June 26, 2025 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Unknown Speaker: Oh, no, that's good. Okay, this is getting serious. Yeah. Okay,

[00:00:19] Member Alison Hicks: so should we start? Yeah, my mom, are we on? Yes. Oh, hello. Um, So, this is the council's sustainability committee meeting from June 26, uh, 2025. I'm gonna call the meeting to order. Um, this is item one, called a order. Uh, this meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. Anyone wishing to address the council's sustainability and committing virtually, may join the meeting on Zoom, using the link, or phone number and webinar ID shown on the screen. When the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, click on the raised hand feature and zoom, or dial star 9 on your phone. When the chair calls your name to provide 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. Now on item two, which is roll call, Ms. Lee, can you take roll call, please?

[00:01:30] Ms. Lee: Send me Chair Hicks.

[00:01:33] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah,

[00:01:33] Ms. Lee: number show Walter, right?

[00:01:35] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah.

[00:01:36] Ms. Lee: Remember Clark is absent. On his way.

[00:01:39] Member Alison Hicks: I understand he'll be here momentarily, but we have the majority of it. Despite that. Um, So, number 3 is minutes approval. Uh, this would be the CSC meeting minutes from April 29th, 2025. Does anyone have any comments or questions about the meeting minutes? I don't see any comments or questions. Um, would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes?

[00:02:10] Member Alison Hicks: Sure. move approval. And I 2nd

[00:02:12] Member Alison Hicks: and all those in favor. Okay. Um, majority of those here. Uh, Number four, item number four on our agenda is oral communications. Uh, from the public, this portion of the meeting is reserved for people 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 CSC from acting on nonagendized items. So would any member of the public like to provide comment on an item that is not on the agenda. If so, please click the raised hand button and Zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Or if you're here in person, turn in a speaker card. Do you have any speaker cards?

[00:03:11] Member Alison Hicks: No, we do not.

[00:03:12] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. And any virtual speakers? Okay. In that case. We'll now close the oral communication item and move to discussion on action items. We are on item number five. Um, which is new business. 5.one is um, 2035 and 2040 B carponization goal analysis update. This item will be presented by sustainability division staff. This will commence the presentation.

[00:03:49] Ms. Lee: Chair Hicks, if the committee would be willing, might we hear the agenda items out of order?

[00:03:56] Member Alison Hicks: Sure. Okay, let me see by that one. Okay, 5.2, the in. Yes, we can see, we can do 5.2 first, which is presentation on reach code updates. And this item will be presented by building division staff, Miss Hagan. Um, Hagan, would you like to begin?

[00:04:16] Lindsay Hagan: Yes. Good evening, committee members. My name's Lindsay Hagan, assistant community development director. Um, and I'm here tonight to provide you with an update on the 2025 triennial building code update at Beach Coast. I'm here tonight as well with Christian Murdoch, our community development director. And, uh, Nina Vizjak, our chief building official online. Um, So, moving on to the next slide. Um, Some of the stuff that will sort of provide an update on tonight is really providing some background on the triangle building code update process. The progression of our Mountain View reach codes. Um, over the years, talk a little bit about the current regulatory environment related to building code updates and reach codes as well as um, the 2025 reach code. Items. Um, so proceeding on. Um, a little bit of background, just to kind of make sure everyone understands. Uh, we often refer to them as the California building codes, but the, um, Formal name is the California building standards code, um, which is part of the California code of regulations or Title 24. Um, and really these codes regulate the design, construction, um, operations, life safety, and sort of the laundry list of items um, on the 2nd bullet here on your screen. Um, It's overseen by the California building standards commissioned. And this code is updated every 3 years as new technologies, advancements, you know, lessons, um, and safety enhancements happen over time. Um, all cities in California are actually responsible for enforcing these state codes. Um, and then cities have the option to locally amend them. But any local amendments done by a city are sort of limited to ones that are related to administrative or procedural, um, items, or, uh, cities are allowed to be more stringent or strict than the state code, um, due to unique climactic geological or topographical, um, conditions. Um, so a little bit about how the codes actually get developed. Um, So big picture, a lot of these codes are built off of the international, sort of at the international and national level. Um, so for example, we have an international fire code or an international property maintenance code. Um, and then we have national codes, um, that are often built off of the international. Um, and then how the California State building code comes to be, is it actually is, uh, modified versions of those international and national codes that are built, um, or modified to meet California's needs and objectives. Um, in addition to uh, that progression in the code. There's also state legislation that also can enact requirements in the state building code. And then, uh, from a local perspective, uh, essentially what cities can do in their local codes is amend the California code. Um, and for us, a lot of it's around centered around the Bay Area reach codes, which is really a conglomerate, um, of agencies, uh, in our region. We also have gotten input, you know, from Silicon Valley Clean Energy, as well as groups like Valley Water. Some of our energy or water efficiency improvements. Um, and so a little bit more about the code itself, we often refer to it as if it's one code. Um, the California building code, but really it's made up of 13 parts. Um, which are listed here on your screen. Um, so, you know, we're talking 1000s of pages of code requirements that are really centered around different types of construction and building components. Um, I do want to highlight that the California energy code, which is sort of highlighted in green there is part 6 is a really relevant code in terms of uh, our reach code requirements. Often, they're amending that part. Um, and so an important aspect of amending that code section, uh, is that it requires a city to prepare a cost-effectiveness study, um, and it also requires approval by, uh, the California Energy Commission for any of those amendments. Um, and that process can take anywhere from 2 to 4 months, um, generally speaking. Um, so moving on to the next slide, a little bit about what a cost-effectiveness study is, um, really big picture, it's ensuring a cost-effective investment that reduces energy use for a customer. So, um, it's a study that evaluates how many years it takes to recoup the initial cost of a requirement compared to the ongoing operational outcome. Um, and so over the years, the California Energy Commission has allowed cities to kind of work together on sharing the same cost effectiveness study, if the local amendments you're proposing are studied in that, um, study. Uh, so that is something we've done over the years. So, um, Silicon Valley thing energy, you know, has been a big proponent of this and has helped us in that way, uh, in the past. And a really important point about the cost effectiveness study is, um, You're only required, uh, to really demonstrate that there's at least one path that's cost effective. So this comes into play when you have requirements that might have a menu of options. You don't have to show that every option is cost effective. You just have to show that there's one. Um, and so that's just an important distinction. Um, talking a little bit about how our local amendments are actually how they come together. It's really, you know, the term it takes a village is really no joke when it comes to, um, developing our local building code. Um, Really, the code starts at a regional level. We try and work, you know, with other cities, um, and regional uh, groups to kind of learn not only what um, reach coats are out there and ideas out there, but also learn from each other. Um, and so we, uh, like I mentioned before, work with the Barrier Reach Coats, um, sort of group, Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Uh, we also work with technical experts in the building and fire uh, worlds. Uh, and in terms of how our city, um, as a team works on these improvements, um, or these amendments, uh, it involves quite a few different teams and, uh, uh, staff. So we have the fire marshal. We have staff from public works related to flood control, recycled water. We have most of the building teams, so building plan checkers, fire protection engineers, building inspectors, and of course, our city attorney's office. Um, so we are talking about a large number of staff who, um, quite literally are turning, turning pages in terms of how they're kind of looking at the codes and, um, putting together the actual local amendments. Um, So getting into more of the progression of our reach code over time, I think one, uh, statement that any of us can say pretty definitively is that Mountain View has been a regional leader in reach codes over the last decade. Um, and so what this slide is trying to convey is um, a couple pieces of key information. Um, one is, uh, the columns here represent the different, uh, triangle code years. Um, so, uh, starting in 2016 is really when the city started introducing reach codes. And so it really started with new construction, both regionally and in Mountain View. Um, and we started with, uh, sort of, um, I'd say easier things, uh, but at the time were more advanced, like electric vehicle charging readiness. In that case, it was more about building the electrical infrastructure. Um, we introduced dual dual plumbing requirements in 2016 uh, for new construction. Um, and then getting into 2019 was our uh, largest reach code year in terms of introducing new requirements. It's really when we introduced all electric requirements, solar requirements, as well as expanded on our EV. We also introduced safe bird safe glass requirements. Um, and that year, we were actually one of the 1st cities in the region to, um, require these reach code requirements into existing buildings, um, primarily around what we're calling major renovations. So, um, essentially remodels where you're modifying more than 50% of the structure. You would be subject to these requirements. Most cities in 2019, we're still on new construction. Um, and then we move on to 2022. Um, This is where we continued with our requirements, and really that was the year that cities started getting into the existing buildings. Um, in 2002, we focused primarily on, um, expanding our solar requirements requiring battery storage, um, requiring, uh, the faster EV chargers to be installed. Um, and then as, uh, committee members may recall, um, last year we had to, um, go through a process of suspending our all electric requirement. Um, and in its place, we introduced um, electric pre-wiring requirements last year. Um, that are effective now. And then in this upcoming cycle, I think a lot of the focus is really on existing buildings and really trying to capture the smaller renovations and work being done. So you'll see that as we move on in conversation. Um, in terms of the regulatory environment, this is a pretty key um, topic to talk about today. Um, So, uh, I think when I was here last, we talked about the backmed requirements, but, um, in 2023, backmed, um, established the sale prohibition on natural, or nitrogen oxide emitting water heaters and furnaces. And so really what that, um, established is, uh, a benchmark in the future, uh, point at which, um, manufacturers will only be able to, or I should say, retail will only be able to sell, um, equipment that, you know, is not producing nitrogen oxide. So, um, it's gonna encourage more electric appliance, uh, in the marketplace, uh, which is a really important factor in trying to encourage, um, all electric. Um, and then in 2024, uh, the California Restaurant Association and the city of Berkeley Lawsuit, uh, finally came to a conclusion and an outcome. Um, it's what, uh, caused us to have to respond and suspending our all electric requirements, um, and like I just said, uh, we, and it's placed, uh, started with the phase one pre-wiring requirements that we adopted last year. Um, and then moving on to, uh, I think the hot topic in terms of the regulatory environment today is Assembly Bill 306. Um, this has been a bill that really generated out of the southern California wildfires, this, um, but as well as the housing crisis, this, uh, bill that introduces a prohibition on local amendments to the state building code by cities until June 1st, 2031, um, that impact residential development. Unless you meet certain sort of limited provisions. Um, and so really, this would mean, um, that cities generally speaking, would not be able to add additional reach code requirements, for example, in a 6 year stretch. Um, and so there's been some recent amendments to it, um, but, um, which I'll talk about on the next slide, actually. So, um, some of the timelines in terms of sort of what's been going on with this bill. It's a it's a fast moving bill going through the process. So in the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of changes. Um, I'll say, uh, starting on June 10th, the bill was amended to adjust, um, a timeline that was originally established of June 1st where essentially, um, Cities can't add any new requirements after June 1st of this year. Um, that got modified to October first. Um, sorry, and I should explain why June 1st was problematic was because the state code for this 2025 um, Triannual code update doesn't get released to cities until July. So by putting in a June 1st deadline, it doesn't even allow a city, an opportunity to have the new code to amend. So, um, moving it to October 1st, uh, potentially provided, you know, some opportunity to do that. And then this week, there's been further changes to the bill. On Monday, the bill was adjusted, um, From October 1st to September 30th in terms of the deadline for when cities could, um, have, uh, amendments. Uh, and then they also added a provision about the possibility for limited new amendments in the future during the 6 year pause. Um, and then just yesterday, a new bill was released, um, where essentially it took this AB 306 and added it into this budget bill. What that really means is once you get sort of put into the budget bill, it essentially fast tracks the possibility for the bill to get approved. Um, and so the blue dates you see on your screen, the July through September dates, are dates that a typical bill would have to go through and sort of meet those deadlines to get through the process to get recommended to the governor. In this case, with a fast tracked bill, it may or may not need those dates that make it, you know, to the governor sooner. Um, and then the important date in this conversation is really the September 30th. Currently, you'll see in the bill, uh, both dates, September 30th and October 1st, but for this conversation, I think we're sticking conservatively with September 30th. So that is officially sort of the deadline for any new local building code amendment, um, to be in place and be accepted by the state. So I think, um, if it isn't already obvious from going through this timeline, it's a pretty fast moving bill. It has really strict deadlines. Um, and it's so fast moving, it's hard to interpret. Um, so it provides very little opportunity for city staff to really respond to it, um, and to successfully adopt new reach codes for 2025, um, and potentially for 6 years. Um, but we can talk a little bit about, um, our efforts. So moving on to the next slide. I think big picture here. Um, what this bill is also suggesting is that um, you know, the state is really serious about housing. And I think as we've seen over the last couple of years, uh, with different state bills that have come into play, Uh, the states made it pretty clear that, um, housing is a priority and has in many ways, you know, limited local authority over regulations. And so this bill is really just an extension or expansion on that. Um, and so with all these fast moving parts, it's really hard, um, to guarantee that we can achieve new reach codes this year, but, um, we are willing to try. Um, I think what it does mean is instead of having sort of 4 months, um, that we normally have to do a triangual code update, we have essentially too. Um, and so it will mean that, um, it will sort of temporarily impact some of our building staff services. Um, so inspections, for example, might take an extra day, um, or so to schedule out. Um, but, you know, we're willing to put in that effort. Um, it also means since we only have 2 months, we really can't do any community outreach. This would be an effort to do reach codes and then sort of have to do outreach after the fact. Um, and ultimately to adopt our building code updates, uh, it does require 2 council meetings. So, right now, we're sort of penciling that or tentatively thinking that it'd be in September. Um, And then, of course, following the council adoption, uh, we would submit, you know, everything to the California Building Standards Commission and then as well as to the California Energy Commission, um, if we have a cost-effectiveness study. Um, and so, as I mentioned before, the current sort of interpretation of what we are actually, what the deadline means, is that we have to have, you know, fully executed ordinances, submitted to the state, and the state has to provide a written acceptance back by September 30. So it's a pretty tall order. Um, and I think, you know, to be transparent, if it's not possible for us to meet that deadline, then we still will proceed with a 2025 code update. The state does still allow you to amend your code to align with the new code. Um, it just means we wouldn't be able to introduce any new, um, requirements. And so if we end up in that spot, it just means we'll be coming to council like a month or 2 later. Um, but it would definitely still happen before the end of the year. Um, so with that dire sort of news, I wanted to at least um, provide also an update on what some of the reach coats are that we're looking at. Um, and so, uh, these are sort of potential things that we're considering. Um, and I'll talk a little bit about these each in greater detail and also highlight, um, you know, some of the challenges of these. Um, so there are 4 in particular that are centered mostly around single family homes and duplexes. Um, these are gonna be, um, an AC to heat pump requirement, uh, expanding on our electric prewiring, also referred to as electric readiness, um, which were sort of viewing as a phase 2 to our phase one. Um, the energy performance, which uh, maybe some of the committee members, I remember talking about this in the past, um, it's now also referred to as a flex path. And then lastly, a zoning incentive for single family. Um, I do want to note that for multifamily residential and non-residential development, we don't currently have any specific reach code suggestions or um, considerations at this time. A lot of that gets developed, um, in the code cycle a little bit later. Um later this year and actually early next year. So, um, we're still working with groups like Silicon developing energy on those, but, um, until we sort of know where AB 306 officially lands and what those might be. You know, we'll still review those and consider if they qualify for any of the local amendments at that time. Um, so diving a little bit deeper into each one of these. Um, the AC to heat pump, um, is really when someone comes in to replace or add space cooling, which is really AC, essentially. Um, basically you have one of 2 paths, you can go down, you can either install a heat pump space conditioner. Um, and comply with state requirements. Um, and so really what we're talking about is that unit that sits outside. Um, could be a heat pump. Or if you wanted to keep a traditional AC unit, uh, which, of course, just as cooling, um, you can do that, uh, Um, and then instead do other energy improvements in your home. Um, so that, you know, improvement's kind of like greater, uh, addic insulation or, um, sort of, uh, ceiling, air ceiling, um, the ducts to ensure there's no air gaps. Um, and so really this requirement stems from, um, the California air resources board or carb and back meds restriction, um, on furnace sales by 2029 sort of, uh, partner to that. Um, and ultimately, this requirement, um, does require amending the energy code, part 6 as well as the California green building code, which is part 11. Um, and so because it does touch the energy code, it would require a cost-effectiveness study and approval by the California Energy Commission. Um, there are a couple of cities that already have a requirement in place, um, Portola Valley and the city of San Mateo. Um, so if we want to move on to the next one. Could we use their study? their effectiveness study? Uh, so there is a study that's about to be released. So we'll take a look at that. But yes, in theory, if we were to adopt exactly what those other cities had. We could look at that. Um, I will say there are changes that can evolve, though, with the different code cycles, so we would have to make sure it kind of met the requirement. Um, Moving on to electric readiness or uh, pre-wiring requirements. So this is pretty similar in some ways to what our phase one requirements were. It's just lowering the bar. So, um, maybe some committee members remember this term of, you touch it, you pre-wire it. kind of what this, this item is. Um, essentially what it would require is installing electrical infrastructure when when someone comes into a stall, install a gas appliance. Um, so it would mean reserving space on your breaker. running the actual conduit line from the panel to within 3 feet of your appliance, um, and installing one of the following, either, uh, you upgrade an outlet, uh, from 120 to 240 volt, with an extra, basically an extra, extra electrical line, um, or install uh, an empty conduit, which is, um, largely, more or less what we have in our Carmens now. Additionally, it requires specific dimensional space to be shown for water heaters or space heaters. Um, It could apply to kitchen remodels, water heaters, clothes dryers, space heaters, and includes outdoor appliances as well. Um, and then an interesting proposal, uh, this year is sort of this effort to encourage fewer electrical panel upsizing. And really what, um, the proposal on the table is really looking at using, um, an alternative calculation methodology that's already allowed in the state code. Um, and basically pairing it with a prescription for folks, um, or prescriptive requirement for folks to also install an electrical appliance or a load management system, and in the combination of those two, um, hopefully not requiring an electrical panel upsizing. So it's not necessarily a new concept. It's just a certain pairing of things that may make it easier for people to, um, electrify without updating their panel. Um, and so that's something we'll have to look further into. And like I said, this is really an expansion of our existing phase one requirements. Um, It does require the cost-effectiveness study, but we are talking to Silicon Valley clean energy about if there's other options that may not require that. Um, and cities like San Mateo, Patrollo Valley, and Atherton have some of these requirements in place today. Moving on to the energy performance or flex path. Um, and so this option, uh, is really setting up a menu, um, of options, uh, for folks to consider when electrifying on their projects. And it uses essentially a percentage or point system above the state code, um, with energy improvements. So it's really a tight, uh, a reach code that is most effective for new construction and major renovations, it's really not a great tool for smaller renovations. Um, it does require a cost-effectiveness study and California Energy Commission approval. Um, however, there are a small group of cities that have, uh, this type of program in place, San Jose would be, um, a prominent example. Uh, it can apply to all development types, but right now we only have a cost effectiveness study available for a single family. Um, And I'll be honest, this is the most challenging reach code item on the table for us to be able to implement with the timeline we have. Um, and just to try to kind of explain a little greater detail of what, um, this energy performance, how it works. So, towards the bottom half of the slide here. is sort of trying to demonstrate 2 different options. So if you were customer one who wants to install a heat pump hot water heater and a heat pump space heater, You could get enough points in that case, 19 points is the threshold. When by installing those 2 items, you could meet the requirement. Alternatively, like customer 2 shown in the blue in the bottom. Um, might choose not to install a heat pump system and instead, um, is willing to do other energy efficiency improvements, like attic insulation, upgrade their windows, um, install wall insulation or new ducts, um, and do some ducts, see its ceiling and keep their gas furnace. So they have to do a bit more work, but um, it would also add up to the 19 points. So this is sort of showing how you can have different menu of options as long as you get to the 19 points. You've effectively met the requirement. Um, And so like I said, this is going to be a little bit more challenging for us to consider, but we are going to look at options that are out there. Um, and then the last, uh, reach code item to discuss is the zoning incentive, um, and so, uh, this would be a voluntary. Exchange, so essentially somebody who voluntarily is willing to build all electric construction. Um, we could grant them additional floor area, uh, for their home beyond the current zoning minimum. So this is going to be a tool that's most effective for new additions and new homes that are already at their maximum. Um, and essentially it would be granting them a certain amount of additional square footage. It may require loosening other development standards, you know, setbacks or lot coverage. Um, and it would ultimately be something that they'd have to display and show in their construction drawings. Um, depending on the scope, it may require retrofitting existing portions of the home. That's something we're going to have to look further into. Um, and really just provide a little more background on this. This really started, um, our conversations on zoning incentive started, uh, as part of our phase one, Um, updates with Silicon Valley clean energy. The city of Sunnyvale actually has an incentive program. Um, that we've been talking to them about, um, that's similar. Um, and in order to effectuate this, um, it would require us to amend uh, chapter 36 or zoning code to add in this incentive. Um, and so ultimately, when you amend chapter 36 of our code, it does require going to the planning commission as well as council. Um, and so our thought process for this incentive is that, um, we don't have to do it in the same timeline as the building code updates since it doesn't live in the building code. So we'll sort of handle those separately. Um, and so they would sort of follow suit later. Um, in the process. Um, and then lastly, uh, just wanted to share sort of our immediate next steps. Um, so as I briefly mentioned, um, before, uh, we're expecting in the next week or so to actually receive the new 2025 state code, um, to begin our our process of code amendments. Um, and so for the next 2 months, July and August, city staff will be working diligently away. Um, and we will also be working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy and TRC companies, who is the consultant that helps us, um, actually develop the code. Um, so we'll be working closely with them. Um, and then the game plan is that in September, we would present these code of updates to council for consideration. Um, and then of course, submit them to the state for acceptance. Um, that concludes staff presentation

