December 1, 2025 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:01] Member Alison Hicks: Shown on the screen. Uh, when the, The chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, click on the raised hand feature in Zoom or star 9 on your phone. When the chair calls your name to provide public comment, if you're participating via phone, please press star 6 to unmute yourself. For in-person attendees, please fill out a speaker card, which you can find on the sign in table to the left of the door. Now item number one is complete. Um, and we will move on to item number two, wall call. Ms. Lee, can you take roll?

[00:00:40] Ms. Lee: Chair Hicks,

[00:00:41] Member Alison Hicks: here.

[00:00:42] Ms. Lee: A member show Walter. So we have a quorum and I've heard that member Clark will arrive momentarily.

[00:00:50] Member Alison Hicks: We're now to item number 3 approving the minutes. This would be the CSC meeting minutes from November 6th of 2025. Does anyone have any comments or questions about the meeting? Um, would, Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes?

[00:01:15] Member Alison Hicks: So move. All 2nd,

[00:01:17] Member Alison Hicks: and Ms. Lee, can you take a vote?

[00:01:19] Ms. Lee: Certainly, Chair Hicks.

[00:01:21] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[00:01:22] Ms. Lee: Yeah, membership alter.

[00:01:23] Member Pat Showalter: Yes.

[00:01:25] Member Alison Hicks: We're now on item number four, it was oral communications. Uh, I don't know. It's oral communications from the public, and this portion of the meeting is reserved for people wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. Uh, you are allowed to speak on any topic you'd like for up to 3 minutes. State law prohibits the CSC from acting on non-agendize items. Would any member of the public like to provide comment on an item that is not on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom. Um, Or press star 9 on your phone, and if you're here in person. Um, give a speaker credit. So nobody is here in person to speak on this on the during the public speaking phone. Do we have anybody? Miss Lynn, do we have anybody?

[00:02:24] Miss Lynn: No, actually, no, raised hands virtually. No, virtual speakers.

[00:02:28] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, we will now close the oral communication item and move to our discussion and action items. First, we have, so we have new business. First 5.one, which is a draft climate vulnerability assessment and scope of services, develop to develop an integrated climate strategy, which is comprised of decarbonization and resiliency. This item will be presented by staff from the sustainability division and also Cascadia consultant group. Ms. Lee will commence the presentation.

[00:03:04] Ms. Lee: Thank you, chair. I'm pleased to be here this evening to talk with the committee about the draft of our climate vulnerability assessment, and also proposed amendments to our existing contract with Cascadia. Next slide. Just by way of a little bit of background. Um, this project commenced at the end of 2024, uh, November 19th, council approved the scope of work for, um, Cascadia to undertake a climate vulnerability assessment. Um, in April of this year, we brought to the committee, uh, the framework, deliverables and focus areas that we would be pursuing within the vulnerability assessment. And then in June, um, of this year, we came to the committee with a preliminary kind of glimpse into what the CVA would look like. We had focused look at the heat data that we were analyzing. And this evening, we are prepared to present to you the draft of the full vulnerability assessment. Slide. Um, The process of developing the CBA has been um, thorough. We started with reviewing plans across the city that were already underway or that had been adopted, um, understanding what the, the city's goals already were and analysis that had already um, been undertaken. So for example, um, the city has been active in planning for sea level rise. And so our consultants were reviewing some of that work. Um, Next, the Cascadia and the team worked to develop uh, what we call climate impact summaries, um, just to start to understand by climate impact. What would our future and mountain view look like with regards to climate change? And today, um, we're at this phase of being uh, ready to present the draft vulnerability assessment. This includes our literature review, what work has been done in other jurisdictions, um, around vulnerability assessment, um, data that has already been analyzed regionally. Um, the CBA contains maps of some of our vulnerabilities. And we have also worked with our colleagues in departments across the city to vet the preliminary vulnerability assessment. Um, and then after this evening, depending on the direction from this committee, um, the final stage would, of course, be bringing this to council for adoption. And we will see what form that takes. Slide. And with that, I'd like to introduce, um, Celine Fujikawa, she presented, uh, some data to you in June, um, the heat data specifically. And um, Ms. Fujiko will walk us through the results of Cascadia's analysis.

[00:06:22] Celine Fujikawa: Thank you, Ms. Lee, and uh, good evening to uh, Chair Hicks council member Clark and council member show Walter. Thanks for the opportunity to present tonight on the draft climate vulnerability assessment. So I wanted to start off with, um, talking a little bit about some of the goals of the CBA. Um, so the CBA was designed to do 3 main things. The 1st was to identify where the climate risks are most significant within the city, um, and really looking at the mountain views people, infrastructure and services that are being impacted. Um, the 2nd is to provide a strong foundation for future strategies that can be tailored to the city's specific vulnerabilities. Um, and then the 3rd is to um, support cross-sector planning by highlighting what are the existing gaps as well as opportunities for um, cross-collaboration, um, and partnerships to help the city move towards a more coordinated and better informed resilience planning effort. X slide. And so this assessment really looks at, um, 4 major things. Um, the 1st is how climate hazards are already affecting mountain views, communities, um, infrastructure and services. Um, and it builds directly on the cities, existing resilience work rather than duplicating it. Um, wanting to acknowledge that Mountain View has done, um, a lot of incredible work, um, and is an early leader in this space. And so, um, we wanted to highlight, um, it's, you know, it's sea level rising planning, um, emergency preparedness efforts, um, as well as any ongoing infrastructure upgrades that are currently happening. Um, the CVA focuses on a sector-based approach to better understand where the risks are showing up across a variety of sectors, which include health, housing, transportation, the economy, um, as well as city operations, and um, together we see these pieces, providing a really strong foundation. For, um, as I mentioned earlier, the future of resilience planning um, across departments for the city. Next life. Um, and so I wanted to highlight um, the top hazards in Mountain View. This might look a little familiar from our June CSE meeting. Um, so just wanted to highlight again, these are the 4 primary climate hazards that the city is currently experiencing. Um, and so as we look to the future, for extreme heat and air quality. Projections show the city will be experiencing on average 23 extreme heat days, as well as 78 warm nights per year by late century. And this is being compared to the historic baseline. Um, and just to define what an extreme heat day means, um, this basically means, um, temperatures that rise above 91 degrees Fahrenheit, and a warm night um, is defined as um, overnight temperatures that stay above 65 degrees Fahrenheit, which um, offers little relief from the daytime heat. Um, we're also expecting to see more intense bursts of rainfall, which can um, increase flooding in the low lying areas within the city. For wildfire risk. Well, Mountain View itself isn't in a designated burn zone. Um, we know that with increasing temperatures, um, hotter and drier conditions can elevate wildfire potential, especially those that are near the wildland urban interface, um, which is basically where homes and development meets or kind of the border of where the uh, natural vegetation meets with development. Um, and then for wildfire, smoke, um, we know that regional wildfires are, um, increasing in frequency and intensity. And we're also expecting to see more prolonged and frequent smoke events, um, along with those wildfire events that are happening around the region. Um, and so we're going to be also seeing worsening air quality across the city. Next slide. Um, and so I really wanted to just briefly touch on the climate sensitive population. So, um, as many of you in this room, no climate change affects everybody. Um, but not everyone is affected in the same way. Um, so certain groups tend to face higher average risks, um, and this is due to factors like income, age, health, housing conditions, um, or even the type of work that they do. Um, and so while this doesn't mean that every individual within these categories are inherently vulnerable, um, we, we see from national and regional research and studies that, um, there are really clear patterns of disproportionate impacts for a lot of these, um, climate sensitive populations that you see here. And so when someone falls into multiple categories, um, some of those risks can be compounded. And so, for example, if we think of an older adult who is low income, living with a disability, um, and experiencing housing instability, um, this individual may face far greater challenges during extreme heat or spoke events. And so it's really important to understand these overlapping vulnerabilities in order to help us better identify where the support and resources are most needed. Next slide.

