November 6, 2025 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:01] Member Alison Hicks: Sorry, but that's... Thank you. This is the November 6, 2025. Um, Council sustainability committee meeting. And I will 1st call the meeting to order. This meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. Anyone wishing to address the CSC virtually can join the meeting on Zoom, um, using the link or phone number and webinar ID shown on the screen. Um, When, uh, the chair, which would be me, announces the item on which you wish to speak, click the raised hand feature in Zoom or dial star 9 on your phone. And 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, what you can find on the sign in table to the left of the door. So that completes item number one. Um, now, item number 2 is roll call. Ms. Lee, can you take roll, please?

[00:01:09] Danielle Lee: Certainly chair hicks?

[00:01:11] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah.

[00:01:12] Danielle Lee: Uh, remember, show Walter?

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

[00:01:14] Danielle Lee: member, clerk.

[00:01:15] Member Chris Clark: Here.

[00:01:16] Member Alison Hicks: So, now we move on to item number three, which is Matt's approval. This would be for the CSC, uh, meeting of the minutes for the CSC meeting of June 26, 2025. Does anyone have any comments or questions about the meeting minutes? Okay, see none from the public. Let's see, the next thing is with, uh, and I see no, there are no comments from the public, I imagine. Okay, so now, um, Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes?

[00:01:56] Unknown Speaker: Seconds.

[00:01:57] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Now, Ms. Lee, will you call the vote?

[00:02:01] Danielle Lee: Certainly chair, Hicks.

[00:02:03] Member Alison Hicks: Yes,

[00:02:04] Danielle Lee: members show Walter.

[00:02:05] Member Pat Showalter: Yep,

[00:02:06] Danielle Lee: number click.

[00:02:06] Member Chris Clark: Yes.

[00:02:08] Member Alison Hicks: Now we're on item number four, which is oral communications. Um, This would be oral communifications 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 comments on an item that is not on the agenda. If so, please click the raise hand button and zoom or press star 9 on your phone. Those tending in person may turn in completed speaker cards. No line speakers. Oh, sorry, one raised hand from Mary Datio. Okay, and no in-person speakers? Okay, then Mary Dadio.

[00:03:07] Danielle Lee: Mary should be able to unmute. There it is. Thanks.

[00:03:10] Mary Datio: Good evening. Um, I just wanted to, uh, make sure people are aware of the, um, electric home tour that, uh, Aktera is sponsoring this weekend. It's on Saturday from 11 AM to 4 PM and for those people that are interested in electrifying. This is a great opportunity to talk to other homeowners who have already done the conversion and to get their thoughts on how it went and suggestions and learn about, um, just learn about the process. So, um, if you go to Aktera.org and uh, wind your way through their website, you can, you can uh, find it. It's called the green at home tour. Again, the Saturday, 11 to 3, I think it is, or it's 11 to 4 or something like that. Thanks.

[00:03:58] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. Any other virtual speakers?

[00:04:04] Haley Weinberg: I'm seeing that. Yeah. Okay.

[00:04:06] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, then we will close item number 4 and move to item number five, which is new business. Um, 5.one under new business is a presentation on climate related federal legislation. This item will be presented by chief sustainability and resiliency officer, Danielle Lee, and staff from MMO partners. Um, Ms. Lee.

[00:04:32] Danielle Lee: Thank you, Chair Hicks. I wanted to just briefly introduce this item. We've invited, uh, John O'Donnell and Kiriakos Pagonis from MMO partners, our federal lobbyists, to talk to our committee this evening about, uh, federal legislative changes that have occurred specific to climate change legislation, just to set the context for the decarbonization analysis work that we are undertaking. So, um, we're pleased to have both John and Kiriakis here this evening, and I will turn it over to them.

[00:05:07] John O'Donnell: Okay, well, thank you very much for the introduction and for the opportunity to talk with your committee. Um, I would start by saying something that's pretty obvious to everybody, and that is that a lot of initiatives in Washington, DC that were at the forefront of the previous administration are facing some pretty strong headwinds at this time. You're all familiar with the reconciliation bill that was passed or signed into law on July 4th, the one big, beautiful Bill Act. Then there are rebate deadlines that are coming up. Some have occurred, but more will be happening. And then there's been a significant amount of executive action by the administration that has affected climate resiliency programs. And then finally, um, in terms of our presentation, I mentioned headwinds, but they're also tailwinds, and some of those tailwinds, um, are legislation that has been introduced this year, that actually shows some bipartisanship in some opportunity to, uh, continue work, maybe not with the same focus as we had previously on climate action leg or programs. But, um, When I said that there are headwinds, I'd say, in every time, every change in administration, there's a, a change in focus and summer more dramatic than others, this one happens to be pretty dramatic. But I think from our experience, representing local governments for over 40 years, we've seen this, um, ebb and flow of emphasis on different programs. And I would say that, setting aside, not setting aside what happened on Tuesday of this week in your state and on the east coast and in many local governments. Um, you see some of that, uh, tailwind activity that I was referring to. And you also will see, I think, some additional opportunities coming up in the next session of the Congress with legislation. So, I mentioned that, you know, the, one big beautiful bill was passed on July 4th, and at the end of September, there were tax vehicle credits expired. December 31st, they're going to be more um, incentives that will not be on the books. Um, and then, uh, earlier this or last month, uh, in October. The Department of Energy, and you may have read about this or heard about this in the media, but the Department of Energy announced the termination of about 223 projects totaling more than $7500000000 across multiple programs, office that programs at the Department of Energy. Um, the uh, clean energy demonstration program, the energy efficiency, renewable energy office, the grid deployment program, manufacturing, and energy supply chains, uh, fossil fuel, and the ARPA, um, operation which focuses on energy. Those programs that kind of disappeared from the radar screen at this point. However, um, while that is happening, and and many people believe there's been a focus on on blue states, the interesting twist here is that some of the grid improvements that we're scheduled to be paid for out of this $7500000000 are in Republican states, Republican districts. And there's a concern on the part of, uh, Republican members of the House and Senate, uh, and utilities in their states about the impact that, at funding, uh, retrenching has, is going to have on their programs. So those are a few of the smaller forces, but they're there that I, we think, will begin to affect. In the longer term, how this climate action agenda gets handled here in Washington. And what you're going to be probably seen in the next year and a half as we get into next year with the midterms, and then once the midterms are over, you'll begin to see ideas come from different candidates running for office who will probably have a wide variety. of suggestions or thoughts or recommendations about dealing with the climate. So that's kind of an overview. I'm going to ask Kiriakis, uh, to follow up to talk about, uh, legislation, some of the executive actions and the federal rebate deadlines. Kiriakis?

[00:10:24] Kiriakos Pagonis: Thanks, John. Can we please move on to slide four? Thank you. So as John mentioned, I think just to highlight, you know, some upcoming deadlines as a result of the the reconciliation bill. Um, so in in California across the country, December 31st for homeowners, uh, to be able to take advantage of some of these, uh, credits. these are coming up for heat pumps. As you can see, 2000, uh, water heaters, 2000 insulation, uh, about 1200. $600 for panel upgrades, and then home energy audits, 150. Now, the state of California may have its own, uh, and I'm guessing the state does have, uh, their its own sort of credits for for things, but these are the federal, uh, credits that have been, um, rescinded as a result of of the bill. Next slide, please. As John mentioned, the executive actions, uh, Trump administration took uh, immediate action on on day one, um, as it relates to this committee. Uh, this this executive order, uh, signed on the 20th entitled Unleashing American Energy, which uh, in section 7 called for terminating the Green New Deal. Uh, that's set up, uh, what we have now seen as several actions, uh, including the EPAs, uh, endangerment finding a proposed rule, uh, to rescind uh, the endangerment finding done in 2009. Uh, probably the, probably one of the more significant actions taken by the administration to date. Uh, I don't, I think all of you uh, understand the uh, ramifications of of this, uh, being made final. Um, and they've, I think to date, uh, as last I saw, there was about over 500,000 comments submitted. The deadline for comments, submissions was back in September, I think, on the 22nd. And the EPA is currently going through and has to go through and review all comments. Uh, NLC, uh, a number of other, uh, public groups have have submitted comments about the impacts, and also in particular submitted comments, and we've been talking with them, uh, throughout this process, uh, and really focused on, on the, the impact of, uh, rescinding the rule on, on the health and, and sort of the, uh, climate impacts for local governments, including, you know, the impacts from, uh, disasters and, and, you know, and I think you all have taken action locally to, to do what you can to prepare, uh, in case there are, um, disasters that happen. But, uh, NLC's comments really focused on that and also focused on on public health. And I think some of those comments we've shared with city staff. Uh, as far as other agencies go, as John talked about DOE taking action, uh, recently, the Department of Transportation early on, uh, took significant action to eliminate greenhouse gas, the greenhouse gas measurement rule. Uh, it took action to review a number of grants, uh, especially uh, ones that were created by the inflation reduction act. Um, and still reviewing a number of grants, especially uh, transit, uh, low and no, low and no emission grants are still being reviewed. Uh, and in, in fact, um, talking to other clients that we represent, uh, we know that if, if they ask for funding to do 0 mission buses, a number of those uh, are being requested to be rescoped, uh, and so, uh, cities are having to make decisions about whether or not they, they want to do that, um, and in some cases, going from 0 mission, uh, vehicle applications to maybe some that are hybrid. Uh, these are, these are decisions that are being made uh, as we speak at the local level. So, uh, significant actions are, are, you know, have been taken by DOT, EPA, DOE and other agencies. Um, next slide, please. So, as John mentioned, uh, there are there are some areas where, uh, we see some some opportunity. Uh, for example, in the FY 26 appropriations, uh, budget process, which were still, you know, going through, as as John mentioned about the shutdown, uh, the city was able to secure one. one.one.145000000 for the Charleston Slough project for title gates. That is something that we worked closely with city staff to develop and supported by the council when you all came back to DC back in March and Representative Licardo was successful in getting the city's request included in the appropriations bill, which is still pending, but it's in there. Uh, the FEMA act, uh, recently passed uh, the transportation infrastructure committee with broad bipartisan support. Uh, this action was taken uh, as a result of the administration's uh, rescision of, of, uh, brick funding, building resilient infrastructure communities funding. And, um, there, as you can, as we mentioned, bipartisan support for taking FEMA out of homeland security, and also creating a new, um, brick style formula program, uh, 50% of the funding that would be, uh, sent to the states would have to be suballocated at the local level. The bill also, as is currently written, requires states to develop a pre-approved project list, uh, which, uh, theoretically would, uh, cover at least one project per county as, as the bill is currently written. Uh, we're working with uh, TNI committee staff and others to try to enhance that, uh, try to increase it from 50% to 60% as a suballocation requirement. And so, and this is pretty significant. If the bill gets passed, which we don't see it happening, this year, we do see potentially passing the house by the end of the year, depending on when the house reopens. Um, but it is something because of the strong bipartisan support it has on the house side. If it does go to the Senate, uh, there, there could be a good opportunity to include it in some piece of uh, legislation next year. Uh, so it's something we're watching, it would certainly provide a significant amount of funding uh, to do mitigation and uh, resiliency work um, in in states and local governments. Uh, Energy Independence and Affordability Act, uh, was recently introduced by Representative Mike Thompson. We've been working with his team. Uh, it restores a lot of the energy tax credits that were rescinded, uh, as a result of the one big, beautiful Bill Act. Um, and so that was recently introduced, uh, as of last week, they're about 112 co-sponsors. We were talking to city staff about the bill. Uh, and uh, it's something where, you know, we would recommend that the city, um, support it and also, you know, and, and, and, reach out to Congressman Licardo to request that he, uh, support it as well. I think last slide. And that comes up to comments and questions.

