June 22, 2022 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:01] Unknown Speaker: Good

[00:00:01] Member Alison Hicks: evening everybody. Uh, this is the council sustainability committee meeting on uh, June 22nd of 2022. I'm going to start by reading uh, the messaging that we officially read to um, so that everyone can participate virtually. Um, 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. Members of the public wishing only to observe the live meeting, and not make comments, may do so on YouTube at youtube.com slash mountain view.gov. As noted on the meeting agenda, members of the public may provide oral public comments online during the public comment period from for an item by joining this webinar using the link HTTPS. Colon slash slash mountain view.gov slash meeting. And entering webinar ID number 872-7054-6598. Or by phone by dialing 669-900-9128 and entering webinar ID 872-7054-6598. Any emails received by 4 p.m. today were forwarded to the council sustainability committee. Emails received after 4 p.m. will not be read during the meeting, but will be entered into the record for the meeting. That's item one. Now we're moving to agenda item number two, which is roll call. Um, Miss Lee, can you take role, please? Certainly.

[00:02:12] Danielle Lee (staff): Chair Hicks.

[00:02:13] Member Alison Hicks: Here.

[00:02:15] Danielle Lee (staff): Remember Abbe Koga?

[00:02:16] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Here.

[00:02:18] Danielle Lee (staff): Member show Walter.

[00:02:19] Member Pat Showalter: Here. Now

[00:02:21] Member Alison Hicks: we can move on to item number three, which is minutes approval. Um, this would be the council sustainability committee meeting minutes for April 19th of 2022. Do, um, any members of the public have any comments on these minutes? Seeing none? Um, do any council members have any comments uh, on the meeting minutes? If not, would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes? Uh, council members show worldwide? I move approval of the meeting minutes. A 2nd. And um, uh, Ms. Lee, would you like to take a roll call vote? Certainly.

[00:03:18] Danielle Lee (staff): Chair Hicks?

[00:03:19] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:03:21] Danielle Lee (staff): Remember Abbe Hoga?

[00:03:22] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I.

[00:03:24] Danielle Lee (staff): Remember show Walter.

[00:03:25] Member Pat Showalter: Yes.

[00:03:28] Member Alison Hicks: So, now we move on to part 4 of the agenda, which is oral communications from the public. Uh, this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter that is not on the agenda. So you have comments on the agenda. You wait for that agenda item. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic not on the agenda for, um, I would say up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the committee from acting on non-agenda as items. So I, yeah, any members of the public who would like to provide comments on items, not on the agenda, please raise your hand. Uh, in Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. So, I see several members of the public with general comments. Um, 1st is Bruce England and you will have 3 minutes.

[00:04:28] Bruce England: Thank you, chair. Bruce England, Wisbon Station Drive. Um, one of my roles these days is leading the local team for Silicon Dolly Bicycle Coalition for Mountain View. And, um, one thing that we're working on right now, I'm working with an intern, uh, over there on uh, active transportation and equity. And one of the things that we would like to accomplish is getting all people out of vehicles and onto their feet onto bikes and exercising through active transportation. So it's Rio knows. Um, the active transportation plan is starting to get underway, and we're particularly wanting to focus our attention on the youth. Um in part around safe routes to school. And the senior community, because sometimes seniors stop using bikes and walking and things like that, and they might need encouragement and support of various kinds that the city might be able to provide. So this is FYI, just letting you know this is something we're working on. And it obviously serves interests of environmental sustainability. Okay,

[00:05:32] Member Alison Hicks: thank you very much. Uh, the next uh, speaker is Kevin Ma. Hello,

[00:05:42] Kevin Ma: committee. My name is Kevin Mom. I like to thank the committee for publishing their agenda earlier than it does last time. I will comment that, unlike what was said in the paragraph four, this meeting is actually not shown on either YouTube or on Legend Star right now, so the only way to actually watch it is currently on Zoom, but I guess that's just technology. Thank you. Thank you. The

[00:06:05] Member Alison Hicks: next speaker is James Kemp. Hi,

[00:06:12] James Kemp: my name is James Kemp. I live on Foxboro Drive. I like to point out to the council that Menlo Park has announced that they have a deal with block power to decarbonize something like 50% of the buildings in the city. I was, I know that, um, Mountain View has in discussions with block power, and it would be interesting to hear an update on where the discussions are, although that's not on the agenda. I don't know, maybe at some point, um, it might be possible to have that on a future meeting or perhaps in this meeting if there's a part of the meeting where that could be done. Thank you. Thank you. So,

[00:06:49] Member Alison Hicks: um, We'll now close oral community, the oral communication item, and move to discussion and action items. So number 5 on our agenda is unfinished business, and there is no unfinished business from the previous committee meeting. So we move quickly on to item six. Um, So this is, these are discussion and action items. Um, 6.one is post-pandemic travel patterns and opportunities. This item will be presented by Rio O, Club Works Transportation Manager.

[00:07:32] Rio O (staff): My mute moved while I was opening the screen. Thank you for having me and um, uh, last time I came as in December to talk about pandemic travel patterns, and um, at that time, we discussed that most people were still working from home. And so we promised to come back and provide a post-pandemic update on travel patterns in Mountain View. Let me just see if I can get this to move forward. There we go. Um, So the, I guess since December, the pandemic has continued to surprise us and um, And to keep us flexible and also to delay the full return to the office. So, Um, well, I like to hope that it would be a post-pandemic update, it's really, it was probably more of an interim update on on conditions. In any case, we've updated the analysis. And um, we're generally seeing a continuation of the trends that I discussed in December, uh, where there's been almost a complete return, uh, vehicle traffic, um, but a much slower return to uh, transit ridership levels. But this time, I think that we have a slightly more promising outlook in terms of transit ridership trends. So, um, as I mentioned back in December, um, transportation agencies often use, uh, uh, bridge volumes as a proxy for traffic levels in the Bay Area in general. And so here are the, here's an update on the bridge volumes um in the Bay Area. Um, and you can see that it's pretty similar to last time, the traffic volumes are pretty close to pre-pandemic levels, there was a little bit of a dip during the Omicron, uh, Episode, and now they're back up to between 22, 92 and 96% of pre-pandemic levels. So that was in May 2022. Um, of course, we have no bridges in Santa Clara County, so we looked also at the traffic volumes on the 101 to kind of understand what the freeway volumes are like closer to home. And, um, These are slightly lower than the bridge volumes at about 91%. Um, And that was the latest uh, latest starter for that was from March of 2022. So it's possible that they could be up closer to the um, the bridge volumes by now as well. By comparison, the transit volumes have increased, but there's still, the recovery has been a lot slower than the increase in vehicle traffic, and a particular concern is Caltrain, which is a key mode for mountain view. It's what we've kind of planned our city around. And at the moment, it's only, well, the largest latest starter from from April was at 24% of pre-pandemic levels. A VTA is doing a lot better. The GTA tends to serve more of the essential workers, and some of the more local trips, and they're at 62% of pre-pandemic levels. The overall lower rate means that, We are using more public right of way, uh, for moving less people, for moving fewer people. And so we need to work really hard to encourage a shift back to transit and high occupancy modes as people continue to return to the office. The bright spot on the transit, uh, Outlook is uh, local mountain view community service. So this has been recovering better than some of the other transit agencies, and since we increased service hours in January, it's really done even better. Of course, the volumes are, you know, an order of magnitude less than, you know, the other services. Uh, need to bear that in mind as you look at this graph as well. Um, in order to understand how these freeway and regional trends translate to the local network. Uh, we also looked at the North Bay Shore trip cap, uh, data. This is data that's collected every 6 months. We took a pause during, you know, the 1st couple of seasons of COVID, um, because we knew that they would not be exceeding the ZIP test. Um, And the last count was actually, it says spring, but it's actually from February. So it is before, you know, the return of workers to Google offices and to the other offices in Mountain View. So please bear in that in mind as you're looking at this, at this graph. Um, but at that time, the traffic volumes at the combined gateway, so that's the yellow line on this map, on this, um, figure. Uh, the combined volumes were at about 43% of pre-pandemic levels. And what that means is that there's still, uh, plenty of capacity at the gateways, um, the combined gateways for the North Bay Shore. Um, so we should note that, you know, Google returned to the office, they started returning in April, and what we heard anecdotally was in that 1st week of people returning to Google. Uh, we heard anecdotally that the volumes in the north facial were 130%. Um, and then they seem to settle down after a couple of weeks of people kind of adjusting to, you know, the sort of semi-new normal. And this might be related to induced travel demand. So last time I mentioned the concept and the, it's been studied a lot of induced travel demand. And this is uh, where people make immediate, near term, and long term adjustments to their travel patterns, um, as a result of like uh, improvement in travel time. So if the travel time is shorter, they make adjustments and it ends up resulting in roadways filling up faster than they otherwise would. This also works in reverse. And so as congestion has increased, people have been making some adjustments, like shifting their travel time of day, or the day that they work, or the mode that they're taking. Um, However, it's, there are some things that are harder to shift. So, if they've made some long-term changes during COVID, like moving to Truckee or, you know, relocating their business to a more remote area. Um, then those things are going to result in some more mega commuting and uh, increased vehicle miles traveled as people start returning to the office and as there's an expectation of people having some FaceTime in the office. Um, also in terms of North Bay Shore, the other thing that we measure is the mode share. And um, Uh, we have seen a bit of a shift between the fall counts and the spring counts. We've seen a bit of a shift, actually a pretty significant shift. Um, Towards transit and higher occupancy modes. And so the single occupant vehicle mode has gone, uh, mode share has gone from uh, 70% to 62%, which is a really good change in a 6 month period. Um, But still, it's a long way from our target, which is 45% single occupant vehicle mode, mode share. And um, And in fact, we've never hit that target since we started tracking the gateway. So we have some work to do. Um, to encourage a mode shift to more sustainable travel modes in the post-pandemic era. And there are various tools that we can, that we can use to help to encourage that mode shift shift. And um, and actually we've been doing, you know, a fair amount of work on each of those tools. So some of the tools are, um, Housing supply, you know, are facilitating housing supply and also jobs near transit and housing near jobs and transit, sorry, um, supportive policies, um, transit lanes and, um, transit service improvements, shuttle services, uh, repaving and integrating like, uh, complete streets and low stress bikeways into repaving, say routes to school programs and walkable streets. And so I'm just going to touch on each of these very briefly. So in Mountain View, we've been working and making progress on, um, a number of policies, we are currently working on the local road safety plan and, um, uh, we'll be, you know, uh, developing countermeasures for that and helping to prioritize those. But also, as, um, someone previously mentioned, we're just uh, executing the contract for the active transportation plan. And um, in January, we hired a TDM analyst and he's been working on, um, TDM monitoring and will be working on the, uh, TDM ordinance moving forward. And we also hired a transportation planner in November and she has done a great job of overhauling the whole of the safe routes to school program. And um, and we were also allowed back on campuses, school campuses. So there's been a lot of work on safe routes to school in the past few months. In terms of transit supportive actions, uh, you might have noticed that there are uh, some new transit only bus lanes up in on Charleston Road in the North Bay Shore, and we're currently working on the shoreline bus lane project as well, and we're also working with Caltrain on the Castro grade separation. So that also is gonna help to improve um access around the station. Uh, we also regularly coordinate with the different transit agencies, including VTA, Caltrain, and the mountain view transportation management association, which runs um, both our community shuttle and also the MV go, uh, shuttle. Um, in addition, as I mentioned previously, um, we, through the ML, through the TMA, the transportation management association, we operate the shuttle services for the Mountain View community shuttle and we expanded services in January and have been doing some work also on stop amenities, um, uh, doing an infantry of that and trying to figure out what needs to improve around the city. One of the things that we've been working very hard on is trying to be smarter about the way that we do are repaving. And so when we repave streets, uh, we're trying to integrate complete streets improvements and bike wing improvements into those into those projects. And so some of the, um, uh, some of the recent projects, um, where this is occurring, are Miramonte Avenue where we're making bikeway improvements near Graham Middle School in conjunction with a repaving project. Also on Lyon and Fairchild will be, um, providing bike lanes and also, uh, speed bumps as part of the repaving in that area. And on Middlefield Road, we're hoping to upgrade the bike facilities, um, between Moffat and Risman, at least as we resurface, uh, that area. And of course, on El Camino, we're working with Caltrans on a project to integrate, uh, bike way improvement, bike way, new bike ways, in their repaving project. Also, during the pandemic, we added some new facilities in a number of places like on Calderon, in Charleston, which you can see in the picture here on the right, and also on Castro Street. And and sometimes also as part of repaving, uh, well, we are trying as much as possible, as part of repaving to also integrate, uh, pedestrian improvements. So, in the middle here, you can see the repaving of California Street, and we upgraded um, the crossing at uh, at Franklin, um, as part of that repaving work as well. That was just at the beginning of the pandemic. Um, and that brings us to uh, pedestrian improvements and creating more walkable streets. So, um, as you know, we've been continuing to work on making improvements to Castro Street and um, investigating the potential for a long-term pedestrian mall on Castro Street. And so you can sort of see the progression of Castro Street over the years from the 1940s when it was a 4 lane, uh, arterial road to kind of pre-pandemic where it was like, you know, with a lot of uh, streetscape improvements and the,