[00:31:26] Member Alison Hicks: and we're here for any questions. So are there any committee members with questions on this side? Can we

[00:31:37] Member Chris Clark: go back to the list of the 3 So I don't forget. Um. Yeah, a little farther back. Just the the 3 items total. Yeah, this will help me remember. I think the, um, so the... Yeah, there's four.

[00:31:57] Lindsay Hagan: one more. Yeah. Okay, there you go.

[00:32:01] Member Chris Clark: Okay. Thank you. Um, the... I just want to make sure I understand correct. So the zoning incentive. Is that, is that actually, Is that impact breach codes? Could we do that outside of, could we creatively do that outside of the rich code ban or pause?

[00:32:23] Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, so I think that's really what we're suggesting. Is that because it doesn't live in the building code? Um, it's not subject to AB 306. And because it would be a fully voluntary, you know, an applicant would choose to do it. Um, they wouldn't conflict, you know, with other, um, you know, like the Berkeley lawsuit outcome. Um, and so yeah, we are suggesting that that be on a different track and that we still pursue that. That

[00:32:50] Member Chris Clark: makes sense. I mean, the, I know there are stick approaches, but the character approaches, like that's a really valuable incentive. Um, additional, especially if it's not just new construction, if it's, you know, a remodel and you get to add, you know, an addition that you really want, maybe not a full edition, but it's just, it adds value to the property, just in love itself. So, even if you don't build something. So. Yeah. Or you don't do the addition at the time. Sorry, that was more of a comment. arguably becomes more important now than prior to the AB 306 context. Um, so yeah, something we're thinking about. And then, at one point, you mentioned outdoor appliances, like, would you, would you require someone to put in a 240 electric, um, undo it and everything for like a gas fire pit, if, it would just, maybe they'll just get rid of the gas bar. Yeah, so currently, like a grill. Sure,

[00:33:49] Lindsay Hagan: yeah. Currently, um, the phase one updates that we did that are currently effective, um, it does require, uh, if somebody chooses to install a gas fire pit or fireplace or grill outside, um, and they're doing new construction or the major renovations, they would be subject to installing. Um, an electrical line and out. I see. But

[00:34:11] Member Chris Clark: if it already exists and they're doing a major remodel. Would you require that they do an existing appliance?

[00:34:19] Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, great question. I think if they already have an outlet that meets the requirement in terms of being within 3 feet and meets all the requirements, then we wouldn't require them to install anymore. But

[00:34:28] Member Chris Clark: it's like a gas fire, but that, Probably wouldn't have electricity, and they're remodeling half of the home, but not touching me out. Or would they? Uh,

[00:34:40] Lindsay Hagan: so typically how it gets presented to us in a permit is, uh, traditionally outdoors included when it's total brand new construction. A lot of projects where folks might do in addition, they're not typically also doing a lot of the outdoor at the same time under the same permit. And

[00:34:58] Member Chris Clark: then the last question is just the sequences of this. It sounds like you, so it would be an ordinance. So there would be, And we have to do it, set a reading, and then it's not effective for some number of days, and then I don't know what you can submit everything to state to get the written approval. So it sounds like we, even if we were to meet in early September. Because isn't there a 30 days after the 1st reading. So we'd have to meet over the summer, I would guess.

[00:35:28] Lindsay Hagan: So, um, I think at this point we're not suggesting that the council meet over the summer. I think in terms of the actual requirement is um, that we have to have an adopted ordinance, not necessarily that's an effective. I think a key piece of information to know is, Every triangual code cycle when this council adopts, um, you know, does the 2 readings, uh, and it gets adopted. We turn it into the state. And even if we pass 30 days, um, and our ordinance becomes effective, we can't enforce it until the state accepts the filing. And so it's sort of a 2 part to actually start enforcing it. So in this case, the bill, the way it's drafted and how it's been interpreted, it doesn't have to be effectuated by the city, it just has to have been adopted formally by the council. Thank you. Do you have a posting? Yeah,

[00:36:22] Member Pat Showalter: I have a couple questions. Particularly about the zoning incentive one. That's kind of new to me, sounds like a great idea. Um, When you say that the construction would be all electric. Is that just the addition? Would be all electric or they would have to make their household electric. So

[00:36:40] Lindsay Hagan: it's a great question. I think that's what we're still needing to kind of, uh, work through, because I think we're not trying to make this, um, impossible or over sort of require a lot more construction than somebody was necessarily anticipating. So I think we have to kind of look more at our permit history, see what we traditionally see in our city in terms of the scope of work, and determine really where that boundary is. But we're not necessarily saying at this moment that it's completely off the table. I think we just need to do more due diligence. Well,

[00:37:12] Member Pat Showalter: another possibility might be to say that, you know, they're increasing the FAR, right? That you're increasing the FAR say, 15% if it's just the addition that's all electric, and you're increasing it, 20 or 25%, and you make your whole house, electric. I mean, it doesn't, it could be phased, right? Yeah. It's a great suggestion. Okay. And then, um, going back to the other ones, the pre-wiring and the energy performance. I, I, I know I've talked to some colleagues who Los Altos Hills has the energy performance. I just, I just feel like that's a, a really difficult thing to, um, to administer. Oh, I, that one makes me very nervous. I mean, theoretically, people could be very creative. I just think it would be very confusing. So, uh, I, I don't know, I'm, I want to hear other people's Thoughts on that. Um, on the other hand, it does, it does allow for maybe some, you know, some, some more innovative spirit. Anyway, but, but I, that one makes me nervous, but the other two, um, the, the pre-wiring and, Yeah, the pre-wiring. So how would our pre-wiring that we're, we're putting in, um, uh, We would be approving it to be different from what we currently have. I'm a little I'm not sure about. I'm not sure I understand that. Yeah.

[00:38:47] Lindsay Hagan: So it's a great question. What we had done last year. For simplicity, um, we already have a threshold in our beach code requirements for what we call new construction. And then it includes ground up, new construction. It also includes major renovations of 50%. So what we did last year to, to make it sort of as streamlined as possible is we, um, inserted, uh, rewind requirements that were within that threshold. So it really only applies to brand new construction, and then the 50% major. This is really trying to get the next bar down for the smaller projects where someone's coming in to swap out an appliance or maybe do a kitchen renovation. Um, so it's a smaller scope that's that's trying to be captured here with this requirement. And again, it gets at this idea of if you're installing a gas appliance. Um, you have to prewire. Oh,

[00:39:44] Member Pat Showalter: okay. So it's, it doesn't have to be a remodel at all. It could just be a new appliance. It could be a. So, all right. So if you're gonna, your guest stove. Um, dies and you want a new one, then you have to make sure that it meets these, uh, pre-wiring, where you put in the new one. Yeah,

[00:40:09] Lindsay Hagan: so the idea, I think water heaters, you know, dryer, space heaters, those kind of things. Um, And I think, uh, common sort of scope of work, we see our kitchen remodels, where, yeah, you get the stove. Yeah. Okay.