[00:17:48] Member Alison Hicks: Hey, thank you very much. So do any committee members have questions? Um.

[00:18:00] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I guess the FEMA. Um, act. Does it have anything or much in it related to flood insurance?

[00:18:11] Kiriakos Pagonis: This, no, well, it doesn't directly um, deal with flood insurance. There is another bill. Uh, that uh, has been introduced by Representative Polon from New Jersey that does deal with uh, the flood insurance program. But this bill really focuses on the public assistance program. Uh, makes changes to that. As I said, develops a new mitigation formula program. takes FEMA out of homeland security, which is is probably one of the larger pieces of the bill. Um,

[00:18:44] Member Pat Showalter: my other question about it is, does it include um, any funding or discussion of the maintenance of, um, uh, weather reporting, uh, and monitoring? Uh, that's one of the things that's been axed and discussed to act, but there's a real need for, I mean, we all use this meteorological data all the time and it's particularly valuable for public safety during disaster. So is that included in this?

[00:19:16] Kiriakos Pagonis: I don't believe it is, uh, council member, but we will go back and double check and verify and get back to you. Okay.

[00:19:22] Member Pat Showalter: I just know that that's something, um, in, uh, E ENR, you know, at NLC. I'm really, really, um, uh, worried about it. And in fact, we we added a new resolution this year on that subject. Because it seems like it's, you know, it's a big hole. So, I'm not sure whether where it needs to be put in. But it's it's something that, um, you know, I really can't be done by anybody. But the federal government, it's it's such a big, you know, a big thing. So, however we can get that in is important and, and, you could let us know where it's going and where we could advocate. That would be much appreciated.

[00:20:05] Kiriakos Pagonis: We'll do. Well, we'll follow up with Carolyn, um, and and, and see what they're thinking on that. Thank you. Yep.

[00:20:15] Member Alison Hicks: So number Clark. Okay, so I have lots of questions, but there are more dinner cheerful questions than Dia's questions. So, are there any members of the public that have, um, comments? Either virtually or in person? I don't see any online. Okay. Then, um, this is, uh, an information item and no action is required. But if any, um, committee members want to discuss it at greater length. Personally, my, uh, intent is to discuss the next item, but Any discussion, discussion points? Okay, then just thank you very much. Very informative, and this will be informing 5.2, I think.

[00:21:10] Member Chris Clark: time machine to jump forward.

[00:21:14] Member Alison Hicks: So, um, Are you saying you got some hope from Tuesday?

[00:21:18] Member Chris Clark: A little.

[00:21:21] Member Alison Hicks: So now we're moving on to item number two, which is our decarbonization e bowl analysis. Um, this item will be presented by staff from the Sustainability Division and Cascadia Consulting Group. And Ms. Lee will commence the presentation.

[00:21:39] Ms. Lee: Thank you, Cher Hicks. I wanted to start this item with just a brief, some brief high level reflections. You know, one of the things that drew me to Mountain View. Was its long-standing commitment to sustainability from its early leadership on sea level rise to its ambitious climate goals. Not only has the city consistently demonstrated its commitment to this work, but it's really rolled up its sleeves and accomplished a great deal. All of us here this evening in the sustainability and resiliency division are really proud to be part of an organization that is so proactive in response to climate change. Uh, tonight's item uh, while on its surface is just a mid-project update. However, given the scale of change that we've observed since the start of this year, I mean, honestly, it feels like a sustainability staff or a lifetime ago that we set, we started this project. Um, I know that some of the news that we're bringing to you is Bleak. You know, we're experiencing setbacks, delays. Or outright policy reversals at the regional, state, and federal levels, and all these changes are truly dramatic. Our hands are increasingly tied and it feels like the, The levers for change that we have are disappearing before our eyes. It's, of course, been a lot to take in, um, but it's also proven to be a forcing function for us. The scale of this challenge is so great that we're really pushing ourselves to test the limits. You know, what are the creative ideas that we can pursue. Things like financing strategies, statewide legislative collaboration and new and perhaps novel partnerships. And we're honing in on the work at the local level that will be the most effective, um, not only in meeting our climate goals, but also moving us forward and building the mountain view tomorrow. So, um, I just wanted to kind of reassure the committee that we all as staff are doubling down on our commitment to do this work. Um, And to making mountain feel more sustainable. Slide. Uh, just some background. Um, as you know, in November of last year, the council approved, um, A contract to undertake a 2035 and 2040 decarbonization goal analysis. Uh, in June of this year, preliminary work uh, was presented to this committee. It included, projected emissions through 2045, emissions reductions from regional, state and federal policies, and some legislative changes that we were starting to see. Um, we also presented a preliminary list of local emissions reducing actions that we would like, but wanted to model, um, to see how we would close this emissions gap. The feedback that we received from your committee was general support for the local actions identified. And some, there was some discussion around the population projections and the corresponding emissions forecasts. We've adjusted those, uh, population projections and, um, we can, we'll be showing those to you this evening. And just to note here, um, our finding with population is really that both the problem and the solutions sort of scale in tandem when it comes to population. So, we're happy to model additional population projections, if there are other estimates that the committee would like to learn more about. But it's our understanding that the real takeaways from this analysis are how the solutions compared to the scale of the problem. Uh, and then, you know, at the end of this item, um, We're hope, the staff is recommending that, uh, your committee review the emissions reductions that we have modeled, um, approve the remaining items that we would like to model, and then direct our team to develop a five-year roadmap, um, aimed at achieving the 2045 decarbonization goal, which is the decarbonization goal that has already been adopted by council. Okay, and now, um, I'd like to hand it over to um, our colleagues from Cascadia. We have Haley, Weinberg, and Alicia Fennel, and they've been working in very close partnership with our team since the beginning of this project. Thank you Ms. Lee.

[00:26:01] Haley Weinberg: So we will go ahead and dive into the results of this updated analysis. We wanted to start with a quick reminder, an overview of this analysis, since the last time we spoke, was back in June with you. So again, as Miss Lee just teed up, the decarmonization goal analysis is a projection model, which forecasts mountain views, greenhouse gas emissions into the future under multiple different scenarios. The model uses the city's 2022 greenhouse gas inventory as a baseline, and forecasts emissions through 2045. Emissions are projected through 2045. And let's go back to the last site, actually, please. Thank you. Using, um, as again, we just, we just kind of reviewed those projected changes to Mountain View's demographics, specifically projected population and employment growth. So this data previously came from the city's 2023 to 2031 housing element environmental impact report. And as you might recall, it showed significant growth in mountain view. But the revised growth factors that we're using that will show in just a couple slides, incorporate county level population data and employment projections for the San Jose, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, MSA, or metropolitan statistical area, from the California Department of Finance and the Employment Development Department. So we've got new data sources for those growth factors. And again, as we as we've started to say, these growth factors, um, and the updates here, change how the wedge figure looks, as we'll show in a couple slides, because they affect both the magnitude of the emission increases under the business as usual scenario, as well as the emission reductions from state and local policies. So those changes directly correlate to the changes, um, in the increases and decreases that we see. Next slide, please. Thank you. So again, a quick refresh reminder from a few months ago, the analysis models 3 different scenarios. The 1st is what we call the business as usual, which forecasts the city's 2022 greenhouse gas emissions, assuming no policy or programatic intervention. So we sometimes call this scenario, the no actions scenario. Next, the adjusted business as usual scenario models the expected impact that key climate policies will have on the city's emissions. So this looks at a collection of state and regional policies and commitments, and also includes expected electric vehicle market trends. And lastly, the 3rd scenario analyzes the impact of 10 key decarbonization actions, which can occur at the local level. So tonight's presentation features the initial modeling results for 5 of those 10 local actions. And the modeled actions aim to assist the city with evaluating the effort needed to reach the city's decarbonization goal. The project team, as mentioned, will also be presenting a list of the remaining 5 local actions that are currently under consideration for modeling later on in this presentation. And the five-year roadmap will also include unmodeled actions. So things that are still priorities in the near term, but are harder to model or are more indirect in their emissions reductions.