[00:12:17] Rebecca Luck: Oh Um, it looks like there was a download issue. I can, um, change to the, a different format of the presentation.

[00:12:28] Celine Fujikawa: Uh, it's okay. I think I can just, um, maybe explain this side. So, um, so this visual that was, um, on the slide here is just pretty much talking about how we are assessing vulnerability as part of the CVA. Um, and so we're using a simple framework, um, from the intergovernmental panel on climate change or also known as the IPCC, which is the leading inter uh, international scientific body on climate change. Um, and so if you can think of this, um, framework as 3 parts. Okay, great. So the 1st part of this is exposure. Um, and so this is really defined as how much of a system or population is experiencing a climate hazard, so something like heat or flooding. Um, the 2nd part to this equation is sensitivity. Um, and so this is defined as how strongly that hazard was likely to affect, um, people or that specific infrastructure service. Um, and then 3rd is adaptive capacity, which is um, the ability to prepare for respond to or recover from those impacts. Um, and so I can provide a quick example of what this may, um, look like for Mountain View. And so, for example, neighborhoods with very high heat exposure, um, that have many, um, a higher, like, older adult population, but also has limited shade and cooling and transit access. Um, these tend to show a higher vulnerability compared to areas that may have similar heat exposure. Um, but stronger access to cooling resources and other accessible services. Next slide. Um, and so for this assessment, we organize this analysis into 4 key sectors, um, the 1st being health and well-being, the 2nd is emergency management. The 3rd is economy and um, the last is housing and infrastructure. And so these sectors really help us understand where the climate impacts show up across the different parts of the community. And we also looked at the systems that cut across all sectors. So, for example, something like power distribution. Um, while we didn't look at or include power as a specific standalone sector, um, we know that outages when they happen, they affect every part of city operations. And so instead what we did was we wove power related considerations throughout each sector and we can continue to strengthen that narrative in the final report as well. X slide. Um, so before I um, dive into the summary of vulnerability, um, across the sectors, I wanted to just quickly pause here to see if there were any immediate questions about, um, our methodology or any of the sectors.

[00:15:35] Member Alison Hicks: Commuting members. Any questions? Nope, we typically do our questions at the end, though. Maybe you'll get some that.

[00:15:41] Ms. Lee: We just thought it was such a lengthy topic. I do.

[00:15:44] Celine Fujikawa: It's a lot of information. So come back to you. We see. Okay. Sounds good. Well, go ahead and dive into our 1st sector, which is our health and well-being sector. Um, so this mainly uh, looks at both physical health and mental health, um, recognizing that climate, um, hazards not only, um, are heat related illnesses or respiratory conditions, but can also manifest into stress, anxiety and impact overall well-being. And so we'll walk through some of what we found across both of those subsectors. Um, so here the slide summarizes the vulnerability, um, across the health and well-being sector. Um, and really we, what we did here is we condense some of the scoring, um, just to help, um, make it a little bit more high level and digestible for this audience. And so this reflects, again, both the physical and mental health impacts. Um, and if you're interested in seeing a more detailed like hazard by hazard scoring, um, that information is included in both the executive summary and the draft full draft CVA document. Um, and so it's just a highlight, sorry, if you can go back one slide. Um, so I wanted to just highlight a few key takeaways for the sector. So we found that, um, extreme heat and wildfire smoke are the 2 biggest health threats for Mountain View, um, both hazards are already affecting residents today and are projected to worsen over time. Um, and this, this is gonna cause an increased case of um, heat related illness and respiratory issues. Um, We also know that when we think about heat, um, and heat being combined with humidity, um, this also raises the what the quote unquote feels like temperature is. So, for example, something like a 90 degree day with 75% degree, um, or 75% humidity, which is not uncommon during the summers here, I'm sure you've all experienced, um, that temperature can actually feel like 109 degrees. So we're seeing triple digits here. Um, and so that's actually well into the danger zone for heat related illness, um, which makes outdoor and indoor conditions, much more sense dangerous and sensitive for um, groups like older adults, young children, um, and people with pre-existing health conditions. We're also seeing poor air quality, um, near major roadways. So highways like highway 101 and 82, where some of our lower cost housing options are located. And so we also see some of the compounding impacts such as existing asthma and cardiovascular risks for those that are maybe living within or close to these areas. Um, another major finding from this sector was that, um, we see impacts on our unhoused residents who experience direct, um, exposure to heat and smoke, um, and have very little access to cooling or clean air spaces. And so I wanted to just highlight that while Mountain View has a lot of existing resources, like cooling centers and the heat resilience program, um, the access remains limited. And so things like cooling centers can sometimes be hard to reach or have, um, limited operation hours, which, um, we see as a significant gap in service, especially during heat waves where we're starting to see a lot more warm nights, um, that extend far into the night and after some of the operations or sort the hours of operations for these cooling centers. Next slide. And so, um, some of the sensitive groups in Mountain View, um, that, uh, face the greatest risk from extreme heat and worsening air quality, um, include older adults and young children, who are physiologically, um, more sensitive to heat and poor air quality. We also see our unhoused residents who faced, um, prolonged outdoor exposure, um, and are also seeing, um, some some that are experiencing reliable, unreliable access to cooling and clean indoor air. Um, we also see linguistically isolated households, um, that are most vulnerable because they may not be able to see receive alerts or resources maybe in languages that they understand. Um, people of color, which makes up nearly half of, uh, or over half of the city's population. Um, We're also seeing that there's a lot of studies, again, that are showing, um, people of color who are more likely to live in hotter neighborhoods that have higher baseline pollution levels. Um, We see low income households and renters, which make up a 3rd of the population, um, and those that are more most sensitive are the ones that may lack access to cooling, air conditioning, um, insulation or air filtration within their homes. Um, and then lastly, our, uh, folks that are living people with disabilities. Um, and they may face um, some of those additional barriers to mobility. accessing some of these cooling centers or receiving the emergency assistance that they need. slide. Um, so to put some of these risks into perspective. Um, here are some of the data from Santa Clara County, um, public health department. Um, we're seeing that um, between 2000 and 2020, there were approximately 437 heat related hospitalizations, um, that were directly tied to extreme heat, as well as um, over 1800 emergency room visits for heat related illness. Um, I wanted to note that these numbers are almost certainly under counted. Um, and that heat related illness is widely recognized as undiagnosed and um, underreported, um, because he is often not listed as the primary cause on medical records. Um, And so we see that a lot of many hospitalizations that are tied to, um, dehydration, cardiac events and respiratory issues, sometimes are actually triggered and worsened by extreme heat, but they don't actually show up on the official heat related statistics. And so I just wanted to caveat that these numbers are here are likely to represent a floor, but not the full picture of heat impacts in Santa Clara County. Next slide. And so these projections, um, give us a sense of how quickly conditions are changing in mountain view. And what's really striking here are the percentage increases. Mountain View has historically just had had a handful of extreme heat days and warm nights each year. But as you can see here, those numbers jump by 100s of percent by mid to late century. And so what this means is that residents are aren't just getting a few more hot days. We're looking at a major shift in how, um, how often people experience dangerous heat, um, especially at night when the body needs to cool down. And, um, warm nights are especially important because they limit the body's ability to cool down, which um, increases the risk of heat related illness. Um, again, particularly in older adults, young children, pregnant people and um, individuals that don't have reliable cooling within their homes. Um, and so these numbers are, you know, kind of shocking to see. Um, but these really help illustrate why heat is one of the most um, significant and growing health um, risks for the community. Next slide. Um, and so I wanted to um, highlight a few of the maps here that we did. Um, so we looked at the neighborhood level heat exposure and sensitive top populations. Um, and here you kind of see where um, some of those sensitive populations overlap with, um, the area's most hottest in Mountain View. So what really stands out here is the South Mountain View. Um, Ring, is it the Ringstorff Ringstorff? Apologies, if I'm mispronouncing it. Um, Shoreline and the Sylvan Park, which consistently shows the hottest conditions. And so these areas tend to have older buildings, fewer trees and more residents that are lower income or older, which can make these heat impacts much harder to manage. Um, we're also noticing that several schools sit within these hotter zones. So kids are, um, spending more time outdoors in areas that have higher heat exposure. Um, and when you overlay things like senior centers, um, and neighborhoods with more older adults, you start to see this clear pattern of where the heat is hitting people the most artist. Um, and this really helps, um, kind of point to where the investments and things like shade, cooling infrastructure and heat relief programs that could make the biggest difference. Okay. That was a lot of information. I wanted to just quickly pause here to see if there were any immediate questions about the health and well-being sector. Are questions? Well,

