April 19, 2022 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:04] Unknown Speaker: Okay, hello and welcome everyone. This is the council sustainability committee meeting for April 19th. I will read our usual prepared statement during this declared state of emergency. The meeting will be conducted in accordance with California government code 54953 E, as authorized by resolution of the city council. Please contact city. clerk at mountain view.gov to obtain a copy of the applicable resolution. All members of the council sustainability committee will participate in the meeting by video conference with no physical meeting location. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments online during the public comment period for an item by joining this webinar using the link HTTPS colon backslash mountainview.gov backslash meeting, and entering webinar ID, 872-7054-659 or by phone by dialing 66 900-9128 and entering webinar ID 872-7054659. Any emails received by 4 p.m. today were forwarded to the council sustainability committee. Emails received after 4 PM will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for the meeting. And now it's time for the roll call. Thank

[00:01:50] Hala Alshawani: you, chair. Checks.

[00:01:54] Member Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:01:56] Danielle Lee: Uh member show Walter.

[00:01:58] Member Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:02:00] Danielle Lee: Remember Abbe Kova. Coga. It's not here.

[00:02:13] Unknown Speaker: So our the next part of the meeting is the minutes approval. And uh, we're looking at the council sustainability committee, meeting minutes for December 1st, 2022. Um, does anyone that would be you, Pat? Have any comments or questions about the meeting minutes? Um. Oh, you

[00:02:44] Member Pat Showalter: do? I see a hand. The time, do we get public comment? before we have a motion. On the meeting

[00:02:52] Unknown Speaker: minutes? Yeah. Um, well, I I thought you were raising your hand for comments, but if you don't comment, you're moving on to motions, then sure. Uh, do any members of the public want to make comments on the meeting minutes? I do not see anyone. So would anyone like to make a motion?

[00:03:18] Unknown Speaker: Yes. Okay, I move approval?

[00:03:22] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I 2nd. So, I guess we can have a show of hands for all those in favor?

[00:03:34] Ms. Ramberg: Okay.

[00:03:37] Ms. Ramberg: For any future, um, motions, we can take a roll call votes, um, but in a small group with nice big squares, we were able to see both of your raised hands. So that math motion passes on a, to, uh, 0 with, uh, council member, Abby Coca, not yet with us.

[00:03:58] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so now we'll move on to item number four, which is oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. Um, speakers are allowed to speak on any topic. For up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the CSC from acting on non-agendized items. Would any member of the public like to provide comments on an item that is not on the agenda? Um, and if so, um, please, uh, raise your hand, uh, with the, click raise hand button in Zoom or press 9 on your phone. So I see several people who would like to make comments on non-agendized items. Um, starting with Bruce England.

[00:04:59] Bruce England: Had to wait for the unmute button. Uh, Thank you, chair and uh, committee members. Yeah, uh, just tell you, I want to highlight something that you already know about, but I just want it on the record and uh, in your thoughts and and minds that there are 3 plans being developed at the city level that I think are worthy of your attention and and eventually collaborating on when is the active transportation plan through public works. There's going to be a lot of connection between getting people out of their vehicles and your goals too. And from the parks division, the community tree master plan, and the parks and recreation strategic plan. All these are getting a lot of attention from the community. And um, which is great. And to the extent that the committees and council and the advisory bodies can work together on making these as successful as possible. That would be great. Thank you.

[00:05:54] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. The next hand is that of Kevin Ma.

[00:06:07] Kevin Ma: Evening council members. My point in this public comment would just be to bring up the fact that the agenda for this meeting. Only came out 24 hours, which is, well, legal under the Brown Act, is a bit unusual for a meeting of the significance, that I feel like we should have had the 3 full days of normal public, uh, notifications, so I can digest the data. But other than that, I do wish that this committee would meet regularly because this this topic is very important for the, you know, general nature of the future.

[00:06:40] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. Thank you. So, uh, the next person to speak is Hala Alshawani.

[00:06:55] Hala Alshawani: Yes, hi. Good evening, council members, chair and city staff. My name is Hello Shawani. I am a longtime mountain view resident, and a member of the environmental sustainability task force, the 2nd one. Um, I wanted to thank and commend the city for following up on the task force recommendation, for creating a new position, uh, namely, the sustainability chief officer, to facilitate and oversee sustainability matters in mountain view and to coordinate, with all the city department heads, um, to ensure sustainability goals and objectives are being considered in all aspects of city planning and services. I am very pleased to see Miss Danielle Lee. Um, take this position and I look forward to, uh, giving input and communicating with her, um, giving her feedback on various sustainability issues in our city. Um, actually, I also wanted to mention that, uh, the city should feel great about the task force because I was approached by a doctoral, um, researcher from the University of Virginia, who wanted to study the uh, task force process that occurred back in 2017, 2018. Uh, she's a student in the Department of Politics, and so, um, I, it just made me feel really proud and, uh, I was very pleased that I was part of that process and I thanked the city for, uh, issuing that. Uh, lastly, I wanted to 2nd uh, Mr. Bruce England on the importance of uh, the master uh, tree plan, the community master uh, tree plan, and encourage them. In fact, it was one of the recommendations of the task force. Um, that we increase our green canopy and I wanted to add to that preservation of the existing mature heritage trees because it's become a really important topic now. Because of the climate change and climate extremes. We're losing them by the 1000s. If you look at the project list, released by the city this month in April, I counted 1791 mature heritage trees. That will be destroyed or are being destroyed currently. Um, I would like to have a, a process established in this, in the, you know, the plans that you're putting together for tree, preservation and increase, uh, specifically for preserving the existing ones, to see if we can, uh, do something about it before it's too late. These trees, as I mentioned in my emails to you all are very important for help, for resilience, and for, um, mental, uh, you know, mental sustainability, frankly, and walkability in our city. So, um, I hope you include that, uh, in, in, the process of establishing, uh, these, uh, master plans. And I, I hope you involve the, the public input in that as well. I think that would be really important. Thank you very much.

[00:10:15] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. So the next speaker, uh, appears only by phone number, and it's a phone number with the last 3 digits 793.

[00:10:30] Bruce Nagel: Hi, this is Bruce Nagel. Um, I want to comment on the fact that, uh, this meeting is important. Um, if we're really going to be ambitious about trying to get to 2030 uh, with um, carbon neutral. We going to need more often, uh, meetings of this, and I think that it would be worthwhile to, to schedule them more often. It's always been an important thing from what I've seen in the times I've worked in Mountain View, and so I appreciate the fact that you're doing this. And hope that it'll occur on an often basis, so we can keep driving to the uh, goal that we all need, which is a habitable planet. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:11:12] Unknown Speaker: Okay. So now that we've finished public comments, we'll move to item 5, which is unfinished business. Um, there is no unfinished business from the previous committee meeting. So we'll move immediately onto item 6, which is our discussion and action items. Uh, the 1st. Uh, item is 6.one, which is reach code updates. This item will be presented by RT Shrivastva, community development director. RT.

[00:11:48] RT Shrivastva: Give me one minute. I realized I have to. Change my view. Can you all see me and hear me?

[00:11:55] RT Shrivastva: Yes.

[00:11:56] RT Shrivastva: Thank you. Um, um, Council committee. I'm very, very pleased to present our um, uh, sort of a quick assessment of our reach code um, adoption, which we did in 2019 and our next steps to adopt the new reach code recommendations. Um, Uh, just to give you a little bit of background. Um, the state, um, adopts, um, California building standards every 3 years, um, and, um, in our last update in 2019. Um, we actually did some groundbreaking work um, along with the sustainability group. And adopting some of the most significant reach codes in the Bay Area. Uh, we participated, um, the sustainability group participated in a regional effort, um, across Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, specifically with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and Peninsula Clean Energy. Um, and building staff worked with the sustainability group and SVCE, um, to implement, um, uh, the the reach codes that we have today in 2019. Um, in time to uh, implement the 2020 building code update. Um, in the staff report that was provided to you, um, there are more details, but I'll give you a few salient points. Um, it, it basically changed the requirements for heating and cooling, uh, and appliances, new construction, um, to require all electric, um, uh, in all new construction, uh, which is defined not only as redevelop new buildings, but also when more than 50% of a building is updated. So it does encompass a large number of remodels in the city as well. Um, there were a few exceptions that we allowed, um, and this was based on some feedback we received as part of the public outreach we did. Uh, natural gas was allowed in fireplaces and fire pits. Um, it was allowed in cooking appliances uh, in for-profit kitchens where they needed to do a specific type of cooking. And then it allowed, um, factory industrial, um, hazardous material and lab occupancies to have gas appliances where, um, they might be needed for certain processes. Um, we also adopted, um, EB charger requirements, um, uh, and also PB installation in all new construction, except for single family duplex that covers about 50% of the roof. These were not only consistent with the recommendations of the task force, um, and SAP 2, but also, um, were some of the most far-reaching, um, uh, adoption in the Bay Area at the time. Um, The implementation has been great for the city, but it has been challenging on staff. It has required a lot of. Um, resubmittals, we have to do a lot of education. Um, we have to go into um, alternate materials and methods, um, because people request different ways of looking at it and so strictly applying the code. So it has had quite an impact on staff. We do understand. It is to, um, you know, making change is hard and, um, many of our, um, many of our applicants are just one time. Um, you know, permit holders. They might just be people doing single family remodels, or a single family resident, you know, residents is probably going to be developing it just at one time. And so there's a lot of education. Um, it's not as difficult with some of our bigger developers who might be doing this, um, on a Bay Area basis. But since we were one of the 1st um, cities to move forward with this. Um, we were sort of the 1st step in them understanding what was required. So, um, you know, it did require a lot of work on staff's part, uh, beyond beyond what's typical. Um, in, in discussions for the next building code cycle, which is begins in 2023 and is expected to be adopted in 2022. Uh, we did uh, meet with the sustainability committee as well as SVCE. Um, uh, this time around, it's a larger bear area effort. They have recommendations, um, and, um, the good news is, um, they've told us we've done most of the hard work as far of 2019. Um, so what we intend to do is we have to readopt those codes because, um, we have to readopt them in conjunction with whatever the state is recommending. to make them, to make them, uh, you know, current with our existing beach code. So we have to adopt the reach codes again, but with some changes. Um, and uh, table one and the staff report highlights them. They're mostly related to EV spaces and EV chargers. So nothing significant. Um, again, we do get some resistance. We expect it. We expect to be able to walk people through it. Um, you know, um, and we expect a lot of those. The workload not to reduce necessarily because we're still going to get those single family owners and those remodels, all of whom are doing this the 1st time around, right? Um, so again, uh, the work, um, the majority of the work has already been done. Um, we need a little more, we need to update our code a little bit more, but we will readopt it. So when we come to council, what you will see is um, um, a readoption mostly of the 2019, 2020 code, um, with some changes. Um, in addition, as we see, um, like they did last time, we'll support the city through a grant of $10,000. Um, for consultant costs because the city then has to submit. Paperwork to the California Energy Commission and also the California Building Standards Commission. So those are the next steps, um, after um, the city adopts the codes. Um, again, we expect to do some public outreach in June and July. Um, We might hear a little bit of frustration from people, but, um, I think the good news for people is to say we're not significantly changing our codes, um, this is only going to change the codes, um, for EB charters. Um, also, um, we expect council adoption to happen in October. And then, um, through December, we need to fill out the paperwork and make sure that we have filed it with the, the 2 commissions I mentioned, and the new codes will go into effect January of 2023. Um, we're happy to answer any questions, um, that you might have.