[00:29:34] Alicia Fennel: Right, so this table shows the results of our business as usual and adjusted business as usual modeling in 3 key years, which are 2035, 2040, and 2045. And so the topmost row here is the business's usual missions. So, um, just as a reminder, those are the emissions that will occur kind of in a no action future. So no jurisdictional climate action. Um, and so under that scenario, we expect that emissions will increase to around 500,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2045. And then the rows below that show the expected impacts of the policies, the market trends and commitments that we have modeled. Um, so it should look pretty familiar from June, but we did want to flag a couple of key updates. The 1st of which is that since that meeting, in June, we were able to obtain data that we could use to model Silicon Valley Clean Energy's commitments to providing clean electricity. Their board has approved a commitment to provide carbon neutral electricity to their customers from 2025 through 2045. So we have added that into the model. And then the other update that we've made is updating the EV market trend section to more accurately reflects the percentage of past vehicles being sold in Mountain View that are electric. Previously, we had been using a statewide average, and we have not been able to obtain mountain view specific data, but we have been able to obtain the sales rate in Santa Clara County, which we are using as a proxy. Um, and so this kind of combination of policies, commitments, market trends, is expected to cut emissions down to about 189,000, 500 metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2045, which is about a 62% decrease from the business as usual scenario. Um, so since presenting this model in June, we have added 5 decarbonization actions into this forecast, and those are implementing reach codes that were adopted in September, providing outreach, education, and incentives to encourage building electrification, implementation of a transportation demand ordinance, implementation of an active transportation plan, and then implementation of mixed use zoning and transit oriented development in existing and in progress plans. So, the combination of these local actions is projected to address about 5% of the remaining emissions in 2035 and 2040, and then about 2% of the remaining emissions in 2045. So that's about a 185,000 metric tonsu to equivalent emission gap by 2045. Um, And so we have a couple notes to make just about, you know, why these numbers are a lot smaller than the numbers on the last slide. Um, 1st of which is that, um, a lot of these emission sources have already been addressed through what has been modeled and they existed business as usual. Um, If we could go back one slide, that would be great. Thank you so much. Um, so just as an example, um, SVCEs, clean electricity commitments, and the state's clean electricity policy are expected to result in fully clean electricity by 2045, and um, also the Bay Area Air Districts rules will take care of a majority of natural gas emissions by 2045. So that's why the impact of local reach codes, for example, is much smaller in 2045 than it is than the years before. But just as an example of why these actions continue to be important, is that if the air district rules did not exist, we would expect that the local reach code policies would result in about 30,000 metric tons of CO2 emission reductions, um, in 2045, so that really, I mean, in this, especially in this political climate, it really illustrates how local action can serve as like a safeguard or a backstop, if, um, existing regional or state policies don't deliver as expected. Um, and then one other thing to note is that, um, some of the things that the local governments can do, um, are necessary to set the stage for behavior change, but they don't always directly result in that behavior change themselves. So, for example, active transportation, infrastructure, like better bike lanes, better sidewalk infrastructure, it's necessary for people to drive less, but it doesn't actually require people to bike or walk somewhere instead of driving. So just another example of why these actions are super, super important. Next slide please. Thank you. So the slide shows a visual representation of the tables that we talked about on the last 2 slides, and it should look pretty familiar from the June CSC meeting. Um, the colorful wedges from the dark blue, um, to the bright teal kind of represent the expected impact of those ABAU policies, commitments and market trends that we just discussed. Um, and then below those, you'll see the smaller wedge. Um, kind of dark green and light peachy orange. Um, and then the gray space below those shows the, um, emission gap between potential carbon neutrality targets for 2035, 2040, and 2045. Next side, please. So in the wedge diagram on the last slide, we just saw that emissions gap, which was made of the light gray area. So what this slide shows is what that area is made of. So the leftmost bar in this graph shows Mountain View's current emissions profile, which is um, the model's baseline. It's from the city's, um, 2022 greenhouse gas inventory, and that's made up of all of the emission sources that are shown in the legend on the right. And the majority of emissions are coming from onward vehicles and natural gas. Um, looking at the bar that is furthest to the right. By 2045, the forecast is showing no remaining electricity emissions, and a very small amount of natural gas emissions, because those sources are mostly going to be addressed through modeled state, regional and local policies. Um, but 65% of remaining emissions are expected to be coming from onward vehicles by 2045, and as you may recall from our June presentation, and as staff have illustrated in the CSE memo, um, onward vehicle emissions would have been taken care of by California's advanced clean cars policy, but now without that state level policy in place, um, without that being able to be enforced, local jurisdictions just don't have strong leverage to pull that can move people out of their gas powered cars and into Um, which is why we see such a large missions gap, um, that comes from the onward vehicles. And so as we mentioned a couple slides ago, local governments can put the infrastructure in place to support driving cleaner vehicles and driving less, but as things stand right now, there are few, if any, levers to ensure that that transition actually happens. So, those are the remaining emissions that we are expecting, um, in Mountain View by 2045. And I think we'll pass it back to Miss Lucky.

[00:36:54] Ms. Lucky: Thank you, Ms. Weinberg. So this next part of the presentation, we're going to go through the potential modeled actions, the remaining 5 actions that we can remodel. Um for consideration. And just want to, based on this previous slide where the remaining emissions largely lie in transportation and and some stolen building as well. A lot of the modeled actions we're looking at, focus on those 2 sectors. Um, and one thing as well that we were looking at is, you know, we're look, not just looking at. New actions we're looking at, how are our currently implemented plans, policies, um, programs working to help us continue to reduce emissions in the future. Uh, when we've had a lot of our GHD inventory discussions every year, that kind of pops up, you know, how much does this active transportation plan potentially reduce in PhD emissions? And so we are looking at tamale as a way to kind of answer that and see engage what kind of efforts we need to continue on. Or, you know, whether we need to kind of look at enhancing some of these areas. Uh, and also one last point too, we're not only looking at kind of what actions would gain the most significant GHD reductions, but also where we can find data and studies to support the modeling. Uh, especially for something that's new or innovative. It's not always easy to find data or studies we have to make a lot of assumptions. And so it's kind of this fine needle we're trying to thread as to what would give us good GHD reductions. And also kind of where can we find data that's reliable and can kind of show how much we would receive out of that action. And next slide. So for transportation, we are considering modeling, expanding EV charging infrastructure, have existing multifamily properties, through policies and programs, so currently the building code in our reach code does a great job at, um, providing or ensuring that we have EV charging in new multifamily developments, so this area could potentially be, um, A good source of significant GHD reductions, particularly people tend not to buy EVs if they don't feel like they don't have reliable, accessible charging at home. So that's one aspect, and then the 2nd potential area to model is outreach marketing and education to encourage EVs. We been doing this. for a long time and we can continue doing that. Um, especially as the kind of clean cars act has phased out. We want to still ensure that people are knowledgeable about purchasing EVs, what to expect. and continue to encourage that adoption. The 3rd area we'd like to look at is continuing to implement our parking management strategies that eliminate parking requirements for affordable and residential developments within various precise plans. Some of those in plans include North Bayshore, East Wisman, El Camino Real, San Antonio, and downtown Precise Plans, as well as Moffat Boulevard, which is currently under development. Next slide. And for buildings, which is still a remaining emission, um, sector in 2045, we are considering modeling time of cell requirements. Which uses property purchases as a means to implement actions aimed at reducing emissions. This approach has historically face resistance from the real estate sector, which use it as a potential hindrance in um, holding up the sale of a property or increasing the prices of properties. However, Berkeley has just adopted, um, a, a ordinance that kind of seems to follow some, some promising compromises to, um, this action that's, again, long been considered. So it's something we'd like to model to see how much emissions we could reduce. Uh, doesn't necessarily mean we would, you know, pursue it, um, because we do need to look at a lot of the aspects of implementation and how that would work, particularly for Mountain View. And finally, we'd like to look at modeling, uh, our modeling our city's 0 waste plan. Uh, if, if we go back a few slides to where the rock was, our landfill emissions are still remaining in 2045 as well, so it would be interesting to see, um, how that would help us to reduce our emissions.

[00:41:27] Member Pat Showalter: What color are they?

[00:41:28] Member Pat Showalter: It's orange.

[00:41:29] Member Pat Showalter: Well, like, what's the, so wastewater is at the top and you can't see anything from wastewater, except that it's great. Okay, all right. Thank you..

[00:41:40] Unknown Speaker: So I think we're at, yes, here, thank you. So another item we are looking to get feedback on from the committee is directing the project team to develop a 5 year roadmap. And it would be focused on achieving the city's currently adopted goal of decarbonization by 2045. That's life. So the five-year road map would be an actionable five-year plan that identifies near term priorities to move a city towards its decarbonization goal. So we want to leave enough, we don't want to plan too far in the future, because, again, there's changes that occur at the federal, state level, technology changes, so we want to be nimble in our approach, but also understand what we can do in the near term. So this roadmap will include both modeled and unmodeled actions, and we'll continue to be updated and update our modeling and our roadmap as changes occur, especially significant changes. For example, if the air district rules um, are delayed or reversed, you know, we can easily address that through our roadmap. Next line. So one of the areas that we're discussing is, for a while we've been talking about, should we accelerate our goal? Should we keep the current goal? And this has been an ongoing discussion. Uh, for since I've, since I've been here. Um, and in looking, it's been, doing this exercise has been really helpful and trying to understand what's the effort it would take to accelerate our goal, or maintain our, our current goal, and what we are finding is that our current goal of 2045 still remains very ambitious. And we're expecting that the 5 bottles we, the 5 actions we're proposing for modeling are going to need similar results. And accelerating our goal to 2035 or 2040 is going to be very, very challenging. And so this 2045 goal still allows us to be ambitious, it ensures a feasible and equitable approach into meeting the city's goal, and adjusting as things change in technology or the legislative landscape. science. And this is just pointing back to kind of what our remaining emissions to focus in on. And the other part of this exercise of modeling is looking at how our local actions, kind of move with legislative or state, um, state actions or federal actions. And as you, as we reported in June, it's been a very volatile environment for uh, state and legislative actions. And I'm going to walk through the next few slides, what some of those have been that have directly impacted our local emissions over the last few months, and our projections. Next slide. So the 1st one, and starting at the regional level here is the air district rules that would prohibit the sale of gas fired, water heating and space heating equipment starting in 2027. We uh, we have identified that there's a concept paper that's been released the end of October, the end of October. potentially pointing to amendments that may be made to these rules to address affordability, the, um, the realistic ability to implement the rules as well. And so we are working on, you know, preparing for comments to ensure that the rules continue forward in an equitable manner. And as you can see on the right-hand side of this slide, you know, the expected reductions from the air district world are quite significant. Um, and going back to, um, this Weinberg, and and she was talking about, you know, if these rules were to go away, you know, our local reach codes would kick in and provide 30,000 tons of reduction still. So it is truly a safeguard. In that regard. The next item happened at the state level, a moratorium on local reach codes. So AB 130, which is a trailer built to the budget, is, it would prohibit cities and counties from adopting residential beach codes for the next 6 years. And so that's been um, very difficult. So you know, so if the air district rules are delayed or reversed. You know, we don't have a lot of ability to implement further reach codes in the next 6 years. So again, that kind of helps us hone in on the 2545 goal is as, you know, a goal to consider, to maintain. that we can adjust. And I wanted to note the city's response to this state legislation. So we, we reacted pretty quickly. We sent a letter of non-support to the state. We accelerated our reach code adoption and record time before AB 130 takes us back. Um, We also, you know, have heard from other cities who are also quite surprised by this action at the state level. And as a result of that, a newly formed local government climate policy Alliance has been formed, we're a steering committee member, and that group is intended to monitor changes. Uh, um, in our legislation at the state level and federal level, and take action where appropriate to advocate and influence and draft, even draft legislation to further our local climate goals. And we talked about this at length at our June meeting, the reversal reversal of the Clean Cars Act. Um, and, you know, we can't emphasize enough how much reductions we would have received had that still been in place. Um, are, if it had been in place, our gap would have only been 30 4000 tons of emissions versus 189 over 189,000 tons. Next line. So kind of moving back into what is our preliminary, preliminary list for a 5 year roadmap. So we've got some of the, um, actions up here and we'll go into detail. Um, but there's certainly the ones that we've modeled that you've seen tonight and some of the ones we're considering modeling in the future. And again, it's largely in the transportation sector. You know, that those are going to be the remaining emissions that we're going to have to contend with in 2045. By 2045. Next slide. And for building, we've got, um, Quite a few items is here, such as explore the time seal requirements, um, encourage participation in carbon free electricity. Uh, adopt a goal for the end of uh, in the flow for natural gas. Looks like. And then we've got our 0 waste actions and even ecosystem actions of, how can our urban forest and natural areas that we're conserving help sequester carbon. And then looking at our cross-cutting actions of where this financing strategies fit in or funding options. relying on local collaboration and partnerships and advocacy and legislation. So this is um, in the report as well. But we're looking for feedback from the committee on, you know, are there, are these on the right track? Do you have anything to add? Um, because we'll be looking to bring back the more of this list and more actions um, next year before it goes to council. And I'll head it back to Miss Lee.