[00:40:22] Member Pat Showalter: Then my other question is, I know that, we, um, in terms of saving energy. Installation insulation is amazing. Really does a lot. And, um, where in this are we incentivizing insulation, or are we with this, or is this outside of it? So

[00:40:46] Lindsay Hagan: I think, uh, you know, a lot of the insulation is gonna come, depending on the scope of the project. So where, for example, an insulation requirement gets tough is something like where electric readiness or someone's not really breaking open walls or their ceiling. It doesn't. It wouldn't really hit this threshold. I think where you would see a lot more of that come into play is with the energy performance or flex path, where instead of doing certain all electric appliances, you're willing to do some of those other improvements. And then I would say just as a catch all. New construction requirements require a lot. You know, just the base code requires a lot more energy efficiency requirements. But I think really the energy performance would be the biggest bang in terms of encouraging people to do those other.

[00:41:35] Member Pat Showalter: But just in providing education, I know you brought this up a lot when you talk to earlier, when we talked about, you know, like remodeling a kitchen, we should make people do, when we, when the staff is, is, um, talking, you know, in this, in this great new program, you have the, the, uh, it's called, the express. Yep. We have your meetings with people. Um, are you, is part of that to educate them about the value of things like insulation. Or, I mean, is there a way we can. What I'm getting at is, is there a way we can incentivize these improvements that you typically the requirements would be in the flex path. Without it. Without it being a flex path, just having it be voluntary, you know, by education and that kind of stuff. Um, Because I, you know, I remember going to the mirror's innovation program and these people from Iowa, where it's much, much colder than ours. I mean, they were talking about, you know, the insulation program that they had reducing people's energy bills to like a 3rd of, um, what it was. And, and, that, I mean, we wouldn't have, we don't have those. But still, it really made me remember. Well, in the summer we did. Well, maybe in the summer we do. I know most, anyway, I just, so we're, that's what I'm, I'm just, is there a way for us to also roll in promoting insulation? And

[00:43:02] Lindsay Hagan: I think, um, what we started doing, and I think this stems from previous feedback we got, um, we have been working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy. I'm trying to produce more communications about things sort of educational or encouragement, um, type of information. Um, so we have started developing that with them. Um, and I think our thought is in getting more information online or in sort of flyer form and being able to distribute it sort of more unilaterally across, um, potentially across permitting, um, projects would be a little bit more effective. I think what's challenging is, um, necessarily relying on all of our staff to communicate that consistently across the board. So I think having that information available, you know, on our website all the time and in those kind of ways. And then just, and then you contributing it. You could just say, take a look at that. Yeah, yeah. So I think

[00:43:58] Member Pat Showalter: that's stuff that we've been starting to develop with. Okay. Oh. Well, do you have a recommendation? Did you hear, do you have questions? I

[00:44:09] Member Alison Hicks: have many questions. Well, I have questions. I have comments, but we do public comment, and then we do our comments. Oh, okay. So, yeah, I have things to say. Go ahead, please. Do you think I would not have to? No, I didn't, but

[00:44:19] Member Pat Showalter: the only question is mine is your recommendation. My recommendation. Oh,

[00:44:25] Member Alison Hicks: well, let's go through. So, um, most of minor comments, so I'll hold most of them, I assume that we think, from this that we think, 8306 has an excellent food, just gonna go through, and we don't know that there are gonna be any more modifications. We heard, not that you would hear. Not that they call you, and... Um, are we thinking there might be any modifications that would swing more in the direction of what we would like, like allowing, um, you know, allowing some things that would, I mean, I understand their objective, but we could have building code, reach codes that wouldn't, you know, wouldn't get in the way of what housing production, um, or fires. You know, do we think there's, we think there's little chance of that or we have a good idea?

[00:45:18] Lindsay Hagan: Yeah, I think, well, it's a little bit of a challenging question to answer, but I will say, um, you know, there are, there is at least one letter I'm aware of that we are coordinating with, on trying to kind of further express. We've already participated in some communications previously on desirable changes to the code. Um, You're

[00:45:36] Member Alison Hicks: saying where that was going to be my next, if there's any movements like that, do we have our lobbyists on it? Yes.

[00:45:42] Lindsay Hagan: So that is something we're coordinating as well. I think we're trying to participate in the process as much as we can, but I think also just in full transparency, the fact that it's part of a budget bill. The success rate of those bills getting passed are pretty high. They tend to get accelerated. So, that's

[00:46:00] Member Alison Hicks: just the reality. I think it's on the fast track and we're doing all the lobbying. We can't. Okay. Um, So how does the flex path one? Align with the council goal. Uh, uh, for an end of gas. Because we're giving a 2nd path, It continues gas. Has there been any discussion around that in, and this intersects with what, uh, council member, show Walter. Oh, good, I have that one right in front of me. Um, So, he pumped water heater or attic insulation, windows walk, dog. Keep existing gas furnace. So, one thing that I would, so, So, I want to know how, how this intersects with that and how we feel about that, because that makes me a little more hesitant, personally. That's a comment. And also, um, if intersects with Pat's questions on, um, on educating people, Because, Because what I've seen is that people come in with an idea, you know, they've been talking with their spouse or whatever, and they've come up with their dream ideas, and they don't know these other things. Even people, you know, friends of my neighbors of mine who are extreme environmentalists, but they don't know this stuff, and they make a plan, and they come in, and they, I mean, I know people who've bought gas stoves, and wish they didn't, because nobody told them, or, um, put in, uh, gas heat pump. Uh, because the contractor, because they, not gas heat pump, gas furnace. Uh, they wanted a heat pump, but the contractor said, no, it's too early in the, you know, way. For your next one. don't do it now. And they were not very well educated. So, What, how will it? Educate, like, I would hate people to pick, path number two, and then we go, and then we tell them later, you know, ha ha, we didn't tell you we're going to end a gas. So how does all that work together? The education, while we're presenting alternatives that we frankly don't want them to follow? So

[00:48:29] Lindsay Hagan: I think there's sort of 2 parts, I'll respond in 2 parts to your question. Uh, in the terms of all of these reach codes, you know, none of them conflict with um, that goal. I think none of these also mandate, um, or restrict, I should say, somebody from using gas. We are out of the Berkeley lawsuit, we can't. And so, in that respect, you know, this doesn't conflict, I think I might defer somewhat to the sustainability team here on sort of if they have any additional thoughts on how this contributes. But I think in terms of the educational piece, um, I guess, The educational piece, uh, in terms of sort of, I think, what you're getting at really requires education for many angles. I think the city side for sure, we can be part of that. Um, but it is challenging because you also have contractors who can also be viewed as a funnel for education. And I think, um, in terms of how CDD is trying to approach this, there's sort of what we can produce. We could partner, obviously, with sustainability team on producing stuff, which we have, as well as Silicon Valley, clean energy. So I think there's sort of, um, many angles you can try and take on that and I think we're trying to kind of, um, do that partnership and get that information out there. I think we're definitely not the sole source. Um, So I think that's kind of how we've been trying to approach it.

[00:49:58] Lindsay Hagan: And I don't know if I'll defer to the, Oh. Thank you a

[00:50:02] Ms. Lee: second. The only thing I would add, um, is that, This is sort of the hand that we're dealt. We're left with these imperfect choices. And so, The way we would see FlexPath is it's one of the tools to move us along the adoption curve. It will encourage a little more electrification than, Should we not adopt it? It's certainly not perfect. We really liked our all electric code from 2019 much more, but once that was struck down, you know, we were left with these other options to try to get back at where we were already. Um, This, though, if you think about it in combination with, um, Bachmed's rule about all electric appliances or no natural gas appliances in the future. And then our pre-wiring requirement. You know, each of those is sort of a screen that will capture some subset of buildings. And if we start to layer them all together, we'll capture more and more and more of the buildings and we'll help move them towards electrification. So this, it would be useful in that, but it's certainly not a panacea. Done. Because we would prefer that they choose pack number. We would. And it sort of nudges you that way pretty strongly. Okay, but it's

[00:51:16] Member Alison Hicks: pretty strong. I guess I'm just, I guess it just takes me back to what you had been saying before, it would be nice to have a web page that says that. I mean, I just don't want to, uh, miss the opportunity to just tell people there is talk of end of gas. So you can choose path two, but it might not work out for you. Because that's truthful. And, you know, to just miss the opportunity to even say that to someone. Probably not good.

[00:51:44] Ms. Lee: And then the next 2 years we'll be looking more closely at the council priority about end of flow. I think that's in the next 2 years, 2 fiscal years. So we'll be doing some analysis of the grid capacity. We'll be also developing more communication if council adopts a formal resolution or ordinance, actually banning, um, the flow, then there would be additional information and public outreach and engagement. Um, to further support that. So, this would, would not just more in that direction.

[00:52:20] Member Alison Hicks: And then, um, And then, uh, the, uh, number 4, item number 4 here, that you said they, I have some, I don't know, have to state this except as a comment, is it, uh, the zoning, the floor area, incentive, is that popular in Sunnyvale? Um, so... Sunnyvale

[00:52:43] Lindsay Hagan: is a program, actually includes all development types. Um, but where they've seen the most, um, like it's most popular for single family. Um, and the way that they've set it up there, it's a little bit different of a zoning environment than here, in that, uh, Sunnyvale in particular actually requires planning permits for 2nd story editions and certain, like, single family permits that we just don't do here. Um, and so how they've set and part of their incentive is actually, uh, permits that would normally have to go to the planning commission for approval for a single family edition, they do not, if you do this all electric path. So that's how they've structured their incentive. Either way, they've found that, um, that that sort of, uh, resonant base has been really interested in that setup versus some of the other types. Yeah.

[00:53:36] Member Alison Hicks: I, I, um, I guess I have a fear that this, the kind of incentive your suggestion here is an incentive to build a monster home that you don't really need instead of an 80, but I won't, um, I won't go there. right now. Uh, so, um, so those are my questions. And um, now it's time for, um, comments from the public on this item. So are there any, um, Are there any speaker cards? There appears to be a speaker. Yes,

[00:54:14] Bruce Carney: I'll fill out a card as soon as I've spoken. I'm Bruce Carney. I wanted to share several thoughts about this. It was a wonderful presentation. Thank you for addressing the emergency with a possible escape path for mountain view. When I worked at Solar City in 2008, 2009, City of Los Altos Hills was trying to incentivize solar on residential buildings. As I recall, they offered to let a home be 500 square feet larger than would otherwise have been the case. I think that requirement was 500 square feet of solar panels, but I could be wrong about that, and I don't know if there was a sunset for that. But what I would suggest is that, uh, homes in my neighborhood, your neighborhood, Alison, sell for about $1,700 a square foot. So if you permitted a 200 square foot addition, because going all electric, that would create $340,000 of value for the owner of that home. That's a huge amount of money, I think. So I believe it would be a very strong incentive. I would suggest that there'd be a cap on the number of square feet you would allow. I think 200 square feet, plus or minus is a good cap that's essentially a room. and that it be time limited, so that if such a thing were put in place, that it have a 3 year sunsetting, so that people would rush to take advantage of it and install the electric equipment right away. And I would think that the requirement should be absolutely all electric, no gas at all. That's the deal. I also agree wholeheartedly with comments about insulation. There are 2 points in the year when cleaning electric energy is going to be a challenge. One is hot summer afternoons when we have to bring on the gas peak or plants currently. So better insulation would help reduce demand for electricity then. And the other is winter nights, when wind and solar and battery power, and geothermal, nuclear are just inadequate to heat our homes and lighter homes. And so insulation also helps there. Keeps our wintertime homes more comfortable. I don't know how an insulation program might work, but I think it's a great idea if somebody can figure out exactly how to pull that off. You all know that many of the kinds of, uh, home upgrades that were talked about in this presentation, don't get permits, and I'm not even sure that all of them need permits, to replace a window air conditioner with another window air conditioner. I wouldn't have thought that that required a permit. Now, if it does require a permit, I'm sure 95% of those replacements are non-compliant with a requirement. Um, Yes, I think, you know, the main thing for people like me to do is to try to get 306 to fail or for the governor not to sign it, but it's acting into the budget building, perhaps even that opportunity is gone. But one last thing. Mountain View is not banning or not, I hope not thinking about banning gas. The thing about stopping piped natural gas. An alternative is tanked propane gas. So, uh, it's fairly inexpensive to convert a natural gas burning appliance to burn propane. What is challenging is that Mountain View says you can only have a 20 gallon propane tank, the canister that we have in barbecues and patio heaters. Many parts, many rural areas have much larger propane tanks. actually

[00:58:00] Member Alison Hicks: over time. But I think the point is, okay. There you go. Are there any online speakers? Okay. So we now bring it back for, um, committee discussion. There are points people on bank, yes.

[00:58:21] Member Chris Clark: I could start, and then, um, you all make, say things that I, makes me think a little bit more. I think, um, I think we should operate under the assumption that if this, this, this ends up in a budget trailer, it's going to, we're going to happen. So I think conservatively, we just have to assume September 30th. And then the question becomes, Um, I would like to focus on and where the biggest bang for the buck is, and if we, everything's super, super high level, my, my very 1st thought was, okay, this update, at least for us, was really going to be focused on, you know, family home, as opposed to multi-family. So, We're not getting as much bank for a buck. But then when you stop and think about if this is really 6 years, um, you know, a lot of people are going to do, if you think about our housing stock, which is mostly built, the 60s, there's a lot of, Right now, there's a lot of people buying lots scraping the aside and deleting something new, or they're because land is so expensive, they're doing 2nd story editions, or they're really trying to maximize the value of that. what they can build on that small parcel in terms of relatively small auto land. Um, so I think it does move the needle. And then the question becomes which of these, given limited resources in time, do we focus on before September? And, I think, AC to P is a big one. I, I personally would. I like the structure of the flex path, but in thinking about how difficult that would be as council members should alter mention to implement, um, I would kind of marry that point system interior structure with the zoning incentive. Um, I think you could create a tier structure or a point system. Uh, and and Bruce mentioned, sort of talked about this too, where we can talk about whether you're allowed to, um, you do something short of all electric, um, you know, if you're just replacing things longer term, but maybe there's a point system that applies to the zoning incentive and there's a tier of, you know, how much additional, or what incentive you get based on that tier system. So maybe that's maybe you kind of deprioritize a flex path for now, but not forget about it and kind of use some of that that structure to inform whatever the zoning incentive is long term. And that allows you to really focus on AC to heat pump and maybe the, um, The phase 2 of the expanded actual pre-wiring. I think, personally, you know, if we, if for some reason we can't get the expanded electrical pre-wiring in by September 30th. It sounds like the, the changes aren't so significant that the, it will ruin our goals, but I think it's, it's worth at least trying. Um, to see, to see if we can do something along those lines. So I think the 1st 2 are kind of the 2 that I would focus most on given limited amount of time, and then I think you have more time to kind of work on the zoning incentives, and you can use the work that's been done on a flex path, both here and elsewhere, to inform what a, what a zoning and cetera structure might look like, and, and that will have much more flexibility on, since it's outside of, um, since it's in the zoning code, and not necessarily in the, you know, Not billing code specific. Um. So

[01:02:07] Member Alison Hicks: that triggers for me a question, if I can, that, um, does staff think that, like, is that making sense? Does it sound like flex path is? That program could become a part of the zoning incentive or are you having trouble wrapping your brain around it or you'll think about it later? No,

[01:02:26] Lindsay Hagan: I think it makes sense in terms of using the framework of how the flex path is structure. to maybe consider looking at structuring the zoning instead of, you know, similar model. Obviously, the technicalities are very different. But, um, but yeah, no, I think it's it's pretty clear on what.