[00:25:43] Member Pat Showalter: I have some questions about how you made the heat map. Um, when I look at what the, you know, the sort of severe heat areas. Um, there aren't a lot of things to, um, orient yourself on, on this map, but for instance, there's this big blob at quest near in the quest of park neighborhood. What is that? Yeah,

[00:26:07] Celine Fujikawa: that's a really great question. Um, so when we actually take a look at this, um, map. Um, so just maybe to step quick, take a quick step back. So the underlying data for this is, um, using um, LANSAT data. So we look at land surface temperatures, um, based on a few, um, events that happen. So when we see like a recorded, um, heat island effect or a heat wave day. We kind of look at what the those land surface temperatures are. And so this is basically, um, one of the days that, um, Mountain View experienced an extreme heat day, um, to be able to see what are sort of those, um, severe, uh, heat areas are within the city. So that area within Questa Park is actually a artificial turf football field, um near the school. And so we didn't.

[00:27:05] Member Pat Showalter: that's the St. Francis football field. Yes,

[00:27:07] Celine Fujikawa: that's correct. Okay. That's fascinating. Okay. Yeah,

[00:27:12] Member Pat Showalter: so what about, um, Sylvan Park, and Sylvan Park, it's it's very much the location of the, um, the mobile home parks, they don't have as much shade. Um, and South, South Mountain View is Mountain View High School, essentially. Yes, that's correct.

[00:27:33] Member Alison Hicks: All right. And is that? going to jump on your question. Is that plastic sheriff as well? Um,

[00:27:39] Celine Fujikawa: so it's a mix of both, I think, impervious surfaces, so highly paved areas. So like parking lots, um, as well as turfed areas. Um, for the Sylvan Park area, I'd have to take a better closer look at the map. Um. Um, But oftentimes, yeah, it looks like there's a pretty big, like the more park mobile homes. There's a lot of like sort of paved areas there that be could be causing that urban heat island effect that you're seeing on the map.

[00:28:14] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, and then, and then the one in the, in the rain store, shoreline, shoreline west area. What's that? Sorry,

[00:28:24] Celine Fujikawa: I'm kind of looking. So,

[00:28:27] Member Pat Showalter: let's see. Just under the word rings. There's a bit on that map. There's a there's a big blob that's, you know, dark red. Yeah. Yeah.

[00:28:38] Celine Fujikawa: I could take a look at that. Um, from the, in the draft in a 2nd here. So maybe we could, could we, is it okay for you? Sure, keep going. Anyway, just,

[00:28:48] Member Pat Showalter: you know, this is our town. We actually really... all these neighborhoods and stuff. Okay, thank you.

[00:28:53] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, yeah, I agree. It would be nice to know what's at the heart of the hottest, you know, to see if there's a recurring factor or factors that we would, you know, not just the neighborhood. I have a question too at this point. Yeah. Back a few slides, you said that, um, near, uh, roads and freeways, heavily used roads and freeways. I don't remember your exact. There it is. Air quality is worsening near major roadways. Um, So that surprised me a little because we've had a lot of cars for a long time. And they, uh, you know, during COVID, they went down uh, in number and now they've come back up, but I don't know that they, they've increased. And we're adding electric cars. So I'm not saying that I'm not implying that living right next to a freeway would should now be a great place to breathe and live. But, um, do you know, what do you attribute the worsening air quality near major roadways too? Yeah,

[00:29:59] Celine Fujikawa: well, I think we took a look, uh, closely at our Calenbar screen data, and what we're seeing is, um, a really high, um, uh, percentage of diesel particular matter actually higher in the 80th percentile or greater. So we actually have a map for that in the draft CVA that is actually pretty compelling to look at because we thought, um, PM 2.5 was actually going to be higher, but it's actually diesel particular mallard that is in the 80th percentile. Um, and I think it could be a mix of things. Um, but, you know, for this specific CVA, we didn't necessarily look at air quality as like a baseline. We mainly looked at it as, um, sort of how, how do we see air quality as like this compounding, um, risk to, uh, heat. So when heat, extreme heat days are, um, when we have an extreme heat day, how does the air quality worsen as part of that? And how does that sort of compound the health related risks for those that are experiencing, um, you know, uh, who have asthma or pre-existing health conditions like respiratory illnesses? And so it could be a, a variety of, of reasons, and I think it could just be the sudden increase after COVID, of people returning back to driving and commuting. Um, that could be see sort of the increase in commuters, um, through those highways because of that. Yeah,

[00:31:40] Member Alison Hicks: it's an interesting, I mean, all the bullet points there are interesting, but that one interests me in particular because there's a lot of housing and transportation related, um, implications, you know, or how we should plan and where we put houses and do we keep what one of our residents calls vegetative barriers between the housing and the freeway, where do we plant trees and related questions? Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. Great.