[00:49:40] Danielle Lee: Great, thank you, Miss Lucky. Um, and now just to the recommendations from staff, um, next like this. Uh, First, we'd like to request that the city view the emissions reductions of the 5 local measures that have been modeled. Uh, we walked you through each of those next slide. Um, we're hoping to get approval from the committee this evening to model the remaining 5 local actions so that we can have a fuller picture of what our, um, where we are as of now in terms of addressing emissions for 2045. And then finally, um, we're, we would like direction to the project team to develop a five-year roadmap, um, aiming at 2045 as our decarbonization goal are currently adopted decarbonization goal, instead of accelerating to 2035 or 2040, um, as a goal year. And just in terms of next steps, uh, the project team will be bringing next um, to the next committee meeting, our climate vulnerability assessment, That's on December 1st. We will be modeling the remaining 5 local actions that will bring those results back to this committee in early 2026. And then if directed, um, we would develop the five-year roadmap to be presented to CSC and then ultimately counsel for approval next year. And then with that, um, The entire project team, you've heard from nearly all of us this evening, and we would be happy to take any questions that you might have.

[00:51:19] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Thank you. So I will start off with questions from commission. Oh, questions, what did you say? Um, do I have some questions?

[00:51:34] Member Pat Showalter: Go ahead.

[00:51:34] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Um, and then we'll have public comments after our questions and I will. Okay. So, um, uh, I didn't see, um, sequestration from the marshes that we are growing adjacent to Shoreline Park at an end. So that is something that, um, I know, uh, it, it, it's understood that it will take approximately, um, after we reach. It'll take approximately 10 years to reach March, March plain elevation, which is when the, um, The plants come in in full force. So that means it's probably 12 years from now. But still, and I don't know what that, that is, but, but it's something, you know, when we talk about, uh, you know, you talked about the urban forestry, for instance, uh, I would really think that we should put that in as another component of it. Um, uh,

[00:52:29] Danielle Lee: we, we did, um, address, we did examine sequestration as one of the potential measures to model, um, and it was the guidance from uh, Cascadia that, relative to some of the other options.

[00:52:43] Member Pat Showalter: I have heard that before, but it's our option. I mean, I guess that's why I bring it up. It's our action. And I think that, um, we, uh, I think it's important for us to tie all of these actions together that we do. Even if they're not necessarily, that's not necessarily real, the only reason you do. I think it's important to, um, to, uh, be aware of the, uh, of how these things enter the place. No, I mean, we're, we're doing this for, we're doing a major reason why we're doing the, um, the C double wise protection is, is to provide a adaptation. It's not a mitigation. And what we're talking about here is mitigation. But they're not completely divorced from one another. And so that's, that's why I, I bring this up because I, I think that's important.

[00:53:43] Member Alison Hicks: Council member, show Walter, can I ask a follow-up into that?

[00:53:46] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah.

[00:53:47] Member Alison Hicks: Are you saying that we're going to do the sequestration, um, from the marshes anyway?

[00:53:54] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, we're going to do it anyway. going to do it.

[00:53:55] Member Alison Hicks: So it's a little different than, um, the other local initiatives we're looking at because they have a big impact, what I hear, councilmonger, show Walter saying is, this one we're not choosing because it's a, we might not choose it to put it on the list because it's a big impact, but just because we're doing it anyways. Oh, even if it has a small impact, we might add it.

[00:54:18] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, just to quantify it. you know, so people know that that's all.

[00:54:21] Member Alison Hicks: Yes. Absolutely.

[00:54:22] Danielle Lee: Good. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood. If I may, um, at the next CSC meeting will be bringing the vulnerability assessment and having discussion about potential amendments to the contract with Cascadia. At that point, we could, because this, the marshland is a great example of a cross-cutting issue that both addresses our resiliency goals, as well as our decarbonization work. And so, um, While we look at, um, a suite of amendments to the contract, we could, if directed by the committee, uh, consider addering um, additional modeling to cover that. So we could do that in the next year.

[00:54:57] Member Alison Hicks: I wanted to bring it up. And, uh, and then I have another question. As a member show, Walter. Are these, so if you're adding things to list, I was going to use those as condoms. Oh. Okay,

[00:55:10] Member Pat Showalter: and, well, I was also, all right, another question on that, I say. Okay, we can do it. We can do it back to questions. We can, I can bring some other things up the question, comments. That's fine. Okay. you have questions about it? Yeah, um, I do have a couple questions that are just, like, uh, I, I question, um, looking at the, uh, Looking at the news, this is the transportation, I'm trying to see. Looking at local transportation and biking and active transportation. Do we, um, Do we include programming needed to encourage? Um, I was just curious about this explore adoption of, um, uh, the transportation demand management. What kind of, um, of increases in biking does this include? I know we've been monitoring the, on the biking that goes in and out of the North Bay Shore. But I'm not really, and I understand we've also been monitoring a little bit of the, uh, the utilization in, uh, around town, but I don't think we've been doing a lot of it. And, and yet my feeling kind of just, my feeling from just watching what's happened, and it was with the, the, um, the construction of a lot of bike lanes. We are having a lot more biking. So I was just wondering, does this monitoring, assume that the level of biking is going to be static, or it's going to change, or?

[00:56:59] Danielle Lee: Thank you for the question, um, If I could direct this to Ms. Weinberg, who did most of the actual technical analysis for the modeling. Yeah.

[00:57:12] Alicia Fennel: Thank you, Miss Lee. Um, so the transportation demand management ordinance, it just assumes a reduction in vehicle miles traveled, which is what is directed by the draft ordinance. Um, we do assume an increase in biking in the active transportation action. Um, but we don't specifically assume, um, if people are taking public transit, um, for the TDM ordinance, if they are biking, if they're walking or if they're ride sharing, anything like that. It's just a reduction in VMT overall. Okay, thank you. Okay,

[00:57:51] Member Alison Hicks: um, you don't have any questions? So, my questions are around, so what I have here, and I don't think the other committee members have this, uh, Jen Slow. No, okay. So, what, what I have in front of me, but the rest of you don't, is, uh, is that we take, we next take, uh, comments from the public, and then we have a committee discussion that includes a possible motion, which I have in front of me and nobody else has. Um, so it's unlikely you'll make that motion, therefore. Um, but the motion seems to have, so I just want to make sure that we all understand where we're going and that I understand where we're going. And then maybe we'll go somewhere else. Um, So, this motion seems to have 3 parts. One is to, uh, make a motion to approve the, uh, 5, 5 additional or 5 remaining local emission, uh, local initiatives. Um, and I would assume also possibly add some, as, uh, council member show Walter just did. So the 1st part is dealing with the 5 local initiatives. The 2nd part is, uh, approving doing a 5 year roadmap. Um, And the 3rd part is that that roadmap would achieve a 20, your recommendation is the 2045 decarbonization. Um, goal. So my question is, are those really the 3 components you're looking for from us? Yes. Just to make sure that the committee members understand it and that I do because I wasn't quite sure either. So we're looking at, so our discussion, Now that we're done with questions unless somebody comes up with an additional one. Our discussion will focus on 5 local initiatives, plus any additional ones you want to suggest, the 5 year roadmap, and the decarbonization goal, the year of which is suggested to be 2045. I have that right. Okay. That was my question. Um, and uh, Now is time for, and of course, you can add any other comments you want. Um, Now it's time for comments from the public on this item. Are there any, there seems to be an in-person comment. And after that, we will take virtual comments. And, I assume, we're giving you 3 minutes, because there are not a lot of you. So

