April 16, 2024 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:04] Member Alison Hicks: I'm gonna pretend I have a gavel. Okay, start the meeting. So, um, We're on item number one of our agenda, which is the call to order. Uh, this meeting is being conducted with virtual component. So anyone wishing to address the council sustainability committee virtually. Join the meeting on Zoom, um, using the link that you can find online, um, or a phone number and webinar ID shown on the screen. Um, When the chair, which would be me, announces the item on which you want to speak, click the raise hand feature in Zoom or dial star 9 on your phone, and when your name is called to provide a couple of public comment. If you're participating via phone, please press Star 6 to unmute yourself. For in-person attendees, please fill out a speaker card, which you can find on the sign in table to the left of the door. Also, recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subject to disruptive, racist, verbal attacks. Anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural, equity and justice, as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all. This advisory body or commission commission, uh welcomes, Committee welcomes respectful and non-threatening public comments regarding matters over which the committee has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise pursuant to the council code of conduct and the government code, maybe grounds for immediately, terminating a speaker's comment period. Now we're on item two, which is roll call. Miss Lee, can you take role, please?

[00:02:03] Ms. Lee: Certainly, Chair Hicks

[00:02:04] Member Alison Hicks: here.

[00:02:05] Ms. Lee: Remember, I'll be coke,

[00:02:06] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I'm here.

[00:02:07] Ms. Lee: Number show Walter.

[00:02:08] Member Pat Showalter: Here.

[00:02:09] Member Alison Hicks: Right now to item three, which is approving the minutes. Uh, this would be the council sustainability committee meeting minutes from October 3rd of 2023. Does anyone have questions or comments about the meeting minutes? Okay, seeing none. Um. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting then?

[00:02:36] Member Alison Hicks: Move to a group? second.

[00:02:39] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. All those in favor? Uh, did you do public comment? Oh, public comment, yes. Is there any public commentary on this side? No, saying none now. Would, uh, everybody vote?

[00:02:54] Member Alison Hicks: I, I.

[00:02:55] Member Alison Hicks: Okay? Okay, pass this unanimously. We are now on item 4 oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the council sustainability committee from acting on non-agendized items. Would any member of the public like to provide comments on an item that is not on the agenda? If so, either click the raise hand button and zoom or start 9 ends or start 9 on your phone, and those in person can give us a speaker card. Any speaker cards?

[00:03:44] Member Alison Hicks: Just collecting those cards.

[00:03:47] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Okay. Okay. Whitney, you can clock the cover. Okay. So, um, we are now done with item number four, item number 5 is new business, uh, discussions, and action items. Um, 5.1. one is a verbal update and discussion on potential options, timelines, and process for establishing business codes, building codes, sorry. To achieve the city's sustainability goals. Um, and this item will be presented by sustainability division and building division staff. And Ms. Lee will commence the presentation.

[00:04:29] Ms. Lee: Thank you, chair Hicks. members of the CSC and members of the city staff and members of the public. Thank you for joining us this evening. We wanted to spend some time on this 1st item, talking about reach code options, timelines, and potential next steps. First of all, just as a reminder for all of us, what are reach codes? Reach codes are basically local building a code amendments that exceed what the state requires of us so that we can, at the local level, achieve our own sustainability goals. Those might include increasing energy efficiency of our buildings, expanding electric vehicle charging opportunities, reducing water and waste created through our buildings, encouraging clean energy through solar or all electric equipment, and of course, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to support decarbonization work. As you can see, in our most recently adopted greenhouse gas emissions inventory. Energy consumption associated with buildings makes up a significant component of our overall greenhouse gas emissions portfolio. And so reach codes are an important tool in our effort to mitigate those additions. Um, the city of Mountain View has been, um, very proactive in addressing climate change, and in 2019, adopted reach codes that required all electric new construction for and for, um, all electric for major renovations. In 2022, the city expanded the reach codes to include more solar and electric vehicle requirements and continued the all electric requirements that were previously adopted. Our reach codes had 4 main components, um, and all electric appliance or equipment requirement, with a few limited exceptions, most notably the exception for restaurants. Um, the requirement to install solar to accommodate 100% of the annual energy consumption of a building. Um, It contains greater EV installation and EV readiness requirements than what is required at the state level. And then finally, bird safe glass is required for non-residential development. Last Tuesday. The portion of the reach codes that was suspended is just the 1st bullet, the all electric appliance and equipment requirement with limited exceptions. The other components of our reach codes, um, were not modified in any way. And just to take a step back, you know, we've seen that reach codes have worked, this is a summary of, um, building permits that were finaled under our all electric code requirements since 2020, um, because the 1st code was adopted in 2019. Uh, and you can see the totals here. So it has had a significant impact across our building stock. Now, of course, we've had to suspend a portion of the reach codes. And um, this timeline really breaks down, uh, the series of events that led us to that. I won't walk you through each thing, but I think it's important to point out that um, it was a lengthy process. Um, and that there were twists and turns along the way. We, um, The story unfolded, um, and there were, there were unexpected results, um, each step of the way. Um, most notably in, um, in January of 20 of this year, 2024, the ninth circuit, um, basically denied a rehearing of Berkeley's case. Um, which made final its ruling for, um, Striking down the structure of their reach coats. Um, and then in late March, Berkeley made the decision to settle its lawsuit and will rescind its breach code. Um, and is not seeking review by the US Supreme Court. Um, In an ongoing basis, the city has been tracking this issue and participating in regional discussions to talk about alternative options. We've had discussions with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, with the International Code Council, the Peninsula Chapter, with Santa Clara County's Planning Collaborative, and with the Bay Area Regional Energy Befort, Bayran. Since, since the reach codes have been challenged, um, approximately 80, people have had, have approached city building and building staff regarding gas appliances. Primarily in single-family residential projects to either modify their remodel permit to include gas appliances, recognizing that, um, now it was being challenged in courts. Um, So maybe they wanted to bring back stoves, barbecues, outdoor fire pits, uh, or to delay the removal of their gas appliances during construction. Or they have been perhaps unable to pass final inspection due to non-removal of gas appliances. Um, or that also accounts inquiries by licensed professionals who are preparing this. Um, And then, of course, last week, um, on Tuesday, April 9th, the city suspended, um, the natural gas suppliance prohibition of our reach codes. All other components of the reach codes to remain in fact. We've seen each jurisdiction around the Bay Area, grapple with this issue. Here's a partial list of some cities that we have, um, identified that have suspended enforcement of their reach codes. And then there are a few examples of jurisdictions that are continuing to enforce their reach codes. The county of Santa Clara is continuing. The unincorporated. I will note that the unincorporated areas, their patterns for development are quite different than cities. The city and county of San Francisco is also continuing to enforce their reach codes. Their building code does not is not part of the statewide building code. So, um, their analysis. I think an assessment for deciding whether to continue enforcement is simply different than ours. And then, of course, the city of San Jose. You may have heard about as well. They've continued to enforce their reach codes. However, they have a different structure entirely. They have an energy performance against each code. So, um, it was not subject to any of the findings

[00:11:28] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: of the recent court beats. So we

[00:11:31] Ms. Lee: just wanted to share some snapshot of what is happening around us and jurisdictions, our neighbors. And then the other piece that we wanted to emphasize is that, um, reach codes while they play an important piece of our, they're an important strategy within our work to decarbonize. Um, there are also layers that are happening at the regional and state, uh, and even federal level, that will, that will also be supportive of our collective goals around decarbonizing our buildings. So for example, uh, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, the establishment of that, um, as we are able to provide cleaner and cleaner electricity to residents and businesses, then we can have reach codes that would fold into that and support electrification. Uh, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District recently adopted indoor air quality standards that will require water and space heating appliances to be uh, 0 nitrogen oxides starting in 2027. So, soon, um, retailers will not be able to sell natural gas faced appliances. The California Air resources board, carb is looking at taking the Bay Area model and expanding it statewide. They'll be considering it next year for implementation as soon as 2030. So, you know, 1st a regional ban on the sale of natural gas appliances, and then, eventually, um, a statewide ban on the sale of those appliances. And then, of course, our current state building code does support decarbonization as well. Um, and our reach codes were complimentary to that right now, um, the state building code requires prewiring for new single family homes to be all electric in the future. So, even if you are putting in a natural gas appliance, you, you will have to be pre-wired to switch, to be able to switch to an electric appliance when, when the current appliance needs to be replaced. That would be for heating, that would be currently for heating, clothes, drying, and stoves. Um, The full home for single family and then for heating, clothes drying, stoves and multifamily. In the upcoming building code cycle, which will happen in 2025. Um, the state is looking at including additional pre-wiring requirements for multifamily to round out to add to the ones that are already required. We've heard recently that a 0 knocks approach or an indoor air pollutant-based regulation um, at the state level is not being considered. It's unlikely to be considered in the 2025 cycle. Um, I believe that the Air Resources Board requested that of the building standards, um, commission and it was declined. Well, hand it over to Ms. Hagen, who will tuck us through now, alternatives.