[00:32:13] Celine Fujikawa: So if we can skip ahead to emergency management. Great. Um, So for emergency management, the sector is really about how the city prepares for and responds to climate driven events and so how systems like emergency routes, communication networks, and our backup power, um, is going to be impacted by during, uh, during extreme conditions. So for critical facilities where, um, defining that as our fire stations, hospitals, schools, and other essential community serving sites, um, since their ability to stay accessible and operational is central to keeping, um, people safe. So I'll talk a little bit about how we looked at each hazard. So as you can see here, um, again, extreme heat and wildfire smoke. Um, stand out to be some of the biggest disruptors. Um, and this is because they, uh, have been, um, seem to affect responder, responder safety, as well as some of the cooling existing cooling systems and indoor air quality, um, at the same time. We're also seeing an influx of emergency calls that tend to increase during this time. Um, critical facilities like hospitals and fire stations and medical centers are already working hard during extreme events, and so many, many of these facilities actually sit in those hotter parts of the city. Um, and those higher baseline temperatures um, just pretty much will mean more energy demand, more cooling needs, um, and more stress on existing equipment. We're also seeing, um, flooding is less about the buildings themselves in this case, but more about the access. Um, and so we found that a heavy rainfall can block um, key emergency routes and can make it harder to reach schools or clinics or stations during a response. Um, for welfare, smoke. We're just continuing to see uh, this drive respiratory related emergency calls. Um, and even when wildfires burn far outside mountain view, um, that can still put pressure on ambulance services and emergency rooms within the city. Um, Mountain View, um, currently has a really strong emergency management coordination and communication system. Um, but where there are existing gaps is the backup capacity. Um, this is where we still see the challenge here. So things like redundant cooling, power or air filtration systems at these critical facilities, um, still remain limited. Um, and that just ultimately reduces the adaptive capacity during these prolonged heat, um, events. Next slide. And so for here, we're really focused on those in the community that are most affected when these emergency systems are stressed. So, again, with our older adults, um, and people who depend on medical equipment. Um, these are these populations are especially vulnerable because they need continuous power and quick access to emergency care. Um, and even when there are short short shortages, um, these can really become life-threatening for them. We also see our 1st responders and outdoor emergency staff, um, that face risk, high risk. They're the ones that are out in the heat, um, and doing a lot of this extended physical work during these events, and so exposure, um, inherently hits them a lot harder. Um, we also see students and childcare providers that are particularly at these older campuses, um, without modern cooling or ventilation. They can experience higher indoor temperatures and poor air quality during some of these climate events. We also see residents in blood prone neighborhoods that are also at risk, and this is because road closures or any power outages can slow down emergency response and make it harder to reach critical services. Um, and then finally, our unhoused and low income residents often feel the impacts 1st when cooling centers or clean air spaces are limited. And so they rely on heavily on public facilities for safe shelter cooling and some of these clean air during these crises. And so really across all of these groups, um, I would say that the common thread is that there's just overall limited access to safe, um, indoor environments during extreme events, which can really lead to increased exposure and reduce their ability to cope during these events. Next slide. Um, and so here we're talking or wanted to highlight um, the critical facilities and heat exposure map. Um, so several of Mountain View's major critical facilities are, again, located in the hottest parts of the city. So for example, for example, El Camino Health, um, Mountain View Hospital and fire stations 2 and 4 all sit within the severe heat zones. Um, and so during prolonged heat, these buildings face, um, just overall higher strain, on cooling and HVAC systems, which can affect staff comfort, patient safety, and operational reliability. We're also seeing a lot of schools and childcare centers in these same areas. Many of them are older buildings without modern ventilation, which means that they're more likely to overheat or experience poor indoor air quality during heat and smoke events. And so some of these overlaps or some of the overlaps that you see here can really help the city identify where those upgrades like backup power needs to happen, um, or improve ventilation and other cooling infrastructure that can have the biggest impact on these um, facilities. Next slide. When we're looking at critical facilities in the flood hazard zones, um, we're seeing some pretty clear areas of concern. So a few sites that I wanted to call out are the, um, again, El Camino Health, um, Mountain View Hospital, um, Fire Station 5 that's sit within or adjacent to the 1500 year flood zones. Um, so when these areas flood, even temporarily, it could potentially delay emergency response, disrupt, um, you know, medical operations or limit access to saved indoor spaces um, during the storms. Um, we also see the schools in the same regard, um, in the same zones. So schools like Montaloma elementary and parts of Shoreline West area can also face some operational challenges when roads close or when facilities take on water. Um, and so all of this really helps, again, point the city towards where maintaining access roads and planning long-term upgrades will really matter. Um, and so some of these overlaps, again, show where kind of those resilience um, investments can go the furthest in protecting some of these essential community services and community safety. Okay. Any questions before we move on to economy.

[00:39:42] Member Alison Hicks: So are there questions on that section? I have one question too. So, I have a question on when I read the full report and you, you kind of imply it here. Uh, talked about the area around, well, around McKelvey Park, where we did like the Cuesta area as a flood hazard zone. And we put in. Oh, we put in a, gosh, I don't remember the technical name for it, but it's, uh, detention. Thank you. We put in a flood retention basin under McCelvey Park. So I'm wondering when it's cited as an area that, you know, maybe in trouble, whether, like, have we addressed that? Are you saying there's additional travels there? Have we addressed it in that area? With that retention basin. Because that didn't come up ever in the report, the retention base. I'd like to hear that, that it has been addressed and we can just worry about the other areas, but I'm wondering or whether you can get back to us on that. Yeah,

[00:40:51] Celine Fujikawa: I mean, I think this is something that, um, we can discuss a bit more, maybe with the Miss Lee's team, about, um, you know, some of the, I think the importance of like adaptive capacity is, is, is being able to, um, kind of know what existing, um, infrastructure, upgrades there are to addressing some of these hazards. And so, um, we'll definitely make a note of that and we'll, um, revisit this and, um, integrate that, some of those findings in the final report. I don't know, Miss Lee, if you have, yeah. Additional input.

[00:41:29] Ms. Lee: Thank you. Thank you for the question chair. Um, the only thing I would add to, um, what was already stated is that prior to developing a resiliency strategy or kind of a list of resiliency actions, um, typically what would follow a databased climate vulnerability assessment would be ground true thing, so some level of community engagement, but also more um, on the ground kind of vetting of the data analysis. So we focused the CVA. You know, we we originally brought, um, a full, like, all the way through to a resiliency strategy proposal, and we, um, pursued only the phase one of this. And so, this report is much more analyzing the data that indicates vulnerability. And then what would happen next and prior to a resiliency strategy would be some ground truth thing. Okay. Yes.

[00:42:26] Member Alison Hicks: That may be one item you want to check, because the report had a, had a good number of references to the potential flooding in that area. And I thought, that's one of the few areas we really address.

[00:42:40] Member Pat Showalter: Any other questions? Okay. I'm pretty sure I know also that flooding it at the hospital has been addressed. So. Okay,