[00:18:57] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yeah, I think I'm gonna conduct this as if it's the study session and and take comments from the public and then questions and comments from committee members. So are there any members of the public who would like to make comments on this item? I see one hand at this point. So we'll allow 3 minutes. Um, 2 hands still allow 3 minutes. Um, so, uh, the 1st is Mary Daddio.

[00:19:32] Mary Daddio: Hi, um, 1st of all, I'd like to ask, um, um, the, uh, presenter, um, please pass, um, my thanks to the building department for, um, all the education they're having to do, um, for electric codes, and I'm hoping your workload gets easier as more and more architects, uh, get used to single family homes get used to, to what is needed. So, um, thank you for your efforts because obviously climate change is hugely important. Um, We're hearing more and more about natural gas and the fact that, um, it leaks, um, across the entire delivery system from the point at which it's mined through all the pipes, uh, here, hither and yon, all the way up to the point where it gets to your house and you use it. And uh, it has to be pressurized. So that's and whether you have, uh, If you have any gas appliances, that's an extra line. And, um, even if, even if fire pits and fireplaces don't use much gas, because they get used infrequently, there still needs to be a pressurized line that's leaking that's supplying them. So I would uh, request that we eliminate the exemption for fire pits and fireplaces um, in the next round of, um, reach codes. Thank you.

[00:21:07] Unknown Speaker: Thank you. And the next person is represented by a phone number that ends with 793.

[00:21:21] Bruce Nagel: Hi, this is Bruce Nagel again. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. Uh, one of the things that I think I see evolving is the fact we have a number of, um, uh, legislative bills that are going through that have, would have an effect on this, and we probably need to be conscious of them, specifically, one of them is SB 1482, which says standards for, um, the, putting, um, we call it, um, EV charging into multifamily buildings. Uh, this is an issue we really need to, to work on. There's, there's some good starts at, uh, uh, have been put forward. Um, this pushes it forward a little bit more. It's probably about the same expense to people. But it's something to look at and, and probably need to go through the, um, the bills that are going through, and see which ones are going to have an impact in regards to the, the code so that, um, we're up to date with that, and I appreciate all the work that you're doing. I'm glad that you're doing a lot of education. Uh, we definitely need that and uh, appreciate the fact that you guys are working hard on this. Thanks. Thank you. Uh,

[00:22:28] Member Alison Hicks: so the next speaker is Hala Alshwani. Yes,

[00:22:36] Hala Alshawani: hello again, this is Halle. Um, yeah, thank you for the, you know, the city staff and the council for supporting the task force and implementing is really important, uh, code for the new buildings, commercial and residential, uh, requiring that they're all, uh, electric, which is fantastic. Um, I was wondering if there are any plans in, in the task force recommendations in addition to requiring new buildings to be all electric. Uh, we, we had also recommended that you provide incentives to the uh, residential at least part of Mountain View, the existing residential folks so that they can electrify their homes. Um, The new buildings are popping up everywhere, but we have a significant amount of houses in mountain view that have these old, uh, uh, water and and space heating, uh, systems, uh, using natural gas, um, and I, I would urge the committee to look into waste incentivize the, uh, the current existing uh, uh, buildings and how they can help them to uh, be 100% electric. That would be great. I know we have Silicon Valley, Clean Energy, and other folks giving those incentives, but I think if the city can also invest in that. And educate people about that, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:24:04] Member Alison Hicks: The next speaker is Kevin Ma. Evening.

[00:24:11] Kevin Ma: Um, I do support continuing on the pathry of chosen. I will ask perhaps in the future, if the current 50% threshold could be reduced to something, because I'm imagining situations of, if a person is, you know, renovating their kitchen and is going to buy new appliances anyway. But if it doesn't really meet the 50% requirement, then they can just replace them with, uh, a fossil fuel, fossil fuel advice in the meantime, which I understand, that's 5 of the future discussions, perhaps, in the next item about replace on burnouts, about incentives for existing, existing buildings, but That is just a thought to bring in mind. Thank you. Thank

[00:24:55] Member Alison Hicks: you. And the next speaker is Bruce England. Thank

[00:25:01] Bruce England: you, chair. Yeah, just very briefly, I want to echo what Mary Dadios said about expanding the reach codes to cover other gas appliances, um, that aren't covered under the current proposals. Thanks. Thank

[00:25:15] Member Alison Hicks: you. Next speaker is hold your Eisenberg. Hello,

[00:25:24] Holger Eisenberg: yeah. I've been generally in favor of electric cars, but I'm wondering about electric heating, which is now starting to be encouraged and enforced for new buildings. That means heat pumps will be used. And I'm wondering if you are aware about the potential noise pollution, heat pumps are causing because they create a constant either low frequency vibrations through the ground or constant ventilation noise there. There you go. Thank you.

[00:25:58] Member Alison Hicks: The next speaker is James Kemp. James, are you? I don't know whether you're having some technical problems? Good. Yeah, you appear to be muting and then unmuting yourself. I can see that. But I don't hear your voice. Hi. Okay.

[00:26:49] James Kemp: Um, so according to the architecture 20 film page, webpage, website. About two-thirds of the buildings, uh, in global buildings that are built today, will be around in 2030, uh, 2040. So, basically, building decarbonization is a matter of retrofit. New buildings, they matter, but they don't matter as much as getting carbon sources out of existing buildings. So I would encourage the council to start looking at ways to do retrofit. That includes incentives. The city of Ithaca, about 5 years ago, passed a resolution, basically in a referendum, to decarbonize the whole city, including private buildings. And they recently figured out how to finance it, and they're getting a $100 million, um, investment from private equity funds to basically do it. It includes various creative ways to get low income people to be able to afford being able to decarbonize their residences as well as for multifamily buildings. If we want to be on the forefront of decarbonization, then we have to realize this fact that it's not going to, I mean, 50% is okay, but basically, we need to figure out some way to get people to decarbonize. Thank you. Thank you. So

[00:28:07] Member Alison Hicks: that looks like if I, I don't see anyone else raising their hands, so it looks like, uh, it's time for, um, council questions and comments. Um, I, I just wanted to, uh, mention to members of the public if they haven't, hadn't noticed it by reading the agenda that, um, this agenda item is in large part an update, and, uh, some of the, you know, interesting comments that people may, maybe more incorporated into the next agenda item, and some of you seem to have recognized that. So that said, do any committee members have questions? Um, uh, Margaret? Thank

[00:28:57] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you, chair, and thank you to staff. Um, I know this was quite a heavy lift, uh, when we have to reach kids in 2019. Um, you know, that I was proud that we were the 1st city in, I think in the county too, um, go all electric. Um, I was a bit surprised. I know that we had some, um, exceptions, um, but I just wanted to clarify, we're not allowing fireplaces, uh, unless, unless there's a very small, or there's some really special circumstance, is that correct? I thought we had said completely electric. No, including eliminating fireplaces and then, and stoves. Um, and then I guess the stoves was maybe the exception. But did I get that wrong?

[00:29:49] RT Shrivastva: Right. So, um, Uh, Nina, maybe you can correct me. I believe for the single family, we were allowing fireplaces. In multifamily, what we've noticed is if we, we require an all electric for everything else. They're less inclined to... gas pipe purely for fire, for the fireplace. So we're seeing a change there. Okay. But for the single family, I believe that, and maybe Nina, you can correct me. We were giving an exemption um, for fireplaces in. And fire pits. Who was that? Yeah, that was correct. Okay.