[01:02:43] Member Chris Clark: That's what I think is really just a, it's not like trying to integrate flex paths. It's really just, you know, that framework where you're assigning point values to things. Maybe there are a couple of tiers of FAR and they don't even have the FAR incentives. Maybe you, um, Maybe your ADU can be a little larger or something like you were worried about ADUs. I think, you know, 2nd story editions or, you know, stuff where you're, you know, you have enough space to create an additional, like, bedroom with an on-speed bath or whomever. I don't know. at this. Not at this juncture. I mean, maybe, I know this isn't really meant just to be an update to us, but I just wanted to provide my thoughts in terms of, you know, the next 60 to 90 days. Um, if you'd really have to pick and choose, I would probably. focus on the 1st one or 2 and we can deal with the rest of it. Um,

[01:03:45] Member Pat Showalter: okay. Council member show after. Yeah, I would have to say, you described it very well, Chris. Well, I'm thinking, I think, you know, that the AC to heat pump is pretty straightforward. Well, it seems straightforward. I hope it's straightforward. They expand the electrical pre-wiring, um, if we have time to do that. I think that's good. And then I also have a question. I know you had some statistics when you came to us about the pre-wiring about how many, um, houses had been, um, you know, done with 100% electric and just in the ensuing 3 years, you know, and how effective an event. And I was wondering, you know, in the period when we've had the pre-wiring. Have most people, when they've heard about the requirements, um, continued with natural gas appliances or are they, they putting in a pre-electric, how effective is it? Great

[01:04:36] Lindsay Hagan: question. I think, um, I will say pre-wiring in and of itself is not necessarily changing people's behaviors in the sense that, um, a lot of times, I mean, what's, the scope of work that triggers that requirement today, that's in our code, they're already doing a lot of electrical work. So asking them to install an additional outlets, really not. Yeah, there's not much of a cost there. Um, it's not necessarily driving behavioral change in people changing out or not using a gas appliance, but I will say, even with, uh, you know, since our suspension, um, on our all electric code. While we do have people who are still installing gas appliances, overall, it's not as many as you might think. Um, and I will say, you know, the statistics haven't really changed in terms of like the amount of brand new single family home construction we see and things like that, it's still pretty consistent. Um, with some of the numbers I shared previously. Um, So I hope that answers your question. I think prewiring alone doesn't change behavior. It's more just putting the infrastructure in place to make things like the back med prohibition easier for folks to change. I think what really pushes more of the changes when we get into requirements that are like the AC to heat pump, where you kind of give them only 2 options, right? You're saying either do the heat pump or if you really want to keep your, well, on heat pump related equipment, you have to do these other improvements. Okay.

[01:06:06] Member Pat Showalter: And, um, Yeah, no, I concur with what Chris said. I think, um, that's really true, and and moving forward, um, in particular, we seem to have really hit the, uh, the single family home renovation very well. And we seem to have, you know, really gotten that, but we are interested too, and what we can do for molten family. And, um, I, you know, it says non-currently available. I don't know. You know. Um, they still have the pre wiring requirement, right? And it's less expensive to do all electric than to put in new gas. So that would be for new or new.

[01:06:52] Member Pat Showalter: So is, are we finding that the multifamily residentials are, are going all electric? Continuing to do that? Yeah,

[01:07:01] Lindsay Hagan: it's a great question. I think what, um, based on all the current sort of base code requirements, with our current reach code requirements, a lot of our new construction, uh, multifamily, uh, is significantly all electric. And it's a lot of other reasons why they choose to go all electric, it usually is also a, further protection against potential future fires. in the building, so a lot of them are choosing to go down that path. I will say, um, we do still see a little bit of, uh, the desire to have gas, um, fire pits and stuff in common areas of multifamily. So I think um, that is a lower threshold bar. Um, for us in terms of, well, come in after the fact and sort of want to get a permit for that and we can't deny it. Um, so I think that is something in the future. We want to look at, but I think there isn't anything in place, um, uh, write this minute that would allow us to prohibit that, but that's another area. Thank you. Okay,

[01:08:01] Member Alison Hicks: well, it's going to get easier and easier as we make comments. I strongly prefer the 1st 2 as priorities. Um, I like the idea of rolling the flex because I wasn't too thrilled with the flex anyway. of rolling it into zoning and standup. I was also not too thrilled about. Um, I, I, uh, So I'll explain my, my hesitancy about the zoning incentive as it's described now, is that, uh, first, there's at least, a lot of talk in my neighborhood about monster homes coming in, just really large homes, and these are homes that are allowed. Um, so we already allow very large homes. And people taking out all their trees and people saying, They could do ADUs now. Why don't, why, you know, they're, they're losing the opport... I feel like monster homes are losing the opportunity to add more housing, and instead adding something that often, frankly, people regret later, because they don't realize their kids are going to go to college. Um, so, uh, but and usually by the time they finish the bar jump. Um, so, and often people are, who can afford to do something that large are already going all elected all out on a lot of energy things anyway. So on paper, it may sound like you pushed them to do it, but they might have been intending to do it anyway. So I'm kind of not particularly thrilled about that one. The Sunnyvale one seems, the incentive seems a little different because it's not, if I understood what you said, right? It's not allowing more square footage, it's just allowing less permitting time. They do, sorry, allow additional square footage also. Okay, then I misunderstood. But I do like, you know, we have more time to work through it and work through it in the way that council member Clark talked about. And then I also like the suggestions that Mr. Kearney brought up. You know, having, I think we would need a cap on square footage, and time limited, and make it either all electric or something that's, you know, go to the max, and do it at two, you have 200 square feet or something along those lines. I'm willing to entertain it, but I'm not. I'm not super thrilled with that one. I think it's actually kind of anti-housing. in terms of, in sympathizing more units, even a J, AD. I mean you can do so much now, you can build massive amounts of square footage, I don't know. What you would get, you'd get like something that looks like a, like a, you know, like a 10 unit building, but it'd be one unit. I don't know. What it really gets at the community. So, um, but that may not be a popular, uh, and I also think people are going in this direction, and a lot of it is just education, that people I know who haven't gone all electric. It's because they didn't know something, not because they weren't willing to. Um, and that some of these incentives don't have to be that big. There's kind of like the paper versus plastic or the bring your bag versus buy a bag example. What do the bags cost? I can't remember. ¢ 10 cents. So it's not going to break in the bank for anyone. But just that little incentive got people to think about it. And I don't know if that's where we're at, in terms of, um, electrifying. I don't, that's a, I guess, a question I have how much instead of, how much do we actually need to give away? in order to get people going. But I, I like where people are heading, concentrate on that. 1st to make the others outside the building code and, um, if we need, I'd say if we need a special meeting, yeah. September, do it, or, yeah, September, would be. Or be August. Or August. Yeah,

[01:12:03] Member Pat Showalter: we go back on the 20th or the 26th? It's like the 25th

[01:12:07] Member Chris Clark: or 6th, I think is our 1st something. Yeah,

[01:12:10] Member Alison Hicks: you might be able to get the majority of us.

[01:12:12] Member Chris Clark: Even 4 of us.. I did have, um, one comment on one other question. The comment was, Yeah. Yes, maybe we don't want to incentivize someone scraping aside, and they're probably gonna, they're gonna build something new. They probably gonna mostly go to all electric or electric anyway. So, but I do see a lot of, um, A lot of folks who aren't quite that wealthy who, they just want to add a 2nd story above a garage to, you know, add a metaphorth bedroom or whatever, and so maybe, maybe if we were able to incentivize them as part of that. to take a look at all the other things in the house, whether it's insulation or, you know, replacing that, that instant gas, hot water heater they thought was a good idea 10 years ago with, you know, a heat pump water heater. Maybe those are the types of things. There's different ways to structure it, but... And then you mentioned, um, I just wanted to make sure that we aren't preventing or strong way discourage, there's a lot of really good reasons to upsize your panel as you go all electric, and so, but you have span and other really, really great smart electric panels that can allow you to not upsize. You know, if you're at 200 amps or, or it's really tricky if you're a 100 amp, but I just want to make sure that the goal there is really to educate folks about, you can do this without spending an enormous amount of money with upsizing the panel. But, um, You know, penalizing someone who wants to go up to a 200 or whatever the next level up is because of the size of the home.

[01:13:54] Lindsay Hagan: So, uh, we have a minimum uh, panel size requirement. Um, in our panel requirement is, uh, and has been the same for quite a while. Um, but it is technically higher than the base state code requirement. Um, and what we're actually seeing is in this code cycle, um, and we saw it in last code cycle, is other cities are falling suit in terms of some of our, of our minimum, um, requirement, and a lot of that has to do with just the amount of electrical. Alliances and things we have these days. Um, but to your question, uh, we're not, we don't penalize people for upgrading their panel. It's a choice, right? Um, I will say, we do see a lot and we have seen a growing amount of, uh, load management systems. And so there's a couple that are particularly popular that we see a lot of. Um, and so that is becoming more popular. And I think, um, I think you, it depends on the situation on whether somebody wants to invest in that. Instead of upsizing versus not. I think it just sort of depends on what they're doing and sort of their circumstances, but, um, we're definitely not in a position where we're penalizing something if they're going larger. I think, um, However, what I will say is what this uh, reach code is trying to do is just, I would say, do a mixture of things. It's trying to more encourage another path or another alternative, um, by formalizing it a bit more and structuring it, um, because it's, the electrical code is so overwhelming. Um, that it, it, it's probably, if, of all the building code related items, um, at least that I've been, uh, educated on in the last couple of years, it is single-handedly one of the most complicated ones and the most problematic. So, um, I think something that we've been looking into, um, and would like to kind of do more work into is trying to find ways to make electrical panel sizing a little bit easier to figure out. Um, but yeah, but yeah. Does

[01:16:04] Member Alison Hicks: it, to jump off that, does, is this something that people with, the, um, panel management systems, is something that helps people with condos? Yeah,

[01:16:15] Lindsay Hagan: so, um, It can be installed really in any building environment. Um, obviously the size of it or the management of it depends on how much is getting fed into it, but, um, it is something that can be considered for multifamily. Um, I don't know that we've seen it as much. I think more of what we have seen. Um, is typically the whole complex will come in and do panel upgrades or modifications all at once. And some of those older buildings, they actually are installing some of these load management systems. Um, we are seeing a little bit of that.

[01:16:51] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so are there further comments or questions? from Committee members, and, um, I thought the outcome of this was pretty clear, but you have clear notes? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. I love the history, but... And interesting discussion. Okay, um, next. Let's see if I can get this one right. We go back to 51, which is 2035 and 2040 leaf organization goal analysis update, and this item will be presented by sustainability division staff. Ms. Lee will commence presentation. Thank

[01:17:35] Ms. Lee: you, um, Cher Hicks, and members of the committee. Um, We wanted to bring you the 1st part of the analysis that's been done. Um, to basically achieve our, uh, basically, uh, analysis of which decarbonization goal makes sense for the city now. So, as you recall, um, when CSC discussed this item initially. We talked about looking at the potential of a 2035 or a 2040 acceleration of our carbon neutrality goal. We currently have already adopted a 2045 volt. Um, so this component um, is looking at what will happen in the system absent? City action. It's been a very interesting time. I think I have almost the same intro for the fleet's policy that it's a very interesting time right now to be doing this analysis. You'll note that there are some, uh, graphs figures that are appear duplicative, um, because the time when we started this analysis and now, certain legislative, um, tools that we're at our disposal are no longer available. So we wanted to show, because the modeling had already been done, we wanted to show that impact, I know that in other conversations, we've been asked, you know, what is the impact of some of these federal decisions that have been happening. So, in this particular item, you'll see that, um, the clean cars rule in particular. Um, has had an impact, but, you know, we we will see also impacts if the inflation reduction act is removed. Are those incentives, you know, that would have helped accelerate the air district rules around all electric appliances. If the incentives in the inflation production act go away. We'll start to see even more emissions. Reductions fall off. Um, I wanted to take a moment to introduce our colleagues with cascadia consulting who have been doing the technical analysis. We have both Alicia Fennell and Haley Weinberg that have joined us. going to be presenting the analysis that they've, um, helped us with up until this point. And, um, we are all available for any questions that you may have. So with that, um, go to the next slide and I'll turn it over to the Cascadia team. Thank you, Miss Lee. Uh-huh. I

[01:20:15] Unknown Speaker: believe one more slide. One

[01:20:16] Ms. Lee: more slide. Yeah, excuse me, yes. Yes. perfect. So this, this 1st portion is really, as I was explaining, you know, model of what are the emissions that we expect to be happening? Um, and then what are the, um, emissions reductions that we can hope for from regional state, will really state and federal um, impacts? Uh, the emissions are forecast through. Oh, okay. Uh, we finished this phase, this slide, though. Uh, the emissions are forecast through various models. Um, this is what we were going to have Cascadia. Walk us through. Go ahead. Sorry. Thank