[00:42:55] Celine Fujikawa: go ahead and move to the economy sector. Um, so this sector really looks at climate hazards and how they impact workers and local businesses within Mountain View, um, as well as highlighting any, um, broader economic, um, impacts to the mountain views economic systems, um, especially for industries that are um, outdoor and service based. So I'll go ahead and talk a little bit about um, our economy sector and some of the vulnerabilities here. Um, so for, as we look at climate hazards, we know that, um, climate hazards don't just affect people and infrastructure, but they also have, um, this ripple effect on the city's economy as well. And so as we know that with flooding risk, um, flooding actually poses the biggest risk, um, because it can disrupt operations, um, damaged buildings and interrupt access to key job centers, um, and where we see some of this, um, And, and we can, uh, talk about this in the next couple slides here where the, um, the greatest vulnerabilities are when it comes to flooding. Um, but I did also want to highlight here, um, for heat as, uh, even though it's a moderate vulnerability, we wanted to call out, uh, specific groups that are most impacted by extreme heat. So outdoor and service workers, um, service sector workers, including construction, landscaping, restaurant delivery, delivery, and custodial staff, um, these groups face higher vulnerability just due to, um, being outside and having to commute and drive between places. Um, and so the prolonged exposure to heat, um, can reduce productivity, um, increase, um, more rest breaks that we're seeing, um, and also raise existing health risks, um, and leading to more, um, risks to heat related illnesses, as well as, um, we see lost wages for our hourly workers as well. Um, so for heat, high heat days can lead to um, measurable economic losses from fewer outdoor workers, uh, outdoor work hours to reduce consumer activity, um, especially in sectors that rely on more in-person customer service. Um, we also see that, um, flood prone businesses, um, areas that are containing, uh, some of Mountain View's highest value assets, um, including some of the commercial corridors and tech campuses. those are all within the floodplain. Um, and so even with some of those short interruptions, um, those can still have some costly impacts. to employers and the local economy. Um, and then lastly, we know that, um, small businesses are the least equipped to recover from climate disruptions, um, especially because, um, a lot of them have limited cash reserves or high operating costs. And so, um, these are uh, in the economy sector, probably the most vulnerable. Um, and then we also know that larger employers, um, have, uh, oftentimes more resources to integrate climate resilience, design and planning, um, but smaller ones, um, still struggle without added support. Next slide. Um, so I'll quickly go over this since I, um, kind of touched on a lot of these different, um, climate exposed populations for the economy sector, um, but just to again name a few. We know that outdoor workers, um, are often impacted by extreme heat import air quality, um, as I mentioned, um, lower wage and hourly workers as well as service industry, employees that work in retail, restaurant, and hospitality, sometimes work in older buildings that might have just like, um, less modern cooling and ventilation. Um, and sometimes they can lose work hours during some of those heat waves or smoke events. Um, and then, um, I mentioned earlier, some of the businesses that were in those flood prone, um, industrial and commercial zones, um, especially those that are near how we 101 and North Bay Shore can face, um, those risks to, um, potential damage to equipment, inventory, and site access during those heavy storms. Um, and then we can go to the next slide. And so I wanted to highlight here where we see the commercial industrial areas that overlap with the city's mapped flood zones, and what this means for local businesses and economic activity. So, we see that a number of commercial and mixed use offices, um, as well as industrial zones fall within the 10500 year floodplain. Um, and as I'd mentioned earlier, that, you know, what this means for these districts is that we could see um, potential, building damage, um, access issues or um, impacts to operations, um, during those major storms. Um, North Bay Shore, in particularly, especially stands out, um, as it hosts major corporate campuses and data centers, um, including areas along Charleston, um, landings and, um, marine way that fall directly within those hazard zones. Flood hazard zones. Um, these sites collectively represent more than $6700000 in structural assets, um, and that makes them, um, just a lot more, um, vulnerable in terms of where we see the highest value areas exposed to flood risk within the city. Um, and then we also see just kind of more of those commercial corridors, um, such as El Camino Reel and Central Expressway, where some of those businesses may face temporary closures or costly interruptions if there were to be heavy, um, storms that lead to those localized flooding that we that we might see. Next slide. Um, and so I wanted to quickly recap some of those, uh, uh, potential economic losses that I mentioned earlier. So this table shows how, um, when we look at specifically rising temperatures and extreme heat days, um, how that can directly impact outdoor workers in the city's economy. And so by mid century, um, and late, late century, we see 12 extreme heat days that are expected each year. Um, and that's 7 more than today, and that leads to about $36 in lost wages per worker. Which adds up to roughly about $125,000 in lost wages citywide each year by mid-century. By late century, we're seeing this increase become even more significant. So we see expect 23 extreme heat days. Um, which translates to about $145 um, in lost wages per worker, um, which estimates to about 500,000 in total annual loss wages per year for all um, climate exposed workers within the city. Um, and so these, these estimates are conservative since they only reflect, um, lost income from reduced work hours, um, on very hot days, um, and they don't actually capture the larger sort of economic ripple effects that happen, so things like lower sales, um, slower times and like reduced productivity. Um, and I wanted to also just note that these estimates also reflects average wage loss per outdoor worker per year in $2025. Um, and so this really follows the national climate assessment and some of the, Um, methods that they use to calculate economic loss. Um, so we use the dollar value of the analysis year because projecting uh, future wages can um, add a lot of uncertainty. And so even with this conservative approach, um, We know definitely that rising temperatures, um, are expected to lead, um, to grow to more uh, wages loss over time for the city. Next slide. Okay. Um, I may quickly go into the housing and infrastructure section, and so this uh, section looks primarily at housing transportation and stormwater systems. But for today, we're really just going to be hyper focusing on the housing and transportation only. Um, and if you're interested in seeing more of the stormwater findings, you can see see that section in the detailed CVA. Next slide. So this section looks at how climate hazards affects housing, transportation, and infrastructure. Um, as you can see here, extreme heat stands out as the biggest housing risk, especially for, um, multifamily rentals, um, mobile home parks that are already struggling to stay cool. And we also see that some of the air quality issues that are, again, more concentrated near those highways, where we see kind of more affordable units that are located there. So there's, um, a clear sort of parallel between, um, air quality issues that are potentially impacting those that are living in those air affordable units, um, within those areas. We also see flooding impacts, um, to about 2012% of homes within Mountain View, especially near Creeks and the bay. Um, and we also see heat and major storms, um, also being a major disruption to transportation, um, through potential warping of frails um, and flooding key corridors. And I think across all of these topics, you'll see a range of vulnerability, and the reason for that is because the housing and infrastructure sector is so varied across the city. And so, um, we know that there's a lot of really great planned investments from the city that are really creating that strong starting point for, for, for this piece here. Next slide. Um, so some of the key, um, climate sensitive populations here, um, and other sensitive assets are, um, renters and residents in older multifamily buildings with limited control over weatherization or repairs. Um, we also see mobile home residents, um, mobile home park residents that are currently living in those hot zones or flood hazard zones. Um, and those are the ones that are facing a higher, um, risk of displacements um, after disasters. Um, low income and um, low income households and residents that are living near major roadways are also experiencing um, higher pollution and have fewer resources to adapt. Um, We also see that transient dependent writers and cyclists and as well as pedestrians, um, are also at risk of facing potential service interruptions, um, unsafe heat, and um, poor air quality during those extreme weather events. Um, and then lastly, um, we see residents that are living in those low lying neighborhoods near the creeks and the bay where flooding and high groundwater can damage homes and roads. Next slide. Um, so for housing exposure to extreme heat, so this map shows where the hotter neighborhoods coincide with vulnerable housing types, including rental units, mobile home parks, um, subsidized housing and safe parking zones. And so many of the multifamily and affordable housing buildings are actually located in those above average heat zones, where um, indoor temperatures can quickly climb during those prolonged heat events. Um, Mobile home parks such as sunset estates, new frontier and Sahara mobile village, sit in some of the hottest parts of the city, um, making them especially vulnerable during extreme heat. Um, and then for people living in vehicles, we, or in older and poorly insulated homes, um, they tend to face heightened risk health risks because they have, um, limited access to cooling, um, reliable cooling, shade, and as well as indoor, um, or sorry, clean indoor air. And so we see a lot of these vulnerable housing types overlap with high heat conditions. Um, and so this can really help inform the city, um, to know kind of where to target some of those cooling strategies, um, expanding existing tree canopy, um, as well as um, having more direct resilience programs to communicate to these communities, um, where they are, um, you know, most at risk for these rising temperatures. Next slide. Um, and so here this map is showing the housing within the flood hazard zones. Um, and so we see here that, um, A lot of the homes, uh, 12% of the homes overlap with 100 year and 500 year flood zones, um, several mobile home parks, particularly near Highway 101 and Grant Road fall within some of those zones. Um, and those are the ones that are facing facing a greater likelihood of flood related damage or long-term displacement. We also see subsidize and naturally affordable housing, much of which is located in the northern neighborhoods. These are also areas where storm water can overwhelm some of these older buildings and can cause potential flooding. And then for the safe parking sites. Um, and nearby rental housing, we also see that these can be impacted by major storms, which um, can create um, additional challenges for residents who have limited resource, or access to limited resources or alternative, um, shelter options. And so seeing kind of where these vulnerable housing types coincide within these blood hazard zones can really help the city target those mitigation efforts. Um, as well as building, um, uh, thinking about how we can do stronger building maintenance and support programs for communities that may have the hardest time recovering after a flood. Next slide. Um, and so this map um, now is transitioning over to our transportation assets. So we're looking here specifically at transit and active transportation to extreme heat. So as you can see here, many of the hotter areas overlap with many bus stops and transit station rail lines and also other multi-use trails. Um, many of the city's major transit corridors, which include El Camino Reel, Central Expressway and Grant Road, run through some of the hotter surface temperature zones where shade is limited. And so this can create uncomfortable and sometimes unsafe conditions for transit riders, um, cyclists and pedestrians during extreme heat events. Um, and we also see that people who rely on some of these, um, transit and active transportation, um, especially those that don't have access to like air conditioned vehicles. tend to face higher risk of heat stress and reduce mobility during those hotter days. Next slide. Um, and this is the map that uh, shows parts of Mountain View's transportation system that overlap with those flood hazard zones. Um, as you can see here, many of the bus stops, um, transestations, uh, roads and rail lines sit within those 100 year floodplains. So corridors like shoreline, Charleston, Central Expressway, and Grant Road, are especially prone to temporary flooding, which can disrupt travel during those storm events. Um, we also see in the Northwest Mountain View, a cluster of the, um, NVGo route D. Those also fall within the flood prone areas. making access less reliable when those storms hit. Um, across the city itself, about uh, 16 miles of roadway and 7 miles of multi-use, um, trails, sit within the 100-year floodplain. And so these, um, overlaps that you're seeing here can, again, help highlight some of, um, areas where we could do targeted drainage improvements, detours, um, as well as thinking through more reliable transportation, travel options that can be the most important during these extreme heat weather events. Ooh, okay. So, I will pause here. Um, That was a lot of information here. So I just wanted to see if there are any questions. Questions on this section?

