um, doesn't have deleterious effects to others. Um, some early monitoring that got this started, early modeling that got this started by a professor at Berkeley showed that, If you built a, um, a floodball, I think was in the South Bay. Um, it would raise the water surface elevation in Moren County because of the wave action, and we were all just like, 0 my, I mean, we were just flabbergasted. So it raised, you know, the question that really, um, the technical, uh, community of the Bay Area needed to rise to the occasion and and work on this. And that's what's happening with charge. Okay. So that's that's the technical level. Very important, very good. There's also the policy level. You know, on the policy level. We, BCDC is kind of taking the charge on, um, on, uh, the planning for, for that and and trying BCDC, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. We kind of like the, the coastal commission for the Bay. We're responsible for, we have to permit any development that takes place within the 100 foot band of the shoreline. And, um, just recently, we have come forward with the staff and collaboration with many other agencies has come forward with a framework called Bay Adapt. And, um, I sent this to you. I mentioned it in a committee report. I think about a month ago, but I'm bringing it up again, because I've just been informed in the last couple days that, that BCDC would formally like all of, um, all of the, uh, the community, the shoreline communities, to, um, sort of, uh, approve of the report or, or take a resolution to look at the report and, and sent a letter of support. So I would hope that maybe we can do that, um, uh, in the near future. I don't know if we need to do it. We can make a recommendation, this committee, or we need to do it in an item 8, but you know, it's something I would like to be able to take forward. And then, um, I, I, just following on, I, I would like to compliment the staff of, of, um, of the city and the Coastal Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited, uh, and the Fish and Wildlife Service for working together to make some really important progress in the last 4 or 5 months on this, um, uh, there, there have been a lot of things that have come together behind the scenes, um, with a lot, a tremendous amount of effort on everybody's part. part And that's really important because there were some grant deadlines that, um, if we didn't meet, uh, some of those grant funds would be lost. Not to mention the fact that we need the protection. So, I just want to compliment you for rising to the occasion and, um, and helping to meet those, um, those deadlines and coming, being able to come forward to us, uh, and on December 14th with the, um, MOA and the, um, and the easement agreement. That that is just that's just excellent news. And then the other thing, I, um, I want to talk about a little bit more is, um, dirt. Um, I, I, I love Shawnee's comment that, uh, dirt is not dirt cheap. And that, um, that is really true. And, um, getting the dirt. We have a, we have a sediment deficit. Um in terms of doing the restoration work that is needed around the bay. And this has to be taken really seriously. And, um, it's very important for us as a community to recognize, um, that, you know, we need this dirt to be moved out until we can make these, um, improvements for habitat and flood protection, and that it may be inconvenient. Um, to us personally. And to just understand that it's, um, it's something that's worth the effort. So I wanted to bring that up because I think, um, particularly to my, you know, to my fellow, uh, uh, committee members, as local politicians. This is going to be something that we hear about in the community. Um, nobody likes to have big trucks. Uh, driving back and forth on the roads. We just don't. It's always inconvenient. But, um, it's a necessary part of this protection effort. And I just want to urge all of us to, um, to talk about how, how important it is and how it also is not forever. You know, it isn't going to go on forever. It will go on for, um, I think a couple years, but it's not forever. And, and the, the, um, the protection that it's going to, um, provide for our community is is just really, really vital. So, um, I I want to urge everybody to be a cheerleader. For dirt and trucks. And how important they are. Um, And um, Then another thing that I wanted to mention is, uh, well, maybe this isn't, I'll do this in an announcement at the end. Okay. So, I, um, But I, again, I just really want to, to, um, to echo again that, that, uh, there has been some pretty important deadlines in the last few months, and I really appreciate the staff, and, um, all the parties stepping forward to meet them. That's very important for our community. So thank you.

[02:20:04] Chair Alison Hicks: So council member, Abbe Koga?

[02:20:08] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, chair. Um, I too want to echo the thanks to our staff. Um, I was on cancel in 2012 when we 1st approved the sea level rise plan. And um, back then I recall, I think we were maybe one of the 1st to even have a plan of the cities, at least in this area, if not like the Bay Area. And it was last year when, um, is mayor, out of the blue, um, I think it was KRN. One of the media outlets contacted me, um, because they were doing a story on sea level rise. And the question was, are you ready for for sea level rise? And, um, you know, I told them, well, actually, we are because we have this plan and we've even updated it over the last decade. And, um, the reporter was actually like kind of skeptical about it because I think it was such a rarity, um, for what he had been hearing. So, I, I, you know, just very proud of um, our staff and having the foresight to to come up with this plan way back when, um, and I appreciate that we've, you know, made some progress on the projects. Um, but my one question is, is that is the, the cost of the projects, they, they've risen again. Um, I mean, it's hard to say, it's kind of funny to say this, but $100 million. It's not too bad. Um, these days with how costs creep goes, but, um, I remember a few years back. And I think it might have been when we were doing measure AA, but um, I had attended a, um, an event with uh, Senator Feinstein and it was a fireside chat where the conversation was about sea level rise and, um, she had talked about her work and trying to secure funding, um, for projects. And I guess I hadn't heard much from from since then. And so wondering, like, did the has the funding come through? Is there funding opportunities? I know, you mentioned, um, it'll come up with the, the priorities and then figure out a plan, but, um, where are we in terms of actual resources and being able to, um, complete the projects that we have.

[02:22:38] Lisa: Council member, Abby Cooko. We are continuing to look at grant opportunities. We have looked at, um, Some of the, uh, Is it the FEMA? Raymond actually has more information about it, but I think we've applied and I think our cost benefit ratio. Uh, didn't allow us to qualify for some of that. I think that's being like, um, You know, you can hire points for maybe serving more low income areas and our flood risk area. Um, doesn't meet some of that crite, doesn't score as high as some other agencies that have lower income areas uh, at the flood areas. So we applied and we didn't get some of the the federal grants at this time, but we will continue to do so. And we believe there are going to be more grants coming up. And we do, we do collaborate for, for example, with valley water. Okay, to look at other grand opportunities as well. Raymond, did you have anything else to add?

[02:23:39] Raymond Wong: No, I think that's about right. Like, for example, for the stuff based off on reservation project, like I fenced you, uh, the grid F book with California State, also conservancy, and US regional violence surface. Uh, it can be able to address some of the uh, potential vulnerability, like to the sea level, right, the city, so that is a huge benefit. And at least I mentioned, like there is a different, uh, a grant that is, um, in like a different objective. Some of the grand is like a more like a focusing on fra protection, like a female gram that needs a mansion. And some of those, um, those are based on like a, what's so called the benefit cost rate show. And those are really is to look at, um, the damage versus like the cost to construct, like a, that's like a workout, like it to be favorable. So some of those like a kind of depending on like a requirement. And then there's like this whole category of the grand availability that is based on like a restoration work that can be done like in the area. So we continue to look at like those different opportunity to see what we can able to do through like original collaboration with some of the larger regional project and also a specific target, the grant, that can be able to address the category of the problem that we try to deal with and resolve as part of the sea level rights program. So those are the things that we are going to continue to look forward to and to able to add it into like our toolbox in terms of available funding for different projects.

[02:25:03] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you for that. I appreciate that and appreciate, again, appreciate the hard work and, um, I would support council member Show Walters, um, recommendation, I, I, I saw your email earlier today, council member, and, um, but I hadn't had a chance to actually look at the plan, but, um, if staff is, if we can ask staff to take a look at that and, and, um, and write a letter, support, if it, and I, and I'm assuming it's gonna fit into our, um, our guidelines. Um, I would be supportive of that. And, um, Also, any regional collaboration. I think, or yes, we're all connected and is, you know, proud as I am about how far we've come. Because I'm curious to know where other, what other cities are, where they are and, um, more coordination, I think, would definitely be beneficial. Thank you.

[02:26:03] Chair Alison Hicks: So just to clarify, uh, Council member show, Walter, the email was that subject what you were going to bring up in the announcement, or is this a separate subject? Uh, no. Uh,

[02:26:18] Member Pat Showalter: that's, that's a separate subject, um, I, I can make the announcement now. I, we're working on a, uh, a local, um, group of, uh, elected officials to talk in the South Bay about, um, uh, sea level rise protection to, to focus the political will, uh, locally about that. And we're just getting started on it. So just beginning talks about it. So that's what I was going to announce. And then the other thing on a, uh, much um, lighter note is we're on December 11th, we are having a bike ride. Uh, Raymond is going to accompany us as well as John Marchand, and along the, um, the, uh, Bay Trail from Charleston's, we're going to start at the shoreline lake, uh, parking lot at, uh, 10 AM on Saturday, December 11th, and we'll, we'll bike to Charleston Slough, and then, and then go to the, um, Sunnyvale treatment plant on, on the Bay Trail. It'll be a really pretty ride. So I hope a number of you will come along.