[00:20:03] Unknown Speaker: and the street trees, a much more pedestrian oriented environment. And then now during COVID,

[00:20:08] Rio O (staff): we have a Castro streets program, and we're working towards potentially a, um, a pedestrian mall, um, and helping to design them with the council on the steps that would take to get there. Other improvements include crossing improvements and also the touchless pedestrian buttons, which we've, uh, we're rolling out at intersections as they get upgraded. So all in all, we're making progress towards sustainable transportation. But we have not seen the full effect of the return to office. And so there's a need to really continue to strive, um, as a city and as a community, towards encouraging, um, efforts and making choices in support of um, higher transit ridership and more sustainable travel, uh, travel patterns in the post-pandemic era. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Lau. Um,

[00:21:03] Member Alison Hicks: all, uh, very comprehensive. I am going to run this, uh, like a study session, um, and take comments from the public 1st and then questions and comments from council people as I, um, as this is an update and, uh, I, my understanding is there's no specific decision that you're expecting to come out of this. So, um, again, I, so if people would raise their hands, if they uh, would like to speak, I'm seeing one hand at this point. Um, so we will give 3 minutes, and I'm sorry, is anyone running the timer? I was running a timer myself last time, but I didn't. Everybody was under 3 minutes, so I didn't, um, Okay, I will run. Yeah. Okay, okay, Steve, you can tell us when the 3 minutes is up. Okay, so Bruce England is first. Thank

[00:22:01] Bruce England: you, Cher. Bruce England, this time speaking for Mountain View Coalition for Sustainable Planning and Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Mountain View team. Um, just making notes while you were talking, really good presentation, lots of very good information in there. Um, We're interested in a lot of the things that you were talking about there, and certainly deprioritizing vehicle travel, in particular, single occupancy vehicle travel, and support for work from home programs. So to the extent that the city can work with local employers, to make that happen more, that would be great. And would also be great to the extent where the city can promote remote participation in events that you would normally fly to, just to help send the message to the community at large and to local employers that the city's doing their part as well. And lastly, um, we're understanding that some of our neighboring cities have, um, more staff or safe route to school, uh, programs than we do currently, it's great to have Priote working on it. Um, but potentially we would like to see even more headcount there. So to take the great work that's going on already and beef it up even more to make that stronger. Obviously, we had the fatality at Grant Road and El Pamino. And, um, we certainly want to avoid any sort of future cases like that, but also to help kids feel comfortable and safe. And their parents feel safe about their kids too, as they go to and from school. Thanks. Thank

[00:23:41] Member Alison Hicks: you, Bruce. Um, the next speaker has a phone number ending in 793. Oh, can you hear me? We can, yes. Hi,

[00:23:59] Bruce Nagel: this is Bruce Nagel. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, the, the agenda for the meeting would, is this the right point to talk about things like uh, electrifying buildings and some of the good stuff that's going on that needs to continue there? Yeah, it's come out of place for me.

[00:24:17] Member Alison Hicks: I think that would be more appropriate for 6.3, which is the carbon neutral target date. But if...

[00:24:25] Bruce Nagel: Okay, cool. I'll hold off until then.

[00:24:27] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, okay, great. Well, wait, wait for your comment. Um, so any other comments on transportation? Oh, I see Mary Daddio. Um,

[00:24:45] Mary Daddio: good evening and, um, I just wanted to say I'm, um, been to a lot of meetings lately where, um, there has been discussion about leveraging the, um, repaving and and trying to make other improvements to the road at the same time for, um, I guess mostly bicyclists, but and but also pedestrians. And, um, I think this is, uh, wonderful. And, um, I'm hoping the city continues to, to, um, move in this direction so we can get, get more people feeling safe and up to, and, um, Been enough about the ambiance to, uh, start riding bicycles. Thank you. Thank you. So

[00:25:33] Member Alison Hicks: now if uh, any council members have uh, have questions or comments on the presentation? Uh, council member show Walter? Yes,

[00:25:46] Member Pat Showalter: I was, um, I was really interested to see, well, the whole presentation, but, but in particular, I'm really interested in how we're increasing the amount of bicycle usage. And I know just sort of looking around. I think that the number of kids that are riding your bicycles to school in the last 5 years has really gone way, way up. Um, but the one place in your presentation where you were actually counting was in the North Bay Shore, and there it's at, um, 3%. It was stuck at 5% for a long, long time and I thought that was terrible. And now it's gone down to 3%. So I wondered if you had any, um, Do you know about a, um, volumes of cycling on other streets in the city. Do you have any data about that? Uh, you know. I mean, I have a feeling that there are more adults riding than there used to be. Is that just me or do we have any real data about that? Uh,

[00:26:53] Rio O (staff): we have taken some counts. We need to look at them in terms of the longitudinal change, so, um, if you're interested, like, we can go back and have a look. Yeah,

[00:27:04] Member Pat Showalter: I, I would like, I would like to understand, um, kind of the, you know, the increases that we're seeing better and and where they're occurring in the hopes that, that, um, you know, they'll help us decide how to plan. It doesn't necessarily have to come to me. I mean, perhaps that, you know, that's related to the bike pet, but I am very curious about it. And, um, uh, and also, Do you feel like the, um, the decline in bicycle ridership into the North Bay Shore that we're seeing right now is kind of akin to what's happening with transit, and it's something that you would expect to get better as time goes on and people get more comfortable to going back to work or, or, how do you view that change? Um,