[00:14:34] Ms. Hagen: Yes. So, um, Miss Lee is able to kind of talk about the context of where we're at, um, what other cities are doing and kind of how we got here today. Um, so I'll sort of push us forward into what we're really exploring as alternatives. Um, and so looking at uh, sort of what's on the screen here, there's 3 main alternatives or approaches that city staff is looking into. So I'm going to talk a little bit about each of these. The 1st is um, the expanded pre-wiring requirement, which, um, mislead did touch on. So essentially this is requiring folks who want to install a natural gas appliance to pre-wire, meaning they install the full electrical infrastructure. So we're talking ensuring that they have enough panel capacity. They run the actual electrical line. They have the proper amount of voltage that's required for that type of appliance. And in some cases, they're fully installing the outlet as well. And so they would have to install all of that all the way to the appliance or near it. Um, and really, again, the idea behind that is it makes for a very easy transition in the future to all electric. It's really almost a plug and play sort of scenario, either slightly very minor electrical work that might be done. Um, and as was touched on, um, the state code currently has some minimal requirements for new construction, which we'll talk a little bit more in detail about in a second, but, Um, the idea about this expanded approach is looking further beyond the state code. So looking to make sure it's covering more multifamily and into non-residential. Um, and uh, an important piece to understand about reach codes, the reason it's often referred to in a plural sense of reach codes. We often talk about state, state building code or our building code as a single code. State code is actually made up of 12 parts. Um, and so you'll hear us talk about certain parts like Cal Green or the energy code. Those are all different parts that make up the state code, and each part has very prescriptive requirements on how you procedurally amend it at the local level. And so we'll talk a little bit about that as well. Um, so this pre-wiring requirement, um, the part of the state code we would be amending is the Calgary section, um, it's fairly a straightforward process. The other option we're looking at is air quality approach, this is really an approach that's looking at regulating air quality emissions from an equipment or appliance. So you're looking at setting some kind of threshold. The prime example, the one you often hear is the 0 nitrogen oxide or 0 Nox equipment requirement. Um, and this is another one where, um, to adopt it at the local level or expanded at the local level. You're amending the Calgary or California green building code part of the state code. Um, and the 3rd option is the energy performance approach. and this was really about regulating energy performance from equipment. Um, usually at a set percentage above the state code minimum. Um, and with you know, with option 3 and option one, people can still have gas appliances. Um, it's just there's a framework around what it needs to have it. So in the case of the energy performance approach, Um, you're setting a some kind of threshold that if somebody wanted to entertain a gas appliance, it means they have to achieve other electrification efforts or other efficiency efforts to meet the city's threshold, for example. Um, and so this is often referred to, um, as a single margin or one margin approach, you'll hear that term. Um, and this particular approach is actually amending a different part of the state code, the California Energy Code, which that code has a very prescriptive requirement of doing a cost-effectiveness study. Um, and so that would be something, uh, that would have to be done as well as it requires, um, the state energy commission to actually approve it before a city could actually enforce or, um, the requirement could be effective. So, um, if we could dive a little bit more into um, the specifics of each of these. If you don't mind hitting the slide, thanks. Um, So looking at the expanded pre-wiring requirements. So the column on the left is what the minimum state code is today. So for a new construction single family, you see the list of requirements you have to pre-wire for ADUs for single family homes, as well as you'll see a smaller list for multifamily new construction. So staff is really looking at, um, an evaluating a two-part, uh, two-phased approach. And the reason or rationale behind this would be to try and um, get something potentially in the code sooner. Um, so this 1st phase is really taking our existing framework and thresholds that we have in place today with our code requirements for, uh, the reach code for new construction, which includes major renovations. And essentially expanding the state code to include the additional development that we already cover in our current reach code. And essentially expanding the pre-wiring requirements to cover all the same type of appliances that we've been covering in our in our prior reach code. So we're looking, in this case, this would be looking at expanding the single family to additional types of appliances as well as multifamily to match the same appliance list and commercial. Um, The phase 2 component is actually going one step further than what actually our current thresholds are in our code and looking at maybe smaller renovations. Maybe looking at, um, What I'll refer to if you touch it, you pre-wire it. And so if somebody comes in to install a new gas appliance, whatever that appliance is, we may ask you to pre-wire it. So, this is sort of the next evolution of looking at what's possible. And obviously with phase 2, we need more time to really look at what those thresholds might be. Um, so we can move on to the next slide. So getting into some examples to help really convey how these programs work. So, um, an example of the air quality uh, approach is the town of Los Altos Hills. They recently in February adopted this program. And for them, it applies to new construction and major renovation of single family homes only, which is their main development. Um, it applies to a very specific list of appliances. It does exclude a number of them. So it does not apply to indoor and outdoor cooking equipment. Outdoor fireplaces, generators, and pool and small heaters. Um, and so the way their code is set up, If you install what they call a Knox emission, generating indoor appliance, which an example of that would be a gas stove, uh, for indoor cooking, then uh, you have to pre-wire it. essentially. So you have to prewire it, the full, um, sort of what I talked about before. You're looking at the panel capacity running the wire, you're labeling it. Um, and then they did amend the the Calgreen section. Um, and again, with that section, a cost effectiveness study would not be required. Some things to look at and consider with this approach. Um, there is no gas equipment available in the market that meets a 0 Knox requirement. Um, and there's really no other examples of this applying at a multifamily residential development or or non-residential or commercial development. So there's no examples out there for us to really look at. Um, and how it might apply to those types of development. And then, um, the other common example that is provided, um, or people talk about is state of New York, um, adopted 0 Knox program. Um, What's different about their program is they have phased it in. So they have a 3 to 4 year phase in, and again, that's to allow the market to shift into having available equipment. Um, additionally, the fact that the mere fact that they adopted it at the state level makes it so much easier for the local cities to then, um, adopt something at the local level. So it's just a different sort of structure there. And then moving on to the other example. We've been chatting with the city of Santa Cruz on their energy performance program. So, Santa Cruz, um, they suspended their all electric requirements back in June last year and they pivoted to an energy performance approach at that time. So they developed their program and um, it was adopted in November of last year. Um, they submitted it to the California um, energy commission, and they've been waiting for over 4 months to get it approved. So it's unfortunately not in effect, and they were hoping it would be in effect by March. Um, Their program is focused exclusively on new construction, so it doesn't include any existing buildings or renovations, but it does cover a similar spread of development types, single-family, multifamily, and non-residential. Um, and then they have a similar prewiring requirement, uh, if you install any gas or propane, you have to prewire. Um, and then again, as mentioned before, their approach was an amendment to the energy code part of the building code, and, um, it did require a cost-effectiveness study, and of course, approval by the energy commission. Um, a couple things to consider about this uh, program and approach. Um, Trying not to get into too much of the details, but how this plays out in real life. is, uh, with every building permit for new construction or renovation. Uh, the architect or designer has to prepare a energy compliance report for an analysis, demonstrating with all the components of the improvements happening on site that when you put them in this uh, state issue, uh, form, It sort of pops out a number, and that number is what you have to either you meet the state minimum requirement with that number or in the case of these programs, the city sets a number to exceed it. Um, so this is work that an architecture designer is already in this form and this um, work. But there is a little bit extra effort when a city sets up a program. They have their particular requirements. And so there is a bit more time that's spent, which means the applicant is paying more for the architect to spend their time on it. There's also more time that staff on the city side. After then reviewing the details of this program, make sure it's compliant. Um, and it's just a little bit more complicated overall to try and explain to folks. So these are all things to consider. Um, I will say the way that these programs can be set up, and a great example of Santa Cruz is, um, for their single family residential requirement. They set their number happens to be 9 in terms of what you have to meet. Um, and so the way you can set up these programs is, um, you can give the flexibility to those that want to have some kind of either retain or put in a new gas appliance. They can kind of do what I'm dubbing sort of this energy budgeting where you're kind of, you're keeping one factor, which might be a low number, but now you have to balance it out by doing these other factors that are additional, you know, increase in number. So you're sort of, um, playing around with what different electrification or other efforts you can do to kind of balance to get that threshold. Um, And so for single family homes, you can either pursue that if you want to go down the path of maybe retaining a gas or putting in a new gas appliance. Or you can go down a simpler, more prescriptive path where, uh, if you just install a, um, Eat pump water heater, you would need it. So there's ways to kind of set the program up where there could be very simple prescriptive paths that people can choose to go down, or they could choose to kind of go through a more elaborate process that may give them more flexibility in some ways, but still require ultimately what the city's trying to achieve. Um, And last but not least, I'll just add that, um, because of all these factors, uh, the energy, uh, performance approach will take longer for the city to develop those thresholds, to do the cost effectiveness study. So in general, that will take a longer time for this, for that particular approach. Um, speaking of time, uh, we sort of laid out, um, uh, rough timelines here of what we would anticipate with these approaches. I will say a couple things right off the bat. Um, These aren't necessarily to imply that they are individually done. We could in theory combine them. So that's something we do plan to come back and may, um, to this committee to kind of provide more of a recommendation to get a recommendation from you. So, I'll just sort of briefly walk through these timelines. As we mentioned before, the expanded pre-wiring requirement, phase one. Um, is really an effort to try and get something on the books by September. And this would be um, just pretty much going directly to drafting it and getting to council. Um, with phase 2, uh, we would be doing a lot more work and analysis, um, and coming back in May to talk about it. Um, but this effort is one that we would anticipate completing um, potentially, but Q one of next year. The air quality approach is a similar timeline of Q one of next year. And then the energy performance approach, as I just mentioned, would take quite a bit longer, 4 months longer overall in trying to work through that. Um, and that would be uh, more of a Q2 next year timeline. Um, And Thank you. Um, and in terms of sort of just other factors and and efforts that we have on underway is uh, really focusing on what information we get out there to the public. So this is just an example of what we have on our books right now, our website, I should say. Um, of going electric or rebate information. So, um, we're gonna work internally with our, uh, various staff to develop a lot more content around this, not only from an educational stand, but standpoint, but also a communication standpoint on what we're looking at in the reach codes. Um, and, uh, In terms of our next steps, we will continue to work with Silicon Valley clean energy. They are partner with us in trying to move forward with these alternatives. Um, I just mentioned some of the communication aspects of it. Um, and we did hear last time about, um, adding to uh, the city's federal and state legislative platforms. So that is in the works. And, as I mentioned before, our plan is to return to the council subcommittee in May to get a recommendation that we would then bring to Castle. Um, and the goal would be to get to council by June to get directions so that, um, we can start moving forward on whatever components of this may end up moving forward. Um, and so with that, that concludes our update. Thank you. So, at

[00:29:27] Member Alison Hicks: this point in the agenda, we take um, questions from committee members. Are there any committee members with questions? Okay,

[00:29:40] Member Pat Showalter: yeah. That was a lot. They're definitely questions. Um, Okay, um, You mentioned that there were, I think, more than 600 housing units that have been built in, under this in each code. And what percentage of our housing stock is that? Don't we have like 3rd How many houses do we have? Uh,

[00:30:07] Ms. Hagen: so it's a great question. I think a couple things I should clarify. So the slide we showed was actually building permits that have been uh, issued and construction completed. What's a little, um, I guess misleading about that information is it doesn't actually translate to units. Because a good example is if you, um, Could you pull up that slide again by chance? If you were to look at the commercial column, for example, you'll notice that the numbers are really small, but what, what you wouldn't recognize here is that one, um, Mixed use building could be 300 units. So, um, it's not, doesn't quite equate to units, um, and we should have clarified that. I apologize. But

[00:30:50] Member Pat Showalter: the ones that we're really concerned about not going electric in the interim are really that 1st column, right? Single family and duplexes. Because the commercial and mixed use buildings, it's less expensive. So, the chances are they're going to go forward with all electric, isn't it? I

[00:31:09] Ms. Hagen: think what we're seeing in terms of trends and feedback, um, based on the 4 plus years, we have definitely seen, um, most of the larger development, uh, is very much interested in going electric. Um, and where I think we see folks, um, I guess I'll say maybe not as excited is, is some of the single family and it's really the existing buildings and renovations. It's not even so much new, new brand new homes. It's really, I think, where we see some of the struggle. really in the existing buildings. Okay.