[02:27:23] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Interesting Um, I don't, I don't, I, I assume that's, that's it. The end of the announcement. Okay. I don't have a lot to add. I'm, you know, just gonna give my, um, Again, echo the the thank you to staff for the stellar job and, um, and also echo what some, uh, members of the public mentioned, that, uh, the city of Palo Alto public works department, did a webinar last month on, um, horizontal levees and balancing public access and habitat enhancement. And I'm I'm wondering if it was an excellent webinar, I thought, and there was Mountain View staff there as well. And I'm wondering whether you had the opportunity to see it. Um, Lisa and Raymond or whether I should pass that on to you.

[02:28:21] Lisa: Um, I did not participate in that meeting. Raymond, I'm not sure if he did or not.

[02:28:26] Raymond Wong: Yeah, not on that meeting, but we do have an ongoing collaboration with the city of Palo Alto on the shoreline project, um, including uh, the project component in paddle flood basin, which including the horizontal level component, but, um, yeah, I would love to see anything like a sea level rise or pre- uh, uh, like uh, we're looking forward to see that.

[02:28:46] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, I will pass it on and it had a great deal to do with habitat and so it sounds like it intersects a lot with what you're doing. So are there any final comments on this one? If not, then

[02:29:02] Audrey: if I may. Sure. Madam, chair. So, um, Council member show alter brought up the, the hope that the city, um, might go on record and support, uh, the VCDC Bay adapt. I think it's principles and activities. And I know that council member Abby Koga expressed interest in that, which makes it a majority. Um, and and I think what they ask is, is not just a letter, but also a resolution. And so what, what we, we haven't had the time to do at the staff level is really make sure that what looks good on the surface really is consistent with how we are approaching our work and what our needs are and um, and so I will need some time to do that before we could bring it back. Um, as a resolution to counsel, unless, you know, we, we were to, you know, for some reason, find that we, we didn't think it was consistent, which I don't think is likely, but we just haven't had the time to, to look at it. It looks like a good report and there's a lot to it and we would we would need that time. Um, I don't get the sense from how it's come forward, that there's a deadline for expressing that support and, and, you know, given that our, our last meeting of the year, you know, packets next week. Um, we won't be able to do it um, in, uh, until uh, early 2022. Um, but if that, um, you know, if I am correct in saying that seeing, this is the will, uh, or the interest of the majority of the committee, um, will go ahead and undertake that assessment and find the, the, the best available date to bring it back to council. Okay, I'm seeing nods. Okay. I would agree as well.

[02:30:51] Chair Alison Hicks: Any other summaries? Or is that it? Okay. So now we will move on to item 6.3. The sustainability action plan for status update. Staff will present a status update on um, on that plan, including progress since the May 2021 update to city council. Um, And I think it's gonna be sustainability analyst Lauren Anderson, who will present the report.

[02:31:25] Lauren Anderson: Great. Thank you, Ch Hicks. Um, so good evening, committee members. I'm Lauren Anderson. Analyst too for the sustainability division. I'll be presenting a status update on the sustainability action plan 4, which I'll refer to as SAP 4. And, um, this will include progress since the May 2021 update to city council and, you know, as she mentioned a preview of significant upcoming items. So, the, Sorry, I went one too far there. Okay, there you go. So the staff recommendation for this item is for the committee to provide input to staff based on the staff update. Please note that staff is not proposing any changes to the current SAP 4 and this is intended as an update only. SAP 4 was adopted in October 2019 and covers 3 fiscal years, 2019,20 through 2021, 2022. The plan included 81 new and 79 already approved actions, and it is organized over 27 goals in a variety of sectors shown on the slide. In May 2021, council received an update on the status of SAP 4 and approved the removal of 5 of the new actions. So this update is based on progress since that update. So of the 76 remaining actions, 20% are complete. 55% are in progress or ongoing. And 25% have not yet been started. So the staff report contains brief updates on 19 key SAP4 actions. Um, for brevity. I'm just gonna briefly show you the key items that we covered in the memo, um, by department, and afterward, you know, we can answer any questions you have about particular items. So these next 2 slides show key items for the city manager's office. So, um, For the city manager's office, we have uh, the 2018 community greenhouse gas inventory, the cool block program, an e-bike rebate program, and an EV action plan. We also have the electric landscaping equipment incentive program. The sustainability dashboard, electrify Mountain View program, and the plant-based eating program. This slide shows the key items for the community services department, and that includes the community tree master plan. Tree planting and outreach, electric landscaping equipment program, and an irrigation audit. And then these next 2 slides show the key items for the public works department. So these include electrification during renovations, the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall feasibility study, active transportation outreach. And the bike rack request, request program. Um, so staff plans to present a final update on SAP for our implementation. to the city council in fall of 2022. And, um, you know, that concludes my presentation, so we're happy to answer any questions about particular items. Thank you.

[02:35:00] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. Do any members of the council have questions? No questions at this point. Do you have a question? Okay, council member show, Walter?

[02:35:19] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I know that one of the issues um, of carrying this out has been staffing. And I just wondered where we were in terms of staffing.

[02:35:32] Audrey: I'm happy to help with that question. Um, there were 7 positions that were identified as new, um, uh, positions necessary to carry out the SAP for, um, um, actions, uh, or, and, uh, really kind of, um, increase the, the investment in our sustainability programs. Um, of those, um, 7. Um, 2 have been hired, um, although one was since vacated, unfortunately, as it was a limited period position, and there was an opening for a ongoing position in the city that the person competed for and was able to, to, um, to get, so we've, we, we need to go back out for that one. There are 4 that are in process, some of which are very close to being, um, uh, hired, and one that's not started. Um, there was a period of delay, um, as we had the initial impacts of the COVID pandemic in that we, um, wanted to make sure that our fiscal condition, um, uh, was stable enough to bring on ongoing, um, positions that we didn't have ongoing funding for because the sustainability fund that the council, um, committed funding to was, was time limited, was, you know, was intended to support 3 years of of those positions and other expenses. We also had impacts to our recruitment function. Um, that uh, was a result of how staff needed to be redeployed to work on um, COVID operational issues. But things are back up to kind of normal, um, speed on on recruitments and we are moving forward with all of those positions. But it definitely does impact our ability to get all of the action plan done, to not have all of these positions filled.

[02:37:31] Member Pat Showalter: So, so it sounds like at least 4 of them will probably be filled when the next, within the next 3 to 6 months. Is that about right?

[02:37:40] Audrey: Yeah, I think that there are 2 of them, you know, ones in background check now. One has interviews that are coming up, um, uh, in the next week. I think another is also at at a position where they're kind of coming up with finalist candidates. So 3 of them, I think, should be quite soon. Um, another might be a little bit into 2022. Um, and all of that has to do also with kind of how, how the market is out there. There was, you know, one of the the recruitments that we did for, um, the facility maintenance position that was one of the limited period positions trying to get us caught up on some of our backlog. And, um, we went through the a recruitment and exhausted the eligibility list without finding the right fit for the position. Um, so, um, uh, sometimes, you know, we think we're close, but then we, we don't find that we, we have, um, you know, we have the right fit, as was the case for that facility maintenance, um, position.

[02:38:44] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, thank you.

[02:38:45] Audrey: You're welcome

[02:38:49] Chair Alison Hicks: So council member Abbe Koga?

[02:38:54] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, staff, uh, for the reports and uh, it's good to see some good progress being made. Um, I was in particular interested in the e-bike. Um, rebate program. Wondering, um, are we working with, um, like, I know the air district Bay Area, Bakmed, um, they're looking, I think, at, um, like a, It's part of their commuter program, but, um, in addition to, um, or I think it, it could be too, like they, they have like the clean cars for all program, but, um, we've had discussion about including e-bikes. Are we working with like the air district in terms of, um, again, resources or funding for our program? I guess I'm like, basically, wondering where the funding is coming for the rebates. And then if we are working with them, yeah, block matter other agencies to come up with the resources for the program.

[02:40:02] Steve: Um. Thank you for the question. Um. If you allow me to consult. Um, actually, Lauren, would you mind jumping in real quick, um, just to comment on our work with the air district and also the, uh, the amount of funding just so I'm not fumbling here.

[02:40:21] Lauren Anderson: Yeah, yeah no problem. So we have 110,000 budgeted for this program. It was budgeted, you know, through SAP4. Um, so right now we're looking at using that funding. Um, we weren't looking at funding specifically from BackMed, but, um, I've been part of a group, um, where there's a staff member from each different agency that's working on e-bike rebate programs and, um, someone from the clean cars for all, um, air district program you mentioned, um, where they're offering, you know, you can choose to, you know, replace a gasoline car, um, by getting, A cleaner car or you can get a transit pass or you can buy an e-bike is one of the options. So, um, we did, you know, review their program for ideas and such.

[02:41:11] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Are they grant opportunities? Like, can we, um, yes, get some funding resources from the air district to help support our program?

[02:41:23] Lauren Anderson: Um, I think it's something we could we could definitely look into.

[02:41:26] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: And then with 110,000 approximately, how much of a rebate are we planning to provide per individual per bike?

[02:41:39] Lauren Anderson: Um, Steve, is it okay if I take this one as well or? Um,

[02:41:43] Steve: yeah, sure. Yeah.