[00:27:54] Don Cameron (staff): yeah, if you don't mind, I could take that one, Don Cameron, public works director. So a few things on the things to remember about North Bay Shore is that, number one, of course, under the pandemic, most of, uh, you know, it's mostly office workers, their employment, and they were working from home remotely. And as they come back, you know, one of the one, for instance, one of the things is many of those employees were using Caltrain and then biking from Caltrain. So until we can get them back into transit and some of the other modes that they use that put things in bicycling distance, it affects their bicycle ridership. But the other key thing to remember about North Bay Shore, and in terms of its future bicycle use rate, is number one, we have some major infrastructure invest projects to finish up, such as as part of the shoreline transit lane, we're putting in protected bikeways on Shoreline Boulevard, and then a new bike ped bridge over 101 connecting to an in, a very connected bicycle network all through North Bay Shore that is to be built. as part of building out the precise plan. So we still have to get the infrastructure in place to fully support bicycling. And then we need the 2nd part which is the housing that's going to be added into North Bay Shore. And at that point then, we will see so much more interconnectedness that can be done by bicycling within the North Bay Shore area, the distances are doable. So, for North Bay Shore, I, I know we've said this for a while, but it's uh, let's be patient. We need to get these improvements made. We need to see the housing go in, and that's when you're going to start seeing some major shifts in the bicycle and pedestrian rates in North Bay Shore. I also, if you don't mind, just want to revisit your previous question, council member, show Walter. Um, Rhea, I believe as part of the active transportation plan, the bicycle, you know, more bicycle count data is going to be taken as well as analysis of the trends. So I would suggest that that would probably be the vast vehicle is to see that data, have time to do a proper analysis of it. will come through as we're reporting out on the active transportation plan as it's being developed. That

[00:30:17] Member Pat Showalter: sounds great. My, my, my view as a resident who just watches what's going on is that I'm seeing a lot more people in bicycles. And um, I hope I'm right. It would be nice to see that with some data. Thank you. Thank

[00:30:36] Member Alison Hicks: you. So council member Aba Koga?

[00:30:39] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Package chair. and thank you for the presentation. I had similar questions about the, um, bicycling numbers. Um, so I appreciate your responses and uh, look forward to future improvements and data. Um, but I was, uh, wanted to ask about, um, in terms of SOVs and, um, it seems like from what I hear and, um, some of like the presentations I see from, like the leadership group or the Bay Area Council, um, there's gonna be, Most likely some kind of work from home, um, schedule. So, then I hear the number 20% quite often. Um, and I've also heard, and sometimes experience that on certain days, there's less congestion than others, seems like Tuesday, maybe it's Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, where it's more congested and Mondays and Fridays are quieter. But have you seen that kind of data, um, come through yet?

[00:31:48] Rio O (staff): Yeah, we have information from the companies nearby. And it seems to be that there's a convergence on about 40% work from home. So 2 days out of the office and 3 days in the office. It varies by company. Um, But that seems to be the most common thing that we're hearing at this stage. Is

[00:32:08] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: there any, um, like discussion about China, you know, work with the companies to coordinate that, so it's not the same 3 days, so they all come in, and it's more spread out through the week. Um, and then also just in terms of work from home. I mean, I, it sounds like it's already happening, but, um, you know, it's definitely a tool, um, for, uh, congestion, um, management and, um, just vehicle, less vehicle miles traveled. So, um, I know that we I think we talked about, you know, TDM measures and incorporating that. Um, work from home as a, maybe an incentive, but wondering where we are on, and that. Initiative. So

[00:33:00] Don Cameron (staff): I'll just add in a couple things. Um, you are correct council member, Abby Koga, that, um, the benefits of work from home are best realized when they stagger the schedules. And we saw that happen early on when Google had returned to work and they acknowledged that because they left it up to their various work groups to decide which 3 days to be in the office and lo and behold, nearly 100% of them decided Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. So, what that means is, we still have full traffic and then some 3 days a week, so we're not seeing the real benefit of, um, you know, less traffic. Uh, from work from home if the schedules aren't staggered. Now, the city does not have the authority to dictate to their businesses, how they run their operations. We can encourage, we can talk to them. I know we've already done that with Google to say, Google to say, can you rethink this? Um, the other piece. Um, that, We've been watching, and I think we may have mentioned last December, and I've read it in a few other articles is, um, For us to remember that if there is a 40% reduction in commute. And work in, you know, and number of people going to the office that day. That means they're not using their full office space. So there's always a possibility they could choose to hire more employees rather than leave the office space. Vacant, still be using, you know, part-time remote work, and we still could see a lot of trips out there. Which is why, leading to the 2nd part of your question. We cannot slow down or back off from our efforts at TDM and getting people to use commute alternatives. This is why the remote work concept, you know, part time. Um, we cannot just sit back and say, that's going to solve our problems because it is not. We have to convince people when they're still going into the office. We need them using transit, walking, biking, carpooling. And and that's that's the challenge ahead of us. I

[00:35:14] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: totally agree with you. Thank you.

[00:35:22] Member Alison Hicks: So seeing no other comments from other council members, I'll make a few myself. Um, 1st off, I'm glad we started off with this, um, with transportation on the agenda because this is, of course, the largest uh, contributor to our city's carbon footprint. And I think it's, so it's really, um, obviously important to get a handle on this. Um, I, uh, share, uh, Miss Cameron's fears that remote work, well, I share, uh, council members, uh, because hopes that we can use remote work to, um, to cut the carbon footprint of transportation and that we need to maybe incorporate in our, well, in every conversation with our employers. Um, uh, moving forward on that, um, and in our TDM measures wherever possible. Also, just playing, you know, talking to them, I know we have no way to, like, entitle buildings after the fact, reentitle buildings and get more TDM measures that way. But I do think most of our employers have, um, carbon neutrality goals and maybe we can talk to them through that avenue. I certainly am every chance I get. Um, but I do share Ms. Cameron's fears that remote work will only lead to fuller offices and bigger problems. So I think we do have to emphasize active transportation and, um, and mass transit. Um, I know that I'm, I go to, as vice mayor, I go to the Moffatt quarterly meetings, and I, where I get to talk to, um, representatives from Google, the military, NASA, and uh, so forth. And it is something that I talk to them about coordinating their shuttles, um, and doing and coordinating their shuttles with ours. Um, and I love it if everybody who was employed by them are interfaces with them in any way could also encourage um, more coordination because my feeling is we have a more comprehensive mass transit system than we think we do. It's just not, it's just not coordinated. Um, and if offices are going to through remote work, densify, then maybe it's time to coordinate those things. Um, I agree with uh, things other council members and members of the public said. Um, I, uh, I also am concerned, one of the elements of walkability, and one of the reasons people feel like they can, um, you know, made me move from being a 2 car to a one car family or a one car to a no car family is having small businesses, neighborhood serving businesses that they can walk to. And so I want to keep that in mind. We have a lot of vacancies post COVID. And I want to make sure that, um, you know, we, uh, have in the past supported our small businesses through the pandemic and I want to make sure that we're getting them up and running throughout the city. Um, So I think that that would be, um, my comments on on the subject. Are there any other comments that council members have? Okay, if not, then, um, we will move to 6.2 C level rise collaboration on our agenda. And this item will be presented by Lisa Ao, uh, assistant public works director and Danielle Lee, chief sustainability and resiliency officer. Good

[00:39:07] Lisa (staff): evening, committee members. Um, as, uh, why is Mayor Hicks said, uh, Danielle and I'll be presenting on this sea level rise collaboration item tonight. Um, I presented to you in December 2021. The update to the city's sea level rise program. That included, so next slide. Um. Yes. Um. I presented the civil rights program update to you in December, and that included, um, city council's adoption of adopting the high civil rights scenario. Where um, sea level rise is expected to increase 3.5 feet by near 2070. And that's the level that staff would be planning. For sea level rise resiliency. Um, I also presented in December, the cities, uh, civil rights capital improvement program, which consists of 14 projects. Um, tonight I'm presenting updates to 4 of those projects. Um, the photo to the left is are sailing like access row project, which was completed in May. And it's the 1st um, capital improvement project completed. Um, this is an existing road that's located between the sailing width to the left and the coast KC 4 bay to the right. And the project fortify the road. And raise the road, which would be used for hauling soil. For the south-based salt pond project at pond A1. It also um took care of a seepage issue where water is formed between the 2 bodies of water. Um, along the way, the California state division of safety of dams notify the city that the road is actually a dam. And, um, city staff had to, uh, work to meet the requirements of the new dam that the city currently owns now and work in the final steps of certifying the dam. Um, on the right is the South Bay Salt Pond project. This is a project that's owned and managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California State Coastal Conservancy. This project is bringing in soil to create a habitat transition zone. It's directly north of the city's levee. And it will create more diversified habitat for wildlife. And helps strengthen the city's level. Um, it will also attenuate the impacts of waves, um, coming into the city's uh, living. And it's currently, um, in the soil hauling phase, and we'll continue through next granting summer. The 3rd project listed here is the North Landfill erosion protection project. Um, as a stop, a saw pond project, um, we'll be building the levee to create the habitat transition zone. The city also needs to come in to raise the levy furthermore, to meet our sea level rights planning elevation. So this project is currently in design. The 4th project is the lower Stevens Creek Levee Improvements project. This is a levee to the east side of Stevens Creek, north of Crinton Lane. And it's the last stretch of our Stevens Creek Levy that's not currently FEMA certified. Uh, once we complete the design and complete the project. Uh, I get the levee certified. This will help lower insurance, flood insurance premiums for properties impacted by the element. So those are my current updates for our capital projects, and now I'm going to turn the presentation over to Danielle. Thank you, Lisa.