[00:30:33] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah. They're at 50% remodel, they still could get the exception of...

[00:30:43] RT Shrivastva: They could still get that. And it was one of the big issues that came up when we did public outreach. Um, and we identified that specifically in 2019. That isn't to say things might change. We might see people who are more interested in doing something different, but, um, But that was one of the, one of the big, um, items we heard from single family homeowners. And so we did recommend that to the council just, uh, As we were taking the 1st step into all electric and we wanted to, Bring it in for a soft landing. Do

[00:31:18] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you have roughly a number, like how many single family homes did we actually see, um, go, oh, electric and and then take the fireplace exemption. Like was it? It's a ballpark is fine. Is it, was it like in the 10s or the 100s or, um, this

[00:31:40] Nina: is Nina less than five. I mean, it's really just a few. The greatest feedback actually has reversed from fire pits or fireplaces to wanting a stove. And so we, it was the opposite before. And now people are requesting if they can simply have the stove back, they'll forfeit all other gas, which we don't allow. So, right. And

[00:32:07] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: um, yes, so I would be inclined to keep it this way. And, I mean, to originally, my question was really, you know, do we even need fireplaces in Mountain View, California? So I would be inclined to eliminate that exception as well. Um, and so I don't know if we have time for the that to do that this round. Um, I appreciate you bringing this to our meeting. Thank you to Steve, too, because, um, you know, the main issue is that we, uh, renew our reach codes, uh, which I learned we had to do every 3 years with the building codes. And so, um, SVCE staff had approached us to to start this conversation. So, um, I am I suspecting that will come to council at some point this year, um, but if there is, um, opportunity to eliminate the guests, uh, gas fireplaces, I would, um, like to pursue that. Thank you. So, Pat. Yeah,

[00:33:18] Member Pat Showalter: I have a couple of questions. Um, I remember when I was learning about this, um, being told that new construction without gas would be, um, less expensive because you wouldn't have to lay a gas line in. Um, and and the connection fee. So I was surprised. I think in your staff report, it says that, um, it it increased the cost to go all electric. So I was interested in, um, some feedback about that. What is causing the increase related to uh, the electrification. Well,

[00:33:57] RT Shrivastva: um, I, I think, uh, what we meant by putting that in is, um, if you're doing a 50% remodel, You're required to go all electric, that means maybe the appliances you hadn't intended to change out. Right? Um, Yeah, so it does increase the burden and, and when we, when we craft these policies, I think our rule of thumb is, um, the, uh, the requirement shouldn't cost more than the, the project. Um, that they intended to move forward because that's when you start seeing some real resistance. Um, you know? So it

[00:34:35] Member Pat Showalter: would be primarily with, you know, with, with new construction, where the cost savings would be realized because you wouldn't be putting it in the line, not with, I, I, That seems to be what you're saying. Okay. I think it makes sense. Um,

[00:34:50] RT Shrivastva: and then, and then we, we also, you know, said and thought about this. Um, you know, there might be people who want to do a remodel who might be deterred because, um, a lot of single family homes are not designed by architects. They have designers who may not quite have the, the experience of an architect because they, you know, architects do cost more. And so it might deter people from, from even, moving forward with the project. You know, these are things that we just think about. We, anecdotally, I can't say we've heard it, but, you know, we knew, we do know that we might have created a barrier, um, to, to, to deter people. Um, and so part of part of the education processes, when people come and ask questions, we try to make it easy for them to understand. Um, you know, um, help them understand how to meet the code, um, and help the designers understand how to meet the code. So there's a lot of education that has to happen. Right. Are

[00:35:50] Member Pat Showalter: there going to, are there going to be induction cooktops at the earth day? I know we're having EV cars, but are we having induction cooktops too? Um, this year?

[00:36:02] Unknown Speaker: I am not aware of us having a few tops. Um, I

[00:36:08] Member Pat Showalter: know Aktera has had some programs where you, um, um, where they've had, uh, demos and there've been some opportunities to borrow them, I think, from Silicon Valley clean energy. Um, so, yeah, that, I guess we want to continue with that education process to make people feel comfortable with the new ways of cooking. Um, okay. And then the other thing I, I, I, I think Margaret's suggestion to eliminate, uh, the fireplaces is a good one. Um, The gas fireplaces, uh, uh, We do also have a problem with some wood stove fireplaces in the community, but they are, they're regulated by spare the air days, um, that they don't come in under that. But anyway, I would, I would support that. I don't think it it does impact very many people. But it would keep, I would, I see it as a barrier for, in the future, for removing the gas line from a property, and, um, uh, so that, that's one, that's a reason why I think having, um, not having that exception for fireplace is, is a good idea. But the other thing I wanted to ask about was low, um, emission concrete. I was fascinated that the LinkedIn headquarters was constructed with low emission concrete. And I wondered, you know, what are the ramifications of of using low emission concrete? And, um, uh, do we need to change the building code to support it or is it, you know, is it allowed under our building code or is it exception or how does that work? Um,

[00:37:53] Unknown Speaker: I can I can speak to that a little bit. Not an expert, but certainly, um, from having had actually a number of conversations with Google over the last 5 years, they have been one of the, um, leading organizations pushing a low emission concrete, um, in the industry at large, not just kind of for their own buildings, but uh, working with all the industry associations to, um, get low emission concrete as an acceptable item for city building codes. Um, I do not believe that the city of Mountain View building code yet permits low emission concrete, um, or cement, I should say. Um, So I would need to talk with, um, my coworkers in public works to confirm that. But it's certainly something that I know, um, they are aware of because I've actually had conversations with, um, the public works folks about this. I just don't, haven't had one of those conversations recently. So I certainly can knock on their door and find out whether that's something that we are currently permitting or not. That

[00:39:08] Member Pat Showalter: would be great because I think it's another one of those, um, another one of those, um, ways we could conceivably lower our, um, you know, our collective footprint, and, um, uh, and we can also help, uh, um, push forward new technologies. And I think that, you know, demonstrating that new technologies are acceptable is is an important part of getting them, um, you know, to be used much more, more regularly. So, I would, I would really appreciate it if, if, if you could look into that. Maybe report back as part of the, um, uh, report during the, um, uh, to the city council when it comes time to do that. Um, if that would, you know, be appropriate. Um, So that, those were my 2 questions. And I, I want to thanks staff too. I, I'm, you know, as a civil engineer. I am very excited by building code changes. I know that that doesn't get a lot of people going, but for me, this is, this is really wonderful. I mean, it's one thing to change a policy, that's good. But when you change the building code, it's in the rule. The, the, the level of argument about whether you should do it or not is just, uh, it just fades away much, much more so, and when it's only a policy or a guideline. And um, and also it means that it becomes standard operating practice. And that's so vitally important. I mean, another, another change to our building code that we made, oh, maybe 5 or 6 years ago, was to require dual plumbing for the use of recycled water and large construction projects. That's something I'm also very proud of. And I hope, you know, My fellow committee members in the staff will will share that enthusiasm. I mean, we're really sort of pushing forward the for the, you know, the boundaries of of practice here. And, um, that's, that's very important for, um, you know, for really making reductions and emissions and changes and how we operate. So, so kudos to the staff for this. I think it's great.

[00:41:29] Unknown Speaker: Okay, and any more questions, Pat? That's it. Okay. So I, you know, I, um, 1st I agree with what the, what other committee members have raised. It also uh, stood out to me, the, the, fireplaces, and I, I have to say over the past, I don't know whether it's year and a half , 2 years since we passed that, that building code, um, electric fireplaces have, you know, there, I see them on websites now, and there's even a, an outlet in uh, Mountain View that sells some, um, fairly sophisticated ones. So, um, so, you know, I think this is a happening thing and it may, if you got complaints, um, when you did public outreach in the past, I think there, there are better products to refer people to, as well as they're at all the, there, um, some very inexpensive and attractive ones at kind of portable cast iron stoves at, uh, like Home Depot and Lowe's and so forth. So I'm thinking that's not probably not as much of a problem as when you talk to the public in the past and we could move forward on it. Um, and I also agree that, uh, that, um, sustainable concrete is is also a really important thing to be looking into. I'm not, I've read articles. I'm not at all an expert, so I don't know if it's a heavy lift concrete is a heavy lift. But, um, but I think that that would be important to look into as well. So just agreeing with those. I had a question, and I also agree with what a member of the public said about, um, is there a way that, or several members of the public that, you know, sometimes when you're doing a small part of your house, it might be all your kitchen appliances or all your appliances, should we look into maybe something more than just 50% of the house, when is the, the house remodel, when is the right time to do that? Um, I'd like to hear a little more on that in the future. And also, when are you making kind of the problem that you mentioned that the staff mentioned, when are you making the cost of following the regulation costlier than the project, you intend, those sort of balancing those things and moving forward? What am I remaining questions was, uh, there was a section on uh, life science buildings using gas? Um, and I'm just wondering, if anyone knows how necessary that is for them, and one of the reasons I'm asking is that where, as we come back from the pandemic, At least I'm talking to a number of people when they want to develop offices, they want to develop life science offices. So I'm kind of seeing this. potential problem where we're trying to shut off gas lines and we're putting in more offices with gas lines. And I don't know if that's on anyone else's radar. Do they need them? Is that something we need to look into? I

[00:44:38] RT Shrivastva: think, and maybe I, I'll need to confer with sustainability staff. Um, I know that, um, I remember in 2019. I'm trying to remember what the conversation was, whether this was an SVCE item. They typically do a lot of public outreach. They might hear from various industries that may not have options to use electric versus gas appliances. Um, and it might have come out of that. So we might, we can take that back as a question. And maybe confer because we might have some unintended consequences for operations that we really don't have the expertise on.