[00:31:46] Member Pat Showalter: Well, I just wanted a better understanding of it. So in a sense, um, you know, this is not a good thing. We want something all electric, but in terms of the impact on our meeting, our greenhouse gas goals. That's probably not in this period of time of disaster, right? It's, it's a pit, but it's not, you know, it doesn't mean that we're, we're not making progress in our in-house gas goals. Okay. And then, um, do you have any idea what percentage of the single family home remodels are saying we want to stay with gas? Is it half? Is it? Um, I mean, just, doesn't have to be exact, but I mean, is it a lot? So, It

[00:32:33] Ms. Hagen: is a pretty frequent question. So I would say about 50% of the time when, um, our building staff is communicating with somebody in that their remodel triggers this all electric requirement. 50% of the time, folks will come back to us with questions. Okay, okay. And

[00:32:50] Member Pat Showalter: then, um, And then after, uh, Okay, a stove, definitely inclusive of it, right? Yes, sorry, got it. Okay. Generators. I haven't thought about generators. Um, people do have um, generators and mountain view for um, emergency use. And um, it ferries from neighborhood and neighborhood, but most of those are gasoline. They're not natural gas. Is that, that's my,

[00:33:20] Ms. Hagen: Isn't that true? Um, we have, we have seen uh, folks install electric generators. that they often come in tandem with having energy storage on site. So they're often sort of paired. So

[00:33:36] Member Pat Showalter: they could be paired with a battery, um, solar backup. Okay, that makes sense. Okay. So, I think that's a great idea, but most of the people I have generators, it gets like, okay. Um, and then what did Santa Cruz's cost effectiveness studies show? Generally, I mean, did it show that these, um, electric changes were, I mean, using correct changes were cost effective, or what did it show?

[00:34:00] Ms. Hagen: Yeah, so, uh, just also to clarify about what cost effectiveness study is actually required to do. So it's actually, if you were to sort of boil it down, you have to show that the code changes you're requiring. Our cost effective based on the cost to implement it, like to install it or do it, and then the energy savings over time. So that's what cost effectiveness study really is. Um, and so in the case of, uh, Santa Cruz using the example of, um, the single family home, Their study confirmed that their program, um, by having sort of the prescriptive option of just installing the heat pump water heater, you would need it. They do this analysis and determine that by just doing that one prescriptive requirement, you need it and that's part of their program, they've met the requirement. And so their study backs up the fact that their program requires that and that it's not. And it's not essentially cost prohibitive. Oh, okay. Um. Thank you. Really? Presentation,

[00:35:08] Member Pat Showalter: I appreciate it. Follow

[00:35:13] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: up questions. So going back to the chart with the, um, commercial multifamily. But that was my thought was it might be one project, but it's, 777 middle field that had 800 units. That's 800 units. So over the 4, 5 years, because we're talking potentially 1000s of homes. So that's really, but my concern, a single family, you know, they can live with, I'd say. And again, going back to the original, Started our original beach kid. I actually didn't realize we were putting in single falium renovations until later, and that was something that we could have chosen not to do. My God, I guess now, though, can we, we can't go back to that, could we? Just take your time to single family home. Yeah,

[00:36:13] Ms. Hagen: I think we'd have to look at what that would mean. Um, I will say there is an effort, um, and I know Silicon Valley, clean energy and talking to all their member agencies, there is definitely an effort to that, that existing buildings is sort of the next phase. A lot of cities in 2019 and even in 2022, adopted new construction. We were definitely one of the 1st that went to the existing buildings. Um, I think, you know, it would be a pivot for us to change that, but it's not to say that we can't make changes to our reach code. And look at other days. I

[00:36:48] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: guess that would be a legal question is, Would we be permitted to do that? based on this court case.

[00:36:59] Ms. Hagen: So this court case wouldn't limit our ability to make other tweaks to the reach code. I think what this court case really speaks to is us regulating a gas appliance. Okay,

[00:37:09] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: so I guess what, um, so that would be in the big ones too? Well, yes, and that's my question is, can we still regulate on a big construction of the big excuse, large commercial projects? No gas, no gas. But still allow it in the renovation of single family. So

[00:37:32] Ms. Hagen: my understanding based on, um, the ruling of the court is we can't directly say you cannot install a gas appliance. Instead, we can have these programs and approaches, Disincentivizes or discourages it. It allows a channel for somebody to pursue it, but it often will mean, even with these programs. That you have to do other things beyond what maybe your neighbor does with their water. You know, their water heater. So, um, I think at the end of the day, the court case was pretty clear about, um, we're a local city can't regulate what the federal government's regulated, gas appliances. So I think, um, How we frame it is the key part. How we're actually applying the regulation.

[00:38:19] Ms. Lee: removing it from just the single family wouldn't address all of the fighting of the case. So

[00:38:27] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: then we go to, um, the 2 uh, the 3 options of, Steps. Can we do the expanded pre-wiring requirements and the air quality approach that we could do to? Not all three, but. Okay. Yeah we could make combinations. Okay. Um. Generally, you

[00:38:56] Ms. Lee: could do pre-wiring with either the following two. We wouldn't combine the last the latter two. Right,

[00:39:03] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: it would be either air quality or energy, principle. So, did

[00:39:10] Member Alison Hicks: you have any more questions? questions? So, uh, my other 2 committee members have kind of asked about quantifying the impact on our overall plan of, in particular, single family homes and remodels. I have another way of asking that question, which is, if our, if eventually, we want to start removing gas lines, then, which I think I thought we did. Um, then, Is it to make it feasible to do that, isn't it not just a question, the way I'm picturing it? It's not just a question of the number of units, this is impacting, but also, it seems to me that becomes more difficult as there's one or 2 homes out there on the line that's still needed. You know, the more homes that become all electric, even through remodels or something small, the more possible it is to remove lines or another way to put that would be, the more places there are available to remove lines, which might be out in single family home areas. Some of the lines, I know that, um, you know, that's one of the things when I talk to elected officials in the Los Altos Hills, they want to remove lines. I don't know how they're doing that because here it says they're going to have pool and spa and gas in the pool and spas. So it doesn't seem like they're getting much closer to that, but anyway, putting that aside. How helpful is it to get more and more single family homes to go all electric in terms of finding places to review gas lines. This

[00:40:49] Ms. Lee: is an interesting question. Um, I'm pretty to start on then, please, time, and we've been talking about this because in some ways, it feels like, um, a reach code that would still allow natural gas is a bit of a step back. So we're sort of like, we want to take 2 steps forward and then this is a bit of a step back that we would be building into our, like a long-term goal. Um, that being said, a lot of the transition is just getting a critical mass. And so, one of the counter sort of veiling considerations is which code will help us get more people to all electric, because as there's general acceptance across the community, and as these other statewide and regional efforts start to kick in, we'll have more and more momentum towards electrification. So, right now, you know, yes, we have to think about the long term goals, and if we do allow continuation of natural gas, that is a bit of a step back. But if we can find a strategy that also electrifies as much as possible, as quickly as possible. Um, we'll be able to kind of make the games back by getting this like fairly, um, earlier, um, traction, kind of movement along the adoption curve. Um, We don't know, like in the end, which one would get us there faster, certainly, as we do the analysis. Right. Right. And even if, you know, we have something that in the short term allows for some natural gas, maybe that allowance would help, uh, adoption generally, across the community, because, um, they wouldn't be forced to do something that they're not ready to do. And then by the time we have a requirement in place, through other measures, even potentially. There would be more community acceptance of it. So then the adoption could go faster. I

[00:42:41] Ms. Hagen: think just one thing to add to that. I think the challenge with, um, looking at entire infrastructure systems, like natural gas infrastructure system, is we can regulate, um, private property, you know, in terms of the building code and things like that. Um, when you look at some of these gas lines, they aren't, um, necessarily owned by the city. So it is really an effort as, um, as these highlighting of, It really takes a lot of puzzle pieces to get this to work and to get the momentum forward. I think what we can achieve at the local level in terms of trying to affect the end source users is definitely what we can do. Um, But it does take strides to happen at the regional state. And national level. And

[00:43:31] Member Alison Hicks: then you're, you know, I don't know if it's you personally or your staff or interfacing with people. What do you think about with what Ms. Lee just said about, if you don't force people, they're more likely to accept it later. I don't know if that's true or not. Do you have feelings on that?