[00:42:46] Danielle Lee (staff): Now I'd like to turn the discussion to opportunities, um, to enhance collaboration on sea level rise. We recognize that Mountain View or any jurisdiction, frankly, can't solve for the issue of sea level rise on its own. And therefore, there's a real imperative for us to work together with our neighbors. Um, as as Steph looked into, um, existing collaborative efforts, we saw quite a range. Um, you can see a short list of the, um, primary ones highlighted in the memo, we gave a very brief summary of each one. Um, and I would just like to kind of, um, share the observation that, you know, we saw that all the forms of collaboration varied quite a bit, the structure of these different entities. Both varied, you know, from each other, but also over time, um, in some cases changed, uh, evolved. Um, We also found that there is still a real opportunity to enhance collaboration, especially at the county level in Santa Clara County. To that end, we, we, um, identified 2 kind of emerging opportunities for the city to participate in collaborative efforts that would, um, serve, serve all of the jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. Um, Both of these efforts would complement each other, and we are, um, looking forward to participating in them both. The 1st one, I'd like to tell you a little bit about, is through Valley Water, uh, which is proposing to, um, form a sea level rise adaptation working group, primarily targeting elected officials. The opportunity here would be to share information about sea level rise. And really make sure that we have all of us a shared baseline of information and knowledge around sea level rise and the impacts that we would expect to see here in the southern part of the bay. Um, to increase the focus on sea level rise, the, the need for us to work together on this issue. And then over time, uh, we, we could see that there, there could be an opportunity to, um, work together with our neighbors, um, you know, ideally, um, on important issues like advocating for increased funding from the state, or from the federal government. Um, The other opportunity that we identified is through the county of Santa Clara, um, They have a climate collaborative that was recently launched and Mountain View has been participating in it. They're looking at a variety of climate impacts. And one of the efforts, um, within the umbrella of this new collaborative is to start a working group that's focused on sea level rise. This would really be targeting staff, community organizations and community leaders. And the opportunity would be to share research and data. Um, and then also to coordinate across staff, um, around project implementation, of resiliency strategies, um, We feel that these 2 pieces really are complementary to each other and would, um, be well served by being implemented or pursued simultaneously. So in terms of next steps, um, We're looking for CSC support this evening to continue staff participation, uh, to really further develop both of these initiatives. Um, Our understanding is that Valley Water will be bringing to its board of directors, climate committee, um, this same proposal, um, at their meeting next Wednesday on June 29th. Um, after that, if it is approved at that level, then we would continue to work with staff. Um, uh, invitations would be sent out over the course of the summer. And we would rely on the same practice that the city uses for other committees and working groups where, um, a designated representative could be assigned by the mayor. Um, In terms of the valley water effort. Uh, excuse me, in terms of the county collaborative effort. Um, a letter would also be sent to the city and um, the county is asking for assigned commitment from, um, the city manager in this case. Um, and of course, we would like to provide, continue to provide regular updates to CSC and then eventually, to counsel. And with that, we'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Ms. Lee.

[00:48:06] Member Alison Hicks: So, um, my understanding in summary is that we, um, we asked, the committee had to ask, uh, in particular council member, Shel Walter, had asked that we have, um, some, uh, regional way of addressing sea level rise, and that what you've come up with, in short, is that, uh, Valley Water would run a group for elected officials, and that the county climate collaborative would run one for staff and community members . And that, again, I think I'm going to run this like a study session where we can get comments because you don't want a very specific motion, I think. Um, where, um, uh, community members can make public comments 1st and then council members can make raise their questions and comments and, Um, and answers. Um, so if that's fine with everyone. Uh, we will move to, um, public comments, if people can raise their hands, so we get an idea of whether there are multitudes of people who want to speak to this issue. Okay, at this point, I see 2 hands. So uh, members of the public will get 3 hands. We'll get um, 3 minutes apiece. Um, Mr. Abinger will run the timer and, uh, I have, uh, Holger Eisenberg will be speaking first.

[00:49:38] Holger Eisenberg: Yeah, single. I thought in the previous presentation, 3 quarter of an inch, annual rise of the water level in the Bay Area, apparently. And I'm wondering, is there some metric? Is someone bettering that in the Bay Area to potentially adjust the planning? If, for example, over 5 years, it was more or less that we adjust the plans and accordingly, that's my question. Hi,

[00:50:10] Lisa (staff): I'm Lisa, Assistant Public Works director. Yes, um, we continue to monitor the sea level in the bay, and we continue to make adjustments. Uh, we plan to return to council probably every 5 years to update our sea level rise, um, study, just as we did in 2021. The 1st study was done in 2012. And when we came back in 2021. We provided updated information from the various, um, uh, worldwide organizations, um, on what is happening with sea level eyes, and we adjust our projections accordingly. But, uh, we are working right now to plan for the year 2070, which review is conservative at this point. And then as we, um, work on our projects, we are projecting that level to continue to rise at a much faster rate than Jack, but, um, our projects will develop a good base and foundation for our levees, to either keep increasing or maybe look into more man-made structures to handle the, the, the rising seal. Okay,

[00:51:18] Member Alison Hicks: thank you, myself. And I just want to tell members of the public that, this may be counterintuitive, but it's not really a question and answer session right now. If you've never been to one of these meetings before, that's probably not obvious. But, um, in, in order for these uh, meetings to go along in a timely fashion, we listen to the public and generally don't make comments. You can ask us questions via ask Mountain View. The next comment. Uh, will be from uh, someone with the phone number adding 793. Hmm. Are you on? Yes,

[00:52:06] Bruce Nagle: this is Bruce Nagle again. Um, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak on this. I think the, one thing I will make is a comment in this in general, is this like a lot of other subjects that we're talking about, are going to require more than just a city thing to fix, and you know, it's especially true with, you know, with the uh, um, water level rising, et cetera. But I think we need to think about that in general as, how do we bring things together? You talk about transportation? I was in, uh, a presentation earlier this week from a Dean 11, who's in charge of this, uh, um, program to try to unify all of the, um, transit agencies. I wish there's something like 27 of them. So I think one of the things we need to think about is how does this work? Where do we start to work with it? Uh, we'll mention some others in discussions on things like the buildings, which is another area where that comes to be true and and also addressing the, um, some of the, um, what do you call it? The legislation that's coming through that we need to keep our eyes on. But let's keep thinking about how to do this as a as a larger group, because I think it's going to be necessary for us to be able to get the level of change, that we want to get, and to strengthen our position for negotiating funds from either the federal government or the state government. Thank you. Thank

[00:53:30] Member Alison Hicks: you, Bruce. The next speaker is James Kemp. Hi,

[00:53:36] James Kemp: yeah, this is specifically about sea level rise, but it's about water in general, and that's that, um, this area in California in general is in complete denial about what's going to happen with water. Um, this drought is going to continue and we have to start looking at alternatives like desalinization. I know this has a really bad reputation among environmentalists, but there are new technologies that don't generate as much saline, and there are also technologies for using the saline for, like, for example, lithium extraction for battery, lithiumine batteries. So I think this will also require some collaboration with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and others. Um, and I would urge the council to um, to put this on the agenda for sustainability committee to put this on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you.

[00:54:28] Member Alison Hicks: So seeing no other hands up for public comments. Are there any council members who have comments or questions? Uh, Council member Abby Koga? Thank

[00:54:44] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you, Cher. Um, so I would, uh, just say that I am supportive of us, uh, uh, our city, um, participating in, um, these collaborations. Um, I think, you know, the key to all this is we probably all know, is the funding. And I was just wondering where we are because I remember a few years back, um, Like I had attended a Silicon Valley leadership group lunch with Senator, Diane Feinstein and Sea Level Rise was the hot, the big topic, and there was, you know, she had some, I think, some initiative for federal funding to go towards sea level ride efforts, and I guess I just never found, or maybe I didn't follow it closely enough, but, I, I, wondering what happened to those funding opportunities. Are they still there? Have they been expended? Um, what is, yeah, what do you see as the outlook for, um, lending opportunities? Because I think, you know, for, we've actually are probably ahead of the game because we started planning for this back in over 10 years ago and we've been able to complete some projects. But, um, I, from what I hear, like some, some cities are, you know, just even start, just beginning that you think about it. And at the end of the day, like, and I don't know if it's like valley water has funding opportunities too, or if it's really going to be state and federal grant monies that we have to, um, rely on. But, um, you know, I support the collaboration because I think having one voice as a region more regionally does help in being able to, um, obtain funding resources, but I just, yeah, I guess not really clear on where we are in terms of what funding opportunities have come or, and we see in the horizon, wondering if you could give some insight to that. Thank you.