[01:00:37] Public Speaker: thank you for the opportunity to speak. I will run through several comments because I only have 3 minutes. The 1st one has to do with the population and job projections, which imply a worsening of our jobs, housing a balance, which is the root cause of the fact that we have so many transportation emissions. So this is inconsistent with improvement. The population projections seem ridiculously low to me. Perhaps, um, not to you, but they certainly seem wrong to me. Um, I, as you know, have led to citywide task forces to try to produce similar reports in the past, and we always showed our work. We didn't just say, this is the number for this. We said, here are the factors that create this. And so without having access to the work, I just look at these numbers, maybe, maybe not. No way to know. And of course, a higher level document is appropriate for the committee, but I hope that the public and the staff have access soon to the work. Um, I would love that if the committee would request polling to be done in the next year or two, try to understand what the citizens of Mountain View are willing to do, what they think they should do. Um, We're proposing, or it's implied that we'll be doing major changes, And fear of the unwillingness of the public to go along with these changes is certainly a political consideration. Data would really help. Looking forward to 2045, 20 years in the future. Let's look back 20 years to 2005. How different was the world in 2005? The iPhone hadn't been invented. You could actually see people walking down the street without a phone in their hand. It was amazing. Those old days. Some technologies that I think will come in the next few years are ultra-fast charging of EVs. This would require a um, 1000 amp station, much like a gas station where you'll pull in, and in 5 minutes, while you go to the bathroom and get a cup of coffee, your car will charge from 10% to 90%. Something that today might take an hour. This will transform the importance of EV charging at multifamily homes. When I look back at the 2008 uh, ESTF one report, there was one thing that I thought really needs to be thought about today, which is solar thermal water heating for multifamily buildings as a preheater for the water that is delivered to the apartments. We've got all these flat roof, 2 story buildings by and large. If those roofs are strong enough to support a moderate, moderate weight solar water heating system. I think that's a real win-win for buildings that would otherwise be very hard to decarbonize because of our rent stabilization ordinance, which basically says, you really don't want to invest in a rent stabilized building because you won't get your money back for a long, long time, and even then, you only get half of it there. So how much out of time am I? Probably completely. So I'll leave it at that. Thank.

[01:03:47] Member Alison Hicks: Now, do we have virtual speakers? We have two. First is Andrea Walt? Well, no, to speak, and I'll share the timer again. Hey, Andrea, I don't know if you heard your name. Oh,

[01:03:59] Andrea Wald: um, I'm Andrea Wald. Are we on item 5.2 because I kind of came in a little bit late. Um, yes. So my name is Andrea Wald. I'm cofounder of Community for Natural Place Surfaces. We advocate for safe natural place surfaces. We educate public and private stakeholders on the harms of artificial turf and other artificial materials. We strive to increase the amount of grass and natural materials in our playing fields, playgrounds, parks, and towns. Why do I mention this? Because the impact of artificial turf and PIP poured in place rubber surface regarding loss of carbon capture as plastics, release CO2 and methane instead of absorbing CO2 as happens with natural products, such as grass, shrubs, and trees. I felt it important to urge all decarbonization plans to include avoidance of these plastic products. There's also the desire to reduce landfill waste, worn out artificial turf landscaping and old PIP playgrounds, end up in landfills, since neither is recyclable. So if your goal is to reduce landfill waste, then you should consider not allowing installation of artificial turf or PIP. Artificial turf and PTP surfaces also cause a heat island effect, which is something that needs to be understood when you discuss your next agenda item 5.3 extreme heat preparedness, and I thought I'd bring it up now rather than wait online another hour. Avoiding the use of these plastic products is directly related to wanting cooler cities. I hope you have all had a chance to read the material I emailed on Tuesday, and will take into account my suggestions and comments when discussing the decarbonization goals and extreme heat program this evening. Thank you. Thank you. And

[01:05:43] Member Alison Hicks: we have one more, uh, remember the public? Yes, I need to give me one moment. I need to. Unmute Mary, date you. Hold on. Okay, Mary Day deal? Now, off. evening. Um,

[01:06:00] Mary Dadio: I, uh, 1st of all, I want to uh, uh, pod, uh, the formation, uh, the participation in the local government climate policy alliance. Um, I think that's, you know, if we can avoid another 6 year moratorium on reach codes, um, and, and lobby for other beneficial things to the climate. That's wonderful. So I'm glad that the city is, is, um, leading in that. Um, I am, Disappointed to see that on the projection for remaining emission sources that in 2045, there are still emissions expected from natural gas in our city. So, um, I know there's been discussion about the goal to have, uh, to 0 out the flow of natural gas by 2045 and so, I'd really, it'd be interesting to know more detail about why that is still projected to exist in 2045 emissions for natural gas. I think, um, Just from an infrastructure support, standpoint and a risk mitigation standpoint, once we get to a fairly low level, I think we're going to want to 0 it out rapidly. So, um, I'm curious about that. Um, I'm also surprised at the population projections. I don't know about employment, but for people who live in Mountain View. I know the welcome to Mountain View signs, say they're about 83 or 84000 people here now. Um, so I'm surprised to see that. It's only 85.5,000 by 2030 in this updated, um, projection, especially since we're trying to build 11,000 residential units. So, um, Those 2 things don't seem consistent to me. Um, there seems to be some kind of uh, something missing there. Um. But, um, I'm excited to see the future, uh, progress that we're going to make on this and, um, I just want to thank staff for all their work on this. Thank you. Thank you. Has

[01:08:20] Member Alison Hicks: anyone else volunteered to speak? No, say hold on. Okay. So I'm gonna close the public speaking and bring it back to the committee. So it's time for a committee discussion. Um, And the topics are the 5 local initiatives, the 5 year roadmap. The decarbonization goal, and anything else on this topic you'd like to. Um, So does somebody want to start discussions? Thank you go first. Okay.

[01:08:55] Member Pat Showalter: All right, well, one thing I'd like to add somewhere is that, um, in the development of the five-year plan, uh, well, no, not found in that, and the development of our, um, of our, uh, revenue measure for next year. I think that, um, one of the things we should be polling about is, um, uh, whether or not people want to support electrification efforts. Uh, they, you said in here, it was, uh, a certain amount of money, it comes to $35000000 a year. Do we want to spend $35000000 a year? What would be the, um, what would be the debt, uh, the indebtedness to do that? Um. I think probably that's prohibitive, but I still think there might be an appetite for continuing to provide incentives. There is a tremendous appetite, particularly in our youth for things that are, you know, related to GHG reaction. So, um, I thought the uh, the 5 things you mentioned were, were fine. Um, uh, but I, um. I already mentioned the effect of the marshes. Now I have kind of, I'm not really, um, an uninterested party in that. Uh, but another thing that I'm, I'm real interested in and as we develop these roadmaps. is not just the infrastructure that we, um, We are, are gonna, we are building or not building. I'm also really, really interested in the programming that we carry out to, um, to teach people to use the infrastructure. I just, I have so many, um, uh, casual conversations with people in the, in the, uh, in the community who talk about. What does all that green paint mean or, you know, what does this new thing mean or that, what that? So I think that, you know, we we do need to educate people about what our infrastructure is for help them use it, you know, all those kind of things. So I, I think, That's not a sort of an also ran, is really important to get, to get people to learn to use it. And um, then the other thing is, is, is that, um, they're really giving careful thought about what are things that we should do alone? And what are things that we should do in concert with Silicon Valley clean energy? You know, we're really, um, part of a powerful group there, and Silicon Valley clean energy doesn't, um, operate in a vacuum either. They're very active on the state level. And I think that, um, uh, you know, although we want to do our part locally, sometimes our part is standing up and, you know, and getting our, our fellow, um, uh, you know, uh, neighbors to help us out with things. So, and as the rep, you know, Chris and I are the reps on, on Silicon Valley pain energy and, and we, um, we could use direction. Um, or I could use direction, I could use direction on, on what are the things that we should be, um, uh, advocating for, in particular, there is a big appetite at the moment, and I don't think this is going to go away. For what things save people money. So in addition to GHD reduction, you know, how much money is saved. If there's a way to model, kind of add that in. I think that's important. Um, and, uh, Then the other thing I wanted to bring up is that things that get monitored are much more likely to happen and and that pay attention to. I really want to hear on a regular basis. How, well, our reach codes such as they are, are working. I mean, we had a conversation today on the phone about that. How many, we know that, you know, the new construction will have to be all lecture. The question is, how much, how many gas appliances are being replaced? Well, um, as, you know, as as, um, uh, Chair Hicks is mentioned repeatedly. Part of that is educating people about, um, you know, the value of making a change. So I think that along with programming, you know, we want, we want people to be well educated. And I also think that we need to think about, do we want to do this sort of independently as a, um, as a, uh, a staff and and, um, uh, to have staff do it? Or do we think this is something we want to grow a grassroots, uh, ecosystem of, to help us with, like, do we want to ask carbon-free mountain view specifically to help us with? I'm pretty sure they jump at this chance. But anyway, I think that that's the programming of these things, I think, is really, really vital. And then, um, So specifically, I would like to, uh, you to request that we, the, um, we've all related to the city's appetite for supporting, um, electricization, assistance, how we work with Silicon Valley cleaning energy. And, um, let's see. Yeah, things are down. I wrote down everything he said. And thank you for explaining about how the biking was incorporated. I appreciate that. Um, then the other thing I want to put a plug in for is, um, sensitivity analysis. You know, I've never done, um, modeling for, uh, for, um, GHG reduction, but I did do a lot of modeling for water resources issues. And once you have the model together, you can ask it a lot of questions. And um, so I would just urge you to, um, ask a lot of questions. And, um, you know. It, it, it's, it's a very valuable tool and even, so, I, I can't say that I've necessarily come up with questions, but I hope that that's something you are really taking, um, very seriously. If the question isn't asked, it never gets answered. So that's the other thing I would say to you. I mean, no, you gotta get the questions, right? It's really important to think about them with the modeling. And, um, and then, uh, you don't want to spend the rest of your life running the model. You know, people who do that. But, you know, it's still, you know, an amazing tool. that, um, I would just want you to, to use. So I think that's my comments.

[01:16:31] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. If you think of additional comments, you can come back. All right. Uh, Council number Clark.