[00:43:45] Ms. Hagen: Yeah, I mean, I think a couple things. I think, um, I'll be honest, we do have a, a, large portion of, um, the constituents that get permits through us, whether it's a resident or developer. A lot of them are fine with our beach goats. It's not that everyone's fighting us, but, um, there is definitely a pool where they really like certain gas appliances and what they're used to, right? Whether it's open flame cooking, like their gas stoves. They like to have their, uh, you know, burning fire pits in their backyards and they're just, they like that sort of lifestyle that that brings to them. Um, and so it is, uh, it can be a very big shift for some folks. Um, and so, um, you know, we do have these conversations quite often at the counter or with uh, residents or their, their, um, project teams about why. what our goal as a city is. So we do have some of those conversations with folks of why this rule is in place. Um, but at the end of the day, you know, folks like to live the way they want to live. And so I think we, we, we have those conversations and I think all we can really do is educate people, let them know their options. Um, and sort of, uh, at least explain where

[00:45:02] Ms. Lee: our regulations are coming from. And even those that are resistant, we would be setting up. So for example, the pre-wiring requirements that already exist at the state level. Their homes will be ready to accept all electric appliances. And then hopefully at the regional and state level. The bands on the sale of natural gas appliances will start to come into play. And over time, people won't have any other options. Um, and their homes will be ready to accept the all electric cleaner options at the same time. So even if they're not ready now, we're helping them to get ready through the codes. Yeah,

[00:45:44] Member Alison Hicks: I just feel like, I'm not sure, you can tell me how much you can do this. I feel like there's, um, a difference between educating people we're doing this because of the climate crisis and where the city's taking X, Y, Z steps and going to, I mean, I bought an electric confection range. My other one died. Um, and when I went to the store, there's a salesperson, which you are not, or maybe you are, she made this way. And they're all like, you know, you can have an air, if you go with this, you can have an air fryer, you can have one with knobs that looks like the gas. It seems like that's the element. You can have a stovetop that has a battery in it. So when there's an electrical outrage, you know, you can keep going. And it seems like that's the missing element that you don't easily have a way or maybe this is my question. Do you have a way of not just explaining functionally why we're doing this, but sometimes new appliances are exciting and like the exciting things about the new ones. It seems like that's the missing element. Yeah,

[00:46:49] Ms. Hagen: and I think if, uh, to that point, I think that's part of, well, I'll call sort of the communication piece that we, maybe haven't done as well in the past on sort of using, um, whether it's our website or other ways to kind of communicate to your point, not just what our requirements are, but what other rebates are out there. How do you start marrying all this information on sort of educating people on whether it's appliances, um, or rebates? kind of intermixed with our reds and why they exist. So I think it's really painting the full picture. Um, and I think that's kind of what you're getting at is, how do you kind of marry all that information to, to, um, the interested party? Well, and the opportunity

[00:47:36] Ms. Lee: as we get more and more people to all electric, right? So we have all these new developments that largely are all electric. Um, people will start telling their friends or their neighbors. So when we at the county of San Mateo, we're considering reach codes. One of our board members actually offered to another board member. I just got an induction stove and come on over and we'll make you dinner on it. And it was like right there in the board meeting, but neighbors will do that for each other. So as more and more, um, all electric systems are adopted. People will start to tell their friends and their neighbors. And that's even better than hearing it from us, as city, as beloved as we are. the community. Anyway,

[00:48:13] Member Alison Hicks: maybe that's where purging into comments now, but that's, um, one of my interests to make it so that they can hear sort of what the shiny new applies. Um, and then if we are to do 2 of these, does the timeline change, it says Q1 for, uh, expanded pre-wiring and the air quality approaches, it says, um, Okay, September 20. Do they stay the same if we do 2 of them? Or is it so harder when you're doing 2 and some of them install the later date? Um, so

[00:48:51] Ms. Hagen: a couple things. If we were to, for example, let's say do the expanded pre-wearing requirement in the 2 phases and let's say the energy performance approach. So we would follow the timeline of phase one. That would be one piece that comes forward at that time, and then we would group phase 2 and the energy performance together, since it's one code where I'm at, we would just do it as one coordinate, and it would still come with you. Oh, Q2. It would all come out in a Q2 of 20. So that would be an example of how we would adjust these or blend them if we went down that.

[00:49:24] Member Alison Hicks: And you said if we're pairing them, it would be better to pair 2 and not three. Do you have a preferred pair? So

[00:49:33] Ms. Hagen: we're still investigating our, you know, the options, but I will say in the conversations that, um, staff has had with folks that actually participate on the state code development, um, team. Uh, there does seem to be kind of a leaning towards, um, uh, the state code looking into more expanded prewiring requirements. Um, and then looking at energy performance. So that, you know, I will say that that is part of the discussion we've seen so far, but that's not to suggest that and why, energy, performance over air quality. Um, it's a good question. I think part of what we uh, plan to come back to uh, with you guys in May is a little bit more detail. Um, and at that point, a little more information of of also vetting this, uh, uh, legally as well. So looking a little bit more into the options, and what it might be. Okay. And

[00:50:33] Member Alison Hicks: then you would name some appliances, we appliances, we would require pre-wiring for. But things like fireplaces and pools and spas, we wouldn't require them for those because we just don't expect they have them necessarily, or how does that work for other. So,

[00:50:51] Ms. Hagen: uh, we could look at that into the phase one. Um, so essentially, phase one is trying to mirror a lot of those, um, types of appliances that leave or equipment, that we've traditionally regulated under our our each code to kind of carry it forward with the pre-wiring. So it would include those items. Oh, okay. Potentially. Okay.

[00:51:14] Member Alison Hicks: And then my last question, I think, is, um, what? How do you define a, um, um, what are you calling a major remodel? Is that easy to define or I've heard there might be a little confusion on it? How do you define it and Should we define it differently? Um,

[00:51:34] Ms. Hagen: so it's currently defined as you're impacting, um, sort of the sum of 50%, uh, of the essentially square footage, or you're impacting foundation footings. Um, uh, framing walls, and the roof. So we look at the 3 main structural components of a structure. And if you're impacting more than 50%, whether that's renovation or net new square footage. That's where you start hitting that threshold. So these are pretty substantial renovations and they often, Um, you know, they're including kitchens, bathrooms. It's the, um, laundry improvements. Or adding a 2nd floor. That would be another conform. So

[00:52:19] Member Alison Hicks: if you, we don't have anything or would you think of doing anything for if you're just doing the kitchen, because that's what it seems like. Um, so...

[00:52:27] Ms. Hagen: Yeah, so that might be an example of what we might start looking at with phase 2 of the pre-wiring. Just as an example, is if you touch it, you pre-wire it. So we might get into that, you know, as part of that thing. Oh, a lot of... Okay,

[00:52:44] Member Alison Hicks: those are my questions to other committee members have additional questions? Okay. Um, now we're to, are there any comments from the audience on this item? Um, So we'll start with any in-person comments. Super. Hi,

[00:53:10] Bruce Carney: um, Bruce Carney. be here. Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on the discussion. I'm a fan of pre-wiring. I think that that is a fairly fast, simple, straightforward approach that will return us more or less to where we were a week ago before the suspension. Um, and so, I also wanted to comment with respect to the most recent question. Um, as homeowners, single-family homeowners, in particular, rewire and add electric appliances, often they're contractors, and perhaps the city permitting office, push them toward a panel upgrade that they may not really need. So, for example, my home has a 100 amp panel. And there's a provision of the building code that allows you to look at how much, the maximum demand was over 15 minute intervals for the last year. And if you haven't used a lot of that capacity, You can add new circuits without expanding the 100 app, panel or the service from PG&A to your home. My home hasn't used a lot of electricity, so I can add a lot of stuff. And data that was provided by Steve Schmidt, who runs HEA and who is an energy nerd from Los Altos Hills, has shown that something on the order of 85% of single family homes can add a heat pump water heater without a panel upgrade. But if we ask people to pre-wire for loads that they don't have, um, it may become challenging to figure out if their existing panels are adequate or not. And so if the panel itself has to be replaced, That's an additional expense. And I'm concerned that, um, city permitting offices exercising a cautious approach may actually push in that direction. So what happens when you add more 200 amp panels in a neighborhood like Old Mountain View, which is, you know, design in the 40s, um, New transformers have to be installed. Additional expense. There's right now, like a 6 month backlog of transformer installations. So there's a lot of things that we want to upgrade, but we don't want to, um, Go too far, too fast. Um, And so definitely I would not want to see uh, pre-wiring for electric fireplaces. Uh, The big appliances that use the most gas are your water heater and your furnace. Those are the 2 that really matter the most to me, but I think it's good to help look to the future and say the future is all electric, get ready for it. Um, And one last comment, um, I do think, speaking on behalf of myself, not carbon free Mountain View, which I lead, uh, our goal of having Mountain View banned natural gas by 2045 sends a really good message about what the future will look like. Ahmed has done a good job, saying what it thinks the future will look like in the late 2020s. But this should be part of the communication. It's not just about pre-wiving because, you know, green people have bought off the city council. It's about the world will be different in 20 years than it is today. The world was different before 9/11, 23 years ago. World's changed. The world was different before Hamas invaded Israel and captured the hostages. The world was different before Russia invaded Ukraine. We couldn't predict any of those 3 terroristic events, but we can for sure predict that we have to get natural gas and gasoline out of our lives within the lifetime of everyone in this room. Thank you. So,

[00:57:15] Member Alison Hicks: no more in-person speakers? Are there any virtual speakers? On Scarborough. John? Uh, hello.