[00:56:52] Danielle Lee (staff): Thank you for the question, council member. Um, I don't have a kind of status update on all of the different financing opportunities, but, um, I do think that we would like be adding that to the agenda for, In all likelihood, both working groups, the staff, driven one as well as the one targeting elective officials. And we would be happy to come back to CSC with information that we gather in that regard. I don't know, um, Lisa or Don, if you have anything with regards to our existing projects, um, But otherwise we can provide an update at the next meeting. Yeah,

[00:57:30] Lisa (staff): as far as I know, most of the funding, um, is through the Santa Clara Valley water district, I think they founded a valid measure recently. But it was going more towards Valley Waters projects. Um, I know some other, um, South Bay Salpine projects in El Easto area. Um, that's value borders project, and, um, Some are funded by the US Army Corb engineers. So they are the larger agencies funding these projects. Um, they haven't, not that I'm aware of right now, reach down to the local level to um, provide those grant, um, funding opportunities for our local agencies yet. Thank

[00:58:16] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you. Um, well, definitely, I think it's this gonna be a priority issue, so I look forward to um, getting updates as we move forward. Thank you. Okay, uh, council member show, Walter. Yes,

[00:58:30] Member Pat Showalter: well, I am very supportive of both of these collaborations. I think that, um, they, uh, you know, they're needed so that we can, um, really move forward aggressively with, uh, protection that, that is, you know, obviously needed, um, uh, for sea level wise. And, um, I also wanted to mention that I know Bay Conservation and Development Commission is working on just that funding problem and trying to identify what are the, um, you know, what are the opportunities. There are, um, quite a few state and federal, um, possibilities, but, you know, the needs in the Bay Area are pretty staggering. So, um, it's more than existing, you know, we, we will need more than sort of existing, um, sources, uh, to get this done throughout the whole Bay Area. Maybe we'll be better off in Mountain View because we do have some local money, but, um, you know, certainly for our, the whole regional community. We you know, we haven't figured that out yet. But it's being actively worked on and, and, and you're right, we definitely need to be involved in those discussions and, and any advocacy that we can do to, to help with that, um, is, is really important. And I think that's one of the, um, kind of long term, uh, things that these 2 organizations, the staff led one and the elected one would really be valuable for is, um, the advocacy for funding that is undoubtedly needed. And um, I think it's going to be like affordable housing. You know, where we use, um, we use money from just a, uh, sort of a, a smorgas board of sources. And so, so it's going to take a lot of, um, you know, a lot of expertise to go after all of those various forces and get them and get things put together. Um. But anyway, yes, I, I, I appreciate, I, I wanted to thank staff for doing all of this research. As you know, I've been talking about this for quite a while and, um, uh, Staff felt that it would be much better if they, you know, they took some time and looked into possibilities and came forward with some suggestions and I, that was a great idea. So I'm glad we've gotten to this point. And, um, hopefully the, the Santa Clara Valley water district will be happy to move forward with it, um, next Wednesday. So that, that's, um, That's my comments for right now. Okay.

[01:01:27] Member Alison Hicks: Council member, Abicoga, you have an additional comment or question? Um,

[01:01:33] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: yes, as I was listening, counselor, shelter, I was, um, thinking with help, if we sent a letter of support, sent a letter to Valley Water, um, supporting the concept. I don't know if like it's pretty much a done deal or, or we need to do some advocacy, but, um, if that would help to send a letter of support and be happy for us to do that. Um.

[01:02:08] Member Alison Hicks: Oh, I was gonna ask Ms. Lee if she thought a letter of support would be in order. And

[01:02:14] Danielle Lee (staff): I just saw that Ms. Ramberg also unmuted. Um,

[01:02:18] Member Alison Hicks: I would just say that

[01:02:20] Danielle Lee (staff): it's generally been our experience, that letters of support and encouragement to our colleagues, and other organizations, uh, doesn't often hurt. So I'm sure it would be appreciated. Okay,

[01:02:35] Member Alison Hicks: I saw hands going up and down, uh, council member Sher Walter and Ms. Remberg, but maybe you answered their questions because okay. Okay, so, um, oh, and another comment from, uh, I just wanted to close the

[01:02:52] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: loop then. Do we need to vote on that or strong vote on that or is it? Are you fine going ahead and doing the letter? Just want to. Doesn't

[01:03:03] Unknown Speaker: need to be emotion. It would certainly be consistent with our legislative platform and staff can, um, uh, mislead and coordinate with Ms. Gilmore and prepare something for the mayor's signature. Okay,

[01:03:16] Member Alison Hicks: great. Thank you very much. So I also have an additional question. Are we um, are we talking a letter of support for one or both of the organizations? Maybe I missed something here. I see. Or

[01:03:32] Unknown Speaker: Coca, Abby Coca, did you have a particular, um, intention there? It

[01:03:38] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: sounded like Valley Waters voting on it next week, so that's what I was... Okay, valley wanted. If the other one needs a letter too, for the board of supervisors to move forward with it. you know, I think we can certainly should certainly do that. So, I'll just leave that up staff. So

[01:03:56] Member Alison Hicks: what does staff say? 2

[01:03:58] Unknown Speaker: letters or one? Understanding that we're working at a staff level, um, with the Santa Clara County climate, um, collaborative and that, that, um, we at this point don't see an opportunity or a need to communicate with the board, but if one comes up, we can certainly take that step. Okay,

[01:04:18] Member Alison Hicks: so one to Valley Water at this point. Council member show, Walter, did you have an additional comment? Yes,

[01:04:24] Member Pat Showalter: I do. I think the valley water thing sounds very well dealt with, but I had a question about the county collaboration. And that was, where does the organization charge fit into this? That is coastal hazard assessment resource group, which has had a bit of a checkered pass, but it's been going for right 7. I think 7 or 8 years off and on, and it is a group of, of technical, um, staff who work on, uh, sea level rise issues around the, um, around the, the bay. And I wondered, are, are they specifically involved with the county? And if not, I would, uh, I would, um, ask that you look into why they aren't or, if, you know, sort of what's going on with that. What's the status of that? I'd

[01:05:22] Danielle Lee (staff): be happy to provide a quick response to that. Um, I believe charges participating um, at the staff level in the county collaborative. And, um, at the launch of the sea level rise focused working group, we would certainly um, advocate inviting both charge and bacon, the Bay Area climate adaptation network. Um, which is also kind of staff level, but more adaptation focused staff. Um, But yes, Excellent. Excellent, good.

[01:05:54] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, seeing no more comments. I'll make mine. I mean, I'm, uh, as not implied, I'm supportive of the, the, uh, working with the 2 organizations, a lot of acronyms, we're going to have to put them on screen so that so that people can follow what we're talking about. But, um, and I, so thank you, council member Joe Walter, for uh, putting this on our agenda and staff for uh, doing the research and comprehensive report and council member Abbott Koga for suggesting the letter. Um, I only have one additional question, which is, there is, uh, something regarding, uh, sea level and water rise in general that's been, that I've learned about slowly over to him, and that I, I, I think, uh, Ms. Lee, you finally put words to for me. So the concept of riverine rise, as opposed to, you know, sea level rise, um, and, uh, so this, my understanding is that this is, uh, a concept which implies that, uh, due to more, more alternating droughts and storms, and also overall possible rising of the water table, that we need to not only build barriers between us in the bay, but also develop, um, cities that that are spongier and greener and can absorb water that's bubbling up from um, under the city itself. Um, but since, Ms. Lee, since you brought that up, I'm wondering if you could correct me if I'm wrong, and I understand that the county is doing some work around this, so maybe just fill that in a little as an additional element that one looks at when one is uh, thinking about sea level rise. Certainly,

[01:07:37] Danielle Lee (staff): um, you know, the challenge of climate change and the many impacts that we see is that they also interact with each other. And so, um, one of the elements of climate change impacts that we anticipate is more extreme precipitation events, kind of like those atmospheric rivers that happened last fall. The likelihood of those or the severity of those is projected to increase over time. The county, um, I believe, recently submitted a grant application to, to develop modeling and to further study this issue, to be able to layer in that information with what they have already been learning and what we've all been learning around sea level rise, in particular, what would happen at the bay. So, um, I don't know that there is much modeling um, yet available for Santa Clara County in this regard, but it is something that the county is, um, embarking on. So we would, we would anticipate sharing information as it's learned, um, with both of these groups. Great.

[01:08:43] Lisa (staff): Vice mayor, I can add, um, as you're familiar, we have, um, Mr. Raymond Wagner, our staff, um, who is, you know, hydrogeologist and, uh, and has studied this. So, um, actually, when we work on our sea level rise program and modeling, We're actually not only just looking at sea level rise, We're looking at the high tides, we're also looking at the 100 year storms that are impacting our, our watersheds, so coming down the creeks. So, our models actually are now, um, modeling 3 factors. We haven't touched on groundwater quite yet. But we are actually looking at like, you know, the worst storm of a 100 year flood. Um, see them rise and like cake ties coming in, uh, when we're doing our seal of rice planning and modeling, but there's more to be done. There's more data comes in, including these groundwater impacts and all of that. So, um, as a city, we are underway, but um, this does need to be looked at in a regional approach. Since there are no hard walls between us and our adjacent neighboring cities. Thank

[01:09:57] Member Alison Hicks: you. Thank you so much, Ms. Lee, for filling in that level of detail, and I expect to hear more. Um, Are there more comments on this part of the agenda? Okay, if not, then we will move to item 6.3, which is a carbon neutral target date. This item will be presented by Danielle Lee, our chief sustainability and resiliency officer. Thank