[00:45:17] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that was one I wanted to know more about because I just don't want to be putting lines all over the place when we don't have to when there are other options. Um. So I think that's all my questions and comments, but I did say that we do questions 1st and then comments. So I wanted to circle back and see whether any other committee members had additional comments they wanted to make. It looks like no, comments have been made. So thank you very much, RT and Nina and anyone else who's worked on this? And We will now move on to 6.2, which is the carbon neutral target date. This item will be presented by, um, Danielle Lee, chief sustainability and resiliency officer. Thank

[00:46:19] Danielle Lee: you, council member. Good evening, committee members. My fellow colleagues from the city and members of the public. Thank you for having me this evening. I'm pleased to be here to discuss, um, Carbon neutral targets for the city of Mountain View. Just wanted to start at the big picture. Um, the IPCC recently released its 6th round of reports and The message from these assessments couldn't be clearer. There's an urgent need for global climate action. Um, and something that I took as a, a, you know, a possible optimistic look at things that cities can have a very significant impact on, um, our ability to make progress to address climate change. Mountain View has been Working hard, and undertaking significant climate actions. Um, the city adopted targets to reduce emissions, uh, amended those targets, to have an even steeper reduction curve. And just last year, adopted a resolution to become carbon neutral by 2045. And we're here again this evening to discuss the possibility of accelerating that goal. Uh, the the report that was provided to the committee outlines many of the strategies to achieve carbon neutrality. I think the big takeaway is that there's no silver bullet. You know, we really have to do a wide variety of things to get at all of the emissions that are produced by our way of life. Some of the major areas where we anticipate focusing include that building electrification, energy efficiency, as well as procurement of clean energy. And then, uh, in terms of transportation, vehicle electrification, And also reducing our vehicle dependence in general. Um, and then finally, there are additional strategies related to waste and biodiversity that are also discussed in greater detail in the report. In addition to Those emissions reduction strategies, we recognize that, uh, the city of Mountain View can't go it alone. Now, we can't significantly impact climate change without, um, spurring action at the regional, state, federal, uh, even global levels. Um, there's an opportunity to leverage private financing for us to be able to really accelerate um, our progress and to achieve wide scale change. One of the things that, that we point out is that there are many pathways to carbon neutrality and many of those pathways are unknown. You know, we're, we're very much building the plane as we fly it. Um, Other jurisdictions who have considered carbon neutrality have tended to rely on a, on a balance of emissions reductions efforts, um, as well as some have looked at carbon sequestration or carbon offsets. And this is an issue that, uh, the city will need to make its own path forward on and to chart, to make a decision of how much to rely on these different strategies, what is the right pathway for the city of Mountain View. Um, We do note that recurring carbon offset costs are substantial, uh, you know, every time you buy them, they cover one year. And then, um, There's a need to make another investment unless those emissions are also concurrently eliminated. Um, This meeting and many other, um, community engagements leading up to this, and and as well moving in moving forward, um, We expect to really engage the community in conversation. Uh, we'd like to hear from residents from the, from the city of Mountain View to help us think through how can we achieve our climate goals? Um, how can we make sure that we understand all of the needs and the barriers of the community? And how can we make sure that the policies that are adopted? Um, and the path forward, Is something that works for the whole community? So we'd like to have a very um, focused effort around community engagement from the very beginning of our process. And, uh, in particular to apply an equity lens to all of our thinking so that we make sure that we don't, um, impact certain portions of our community more than others. The memo that we brought to the committee outlines some of the implications of accelerating the carbon neutrality target from 2045, which is currently adopted at, uh, to, uh, a target date as soon as 2030, and then we also looked at 2035 and 2040. Um, I think the takeaway from, from this is that, There are, there are benefits and challenges associated with any of the targets, including our current target of 2045. There's a lot of work to be done. You know, we have reduced emissions significantly from our 2005 baseline. level. Um, and there remains, uh, quite a bit to be addressed. Um, we tried to look at impacts to the level of effort required in terms of how many programs, um, how accelerated the programs would need to be to achieve emissions reductions, uh, the the level of policy adoption that would be required to support that work. The staffing that might also accompany the staffing needs that might accompany, um, achieving these different neutrality targets. And then as well, looked at the potential. Um, if we were to rely on offsets as a way to get to carbon neutrality, the potential cost implications for offsets at these different neutrality target years. Uh, so our recommendation for this evening is to, to ask the committee to provide direction to staff, regarding next steps. We have 4 discussion questions and we'd love to hear any additional feedback that you have as well. Um, and these, these discussion questions really center around how, um, how staff can bring forward, um, an accelerated carbon neutrality recommendation, and what the committee would like to see within that. So our 1st question is, is really, does the committee, um, agree with the recommendation to direct staff to, um, develop specific accelerated carbon neutrality goals and implementation pathways, recommendations? Um, for discussion at the May or June at a, forthcoming CSC meeting. Question 2 uh, relates to the emphasis of the pathways within our um, carbon neutrality plan. Does the CSC agree with the recommendation to focus the carbon neutrality strategies on the electrification of buildings and transportation? Question 3 uh, relates to that balance that I spoke to about, um, emissions reductions and then offsets as possible strategies to get us towards carbon neutrality. And so that question, um, is does the committee agree with the recommendation to focus on investing resources into strategies that reduce emissions? Balanced by some amount of purchasing offsets to achieve neutrality? And then the 4th question is related to uh, community engagement and equity. Does the CSC agree with the recommendation to consider equity implications and the identification of carbon neutrality goals and strategies? And with that chair, I will hand it back to you for discussion and questions.

[00:55:10] Unknown Speaker: Thank you very much. Well, we're going to again handle this item as if it's a council study session. So I'll 1st go to members of the public to see what, um, what comments they might have. Do any member, if any members of the public have comments to make on this item, please raise your hands. But

[00:55:36] Ms. Ramberg: Daniel, may I ask if you would stop sharing your screen? So

[00:55:45] Unknown Speaker: I'm starting to see hands. I'm trying to get, uh, an idea of how many people will want to so that we can, um, listen, you know, get hand out, uh, Not an overwhelming amount of time, but an adequate amount of time. Okay, so, I'm seeing it verge on, uh, enough that we'll give, we'll give 2 minutes for each speaker for this item. And the 1st speaker will be Bruce Carney. Thank

[00:56:19] Bruce Carney: you very much, chair. One of the sentences in the staff report really leapt out at me, and that is, uh, irreversible tipping points are approaching. And I hope I'm not putting words in the staff's mouth, but here's what that means to me. Um, Very soon the camel's back may be broken. Or maybe it will be the camel's leg. Or maybe the camel's skull. But you'll have a unuseful camel. And of course, the metaphor is for the planetary climate. Ocean acidification might lead to collapse of food webs on which 1000000000s of humans depend. Um, So, We don't want to have that happen. What can we do in the face of the potential for irreversible tipping points? Well, it seems to be the only thing that makes sense is to work as hard as we can as fast as we can to do as much as we can. And keep our fingers crossed at the same time and hope the tipping point doesn't arrive. Another thing I would like to comment on is the use of the word equity. In general, equity is thought of as being a term that applies to people who are alive today, whose economic circumstances differ. But to me, in the context of climate, equity is about future generations, not just those children who have already been born, who are near and dear to most of us, but their children and their children beyond them. Equity is one of the drivers of the importance of rapid climate change. There's a quote that's often used that we don't inherit the earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children. Well, that we're going to find out which of those 2 formulations is correct over the next few years. And the last thing I'd like to say is that I think it's critical to realize that, no matter what mountain view does, time is up. Oh, we're going to need to buy carbon. Thank

[00:58:32] Unknown Speaker: you very much. The next person to speak is Rebecca Young. Hi,

[00:58:42] Rebecca Young: thank you so much for your time. I'll try to be brief. Um, I am here to express my support for accelerating the city's time frame to becoming carbon neutral to 2030. Um, as noted in the presentation, the IPCC released their latest report earlier this month and noted, quote, without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, limiting global warming to one. 5 degrees Celsius is beyond reach. Um, global heating. Beyond that could have devastating impacts. Um, these could come far sooner than we expect, and all of this leads me to believe that the current target of 2045 is too late, as are the alternate targets. Um, so I encourage the city to be bold. Um, I would also say that wealthy communities like Mountain View in the global North have been largely responsible for this crisis and we bear responsibility to act urgently. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

[00:59:39] Member Alison Hicks: The

[00:59:39] Unknown Speaker: next speaker is Hala al Shawani. Yes,

[00:59:46] Hala Alshawani: hello again, city Sarah, I'm city council. Um, I definitely agree and and support, um, Miss Lee on her uh, suggestion that we become carbon neutral by 2040. In fact, I agree with the previous, uh, commentator that we probably need to do it sooner than that if we want to avoid catastrophes, um, in our lifetime. We used to say, oh, it's for our kids or grandkids. Not anymore. It's for us, believe it or not. Um, I'm just wondering, why don't we just do the low hanging fruits, like all the, you know, recommendations that we came up with from the task force. Back in 2017, 18. There are quite a few recommendations that will help. Lower the greenhouse gas emissions, that could be implemented if there's more support and budget. That went into them. And I would add the preservation of the existing mature heritage tree. Trees is a great asset that we have that we can very simply utilize right now. and putting processes to preserve them and protect them, and have developers, design around them or come up with ways that can preserve them so that, uh, we can use this, this is existing resource without having to spend, um, or wait without having to wait 20 or 30 years for new saplings and replacement trees to do what they're doing. Um, so that would be my input now. Work on the trees and the rest of the recommendations for the task force. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:01:26] Member Alison Hicks: The next speaker is, well, it's a phone number 793 Bruce Nagle.