[01:00:49] Member Chris Clark: Very brief one. The maps were really helpful, and I saw in the appendix, there's a list of the data sources that were consulted. The, um, and I realized that these maps are kind of just, um, in the presentation or in the PDF, Mm-hmm. are just screenshots. I didn't know if there, if there are like high resolution maps that kind of show parcel by parcel. Um, that exists somewhere, if someone reaches out and they want to look at some of these. Do those exist somewhere or do we need to go like pull it from the data sources specifically?

[01:01:25] Celine Fujikawa: Yeah, I think um, to obtain the the parcel by parcel data, you would need to go uh, to the data source directly. Um, we used, uh, the underlying data itself is using the original data, but, um, if you want to look at it kind of at that, um, scale, then we would need to look at the the original source directly. Okay. Yeah,

[01:01:49] Member Alison Hicks: even even labeling streets, so you can kind of tell what, what factors might be causing different things on the map. Mm-hmm. Be hopeful. Um. Or major sites like schools and so forth. Um, I, you talked about, uh, business, you know, a, business is being uh, impacted by heat and other factors, flooding and so forth in a negative way. Do you ever think about them being affected in a positive way, the example being, I notice on extra hot days, more people dining out in the evening, probably not wanting to cook, like a real surge in diners. Um, so, You know, I imagine there, there may be both -and positive impacts, I don't know, during storms people buy umbrellas. I'm just a different set of things. So is that something you ever look at? Um,

[01:02:52] Celine Fujikawa: so part of this analysis, we didn't look at it from that point of view, but we did, um, as part of our study include kind of the daytime, um, populations, as we know that, like, wanted to see sort of the differences between, um, daytime versus nighttime populations, um, And so that could be something that, um, we look at more from a risk perspective of like during those, you know, hotter days when we see, um, a greater influx of people coming into the city or even just people being out and about like eating and and dining outside. Um, that we could, even though I think it, it may have a positive impact on revenue. Overall, we're looking still kind of at the, um, sort of the health aspect of that and where we could see, um, you know, greater populations or greater risk of heat related illness, especially if there are, um, specifically during like those major heat waves that we're looking at, um, we're not really seeing a lot of folks out and about typically right on days that are like 100 degrees or more. Um, But I think that's a really great point to, um, to, I think, acknowledge as part of the economy sector and we can certainly discuss more internally about how we can maybe do some of that framing in the narrative there. That one oh. Yeah,

[01:04:26] Member Pat Showalter: I was just looking at my notes and I was wondering if, um, when you did the diesel distribution modeling, did that include the improvements that have been done to Caltrain?

[01:04:38] Celine Fujikawa: Uh, no it did not. Okay. Because that, that, that, is

[01:04:44] Member Pat Showalter: the equivalent of taking many, many cars off the road, so that'd be something to, to update. Okay.

[01:04:51] Member Alison Hicks: We'll make a note of that. Um, are

[01:04:54] Member Pat Showalter: we into questions or comments? I guess we're not in comments yet. Um,

[01:05:00] Ms. Lee: we still have the last portion of the presentation. Um, I wanted to just add to, um, to respond, though, to your question about El Camino in particular. One of the things that we think about with vulnerability is not only the facility itself, but access to it, especially when it's something like a critical health facility. So, even if the hospital itself does not flood if access to it is limited, um, related to flooding in the general neighborhood. Um, we would still, would still sort of surface as a vulnerability. So, um, But yes, we we actually, we did take into account some of the flood improvements at the hospital itself. And briefly, just to wrap up this, this item, if we could go to the next slide. Um. When we 1st talked about uh, doing a climate vulnerability assessment with this committee, we, we had a proposal to explore, um, both vulnerability assessment as well as resiliency planning. And what we decided to do was do the 1st phase of that work, bring to the committee, um, what our vulnerability looks like as a community with regards to climate change, and then decide if we would like to engage in a phase two. Uh, which would be essentially resiliency planning. Um, taking into account this information that we have started to develop, um, and identify the highest value opportunities for the city to enhance our resiliency. Uh, so contained within this item before your committee is a recommendation, um, for integrating resiliency planning into the decarbonization planning that is already underway and was authorized in the original contract. And what we would propose to do is, um, marry the work, really, and develop, uh, climate strategy for the city, that both identifies the synergies between decarbonization work and resiliency, and also the tension points so that we can understand when, you know, a resiliency priority might appear to be at odds with the decarbonization priority. How can we think holistically about these 2 priorities and um, solve for those tensions. Um, So, staff is recommending, um, a more integrated approach to climate, we do say in the field that it's all one issue, right? It's all climate change, whether it's on the mitigation side of trying to reduce our emissions very aggressively. Or it's on the resiliency side where we recognize that some amount of climate change is before us, uh, kind of no matter what we do. Um, So we would like to, um, or we're recommending to the committee that, um, that you direct us to bring to council, um, for consideration, a contract amendment, to do that where we would, um, develop a fully integrated climate strategy. Um, we do have alternatives. We could pursue adaptation or resiliency planning as a standalone effort. We could continue with the decarbonization planning that's already underway. And kind of have a parallel track of adaptation planning or resiliency planning. Um, or we could not pursue resiliency planning at this time and uh, move forward with the existing scope of work that's underway in terms of uh, the decarbonization planning alone. So those are sort of the Um, the main options. Um, There are trade-offs to each of them. Um, I think if we do a, an integrated approach, it actually could go faster than if we did 2 separate plans because we're writing a singular plan instead of 2 Of course, the fastest would be to not do resiliency planning and to focus on decarbonization. So, If, uh, if we were to sort of map on a timeline, Um, the fastest approach would be just decarbonization. After that and integrated strategy, and then maybe the longest timeline would be for 2 separate plans, one related to decarbonization, one related to resiliency. Um, And I guess the other trade-offs are really, how we take into account the ways that these issues affect each other, you know, I, uh, sometimes give the example of our decarbonization efforts. If we are increasingly trying to electrify, Do we end up putting pressure on the grid? And does that have a resiliency implication? Whereas if we take a step back and we think about how these 2 issues could interplay, you know, are there ways that we could pursue solutions that would address or mitigate for, um, negative consequences across the 2 kind of bodies of work, if you will. So, um, I'm happy to. Take any questions about this. We have much more specific contract amendments that were included in the memo and I can walk you through those. Some are to do, we could go to the next slide, actually. Some are to, um, do this bigger integration that I was talking about. And then there are a few things, minor, more minor enhancements to the decarbonization analysis that we talked about at prior CSC meetings. Um, adding some contingency, just to have a bit of flexibility as we move forward in implementation. Um, And I think there is some also amendment related to, um, some of the additional vulnerability assessment that was completed within this, um, vulnerability assessment around stormwater. So the proposal is the staff recommended amendment, um, would be for, um, a contract amendment, that would bring our total contract from $223,000 approximately to approximately $370,000, and that would be for an integrated approach. To climate planning. If we can go to the next slide. And these are the recommendations for the committee to continue to give additional feedback on the CBA, um, and to direct staff with, in terms of how to proceed, um, with the resiliency and decarbonization planning. And then, um, specifically to comment on the contract amendment that we would ultimately need to bring to council because it would exceed the contract amount. Okay, that is authorized under the city manager's signing authority. Okay,