[02:41:45] Lauren Anderson: Um, so yeah, we're still finalizing the program parameters, but right now, you know, we're looking at, um, the range of 800 to, um, Or, sorry. Yeah, 8000, sorry, 8000, no, what am I, sorry, my brain is dead, 800 to a $1000 Um, uh, per bike. Yeah, and we're looking at income qualified program, but everything is still, you know, being decided at this point.

[02:42:11] Steve: Yeah, the important, the important, just to riff off of what Lauren just said, um, given our, uh, increased focus on equity. Um, we wanted to use the e-bike rebate program as one of our newest programs, that really would be, um, working or addressing that in earnest. And so, this will be an income qualified program focused on lower income individuals. Um, and we felt that was the appropriate thing to do, and um, we've seen that in some other cities as well. But that's what our, again, we're still kind of finalizing the parameters, the program parameters, and some of the administrative elements. Um, but that's what our plan is at this point. And we're looking to launch the program in the springtime.

[02:43:04] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Oh, great. I appreciate that. I appreciate your focus. Um, and then in terms of the EV action plan, um, and this is something I've been talking with our Sofal Valley Clean Energy stuff about too, and I know they're working on, I think, uh, a, um, member agency, like a, uh, regional plan. Um, Well, let's have date, information, like, I guess for me, like, my curiosity has been, how many, you know, EV charging stations would we need to be able to support? Um, I think we have a goal of 90% EVs in the Bay Area by 2050 and will it have that kind of information? Because that's really what I've been like looking for and just in terms of having a better sense of what our, you know, needs are, what our goals should be and how we're gonna get there.

[02:43:54] Steve: Yep. Um, so as we've been developing the electric vehicle action plan, which, um, we'll literally be finished within the next week or two. And it is just for context. It is, um, it's a long-term, um, planning document, but it is more focused on internal planning for staff and council. But of course, we will be making it public. Um, and as we've been developing that plan over the last, uh, probably 18 months, um, we have been uh, talking with and monitoring, um, Silicon Valley's clean energy's efforts that you're referring to. We participate in their monthly member agency working group. And so we're ensuring that the efforts, um, and the the elements that are going to be in our, um, action plan are consistent and leverage, uh, the work that they are um, bringing forth. Uh, specifically related to, since you ask specifically about the number of chargers that would be needed. Um, we are also, uh, that was one of the key elements that, um, was a foundational data point to inform the development of the action plan. Um, as a regional collaborative, um, a number of cities participated in a, an initiative a couple years ago called driving to net zero. And I believe it was the county hired a consultant to run that, um, study. And out of that study, it looked at all of the specific cities, in the area, and traffic patterns and forecast of future, um, traffic needs and charging needs, and provided each city with their estimation of how many chargers, we would need at what points in time. So, um, we definitely are, you know, have been using the data in the driving to net 0 study as the basis of, um, the work or the, yeah, the data that informed our action plan, and also the chargers that we are going to be installing, um, downtown, um, 35 additional chargers, um, in the next, um, quarter or so.

[02:46:20] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Right, thank you. I look forward to the the, uh, plan. And then I just want to, also thank you for following up with, um, clean energy again and and being able to, um, put a pilot program together for the, um, landscaping, the leaf, the, the, leaf blower, incentive program. I really appreciate that. Look forward to seeing that happen too. Thank you.

[02:46:51] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, so I have a couple of questions. One, I'm just curious, uh, given your, your comments about driving to the driving to net 0 study, was, was there, in addition to the number of chargers, talked about? Was there also talk about where they should, what kinds of, uh, facilities they should be in, whether it be, you know, apartments, grocery stores, employers, other places, and what level the chargers should be at, you know, one, 2 or 3?

[02:47:27] Steve: Yeah, I'll, um, I'll take that and certainly, Lauren, feel free to jump in, um, since you may have some of the, uh, deeper details in that. But from my recollection, um, the driving tenet 0 did look at, um, placement locations around not only the number of chargers, but also where they should be located within the city. And the type of chargers in those specific locations. So, yeah, those were all elements, um, to my best of my recollection that, um, the DNZ study covered, and, um, and if, again, Lauren can jump in if there was anything more there.

[02:48:09] Lauren Anderson: Um, no, yeah, I think you covered it. It's down to like the travel zones, so it's pretty, pretty detailed.

[02:48:16] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, good, because those are the questions I ask when I drive around with my EV, but where they are and what level? Um, and then I also wondered with the, um, With the electric landscaping, uh, leaf flower incentives. Is there any, I know there's been some talk on, well, we've had small business grants. I'm wondering if there's any link between that and any, um, you know, any of those other programming, any of that other program, COVID programming. Or if there's anybody been any talk about linking them in any way.

[02:49:00] Audrey: Um, I'll take a 1st pass at that, um, uh, We don't really have the small business grant program specifying particular kinds of costs that we we would want them to use that funding on and and I and I think we've kept it very open to to them addressing the impacts of COVID. So if I'm understanding your question about whether or not, um, we would want to give, you know, have them use those funds for this purpose or whether we would want to give these funds to the businesses that have participated in the small business grant program, um, we really haven't been looking at what the linkage would be between those two. Um, and and this is really going to serve not just businesses who might purchase or or hire landscapers, but landscape businesses that are, are, um, employing people with leaf blowers to, to go and do this work.

[02:50:06] Chair Alison Hicks: Yeah, I I asked you, I actually asked in a very vague way and sort of because I was thinking about several things counsel had talked about recently and one was also uh, talking about equity related programs, possibly supporting small businesses, particularly. I think minority owned businesses. So I would, you know, rather than be in separate silos. It might be nice to to, um, I, I honestly don't remember how far we got with that, but to kind of, um, think about those 2 things together. And then my last question is, um, is, you know, you give us a periodic statement of how far we've gotten in terms of reaching our goal. When when will we get? How was the last one and when will we get the next one?

[02:51:01] Steve: Just to clarify the question when you say reaching our goal, Are you referring to our greenhouse gas emissions?

[02:51:07] Chair Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:51:08] Steve: Okay. Um, so we presented the 2018 uh, community inventory to uh, the city council earlier this year. And our plan is to present, uh, a preliminary, uh, excuse me, a final 2019 and a preliminary 2020 inventory, um, coming up in the spring for community, um, the community wide, and then toward, more toward the beginning of the summer, we'll bring forth the 2020 municipal operations inventory. So you should have the next iteration of our progress, um, community wide, um, you know, in the, you know, probably March, March, April type. Okay.

[02:51:56] Chair Alison Hicks: You don't have any preliminary reports in that. Um, not

[02:52:02] Steve: that we can share tonight. No, I'm afraid not.

[02:52:04] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay. Um, so we'll move on to comments from the public. And first, so, uh, if people could raise their hands if they want to comment. I see 2 hands, so we'll do 2 minutes. Oh, 3 hands will still do two. Hello

[02:52:27] Juliana Pendleton: again? Uh, this is Juliana with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. We are excited about Mountain View's progress and achievements with SAP 4. Uh, we understand tonight, this is an update, uh, but we would still like to bring up the issue of lighting and ask for attention to lighting in the SAP actions as you move forward. Mountain view is definitely a leader in its efforts to advance sustainability, biodiversity, and habitat altogether. In order to break silos and merge sustainability, biodiversity in public health, we ask you to do more for both the reduction of energy consumption and to reduce fighting. Over lighting is not sustainable. Wasting energy for lighting up to the sky or lighting areas where it is not needed is not sustainable either. We believe improving the building codes and standards as part of the SAP 4 and later with SAP 5 is a viable solution. As we advocate for the reduction of light pollution and artificial light. We have found that building codes often require more lighting than is necessary, especially outdoors. When I drive at night, oftentimes the most split up areas are empty parking lots, closed car dealerships and bright signs from corporate buildings. Some empty offices, office buildings glow. We believe actions BE4. Increase efficiency of buildings through voluntary programs and city ordinances, BE 12, use city buildings to demonstrate leadership in electrification and efficiency, and B and one, update green building code to move towards low carbon building. All provide room to include lighting standards that balance public safety and public and environmental health. These improvements could include limiting LED correlated color temperatures to 2700 Kelvin to ensure warm glows, and ensuring that all fixtures are shielded to eliminate light spill, that no lighting is near riparian or sensitive habitats. That timers, motion sensors, and or dimmers are implemented for all lighting, and that all lighting is of the lowest intensity to reduce. Thank you. Okay,