[01:21:10] Unknown Speaker: you, mostly. I appreciate it. Um, great. Well, thank you, council members for having us tonight. Um, so, as I was, and just introduced to you, this decarbonization goal analysis is a projection model which forecasts Mountain View's greenhouse gas emissions into the future under multiple different scenarios. So this model uses the city's 2022 greenhouse gas inventory as a baseline, and it forecasts emissions out into 2045. And so these emissions are modeled through 2045 using various projected changes to mountain views demographics, specifically projected population and employment growth. And this analysis looks at 3 different scenarios. So the 1st one is a business as usual scenario, which forecasts the city's 2022 greenhouse gas emissions, assuming no policy or programmatic intervention. And this scenario is sometimes called a no action scenario. The 2nd one is the adjusted business's usual scenario, which models the expected impact that key climate policies will have on Mountain View's emissions. This scenario looks at a collection of federal, state, and regional policies, and also includes the expected impact of the electric vehicle market trends in California. And then the 3rd scenario which has not yet been modeled will analyze the impact of 10 key decarbonization actions which might occur at the local level. So looking at these 3 scenarios that I just introduced, I'd like to quickly walk through the high level results of the business as usual and adjusted business as usual scenarios. So as we discuss these results, we will be highlighting the 3 potential goal years, which are 2035, 2040, and 2045. And um, as mentioned earlier, I would like to acknowledge that the numbers that I'm about to walk through, um, maybe slightly different than what you received in your meeting packet, which is due to the nature of the rapidly changing state of policy, especially under the current federal administration. Since we began this analysis, the Trump administration has revoked the EPA waivers that enabled California's advanced clean cars 2 policy, um, which is likely to have significant implications on transportation emissions in Mountain View specifically. And we will be continuing to evaluate the policies included in this model to ensure that this analysis represents only relevant legislation. So on that note, um, starting with the business as usual scenario, emissions are expected to increase steadily all the way through 2045, which corresponds with projected increases in population and number of jobs in Mountain View. So compared to the city's 2022 community wide emissions. Um, emissions are expected to increase by 60% by 2035, 81% by 2040 and 103% by 2045. So that's the business as usual. And so the 2nd scenario is the adjusted business as usual, which models the impact of those key climate policies in addition to changes to the EV market. So this analysis indicates that emissions in Mountain View will increase above the city's 2022 baseline by 2035 and 2040, but at a lower rate than the business's usual scenario. Um, and this model does show that, um, by 2045, total emissions will actually have decreased 11% from the city's 2022 emissions as adopted legislation continues to have impacts on emissions. Next slide, please. Thank you. So to provide some more insight into how this analysis was completed. We wanted to identify the key federal, state and regional policies that we included in this analysis. So to address emissions from buildings in Mountain View, we modeled 3 adopted policies. So 1st we modeled SB 100, so California's renewable portfolio standard, which sets more aggressive targets to reach 100% clean electricity in California. Then we modeled the impact of increased energy efficiency, um, achieved for new construction under California's green building standards code. And then lastly, we modeled the impacts of implementation of the Bay Area air districts, rules 9, 4, and 96, requiring that natural gas, heaters, water heaters, and furnaces when replaced, are replaced with clean alternatives. And then to address transportation emissions, we've modeled the impact of 2 policies as well as EV market trends. So 1st we model California's low carbon fuel standard, which requires a 20% reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2035, um, 2030. excuse me. And, and then, as mentioned previously, we also included the, um, California 0 missions by 2035 executive order, which sets goals for the sale of 0 mission vehicles and equipment, but the results that we have been showing this evening so far exclude the impacts of this policy, given the current legal challenges surrounding it. Um, and because of this, we have also included the expected impacts of EV market trends, despite policy changes, because it is expected that as Californians replace their vehicles, more will continue to purchase an EV, um, rather than purchasing an internal combustion engine, which is reflected in this analysis. And then to address emissions from a solid waste sector, we modeled the impact that compliance with SB 1383, California's short-lived climate pollutants policy will have. This policy requires statewide reductions in the disposal of organic waste being landfilled. Um, and a key objective of this analysis was to support the city with decisions, considerations, to think about, to potentially adopt a new decarbonization goal for either 2035 or 2040. So the figure on this slide shows the remaining emissions to be reduced through local projects, policies and programs to achieve one of those potential goals after we account for the expected emissions increase due to projected population and employment growth and expected emission reductions due to adopted policies and market trends. Um, so looking at this figure, this represents the results of the analysis showing Mountain View's greenhouse gas emissions over time, which are represented in the unit of metric tons of CO2 equivalent. So beginning on the left side in 2005, the black line represents the business's usual scenario. Um, and this shows Mountain View's historic emissions, as well as the community's projected emissions in the absence of climate policy or any local emission reduction efforts. So, um, as you could see, in this scenario, we do we are expecting a significant increase in emissions under this scenario. Um, and then starting in 2022, you can see there are 3 goal lines that are visualized, which each represent different emission reduction pathways, um, which are decarbonization goals of 2035, 2040, and 2045. Um, so below that black line, there are a series of colored wedges and those um, represent the forecasted emission reductions from adopted climate policies or from the continuation of the EV market trends that are currently occurring in California, um, which are shown in the legends of the right, um, which are the policies that I just outlined a couple slides ago. Um, and then the gray, the light gray space below these colored wedges, um, that represents the city's emissions gap, which represents the emissions that will need to be reduced um, through local decarbonization actions in order to achieve these targets. Um, and as mentioned previously, we are continuing to evaluate the state of policies that will impact mountain view. So the next slide presents the same analysis, but it includes the projected impacts of the clean cars 2 policy. So as you could see, the bottom teal wedge grows significantly, when we include the expected impacts of the clean cars policy, which reduces the remaining emissions that would need to be addressed by local actions. So without this policy, the city will be responsible for reducing a significantly higher level of emissions through local policies or programs across all potential goal years. And this is just one example of how our expectations of future emissions are rapidly changing with the current climate and environmental policy landscape. So as we've discussed, California's ability to implement the clean cars program has been revoked, which will have a significant impact on the decarbonization goal analysis. So we just wanted to call that out here. Um, and for reference, the transportation sector made up 63% of the city's 2022 greenhouse gas inventory, with on road vehicles being the single largest emission source in Mountain View. Um, so the table that is shown below, um, shows a comparison of adjusted business as usual emissions, both with and without the clean cars to legislation. Um, so prior to the removal of California's authority to implement this policy, um, adjusted businesses' usual emissions were forecasted to drop very, very significantly by 2045, leaving only 7% of expected business as usual emissions left to be addressed by local actions. Um, and if you look below that at these orange rows, you could see with the removal of the clean cars policy. Mountain View would now be responsible for reducing 44% of your 2045 business as usual emissions in order to achieve carbon neutrality, um, in that goal year. Um, so these values have been adjusted to include the electric vehicle sales trends to give a more accurate picture of emissions that Mountain View will need to actually reduce um, through additional local actions. So we will be revising these values in the memo to reflect that change as well. So looking at, um, this bar chart. This represents the makeup of any remaining emissions to be addressed by local actions. So this shows each goal year, and this is after accounting for the impact of policies and market trends. So this highlights the key areas where the city may want to focus decarbonization efforts. Um, this chart shows the remaining emissions without the claim car policy. Um, so without this legislation, on road vehicles, um, will continue to make up a significant portion of Mountain View's emissions representing 69% of all emissions by the goal year of 2045. And, and then as other policies, um, are implemented that affect other sources of admissions. For example, energy emissions are expected to decline significantly. That leaves off road equipment as the 2nd largest source of emissions by 2045, making up 18% of emissions, which is another emission source that would have been impacted by the clean cars policy. So this bar chart shows the same thing. It represents the remaining emissions to be reduced by each goal year, but it does account for the impact of the claim cars policy. So by 2045, Mountain View's emissions would be projected to decrease significantly, with natural gas making up 36% of remaining emissions, while onward makes up 32%. And Miss Lucky and Miss Lee will now conclude this presentation by sharing some of the plan next steps for this process.

[01:33:29] Rebecca Lucky: Thank you, Miss Weinberg. I am Rebecca Lucky, the sustainability manager, and we just wanted to close out the 2nd phase of this analysis would be looking at local actions over the summer, and then staff will review those local actions. Um, The scope of work with cascade includes modeling 10 key actions at this time. And that's really to include in a five-year strategy. For the city to undertake. So we haven't really looked at building out a total plan for each goal year. Just because, as you can already see, there's lots of changes even at the federal level of policy programs or even, you know, innovative technology or partnerships like, like the one we created with Silicon Valley Clean Energy, no one anticipated that, but it led to a huge reduction. So a five-year plan allows flexibility for us to change gears if we need to, you know, increase actions or decrease actions based on kind of what's happening externally. And as Ms. Weinberg mentioned, we want to focus on the largest sources of missions, which for the city is natural gas used in buildings and passenger vehicles. So potential actions for reducing natural gas and buildings that we could look at going forward are the reach codes as Miss Hagen presented, time of sale requirements. So this is something that's pretty new. We've learned a little bit about what Berkeley's doing in this area. Um, about maybe not holding up the sale of homes, but having the fire and the seller contribute to an escrow, um, amount and having that buyer at it by a certain time, install, um, electric equipment upgrades, and then they can get that money back from their Pisco account. So it's an interesting concept that we like to explore. Of course, outreach and education campaigns, as we, I have really mentioned in Ms. Hagan's presentation and the last agenda item, continuing to do that to let people know how efficient heat pumps are, how you can save money, how it helps, um, address climate change. And then, of course, the council's work plan includes the end of flow of natural gas, incorporating that as a local action and seeing what impacts can help us get closer to reaching each of these goals. And so for actions to reduce the use of gasoline, our passenger vehicles, the city's already looking at transportation demand ordinance, which could help in this area, looking at e-bike, e-scooter rebates for the community or share programs, EB charging at multifamily, complexes, existing multifamily complexes. Um, all electric community shuttles, and even looking at drone delivery services. So the city's currently looking at, um, a drone ordinance. We've, in the past, had, uh, seen pilots, of personal delivery devices, of little robots that we've seen around Castro Street, um, a couple years ago. So those are potential areas where we can see deductions in the use of Central vehicles and using electric equipment, computer goods, or get people around other modes like e-bikes or scooters. So the purpose of the agenda item tonight is, Miss Lee mentioned, is to give you an early review of this analysis and provide feedback if you desire. And as I mentioned, the local analysis will take place over the summer. And then we'll review it and then present the results to you by the end of this year. That concludes our presentation from the project team. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

[01:37:06] Member Alison Hicks: So, do committee members. Thank you. So do committee members have questions? Yeah,

[01:37:14] Member Pat Showalter: I was really, thank you so much for, um, uh, being so responsive to the changes that have occurred recently with your modeling. Um, I know that. That takes a lot of work. Um, But I also wondered about, what would it look like if we only have a cessation of a car waiver, for 4 years. Instead of forever. Um, because it seems like, You know, this could really be something that could, it could change a couple of times. I mean, sadly. Um, so, so that would be, I don't know how hard that would be to model or how much it would cost, but something, you know, something I think about. It might be viewed locally as an incentive. That's the goal incentive. Thank you for the question.

[01:38:12] Ms. Lee: I, we would essentially just move out the implementation. So it just would scoot over that curve by several years, you know, if you think about the car manufacturers, they have to make pretty significant changes to what they're actually producing. So it would take them time. This has already built in a significant delay. So at best, you know, at best we could we

[01:38:38] Member Alison Hicks: could hope for a significant delay. Uh, On

[01:38:45] Ms. Lee: the other side, with the inflation reduction act, we've had kind of these internal thoughts that we could, you know, there's a lot of work in Congress right now to eliminate the inflation reduction act, but as soon as they can do it is by January 1st and our, our heat pump water heater, rebates are available now, and people can draw down that plus the inflation reduction act right now, and kind of claw some of that money that Congress is trying to have. So.

[01:39:10] Member Pat Showalter: And are people doing it? Um,

[01:39:11] Ms. Lee: we're, we'll have a quick update for that. Oh,

[01:39:14] Member Pat Showalter: sorry, we'd like to. Yeah, and then, um, uh, Normally, what's, we don't get new information in the, in the, uh, in the meeting, so these slides will be available. We'll host them online. Yes. Okay. We can send them to the committee as well, presently. Thank you. I appreciate that.

[01:39:42] Member Chris Clark: There are just comments, I think, have got questions. Um,

[01:39:46] Member Alison Hicks: most minor councils also. So, um, the, the, One, the, I guess the 2 questions I have. One is that the projections, um, are based on both are residential and work population doubling by 2045, which is a pretty steep. I mean, I think it'll probably grow, but it's a pretty steep, um, increase. Uh, and I know there's been, I've never done a deep dive into this subject. But I know there's been some talk of, you know, I mean, I mean, the residential growth is driven by, um, business or job growth here. So there's been some talk of, you know, companies moving to other places and those projections being different. So I guess I have 2 questions. One is, um, Where did the figures come from and are they based on, like, post 2022 or 3 figures or they, can you give me more information about where they came from? Certainly,

[01:40:57] Ms. Lee: I can take a 1st pass at an answer, and then, um, Ms. Weinberg, who did the analysis could fill in. any gaps. Those were based on the most recent housing EIR that was conducted by the city. Um, and I think just, do you know what year that was? Um, 2022? Is that correct? Is Weinberg?

[01:41:20] Haley Weinberg: The, um, the baseline year for the jobs and population are 2020, but they provided the report provides both 2020 and 2022 and 2031. So

[01:41:34] Member Alison Hicks: it's my understanding from reading the report and also from what I was just said, is that they, it was looked at in 2022 before we expected any of the things that are currently happening, and that it projects out to 2022 and 2031. So. So just my, I mean, I don't have, you know, I don't have that's on this or any money in the game, but, um, it might be worth looking at different, just because we're trying to pick a year. It might be worth looking at different population models because this is pretty steep growth and maybe that's maybe jobs are spreading out for any number of reasons. Um,

[01:42:21] Ms. Lee: one of the things to consider is that the corresponding emissions reduction potential, you know, uh, it also tracks with demographics too. So if we have, you know, lower population growth, then is projected, then the emissions reductions that we could achieve through the different strategies. Right. Both halves of it. proportionately they do. The reductions and the increases. Exactly. So the overall shape of it stays the same, and basically, you know, everything is kind of condensed. So

[01:42:55] Member Alison Hicks: I would just like, you know, if it's easy to do.