[00:57:26] Scarborough: Yes, I also support prewiring, and I also support going to the multifamily multifamily households and commercial buildings, since, as Margaret had mentioned, those can have a huge effect. So that is my comments. Oh, actually, I want to thank you for doing the work on this. I'm really pleased to see these options coming up. And that staff and council are taking this very seriously. So thank you for your work. Thank you. Mary, got you. Mary? Um,

[00:58:04] Mary: good evening. I'm also, um, uh, very, uh, uh, thankful to see, um, the, the thought that's been put into this. Um, I joined mid-presentation. I'm hoping the pre-wiring requirement is going to apply to, um, uh, heating and cooling as well as hot water because I, I somehow didn't see that on the list, but maybe I just, um, overlooked it. Um, I do want to. Mention that, um, rewiring, um, panel upgrades. Um, one of the reasons that's a problem is because of the, not just the cost, but also the delay that, um, goes, you know, along with waiting for PG&E to upgrade a panel. So that is just something to be aware of. Um, and if somebody, um, doesn't have a geek friend, um, like Bruce mentioned to help them figure out whether they do or don't need to upgrade their panel or to take the alternate route, um, just to, um, remind people that, um, Silicon Valley clean energy now is offering um, energy advisors, and my understanding is that they can help with the, um, help people with that type of, um, question. question Thank you.

[00:59:31] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. Any more speakers? Okay. So, um, So we closed the public speaking part of the agenda for this item and now is the time for committee discussion, committee members have, um, comments to make. Oh,

[00:59:54] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: thank you so much to Saffburg, the presentation and for doing this work so quickly since last Tuesday. Um, I'll just go to the next steps that slide. So definitely pre-wiring, we should forward on that on and something, see phase 2 a little too. Okay, is she? Oh, I'm working on it. I can't remember what phase 2 is. So phase one would include, um, a, a, a, like, the red usual appliances, correct? Uh,

[01:00:50] Ms. Hagen: yeah, the, the staff's intent would be that we would cover as, as much of what we currently have been. Did you remind you what phase 2 are done? ever? Phase 2 is looking at going beyond what our current thresholds are. So we would be looking at potentially smaller or more minor renovations. And remodels as well as if you touch it, you prewire it. Oh,

[01:01:12] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: got it. Okay. Oh. I mean, I think they should do both phase one and two. Uh, I think it's a tiny issue. I'm just trying to figure out how do we, you know, stop this as quickly as possible, and maybe phase one is sufficient. But I think we should, until something else changes and we can unsuspend our reach codes, we should just continue to move on this trajectory. Um, I guess I was thinking air quality approach because, um, frankly, when we start talking about any state commissions. who's listening, it's kind of a black hole. And so, um, just looking at the acceptance, uh, timeline, I just feel like air quality has more possibility to be accepted in a short, in a shorter time frame, hearing that if you already have a city that's past 4 months is concerning to me. Um, again, I, and I guess I was thinking, um, along the lines of just being aligned with, uh, the air districts of what's happening there and maybe our, um, perhaps the air quality approach would be more, um, successful. So that was my thought. So that would be my preference is to do those basis for pre-wiring, and then go down the airport, approach.

[01:02:45] Ms. Lee: Explain yourself for a quick clarification. Our intent would thank you for the feedback. Um, what Steph would like to do would be to come back, uh, to the council sustainability committee, towards the end of May, um, with the staff recommendation about what combination or which of these options to proceed with, um, we would especially love direction from you if you would like that for to, to occur, and for us to, to start the process of working on that. So it, um, and then from there, what we would do would be to go to council in June, to get direction from the full council, um, for which of these options or which combination of these options. But this initial feedback is very good.

[01:03:28] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I was still talking about which organizations are easier to work with. That is something additional information.

[01:03:36] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. And then I would just add definitely an education piece. There are a lot of rebates, like keep getting emails. So whenever we can do to persuade the, um, the applicants to, to go, um, electric, uh, would be obviously ideal. Um, yeah, I am concerned. And I think with the larger developments, I remember when we did the reach coast, they came out, but they were, I remember asking developers too, and then most of them said it was cost neutral, so they probably would go anyway, electric. Um, I hope that's the case, but, um, you know, I would ask that you'd keep us a, any trends that might be occurring. Thank you.

[01:04:24] Member Alison Hicks: Mayor, do you have comments?

[01:04:25] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, um, I, uh, I'm going to be really interested to, to hear in your further analysis of this, I generally, um, uh, length the air quality approach, and that's because I suffered on asthma, and, um, you know, anything you do to improve asthma, I think is, um, is a very frightening, um, condition to have is important. And, um, it's particularly kind of an environmental justice issue. There's a lot of air quality, asthma issues and family volunteers. And, uh, more vulnerable communities. So, uh, that, to me, is the health issues. I think are very important. I care about that a lot. I think, um, uh, the psychology, though, of, of what makes people, um, happy you're not happy to, um, adopt environmental, you know, having worked in the environmental field all my life. I used to think, you know, when I 1st got out of graduate school, if you just explain to people technically why this is a good idea, they'll just go along with you. Well, I think I'd be furtive from the truth. That's just not the way it is. People, people have to be kind of, um, they have to be brought along and convinced from trusted sources, like you said, about the friends and, and, um, providing incentives such as, um, you know, rebates is very powerful and, um, the education. So I just feel like we really do need to view this as a as a big package, not just, you know, in a sense the regulations are the stick. We also have have to have some carrots. And um, to me, better health is a big carrot. You know, if you have a little kid who could have asthma. That's that's really something that's going to break your heart. You don't you don't want to set that up. And, um, and I think a lot of people didn't know that. That, um, that was a factor, that American Pediatrics Association has gone on and on about, you know, the importance of, of, um, of this. And, um, and the pre-wiring, I think, is a very, um, you know, it's, it's a really good, good idea. And then the other thing I hope that's part of this package. Um, is, um, advocating for the, um, the update of the RCRW. What, what's the, what's the attic bill? Anyway, the bill. The bill, it was fast in the 70s that has the, you know, that has the, um, uh, the natural gas, that, you know, that, that they, that was brought up in the ninth circuit. We really want to see that updated. And, um, so I, you know, I kind of see this as a big package, but I would love to see phase one come back. I mean, I would love to see your ideas come back, but, but I, I, I think the other thing is the idea that we might roll this out over time. I mean, remember when we did the solid waste. Um, pilot about the, um, about the, uh, the composting. You know, we, we, we could, from a technical point of view, it really was fine. If I remember correctly. It was really fine. If people only got their trash picked up. Um, once every other week, and they got their compost picked up every week. That was really important because that was where the bugs grew and all that stuff. But people didn't see it that way. You know, they, they, they, they were, um, uh, everybody's used to getting their trash picked up weekly. So, so we rolled it out and the cost was, it was a little more, but it wasn't a lot more. So we rolled it out that way and we had really good acceptance with that, or that's my impression anyway. Um, yeah. And I think this is the kind of thing. We really do need to be, um, uh, we need to be cognizant of one of the psychological issues associated with this. And certainly, the people that you talk to at the, you know, at the counter are bringing them all up, right? So sharing those with us and kind of how important they are. I think that's, that's quite germic.

[01:08:46] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, well, my concert, like everybody else, thank you so much for pulling this together. You know, kind of on short notice. I look forward to seeing the, you know, more details in the near future. I, I, you know, I would like the, my personal preferences to have the expanded pre-wiring requirements done as soon as possible, like you, to indicate here in September of this year. Sounds good. Um, and then doing, uh, phase 2 of the pre wiring, like, you know, maybe you touch it, you change it. Um, and then whichever one ends up the air quality or energy performance, whichever one of those seems to pair best with that, uh, sounds good to me. Um, I, I also do, um, agree with what other people are saying, sort of the education and not just education, the sort of PR around this is, is a really important piece. And I'm wondering whether something like a flyer or something because my experience working and planning and yet having applicants is, you can't always say enough things to them. Sometimes you can't. Um, But I also think that people, what motivates people is really different and it might be, you know, you say you're motivated by health, but for someone else, okay, frankly, for me, it was the pretty range. So, okay. Um, you know, so it's different. So the pictures of them and, you know, it's different things for different people. And so I think we really have to say all the reasons, or for other people, it's the different cooking features that were not available to them before, not just talking about ranches, but, um, So, you know, I would like to work on that, something that, um, you know, kind of speaks to a wide variety of people and, and, uh, the, the incentives as well. rebates and stuff like that. Um, And then, and also, the other thing that's, an incentive to me is not having gas in my house because of earthquake safety, and the potential for fires, which is one of the scarier things about earthpikes. So I was even thinking that one of the requirements could be, uh, one of the, That you put in one of the, if you put in gas, you have to put in one of those things that turns it off. There's a turnoff during an earthquake. It costs about $750. So if you're just changing one appliance, maybe that change your mind. Um, So, yes, those are my points. I do have another. And

[01:11:27] Member Pat Showalter: that's, um, uh, I think you're, you're talking about the demos, and you were talking about demos, and understanding the appliances, and actually seeing it, seeing it, um, work, there, you know, we've, I've gone to circle demos, and I'm sure most of us have. And they are really great for encouraging people. So, um, we used to have, like, tables set up at Thursday. Remember that we close off... Yes, Thursday night live, that, I mean, are we going to have that capacity with the new, um, the newcasters tree? We do, don't we? Sure. Well, we do. Um, It's just, We would have to talk to community services division about. Yeah, I, anyway, I don't know if it's part of the program right now, but I just think that, that getting, getting, um, some, uh, vendors out there too, to share. Yeah, that's

[01:12:25] Member Alison Hicks: a good potential idea. They have their own photos of just also photos of different appliances and what they, there's all sorts of warming ovens and all sorts of different things that you can get that are not, you know, not what you already have. That store... shy of appliances. No. Oh, the? Yeah. It's not all electric, but that's, I have feelings about that. Um, it's not, it's electric and gas, but I really think they're, we should talk to them when they should feature their electric things and, and they have, they have some super cool things, some mid century modern. fireplaces that you can make electric. They're just all in the back. I need to tell them to put them in the front. Okay, more common? I like that one. Um, okay, so, there are no more conants. We will move on to 5.2 on the agenda, which is the final 2021 and preliminary 2022 community greenhouse, yes, emissions inventories. And this item will be presented by sustainability individual staff. And it's legal, events, the presentation. Getting