[02:54:36] Chair Alison Hicks: thank you, Juliana. Now, uh, Gita Dev. Sorry,

[02:54:56] Deb: it takes so long too. Come aboard. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this particular item. First, I want to endorse everything that Audubon Society put forward and the list that they came up with at the end. It's really, really important as we go forward as lighting becomes cheaper and more available. We need not brighten up everything till daylight. The, the one item I'd like to, Staff to consider, and Stephen Lauren, thank you so much for your detailed work and your deep knowledge, and forgive me if you've already considered this. But this is something we'd like you to consider, which is that buildings are the biggest source of greenhouse gas, along with transportation. And what a heaters and particularly furnaces last a long time. For this will last 30 years, a water heat over last 7 to 10 years. So if you're looking at rebate programs and looking at opportunities for rebates. Please, please, please consider rebate programs for electric furnaces, and for electric water heaters, with an equity lens for greater, greater rebates for income. uh considerations. I know that Silicon Valley and uh, San Mateo, you know, Peninsula Clean Energy, both trying to do repaid programs, but Redwood City has a rebate program and they report that people will use their reboot program and bypass. Peninsula clean energy because it's too complicated. Just provide, you know, Redwood City has a very easy to use program. I hope other cities can take copy from that and I hope Silicon Valley Clean Energy and Peninsula Clean Energy do that too. But this is really critical because unless we start getting rid of the furnaces now. Those furnaces are going to be there for the next, you know, mine is 35 years old and it's going strong, so, please, thank you. Thank

[02:57:04] Chair Alison Hicks: you, Data. Now we have uh, number 793, which I think is Bruce. Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Hi,

[02:57:19] Bruce Nagel: this is Bruce Nagle again. Um, I want to uh, thank you, uh, group for the opportunity to be able to talk about this. And thank the uh, the work that the sustainability group has done under Steve Attinger, uh, to start to list things to measure. Um, there is something further that needs to be put in there, and that is, we need to understand where we are now, and we know that the goals are going to be 0, and we should be determining, uh, you know, a graph that says, here's how we're sloping off so we can measure our progress over a period of time, and know if we're on track, and if we find some way of being better than where we expected to be able to, to, uh, leverage off of that discovery. So, by all means, continue this and do something to put some numbers behind us so that when we get reported again on this thing, we have an idea of how we're moving down the path to uh, that big 0 in the sky that we're all aiming for either 2030 or 2045. Thanks for allowing me to speak. Thank

[02:58:22] Chair Alison Hicks: you, Bruce. Now we have Bruce England. Mr. England, are you able to unmute? Yeah,

[02:58:57] Bruce England: it's very weird. Do you hear me now? Yeah,

[02:59:00] Chair Alison Hicks: you're kind of quiet. Sorry,

[02:59:02] Bruce England: it's getting late in the evening. Hear me, hear me now? I'm using this. Yeah. I just want to echo the request to include lighting in the action plan, and also if you're going to put, um, furnaces and so on, uh, incentives for that, uh, induction cook talks, they're, they're cheap. It's a small win, but I think that they're valuable. So I'd like to see that included too. Thank you. Thank you.

[02:59:31] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, so now we're back to council for comments. Are there any comments from council members? Uh, Council member Abbott Koga? Thank

[02:59:45] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you, chair. Um, I just, I have a question, um, we've heard, um, over time, um, about the lighting issue, and wondering how we can look at incorporating that, um, as, I think as, um, the Audubon Society, um, uh, staff person mentioned incorporating it into some of our initiatives, and we need to take that to council? How would we go about looking at incorporating some of those suggestions? Does. Um.

[03:00:29] Audrey: I'm, I'm remembering specifically, one of the ideas around the, the, the green building policy, I think, is one of the, the recommendations where the, the commenter suggested it could be built into, um, I don't think that that, that policy is that specific. I think it's the implementing, you know, implementation actions that come out of of that. And a lot of the specifics that were provided around kind of establishing lighting levels and locations for lighting. Um, you know, if it's related to city projects, then that's something that public works would be assessing, um, and if it is related to development standards, that would be within, um, community development. I know that, um, not the same thing, but a similar thing with regard to bird safe development, was raised by the Audubon Society, and the council did specifically direct as part of its goal setting and work plan process, that there be a project around that. I don't think it's as easy as just kind of slipping some things into other policies. I think it is analysis around what those appropriate standards and locations would be. And, um, and then working them into whatever ordinances or, or project planning processes and that's not currently part of SAP 4. So I think if this were something that the subcommittee wanted to, um, as a, you know, majority recommend a council, you know, we would need to look at, you know, is that something for our next, um, um, action plan. Um, that would be my suggestion for when it would be the appropriate time to consider that, and if there were an earlier interest in doing so, then it would, you know, it would require, um, a look at resources and trade-offs. Yeah,

[03:02:24] Chair Alison Hicks: not to speak out of term, but I think that it's basically an ordinance is what, like, and that Cupertino has kind of a model ordinance, if we were to take that on. So. That's my only comment. I'm sorry, if I interrupt.

[03:02:40] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: No. Um, so then, uh, what is our time frame then for looking at SAP five? I

[03:02:49] Audrey: would, I think we're gonna probably get into that in the next item, um, uh, in the context of the referral to the committee about changing the, you know, the potential for changing the date for the carbon neutrality plan. that that and coordination with our climate action plans that we already identified for, um, update. And the fact that we have it, um, in our action, in our SAP for, uh, the creation of an adaptation and resiliency plan as well, that we need to look at how those plans all overlap with each other, and, and, um, and that those would become drivers as much as a standalone process around SAP 5 where, you know, individual project ideas, very valid and and, and worthwhile. Um, um, but instead being looking at it through the lens of if we are going to have this target of carbon neutrality, how would that drive the the priorities and things that we do? So, I think that that is an, uh, um, an answer that says probably longer out than, than, it would be normally the case if we were just, um, ending the SAP 4 at the end of June 2022. Um, but in any event, at the earliest, we wouldn't be taking up SAP 5 until, you know, the end of, you know, toward the end of SAP 4 and taking stock of assessing that as it completed. But I think we've got these bigger picture questions that and strategies that we want to have drive the action plan. Sure. And, you know, Steve and I, um, uh, I'm stealing his thunder, but he and I had a good conversation about this this afternoon because, you know, we felt it was likely that this question would come up. And so, Steve, is there anything you'd like to add to my answer? Um,

[03:04:44] Steve: I will uh, probably just defer any further comments until we get into 6.4. Um, but I would like to take the opportunity just while I'm speaking to offer 2 additional comments. One is related to lighting, um, and I can't speak with certainty that, um, it could be handled this way, but, um, we will be looking, you know, the sustainability division will be collaborating with the building division in the coming year on the next version of our, um, reach code, our building reach code. And so, um, that may be there may be an opportunity. I don't want to kind of speak out of turn here, this really would be a larger conversation. You'd have to have in conjunction with community development and the chief building official. But, um, you know, possibly there's an opportunity to do something related to lighting in the next iteration of our green building code. And the 2nd comment I wanted to take the opportunity, uh, to mention is several, um, community members have talked about this, including, um, also some committee member comments, but related to metrics, there's been a pretty large, um, thrust in this evening's conversation around metrics. And did want to just point out that in our staff memo, we have included a table, uh, that highlights the metrics that we are going to be looking at, including in, um, our public sustainability dashboard. So really, what the community and many people are asking for. We are in the process of working on, uh, so that we can move beyond just reporting on carbon emissions, to reporting on, um, all of that. They're probably about 25 different metrics that span, you know, the broad cross section of the sustainability continuum. Um, and again, those are in the staff memo. Those are the metrics that we're going to be looking at, including in the dashboard this next year. Great.

[03:06:56] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, I guess I'll wait for the next item too to talk further about, um, get timeline, but thank you for bringing up the reach codes. I was going to mention that that we at Silicon Valley Clean Energy are talking about, reach Codes 2.0 and I believe the next code cycle is 2022. Um, so, um, just something that we should, we should be aware of that we may be in, we probably will be engaging in that. And I know with the beach codes we did, um, it kind of came up quickly and there was some consternation from the public, um, that it was a bit, um, It was expediently done, which, I mean, I thought was good, but not everybody got that way. So I just want folks to be aware now that we we are probably going to be looking at beach codes 2.0 in the next the coming year. Um, and I just wanted to mention that some of the comments, um, about like the stove, the induction, stove top, um, and like the, um, heat, water, palm heat, heat. I always get it mixed up. But, um, so clean energy has had um, programs. I know staff knows this, and I don't know if we maybe need to collaborate more and do more outreach or let folks know, but we did have a, um, heat water pump. Uh, um, rebate program. They actually had like a $50 induction stove pup, um, stove top, rebate program that just ended if, uh, earlier this year. So these are, um, available. And, um, so, yeah, I guess I'm just realizing and hearing public comment that maybe they're just not as well known. Um, but we do, um, at clean energy, plan to, we're also reevaluating, um, our programs too, to, um, and it was actually our Mr. Bruce Carney, who brought it up about the need for us to double down. We're calling it doubling down and decarbonization to reach, um, our goals more quickly. Um, But I hope that we can just, maybe, double down on collaborating and um, getting, you know, uh, getting it out to the public, but is available. And, and that would be the one thing too, is that I don't want to duplicate efforts as much as we can collaborate rather than duplicate, um, is very important to me since resources are limited. And I hope that, you know, we, I know our, like, our staff is, um, working hard and has, you know, a lot of other things going on too. So I hope that we can, you know, we, um, rely on clean energy stuff more or, or, and, and I'm sure, I know you are talking to them about, and I've asked them to, to just, you know, find out from the cities, like what would be more helpful. What could clean energy do to be more helpful? Um, to the cities in reaching their their climate action goals. So, um, yeah, I I guess I think I'll take this back to clean energy too, to, um, share with them what some of the public comments were and, and perhaps the need for us to, um, increase our efforts to get the word out better. Thank you.