[01:42:58] Ms. Lee: Yeah, we would be happy to replace, we'll reach out to economic development. And

[01:43:03] Member Alison Hicks: then the other is, um, uh, I mean, I expect jobs to grow. Just by how much? Um, and then the other thing is, um, Is it, so, Even if population was not growing that much or if it was in either case, um, what about is power use per person, you know, with, uh, outside of cars and, um, just with AI and other smart stuff. Um, are we expecting more power use and is that, or is this projected on, you know, is it like it's, if it was, um, I don't know, 1920 and we didn't project that everybody would get a refrigerator in the future? Are people going to get more energy consumptive stuff? Is that in here? And then... I

[01:44:01] Ms. Lee: think that the, the impact of it when we think of greenhouse gas emissions is dampened because we have all these assumptions about our electricity becoming cleaner and cleaner and ultimately greenhouse gas free. So even if they are consuming more electricity. It won't be captured here. And when we think about our electric grid and its ability to meet that demand, that's a separate question. And certainly, there is something to be, you know, contemplated there, but for emissions, measurement purposes. It won't show up, um, in that way because of our wonderful partners at Silicon Valley clean energy. Cleaning our electricity. Okay. Unless it's natural gas powered AI, which lets homeless dogs. Okay.

[01:44:46] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so those were my questions and everything else is a comment. Are there any other questions that uh, committee members have? Are there comments by members of the public in person? Okay.

[01:45:13] Mr. Kearney: So is, I think everyone in the room knows, but not your consultants at Cascadia. I chaired citizen task forces twice, once in 2008, and once in 2017, 18, to look at these questions. And each time those task forces produced a set of local action recommendations, some of which are quite significant and were not on the list, and I'll send an email to the, CSC and staff in a few days, reminding them of which those actions are. But clearly, the thing the pandemic has taught us is, you know, that commuting is a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions that is potentially dampenable through a variety of things, such as requiring businesses whose employees park and vast parking lots to somehow, uh, remediate the greenhouse gas emissions of that commute. I know that the city, when it looks at its own carbon footprint, looks at employee commuting as one of the biggest portions of it. Um, The other thing I would say is that direct access electricity is not clean, like Silicon Valley Clean Energy or PG&E's electricity. Both of those utilities provide almost carbon free electricity. But in the emissions inventory that was presented a couple of months ago, it's pretty clear that direct access electricity is dirty. And yet, The city doesn't do anything to discourage businesses from using dirty direct access electricity providers. Um, I also, I agree with the comment that some sort of per capita analysis is really important, because the good news is that in the last 20 years, mountain news per capita, greenhouse gas, emissions have gone down by 50%. And that's largely because we have more housing, but it's energy efficient housing, and the big local companies have been very focused on being as carbon friendly or carbon neutral as they can be. So, let's see. I look forward to the underlying details, like, what was the projection for EVs in Mountain View? Mountain View is ahead of Santa Clara County, Santa Clara County is ahead of the state of California, California is ahead of the rest of the United States. So if the numbers that were driving that are county or state numbers, they're not accurate. Thank

[01:47:54] Member Alison Hicks: you. Are there online speakers? Or online speakers. Okay. Do committee members have comments? Just

[01:48:10] Member Chris Clark: have brief comments. I think overall the, I mostly focus on the local actions, um, I think most of them are good to explore. I think the, the ones that I think, well, might be a bit more nuanced. I have mixed feelings about the structure of I like the idea of the time of sale electrification requirements. I have some qualms with the way Berkeley's program was implemented, um, You know, if we were to look at something like that. I think that would also pair really well with the thing we were talking about earlier with, um, incentive structures, and instead of just saying, thou shalt for every home sale, effectively we're doing a new transfer tax, you know, saying that every buyer and seller has to contribute 5000 or 10,000 to this fund. Um, you're saying more like, you know, if you do this thing, um, you know, we can't really reduce the transfer tax because it's passed by the voters, um, but there could be credits for things there could be, there could be incentives that we offer if folks are willing to do that, right? I don't know if they're financial incentives. I don't know if they're, The lean incentives. I just think that it's a good thing in concept. I just think that folks naturally react a little bit better if there's some sort of incentive or reward for doing that as opposed to thou shalt do this because then it starts to feel more like a tax. Um, and Um, And that, you know, I just don't want to make homes more expensive than they already are. And, well, this is a good, a good, a good goal or a good reason, um, for someone, you know, it isn't going into the city coffers. It just feels... I think you'll get more buy-and from the public if we structure it a little bit differently. And, and, you know, there are, there are carrots as opposed to, um, mandates, but it's just my own personal feelings. And then, um, You know, I think, you talked about e-bikes and scooters, I think as long as we're focused on, you know, electric micromobility options because scooters, bikes, Unicycles, they all change over time, right? How you get around in different ways. Um, you know, same with, I think on the delivery side, I'm, I'm all for the, um, you know, the public private partnerships and, and, um, an electric means of delivering things because the delivery economy is, is, is only going to grow. And I think there are good actors out there, like, um, you know, Amazon, their creditors are really trying to, like, try their fleet despite, or at least they were, I don't know where they are now, but, um, But I think those are things that are probably going to be, not that we shouldn't do the things that identify, but my guess is that you're gonna have a much bigger bang for your buck if that is a Bay Area wide or a statewide thing where, you know, maybe there's a, you know, there's a $one delivery fee, if it's delivered by a, a gas car vehicle, because they, you know, those DoorDash and others know who's delivering what and what what vehicle is. So, you know, I, I would just focus more on, like, the really, um, significant local things that we can do, and I think it's really hard for, on a city by city basis, to try and control the delivery economy. Um, but I think we should be open to trialing new things and being. Yep. Being kind of known as a hub of innovation in that space, but I think when it comes to the regulatory framework, that's probably gonna end up being something that's either Bay Area or statewide or super regional. But, um, I think those were the, you're working on TDM, all watch a community shuttle. I think all those things are, are moving forward. Um, and like I said, I like the, I like the, the, um, the idea behind the time sale requirements. I just think the way that we might structure it might be a little bit different from the way that Berkeley would, but if I were doing it. I could, I'm just one of seven, so I could be in the minority. but. Yeah,

[01:52:37] Member Pat Showalter: I, um, I was gonna say that, uh, basically, I think these are sound suggestions. Um, but, uh, I do feel like in terms of making people to, um, to implement new changes. There's, you know, there's been a lot of work in the last 10, 20 years done on, on, um, on how the psychology of, of making people make environmental changes. And it's not just necessarily telling them, uh, you know, we'll save money, although that's always a good one. But I know that's a whole field study. So I just think that it's something we should we should think about. Um, I imagine many of you had classes of it and, and when you were, and, I didn't, it wasn't part of the deal, but, but I've read some books on it, and I think it's, I think it's really important. So, kind of that would be my, my suggestion is to, in, you know, make sure that those, those incentive structures and things that we know, work are, um, are part of our program. And then the other thing I would say is, um, uh, one of the things about e-bikes and bikes and and all this infrastructure that we're building is, it's not going to lower our emissions if people don't use it. And, um, so I, I find that as a, you know, as a, I'm, I'm a biker, but I'm not a brave biker. I'm not, you know, I like trails. I like quiet street biker. But

[01:54:07] Ms. Lee: I love organized

[01:54:10] Member Pat Showalter: programs that, um, uh, you know, take people on bike rides and that kind of thing. So I think that sort of programming, where you get people out for bike rides, for group bike rides that have them explore, uh, you know, explore the tech, the infrastructure that we have. I think those are really effective. So, that would, I would hope that that would be part of, programs. And I know what's going on. But, I think we should, we really should continue that. Does any, have any type, you should follow on anything else by comments? No, my bike is broken. Oh, we need to have pets. But anyway. Not

[01:54:50] Member Chris Clark: recently. I did during during the pandemic, when everyone got creative, I think I... Yeah, yeah.

[01:54:55] Member Pat Showalter: Well anyway, I still think it's, you know, it's a good idea. And then the other thing along those lines is awards. Uh, uh, I think it's, it's helpful to, you know, to highlight some of the people who've, you know, who've done all electric combs or, I mean, I'm not sure what the, the next wave of things we want to incentivize are. But, um, uh, creating an award system or a competitive system, like one neighborhood against the other. How many, you know, have. Our neighborhood's gotten more heat pumps than your neighbor. I mean, people care about that stuff. So, that that would be my comment, but basically I think this is great. And the other thing I think is that, um, We should use the knowledge that we've based here in our advocacy. I mean, like there's a couple of paragraphs in here. I think we should just list, lift, and send it to Sam Licardo, Alex Padilla, and, and, um, and shift, uh, like, soon, say, this is what's happening because this damn waiver's gone away. Oh, sorry. But anyway, that I think, you know, your understanding of the impact of those things is meaningful. So, very good. Good job, guys. So,

[01:56:13] Member Alison Hicks: Basically agreeing. My comments are that, um, So the, the, program as it was being set up before the, um, election and rollout of Trump administration plans was was really reliant, a lot reliant on state and federal. It was as if we were doing something ourselves, but not so much. And now I, what I see is the shift is to be, is to do local programming. And by local, I agree with, um, what council member clerk said, not just, that doesn't mean Mountain View has to do everything. We can do coast city things, or, county things, or regional things. We can lobby the state, um, but, and join with others to lobby the state. But I think we're gonna have to be more active locally. I agree with, um, And to some degree, that's a good thing. I mean, as being on council, when we voted for this, I didn't think we were voting for a carbon neutrality program that we would then just say, oh, look, the state and federal government are doing it for us, it's done. That's not what I envisioned anyway. Um, uh, but, and I, you know, I agree with what Pat said about, just because we have the current administration federally, doesn't mean that we'll have them forever. Um, but I think it's useful to see it as, you know, we can let's pretend we do. And then what do we do? Like take a conservative look at it. Um, and, um, And, you know, the best case scenario is that we get a bunch of good local and regional uh, projects together that are effective and great examples. And then when there's a new administration, there's learning from that, you know, maybe it puts us in a better place, not to be too polyamish, because that's not the way things have been lately, but, um, but, you know, that is a possible rollout. So I think we should look positively at local programs. And, um, Let's see. Uh... I agree with Mr. what Mr. Kearney said about we need to look at Mountain View. I also want our data to be, as Zachary Yard is, we can get it. And I think there is a difference between. I'm always worried about our vehicles because they're so important. There's so such an important portion of the data. And if we're just basing them on the county or the state. We're getting, no matter how many EVs and micro, whatevers, we incentivize, we're not counting those changes. So, I really need to see more honest data around that. Um, and then in terms of key actions, um, oh, the other thing I should say is, although, of course, the, um, you know, the, the, weakening of our, uh, various actions to fight global warming from federally and the impacts on the state. Of course, those, um, Of course, those are bad. But the, you know, in terms of reaching our goals, but the, the good news is that people are, and I think you mentioned there's a little pet. People, residents, our residents are very incentivized to, you know, they are building groups called the resistance and so forth, and they're very incentivized to do something about it. Um, and, you know, so, for example, uh, you can see changes in purchases, for example, away from Tesla, which I know is an electric car. But, um, but that shows that people are incentivized to make their purchases count. And I don't know whether other people have, but I've been, you know, approached to talk to groups of people like indivisible or church sustainability groups, because people want to know what they, what they individually can do with their purchases. I think there's an incentive to do the kinds of things that we're talking about if people know how, you know, whether it's electrifying their homes or buying electric cars. I just think we need to gauge more. Um, and that's probably not as good as the, whatever you call that, program, car program that's disappearing. But, um, But I think there is a lot of incentive. to change purchasing patterns within the city. Um, so there's, That, I think that the, the Berkeley point of purchase, whatever, it's called, Um, program that is one that I would like to look at. We can, as you said, make it our own. Uh, the time of sale program. And then they had another. For, I think for larger buildings, decarbonization, uh, measure that, you know, I think there was a, uh, full disclosure, I have friends and family in Berkeley, um, who didn't vote for it and told me why. Um, you know, I think there's a lot of learning from it, and somewhere down the road, maybe it was for larger buildings and not homes, so it may be appropriate in a, you know, make it our own and in our own form at some point. Um, There's also, um, There's Also, uh, LA County. Has, this is in the category of electric micro mobility programming that, I council member Clark mentioned, LA County has a, um, small vehicle program, so small electric vehicle. I think their neighborhood electric vehicles. Um, that they're incentivizing because there are some people who would, like, elderly people, for instance, who would never take an e-bike. But these are a step up from those. Um, so sort of incentivizing those as well. And I think they're a variety of things you could do in that space. That's something I'm hearing a little more about as a growing market. Um, you know, so there are a number of iterations above, um, above, uh, the micro mobility that we commonly talk about. There's also, um, compacts and there's subcompact cars. I think they're things we could do too, that are cheaper. Um, and I think there are things we could do to encourage those as well. Um, oh, and there's, I don't know, there's used electric vehicle incentive programs for lower income people. I think we could look at a lot of those things and an ideal case to a lot of great local programs, and then, uh, federally. It's better. silicon Valley, clean energy has such a program at the moment. a used electric

[02:03:28] Member Pat Showalter: vehicle. Okay, good. And you don't have to necessarily be low. How can you do anything? Yeah. Okay. So,

[02:03:36] Member Alison Hicks: yeah, those are my comments. More local. More and better local programs, more outreach and education to people who are incentivized to implement those things. Right? Well,

[02:03:48] Ms. Lee: thank you. One thing I just wanted to add to what Ms. Lucky closed the presentation with was that. You know, in doing this analysis, you know, initially we contemplated 10 local programs to model from the size of that gap, I think realistically, um, will be open to considering modeling more. And what we hope that that offers is that in the fall, when we come back to the committee, we'll have not only a more robust list of programs, um, incorporating, you know, all of the feedback that came to us previously through task forces and community input and what you will share tonight. Um, We'll also have, kind of emissions reductions associated with those different policies so that we can start to really think about which of these will be most effective. And in which order might we do them? based on, you know, what we know of an electrification adoption curve, you know, maybe a given policy is a great option, it has a good potential for reducing emissions, but we're not there yet, but the acceptance rate for it is just not there yet. So we would say, maybe in year 5, we would consider something like that. Or, so we'll have more information to be able to make, um, kind of a better informed set of recommendations for the committee to consider. Sounds

[02:05:06] Member Alison Hicks: fabulous. And I know that Mr. Kearney's gonna give us a list. Or remind us of the list that he has. Um, Any closing comments for committee members? Do we have an announcement?