[01:13:45] Ms. Lee: a thank you, Chariots. Um, I'll be presenting this item, uh, Nintendo with Miss Anderson, sustainability ends. Um, Good for you this evening will be both our final 2021 and our preliminary 2022 greenhouse gas emissions inventories. Well, as you know, these inventories are conducted somewhat in arrears. So, uh, this is, this will be your newest, uh, most up to date data. Um, since 2017, we've been conducting a community greenhouse gas emissions inventory on an annual basis. And what this does is basically estimate the greenhouse gas emissions that have resulted from all of the activities in our community. Um, It is essentially based on an estimate for carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. It was the most common emissions. And calculated into an equivalent of carbon dioxide metric test. What this activity does is really help us identify the major emission sources and prioritize projects, uh, with the highest emissions, reduction and potential, um, within our sphere of influence. Um, Hopefully, the data that we have been collecting will um, influence not only our programs, but also our strategies. How do we plan for achieving our decrimonization goals. Um, Because these inventories are conducted in arrears, we're still in basically COVID when it comes to these inventories. So, our apologies for dragging you back to the pandemic days. But the results of the inventory, um, some of the emissions categories are suppressed because our behavior patterns changed rather significantly during Boba. So we just wanted to point that out and remind you that you might see transportation emissions, for example, that just don't look like what we expect them to be, and that's because we're still really seeing the patterns that were, um, created during COVID. Also, during this period over the inventory, our service population was starting to increase. So we're kind of coming to the tail end because the preliminary for 2022. Uh, is when we started to reopen, um, as you may recall, city staff came back, you know, the, the, the majority of city staff started to come back to work, but in a partial basis, um, in the middle of 2022. And we were seeing that across, Our public agency partners and also in the private sector. So the service population, as workers started to come back to work, but it was not fully back to work. Um, You'll know in the report that we reference kind of our progress and that's relative to our greenhouse guests and missions reduction targets. So we, um, as a city have set ourselves targets. Currently, our adopted target is to reduce 80 emissions 80% below what they were in 2005 by 2050. I know it's kind of a mouthful, but, um, 80% fewer reductions from what we were emitting in 20, 2005. We would like to achieve that goal by 2050. Of course, we've had discussions within this committee about going faster. and we'll be telling you later this evening about some of our work. to try to accelerate those initiatives and potentially change these targets. But for now, our report references our progress and achieving our current adopted targets. Um, Council also adopted a carbon neutrality, Resolution by 2045. Um, and we got feedback from you about going to go faster, like I just mentioned. But our targets, um, really are stacking up against this 80% below 2005 number. And now I'm going to hand it over to Miss Anderson to talk about our methodology for the inventory. Making the sleep. So,

[01:18:03] Ms. Anderson: Mountain View, um, community emission inventories are prepared using a national standard called the US Community Protocol. And although the protocol provides a common framework, or calculating emissions, an inventory is an estimate and it's subject to change as better data and methods become available. Our inventory calculates emissions from energy, water, solid waste, waste, water, on road transportation, and off-road transportation. For some cases, we don't have data that is specific to a map view. So we take countywide data and we make some assumptions to scale it for Mountain View. Um, and also, um, per the protocol, our inventories do not account for lifecycle emissions from food, um, air travel or goods and services. Um, these pie charts show the breakdown of 2021 and 2022, emissions bisector. Um, transportation and energy contribute the vast majority of community wide emissions, totaling, you know, almost 90% for 2022. For this presentation, I'll walk you through the inventory with a particular focus on those 2 sectors, since they're the largest contributors. So this slide illustrates the results of the community inventory is compared to the reduction targets through 2030. 2021 and 2022 emissions were both below the targets for their years and for 2025. But Mountain View will still need to reduce its emissions, another 15% to reach the 2030 reduction target. These reduction targets, you know, as Miss Lee mentioned, they also haven't been updated to reflect decarbonization by 2035 or 2045, and we don't quite understand what the new normal will be post-COVID-19. So, um, We kind of got to stay tuned for the 2023 inventory. This chart shows emissions from on-road transportation, you can see that the emissions were significantly lower in 2020, 2021 and 2022 compared to the previous years. And, um, you know, we think this is primarily due to COVID impacts, um, you could see emissions broken down by, uh, vehicle type, and, um, gasoline powered passenger and like duty vehicles, um, which is shown in light blue on the chart. Um, generate most of the missions for the sector. Uh, We also wanted to note that these estimates do take into account fuel type. So when the proportion of electric vehicles increases, it will show in lower emissions. On this chart, um, and the city's strategy to reduce emissions from passenger and light duty vehicles is through projects that support efficient land use, um, active transportation and public transit and vehicle electrification. Staff also tracks other transportation metrics to understand the city's progress. According to census data, the percentage of residents who drive alone to work has decreased significantly, so that's 2015. Um, this is largely due to an increase in remote work, um, because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Um, so we do expect to see some of these gains erased in future inventories as on, we move it to post-pandemic years and, you know, more and more people are back at work. Um, we also track, um, sales, uh, 0 mission vehicles. So this is showing data from the California Energy Commission. Um, Sales of new 0 mission vehicles in Mountain View continue to grow. Um, over 3 times as many new, um, 0 emission vehicles were sold in 2023 as compared to 2017. And also, um, County, when you look at Santa Clara County, I'm 42% of new, like, vehicles sold for 0 mission in 2023. So, um, that's, um, you know, a good metric to understand where we're going in that space. This chart shows emissions from electricity and natural gas use in mountain view. Um, The sector makes up about 34% of total community emissions. What's notable about energy emissions over the years is that, um, natural gas continues to natural gas emissions continue to be pretty constant over time, and they make up over 70% of, um, energy sector. So to address this city, you know, as encouraging occupation of buildings, um, so that we can move away from natural gas and use, SVCEs, carbon free electricity. Um, in response to previous community, NCSC feedback, staff has also pursued ways to ensure our emissions from electricity usage, more accurately reflect mountain view. Um, Typically, Mountain View faces difficulty obtaining detailed energy usage on by sector due to the California public utility commissions, teen 15 year old, which is like a customer confident, confidentiality rule, sorry. Um, The rule basically requires the data be kept confidential when there are not at least like 15 customers in a category or one customer makes up more than 50% of the usage. Um, So, um, as a result, we can't always obtain electricity or natural gas usage by customer type or by electricity provider. So we worked with SVCE this year to improve our emission estimates, specifically for direct access customers. Um, and we adjusted the inventory calculations for 2020 and 2021 as well. So um, 2020 through 2022 here for electricity. It does take into account. Local conditions. Um, so, um, that concludes our presentation, so I'll hand it back to Chair Hicks for questions or discussion. Okay, so do any members of the

[01:23:58] Member Alison Hicks: community have questions? Yeah,

[01:24:06] Member Pat Showalter: on your last slide. I was wondering that, I measured the, you know, the, the length of those. It looks like the natural gas amount for each year is really the same. Is that right? Pretty

[01:24:21] Ms. Anderson: similar, yeah. But then you look at the more specific number and attachment 3, but like for 2021, it was 106 K. 107 K for 2022, so...

[01:24:36] Member Pat Showalter: So even though we've added more houses, and yeah, time period, we had, we've added electricity, but we haven't added natural gas because we've had the natural grass reach coats. So we're really seeing the, the impact of them in these, in this inventory, right?

[01:24:54] Ms. Lee: Is that in combination with the emissions factors? So every year we get from the utility, what was the mix of all the electricity that we procured and what are the emissions that we result? So it's a it's a combination of combination. But I think, I

[01:25:10] Unknown Speaker: thought that was really interesting. Yeah. I see that. Um Well,

[01:25:26] Member Alison Hicks: it wasn't that we had that drop in electricity, is that we were getting the Silicon Valley. It was decarbonized to like this.

[01:25:33] Member Pat Showalter: Well, right, right. When you look, when you look slightly more electricity in 22, then 28. That's,

[01:25:41] Ms. Anderson: that's what I'm talking about. Yeah. Good. Yeah. Oh, sure. Yeah, just to clarify, yeah, this is showing the emissions, not necessarily the use.

[01:25:48] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, it sounds ammunitions, but presumably there's, you know, there's some correlation. No correlation. And, um, Then you didn't really talk about the the waste or the water. Um, but I, I was really interested in the staff report that, that you, that with the water, um, uh, you know, we get hatch hatchy water, which is a gravity fed system. So, um, whereas, uh, like a, I, I think it's a 6th of California's energy is used to pump water over the whole state, but we're not really part of that for the most part because, because we, you know, we have, we're on a gravity bed system, and, The war we get from Santa Clara Valley water district does get pumped. From the Sierras at some places. Um, but that's only 15% of our. anyway, I thought that was really interesting. I just, um, I just want to say thank you for doing this. I think that, um, you know, things that get measured. get changed and followed. And so this exercise is really important for us to be able to understand how things are changing or not. So I, um, I'm, I'm always just fascinated by it. Thank you. Because that's a comedy too.

[01:27:10] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Well, thank you again for the presentation. Um, I've been very interested in that, EV, transportation center. So, the side you had had the emissions, I believe, but do you know, and I think you mentioned 42% of new purchases. Santa Clara County is, yes, easier. Do you know what it is for Mountain View? Um, I do not. We can follow up and look at it. I think energy has a breakdown of our own cities. And then I don't know. I know they had a presentation that was at the last meeting, a workshop about, I always haven't been asking this question. What is the optimal number of EV charging chargers or charging stations to get, you know, and we want, or more people, so we can switch over to DVDs and, and yeah, still waiting for

[01:28:04] Member Pat Showalter: that answer. But a presentation at the last, um, did they do it? No, they did not.