[03:10:28] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, so Council member show Walter?

[03:10:35] Member Pat Showalter: Well, most of the comments that I was going to make have been made, but the only one that I think is left is about trees. Um, and we've heard about trees quite a bit, and certainly with this mega drought we've been in. Um, a lot of our trees in our our yards, um, not related to development have died. I know in my yard, we've lost 5 trees in the last few years, just because, um, they've, uh, you know, they've, they've, um, been taken by various bugs. And it's really sad. Anyway, um, I think if, uh, I wanted to know if we do as a city, keep count. of, um, how many trees we lose, and, um, uh, and, and what, how many we were planting? I mean, it said in the report that 21 were planted by canopy. Um, surely more than 21 were planted.

[03:11:33] Steve Ottinger: Yes, um, My understanding, um, and again, I'm not the, uh, not the expert in our tree canopy, um, area, but my understanding is that our staff does a, uh, keeps a pretty close tab on our tree canopy. Um, they have a goal of increasing our canopy a certain percentage. Um, I think by 2025 and 2030. Um, I know historically that, um, you know, we offer annual tree giveaways, um, for residents, and, um, historically, it's it's actually been difficult to get people to take trees. Um, but I am aware that, um, city staff is looking at, um, incorporating or um, beginning to use a new, uh, program that's going to enable them to get, um, much more granular data on the tree canopy, um, and that I believe is, is around the corner pretty soon. Uh, in, I think the 1st quarter of this next year. So, um, That's, I don't, I don't believe John Marchand is on, on tonight, but, um, we can certainly provide a few more details, um, in terms of exactly how we're doing the counting, um, as a as a follow-up.

[03:12:53] Member Pat Showalter: Well, I think that there's an incredible um, sort of cross, uh, colonization between, um, trees and uh, and active transportation. I'm really aware when I'm walking or when I'm biking, where the shady spots are and where they're not. And, um, I know I'm not alone with that. And we have a, you know, a lot of the, we have great sunny weather, which means that a lot, a lot of the, the time, um, you know, you, you, you really need those trees a lot, during a lot of the year here. So I would just like to make that point that it's not really, um, just to parks and recs issue. It's also an active transportation issue. And we should, I think we should be thinking about it. Um both ways. And, um, then the other thing I was going to say about the counting. Um, you're right, there are a lot of things that could conceivably be counted and should be counted. And I, I just would like to say that I don't think we necessarily have to have staff do all that counting. Um, we have a very active uh, community who, I think, I mean, the Audubon for years has done the Christmas bird count. I wouldn't suggest we do anything as, as, um, dramatic as that, but, um, I would think that we could get assistance on some of this counting, um, by our, our community, and it's something we might want to think about. Um, in the future. So, then I just would say ditto about all the stuff related to electrification of, um, uh, you know, of houses and buildings. And I'm so grateful that Silicon Valley Clean Energy is taking the lead on that. And, you know, I think the collaboration. Um, is a way to go. And if one of the things we want to do to collaborate is to advocate for a simpler process, that, you know, that might be appropriate, but honestly, I'm not familiar with that. So I, I don't know, you know, if it's difficult or not. Um, but, But certainly. Um, I know from the buyback program we had at the water district for turf, the turf by bike, it was, it's really complicated, and you have to be, and and you get a lot of money for it. So that meant that there were some people who were quite motivated to do it. But it shouldn't be that you have to be super motivated to get these. I mean, they should. I think they should be fairly, um, fairly straightforward if possible. So, um, So thank you.

[03:15:30] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, so as for my comments, I'm in, I'm in general agreement with, um, what other council members have, have said, and I guess I would just highlight some of the, um, comments that members of the public and, uh, council member show Walter just said about, um, green streets and uh, tree, tree lined streets encouraging active transportation. I think we saw in, I guess it was 6.one that people are, item 6.one tonight, that people are, one of the positive things is that people are walking and biking more. And I would like to encourage that even more if possible. And yes, look at the, the, um, The trees, and I would say not just trees, but also tree canopy. I think like small saplings often don't do it. And also, um, uh, uh, foamine undergrounding. I think that's one of the things that's stopping the larger trees and tree canopies in some areas. So, um, and and I also think that there may be opportunities for, you know, some of the the federal and uh, grants in this area, uh, federal and maybe even state grants that I've seen. Um, so that's something, you know, something that I'd like us to, uh, take bigger charge over. I think even for, um, some of our traffic calming, we could use instead of, um, the speed bumps, we could use bulb outs and and, um, some street, road diets and, and, um, some uh, street greening. And I also think that our recent legislative work, I know there's a lot of uh, upcoming legislation around this. There was slow streets and shared streets legislation that, um, I think just passed recently. With assemblyman Navarian, am I saying his name right? Um, Championing, championing that. And from what I've heard, there's a lot more coming, so I would like us to be active in that as well. So those are my comments. Are there any summary? Is there any summary here? Um, uh,

[03:17:57] Audrey: this is an update and it's, it's not a, um, a, a request for direction, but certainly, you've heard a lot of good comments and can, can look back at the ones that are related to our existing programs and make sure that we're, um, incorporating your perspectives and for things that would require, um, new, um, uh, items, um, those would be things to talk about. in the next round of planning.

[03:18:27] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, great. So, um, we'll move on to 6.4, which is the carbon uh, carbon neutral target date discussion. Um, staff will discuss uh, carbon neutrality by the 2030 resolutions adopted by other cities and seek council sustainability committee's direction to return to the committee with an assessment of the implications of adjusting Mountain View's carbon neutrality target year from 2045 in accordance with the current council adopted resolution to 2030. Um, and I believe sustainability coordinator Steve Attinger will present this report.