[01:10:26] Danielle Lee (staff): you, Claire Hicks. Um, I wanted to start off with a brief uh, background at our April CSC meeting. We started a discussion around carbon neutrality. We talked about the latest climate change science. We talked about, um, the main strategies to achieve carbon neutrality, the need for financing and advocacy, considerations around how to address the residual emissions, often address through offsets. And we looked at the impacts of various potential target years for a revised carbon neutrality goal. At that meeting, we received direction from your committee to develop an accelerated carbon neutrality goal proposal, uh, which primarily would focus on reducing emissions. Um, and there was a recognition that the highest impact strategies would likely be centered around the electrification work that we know as before us, both in terms of our buildings, but also our transportation systems. And then we also receive direction to, uh, be sure to integrate equity in all of our approaches. Since the April meeting, um, staff have worked to identify consulting and technical assistance, opportunities. We've met with neighboring jurisdictions, partner organizations, and uh, even potential electrification implementation partners. Uh, knowing that that was going to be, um, a foundational element of the work before us. We've also, um, researched the Ickley race to 0 effort, which is a nationwide effort where Ickley, um, local governments for sustainability, is working with various local governments across the country, on putting together carbon neutrality plants. And they've got a cohort model where they're working with groups of cities by region on this effort. Um, based on the request from your committee in April. Um, we are returning with a proposed 2035 carbon neutrality goal that we would like to further scope. Um, we feel that 2035 would offer, The right balance, um, between something that's ambitious and far reaching. And that's more achievable. Recognizing the significant scale of change that needs to be achieved. So as I mentioned, um, this idea of scoping, um, it's essentially the, Foundation of a hybrid approach to establishing a carbon neutrality goal, what we're trying to do is act quickly, but also make sure that we balance that with doing all of the analysis and due diligence that we feel is necessary. It's really a phasing between goal setting and implementation planning. Um, the scoping would essentially entail, um, feasibility and cost analysis and would result in essentially a roadmap for carbon neutrality. Um, if it was deemed feasible, we would then be prepared to bring a recommendation of a 2035 goal to counsel. In the meantime, um, we would continue to work um, on building partnerships. I mentioned some of the work that was already underway. Um, we have met with many potential partners. And we would continue to scope out partnerships and to to build those relationships. Um, we would also explore the financing. Um, that would need to basically back all of these strategies that we would be coming forward with. And then we would finalize a proposal for, um, how to address the residual emissions that would remain after our emissions reduction strategies. So here in, um, here in conclusion, uh, just wanted to up, underline what we would see as the next step. Um, We would continue to implement the sustainability action plan for, uh, that that would be an ongoing basis. Uh, as well as the partnerships and financing, um, continue to develop those out. Um, We would, if supported by the CSC this evening, engage with a consultant to, uh, help us develop this carbon neutrality roadmap. Which would consist of the feasibility analysis as well as the financial analysis. Um, that would enable us to bring uh, formal carbon neutrality recommendation to counsel. Um, we expect in the 1st part of 2023. um, possibly the end of 2022. Um, If an if an accelerated goal is adopted at that point, we would engage with the community to develop the full implementation plan while getting underway, some of the foundational pieces that we know will be elements of our work. And then, ultimately, we would bring a formal carbon neutrality implementation plan and financing strategy to CSC into the council. So in summary, what we're looking for is support to do this targeted analysis, um, recognizing that we still want to go very quickly. So that's why we've proposed this hybrid approach to getting to an accelerated carbon neutrality goal. And with that, I can take any questions. Thank

[01:16:38] Member Alison Hicks: you, Ms. Lee. I was gonna let members of the public speak 1st on this one as well. So if there are members of the public who want to speak. Please raise your hands, so we get some idea of how many people want to speak. Okay, I am seeing. Seeing 4 speakers. I'm sure we'll have a few more. Um, so I'm I'm gonna give everybody 2 minutes. And the 1st speaker will be Hala. Yes,

[01:17:27] Hala: good evening, chair council members and staff. Um, I am really, really pleased to see, um, this new target for our city, the neutrality target by 2035. Um, I attended the climate roadmap of Santa Clara County. Um, that was just about 3 weeks ago on the 31st of May. And the county, our Santa Clara County actually has a carbon neutrality goal. Uh, to reach it by 2035. So I think, um, suggesting that Mountain View sets that same goal. I think that's a great thing to do. And it would be just aligned perfectly with uh, the county and perhaps collaborations uh, for ideas on how to achieve that, funding opportunities. Might come out of that. I think that's a great idea. The city has done a great work, uh, with the, uh, reducing greenhouse gas emissions for new buildings by, you know, requiring electrification. They've done a great job with promoting uh, electric vehicles, putting chargers. The only thing lacking that I don't see from, from the work we've done through the task force back in 2017 and 18 is electrification of existing buildings. Um, about 90% of households and um, I'm not sure about the commercial buildings are still using fossil fuel. And I'm sure that contributes significantly uh, to the greenhouse gas emissions. So a little bit more work on that. Uh, you know, would be great to help us reach that that neutrality goal. Thank you. Thank you, Hala. Uh,

[01:19:20] Member Alison Hicks: the next person I see is James Kemp. Right,

[01:19:25] James Kemp: yeah, I'd like to re-emphasize just what, and sort of follow on with what Hollis said about the need for looking into retrofits. Um, I mean, uh, two-thirds of the buildings that are there now are going to be there in 2035, perhaps even more. Um, and, um, it would be really good to know what the plan is. I know, like I mentioned, at the beginning that you've been talking to block power and they have, you know, Menlo Park is actually going to use their services to decarbonize most of their city. Um, Mountain View has like a 60% uh, rentals uh, in apartment buildings. Um, this is a really excellent uh, kind of um, uh, situation for block power. That, what they do. They started in New York where there's a lot of rentals and they are really able to do that. But I would also encourage to look at the single family homes, finding out ways to, um, to, I mean, typically those are people that have better financial resources and can probably, but they definitely need to have some incentive set up for, um, for that. So great work on the plan and I hope it comes through and everything works out. Thank you. Thank

[01:20:32] Member Alison Hicks: you, James. The next speaker is, um, I believe Bruce with a phone number ending in 793. Hi,

[01:20:49] Bruce Nagle: this is Bruce Snagel again. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, Mountain View has done a, uh, some good work in this respect. Um, they recognize some of the important issues. Um, I was glad to hear over the last period of uh, this meeting, building partnerships. You know, as an example, the last speaker mentioned block power. One of the things that's going to make block power successful is getting into multiple cities. Menlo Park has recently signed an agreement. Um, so, you know, I think we need to think about how we do that with a lot of the, the aspects to, to, to move things forward. Um, I, uh, if the hybrid approach will get us there as quickly as possible, great. We have some cities that have taken more aggressive goals, whether they will, you're just putting it out there as aspirational and will fall back to 2035. You know, I think if we stay with 2035, we need to do something to make sure that it's a well thought out plan that really can be achieved and we understand the challenges and and the resources that are needed. One of the interesting comments that San Jose had in their meeting last week, was uh, that they recognized that this, to meet their goals, they were going to need to get a lot of money. You guys have mentioned financing, it's important. I'm sure you all understand that, but I think we're going to have to come up with some ingenious ways to fix things because. Um, we're asking for a, you know, a major change in, in our entire building structure, and it will take some planning and effort to do that. We did win World War 2 and 4 or 5 years, it's possible to do it, but it's going to take some focus and and real agreement as to what's going on with it. I've also mentioned that there are a number of, um, things that we should be conscious of which are the, some of the legislation that's being passed, um, that's, uh, happening. One of them is, um, SP 4825. And that's important because what it does is it makes the, um, it provides a floor of, um, a, a, medium. Anyway, it's important. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank

[01:23:05] Member Alison Hicks: you. Our next speaker will be Bruce Kearney.

[01:23:15] Bruce Kearney: Good evening, uh, committee members and staff. Um, I'm delighted with the plan that has been put forward, uh, and I look forward, uh, to The discovery that there is, in fact, a feasible path forward to decarbonization and climate neutrality by 2035. Steve Attinger and I have both been working on decarbonization and climate issues in Mountain View for 14 years. So it's delightful to think that just 13 years from now, our work may be done. Um, I remember going to a solar conference uh, many years ago in San Francisco where tote bags were being handed out by the city of Freiburg, Germany. And they branded themselves as Freiburg, Green City. Now, I don't know why they claim that. I hope there was something to back it up. But I would love for Mountain View to adopt the Green City idea as a way to brand ourselves as a city that really, um, is fully intending to accomplish what so many other cities are saying they want to do. I really applaud Danielle's hybrid approach. I think um, Mountain View can do this. I certainly hope that you will recommend this when the time comes to the full council. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Thank

[01:24:41] Member Alison Hicks: you, Bruce. Next is Mary Dadio. Um,

[01:24:50] Mary Dadio: good evening and, um, Thank you all, um, for working on, um, an accelerated, um, climate neutral goal, um, just crazily important, obviously, as we all know, um, to set an aggressive target, and and to do what we can to meet it, uh, because climate change is just so. Um, so dangerous and urgent. Um, So whatever we can do to move this forward would be great. Um, I, Do, I get a lot of feedback from people because I talk about electricity in my house a lot and I get a lot of feedback from people that, um, want to change, and they hear that they just seem confused. Or it seems intimidating and complicated. So, um, as we move forward. Um, I'm not sure. I'm not sure exactly what's behind all that, but as we move forward, I guess I'm, I would like, um, finding, trying to find approaches to help people do this. It would be great if we could come up with a way to make things simpler, whatever that is, but something to keep in mind. Thank you. Thank you. So

[01:26:12] Member Alison Hicks: this is Last Chance, any more speakers? Seeing no more public speakers. It's time for committee members to speak if they have questions or comments. Uh, Council member Abby Koga? Thank