[01:28:10] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I think there is a number, like they have it, but I don't know. Why they haven't? What it is, yes. And then it'd be interesting, I would like love to know, like, I know we've added more. Not sure what our total mopper is right now, but also it's 50. That's great. What do we need to get too? It's fun. Okay, I have a question about your question. Yeah, because

[01:28:34] Member Alison Hicks: for me, with my electric car, what limits me, I don't need to charge a mouth view. I charge at home. Oh, it's the other places I go, particularly the further I go away because, um, my car doesn't have a great range like Tesla. So, for me, it would be like, if I could draw a circle and all the cities 100 miles away would have charges. That would be optimal for me. And like getting grants and putting them all in Mountain View does, oh, no, nothing for many

[01:29:06] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: people. I mean, my, I'm looking at, what is the optimal number for every city? For every game, I'll be sitting to that number. Okay, that's because people come into mountains. Exactly. charge here too. So like we can do our part by

[01:29:20] Member Alison Hicks: getting our optimal number.

[01:29:22] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. And then there's also the freeway highway part that we have to work with. Okay. Thank you. Now, I have a better understanding of what comp number means. Like, what is, you know, what can we do? What is, yeah, what's the number so that we are doing our part? Oh my god.

[01:29:39] Ms. Lee: Remember, we do, um, have a member of Silicon Valley Clean Energy staff that is online. They've joined us, Tony Anthony Yolo has joined us by Zoom. Um, and and he would be happy to speak to your question. Thank you. Good

[01:29:55] Anthony Yolo: evening, folks. That is a really hard question to answer. And um, so no matter what we do, it'll be wrong. We know that much. Uh, I am happy to report that your staff has already started to dig into this with us. Um, and recently we had a meeting with some of your sister agencies. And there's a number of agencies that are really looking at doing more advanced EV charger planning, thinking about what areas of town should be an area of focus and emphasis on adding chargers, and how that can be done. We have a monthly staff meeting. Which we affectionately refer to as the mog, the municipal agency working group. And I'm happy to report that in May, uh, there will be a presentation specifically on this issue. So, you ask a terrific question. Uh, council member, how they cook, and the answer is on the way, although it is not on the tip of my time tonight. Thank you. And

[01:30:59] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: then I'm assuming with like Caltrain electrification, well, some of that, for like a portion of that reduction, the applied to all the cities, the loss attacks, or, that sets in that right now. Rail

[01:31:14] Ms. Anderson: is included in our transportation as in like the heavy duty section, so it should have some impact. Great.

[01:31:23] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. Okay, well, my questions are, uh, Chris, a comment. I mean, I'm super interested in getting this ever more refined, to be specific to Mountain View, particularly, um, because we're, we're tying this to carbon offsets. We want to make sure we're reflecting what our actual data is. So I'm really interested when you refer to that topic about how specific it is to our actual as opposed to based on our actual use or output as opposed to based on the county. So with that, um, so, um, Yeah, uh, so one of my questions about the staff report said staff also continues to evaluate. So this was about the, um, how, the carbon foot brand of, uh, transportation is an estimate, but staff continues to evaluate opportunities to use big data. Uh, which is vehicle navigation data from built-in GPS and location-based service, uh, data from cell phones to validate emission results. Can you tell me more about that and like, why we haven't done it? when we might, and I just do a little deeper dive into that. Just

[01:32:46] Ms. Anderson: please look at the start. Okay. Um, so, um, yeah, for big data, there's been 2 main sources, we've been looking into, and I've been in conversation with staff, um, from public works and community development department as well. Um, it's using either something called the Google environmental inside explorer, um, which, uh, they have a lot of data. Yeah, it's their tracking devices and vehicles, right? And, um, they, um, staff actually, um, before I was here, were working with, um, Google actually, to, um, to kind of check the data and see how it matched, um, current data. Um, and at the times there was some concerns about how accurate it was um, for the city, but um, Google has continued to improve it. And now, um, uh, if we, um, local governments for sustainability, who, uh, has the inventory methodology we use, um, they actually recommend using it. So we've been looking into that, but there, there's still, um, some concern. There's some cons to it because the data only goes back to 2019. So it's hard to compare over time from our baseline. And the same issue happens with another source called on replica, which, um, It's just come, um, to our attention in recent months. So we're still kind of reviewing that source. So that uses big data and they also have some different land use of population inputs they put in as well. Um, And then there's also questions around, um, how consistent to be with other transportation planning efforts and where VMT is used for other sources. That's kind of been the discussion with other departments. Like, do we need to be consistent? Um, so, the inventories that you saw, um, the final 2021 and uh, preliminary 2022 are using BMT from, uh, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Um, And but we have to adjust those numbers for COVID because those models don't take into account COVID impacts. But previously we were using, um, the city of Mountain View has our own travel demand model. um, developed by Farren Pierce, um, in 2018. So, um, that, um, staff felt was more relevant and, um, accurate locally, but slowly becoming more and more outdated. So I just wanted to bring up some of the considerations we kind of have for the different models. Um, I do believe that public works is working on updating that model, um, starting this, um, summer. So that will be something else to look into. And I know I'm, we talked about with the upcoming climate strategy that we can really like dive into this and figure out, like, do we need to change data sources or not?

[01:35:34] Ms. Lee: Thank you, Miss Anderson. The only thing I'll add is that it's an interesting balance that we try to strike with, um, having enough data that goes far enough back that we can kind of see a longitudal story, right? Because there are variations from year to year. It's nice to be able to look at a longer period. And then just the idea that models become outdated and all of them. So the best data source in a given year might change every couple years. And so, how do we adjust and then back redo our inventories to be able to see the big picture of trends. So we resorted to VMT. Most jurisdictions use BMT. Um, so that's what we did for this year. We actually went back and recalculated prior years for transportation so that you could look at a proper trend, but that's not always possible. So if we use the big data example a little bit. Sanderson outlined. We wouldn't be able to go all the way back. Um, so, We're

[01:36:30] Member Alison Hicks: kind of in new territory with COVID and work from home. Yes. Anyway, but, so it sounds like you might be, there might be a change in the near future, but you diagnose, I'm sorry, maybe I interrupted it.

[01:36:43] Ms. Lee: No, that that is exactly it. And, um, likely it will continue to change over time. The, the, yeah, especially with transportation, it feels like that's a bit of a moving target. Did

[01:36:59] Ms. Anderson: you have more to add? Yeah, sorry, I thought of one other, because we had discussed the pros and cons of the big data, one con to it as well, is there some static bias involved, you know, because it's tracking devices and, you know, not everyone having devices. So, just to paint the full picture. Thank you. Thank you's a good question. Um, And

[01:37:20] Member Alison Hicks: then, uh, it seems like this is saying that, um, if I read the part on energy, right? I'm wondering how, because you charge EVs, charge them at, at building. Uh, it sounds like as EVs are adopted, Transportation will go down that building energy will go up. But if it's all renewable energy, it won't, neither one will show up there, but if silicon, Valley clean energy has some, dirty energy, then it will, then, Can you, how does all that interact with each other? Yeah,

[01:38:03] Ms. Anderson: very good question. And I think you actually explained it just right there. And the electricity for EV charging is in the energy sector. So it's switch transportation is now. Yeah, so our electricity usage could go up. Hopefully it's mostly carbon free, so it's not impacting that. But if the upter steam exchanged, you know, buck could go up, but you will, and you'll see the impact on transportation just because that will go down. And

[01:38:28] Member Alison Hicks: then a related question. Working from home is not, lately, energy free, because we're using, um, using our computers more. Oh, might possibly some large screens. And then as AI is adopted, that's very energy intensive. So do you have any comments on that? Um, I'm not something I'm thinking about. I'm not sure, I think, I mean, I guess it just gets captured in building energy or electricity use. Yeah,

[01:39:03] Ms. Anderson: I'm thinking whether, um, it felt just a use changed much pre, we could probably look back at that pre and post-COVID years and how the breakdown was between, um, presidential commercial. Yeah,

[01:39:15] Member Alison Hicks: I'd like to track also. I'm reading alarming articles about how with AI adoption, there's can be remarkably increased energy use. So I'd love us to keep our eye on that.

[01:39:26] Ms. Lee: With regards to AI and kind of understanding our longer term energy needs in the future, we have embarked on very early discussions with partners, you know, with SVCD or other cities, uh, to to start to get our hands around that question. So, I certainly don't have any answers for you. Yeah.

[01:39:50] Member Alison Hicks: Yes, certainly. Know all about it. And then what about, so underwater, What we're seeing there, the data we're seeing there, does it include the, our water recycling project, or maybe not, because that is in Palo Alto, or out, maybe. Katie Mayers, could I answer that question? Does it does the data include the... Does waste parture, then? No, I mean the creation of, oh. Because it's wastewater treatment? It does. Um, but it happens in Palo Alto. So I'm just not sure how that's getting account of. Yeah,

[01:40:29] Ms. Anderson: sorry. I'm for, yeah, for wastewater. We are accounting for the, the energy usage, the Palo Alto facility. We're signing it back to ourselves. For our portion of the customers.

[01:40:50] Member Alison Hicks: Those are my... Are there any... a committee of any additional questions? Okay, then it's time for, uh, a book. Comments? Um, Anybody in person have comments? seeing the public shaking their heads? Um, does anyone virtually have comments? older Isenberg. Hello.

[01:41:17] Isenberg: Well, guy isn't back, yes. President in Mountain View. Um, I want to bring, uh, if we predict electricity costs in the city, which are about twice as high as in neighbor communities like Palo Alto and Santa Clara, or do you see, uh, that in, in relation to that? I don't think that those communities are less green to use your words, less more view, and that be a better approach to try to decrease the cost for electricity, like other communities are doing. That's his suggestion. That's my comment symbol.

[01:42:01] Member Alison Hicks: Utility. Thank you. So we generally don't answer public comments, but we we listen to them and maybe answer them and... commentary later. Thank you so much. Is there no other, um, public comments. Okay, well, thank you. So now we, uh, move on to, um, committee comments. There any comments to wrap up?