[03:19:18] Steve Ottinger: Good evening, Chair Hicks, and council sustainability committee members. My name is Steve Ottinger, and I am the city's sustainability coordinator. And this agenda item, um, is, uh, to have us take a look at, uh, an evaluate our current uh, carbon neutrality by 2045 goal, and what may be the implications of moving the goalpost, um, up to 2030. Uh, this is an item that was added to the agenda, um, based on um, public comments and committee direction. And excuse me, city council direction. Um, and so we'll be unpacking that here in the next few slides. So by way of a little bit of background, um, so back in 2009, uh, the city council adopted uh, both short and long-term greenhouse gas reduction targets, with our overarching target B being an 80% reduction in our emissions below our 2005 levels. By 2050. And so, um, following that goal, um, the city has been working steadily to, um, reduce its emissions through various different programs and strategies and actions. Um, and then, uh, about a decade later, in late 2019, um, the city council, uh, agreed with, uh, community input, um, and that we need to, uh, increase the, um, this, the, the, steepness of our reduction curve in the short term. So basically adopt a steeper reduction curve. So the city council agreed to that in late 2019. So that has us reducing our emissions more aggressively in the short term, um, so that we can have a better chance of reaching our long term goals. Um, and then about a year after that or actually less than 6 months after that, um, the city council approved, um, a resolution, uh, that the city of Mountain View would become carbon neutral by 2045. And it's important to understand that the passage of the resolution in April 2020 was a resolution. But there was an acknowledgment, of course, that in order to reach that 2045 carbon neutral goal, we would need to develop a plan, um, that included strategies and actions to actually get us to that 2045 goal. And, um, city staff, um, indicated to council that we would be, uh, working on how to develop a plan for carbon neutral by 2045 as part of developing SAP 5. Next slide. So, Probably don't need to spend a whole lot of time talking about the urgency of climate change. But earlier this year, the intergovernmental panel on climate change came out with yet another report on the urgency and severity around climate change, not only that we're experiencing already today, but based on their best modeling, what we can expect to really see within between now and 2030. Um, there was this strong indication in the most recent report that our runway, um, has shortened quite dramatically in the last few years. Um, and that we, you know, we really need all hands on deck to be focusing on 2030 rather than targets beyond that. And just one quote from that report, which was, um, unless there are immediate rapid and large scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Limiting, warning, warming, to close to one. 5 degrees Celsius, or even 2 degrees Celsius will be beyond reach. So that really summarized the major call to action from that report. Next slide. So in preparing for tonight's agenda item, uh, we did, um, uh, a fairly good look at which other cities and agencies around, uh, locally and around the country have already adopted uh, carbon neutral by 2030 goals. And so what you're seeing here on the slide is, um, our best understanding right now, this is not necessarily an exhaustive list of public agencies, but we probably captured the majority of the agencies around the country that have already signaled or, um, have formal adoption of a carbon neutral by 2030, um, goal. So, as you can see, it's a, it's a fairly short list, considering the total number of public agencies in the United States. And we have some of those agencies. It's nice to see that some of those agencies are right here in the Bay Area, um, including very recently, um, the city of San Jose that, um, just within the last couple of months, adopted a carbon neutral by 2030, um, goal themselves. Um, and so, um, again, this, this is sort of, um, the state of the union right now. So again, it's still very early stage, in terms of the number of cities or agencies that have adopted a 2030 target. But it, again, was made very clear in the most recent IPCC report that this is really where our societal institutions at large, not just public institutions, need to really be focusing, is this runway between now and 2030. Next slide. So, we've had some questions tonight, um, already around, um, the development of SAP 5 and the carbon, um, neutral goal that we have for 2045. Assistant city manager, um, Ramberg, talked a little bit about um, our current thinking around SAP 5, um, development, but I wanted to take this opportunity to really um, bring this all together for you. Um, so as as you all are aware, um, SAP 5, SAP 4. Technically, we'll be concluding in June of 2022. And there will undoubtedly be some items from SAP 4 that will not have been completed. Um, and so as we are, as, you know, literally just in the last sort of month, since this item was added to the agenda, and we've been doing the research and discussing internally how we might approach, um, this process. So we've got SAP 5 as the next 3 year tactical plan that we know staff is on the hook for developing. Um, and also within um, SAP 4 is an action to develop a resilience and adaptation plan. And we have not, that's one of the 25% of our actions that have not yet started. So that is still to be started. Um, and then, again, through the council adoption in April 2020 of our carbon neutral by 2045 plan, um, staff, you know, has on its uh, to-do list to develop that carbon neutral by 2045 plan. And then last, but certainly not least, um, the city does have formal climate action plans, both for the community and for municipal operations. Um, those plans are, um, at this point, about uh, 5 or six, 7 years old. So we've, uh, been, uh, uh, knowing that we need to, uh, at some point look at developing updates to those climate action, uh, those 2 climate action plans. So right now, if you kind of look at things broadly, you know, the 30,000 foot picture is there are really 4 plans that we know as a city that we need to develop, um, within the next, you know, year or 2 Um, to begin to really, uh, address, uh, the call to action, uh, both by the global, our global society, but obviously specifically the city council. And so our initial thinking on this, and, you know, certainly, um, part of the point of this, um, agenda item is to seek direction from the committee on whether the committee would like staff to take a much deeper dive and look at the implications of moving the carbon neutral goalpost from 2045 to 2030. Um, But, you know, we've got these 4 different plans that we know that we need to develop. And so, um, you know, kind of final comment, I'll leave you with, and of course, I'll be happy to answer any questions is, um, we necessarily and obviously are going to be looking at developing these 4 plans, um, in collaboration with each other, and we may not even end up with 4 separate plans. We probably won't. We are likely going to be taking, um, an approach where we sort of identify what the specific elements and strategies would need to be in these various different plans, whether it's the resilience and adaptation or whether it's the carbon neutrality plan or whether it's the update to our climate action plan. So I'll be looking at those 3 big plans, identifying which strategies and actions, um, would likely be in those, and then likely developing perhaps, um, an updated climate action plan that incorporates, um, our, um, resilience and adaptation and carbon neutrality goals. Certainly, that's not something that we've decided by any means, but it's some of our sort of initial thinking. And as we, you know, if the committee would like us to take a deeper dive, um, at this concept of bringing in the carbon neutral goalpost by 15 years, then, of course, we would, um, come back with more specificity on what, um, the amalgamation of these, for plans might look like, what the time frame may be, and then how ultimately that will inform, um, the development of SAP 5, as clearly, Um, it wouldn't make a lot of sense for us to rush out um, with an SAP 5, you know, by, for example, uh, September or October. Um, if we've not yet um, had the clarity on looking at these other 3 plans um, from a 30,000 foot perspective. Um, so the next slide is basically, as I've, as I've indicated, we're seeking direction from the committee as to whether, um, you would like staff to make a deeper assessment about the implications of adjusting power carbon neutral, uh, goal from a target year of 2045 to 2030. Um, and that concludes my presentation and. We're happy to take any questions.

[03:31:31] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you, Steve. Um, so, uh, so yes, do council members have questions? Uh, Council member show Walter.

[03:31:54] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, um, it's getting late and I may not be listening as well as I was 2 or 3 hours ago. But anyway, I just want to clarify, so basically what you're saying is that the plan for the next year is for you to develop, um, or update these, um, 4 plans, and as part of that process, you could do the evaluation of what it meant to, um, change our, um, carbon neutrality date from 2045 to 2030. Is that basically what you said in a nutshell? Um,

[03:32:32] Steve Ottinger: let me offer a, um, a slight uh, nuanced change to what you just said. Um, so, we are not in a position that we would be able to develop those 4 plans within the next year. Um, since development of, for example, you know, if we look at just the, um, you know, developing, actually developing any of those plans would likely require that we would need to hire a consultant to do so. So there is going to be, you know, funding needed, which we can likely pull from the sustainability CIP, but we're going to need to bring in a consultant to help us really look at these plans, um, more broadly, and then, um, develop our best, um, approach for, um, addressing those 4 plans, whether they be, you know, as I mentioned, you know, they could technically individual plans, some cities have individual resilience and adaptation plans and individual climate action plans as separate documents. Um, we're not at a point where we know categorically exactly the best approach, but the game plan, hopefully to answer your question, the game plan, um, over the next year is as we, you know, we're going to continue working to execute SAP 4 actions through now and the end of June. And then we're going to do an assessment of where we are with SAP 4 and we'll return to the council with an update on SAP 4 progress in the fall. And as part of our planning between now and the fall and even toward, you know, through the end of 2022, we will be evaluating the best approach for how we want to address developing these 3 or 4 plans collectively or as perhaps as an amalgamation. And then we would return to either the committee or the city council with a recommendation in that regard. And that, you know, we will hopefully be able to do by by the end of 2022. Um,

[03:34:51] Audrey: I think there was another part to your question, council member, show Walter, which I want to make sure I'm understanding and we're responding to, um, and that is that we're not saying we need to develop all those plans to assess the implications of moving the target from 45 to 30, 2045 to 2030. I think what we're asking you is Do you want us to take the next, you know, uh, you know, couple of months or so and come back early in next year or the 1st quarter of next year and tell you, this would be the approach we would need to take to move that, um, the implications to move the, the target. We would want you to know, whether you wanted to recommend that to the council so that the council could give us that direction so that when we go and develop. In whatever configuration, as Steve mentioned, the carbon neutrality plan, the private action plan, that we know what target we're working toward. So that those are separate things, that kind of Oh, I see. Yeah, that makes sense then.

[03:36:01] Member Pat Showalter: So in other words, you would you would do an early assessment of what, you know, what? I mean, we don't want to make a resolution to change a date when we, we don't know what that means. Uh, that that, you know, that wouldn't really be responsible, fiscally responsible. So, so you would do, uh, you know, an evaluate, a, a, a short evaluation, and then based on that, you would develop the plans with a new goal or, or with this angle. Okay, thank you so much. Sorry, um, Appreciate the explanation.

[03:36:38] Chair Alison Hicks: So, any other council questions? Seeing no council questions, we will go to public comment. And so if members of the public who want to speak would raise hands. I see at this point 2 speakers, so we'll give 2 minutes. And it would be Bruce Kearney first.

[03:37:19] Bruce Carney: Hi there. Bruce Carney here. Um, So here's here are my thoughts. Um, carbon neutrality would look the same in terms of what has changed in Mountain View, whether it's 2030 or 2045 or 2075. So what would it look like? Well, virtually all of the automobiles would be electrically powered or powered by hydrogen. The buildings would be heated and cooled with electricity and we would be using electricity to cook with. There wouldn't be any natural gas flowing uh, in residential buildings and probably not in commercial buildings as well. To the extent that natural gas is used, it would be used to generate electricity in the winter at night when we didn't have enough batteries, uh, to to give us the electricity we need. So really, what is different about 2030 versus 2045 is the amount of political courage a city council would need to have to push the pace of change beyond the pain point that most residents and businesses would expect that they would be forced to endure. The pain of that transition is real, the expense is enormous. I sent you all the uh, the link to the podcast about Ithaca, a city less than half the size of Mountain View, would anticipate uh, decarbonizing their buildings to cost $2000000000 So for us, that would be $5 billion. Their sustainability manager thinks he has a way to raise that money from private equity and insurance companies. Uh, I'll be sitting in on a call with him on December 7th. I hope he'll convince me. The question really, I think you should ask yourself along with what date is, how long do you think Mountain View will continue to be habitable? If the droughts continue or worsen. Civilizations have fallen due to drought. There's no reason why we will be immune. So this is a deep question about courage, about leadership. And I encourage you to give it your best consideration as you decide what to do.

[03:39:37] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Bruce. Okay, next is Kevin Ma.