[01:16:38] Member Chris Clark: No, I just had a few and, um, I think with respect to the population numbers, it sounds like, um. It sounds like once the model's built that we can. Yeah, the model doesn't care what the numbers are. We can plug the numbers in. Um, I do think that, you know, the, at least the pop, the table and the staff report didn't feel, like we're probably under projecting the population through 2025, but I also felt like the, you know, using the housing helmet, Assumptions would result in something that's way too high, um, because we can plan doing this, but we don't build units. So, yeah, we can't force people to pull building permits. But I think to the extent that, um, to the extent that the model doesn't care and that you end up, you know, trying to figure out which actual numbers to plug in, I think, something somewhere in between, probably makes the most sense. But I'll, I'll trust you all to figure that out. Um, I think overall, the, the plan that, the proposal you put in front of us is, is fine. I think the only thing that I have reservations about, and I realize this is just studying it. So if you all have the time and energy to study it, then that's fine. But in the, in the vein of, as committee member, show Walter said, you know, saving people money and not doing things by ourselves, um, I, I have a lot of reservations about the time of sale. Um, component because one, you're effectively increasing the cost of housing, which is not what we want to do. Um, I think it would be, I think, conceptually, I like it. But I think administratively, it will be very difficult to go verify that that $5000 or whatever got used for what it was supposed. I don't know how you administer or verify and enforce it. And I don't think, I just, it, Maybe, maybe Berkeway has come up with some way to easily do it. I don't know. And if they have, then wonderful. And if you have the time to study it and we can figure that out, then great. But I, I would much prefer, if we were going down that path, something where you get a, not use one of the few cities with a transfer tax. Maybe you get some sort of credit. Um, whereas committee member, show up or said, you know, you're, there, there's an incentive there as opposed to, you know, a time of sale requirement where really what's going to happen is the purchase price is just going to go up by $5000 because you, you can say the seller has to pay it, but really, it, it just adds to the cost of housing, and, um, if you're, there's still condos in Mountain View that sell for under a $1000000 between half a 10000 and a 1000000 and that extra $5000 on top of your down payment is a big deal. If it's, if you're buying a 3 or $4000000 home, it's a rounding error and it's, they're probably going to do the upgrades anyway at some point because they can afford them. So really what you're, I don't know. how you would narrow it to really cover, especially in those lower end, you know, those condos where you don't have the ability to go to your HOA and say, I want to, it would just be very costly to upgrade your meter or to run plumbing without interfering with your neighbors. I mean, I lived in one of the soft story structure condos, and I just can't imagine how $5000 would have helped. I'm trying to think. Maybe even replacing a stove, because I couldn't, you'd have to run the electrical and you wouldn't have the panel to do it, and I don't know. I, I, I, it's just a long way of saying, I think it's a real, I think it's really great in concept. I think administratively it will be difficult unless SVCE and a bunch of cities figure out some way to do it. At a broader level. That's just my comments on that.

[01:20:40] Member Alison Hicks: I touched on the podcast. Were you saying check into doing it more regionally and also check into study it more about maybe linking it to a transfer chaps with those?

[01:20:51] Member Chris Clark: I don't think I looked up our transfer tax language and there's no way for us to give credits to people without going back to the voters. So I just, If you have the time and energy to study it, that's fine. I don't think it's something I would probably end up supporting unless I, I just think it would be a waste of time and effort, but that's just me. Um, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Um, and I think overall, um, Those are the 2 biggest things. I think overall, um, what's been proposed is a, is a great next step and the, and the, the 4, um, local actions that I mentioned made sense. I just have the reservations about the month. Okay. So,

[01:21:38] Member Alison Hicks: My comments on the 3 main questions. Um, so, 1st, uh, You know, although, of course, I'm, um, not happy with the recent changes at the federal level or even the, the, um, the, uh, state one regarding reach codes. Um, although I'm not happy with that, and I'm not happy that that makes you say, well, we're pretty much pretty much sure that we can't go that even 2045 is a reach, you know, that whole realm of things I'm not super happy about. But, um, I do think it clarifies for me that something that I've kind of been balling over, which is that, to me, I think those goals, whether it was, um, whether it was 20, 35, 20, 40, or 20, 45, or not the main thing for me. Um, and that it, they kind of, if those are our main focus, we're very reliant on state and federal, as we can see now, from experience, on state and federal programming. So we're not really doing. The emphasis is not on our own local programs. Instead, it's kind of Bean counting as administrations change. Oh, now, maybe we can make 2040. Oh no, now we can't. Oh yeah, now we can. Um, Which, you know, Tuesday made me more hopeful that maybe, maybe this won't be forever. But, um, So, It just reinforced for me that I want local initiatives that we do in a, that have big impact, except for the one that council membership Walter mentioned that we're doing anyway. with a small impact, that we want, that we really want to focus on, um, you know, not being being counters of state and federal, federal programs, but doing what we can do locally, and then I think the, what's been mentioned several times, the, um, partnering, regionally, and lobbying on the state, on whatever level, regional, county, state, federal, whatever level. So I think that, it, this unfortunate situation has clarified for me what kind of work we should be doing and that's kind of reflected in your report. Um, I liked the modeling that several peop, Ms. Lucky mentioned 1st and I think council member show Walter did too. Um, I'd like to review projects we're doing locally to see how impactful. They actually are. And like the ones that come to mind. I love TDM measures, but frankly, the ones that I've seen when we've reviewed it, because I'm on the council transportation committee. A lot of them are sticks. And my own opinion is that TDM probably won't work well if it's mostly sticks and few carrots, and they're, or another way of putting in it. There's little mass transit to transfer to. Um, So, I would like to know, when I listened to, um, I really liked our staff person who laid them out, so I didn't want to ask mean questions, but, um, but, uh, I thought some would be more impactable and, and easy to use than others. And I think we need to have frank discussions around that, and which ones are just not going to work out at all because there's no, you know, subway to to hop on when you can't park your car, um, or the parking your car. I mean, there's parking requirements too. Not having, you need a car where you are. Not having a parking on site means you're going to park in the street, which means they can't do the, everyone's parking in the street and they can't do the bike lane. The tree lined sidewalk or whatever that they were going to do. you know, their impacts there. And I think we're not always doing a full evaluation of, where we get the biggest band for the buck. Um, so, So I like that you mentioned that, and I would like to do that, you know, um, I have the same, and I think about it a lot with our active transportation, plan. I mean, we just, Another one is what kind of bike lanes do people like to use or do they like to use something else? We had our, um, at our last council meeting, one of the council members asked about various, Well, if people are crossing 101 and he, he mentioned, he has questions about 3 different ways. And different bridges and the Stevens Creek Trail. And there were like, 14 bikes going on one, you know, 15 on another in the teens, and then the Stevens Creek Trail. It's like 188, 195, almost 200. There's a huge difference. And I know this is how I feel. I don't bike on car heavy in car heavy places. So, I think we need to look at where we're putting our money and we need to put our money into things that people will use and we need to look at what we've put our money into. Some of these are very expensive projects. And there's always a cost benefit. You know, if you put it into one thing, you can't put it into something else. So I don't think we should just go by road, stamping out the same, possibly underused project over and over again. That's, so I like that modeling and I would like to, a lot of the things that you listed that we're doing to decarbonize are things that other departments are doing. You know, it's community development or housing or public works. Um, And I want to make sure, I sometimes think we're not, we're just doing what is generally done in the region and it's not necessarily things that are well used. So, That's, I would like more modeling of what's actually being used and what isn't. Um, You know, also this thing about, uh, transitoriented development, all good, you know, of course, I want that. But often we're taking out the things that makes it most, like the neighborhood serving stuff, that make it so that people can give up their cars and putting, you know, like very office heavy, you don't do that so much, or very housing heavy. But I think, Like in your report, you said mixed use, but we're doing less mixed use. So when I walked Moffat and talked to people. They, they're having a shopping closet taken out, and it's going to be all housing. And they are telling me they're using their cars, Mom, because there's nothing to walk to. And so people who might have gone down to one or 0 cars are driving a lot, not reducing their car use. Anyway. So I would like to look into the things we're doing and see how well they're working. Um, As far as new local initiatives, the expanding the community shuttle. I know our community shuttle is, um, very expensive and encountering some problems in terms of affording it. At the same time, I think it's an opportunity to partner with. I don't know if it's over the next 5 years, but at least started discussion of partnering with, we have several autonomous vehicle companies located here, that their whole thing. Um, I don't have a full list of them, but it's like, Waymo, Neuro, and Uber. Some of them are cooperating with each other, all want to do more shared rides kind of things. Oh, and Zooks, which is Amazon, which is not local. Um, they want to do more, like, any best shared rides, whereas Tesla wants to do more, uh, privately owned. You know, your status symbol kind of thing. Could, could, you know, we could promote that here. We have enough people with enough money. Um, so I am interested in starting a conversation. Also, our school district, it said they would like school buses or more, they use our shuttle, but they would like more. Um, we have neighboring cities that do, um, different kinds of community shuttles that would like to partner with us. Um, and uh, Yeah, and then there's, um, El Camino Hospital gives grants for things, and it might include our shuttle goes to El Camino. So, um, they get fairly large community grants. So, I think we should be having conversations about, How to expand the community shuttle that, I think we should start broaching partners, and, uh, look at how we might, um, you know, we have a bus only lane going into North Basure, you know, buses on it. Could those be community shuttles? I think we should start looking at those questions. I don't know that we'll do them immediately, but I think we should start the conversation. I would like to see permit streamlining. And uh, contractor and vendor outreach. Because I've heard that our, you're the water heater went quite well. And I've heard that you're presenting at the CNC and that I'm very happy about that. Um, But I have neighbors who wanted to do heat pump water heaters and the contractor, they called up, convinced them not to do it.

[01:31:24] Member Alison Hicks: So, I think outreach to, um, I mean, uh, council member Sherwater talked about education and outreach, and it might be, there's also the guy who's selling. There's a guy selling gas fireplaces on Castro. Yes. And when I go in and talk to them, I went in and talked to them when I was mayor. And he said, uh, he said, I said, you know, you're not supposed to sell gas fireplaces anymore. I like your electric ones when you put them in the window instead of the gas ones. And he said, oh, don't listen to the city. I said, for the city. But, you know, we could do outreach to those people who are selling things that we don't want. You know, he has electric prep places in there. He's just not prioritizing them. So vendor and contractor outreach, permit streamlining. Um, I've heard some talk of our emergency preparedness program, including, not just earthquake preparedness, but, uh, climate crisis preparedness, including, we're having everybody electrified, but in the winter, the electricity's going out constantly. Some sort of, um, you know, solar roofing with batteries, uh, you know, modeled that for people. People have told me they would be interested in him. And another one would be pairing a soft story retrofit program with electrification and car charging. Maybe somebody is on council and I'm not could bring that up as a council. Okay. Um, There's balcony solar. Um, there's an expanded concept of micromobility that highlights not just scooters, but small cars, make some, Super contact cars a priority. Um. And then the last thing I'll say is we should reevaluate every 3 to 5 years because I, I suspect we'll see major unexpected changes in the same way, well, um, Bruce Kearney brought up some of these, like the ultra fast charging. Um, You know like 2020 brought remote work. And I think we're going to, and the Plan Bay Area 2050, the modeling for that, and 2060, they're predicting disruptive, pretty disruptive change with automatic vehicles that could be good or bad, depending on the accompanying public policy. So I think we need to start thinking about the public policy. Um, okay, those are my comments. Did our round of comments trigger any other comments for anyone?