[01:26:36] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: you, chair, and thank you to staff for bringing this back. I certainly, um, appreciate and support the hybrid model. Um, as we look at accelerating our, um, goals, you know, my, my concern has been, um, you know, what are these goals? Are they aspirational or are they really realistic and achievable? And I think that, you know, the hybrid model will hopefully, um, you know, be both or and be more achievable and aspirational, frankly, and, you know, I know aspirational goals are hopeful, but, um, I think we're at a point where we just really need to go full on and try to achieve as much as we can as quickly as possible. So um, that's really been my concern. Um, you know, I appreciate the comments about how to simplify and I, you know, that's really part one part of it is how do we get the, you know, residents uh, of mountain view to be able to do as much as they can on their own and, and a lot of that can be uh, in, in terms of education and information. Um, but some of the, you know, the, like the, there's a heavy lift here. And, um, you know, I, we talked about resources with sea level rise, but this too, um, is going to take a lot of resources. And that's been my concern. Um, what I would say is that, um, well, so, so as uh, I forget, Mr. Kemp mentioned, you know, for instance, existing buildings, multifamily buildings, how do we electrify, um, there's some challenges here that we have in Mountain View. Um, that some other cities don't have, um, that because of rent control in our CSFRA, we're very limited in terms of what we can require, um, property owners to do without them having, um, you know, having us having worked out, um, how they can get, um, reimbursed for the costs that they have, or, you know, they may not even have the ability to finance improvements. So there's a lot of details that I think we still need to work out. Um, I would say that, and I see Mr. Yulo in attendance, um, he's our, um, silicon Valley clean energy, um, uh, connection, um, Uh, and he as working with uh, our municipalities, our member agencies, but, um, we're talking a lot about a lot of this at SVCE as well. Um, we are, we've built some, uh, we've um, established some goals. Um, financing is actually one of them, and SVCE, I think, has the capacity and the resources to really, you know, make something happen, I believe, um, more than, you know, our city. Our city is, you know, great and we do a lot of great things, but this is going to be a pretty, it is a huge effort. And so I would just, you know, ask that we work closely with our partners and clean energy in particular. Um, you know, so that we don't have to duplicate efforts, um, and, you know, lean on the uh, regional agencies when we can. Um, so that I think we talked about earlier, you know, being able to combine efforts with other, um, municipalities and, and, um, this too, I think is, um, you know, an effort that it's going to take more than mountain view to be able to achieve. So, um, that would be my um, you know, request. I know we do work closely with clean energy, but I think we're going to, you know, want to work even more closely with them, um, and other partners that we can find. Thank you. Thank

[01:30:27] Member Alison Hicks: you, and did staff have any comments on that comment? If you don't have to. Or

[01:30:34] Danielle Lee (staff): um, I just wanted to thank, thank you for the comment, council member. Just wanted to reassure you that we are working closely with SVCE. And we've also reached out to joint venture, to the county, to many of our neighboring cities. Um, and I would really love to acknowledge SPCE. We're having some initial conversations about electrification of existing buildings, but uh, no specific program proposal yet that is ready to be brought forward, but that's what we're working towards. to really reach economies of scale when it comes to electrifying our existing buildings. And then I would also want to mention that, um, I, I believe SVCE recently submitted a proposal to the CPUC, around tariff on bill financing, which is a financing mechanism that could be available even to renters, to be able to support the upfront cost of electrification work. So, um, we'll be really excited to track that effort as well. That way, um, you know, folks would have it there. Disposal, a way to finance projects like installing heat pumps and doing other electrification things that currently don't fit the profile of onvil financing that's offered through PG&E. So, We're excited and very impressed with the work that SVCE has been doing. and looking forward to working with them. Thank you.

[01:32:01] Member Alison Hicks: So, council member share, Walter, do you have comments or would you like me to make mine 1st? either one is fine. Oh, why don't you go ahead and make yours first? So I, I basically, um, you know, I agree. I like a hybrid approach, I would like further scoping. I, um, you know, I do think that this is not a race with other cities that we need to work with other cities. My question is, uh, related to the, what you were, you were just talking about a bit, is the, um, so when I see other cities that are moving their goals forward to 2035, it is electrification of, uh, further electric cars and electrification of, um, existing buildings is a big part of that, and many of them are working with block power. Although I did have a, rather in-depth, Uh, discussion with some elected officials in Palo Alto, who would not be working through Silicon Valley clean energy because they are their own utility. Um, and they are working with uh, some, they are thinking of working with uh, an entity other than black power. So I, um, and they are also, uh, they seem to be a bit ahead of us and they're writing a manual on the, um, on the, the problems they're running into. So I do, uh, I do encourage, uh, interaction with them because they, they know this is not a race and they're perfectly willing to share. Um, I, my question is, um, is, can you explain a little more how, uh, on bill financing or, um, Gosh, I've, I've heard it called a tariff on bill financing investment project. A little more about how that works so that I understand, you know, how much would be our investment and how much would be, um, another end of day, how much would it be like a home mortgage where I don't know, when I bought, bought my home, I didn't shell out the entire amount of money. You know, I'm paying it in increments. I personally think that's what we need to get this done, a financing system. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? And how much we would be responsible for and how much would be more of a system wide endeavor? Certainly.

[01:34:31] Ms. Lee: Um, this is a a newer topic with regards to using it as a tool for electrification in particular. I know that on bill financing has been available for electrification, for energy efficiency for quite some time. The idea is that it's an investment by the utility, and the, they pay the upfront cost associated with the work, and then through, um, in this case, a tariff that's approved by the CPUC. They can collect back, uh, the cost that they have fronted basically. Um, the investment is associated with the actual work projects that are being done at, you know, site by site. And so they're not property assessed in that it's a lien against the, um, the house in the way that pace financing is. Um, the next homeowner would also, um, pay these repayments, but they have to be deemed cost effective where the repayment is less than the cost of the utility bill prior to the installation of the project. So, um, it's essentially like a no net increased cost to the customer. Um, in many models, there isn't a financial role that the jurisdiction, the city would play necessarily. Um, there are opportunities to, you know, buy down interest rates, but, um, The other, the other way of approaching it is for us to try to work to generate increased demand and to help the installers or the electrification service providers to achieve economies of scale, and that could help to draw down the cost. Um, So, There's a potential for us to participate financially, but also for, um, an on-bill financing program to work without the city's financial participation. This doesn't, because it requires um, that the projects be cost effective. It doesn't, it's not a magic, you know, a silver bullet that can capture all of the electrification work. Um, But it is an important tool. And, you know, I think that the idea with financing, um, is it's going to be, uh, kind of a suite of options and that when combined, they can meet the full need of the community in terms of the cost to electrifying. So, This would be an important component, but it wouldn't meet every need, um, because of that cost effectiveness, essentially, requirement. So

[01:37:07] Member Alison Hicks: are you saying certain components might be cost effective, let's say, a heat pump and other components not cost effective? So, one might, when electrifying their home, might, uh, find out certain things but not be able to finance other items. Is that basically what you're saying? That's

[01:37:24] Ms. Lee: my understanding, and I believe there's an ability to bundle so that, you know, the suite of improvements, um, needs to be cost effective. Um, but we can, and I've reached out to SVCE. I'd like to learn more where their proposal is in terms of the CPUC proceeding to get approval for this proposal. Um, And then we can bring an update. once, um, once we reconvene in the fall. Clearly,

[01:37:55] Member Alison Hicks: ideally, it would be best if we go forth regionally, and from what I've heard, so that the, so that our city is not putting in any specific financing, but it's done regionally. Um, and that, uh, yeah, we do it at scale and we do it probably when people's heaters and water heaters and so forth go out, then they know that this is available to them, uh, and I've heard Palo Alto is even maybe going to stockpile heat pump water heaters. Um, because usually if your water heater blows out, you want one immediately. So I think there are a number of small steps like that, that we all have to take and that we do best, certainly every city shouldn't stockpile a bunch of water heaters. Um so that if we work together. Um, the other thing I've heard Palo Alto is doing is, uh, there needs to be a big workforce for this. So I've heard that they're working with, um, Josh Becker on getting some, um, training in green engineers through our community colleges, even 4 year degrees, and, you know, I'm all for training for jobs. I have to say, my son is a green engineer. So, you know, it's a job that many people are excited about. So I think that, that's a, a great plus as well. Um, so I, I would, you know, I would fully support fleshing out that more and hearing more about it and hopefully that, although I know we'll have to invest something in, uh, accelerating our climate goals, I'm hoping this piece, um, maybe can be done regionally instead. Um, share?

[01:39:37] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, we have Mr. Eulo from SVCE and our um, attendee box and I'm wondering if he might be able to respond or answer some of the questions you had about the, um, CPUC. Mhm.

[01:39:51] Member Alison Hicks: That would be great. Are you able to promote him? Oh, I do say he has his hand up. I'm sorry.

[01:40:00] Mr. Eulo: All right, can you guys hear me now?

[01:40:03] Member Alison Hicks: We can, yes.