[01:12:28] Member Alison Hicks: so now the presentation is done. Um, see what I'm supposed to say, but basically, um, it's time for, um, questions on the overall presentation and on the 3 recommendations before you, questions from, uh, the committee, and we'll save comments for afterwards, but any questions you might have on those 3 recommendations or the presentation as a whole? And

[01:13:04] Ms. Lee: if you'd like, I can, we have a slide that outlines the alternatives that I mentioned as well.

[01:13:10] Member Alison Hicks: This side kind of did. Yes. Maybe that is... I

[01:13:14] Member Pat Showalter: just like a little review of the nomenclature here. What? Okay, by decarbonation, decarbonization. We need things that lower our GHDs, right? Yes. Okay. And by resilience, we mean things that make us better able to deal with the impacts of climate change, like what we would do for heat exchange, right? Exactly. Okay. Thank you. Um.

[01:13:45] Member Alison Hicks: I can start. Well, Chris, do you?

[01:13:50] Member Chris Clark: I'm looking through the report. Can you remind me if we pursue the staff recommendation with the combined plans. Um, What is the, I see the cost of locations, like, do you have a sense for the timeline? Implications. You touched on it a little bit. I didn't know if there was anything more concrete.

[01:14:10] Ms. Lee: Um, I think if we do not pursue resiliency planning if we just bring the vulnerability assessment to counsel for adoption and then the decarbonization planning. Um, that would likely be done by the end of 2026, the calendar year. And then um, early 2027 is when we would anticipate being able to bring an integrated climate strategy. And then I think, Probably one to 2 quarters later, if we were to pursue 2 standalone plans, because we'd have to write 2 lengthy reports and much of the work would be, um, Duplicated, um, if we had to...

[01:15:01] Member Chris Clark: I mean, I'm fine with the recommendation. I'm just trying to figure out kind of when, did we pursue that, the integrated plans could have when, that might all wrap up. It sounds like some, at some point in 2027, maybe 1st half of 27-ish.

[01:15:18] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, so again, back to sort of principles. What we're getting here, what we're getting at here is, what the recommendation is, you want to have a list of actions that the city should take, right? That's what we're really shooting for. And so by doing both plans together, we get actions on on both things and on how they work together. We, we come out with, because some of them do work together. We, we come out with a, you know, much better action than if we, we wait, and do them separately. That's essentially what you're saying, isn't it? Exactly.

[01:15:55] Ms. Lee: Um, if we have 2 plans, then we'll have, we'll have sort of 2 action plans that we would implement more in parallel versus um, a singular action plan that considers what is the best order to do all of the climate work and, you know, do we think about the grid 1st and then push to decarbonize more quickly? You know, is there an order of operations across both sets of priorities that yields a more effective result in the end? So doing it in an integrated fashion allows us to think through that. Okay. Well, I

[01:16:30] Member Pat Showalter: know we talked about this on the telephone and we've talked about it many times, but I don't see it up on the side here. And one of the things that I think is really vital is um, is the collaboration. Um, uh, opportunities and that are both ongoing and that we feel should be developed and identifying those and talking about, you know, really what's the best thing for us to do. Specifically is the city of mountain view for our residents. And what's the best? You know, what are the things that are better for us to, you know, collaborate on? And I really think that a big part of this. Should be clarifying that. So there's kind of a chart that says, you know, we're going to work with, um, SVCE on these things and or, you know, what, but somehow delineates that because, I, I think that, um, that's one of the major complexities and, I, I was mentioned a little bit in here, but not, um, not a lot and the collaboration, um, programs that we have ongoing are really massive. In some cases. So, you know, they're not afterthoughts. I think they really should be integrated. So that's, that's a big comment. Yeah,

[01:17:50] Ms. Lee: certainly. I mean, anecdotally. We have had a few examples of this sort of pop up, as we've been in discussions, both in the resiliency arena and the decorbonization arena. So we've been trying to think about how we could promote heat pumps. And then we've been thinking about heat resiliency. You know, heat pumps are great because they offer an electric option for heating a home as opposed to a furnace. They also offer cooling. And so they they offer heat resiliency to the community. So we were talking with, um, the community services agency about doing work with our unhoused population week at the last meeting, um, gave you an update about our heat resiliency pilot project in partnership with CSA. But in those discussions, we also started talking about, well, could there be a way to look at bringing heat pumps to older adults who maybe are more vulnerable to heat, but also, um, maybe can less ably afford to decarbonize their homes or maybe they're, I don't know, they have more fixed incomes. surfacing in multiple ways that we might be able to collaborate with a given partner or kind of finding, you know, we might work with CSA, um, to support our unhoused and then being able to, um, identify other ways that we could overlap with their, their priorities as an organization. So, building out more novel forms of collaboration. I think if we think about of our whole body of climate work. Um, at once, we can start to surface these collaborative opportunities. Maybe we haven't worked together with a given organization in that way before, but we have had partnership with them in another. Well,

[01:19:40] Member Pat Showalter: I, I also think just inventorying them would be valuable. I mean, like there's that list at the end of this of, that you mentioned of all the data sources. You know, that was very, um, very interesting to say, okay, well, we've already, they've taken into account all these things. That's really valid. And I think to, to, you know, to look at what are all the collaborative, um, uh, organizations. I mean, There's, there's just a lot of them. So, um, in there, I mean, they're really kind of, uh, incredible internal government consulting that we already, you know, we already have going.

[01:20:22] Ms. Lee: Well, and we think of it both in terms of our own colleagues in other departments who are doing great work, but maybe we haven't thought about it as climate work, you know? They were doing resurfacing. Um, but if they're putting in more pervious pavement, then they're addressing our future flood challenges. So, um, You know, we think of it like in terms of all of our departments and the work that they're doing. And then we think of the outside organizations. So, both, and then other cities, you know, how can we, as a region, collaborate more effectively too, um, climate impacts rarely, um, are coalesced around a single jurisdiction. It's the whole region that is facing this extreme heat vulnerability. And if we think together, how to create a network of support for all of our communities. It will be much more effective. And

[01:21:19] Member Pat Showalter: then another thing I wanted to comment on. Wait, can we have comments? We're just questions. Okay, I've got some comments later. So