[01:34:19] Member Pat Showalter: Yes, there was one I, I, um, one of your comments triggered, and I really appreciate your comments. Very, you know, very, very thoughtful. Um, uh, one of the things that this brought to mind for me, um, I have looked at how grim our ability to actually meet our goals was, is maybe we need to, um, think a little bit more about carbon sequestration and or carbon mining. Um, something that there's a lot of technology. There's a lot of innovation working on. I personally know very little about it. I've gone to a number of talks. You know, let's just make it, tell you, Jesus, you're enough to be dangerous. But anyway, but I still think that that is something that could change dramatically. in the future, if there was the right technology, and then again, it might not, they never amount to anything, but, um, I think that that is something that we should keep our eyes on. And, um, We have a lot of innovative part, uh, companies in the city. We see, we certainly see a lot of pot of motive research. Um, linked anyway, I, anyway, I think that's, That's something that we might want to give some thought to as well.

[01:35:47] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so the next thing is, we have a possible motion, but we also have a lot of comments. So, I don't know whether staff has some idea of how they'd like to deal with the comments or whether, um, Committee members have, uh, have, um, ideas for how to fit the thing. We could just have, okay, I'm going to make a little bit of a stab. We could just have, um, people could decide, you know, to go with the staffing part, or you seem to say that you, everybody seem to say that they are willing to pass the staff report. And then pick, um, one or 2 other, several other local initiatives or, hence, staff all the suggestions, and they pick the ones that make sense. Um,

[01:36:43] Ms. Lee: in terms of modeling additional local initiatives. I, um, what I'd like to recommend is that at our December meeting, which is in approximately 3 weeks, um, will be bringing the climate vulnerability assessment and discussing contract amendments. And so at that point, we can bring a summary of what we understood to be some of the ideas for additional contract modifications to model additional measures. Um, and we could capture all of those changes at one time in the discussion in December. So we'll go back and make sure that we've captured um, the modeling requests in particular. Um, in terms of the additional ideas for inclusion in the five-year roadmap, whether they're modeled or not modeled. Um, we, We've all been taking notes. And so I'm hoping that between the 7 of us, we have a fairly comprehensive list. Uh, we can also come back in December with, um, a confirmed list to make sure that we've captured everything. We certainly heard, um, kind of ideas in the creative space around, you know, what is the, One of the ways that we can make our transportation initiatives be more effective. Um, some discussion around sequestration. Of course, some concerns in terms of, um, measures that we are modeling, but we're, we're not yet at the phase where we are recommending them for inclusion in our 5 year plan. So, we'll be able to make a final decision about that with the committee. I'm trying to think of, um, and then in terms of, um, adjusting the modeling with regards to population estimates or other growth factors. We're happy to do that and to provide additional detail. Um, on all of the background analysis that went into the model. Um, And then finally, uh, in terms of the polling and the revenue measure, um, I have joined the city's revenue measure team. Um, of course, we're initially looking at, uh, perhaps a general obligation bond and we'll be undertaking some polling. Um, the kinds of activities that that particular form of revenue measure can fund are somewhat limited. We were sort of thinking of them offhand as the things that would be, it would show up in our CIP. And so, um, we can bring additional information for that, uh, and, um, of course, I think sustainability is already contemplated for inclusion in that polling. So, um, it's part of a bigger conversation with the community, about what, uh, their priorities are, but it will be touched on in the polling that's coming forthcoming. So,

[01:39:32] Member Pat Showalter: I would just like to bring it. Yes, with respect to the polling. I would just like to, um, uh, to bring up the, um, the general accounting, uh, change that was made for distributed infrastructure, for bond, for, for making it okay to bond for distributed infrastructure related to, um, uh, water conservation. I think it would also apply for electrification, but I'm not positive of that. But, um, so perhaps we could have, I could get you some information, I, Don't remind me to do that, though. Uh, it's related to, um, uh, the idea that, for instance, um, it would be okay to bond for, uh, a, um, uh, a municipality to, um, buy back everybody's loans at once instead of to do it over a 20 year period.

[01:40:32] Ms. Lee: point it up. So I guess in summary, we could bring back a finalized list of what we got in terms of additions to the roadmap because this evening's presentation was only kind of a 1st pass and what should be included in that roadmap. We won't be bringing it back to the committee for real discussion until 2026, probably the spring. And so, uh, we can be in communication at the next meeting and, um, even just directly, if you have feedback for us for additional things that you would like, included. We'll make sure to add those in. There's several kind of on ramps for that still.

[01:41:08] Member Alison Hicks: You know, I may be confused about the way I'm thinking about the local initiatives for versus the 5 year roadmap. But the local, whatever you call them, initiatives projects were on the roadmap.

[01:41:23] Ms. Lee: Yes, the, Well, We have 5 additional measures, our contract with Cascadia covers 10 measures to model. We approved the 1st 5 at our June meeting, and then tonight we're hoping to approve the 2nd five.

[01:41:40] Member Alison Hicks: I see.

[01:41:40] Ms. Lee: Now that you've seen the results of kind of where we are. We anticipate that many, if not all of those would be ultimately included in the roadmap, but it's not necessarily the case. You know, we could have models. We have projects that are not modeled that are done anyway.

[01:41:57] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. I get it. So what I'm hearing and tell me if I'm wrong, is that, um, you're taking in what we're saying, uh, and will in terms of local measures and what should be on the roadmap. And so if we make the motion to accept the, the, uh, staff proposal, you would just add those and come back. With your comments about which ones we've said are reasonable on which you're.

[01:42:24] Ms. Lee: Yes. And then also the direction to develop the five-year-old net with the gold in 2045.

[01:42:30] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, does anyone want to make a motion? I

[01:42:34] Member Chris Clark: will, I will move that, and I'll just, I don't know if my other 2 colleagues agree. I don't think you should remove the time of sale item, um, but if in evaluating some of the other ideas that were brought up, Like, if you feel one of those would be more valuable than time of sale, then I'm happy to, at whatever point in the future, swap that in. It sounds like we get to study five. So, I'm, um, I mean, you heard my comments. I, I, I can go either way there, but um, I, I'm personally open to swapping something else. If one of these other items excites you more than that one, or you think has more attraction than the other than I'm happy to swap it in at that later time. But that's just neat. So I'll otherwise move the staff recommendations.

[01:43:19] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Sounds good. Do we have a 2nd?

[01:43:23] Member Pat Showalter: And, and I, I, I would concur with the time of sale. Um, I think that the implementation is, um, is very difficult. So I, I would, I would want that to be studied, um, collaboratively with other teams. I don't think we're going to want to go forward on that by our own. It'll

[01:43:45] Member Chris Clark: be tough to do it on our own. Unless, unless the compliance mechanism is like, I, you literally send a 2 page or a 2 line letter that says I certify independently perjury that I've used $5000 for something you told me I should use it for, but.

[01:44:00] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, I thought it was a good one, but I understand the, the, um, your criticisms of it and would like to, you know, if they find something better. Give us feedback if somebody else is doing it well, and it's easier than, you thought, or if, in fact, there are a lot of problems that I'd like to hear.

[01:44:19] Member Pat Showalter: And then the other thing, I wanted to reiterate that, you know, it isn't in here, but I, But you mentioned it, and I think it's really, really important, is the idea, and we've been doing it, is the idea that we re evaluate this in 5 years. I mean, I think that in particular, given the federal situation, we might even want to do it somewhere than that, but, but we're all very hopeful that, that the circumstances 5 years will be very different than they are now. And so, um, whenever, um, it seems appropriate, but at least within 5 years. I would, you know, just want things reevaluate it.

[01:44:56] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I mean, I think that's why it's a 5 year old. Exactly, for a 20 year old. Not only, I mean, there's political changes that I would have hoped we'd be on a more steady state, but then there's technical changes too.

[01:45:11] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so, Do you want to call the vote?

[01:45:16] Member Alison Hicks: Chair X.

[01:45:17] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[01:45:18] Member Alison Hicks: And number Clark?

[01:45:20] Member Chris Clark: Yes.

[01:45:21] Member Alison Hicks: Michelle Watson.

[01:45:22] Member Pat Showalter: Yes.

[01:45:23] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. So if there are no any final comments from commuting members or staff? If not, we'll move on to 53, which is results of the extreme heat community preparedness program. This item will be presented by climate fellow Grace Khan. Ms. Lee will commence the presentation.

[01:45:43] Ms. Lee: Thank you, Cher Hicks. I just wanted to introduce this item, uh, at this evening's meeting and at the December meeting, we plan to have our climate fellows showcase some of the work that they've been doing in this last year. Uh, in lieu of the horrible staff update across all of our programs. This will just be a deeper dive into a single initiative. Tonight, we're pleased to be joined by Ms. Conn, who's one of our clinic Corfellows. And she will be talking to us about the results of our extreme community preparedness project.