[02:05:21] Member Pat Showalter: I've wanted to make it. Oh, we have one agenda. Yeah,

[02:05:25] Member Alison Hicks: not that kind of concept, exactly, to be unclear. Okay. Um, so now, then we'll move on to the next item, which is 5 pre-presentation on climate vulnerability assessment progress. And this item will be presented by sustainability division staff. Um, it's legal commence the presentation. Thank

[02:05:46] Ms. Lee: you. I wanted to take a moment to introduce our 3rd colleague from Cascadia Consulting, Celine Fujiko, who has been working more on the climate vulnerability side of our project. So, what you recall, Cascadia, was, um, contracted to both assisticity with the decarbonization analysis as well as to conduct a climate vulnerability assessment. Um, just by way of background, um, I just mentioned that we, we are working with Cascadia to undertake this CVA. We brought the framework to the committee at our last meeting in April. And today, what we have is really a 30% complete analysis or 30% complete climate vulnerability assessment. And what we really wanted to do is just bring a progress update to you. To give you a sense of what you can anticipate for the fall, in terms of a full CVA. Um, It will bring that draft to you this fall, and then at the end of the, the final week, the, um, so here we are, and, um, We're, you know, we've been reviewing all of the existing plans, and we don't have a climate vulnerability assessment for the city of Mountain View, but there is a lot of work that's been done, whether it's specific to sea level rise, you know, one climate impact, or whether it's county data through Santa Clara County's climate collaborative. So, We've been working with Cascadia to review the available research, and to develop sort of summaries of the climate impacts. And now we're at the point where the work is underway. Um, some of the technical analysis has been done for the CVA, um, And that's what we're here to talk with you about this evening. I'll hand it over to Miss Fujikawa to continue the presentation. Thank you. Um,

[02:07:50] Celine Fujiko: so to kind of ground our conversation a bit. I wanted to start off with just reviewing some of the goals of the climate vulnerability assessment, um, to kind of help give some context behind some of the goals and outcomes for this for this work. So the assessment is really meant to identify local climate vulnerability. And so as, um, mislead said, we're using existing city and regional resources to help understand how, uh, climate risk like extreme heat or flooding impacts, um, uh, have effects on various, um, assets within the city, such as like the different infrastructure, services, um, as well as the different community groups within Mountain View. Um, it also helps inform future climate strategies. And so really the goal isn't just to identify problems. Um, it's also meant to support strategies that can be tailored, um, to help in, you know, inform the different, uh, unique, uh, needs and vulnerabilities within the city. Um, and then lastly, it's really meant to uh, support cross sector planning. And what this means is it's really helps ensure that departments can work together, more collaboratively across, you know, public, private and community-based partnerships, um, to help ensure um, long-term resilience for the city of Mountain View. Um, and so while the city or while this document is more of a technical document. Um, really it's meant to, um, hopefully ensure that we can all make, uh, more smart and equitable decisions that can protect residents, um, and services, uh, from climate impacts. Um, and so I'll really briefly touch on um, some of the top climate hazards that we've evaluated for the city of Mountain View. Um, so this slide summarizes the 4 main hazards. The 1st one being extreme heat. Um, so extreme heat is one of the fastest growing threats, um, and Mountain View could see up to uh, 17 extreme heat days. And I apologize if the numbers are a little different. We made some tweaks to the slides, since this was sent out. Um, but, uh, seeing up to 17 uh, up to 17 extreme heat days per year, um, and 38 warm nights annually by the end of the century. Um, and what this means is this could significantly increase health risks for outdoor workers, as well as, um, uh, older adults over 65 years, um, and renters uh, without AC. And we've also seen a lot of correlation and worsening air quality on hot days as well. Um, the next is extreme weather events. We're seeing a lot of more heavier, more intense storms. And even though we're seeing that the total rainfall doesn't change very much, we're still expecting heavier storms and more localized flooding, especially in low lying areas like North Bay Shore, um, and also seeing more frequent storm water overflow and stronger wind storms, um, associated with these these extreme weather events. Um, we're also looking at wildfire and wildfire smoke. And so, um, as many of you know, um, you know, we're really seeing a lot of this effect um, around the region. And even if Mountain View isn't really at a high fire risk, it's more of a moderate fire risk. The city regularly still experiences poor air quality from regional wildfires, um, which has major impacts on youth, um, elders and people with asthma. Um, and lastly, sea level rise. Um, we know that sea level rise poses as a long-term risk for the city. Um, and while the city is actively planning and has already made significant investments in um, sea level adaptation planning, um, We're starting to see that there is still, you know, the risk of flooding, um, and emergency access challenges, um, around certain areas that are low lying. Um, and coastal areas, um, as sea levels continue to rise and storms continue to intensify. Next line. And so just a quick reminder, these are the 4 main sectors that we're analyzing in the CBA. The 1st is health and well-being, which includes physical health risks like heat, stress, and respiratory illness, and we're also evaluating mental health impacts such as drama and anxiety. Um, the next is emergency management, which looks um, specifically at public safety services and critical facilities, so things like fire stations, shelters, schools and hospitals. Um, we're also evaluating um, economic impact. So this really focuses on how local industries and small businesses within Mountain View, maybe disrupted by the various climate hazards like heat and flooding or even power outages. And then lastly, buildings and infrastructure. This includes housing, especially for our vulnerable populations and the different transportation systems and networks that include like roads and public transit. Next slide. Um, so now I'm gonna, uh, walk through, um, one of the climate hazards in more detail to just give you a clearer sense of how we're assessing impacts. Um, I'll walk you through kind of what the data is telling us, um, what this specifically means for mountain view and how, um, extreme heat um, is already affecting key sectors like health, infrastructure, and emergency services. Um, we chose to focus on heat, um, because um, this is one of the most imminent and immediate risks. And, um, just based on kind of, uh, feedback that we've heard from the sustainability team that this is also something that is already being felt by many residents today within Mountain View. And so, I just wanted to quickly kind of provide a little bit of context here, um, on what uh, kind of extreme heat means. So, in Mountain View, uh, an extreme heat day is defined as any day over 90 degrees Fahrenheit, Um, but it's important to remember that the actual experience of heat can feel much worse depending on humidity. And so this chart from the National Weather Service shows the heat index, which is, which also means, um, what the temperature actually feels like when the body, uh, to the body when you factor in, um, humidity. And so, for example, on a 90 degree day with 75% humidity, um, which is, um, not uncommon during summers here. Um, it can feel like 109 degrees. Um, that is well into the danger zone for heat related illness. And so, we want to, um, really draw attention to the kind of the orange and red zone areas where this is where you start to see, um, you know, more, uh, like symptoms, like heat cramps, exhaustion, and even heat stroke when we start to see prolonged exposure and physical activities during these conditions. Um, and so while 991 degree Fahrenheit may not seem or sound extreme to some folks, this data really helps explain why even moderate sounding temperatures can quickly become dangerous, especially for people who are working outside, those that are living without AC or those that may have um, pre-existing health conditions. Next slide. Um, so I'm gonna go dive a little bit deeper into some of the preliminary data and what the data is kind of telling us. And so this chart shows the projected increase in extreme heat days in mountain view under a high emissions scenario. And so historically from 1961 to 1990, we saw about 2 extreme heat days per year. Um, and that increases to 6 days by mid-century and up to 17 days per year by the end of the century. And so we're using a high emission scenario here because it helps us understand kind of what the worst case risks are, and also gives the city a more protective baseline for planning, especially since we're starting to see these impacts sooner than expected. Um, and this increase doesn't just reflect sort of the hotter summers, but it, it helps, um, it shows that there is more sustained health risks. greater energy demand and more pressure on services like our cooling centers and emergency response. Um, so we also looked at the number of days over 80 degrees, which gives us a broader sense of prolonged heat exposure, not just extreme days. Um, historically, Mountain View has had 23 days per year, um, over 80 degrees. That number is projected to climb up to 70 days by mid-century and up to 124 days per year by the end of the century under a higher emission scenario. That's over 4 months out of the year. Um, with temperatures above 80 degrees, and uh, this is a really important threshold, where many residents start to feel the effects, especially those in homes again without AC or insulation, um, and and also like individuals living in vehicles. Um, and so even even outside the official extreme heat days, this kind of prolonged heat can still be harmful. Um, especially when it stretches over weeks without relief. Next slide. Um, another important trend that we're tracking as part of this CVA is the rise in warm nights, as defined as nights where temperatures stay above 61.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Um, historically, Mountain View has had um, 4 warm nights per year. That's projected to rise to 17 nights by mid-century and up to 38 nights per year by the end of the century. And this matters because hot nights help reduce the body's ability to recover from daytime heat, especially for people without air conditioning or insulation. And so um, more warm nights also mean higher health risks. more energy use, um, and less relief for vulnerable populations, um, which include, um, some of the vulnerable populations I had mentioned earlier, like older adults and those that are maybe unhoused or housing insecure. Next line. And so when it comes to extreme heat, certain groups in Mountain View face significantly higher risks. Um, this includes um, older adults, age 65 years and older. whose bodies are less able to regulate temperature and, um, who may sometimes live alone or have, uh, no access to cooling. Um, we're also seeing, um, you know, unhoused and individuals living in vehicles, um, as they sometimes often have limited access to water, cooling and safe places to rest. Um, we also see um, children under 5 within um, Mountain View, as they sometimes rely rely on caregivers, um, and are um, often more sensitive to heat stress. Um, our outdoor worker population, which includes construction, transportation, warehousing, and manufacturing industries, um, oftentimes they are facing long hours or prolonged exposure to heat and sometimes without adequate relief. They are oftentimes more vulnerable to extreme heat. impacts. And then we're also seeing low income residents and those without air conditioning. Um, many of them are renters as well. And so sometimes uh, many of these uh, buildings or facilities may lack air conditioning or the resources to safely cool their homes, um, also making them, um, more vulnerable to these impacts. Next slide. Um, and so I just wanted to briefly talk about some of the uh, impacts that extreme heat has to health and well-being. Um, so extreme heat can have serious and even deadly effects on health, especially when people are exposed for long periods or can't cool down. The most common progression starts with heat exhaustion and oftentimes can include symptoms like sweating, dizziness, and nausea. Um, and if untreated can lead to heat stroke, um, which is a life-threatening condition. Um, and so this is why he isn't just um, about discomfort, it's actually a public health issue, um, especially for those with limited access to cooling, rest, or care. Next light. Um, and so just to put these risks into perspective, um, here's what the data is showing us for Santa Clara County. Um, so between 2000 and 2020, there were um, 437 hospitalizations, directly tied to extreme heat within the county. Um, and there were also over 1800 emergency room visits for heat related illness. And so these aren't just statistics, but really reflect the growing strain and reality that heat puts on also our healthcare system, um, and the very real risk that it poses to residents across the county and in mountain view. And so as extreme heat days continue to increase, we're also expected to see these numbers increase as well, unless, um, the city can take steps to prepare and protect vulnerable communities for, from, from these exposures. Um. And so, Extreme heat doesn't live and work in this silo. We know that extreme heat doesn't just affect health. Um, we also see, um, it places more strain on our emergency response systems. And so our police and fire departments may see increased calls during heat events, um, from traffic accidents caused by heat related fatigue, um, to elevated tensions or sometimes even spikes and violent crimes, which some studies have linked to higher temperatures. Um, he can also worsen um, heat or mental health symptoms that can also lead to more public safety calls or crises. And we're also seeing a higher demand for ambulance services, um, especially to respond to heat related illness among, um, older adults, unhoused residents and outdoor workers. Exciting? Um, and so he extreme heat also has economic ripple effects, um, especially for workers, businesses, and essential services. First, it can lead to reduced productivity. So particularly in physically demanding jobs like construction, when you're working, when it's too hot to work safely, um, this means less output and potential loss income for both workers and businesses. Um, we also see um, an increase in energy demand during heat waves. Um, more people are using AC at the same time, which can strain the grid, uh, raise utility costs and increase the risk of blackouts. And then finally, we also see healthcare costs go up as well. Um, when treating uh, heat related illnesses. Um, this adds pressure to our medical systems, and this can also lead to higher public health spending. Next slide. Um, and then lastly, I wanted to kind of just briefly touch on how extreme heat can also weaken physical systems um, that we rely on every day. So things like roads, railways, and utility infrastructure, these are also vulnerable to heat related damage. Um, oftentimes we see that this can lead to potential costly repairs or service disruptions, especially during high, uh, demand summer months. Um, heat can cause, um, material degradation over time. So surfaces like concrete, asphalt, or even sometimes roofing materials as they expand and contract repeatedly. Um, this can weaken their overall integrity and lead to cracks or eventual structural failure. And so as heat becomes more frequent and the planning for for this, um, you know, becomes more necessary. I think it's important for us to consider more durable and heat resilient materials, um, especially in our public buildings and transportation networks. And so I will pass it over to Miss Lucky. Uh, who will conclude this presentation with the next steps for the CBA. Thank

[02:24:55] Ms. Lucky: you. So is this was a, again, a preliminary analysis to kind of walk you through what it would look like for the rest of the climate hazards that are going to be presented by the end of the year to you. And, um, so we're working on projections and impacts on all of the other, like, major storm events, um, wildfire, smoke, all those other areas, and also incorporating our existing city efforts into kind of figuring out, okay, we know what this, with how it is, how many people it impacts, you know, what services or resources do we currently offer, and then kind of looking, you know, with all of our departments, on knowing now what extreme heat, for example, looks like in the future, you know, do do we? you know, what do we need to? Is it, you know, more cooling centers or what kind of strategies can we help with people who aren't housed or living in vehicles during extreme heat events? So kind of potentially starting to touch on some potential solutions or strategies that we can look at further? Next slide. And so part of those next steps, look what they look like is creating spatial maps. So we can kind of understand, you know, a lot of times even, you know, there's microclimates within a city, some areas of city have more shade, other cities, other parts of the city doesn't. So looking at where the hot spots might be, so where we can potentially target services or resources. Um, and then, of course, reviewing the draft findings, um, city staff and also kind of ground truth seeing our findings with partner organizations that serve vulnerable communities or low income, um, residents as well. I understand that we're hitting the right marks with our data. And then as I, as we mentioned, will present these findings to you by the end of this year and then city council, order one of 2026. And that concludes our presentation from the project team. Welcome any questions? Thank you. Thank you. So,