[01:01:38] Bruce Nagel: Hi, can you hear me now? Yes. Now, thank you again for the opportunity to speak, and thank you for considering this ambitious call. We've got to get to 2030. Bruce Corney. laid out a lot of the the issues and yes, it is the president of the future. Um, I have a couple of practical solutions. 1st off one. We need to start working with other cities. It was kind of mentioned before, but, you know, the way the reach coach got squared away and the way we, we moved ahead with uh CCAs, we're all groups of, of cities, and we need to work on that. Uh, we need to figure out how to get this financed. Um, one of the interesting things has come up is block power as a way of being able to tap the uh, private equity markets. We need to really think about this and we need to get a good sizing as to what's involved in it. Um, there is going to be a lot of money that's involved in this and we need to start planning for that and open our eyes to the, the size of what we're going to do. Um, as I mentioned, Middle Park is considering block power, we should be looking at that with, with them. Um. One of the things that was mentioned during the course of this thing was the claustric carbon, the claustrocarbon that's listed in the, in the, um, document is like 16 or $17 a ton. Um, I think a farer price would be 60 and we need to think about that in relation to how we move forward because I don't think the carbon price we have in there is gonna, gonna say, um, I mentioned previously about the fact of, um, um, you're needing to address the, um, getting, um, multifamily housing to have charging for, uh, vehicles. So that's something we really need to look at. And um, there are a number of places that equity mentioned, Bruce Carney was right mentioning about future generations, but it also affects the fossil fuel workers themselves, means the low income housing when we move them from one to another don't have problems. And as mentioned, we need to have easy charging stations. And thank you again for the opportunity to speak on this, and we need to rally forward and come up with an ambitious goal as ambitious as we can, and uh, move forward so that we come, we've our, the people that we leave the earth to, um, you know, something that's that they can live on.

[01:03:52] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you very much. The next speaker is married, daddy.

[01:04:01] Mary Daddio: Hello, um, I would, um, like to say yes. Um, please accelerate our goal. I'm not sure the right year, 2030, 2035, but please, um, let's be uh, very ambitious. Um, I saw in the, in the details, there was discussion about setting an end of flow target date. Um, I think that would be great too. That going to help build awareness and Um, The other thing, that sounds nuts. Um, but, um, I'd like to see the city giveaway free, um, heat pump water heaters. Let's do a bulk by and just give them away. People are complaining about, you know, cost, it's so expensive. It's still going to be more expensive than switching to a gas water heater, but that's the kind of thing that people here free and they're interested and um, Um, I think it would really get the awareness out there so people start realizing, you know, we are electrifying and that's the path of the future and people that are doing remodels. I mean, it would just build awareness across the entire community. So let's let's give away a couple 100 free um heat pump water heaters. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:05:16] Member Alison Hicks: The next speaker is Kevin Ma.

[01:05:25] Kevin Ma: Evening again? Um, I like to start out by saying, I do support setting a more ambitious timeline. Inherently, we're currently seeing the impacts of climate change as we see with, you know, more natural disasters, more wildfires, foreign skies, and increasingly a generation of young people already so cynical about the future that, you know, we're just hiding our heads in the ground now. Because that's how you deal with things. I will ask that the council prioritize projects that produce the most impact for the funds limited as they are. We have currently. Inherently, offsets are kind of, in a way, buying our way out of the situation without addressing the main issues, which are, the emissions we're releasing now. That will involve electrification of existing buildings. This will involve a change in transportation patterns because, as the report says, most of the emissions are from cars, and while people are very into electric vehicles, We do have to still realize electric vehicles still take quite a lot of carbon to build. They're like the lifetime emissions of an EV is still about a half or a 3rd of the lifetime emissions of our current, you know, regular car in the streets. That means we won't need to be emphasizing more dense walkable neighborhoods. This will involve in a way, making it harder to drive. And these will be hard decisions that would be made, but they will be necessary to make. A world that is less on fire. Thank you.

[01:07:09] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. The next speaker is Holger Eisenberg.

[01:07:17] Holger Eisenberg: Hello, yeah, I like to add some uh, positive comment now, a suggestion, uh, with uh, Mountain View, having the higher, almost the highest electricity costs in the country. Uh, what about uh, trying to reduce the cost for electricity that people uh, make their feet choice, uh, have their own motivation to move everything to electric. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:07:44] Member Alison Hicks: So with those comments, it's now time for committee members, questions and comments. And I guess since there are so few of us, you can merge your questions and comments and we can, if one person's questions or comments trigger another, we can have a 2nd round. Um, Are there any committee members who want to start out with questions or even a comment? Hmm. You look like you're looking for how to raise your hand. Okay. Pat.

[01:08:28] Member Pat Showalter: I'm flipping to the right place in my staff report. I do have a lot of um, I do have quite a few comments. Um. One, I think that, uh, a comment is, I think that the role of advocacy is something that we need to consider really carefully. Um, there are, uh, you know, not that we haven't been considering it, but I think, I think it's really important because, um, federal and state actions, um, that we can help influence our, um, you know, can make have a very big impact. And I think, for instance, um, I do agree that we we should concentrate our, um, uh, you know, our activities on building electrification and transportation, that, you know, clearly those, um, constitute 90% of our emissions. So that's where we should put our bank for the buck. But at the same time. When we talk about, um, you know, solid waste and water and solid waste, for instance, um, The, I think the idea of recycling is, is really important, but one of the problems with recycling, if you just look at from a city point of view, is what's the market for those recyclables? And Mountain View really doesn't have the power to drive that market very much. But we can in collaboration with state and federal um, assistance. help drive that market. And I, for one, think that, that, um, uh, we need to have recyclable, uh, manufacturing in this country that has largely been moved, you know, offshore. But we need to bring it back. We need to be making our own cardboard and paper and things like that here. We need to use our plastics. And, um, I think that, so that's something that we're not going to do on our own in the city of Mountain View, but we can help advocate for it. So that, that's something I wanted to, you know, I wanted to comment on and bring up. Um, I, uh, I also was interested as a question, and how much of the transportation is going to kind of naturally take care of itself as we transition in the next 15 years to electric cars. Um, because I, I remember, and, you know, seeing a previous graphs, that, that, that, that, you know, we really expected the, the, The vast majority of, of cars in California to be electric. Isn't it in about 15 years? Um, Well, what impact is that gonna have on our transportation? Numbers.

[01:11:23] Danielle Lee: Council member, you, you were right, that the projections, and especially in California, are that, that we will make significant headway, um, by transforming the market at large. As we, as we require more electric vehicles or, um, standards for vehicles around energy consumption, um, as they become more stringent than many of our passenger vehicles will catch up. Um, there is a delay in, you know, heavier vehicles, um, and shipping. But, um, And this is why we recognize that there are some elements of our emissions that are not within our control, and that we would like to look at, um, advocacy efforts to kind of increase policies at the federal, uh, or state level, to to really make those changes. But yes, we do anticipate significant progress to be made within the frameworks that are already set up and within the way that we see the market moving. Okay.