[01:46:21] Grace Khan: Thank you, Miss Lee. Thanks. So the city of Mountain View will face increased impacts from climate change in the coming years and decades, including more severe and frequent extreme heat phase and warm nights. Tonight, I will present the results of the extreme heat community preparedness program, which was designed to support vulnerable populations in Mountain View by enhancing their readiness for 3 feet in air quality events. The program was funded by a $25,000 grant from the county and the city used an additional $4000 to support the grant. As you may remember from our June meeting about the climate vulnerability assessment. Extreme heat is a major climate impact in Mountain View. Climate change related risks are currently being examined through the climate vulnerability assessment. To better understand how Mountain View will be impacted by climate change. Um, as mentioned before, the draft CBA will be presented at the December 1st meeting. However, preliminary findings for the CBA show. That by the end of the century, Mountain View will experience 23 extreme heat days per year. Additionally, while most of the city is not projected to be directly impacted by wildfires, more frequent and intense fires in other nearby areas have contributed to unhealthy air quality in Mountain View. And this issue is likely to worsen as climate change intensifies. These conditions will strain public health, especially for people living in vehicles, older adults, children, outdoor workers, and non-English speakers. As you likely know, many vulnerable communities live in Mountain View, including unhoused residents who live in their vehicles and residents with limited English proficiency. 879 people are currently unhoused in Mountain View. This count rose from 56% from the 2023 count of 562 on housed residents, and about 47% of the mountain view population speaks the language other than English, and 15% of the population speaks English less than very well. And many residents who live in their vehicles speak a language other than English. Residents living in vehicles and community members with limited English proficiency were chosen as the target populations for this grant, as unhoused residents, including people who live in their vehicles, faced elevated risks from extreme heat due to prolonged exposure, lack of shade, and barriers to accessing cooling centers. And residents with limited English proficiency may experience challenges, accessing resources about climate hazards, and information on staying healthy in their preferred language, and therefore may miss out on up to date and accurate information. The Sustainability team partnered with the Community Services Agency, CSA and the Mountain View Police Department's Neighborhood and Event Services Unit to implement the Extreme Heat Community Preparedness Program. I will refer to this partnership as the team throughout the presentation.

[01:49:34] Unknown Speaker: Sustainability staff developed extreme heat, import air quality preparedness flyers. There are also some on the table, if you're interested in looking at those at the end. These flyers include information on how to sign up for the county's emergency alert system, alert Santa Clara County. The top tips to stay in safe and the health impacts of heat and air quality. The flyers are available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian, and they are also posted on our website. Next, resilience toolkits were created. The kits include items such as solar charging, air purifier, water misting fan, sun hat, electrolyte packets, and more to help residents prepare for and stay safe during heat and air quality events. And each kit is valued at around $140. Additionally, the extreme heat community preparedness program included an extreme heat and air quality workshop for staff. The sustainability division provided a workshop for CSA and city employees to educate staff. The training covered the impacts of heat import air quality, who is most vulnerable, the health impacts, and the top tips to staying safe. The team identified residents living in vehicles who have a high percentage of non-English speakers as the community that would most benefit from the toolkits, and provided multilingual door-to-door outreach, and distributed 200 resilience toolkits over the summer. This map shows where kits were distributed throughout the city. The team gave out kits at safe parking lots, wide streets where residents can park oversized vehicles and at community-based organizations. 94% of the residents that the team interacted with, accepted a toolkit, and the team provided multilingual outreach, as 77% of residents who accepted a kit spoke Spanish. Additionally, many of the residents that received a toolkit had families with young children. Residents were provided a voluntary form to provide feedback on the program, and survey respondents found the health information, electrolyte packets, water missing fans, and air purifiers to be the most helpful items included in the kids. Residents were also provided a space to leave comments, some of here, which include, thank you so much. The items included may save a life, and I just want to thank you for the support you provide. We also heard from leaders in the Latino community that their clients really appreciated the toolkits, and they came at an opportune time to help the living and vehicle to help the living and vehicle population deal with increasing temperatures. And as someone who went out into the field, going door to door to residents living in their vehicles, I could really tell there was a great appreciation, um, and thankfulness for going out there and providing these resources. And we also went out on days that were very high in temperature up to 90 degrees during a heat advisory when people were really needing these resources. So the Extreme Heat Community Preparedness program was a pilot program funded by a grant. So staff will continue exploring ways to better assist vulnerable communities during climate related events, such as extreme heat import air quality, through the climate vulnerability assessment. And just as another reminder, the draft CBA will be presented to CSC at the December 1st meeting. Thank you and any questions?

[01:53:11] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. So do members of the committee have any questions?

[01:53:17] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I thought it was really interesting that you said that the air purifier was one of the things that we particularly appreciated. Is that because inside of an RV, they do cooking and it gets rid of cooking owners or? Do you know why? Um,

[01:53:31] Unknown Speaker: I'm not quite sure about that, but um, increased temperatures can also decrease air quality. Um, so that could be one factor as to why they helped. We didn't quite get feedback on why those kits or why those items were the most important items and kits that people pointed out, but that's something we could possibly explore going forward.

[01:53:53] Member Pat Showalter: So it was them and the Mr. and what was the other thing?

[01:53:56] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, the water misting fans, um, electrolyte packets, and then um, on the flyers, the health information that was included.

[01:54:05] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah. I know, when I moved to California, um, you know, I had grown up in the east coast where it was very, very humid. And, um, I did some field work fairly early in my career in a desert climb and I remember, uh, going out there and it was a long time ago, we didn't have air conditioning in their vehicles. And the people out there, had these water bottles, that they sprayed the inside of their carways, and it would like immediately evaporate. And I, you know, being a little, a grown grown up and, you know, the mugginess of Richmond and Baltimore and Washington, DC, the thought of doing that. I mean, it would all be mold and it was just like, but it was magical how, you know, just a spray bottle would, would, um, you know, in the evaporation from that would, would bring down the temperature inside of the vehicle. So, I wasn't surprised to hear about that. But the air purifier, I just, okay. Thank you. Good job.

[01:55:06] Member Alison Hicks: So the staff report said you were not able to get much feedback from people. Do I understand that right? You didn't get to interact and find out.

[01:55:14] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, that's correct. Um, so we provided a voluntary form, like a QR code and a link um, on a handout that was inside the kids. Um, only 2 people took, um, decided to respond to that. Um, and as mentioned in the staff report. It was kind of hard to follow up with people. Um, if you know about the city, the parking ordinance, where people have to move every like 72 hours. Um, so it was very hard to remember who you gave a kit to, and then you have to go find them again to try to collect feedback that way. Um, so I think in the future stuff, we'll explore other pathways. to try to collect more feedback from residents. Um,

[01:55:55] Danielle Lee: can I just add the, the kids were designed with feedback from CSA and, you know, they have a long history of engaging with this population. So, um, we had some sense of what might be useful to people living in their vehicles, but, you know, it's hard to really survey them until they've actually had a chance to use the items and then it was, as misconduct, and hard to find them.

[01:56:18] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item?

[01:56:24] Unknown Speaker: Well, that's Mary Dido. Okay, Mary?

[01:56:35] Mary Datio: Don't see the unmute again.

[01:56:38] Member Alison Hicks: We can hear you, Mary.

[01:56:39] Mary Datio: Oh, you can hear me. Great. Thank you so much. Um, I just wanted to, uh, uh, talk a minute about the urban heat island effect and, uh, which is wild, this is necessary. Um, the surface temperature, hardscape can be about 40 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit, higher than the air temperature, which means that, um, sidewalks or bike lanes can be just really, um, unuseful, uh, uh, you know, maybe multiple months of the year, as we see these higher temperatures, because we, not this year, we've been fortunate, but last year, Several times, the temperature here was over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Um, I just wanted to mention that trees, um, help by creating shade, but even more than that, um, trees actually lower the temperature because they're transpiring. Um, So, I just want to reiterate the importance of um, the biodiversity plan and actually implementing that in areas where we hope to have active transportation. So that all the people we hope are out on bicycles and walking will be able to do that on uh, days when it, it gets really hot in Mountain View. But we need to make sure that there's, there's budget and that, that, that, trees actually get implemented as part of the act of transportation plan. Um, that they get planned for and that, you know, money is set aside not just for installation, but also maintenance. Thank you.

[01:58:24] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. So any other members of the public? I'm not seeing any. Yeah, okay. So we bring it back. This, I think, was just an informational item, but, uh, any more comments from, um, from, uh, committee members. Okay. Seeing. No more comments. Um. We will, let's see. Where am I? Uh, so no action is required. I'll just say my comment is that, when I saw pictures of people parked in RVs in large parking lots with no trees, my, my, 1st uh, the 1st thing that came to mind was pretty much what Mary Datia said of what they really need is. I mean, hopefully we won't have people living in vehicles for decades and decades to come. But the way things are going, we may. And hopefully our safe parking lots at least can have some shade. Um, and our streets as well, for that matter, for walking, walking and down the street, I suppose. Okay. So now we're at, uh, item number 6, which is committee, staff, comments, questions and committee reports. Um, 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? Uh,

[02:00:06] Danielle Lee: Cher, I just wanted to mention, um, you referred to it briefly, but we, um, heard earlier this week that our supplemental rebate for heat pump water heaters is fully subscribed, which, um, is really exciting to us because the program only launched in, so we will be, uh, regrouping as staff to look at additional funding sources that will bring a proposal back to this committee.

[02:00:30] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, I was very happy when you said that before, uh, when we spoke earlier, do you have any, um, reasons that you like, where did it get? Where did you find people taking it up the most? you know, was there any particular kind of outreach that really worked?

[02:00:46] Danielle Lee: Well, we had a whole year of the heat pump water heater campaign. Ms. Ramos headed that up and we developed a, um, mascot in Watson, and mascot was at the Diet in Muertos, um, event a few weeks ago. Um, Or maybe it was just last weekend. Um, and and really trying to engage people. It's not terribly exciting at face value. You know, he pumped water heater. Um, but Ms. Ramos has managed to make it fun and there were lots of children crowding around and engaging and families just talking about it. And so I think this really robust outreach and engagement initiative has been critical to us.

[02:01:28] Member Alison Hicks: Do you have any comments on what was what made it most popular?

[02:01:33] Danielle Lee: Um, it seems like the consistency over time has really had an impact. More people have heard about it hearing about it several times. And then also, we were able to get it

[02:01:44] Unknown Speaker: included in the view, which went out to every home in September, and that seemed, or that seemed to be one of the things that helped the most recent month.

[02:01:55] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, well, great. Any other comments?

[02:01:58] Member Pat Showalter: Oh, well, just congratulations on the award. That, um, uh... Yes, for Italy? Yes, yes. Yeah, okay. Yeah that's great. Institute from Mobile Gate. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Awesome.

[02:02:17] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so very proud. Okay, last call for comments? No more? Okay, now we're on uh, item number seven. Uh, which is adjournment. And so this meeting is adjourned at 8:03 PM. I won't get you.

• ← Previous
• Next →