[02:26:52] Member Alison Hicks: do committee members have questions? Questions? Questions? Um, I guess my only question is when will you, how will the lynch to the solutions be rolled out? Um, we

[02:27:14] Ms. Lee: currently have a contract with Cascadia to conduct the credit vulnerability assessment, and the fall will be bringing that back to your community, and if desired, we can amend the contract, and look at the process of developing a full of strategy, putting local solutions, and, you know, recommendations for that. We, we decided to just do a contract for the beginning phase and then uh, kind of reassess at that point. Yeah,

[02:27:41] Member Alison Hicks: I think the committee talked about that, right? Yeah. So, um, so what's going to come to us next is we did the heat, is the other ones, and then, um, that will be laid out in a similar process, and then the solutions come later. We make a choice about how to do that. Okay. I understand that. Um, members of the public. Any comments? Yes. So, uh, certainly. Feel the heat. I

[02:28:11] Mr. Kearney: just got back from New York, where records were being set with very high humidity, they weren't even on that chart. They were too hot and too human to be charted by the weather service. But the thing I'm particularly interested in over the last few years has been flooding. Uh, not sea level rise, but flooding on rivers. Um, I didn't grow up in California, but those who did may remember the great flood of 1862, which caused governor Stanford to get to his inauguration in a rowboat, because it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and really flooded all of the central valley. These kinds of events are happening more and more often around the world. And, um, I'm particularly concerned about what would happen if the Stevens Creek dam were to fail, or just to spill uncontrollably, like the Orville dam did 8 years ago. where the dam itself almost dissolved. It's an earthen dam, and it was spilling over the top as well as through the spillway, which was breaking apart because of or maintenance. So I hope that Cascadia will look specifically at river flooding in Mountain View, and in particular, what would happen if the Stevens Creek dam were compromised or overtopped, uh, It would certainly be a disaster of enormous impact. Um, I know that Los Altos and Los Altos Hills are particularly worried about fires. And the reference was that this is Mountain View is moderately at risk from wildfire. I'm not sure if we're not on the higher end of moderate, because of how close we are to Los Altos Hills and Los Altos, and because of how much tree cover we have, increasing our tree cover as a city goal, but it also comes with some risks. So hopefully Cascadia will address those comments and concerns. Thank you. Do

[02:30:17] Member Alison Hicks: we have any online? Okay, so it's back to us for comments. So, I'm just have a copy. Absolutely.

[02:30:31] Member Pat Showalter: Now, um, We do have inundation maps in our, um, emergency, um, I forget exactly the name of that. But we do have inundation maps for if Stevens Creek overflows. And I would say that, honestly, what will be more of a problem, or at least as much of a problem you've been as storm water issues, because our, um, typically storm water, systems are designed for a 10 year storm, and our, um, you know, our, like, the, the creek to carry the, the amount of water that the creek itself, and hearing once it gets to, that's a 100 years storm. So, there will be local backups. Um, and that is something that I, um, sure public works has hot spots that they know about that, um, but those are, they're gonna get worse up there. So they're dealing with them is really important. And, um, uh, yeah, this is, going right friction, thank you. So, I

[02:31:41] Member Alison Hicks: concert, thank you very much, and as far as the mapping goes, I'm hoping that when we get hot spots, we can use those to target, um, not the plant trees, because it makes a tremendous difference. I used to know how much 10 degrees, 20 degrees. I can't remember, but it makes a really big difference. So if we're finding hot spots There are solutions that are, you know, not just wait and build a cooling center there. I hope that we, you know, and there are other advantages of planting trees. So, and then as for flooding, yeah, that's the same, uh, the, uh, comes up in during our, uh, our CIPs, our capital improvement project, discussions a lot, as, uh, green streets. Part of that is trees, and part of it is, um, planning strips for storm water, to address exactly what you're talking about. And I think that, you know, looking at hot spots to, in particular, identify where to put in, you know, whether they're bios whales or whatever, that, that's really important and kind of, I think, currently, um, underaggressed in, uh, CIPs. Um, And, I, So, and then it might be good to actually have, after the fires in LA. I talked to the fire chief. Um, because I wanted to know how vulnerable we were, and he is actually, he is quite good at talking about it. He says we have fairly low risk. Because he says, I was comparing it to LA. He says they're in a wind tunnel that blows the fire wind right on the areas that were in fire. And we have the opposite case where the wind tunnel blows it away. And then he has some other reasons that we have good water supply and some other things that I didn't know about. Um, and he, it might be good for him to talk to either Cascadia or this, um, committing because he can articulate. Uh,

[02:34:00] Ms. Lee: we have had preliminary conversations with the chief, and he has assigned some staff to work with us. Okay,

[02:34:07] Member Alison Hicks: great. Because we're already doing, like, weighing, and I'm just cities in terms of what it's taught, as, like, what is, like, pretends. Okay, so with that, unless other committee members have thought of something else to say on this subject. will go on to, uh, 5.4, which is a verbal update on sustainability and resiliency division progress, and this item will be presented by sustainability division staff. Ms. Lucky wokeness the presentations. Thank

[02:34:43] Ms. Lucky: you, Chair Higgs. So this item is just going to really update you since the last time we met in April about what we've been up to. And we've been through quite a bit. Um, and I'm going to hand it off to our wonderful analyst staff here to go through a few of our slides and I can close it out. slide and I had an optimist Ramos

[02:35:04] Ramos: first. Thank you. So, here of the water heater last time we announced that it kicked off. It is now going along. We're averaging about 10 rebates, reservations a month. so far. We have sent 2 rounds of postcard mailers, 2 residents, uh, reaching 1846 homes, and next upcoming, there will be, um, every door direct mail. to every home in the city. Um, and then also were scheduled to be included on the utility mailer in the fall, which also reaches, um, about 11,000 homes. Although

[02:35:51] Unknown Speaker: open now is the

[02:35:52] Ramos: water heater dating game. It is a community engagement initiative and survey. How old is your water heater? We are gathering the age fuel type and some other information on residential water heaters. And we're going to use that information to help target our outreach to areas in the city that have more natural gas or older water heaters, and are therefore more likely to be ready to change. We're

[02:36:19] Member Alison Hicks: going to match them up with

[02:36:20] Ramos: the water here. We're going to be able to get them better targeted information about, um, the benefits of an older water heater to a new one or um, they're more likely to be near that change out date. Um, so these are just quick examples of the emailers we sent out. We let people know that they can get a water heater for less than a electric heat pop water heater for less than a gas water heater. Right now, with uh, psychedelic's rebates. Wait, it's okay. We heard the next one is it. Um, redirected them to our water heater webpage on our city website as well as the application, which is on one application through Silicon Valley Queen Energy, will um, allow you to access Mountain View's $2000 rebate as well as SVCE's $2000 rebate. And then the next mailer we sent was focused on getting people to participate in this activity, 3 people who enter will be chosen to win a prize, which is an electric efficient prize, including potentially an electric leaf flower, grill, or air purifier, for example. And then on the back of this one, we also promoted our rebate. And the program overall. That's a little peek into that as we get our grant funding, um, activities will ramp up further at the other water heater. Outreach that we've done since April include the summer kickoff ice cream social. We had a activity that people really enjoyed of drawing their own Watson heat pump water heater. Um, we attended the Spanish Civic Language Leadership Development Academy, state of the city, photographed here on the bottom. Um, the council neighborhood committee in 2 different locations, one with a presentation and one as part of the panel of city staff. Um, as well as the Bay Run property managers forum. So in a few short months here, we have been really proactively promoting this. And next step is an update from Miscant.

[02:38:31] Unknown Speaker: Um, so as a quick reminder, we're doing the extreme heat and community preparedness program. It is a $25,000 grant from Santa Clara County, to do outreach to vulnerable population, specifically those who are living in their vehicle, to help them prepare and stay safe during heat and poor air quality events this summer. Um, so so far, I have created the flyers, one for heat and one for air quality, and they're also translated into English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian. Um, we are working with CSA Community Services Agency to do this grant as our partner. They already have the flyers and they've started distributing distributing them. And they are also linked on our website as well. And then the 2nd part of this grant is doing resilience toolkits. We're putting together 200 of them. So here is a picture of one of them. It includes items such as electrolytes and air purifier, instant cooling compresses, reusable water bottle, um, a water misting fan and a hat, so to help people prepare and stay safe during the summer. So we are hoping to distribute those soon.

[02:39:45] Unknown Speaker: Great, um, next I can provide an update on city operations, um, decarbonization projects. Uh, firstly, the, um, application for the Pacific Gas and Electric EB Fleets program, um, has been submitted, and this is the 1st step, um, for the city to receive a dedicated electrical meter, um, at the municipal operations center for electric vehicle charging for the city fleet. So it provides that electrical capacity that will be needed to charge the city fleet at the MOC. Um, new water heater upgrades have been completed at 2 sites and the Mountain View Sports Pilillian and the Wisman Sports Center. And the gas water heaters at these 2 facilities were converted to electric heat pump water heaters through a PG&E program at no cost to the city. Um, the senior center electrification project, uh, which consists of upgrading the kitchen and water heating from gas to electric systems, has construction scheduled to begin in January. And the project will be complete by the middle of 2026. And lastly, the construction on solar photovoltaic systems at 3 sites, Senior Center, Mountain View Sports Pavilion, and then 2 middle schools. Um, Grindon, middle school and grand middle school, um, will be complete by April 2026 as well. So we have quite a few projects underway in partnership with the public works department. Right, and to wrap up this update, we wanted to give a preview of some items coming to the CSE and city council for the remaining part of this year, for the calendar year. Uh, for the CSC, um, staff is planning to present a multifamily electric vehicle charging analysis. Um, a 2035 and 2040 decarbonization goal analysis update. Um, drop, climate vulnerability assessment, um, update, and also, um, annual update on municipal decarbonization initiatives, a little more detail than was given today. And to the city council, um, stop will be bringing an item for a non-competitive Silicon Valley clean energy grant, as well as a potential item for a reach code um, update, which was discussed earlier today. No, I'm turning back too, Miss Lucky, if you want to close out with anything. No, no, you did a great job. Thank you. Okay.

[02:42:17] Member Alison Hicks: So any questions on this item? Oh, public comment. Uh, committing member comments? No. Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing the rest of it. See. Um, So, Now we're on item 6, which is committee staff, comments, questions, and committee reports. And no action will be taken on any questions raised by the CSC at this time. Do any CSC members or staff have comments or questions?

[02:42:56] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I have an announcement I'd like to make or share. Yesterday, I, with, with, um, other people from Silicon Valley, Clean Energy, um, toured Google's, uh, thermal, um, Thermal plant in Sunnyvale. And it has been designed to, um, provide heat and cooling, um, to about 6 or 8 buildings that are kind of near the intersection of Varega and Caribbean. And one of the things my husband had noticed when he drove by is that, well, these, these, um, these buildings are kind of cool, they, they all have rooftop gardens. Well, one of the reasons they can have rooftop gardens is because all of the equipment that you would normally put on the roof. You don't have to put on the roof because it's in this, this, you know, in this big package plant kind of thing. And they've designed it so that, um, uh, it, it can be, it's very modular. So they can bring things in and take things out as technologies change, and as they need more, you know, more heat punks, there's room for more. Um, and but another thing, so if you get a chance to go visit this place, go. really fun. Really interesting. But another thing they had that I had never seen before that, um, uh, I thought was really interesting is instead of having, um, rooftop solar. They have developed solar panels that they are essentially using as siding for the building. So the siding on this building on 3 sides is, is are essentially solar paths. And, uh, I don't know. You know, if we could ever use these, but it was just really and it's interesting to see how the technology develops. And then on the other side, the north inside. They have mostly glass, but they do have some more siding, and it looks just exactly like siding on the other side that's actually solar panels, but it's not. So they faked it anyway. But, but I just wanted to share that experience with you. Um, and if you get a chance, uh, go visit, and if not, you'll probably be driving by it, and, and you know, Google has this, uh, idea that they kind of like to share their technology. So, the, um, there's a lot of windows, you can look in and see things. I don't know. And they, they incorporated artwork as well. That was that was nice. So that's what I wanted to share. Interesting.

[02:45:39] Member Alison Hicks: It sounds worth a look, but I'm a little, what kind of thermal plant? What kind of energy? They're generating energy?

[02:45:45] Member Pat Showalter: Oh, they're recirculating water primarily. They have, um, heat pumps, and they also have, um, they literally have a water battery, that they are using with, um, they have a huge, these, a couple of big silo type things, and one of them holds hot water, and one of them holds cold water, and they literally use it. I mean, there's a water battery. It's sort of, it's a something I learned about. ask you more questions offline. Yeah, I'm just getting more questions. But anyway, uh, and and then they have, um, They have, uh, uh, some pilings, not too many, but, but they're using geothermal, um, circulating, um, of the, you know, so they're, they're circulating the water. It's geothermal with water as battery. Yeah. Yeah.

[02:46:42] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, any more questions, announcements, reports? I have one question. Have you been, um, going to the council neighborhood committee, uh, you have with your and announcing the heat pump water heater and any associating? I was able to do it at one of

[02:47:04] Ms. Lucky: them, and then the other one we had it on the table. It was, but the one that had the most attendance, the Wisman. Yeah, people were grabbing meat left and right after the meeting. to talk about it.

[02:47:15] Member Alison Hicks: That's great. Yeah, the more and better you can do that for happier.

[02:47:19] Ms. Lucky: Oh yeah, if you use the postcard that Whitney's.

[02:47:21] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah. If you want to get it, get up and give a little, um, talk about that. Yeah, you can do that. I mean, on the chair. It was very effective. Yeah.

[02:47:29] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah. think neighborhood groups are one of the big places

[02:47:32] Ms. Lucky: we should do. Yeah, and they were taking additional flyers for their neighbors. It's didn't know. Like I was just talking to one person. We're going to have it.

[02:47:41] Member Pat Showalter: Well, um, I don't know. I forget the date, September. September. But anyway, yeah, you're okay, definitely very welcome. I don't know. Yeah.

[02:47:50] Member Alison Hicks: Um, any other last words from staff or meeting members? Okay, so we're on item 7th, which is adjournment, and this meeting is adjourned at 849. See you all after the break.

• ← Previous
• Next →