[01:40:04] Mr. Eulo: Perfect, but I'm sorry I'm gonna disappoint you, Ms. Abbe Koga. I don't have an answer on where the on bill tariff financing is at the PUC. I was just going to report that it's definitely still in the proposal and and baking stage, but I just quickly wanted to highlight a number of points. First off, thank you, uh, Ms. Lee, for, uh, the kind words, and of course, the ongoing leadership of Mizame Koga on our board. And, uh, I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the long-standing partnership we've had with Mr. Battinger as well. Uh, well, we have a long history. Of cooperation in Mountain View is undoubtedly one of the leading cities amongst our 13 jurisdictions, and we so appreciate the models that you continue to push. Let me just touch on, on some things, uh, that kind of pivot off of what the council, the council members have commented on tonight. One is one thing we are looking at is a water heater loaner program. Uh, so that those wanting a heat pump can have a kind of a stopgap loaner, so that they have both heat water and then they're on the path towards electrification. Um, we are also looking at additional financing mechanisms. Um, structured financing, if you will, where we could use some of our balance sheet to leverage additional financing opportunities for electrification. Uh, the unique opportunity that we have together is that the city can pass regulations. And ordinances and laws, forcing, in some instances, people to electrify where, where SVC, SVCE or others cannot. Uh, on the other hand, others can provide financing to help make those laws uh, more react, more realistic. So I think there's a great opportunity for ongoing partnerships. between cities like Mountain View and SVCE. And just lastly, I just, I'm on my soapbox on this issue, which is, uh, let's not forget the need to, uh, encourage the owners of multi, of existing multifamily, uh, developments to install EV charging. Because boy, when if you can't charge at home, it really is a disincentive to buy an electric vehicle. As we know, roughly half our emissions are coming from the transportation sector. getting EV charging into existing multifamily homes is still, uh, a nut yet to be cracked by anyone, um, but let's work on it together. Thanks so much for your consideration, and as I said, your ongoing leadership. I really appreciate working with you guys. Thank

[01:42:43] Member Alison Hicks: you so much, Mr. Yellow. Um, uh, So, uh, council member show Walter, comments. Yeah,

[01:42:54] Member Pat Showalter: um, I, uh, I, I pretty much agree with, with all that, uh, you and, um, Council member Avocoga said. I think that the more of this that we and and it's great to hear from, um, Mr. Yuyo. I, uh, I worked with him some, uh, when I was at the water district on solid waste issues, and I was always amazed at the breadth of his knowledge. So, um, I'm glad to hear you're at Silicon Valley Clean Energy now, that speaks volumes for them. Anyway, um, uh, I, Clearly what we can do regionally is better than what we can do in, uh, as an individual city. And, um, But I'm sure that there's lots of collaborative efforts and pieces that we need to do and, you know, we can we can join in with the regional. I recently um, put in a heat pump. I, I, I'm just feeling so lucky that we, we got it in 2 weeks ago just in time for this, you know, this, this heat wave. Um, so we have air conditioning um, for the 1st time ever. And that's been great. But in the process, and then we put solar in last year, and hopefully next year, we'll we'll do the heat pump. But, but, uh, for the water heater. But, but what I've learned in this process is that, um, you seem to need an awful lot of contractors. And there aren't very many people who are in the business of doing this as a package. And I sure hope that that's where we're going. Um, that in talking to the contractors, they see that as the future, but that's not where they are right now. So whatever we can do to, um, uh, educate them, uh, provide incentives for electrification efforts to be done at the same time or or with, you know, the same contractor, uh, and the same contract. I mean, I think just, the simplification, that Mary Dadio mentioned, that's really vital. Because, um, it's just a big deal for a residential owner to get everything together to do one of these projects. And so if you, if electrification is 3 or 4 projects, that's, you know, that's just that much harder. So whatever we can do to, um, encourage the contracting, um, industry to, um, coalesce into doing this as a package deal, uh, is going to make it much, much faster, and I would assume less expensive too in the long run. So, so that's, I think, a goal we, you know, we really need to be talking about very explicitly and, um, there's all sorts of ways, you know, is to all sorts of parts to working on that. Then, then, much more specifically, and the next steps at the end of the, um, the staff report. We talked about, you talked about timeline and next steps. And one of the things I wanted to ask staff about was number five, solicit feedback on the implementation approach of carbon neutrality strategies from the community through engagement efforts. And um, I I just wanted to hear a little bit more about how you thought it would be good to go about that. It seems like we, you know, we, we could conceivably reconvene some members of the sustainability task force, um, uh, or have a, you know, reunion meeting for them to, to help with, with these things. Um, I was also wondering how, um, our cool block program would be, uh, part of this, but just, you know, generally, what's the, what are the, the things that you've been thinking about for community outreach? Thank

[01:46:57] Ms. Lee: you for the comments and question. Um. With regards to community engagement, I think what we would be aiming for is to use a variety of ways to reach the community. Certainly reaching back out to the sustainability task force and to our existing partners would be a high priority. And then also hosting community events that were accessible to community members, whether on evenings or weekends. going to communities to have small focused discussions with, you know, smaller groups of people. We just want to open up a number of channels for the community to give input into the process. In particular. Um, I'd also like us to think through um, some strategies around reaching our hardest to reach um, members of the community. We would certainly be relying on the, um, multicultural program within the county, the city managers office to help inform some of those strategies that we could employ as well. We're so pleased to have them as colleagues and really, um, technical experts in terms of community outreach and engagement. So, I would, I would hope a variety of channels, previously used ones and some new ones would be at our disposal. But

[01:48:20] Member Pat Showalter: another one that, um, uh, is always valuable is through carbon free Mountain View. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. So

[01:48:37] Member Alison Hicks: thank you all. Are there additional comments? Uh, pet,

[01:48:44] Member Pat Showalter: you're muted. Okay. One more question. I just wanted to, we're about to go. We're about to finish the budget and I wanted to ask, do we have money for this consultant or, um, Is that in the budget? There

[01:49:00] Ms. Lee: was an amount within the existing, um, sustainability capital improvement program that was unallocated, and counsel previously gave permission to staff to allocate those remaining funds. It's, um, almost $115,000. Towards anything that's within the existing sustainability action plan. Um, and the carbon neutrality plan is one of the items on that list. So, um, we proposed to, um, engage in a focused, modest contract to start to do this just targeted analysis over the summer. And we do have this. That's great. you.

[01:49:43] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, seeing no other comments from the committee, interrupt me if I'm wrong. Um, so, uh, so I'll just sum up. I think we, uh, I think there's general consensus that we should move forward with the hybrid model and scoping. I don't think we need a vote on that, but anyone can disagree with me if they, if they think we do and we can take a boat. Um, And

[01:50:08] Unknown Speaker: then, I would like to suggest a motion and a vote. Okay. Okay,

[01:50:13] Member Alison Hicks: would someone like to make a motion on that? And while you're getting ready to make the motion, I'll just say that on, uh, what council members show Walter brought up, I think, the, um, the council has also been talking about in its budget, so putting some money towards training, and I don't know whether we could focus any of that on electrification and, uh, green jobs, that might be something that, that we would want to bring up to the rest of council. Other than that, I generally agree with. Uh, what people have said, and I would like, you know, for the reports. I think I was particularly interested in what Mr. Eulo said that, you know, Silicon Valley Clean Energy might do more of the financing, we might do it more regionally, but we could, um, mandate that certain changes be made. We would pass the laws, that certain changes would have to be made, uh, with uh, regarding electrophication of existing homes. Um, so with that, um, uh, council members, show notes, are you ready to make a motion? Yes,

[01:51:16] Member Pat Showalter: I move approval of the staff recommendation for the hybrid. Um, uh, evaluation of A new carbon neutrality, um, Target of 2035. And

[01:51:33] Member Alison Hicks: is there a 2nd? Uh, council member, Abicoga? Uh,

[01:51:40] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: yes, so 2nd the motion and, um, if I could just, uh, reply to your comments chair, um, Again, SPCE, um, has been working on workforce development and has a program, a certification program with an incentive. I think it's $500 if you complete this certification. So, um, we are clean energy, it's very well aware of, um, that need, and also there's just, um, that, you know, there's been, um, it's been an effort to try to collaborate with the labor community. Um, more closely. So, um, you know, I definitely would support us being able to contribute to these efforts, um, again, without having to reinvent the wheel. Thanks. Thank

[01:52:31] Member Alison Hicks: you. would agree with that. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Um, all those in favor raise their hands. So it passes unanimously. Would you, I? I

[01:52:49] Unknown Speaker: believe it is our practice that we do the roll call vote.

[01:52:54] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Oh okay. If Miss Lee could do that. And

[01:52:59] Ms. Lee: Lee Chair Hicks.

[01:53:01] Member Alison Hicks: Uh, yes.

[01:53:02] Ms. Lee: Remember Abbe Koga?

[01:53:03] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I,

[01:53:04] Ms. Lee: Remember show Walter?

[01:53:06] Member Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:53:08] Ms. Lee: Thank you. Okay. Um,

[01:53:12] Member Alison Hicks: with that, we can move on to item 6 on the agenda, which is the council sustainability and staff, comments, questions, and reports. Um, no action will be taken on any questions raised by the CSC at this time. Do any CSC members or staff have comments or questions? I do not see any comments or questions. Oh, okay. Castle member show Walter has...

[01:53:48] Member Pat Showalter: I was just gonna, just gonna be, give a big thank you to staff for, um, for, uh, producing all the materials for this, um, uh, this meeting. I'm, I'm delighted that we're, you know, we, we had a little bit of a hiatus during COVID, as there was for many things, and it seems like we are, um, you know, we are back on track, and I just wanted to express my appreciation. Okay,

[01:54:17] Member Alison Hicks: I'll 2nd that. Any other comments or questions? Okay, seeing no other comments or questions, we will move to item 7 on the agenda. Which is adjournment. And this meeting is adjourned at 824 p.m.

• ← Previous
• Next →