[01:12:21] Member Pat Showalter: So something we need to do is make sure that those EV chargers are in place. So that when people, so people can, uh, so it will be easy for people to have, uh, an electric vehicle if they, particularly if they live in a multifamily, um, uh, building because we have so many people in Mountain View who are renters and live in multifamily buildings. I mean, for those of us who have a single family home, it's pretty easy. You, you know, you can plug your car in, but, but I know my daughter, for instance, lives in an apartment, and, you know, when she thinks that she thought about buying, She bought a new car a couple years ago, and she thought about buying electric car, and the, you know, the logistics of where to charge it, we're just, you know, it just didn't work. So she didn't buy one. So, and I'm sure that, uh, She's not alone. I mean, people who are very resourceful. Uh, even so need to have a, you know, a ready place to do that. So that's something the city can do. Okay. Um, So, um, another thing I think that, that was, that was mentioned, um, is the idea of buying things in bulk. You know, some of the, some of the, uh, the, um, speakers mentioned buy, you know, like buying, uh, electric, uh, heat pumps in bulk. I don't know if we want to give away, that's maybe going up, a step further, if we could find a grant, from, um, a, uh, that allowed us to do that. Uh, I certainly wouldn't be opposed to it, but the idea of the city just giving them away, that, that does seem a bit like a stretch. But, I think the idea of, um, bulk buys is, um, is very sound principle. And it would probably be good for us to. And I'm sure we are doing it actually. Um, you know, target certain things that we do bulk buybacks for. So that's something I wanted to mention. Um, And then, the other thing, I think that we, we, we need to be cognizant of, as we move forward with this, is what is gonna, um, what, what can, based on the public, um, engagement process that we have? What are people going to accept? And what are things that are going to create a backlash? Because, um, Environment, you know, progress can often be reversed if, you know, if, if it, if it creates a backlash and people are really offended by it. So I think that's something that we, we, um, I'm, I, honestly don't know scientifically how you do that. But, but I think that that is something that we need to be aware of is what, what do we perceive as trigger points that would create a problem. And um, we should be, you know, looking for them. And, um, and then of course, trying to figure out how to work around them. But I think that that's a very important part of our, um, our community engagement as we move, all of these things is through, is is to, uh, help identify, you know, what are the things that people really balk at? And um, and how do we, you know, how do we make that work better? And certainly, one of the things that we've heard again and again is, um, the difficulty of getting permits for things. So, um, I think it's really important for us to make sure that the permitting process for electrification and the permitting process, and any, any other thing along these lines, but particularly electrification, is as, um, understandable, um, as possible. Um, I think that's a really important, um, work that we can do. And, um, Oh, then with respect to uh, solid waste. I also want to mention that, um, We have a huge need for dirt to, um, restore the marshes along our shoreline, as you can see in the back, background of my, my picture. And so anything we can do with demolition material to, um, make it, uh, be able to be reused either for uh, the restoration of marshes or for other building um, processes. That's a good idea. I mean, if nothing else, if it's not new concrete, it doesn't, we don't have the emissions from it. Um, but there are lots of making sure that we have, that our dirt is put to good use is, our debris, but to goodness, is something I wanted to bring up. And then another thing I, um, I learned about through carbon free Mountain View was the, um, Foundation for carbon restoration. And, um, I, I, staff may have, have been looking at this, but it's an organization that is, um, uh, trying to do, um, restoration activities that are more on a geologic scale, um, in terms of climate, um, in terms of of carbon, uh, sequestration. And, um, I think that that coupled with offsets is something that, you know, would be really interesting for, for us to, um, learn more about and perhaps consider. And Um. Then another thing that I think should be front and center with, um, with our program to move toward carbon neutrality is, um, involving youth. Um, we have a very, uh, we have, um, an organization, Sunrise, Mountain View, that, um, is very active group of youth on environmental issues and, um, climate action. And I think that, um, involving them, whatever possible, is, um, will be to our credit, and, um, we'll get some good ideas from them and, and, and good work. So I would like to make sure that as we move forward with this, um, public engagement, not only do we consider, You know, the normal voter population that we always consider, but that we give special, um, you know, we give special attention to making sure that our youth are involved. Both because, largely because, you know, this is the planet they will inherit. And um, so their concern is, you know, is particularly important. So there's some things I thought of, and all in all, though, I, um, I thought this was a really interesting, um, a really interesting report. I was, I want to hear what other people have to say about kind of the conclusion and where we are in this process, to make a decision about changing our, um, uh, you know, changing our goal and how much more information we really need. I mean, um, one of the things that, that comes up in this is the philosophy of, do we want to set a goal? That's as, I think you, that you laid it out as 3 things. One is sort of aspirational. Um, another is um, combining it with offsets. And. What were the three? There were 3 sort of general ideas. Um, maybe,

[01:20:00] Unknown Speaker: Danielle, you could put them up because, but I think there were 4 questions and they were, they, they were fairly lengthy questions as this is a fairly involved subject. Seeing them would be helpful. Okay,

[01:20:19] Member Pat Showalter: so after all of that, to go through the questions. Um. Yes, I I think that that we do need to, um, I think there's some more, uh, effort needed to develop the carbon neutrality goals, but I think we're on, we're on a good path. And, um, I'm not, I would I'm not sure whether we're ready to make a recommendation for a specific date. Um, at a city council meeting or we need to discuss it at another CSC meeting. I would think we need to discuss it at a CSU meeting. Um, number two, uh, the recommendation to focus our carbon neutrality on strategies of electrification of buildings and transportation. I think that's an excellent idea, but I would also add in, um, uh, advocacy as another, um, uh, thing to to focus on. Um. And I do like the idea of focusing on, um, uh, investing resources into strategies that reduce emissions, balance with some amount of purchasing offsets. Um, I I think it's a very legitimate, um, discussion about what that amount of purchasing offsets should be. I really think initially um, uh, our money would be better spent on, um, uh, reducing our emissions here. And that's, that's my personal opinion. I, that, you know, I could be given more information to change that and then maybe further down the road. Um, uh, more emphasis on, um, offsets. But right now, I really think the bulk, the of what we do should be on, um, uh, on reducing our admissions. And, um, Yeah, there's no way we can, um, avoid or should avoid, we need to consider equity in everything that we work on as a government. I mean, I think it, uh, we've just come, uh, in the last few years. I think we've all, um, come to, uh, sort of a different place about this and, and, you know, government is to serve all of the people. And, um, I think that it's, it's really incumbent on us to make sure that we consider, um, all the segments of our population as much as we can, and, you know, in a reason, as much as we can. And that, that to me is what equity is. We need to, we need to really consider the people that, that need government's help the most, and and also that, um, uh, uh, can be helped to, uh, to improve our collective, um, performance the most. So, I think this equity, um, implication here is, um, is different than it is in some other, um, in some other, uh, with some other issues, but it's still very important. So thanks for listening to my ramlies here. That's it, I think for right now. Thank you. Um. I think they weren't ramblings.

[01:23:51] Unknown Speaker: They were addressing a complex subject. Do you have, um, do you have comments and answers, questions and answers?

[01:24:05] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Wait, did you call on me? I did. I did. I didn't hear my name part. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. So, um, Thank you again to staff. Um, I was really, um, I thought the staff report was comprehensive and very well written and um, laid out the questions um, very clearly. and so thank you very much for that. Um, I think, um, you know, we have a lot of, um, issues to, to, to talk about, to continue to discuss. Um, but I guess what I'll do is go ahead and answer the 4 questions and probably weave my comments into them along the way. But um, one and uh, yes, I think, um, I, uh, would support, um, developing or accelerating, looking at how we might be able to accelerate carbon neutrality goals. And, um, and yet, um, so I support looking at it. Um, I think there are some factors that we have to consider. Um, and frankly, based on those factors. I think that will help maybe help us decide on a date. I don't think we can, you know, just set a date right now. Um, you know, my, my, my questions would be around, um, what, what the costs are, frankly, um, at the end of the day. And what resources we have. Um, what would be the trade-offs? Um, if we were to accelerate by, you know, so many years. Um, Yeah, what would those trade-offs be? So based on that, I think, um, you know, we could discuss what would work well for us. But, um, yeah, I'm probably the most, um, you know, I'm trying to try to be very fiscally responsible. And, um, I know this is the important, most, one of our most important, um, issue area to tackle. Um, but we also have to be mindful of maintaining our city, um, in the services we provide. Um, you know, we we have to look at the growth of our city and being able to sustain that growth as well. Um, hopefully, you know, the combination of that with sustainability goals, they'll be, um, some, you know, mer, um, merging the 2, um, but I think we just need to see what, what the, those costs and resources and the trade-offs would be. Um, to, uh, certainly building and transportation being the bulk of, um, emissions are, um, definitely where we should be, we have been and should be focusing. Um, you know, thanks to Silicon Valley clean energy. We have the sourcing of energy, um, you know, clinging and I think, right, we have that down. Um, building with uh, reach codes, we've achieved some of it and, um, you know, as I think someone had said, some of the buildings we have now will remain 40 years from now, um, that is true, but I think, uh, you know, it's very important that we kind of put an end to that so that new buildings are electric and the fact that we were able to achieve that was, um, I think, uh, a huge accomplishment. Um, but I actually think that we have a lot of buildings that are coming to the, they're nearing their end of life. And this is gonna be a challenge. Um, You know, I know people don't want to hear this. Um, but, um, in terms of like multi-family, um, rent control is going to be a challenge in terms of, um, motivating, um, incentivizing or even requiring, um, property owners to to make the, the, um, retrofits that are going to be necessary. So, what I really, you know, interested in and focused on. And we've had these very similar conversations already at Silicon Valley clean energy is, um, you know, how do we finance all of this? And, um, seeing looking for different financing mechanisms. And, um, and that's send me the question of whether, um, you know, is that something that, we, the city should be taking on, or clean energy, for instance, should be taking on, and, and, um, I think that ties into sort of another, um, topic that, um, I think we need to look at is, um, you know, there are other agencies, and someone had talked about working with other cities, and that's definitely the case. Um, and then there are these regional agencies now. Um, and we have to figure out who can best tackle a certain area of, of, um, the carbonized, the decarbonization. Um, is it, you know, us? Is it clean energy? Um, yeah, I don't want us to duplicate efforts um, and not be talking to each other. We need to work together. Um, and then figure out who can do what best. Um, And then with transportation, Um. So, you know, my focus has been on the EV charging stations. I know you've heard me, you know, continue to ask how many are we putting out and can I get more grants, grants to do more? Um, because, um, you know, that's really, I think, where the city can focus and that's the city's, you know, area of responsibility is, um, council member, show Walter mention, you know, just being, um, having that access to chargers. Um, So, I know that there's a, well, there's a joint action plan with Silicon LA clean energy on EVs. Um, and I guess I wanted to, and I'm, I was trying to remember if this happened or not, and I don't think it has yet. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm really interested in kind of the, you know, the, the, um, like the num, the goals, the numbers, like, how many, and I've asked this with CSV, um, clean energy stuff too. And I think they have generated the numbers, but, you know, to get to, I think we were looking at 90%, um, EVs by 2050 in the Bay Area. That's a air quality management district, um, goal. Um, like how many charging stations do we need to have in Mountain View? I know San Jose has a goal of putting in 1500. Like, what is our goal? And where are we on that? Um, I would really like to, you know, learn more the kind of those details and numbers and kind of have the barometer as to where we are with some of these um, goals that we're trying to achieve. Um, the other piece to transit, and I think this good ties into a council member, show Walter mentioned about advocacy, is, um, is the transit piece in that, um, other than the community shuttle that mountain in Mountain View, you know, we don't really run Caltrain or, um, you know, VTA buses, that's they, that's other agencies. And so, um, I think, you know, our role in that would be to advocate for, um, you know, the trans- transit agencies to, um, move towards, um, you know, electric buses or, or, you know, increasing and improving transit operations in, in our area. And that is all happening. definitely. Um, and I, um, and, you know, our role, I think, is to continue to just, um, stay on top of that and and advocate use our, um, resources, advocacy resources to help in those, um, moving those, uh, initiatives forward. Um. I would look at, going back to building, um, and we talked about this earlier with reach quotes, and I would be open to looking at lowering the single family home, um, 50% to a lower number. Um, not really sure what that number is, but, um, definitely would like to look at doing that um, down the road. Um, so let's see. That's question one and two, three. Um, absolutely. Oh, I'm sorry, no, that's not for his equity. 3 is, um, oh, on. Okay, I tend to lean towards investing resources into the strategies that reduce emissions directly, you know, mountain view specific. Um, it's, you know, we have limited resources, so I want to make sure that those dollars go as far as they can. And we do our part to actually, you know, reduce emissions here in our city and maximize that first. Um, it, I understand that offsets um, are probably needed. Um, but in light of, um, what staff mentioned, you know, their one time. And, um, You know, my my real interest is to, um, focus on our community first. Um, I would put the emphasis towards actual strategies um, to reduce emissions here in our community. Um, And then in terms of equity, um, so equity is absolutely, um, to me, critical. Um, whatever we do, um, you know, and in terms of sustainability, um, the actual strategies, you know, they do, um, take resources, and, um, as much as, you know, I appreciate, um, the comment about, let's give water, heat, water pumps to everybody. Um, you know, we are limited in resources. I know that like clean energy. I was trying to remember how much we, uh, allotted there. I thought it was close to a $10000 that got us 200 heat water pumps. Um, so, you know, this is costly. It can be costly, and we, the city is, is very limited in our resources. And so, um, as much as it, you know, might sound great or, um, to, you know, with educating people. Um, I think we really have to target. And um, for those, you know, who can afford to make these changes and the upgrades on their own. Um, you know, I would ask them to do so, and frankly, this is where I would, you know, turn to the community and our advocates are very active, um, you know, leaders and sustainability efforts to help us in educating the community so that, um, folks will, you know, do it on their own if they can frankly afford to do it on their own. And, you know, we should be focusing our limited resources on on those who need the assistance to to make these changes. And that goes back to, frankly, um, you know, the folks, um, multifamily buildings. Um, how do we help, um, in those upgrades. How do we help lower income folks, you know, get the EV? Um, So that's where my focus is in terms of equity. I don't want us to leave anyone behind. We need everyone to be a part of this. And so in light of, um, you know, the, again, our limited resources, I would focus on, um, on, on the, those who need more, most or more assistants. And then when we talk about equity, as it was mentioned, I actually include in that, um, area, frankly, uh, youth, and as council member, she'll also mention, um, definitely, you know, the, the younger generations are really the ones that are taking this extremely seriously, and, um, you know, the leaders of, I wouldn't even say just the future, but now. Um, so I would hope that we can engage them. Um, you know, I think they are probably our best ambassadors to the community in terms of education and advocacy. So I hope that we can certainly reach out to our young folks in helping us with the sufferer. And I think that's it for right now. Thank you.