[03:39:48] Kevin Ma: Evening again. Um, I would like to point out our neighbor of ours, Palo Alto, Palo Alto has to be 80 by 30 goal. That was passed in 2016, but it's been this year where the SCap, their version of the climate action plan is taking hold. And basically the outcomes are kind of what Bruce has described. We need a 10% reduction and vehicle's model traveled. You need basically every card that's bought on the market now to be EDs. You would need every house to have all gas appliances removed, all multi family gas appliances removed, and all commercial HVAC to be changed. That is a very tall order, which is why cities like Meno Park and Happen Bay, recently proposed, to stop making a gas ban shit off, tad face opposition. Uh, mental parking was one vote away from proposing um, uh, basically a gas cutoff date. Meanwhile, Half Moon Bay kind of punted theirs to 2045. So, to echo again, Bruce is like, this is very much important, but it requires a lot of courage. It requires a lot of average to the community. A lot of effort and staffing to make any of this even possible, and, um, frankly, we do not really have much time before we all decide to have a 2nd house in Minneapolis. So, uh, I hope the council does put in the effort and the, you know, the dedication necessary to make these changes. Thank you.

[03:41:13] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Kevin. Okay, so it's Gita Dev next.

[03:41:27] Deb: Thank you, council members. Um, Coming off to those 2 speakers. But daunting. Um, as as a representative, Sierra Club, I would like to, Encourage, this committee to consider very seriously what the council would like to have us do. It, the, There isn't a lot of time. And there is, in fact, a lot to be gained and a lot to be learned. By looking at what it would take. in order to try to reach that goal. Trying to reach that goal and missing it is better than not trying to reach that goal. Um, so I think that what Steve and others have suggested is that they would, Look at what it would mean for the city, how, how we would have to change our goals and our targets, in order to try to achieve that goal. It may also take completely different measures. Some cities, for example, have passed resilience bonds, for example, something that we have not yet considered. So it may take strategies that are not currently on the table. One of the things that I think, uh, council member, Abikoka, and and show Walter, have both suggested, I think, is very wise, which is that, It's important to maybe have this graphically represented, like if you were trying to reach it in 2030. What would it take? Where would you have to be in if you were trying to reach it in 2045. What would that slope look like? And uh, the staff have demonstrated that they're very good at demonstrating that kind of comparative information that makes it so much more comprehensible. I really like some of the comments that, uh, The council members have asked about, you know, being able to understand what it would take. And I would strongly, as their club, we strongly encourage and hope that the commission would say, let's take a look at it and see what it would take to try to achieve those goals. And what new strategies would we need in order to do that? I'm not willing to just sit here and listen to Bruce Carney and Kevin Ma. Um, as the final word on that. I'd like to see a much more detailed analysis. Thank you.

[03:44:13] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Gita. Next, we have Mary.

[03:44:27] Mary Dadio: Good evening again. Um, I, um, Just a couple thoughts. Um, In line with, uh, I think it was Bruce's comment about, um, The habitability of Mountain View. Um, I just noticed today an article in the San Jose Mercury News that, um, they were talking about the study saying that they think by 2040, we're going to have, Um, it won't be unusual to have 5 year periods of no snowpack. That's, that's our water. And by 2050, it won't be unusual to have 10 year periods of no snowpack. So, um, that's a very, very real threat to the habitability of, um, this entire area. Um, one of the things that struck me and listening to the uh, podcast that uh, Bruce recommended about Ithaca. Um, was the fact that, uh, by setting an, an incredibly aggressive target, um, it seemed to generate an entire different kind of mindset about, you know, we don't have any time. We've got to have a really creative approach now and we have to have. A workable approach now. So, um, you know, we've got to sort of really ramp up quickly and what's it going to take to do that? And so, I think, um, by setting such an aggressive target, um, it might open up sort of new areas of creativity. And I wonder too. Um, You know, I think there are going to be, hopefully, some federal dollars becoming available for climate change. And in that case, the, More thought we've given it. And the more ready we are to go, I think the better chance we'll have of you know, getting our share of those dollars. So, just some thoughts. Thank you.

[03:46:31] Chair Alison Hicks: Thank you, Mary. Okay, seeing no other hands from the public. I'm going to take this back for council member comments. Who wants to start off? Uh, Council member Show Alter?

[03:46:52] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I don't see what we have to lose by asking staff to study it and see what they think is involved. Um, I think that, um, as Pretty much everybody, all of our, uh, uh, Participants have said this evening, um, We have, we, You know, we, we could, we could learn things that would be valuable. And, um, and in any case, we would be, um, working from a position of more knowledge to make a better decision. Um, and to perhaps make better decisions and, you know, future projects. So, yeah, that's, that's generally my feeling, um, uh, I think, uh, letting staff go forward with their recommendation to investigate it is really a good idea.

[03:47:49] Chair Alison Hicks: Council member, Abet Kogo, do you want to comment?

[03:47:53] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, chair. Um, yes, so, um, I, I'm fine or I'm, I can support us looking at what it would take so, um, similarity Councilman Michelle Walters comments. Um, I was reading about San Jose and how they, I guess, I think they passed the resolution. There is an article recently that came out saying, now they have to figure out how they're going to get to get to achieving a neutrality by 2030 and I don't want us to be in that position, frankly. I'll also say that San Jose is 10 times larger than us. They have their own clean energy authority. So I think they just have a lot more resources than a city our size does. And, um, I guess that's just really my question. I'm not really clear on how much more it would take for us to do the evaluation if it's not a whole lot and it won't delay our other projects too long. I'm okay with that. Um, But, you know, I think like Mountain View, you know, we're, we've been very aggressive. Um, and we do a lot of things that other cities don't do, frankly. Just let's just, you know, be frank, like Menlo Park and Palo Alto. That's great that they're working on this, but they're not building housing like we are. And so I think we have, you know, there are going to be trade-offs in what we do and we need to decide what our top priorities are. I mean, building housing, frankly, does contribute to, um, carbon neutrality, right? So, um, that would just be my question is, um, how much of a lift would even the evaluation be? And how would how much would that delay some of the other projects that we're doing? And, um, like, are we, I guess it would be helpful to know, like, given all of that, what all of our plans, um, you know, how far are we, are we gonna hit 2045? Is there a chance we could be reaching it sooner given like our housing goals? I mean, that would be helpful information to know. Um, but again, I guess the question is what kind of resources would that take? Um, and again, um, you know, I appreciate Mr. Carney. doing the rounds. Um, because he came to still from LA clean energy with similar um, uh, suggestions. And so that's why, as I mentioned, we're doing the doubling down on decarbonization. Um, I think the key to a lot of this is frankly going to be resources, um, when it comes to building decarb, you know, with our with our reach codes in Mountain View, going all electric for new building, you know, we're, we're, Moving forward, we're, we're going to be fine. It's just the existing buildings. And, you know, when you can say one strategy is to just encourage more redevelopment, with new, with new development, you, you're gonna get all electric. But, you know, that's that, that conflicts with some of our other, um, goals such as like anti-displacement, right? So I think we really have to look at this in that bigger context of how this really fits in with everything else and all of our other goals that we have. So, yes, if that's possible for staff to do in a relatively short amount of time without delaying other projects. I'm all for it. I guess I'm not really clear exactly what it would take staff to do this, but if staff thinks they can do it, I think that's great. Um, definitely let's look at evaluating it, but I think I need. I mean, I definitely need to see all that before we can make, um, you know, a decision whether 2030 is going to be achievable given. And, and again, I don't want to duplicate effort. So, if, you know, clean energy or another entity is doing this, let's work with them and collaborate. Um, I don't think we have to go at go at this on our own. Thank you.

[03:51:56] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay. There was a, uh, council member, Abi Koga, there was also kind of a question implied in that, but maybe you don't need it answered right away. I guess, because you sign.

[03:52:07] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm not sure if stat, do you, this is, do you have a, like, an answer? Are you able to answer what it would take to make this to do the evaluation? Like, how long it would take or how many? I know you mentioned a consultant, but even like a, you know, an approximate dollar amount. I just don't know like if we have it in our budget right now. There's a lot to this, more than just saying, okay, let's go evaluate it. And I just want us to be realistic about what we're looking at doing. But if you have the answer, great, but yeah, I guess I should just ask you, do you know that right now? Yeah, Steve. Yeah.