[01:42:27] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I was just gonna comment on the public comments. I think you mentioned Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and those are, they have their own municipal utilities, so they get to set their own rights, and that's different, um, to build our own utility at this point. I mean, I think it's pretty impossible to do. So, we are, you know, we have to stay with clean energy, but at least with clean energy. We have a policy to be at least one% lower than PGE. I think this year we are 4% lower. So, we do continue to look at, you know, price as one of the factors. Providing energy to the community. Thank you.

[01:43:17] Member Alison Hicks: I heard you have a wrap-up comment or two? Um, I

[01:43:24] Member Pat Showalter: just think it's, this is very apropos. I've heard fun to hit this report. See how we're doing to, um, so many things are different, we're different during COVID. Uh, you know, we see them. We don't really know what the new normal is. So, it's very interested. It's very interesting to see. Changes, reflected in these, there was, there was such a stark change in, oh, you know, how our lives went on. And, um, I just really want to thank everybody for the, um, the work that went into developing these and, um, That anybody look forward to the clear video, the DNA. Then, um, I wanted to say, I serve on, I serve on Silicon Valley Clean Energy now. Um, Margaret, uh, also never, Ari Koga has done it for many years for us, but I took over this year. And, um, I've been amazed at how technical it is, so I'm coming up to speed. And, um, uh, there is a tremendous amount that we, you know, we do need concert. And I think in particular, figuring out things that are the carrots, is, uh, or our electric, you know, our electric. Fortunately well, that's all about there. And the other thing I wanted to share is that I serve one of the National League of Cities, um, energy environment and natural resources board. And every year we come up with a set of resolutions that, um, uh, related to the environment that, um, if they get passed, then, then the national league of cities itself advocates for the federal system, and they ask all of the towns and cities and villages that are members to advocate for them. So, um, I have asked, uh, about the update of the legislation. So I'll be talking about that in, um, talking to staff about what, if anything else, is appropriate for us to be putting forward in that national, um, grill. Of course, the problem is that we're a little more progressive, then much of a nation, and for a resolution to get passed, it has to be passed by the general assembly. And that means it has to be acceptable for most people in West Virginia as well as here. So, so there's, um, you know, that, It, it, we can't necessarily, um, uh, get everything we might like in there, but, but we can, I think, make a difference. So, just wanted to say that that's something, um, you know, we're working on and we will, Or take one.

[01:46:18] Member Alison Hicks: And, well, I want to thank Steph as well. I assume you. Oh, okay. I just like to ask, Miss Lee, if you're looking for an action from the committee to recommend the acceptance of the Canhouse Gaps inventory as it goes to council, set calendar upcoming. Thank you. I'm sorry, I'm perfect. I will ask. Thank you. Last back at the end of my comment. Thank you. Um, yeah, so I thank staff as well for, um, pulling this comprehensive report together. Most of my comments were embedded in my questions. I really look forward to making this more specific to what, uh, to Mountain View over time to really reflect our, um, our greenhouse gas emissions. Um, and not the wider areas. Um, I also, uh, as the staff report said, this doesn't include, um, It doesn't include the, uh, consumption based, uh, it doesn't include all emissions, so consumption based, what's categorized as consumption based emissions like food, air travel, and manufactured goods. You know, I think those should be some of our policy as well. Um, so if there are any ways to mention those or quantify those, I would be interested in building that in over time. Um, because a lot of those are, some things we can't, I don't know, heating our homes or cooking our food or things we can't, can't not do. But some of these consumption-based ones. So I'm interested in that. I'm also, um, I also wanted to comment on the table on table two, which was commuting characteristics of Mountain View residence. I wanted to note that the 2 changes for the better. One was working from home that we talked about. The other biggest one was, um, was walking. Um, and I, you know, the number of people carpooling, picking mass transit and bicycling all went down. We, I mean, we would hope they would go up, but, but thankfully, walking went up, and I actually think that's a tool we don't use enough. I think that, um, often our B-Pack is more focused on biking. You know, we don't want to ignore biking, but I think that we should really focus on walking as well. So, with that, um, would anyone like to make a motion to accept the greenhouse gas inventory?

[01:49:06] Unknown Speaker: So moved?

[01:49:07] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, all those in the paper? Fine, bye. Okay, it's unanimous. So now, we move on to 5.3 on our agenda, which is a verbal update on sustainability and on sustainability and resiliency division. This item will be presented by sustainability division staff, Ms. League will commence the presentation. Thank

[01:49:34] Ms. Lee: you. Uh, we wanted to take just a few minutes to share some updates with the committee on recent work that's been, um, moved forward by the sustainability division, but really represents work across many of the departments. Turn it over to Ms. Lynn, they'll start us off. Thank

[01:49:55] Ms. Lynn: you, Miss Lee. City staff have been working to apply to a number of different grant opportunities from the local to state to federal levels, and this has been done in collaboration with the public works department and many other departments and divisions. And the applications have really spanned, uh, you know, award amounts from 25,000 all the way up to multimillion dollar applications to support resiliency and decarbonization efforts, both community wide and uh, with city facilities and infrastructure. We wanted to share a few program highlights. One exciting one is that the income qualified e-bike voucher program has been launched and is currently active for applications, and it's open through April 28, so that's currently open to the public to apply for. The city is also in contract with block power, a consultant to provide technical assistance and financing and support for multifamily property owners to complete electrification upgrades in their home. And we are looking to launch the public facing website and do a lot of outreach efforts at this order. And

[01:51:03] Member Alison Hicks: the, uh, just another couple of uh,

[01:51:06] Ms. Lynn: programs. The, uh, PG&E program is currently underway in Mountain View to replace gas water heaters with electric options, and we're also hiring within the sustainability division for a cool block, uh, program assistant. That passed over to Ms. Ramas. Here. We

[01:51:26] Ms. Ramas: recently also released an RFP to find a consultant to develop the 2035 climate strategy. Proposals were due today. Which is exciting for the next steps to move forward. Um, Thursday, there is also a presentation to the school board to discuss installing solar at these 2 local sports centers. And upcoming this Saturday, April 20th, from 10 to 2 will be an incredible Earth and Arbor Day celebration that has been a collaboration between forestry recreation and sustainability and resiliency. There was a photo contest leading up to the event. We got 46 eligible entries, and there will be an awards event at the day on Saturday to celebrate the winners. They'll also be displayed, and then many vendors, plant-based food and entertainment, with local organizations and education for everyone to enjoy. So, hope to see you there. That is the end of this. Oh, one more. Um, and then, Other reason to compliment, accomplishments include receiving R A grade from the carbon disclosure project. We also led a sea level rise tour in collaboration with public works, highlighting the Brazilience and infrastructure activities that the city has done to reduce the impact of sea level rise locally. Our department has also worked with the Day Worker Center to create an electric landscaping equipment tool lending library. We hope that community members will use these electric landscaping equipment and hire these workers from the day worker center for more sustainable and quiet landscaping in our community. The last 2 items here are the plant-based eating events that we have held and will continue to hold. These have included chefs, and Others such as gym making event, um, all on induction stoves, providing a great opportunity for the community to see them in action. And excuse me. And we've been heavily marketing the Silicon Valley clean energy. incentives, programs, and rebates. In 2023, Mountain View residents claimed 100 of the rebates, and we were the 2nd largest number of rebates given out for 2 Mountain View among all the cities. So that was an accomplishment for us. It was the 1st yeah. And thank you.

[01:54:08] Ms. Lynn: I will get it here June. Okay, council questions. Who was the first? It was the 1st city of the city that came in first. Sunnyvale. Sunnyvale. Oh my god, Sunnyvale.

[01:54:19] Ms. Lee: They're bigger. Yeah, exactly. It

[01:54:22] Member Pat Showalter: was in San Jose, though. San

[01:54:23] Member Alison Hicks: Jose, San Jose. Oh that's right. They're dark. Yeah they're dark. Okay, any other committee questions? How's the e-bike thing got rolling out? Like what's your experience with that? It's

[01:54:39] Ms. Anderson: been going really well. Yeah, it's been the application has been open for about a week and we already have over 50 activations. Wow. And any idea, like, where

[01:54:49] Member Alison Hicks: they're coming, like, what sector of our population or is that not object? Don't know yet, but we can definitely follow up.

[01:54:57] Ms. Lee: Just a reminder, it's income qualified for the applications and we'll be prioritizing the lowest income group of applicants first.

[01:55:12] Member Pat Showalter: Just anything more about block power? I mean, uh, Yes.

[01:55:17] Ms. Lynn: Um, so currently block power is, uh, really gearing up for outreach, so the 1st step is to develop a citywide map overlaying census data, as well as other local sources of data so that we can properly target the outreach to those who can benefit most from the program. So that's what we're working on currently and that's anticipated to be ready in a few weeks. And that's when the public ph will be, um, shared on our website and available for sign ups as well. We'll be sure to include it in the council connections as soon as it goes down.

[01:55:50] Member Pat Showalter: I have, I hope you will come and talk to, um, I mean, if you're not a view, you're only sued about that. Well,

[01:55:59] Member Alison Hicks: will the photos from the photo contest be available online for people? Yeah. Yes, so they're already posted.

[01:56:06] Ms. Ramas: The contest already failed. The contest took place on Collaborate Mountain View. Okay. Um, and it helps try to encourage more participation. on that platform. So all the photos are up and you can see the voting as well. Public voters choice happened. And some people got several 100 votes. Very active participation. Thank you. Glad items.

[01:56:27] Member Alison Hicks: So no other committee member questions? Um, do members of the public have comments? Any online members? Public? Okay, so seeing no comments. Um, I guess any wrap-up comments for the committee? I have never had a concept. No rack-up comments. Okay. So now we're on item number six, which is committee staff comments, questions, and committee reports. Um, No action will be taken on any questions raised. By the council sustainability committee at this time. Do any CSC members or staff have comments or questions? Okay. So now we're at item number 7 on the agenda. This meeting is adjourned at 7:58 p.m.

• ← Previous
• Next →