[01:37:34] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you also. Okay, I, I'll make my comments as well while I, in line while I answer the questions, and I just wanted to say that usually when we do, uh, so, this is more or less like a study session, we kind of make sure that, that a majority of people have agreed with every comment, I would like other committee members to tell me whether they think that's necessary this time. It's a lot of comments. I don't feel like we need a show of hands on every single one of them. And I have to say also, I, I agree with almost everything, the other 2 committee members have said, uh, you know, with all your, your sort of inline comments. So if I just say that, If I agree with one or the other of you, then it is a majority, so we don't really need to raise hands. So, um, to start off with, let's see, question number one, do I agree that we should develop specific accelerated carbon neutrality goals. Um, so, I basically agree with what the other 2 committee members have said. I, um, I would like to accelerate. I think it will take more than one meeting. Um, and I also liked that several members of the community said that they want to meet more often. This is a big topic, and I think if we're going to accelerate goals. Um, yeah, we need to, we need to consider it and probably not, um, probably not pick, uh, specific date tonight. Although I have to say, If you made me pick a specific date tonight, I'm leaning towards the 2030 or even a 10 year goal, like a 2032. And the reason that I am is that the staff report mentioned that, that, uh, California wide, we may be moving to 2035. So in order to, uh, if we wanted to attract, uh, philanthropic and other investor support, we might want to be ahead of the game. And the game is kind of moving more and more forward. So in order to be ahead. And attract that kind of support we need, um, we would need to, uh, make an earlier date. But again, I'm not going to pick a date tonight, and I think it's right to not do that. Um, I would only do it if we could, uh, if we could attract some, uh, kind of financing and other kinds of support in order to do that because of others, as others have said, there's a significant cost. Um, not just money, but also staff time. Um, And I do know, you know, I think we all talk to some of our major corporations. Uh, and I will engage with them on, um, tax credit kind of ideas, and I hope other council members will as well. I also talk to certain philanthropies that are, uh, that are very interested in, and in, um, climate change, and I don't know whether other council members have contacts as well. I, I, don't have great faith that uh, philanthropy will change the world, but I am willing to talk to people. Um, So, The 2nd question, do I agree with the recommended recommendation to focus carbon neutrality strategies on electrification of buildings and transportation? Yes, in general, um, I, you know, I've been very inspired by what some other cities are doing on electrification of buildings in particular Ithaca had a, Ithaca, New York. I live near there at one time. Um, they have a plan to, to focus there, to become carbon neutral, I think, largely, although not solely through electrification of buildings, and, and I think that's an interesting model and kind of what we're doing and a lot of other people are doing, so, um, and I, I understand. I've talked to people from Carbon Free Mountain View, who talk, they talk about, uh, uh, and Bruce Kearney in particular, uh, an outfit called block power, that's working with Menlo Park and working on tax credits, that might be an organization we could work with as well, and I don't know whether, looks like Daniel Lee is nodding that she's heard of them. Maybe you could make, maybe that's a question. What do you know about them and how might the city work, might or might not the city work with black power? We'd

[01:42:28] Danielle Lee: be happy to follow up on that, um, council member. We have already spoken with Menlo Park staff about this contract in particular, and we started to identify ways to bring that model, um, maybe, you know, across many jurisdictions in the county and and perhaps get, um, even better purchasing power. It's kind of a form of the bulk purchasing that, that council member show Walter mentioned. So, we started those discussions, certainly. Good.