[03:52:49] Steve Ottinger: Um, You know, I wish I could give you a very clear answer, um, council member Amikoga about, um, exactly what would be needed in order to, um, To understand the implications of this change. Um, clearly, this is something that, um, you know, the council considers important. And, um, Would there be an impact, you know, to specifically address the question, would there be an impact to some of our other projects that were working on, um, like an SAP for? Uh, you know, they definitely would be. Um, And, You know, one way to look at this. Um, and and you're, and I want to, um, concur with you that this is a, Um, on the surface, it seems like. Oh yeah, let's just look at the implications of bringing the goalposts in 15 years. But that, like you said, is, is a highly complex undertaking, um, done correctly. Um, what we may be able to do within a shorter amount of time is to do an evaluation, you know, sort of, we know where we are today with our reduction goals. We know where our emissions are today. And, you know, we're not the 1st city to have developed a carbon neutral by 30, or we would not be the 1st city to develop a 2030 carbon neutral goal. And so there are other cities plans that we can certainly look at. And so we're not starting from scratch. Um, and, um, echoing Bruce Carney's comments, um, by amplifying them a little bit. Um, getting while there definitely needs, uh, we need to be looking outside the box and what might be some, um, complete, you know, completely new strategies and actions that we haven't even conceived on before. And I do think that's an important aspect of this exercise. Um, and, you know, echoing, you know, coming back to Bruce Carney's comments, what the 2030 versus the 2045 is going to look like, we know in principle, where the areas are that we need to be focusing on. We need to be focusing on decarbonizing our transportation. And decarbonizing our buildings. Um, together, that's 97% of our emissions, give or take. So it's, it's, it's, I don't want to overly simplify this, but it's a matter of, for a 2045 goal, we know we would need to, uh, or we might have a target of X. But for 2030 we might have a target of 3 X. And so, In the short term, in the next few months, we certainly could take, um, you know, a deeper look at the other carbon neutral by 2030 plans, we could see what kinds of goals those agencies have established. And then we could return to, um, this committee with information that helps you make an understanding or make a decision as a as a full city council about whether we want to say, you know what, it's important to do 2030. And then, yes, we will figure it out. Or no, we want to get our ducks in a row before we actually pass that resolution. Obviously, either approach is, you know, it's up to the council. Council already took the direction to pass the 2045 resolution without knowing exactly how we would get there. So, I mean, there's precedent for doing that. Um, but certainly, we could in, you know, in the near term, try to give you, um, uh, a ballpark, uh, idea of the implications of us doing it while, um, recognizing that that would not be particular, this was something that the committee wanted us to return to within the 1st quarter of 2022. You know, it would not be any full exhaustive analysis of the implications, but we could certainly return to you with a better sense of what might be involved. Hopefully that is helpful.

[03:57:28] Audrey: Yeah, thank you, Steve. I really appreciate that. And I think, you know, um, because this only came up at council a few weeks ago. You know, we're kind of doing our best with the time to kind of broach the questions with the committee. Um, and, um, and it's just kind of like, do we want to look at it more or or not? And I think what we could do in the shorter period of time and whatever that is. I, I, you know, I, we shouldn't, I shouldn't speak out of turn to say, but if that was like in the next few months, kind of, it's still going to be pretty broad brush. You know, it's kind of like, you know, here's where we are, you know, and here's the kind of stuff that we're doing that works us towards that, that we need to do a lot quicker. It, you know, here are some of the ways that people are looking at doing things very differently. And that, that, that is a magnitude of effort and cost and, um, and political will and community commitment, um, that, uh, would be needed to get us to that point. And, um, I guess it's, does the, does this, does this committee feel like that's a conversation that you would want to have at a few months time?

[03:58:42] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: And I, I think it would be helpful, um, to have the conversation. Um, You know, I appreciate that, um, our community's always been very, um, ambitious and, and, you know, they've often pushed us to, to be more ambitious and I appreciate that, but I also, um, you know, said to folks who said, oh, why don't you do more, you know, on a very, a number of issues? And I, you know, my response is, well, the difference of like being an advocate versus being a policymaker is, we have to figure out how to finance and where the money's going to come from with all of this, whereas, you know, advocates don't necessarily have to think about that as much. And that's always my concern. Um, is, you know, where are the resources going to come from? And frankly, you know, the public has also said this. I mean, it's really gonna be a huge lift, um, resource wise. And, um, and you know, I will say the clean energy, we've, we are talking about this, um, you know, and we're talking about financing, like what are the financing options? Um, I brought up, how, you know, we could, with new buildings were set, but with, you know, existing buildings, if we have to retrofit them, to be all electric. I mean, that's a huge cost and and given our rent control, um, you know, uh, charter amendment, um, law, ordinance, whatever you want to call it. Um, it's gonna, it's challenging, it's a lot more challenging because we can't expect, um, you know, property owners to just go in. Increased rents to to to make up for the cost of doing all this. And so I think that's where I, I, you know, it would be helpful to have that conversation, um, perhaps to just, you know, really flesh out what this would mean, um, especially, you know, given these nuances that our community has that, frankly, Menlo Park, neither Menlo Park or Palo Alto has in terms of, you know, our our community makeup and the types of buildings we have. So, um, yeah, if you can do a, a broad, um, evaluation, um, that won't take too much, you know, an effort in terms of, and yeah, delay other projects, I would be fine with that, and maybe we can then have a deeper dive discussion at that point. Um, But yeah, again, I just want to be mindful of the resources we have in that we don't delay other priorities that are already in place. Thanks.

[04:01:21] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, so so my comments are that, I mean, I think a lot of spin said. So my comments are simply that I would like to, um, kind of do the broad, there's already a majority for it anyway, so it doesn't matter what I say at this point, I would like. Um, I would like uh, sort of the, the broad brush picture. I'm particularly interested, you know, I am interested in kind of what you said, uh, Steve, of bringing up what other, um, bringing examples of what other cities are doing, so these counties, other regions. And on particularly interested in kind of new funding mechanisms, uh, You know, Bruce Carney brought up one. I think they're public banks are now, uh, uh, I guess, legal or being legalized in California. And I know my, uh, I know people working on, um, different ways of investing pension funds maybe in, um, in green projects. So, um, and then, of course, there's the the federal funding coming. So any kind of, um, Because one of the big questions would be how would refund it, any kind of, um, you know, new funding opportunities, I would also be interested in as a part of the report back. Um, So, uh, council member show Walter, you have another comment?

[04:02:51] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just gonna also add that, um, you know, I would ask staff to, you know, just use your best judgment after you look at this for a little while to come back to us with whether it's more appropriate to do this investigation with a consultant or it's more important for you or it's more appropriate for you to do it yourselves and and let us know. I don't think you necessarily had time to do that and hopefully this thought process. Um, maybe in the next month or so, you could figure out. You could figure that out and, and, and, and in that process, come up with the parameters for an RFP, that would be good if, if that's what you need. But I just wanted you to let you know that I'm not opposed at all to, um, you know, having outside assistance, to, to do this, because you're very busy. And, um, I know it takes time to, to, um, uh, hire con, hire consultants and, and oversee them, but it, it doesn't take as much time. Hopefully is doing the work yourself if you get the right consults. So I just wanted to mention that.

[04:04:01] Chair Alison Hicks: Then I guess I had one follow-up question, which is whether you know of any cities that are doing like, like 2030 is very soon. It's 8 years. Um, whether you know of any cities doing like a 2035 or something that just puts it a few years out so that, you know, it seems like by the time you have the plan done, 2030 is here. Um, so, So I would be interested in that as well.

[04:04:36] Steve Ottinger: Yeah, I don't, um, council member Hicks, I don't, um, have a city off the top of my head that has a 2035 uh, goal. Most of the cities, our agencies, you know, are either 2030, 2045, 2050. There's a handful 2040. Um, I haven't seen too many at 2035. Certainly, that's always an option for the reasons you stated. Um, but the majority of them are sitting, uh, currently around 2045. Um, then, you know, again, with a handful that have, um, stepped up to do the 2030. But we can, we can also, that would be something else that we could look at as part of our kind of broad brush evaluation. Uh, is, is to see, you know, if there are other cities that are, um, uncomfortable with 2030 but more comfortable with 2035.

[04:05:27] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay, I don't want to overcomplicate it, but if that's easy to do, then I would do that. So are there other comments? Uh, Audrey, do you want to summarize in any way?

[04:05:45] Audrey: No, I, I, I think that, that, um, we're, we're clear and you've stated, you know, your interest clearly.

[04:05:55] Chair Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay, great. So, at this point, we're on item 7, which is the subcommittee and staff comments and questions. And I just want to say that no action will be taken on any questions raised by the subcommittee at this time. So do any members of the subcommittee have comments? Uh, council member show Walter.

[04:06:27] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I just wanted to bring up, um, the, uh, concept of of climate restoration. I went to a, um, a get together of the foundation for climate restoration, which, um, was founded, um, by someone who grew up here. Um, and it was, I was very interested. Their their idea is that, um, We will really need to do some very, very serious carbon sequestration in order to meet our goals as a climate. I mean, as a planet. And, um, I just thought it was, it was fascinating, and they had several methodologies, one of which, um, was, uh, low, uh, GHG, um, concrete, um, which is something, you know, that's being worked on locally. Um, but they had several methodologies for, you know, really, really making, um, important, um, uh, head rows on this. And I just wanted to share it with people, to look up the foundation for climate, um, restoration, that was very interesting. And and maybe in SAP 5, That's something that we, you know, we want to look at either doing carbon re, um, uh, restoration or being a, um, uh, supporter of, uh, local firms who want to work on it. I mean, we are the center of innovation for Silicon Valley and this could be something we innovated about too. Okay,

[04:08:04] Chair Alison Hicks: I assume that's, That's your announcement? Are your comment? Are there any other comments or questions? By council members, I do not have a comment. Um, Any staff comments or questions? Okay, hearing none. Um, we'll move on to item 8. Which is adjournment. So this meeting is adjourned at 1041. And thank you for attending. Goodbye. Thank you everybody. Have a great meeting. Thank you.

• Next →