[01:42:55] Member Alison Hicks: So, and I agree with what council members show Walter said that bolt purchases might be one of the ways, strong ways to move forward, and I would like, you know, maybe in a future staff report to hear more about how Menlo Park and other cities are doing that with that particular outfit, or other, or others that you might run across. Um, so let's see, now we're on, um, I, I would, I think we need to focus on more than, than just electrification of buildings and transportation because there are, as other, uh, committee members have said there are other ways to work on transportation. Um, you know, including, uh, advocating for better mass transit, consolid-, I think consolidating some of our mass transit, you know, maybe working with the Google Shuttle, MVGo, you know, maybe there's some way of pulling those together and getting better mass transit in Mountain View. People have suggested, um, you know, Mountain View making some sort of contribution to the VTA. There's all sorts of things, but I would like to improve mass transit, not just by electrifying it, but also by making it, um, more comprehensive. Um, and and then also making our city more walkable and bikable, but that also means making sure that there's neighborhoods serving retail. Because people don't walk to do their errands if there's nothing to walk to. And that's something that, I think, you know, there's changes in retail. That's part of a larger discussion, but I think it's a really important one because if we don't have that discussion, some of our developers just want to put offices on the ground floor everywhere. Um, So, uh, Let's see, so the 3rd question, does the CSC agree with the recommendation to focus on investing resources, into strategies that reduce emissions, balance with some amount of purchasing offsets? Um, yes, I would like to primarily focus on investing resources into reducing emissions. I think there, if we, um, set an ambitious goal. There's some place for some amount of, of offset purchasing. I see that that can, in part, be a part of our equity strategy, because frankly, In a perfect world, we would have a global strategy to address climate change that would, um, that would focus on, would take the most important projects, the lowest cost, biggest impact, and do those all around the globe. Clearly we don't live in a perfect world. Um, and so I think that Mountain View is a, you know, a resource rich city relative, not, not resource infinite, but relative to other cities relatively. Resource rich, and I think we may be able to design some or do some kind of purchasing offsets that work with poor communities that can't, that can't do it themselves. For instance, design, uh, Bruce Carney mentioned to me, designing a solar system in a disadvantaged community that has a lot of sunshine, but currently uses coal. Something like that as, you know, to not spending all the money on ourselves, but realizing we may sometimes have a bigger impact when we spend on communities that can't do it themselves. Um, but mostly, I would like to, uh, the other side of that is that rich communities generally do have the largest carbon footprints. So I think we should focus also on reducing the carbon footprint of our own city. Um, last uh, does the committee agree with the recommendation to consider equity implications? Um, yes, I really do. I, um, I, uh, agree that that could mean involving youth. I agree that it could mean putting, uh, that it should mean, uh, putting EV chargers into multifamily units, um, I, I, it also, um, I think the, the, sort of conundrum around the rise and cost of electricity as more people put on solar roofs. I think that's an interesting puzzle to work our way out of. That's the kind of thing when we, when we, um, urge, uh, people with the means to adopt, whether it's electric cars or solar roofs, when that means that people without the means have, you know, they're, the things they need just to live become more expensive. That's the main kind of equity implication within Mountain View that I'm interested in. I'm not interested in, you know, buying everyone an electric car because, frankly, an electric car at this point. You know, I have one, but in some ways, I'd rather have a gas, if I didn't care about climate change, I'd rather have a gas, car, it is hard for me to get to my mother's house to charge enough. The charging is difficult. Handing them out at this point is not an advantage in your life. And I sometimes see that sort of confusion. Um. And I don't know if I've explained that well, but, um, So those are my answers. I guess I also agree with a lot of things that other people have said. I would like to advocate on the federal and state level. I think that's really important. I would, I would like to advocate for getting some of those ultra, um, ultra compact, uh, Japanese EVs that are coming on the market into California. They're not being sold here. And, um, They're super tiny and very efficient and not very expensive. Um, compared. So I, I would, and they would solve, you know, we could have less land devoted to parking and so forth. So that's one thing I would like. I agree with all the other things people have said on solid waste and recycling. Um, there was some talk on, uh, you know, on bulk buys. On, um, Yeah, keeping watch out on, on what will create a backlash. I do think that's also important. Um, To be honest with you, the one I see most often is creating a backlash is, uh, reducing parking requirements while offering while we have free long-term parking on the street because we're not actually getting people to stop buying cars. We're just, uh, asking them to park all over the neighborhood streets, which we're not even meeting our own goals. So, um, simplifying permitting, I agree with that. Um, Looking into the foundation for carbon restoration. I agree with all of those things, what, um, looking for financers. I think I've, uh, lowering the single family home requirement, if possible in a way that, um, won't invite backlash. Um, Yeah, so I think I've, Let me see if there are any other, any stray comments. Um, oh, and and uh, advocating for EV chargers by freeway stops and putting signs up saying they're there. That is one of the things that makes it really hard to get around when those are not, um, when you're in a place you're not familiar with. Um. Let's see, what are the things that people brought up to me? Um, I guess the last one was, um, possible other, um, resources beside, finance, besides financing possible other city, uh, resources to, so that we can, um, So that we have the money to do, to do these kinds of projects. Somebody mentioned, um, increasing our utility user tax as, uh, one way of uh, creating money for carbon offsets or other projects. So with that, I think I have answered all the questions. And did um, Did any of that for any other committee members trigger any, um, additional comments or questions? I see that Pat has an additional comment. It's

[01:52:15] Member Pat Showalter: unmute. I wanted to follow up on your comment about, um, uh, spending resources in communities that can't do it for themselves. I mean, for instance, um, changing, uh, I mean, providing solar energy in a coal using community. And um, that reminded me of a, um, of a webinar I went to not too long ago that described a sister city program. Um, between cities in the U.S. that come from, uh, you know, politically different, Very politically different, um, areas and and as a way to, uh, kind of the idea behind the city, sister city program. I mean, usually we have sister cities with the foreign community, right? Um, like we have one with a Belgian city and one with the Japanese city that, that has been a great, um, you know, a great boon to our, uh, community for decades, I guess. But anyway, this one is a, um, uh, between American cities and the idea would be, like, for instance, to, um, to have some sort of an, uh, collaboration with, say, a city in West Virginia. And, um, that would have very different, um, politics and and climate, uh, that, to sort of work on, um, bridging the, the gap, and, uh, that we have the political gaps that we have in America. And also, you know, perhaps some, some useful exchanges like this. So I just brought that up because as a, an idea, and I will try and find out a little more about, um, what the, the exact name of this program was and, um, and get it, get it to staff. Hey. Thank you. Um, I

[01:54:21] Member Alison Hicks: would agree with that. I grew up in a red county before the term was coined, and I, I, I do think that, um, that, that it's good to communicate with people, I think people from other parts of our country may be more different than people from other parts of the world at times. Um, So any other comments? Okay. If not, um, I guess we can close this item. Does Steph have what they need?

[01:55:00] Ms. Ramberg: Thank you, uh, Chair Hicks. We do. I appreciate your thoughtful conversation, uh, your response to your to the questions we put forward, but also sharing a lot of your ideas. Um, and these are all things that we can take and continue the staff analysis to come back with a recommendation of the target date and, um, kind of a clear path for how we would move forward with what we picture as being kind of, you know, consolidation of our, of our, of our planning efforts, but it being kind of an operational plan that allows us to, um, gain clarity of, uh, uh, regarding the strategies that are gonna, um, get get us where we want to go. Um, but, but be able to continue to take action in some highly leveraged ways. Um, and, you know, as uh, Miss Lee mentioned, we, we have been at this for a while. We have the benefit of, uh, the task forces work and the previous, um, sustainability action plans and a lot of good work already underway. So, um, we will look to find a meeting date. It may be May. It may be June, depending on the time we need to bring, bring back that recommendation to, um, this committee so that you can deliberate on that and determine what you want to recommend to the full council. Um, and so, you know, and part of that too, and and the timing is good in that we, you know, are working on on other aspects of the city's budget and, um, the fiscal sustainability and and our ability to kind of devote resources and and have that be, um, something that that works long term, um, will also need to be taking into consideration. So I think we have what we need for this item. Okay,

[01:56:53] Member Alison Hicks: I think that Pat has an additional comment. Yeah,

[01:56:57] Member Pat Showalter: I just, um, uh, Ms. Ramberg is absolutely right that, uh, we have had in, in Mountain View, we've had an incredible, um, uh, assistance from, um, the, the community with the sustainability task force over time, and, um, and we've had the, uh, and there's been support of, you know, we've gotten Silicon Valley clean energy started and all that stuff, but I just want to make sure to mention that we've also had incredible support and our sustainability staff. You know, you, yourself, um, Steve Attinger, all of the, um, uh, you know, all of the, uh, interns and assistants that we've had over the years. You know, you've, you've worked very, very hard for many, many years and, you know, it shows. So I just wanted to make sure that we didn't forget staff. Okay?

[01:57:55] Ms. Ramberg: Thank you, council member, show Walter, and in addition to the well-deserved kudos to Steve, I would acknowledge that we have Lauren Anderson and Megan Schnezing, who are, um, in our audience and who worked very hard in in preparing for tonight's meeting. And I will join the community and I know the 3 of you and welcoming Danielle. She's already an amazing addition to our team. Welcome, Daniel.

[01:58:25] Unknown Speaker: Okay, with that, if I see no other hands, uh, we can move into item 6, which is CSC, uh, committee members, staff, comments, questions, and reports, um, no action will be taken on any questions, raised by the CSC under this item. So do any CSC members or staff have comments or questions? Uh, Ms. Lee? Thank

[01:59:01] Danielle Lee: you, chair. I just wanted to mention that Audrey Audrey just referenced our upcoming CSC meeting, which would be in the next month or two. We anticipate in addition to continuing this discussion around accelerating our carbon neutrality targets. Um, additional discussion around climate resiliency, and in particular, ways that we might collaborate with our neighbors, uh, other jurisdictions around the issue of sea level rice. And then finally, we also would like to bring to the committee, and update from public works on the return to work and implications for impacts to commute. So, We anticipate having at least those 3 agenda items at the next meeting. Okay,

[01:59:45] Unknown Speaker: thank you. And council member Abbe Koga. Thank

[01:59:51] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you, chair, um, maybe Steph can help me. I know we have an Earth Day celebration scheduled for Saturday. Is it 10 to 3 or some? Maybe you can help me with the timing, but, um, I also wanted to mention it in it. um, coincides at the same time, but, um, in, uh, Silicon Valley clean energy will be a part of the Cupertino Earth day. Um, I think it's 11 to 3 in Cupertino, um, at their, their park by this, by city hall. But part of that is, um, we are celebrating our 5th anniversary, um, since uh, Silicon, that, like, clean energy, uh, started um, service. And so there's going to be a small ceremony during the Cupertino Earth Day event. Um, and there's also a, um, they did a, they did a, the stuff did a great job with a video kind of commemorating the 5 years and, um, actually, I was gonna ask, um, Our city clerk and same, if we can, and mayor, if we can maybe show it at our council meeting Tuesday during, um, item 8, but, um, it highlights all of the achievements that have been made in 5 years and it's really, I think, quite impressive. I think folks would be very impressed to see. what's happened. So, um, I'll try to send it around to, um, to my colleagues, but, um, hoping to also share it with the public too. Thank you. Okay,

[02:01:23] Unknown Speaker: thank you. Are there any other do staff or committee members have any other comments? If not, uh, we will move to the final item of tonight's agenda, which is item 7 adjournment. And this meeting is adjourned at 8.33 PM. Good night. Thank you everybody. Thanks, everybody. Great meeting. Well, okay, bye bye.

• ← Previous
• Next →