[01:21:27] Member Alison Hicks: my main question in terms of the thing I'm having trouble, um, figuring out or focusing on is how the, uh, the resiliency, the decarbonization, has, we've set a goal for ourselves, and that, and the resiliency, as far as I see is, we don't have a goal. And it, and the decarbonization has been, when you last presented it to us, there's really been a sea change, because of changes at the federal level, and frankly at the state level too, because we can't do the clean cars, and all this, and there's greater focus on housing affordability now. And so we can't do reach codes and there's other things we can't do because we're focusing on housing and not sustainability. Um, so that, a lot of the things we were relying on, or that we were thinking of relying on, to get to our decarbonization goals, we can't get to it. We can't do anymore. And so I'm unclear on how, if we do both of them. Are we really, and then they are, even if we do 2045, frankly, I think, given the, um, rocky road ahead with, uh, because I, Don't, I was not expecting our federal administration to knock down the, the, um, climate work people were doing, the renewables, so quite this much. But I also don't just, you know, I'm hoping that we won't have this administration for long, but frankly, my hopes are not. I, you know, even if in 26 or 28. Uh, some of that erodes. I still don't, don't, kind of, the bottle's broken, and I think it's really hard to put the pieces back together, and once you do, you may get a, another, Similar administration. So I think we're under a much rockier road than when we set those goals to begin with. And I'm worried about council setting up a bunch, some. Uh, decarbonization, a set of steps and goals that we don't really have a road to get to. We may, we've set ourselves up to do carbon offsets if we don't get there, but frankly, we'd be punishing ourselves because people kept voting for Trump-like administrations, which is not a good thing to punish people in mountain view for. Um, and I don't know how the resiliency, these aren't, these are projects without goals? How does that, does that help us do our decarbonization projects? Because frankly, the projects I've seen are very small. Like the heat pump thing is 120 heat pumps, it did not. It did not cost that much decarbonization, but it was one of the things that was more reported on for the year. So I'm, I'm uh, afraid that with the sea change, we're losing our way. And as a policymaker, it's my responsibility to respond to sea changes and make sure we're not losing our way. Um, so I, how do I also feel like we're doing a lot of planning and not a lot of actions, and we're getting years into this? No, we 1st talked about this. I don't know, 6 years ago when I, we have not done much decarbonization. So I, I don't want us to turn this, um, you know, our sustainability. Uh, efforts into beam counting efforts. I want to actually do projects. And I'm afraid, I'm just, how are we going to do that? How are we gonna actually do impactful projects? that decarbonize, or should we rethink our goals? So, because I don't see us doing it all at this point. It feels daunting. So it feels like we're not like as a policy maker. It would not be, um, responsible for me to say that we're going to do that and we're going to do carbon offsets under this new atmosphere. I feel like it's, I feel like somewhere down the road, somebody's going to have to say that and it might as well be me next. Yeah,

[01:25:57] Ms. Lee: um, I think I've mentioned at various times over the course of this project that this is sort of the, the worst possible and maybe the best time to be trying to think through what our approach should be because the ground is shifting beneath us. But in some ways, I think that it's helping us to focus. So, before, um, we had very clear decarbonization goals, you know, carbon neutrality by 2045, council adopted that before any of our team joined the city. Um, But, you know, we had marching orders to bring back to council a plan, an implementation plan for how we would achieve that. And then resiliency has always been this topic that, you know, um, followed decarbonization, there was earlier work on decarbonization and resiliency has been slower to catch up, but also, how do you set a goal for resiliency when our projections for what the future climate would look like are constantly changing. Um, So it seems sort of like a very solid goal and then like an ill defined or inability to even set a goal, really. I mean, we could set a sea level rise goal, but to what temperature do we plan for? And, you know, how do we think about that? Um, now we see that, that they're kind of actually coming to be more in line, because there's more unpredictability, and it's caused us, I mean, you, you, I think noticed in our, um, presentation last month, a proposal that we bring forward a 5 year roadmap, and that we really focus our attention on what we can do now. And I think the same holds true for resiliency. We know already that we're experiencing events and there have been extreme storms and floods and power outages. So what can we do now both for decarbonization to get us towards the long term goals? I might not be able to do the math to show you by what year we'll be able to reach carbon neutrality right now because there's so much volatility. And in the same way, I might not be able to tell you, well, by 2040 we need to be able to hit 20 extreme heat days. You know, that's our best guess as of now, but it will move. So the idea of this 5 year plan or this 5 year roadmap is really, What can we do now? What sets us up to improve our resiliency, to move us forward in our decarbonization planning. Um, In the resiliency space, we think of it as a pathway. So, you know, we we would lay out sort of the actions that you would do and the order that you would do them in as an adaptation pathway. And, um, when you hit certain milestones, you know, you're building floods, certain number of times per year, or you have a certain number of heat events, then you move to the next phase of implementing resiliency. It's like, um, I think I've mentioned it to one of you or both, um, some of you that it's kind of like just in time resiliency. So we lay out a pathway of like what our process would look like to enhance the resiliency of the community. And then we would build in resiliency as the climate changes. Same for decarbonization in some ways. It's a decarbonization pathway. So what we're proposing is we would build a climate pathway. And focus on the next 5 years of that work, really. We would have these longer term goals, special decarbonization. We have that already set. But, I think our emphasis really should be in the near term, you know, what are, right now, the biggest opportunities that we see, you know, we've talked about legislative opportunities to work with other cities across the state, you know, are there, ways that we can solve financing, you know, find, um, opportunities to pay for this work. Financing. Right. Um, And can we build out collaborations? Can we look at some of the other efforts that the city has underway to build more housing? You know, we have all these other priorities, more parks. Um, can they become resiliency features as well? Could we build more resilient housing? Are there ways to cost effectively do that? That are better for the long term? Um, So we are. We don't, we don't know. It's really hard for me to tell you what 20 years out looks like. Some, at some points, I think we've had kind of higher levels of confidence about like, okay, we have this pathway to decrimonization, and I could tell you like, okay, by this year, we'll be here, and then this year we'll be here, and just sort of a step-wise fashion, but the amount of swing that we've seen this year. I just can't have that as much confidence. But what I can tell you is that in the next 5 years, you know, that if we focus on what to do for both. Are

[01:31:01] Member Alison Hicks: you saying, I don't know if, so are you saying as an answer to my question, that we might focus, like you did mention, are you making, are you proposing another alternative or is this basically what you've recommended that you focus more on the 5 years? Yeah,

[01:31:16] Ms. Lee: so our proposal would be for this. Climate strategy that is aiming at 2045 that was the goal year that we affirmed reaffirmed at the last CSE meeting. But that would emphasize this 5 year roadmap within it. And as of now, we have direction from the committee to have this emphasis on the 5 year decarbonization roadmap. And our proposal would be that we should also integrate resiliency thinking into that so that it would be a five-year climate. Road map. If

[01:31:53] Rebecca Luck: I may, obviously. I mean, part of for the resiliency aspect of it too. I mean, one pathway for a goal is we want to mitigate some of those high vulnerabilities and see how low could get them. You know, there's a guarantee, but that's another way to potentially look at, you know, how do we address visilliancy and are we doing anything about it? So, so, your, your

[01:32:20] Member Alison Hicks: answer to my question of how we're responding to the swings at the, or the major changes at the federal and state level, um, that are, frankly, I've gotten in the way of our decarbonization strategy is that we should, you're saying we should more strongly plan for the next 5 years and then see what happens. There could be new administration. New administrations, there could be new inventions, et cetera. Because that's something I would. My major fear is about doing so much planning for a future that we know so little about. Right. And so I would prefer, if that's what you're saying, that is what I would prefer.

[01:33:04] Ms. Lee: Yes, exactly. The 2045 goal is already adopted by counsel. We wouldn't be undoing that, but basically our 1st step in getting to 2045 is this year or by extension the next 5 years, you know, like we're going to get there one year at a time. And so, what we're asking for is permission to really put most of our effort into the next 5 years, this roadmap.

[01:33:28] Member Alison Hicks: I'm glad you've clarified that because what I didn't want was a stack of papers that said what we were going to do over the next 20 years, when we probably would not be doing the things, many of those things because there would be too many changes. Now

[01:33:41] Ms. Lee: with resiliency, you know, obviously, there would be this arc of like, here's typically how we moved down the pathway towards resiliency. And then the next 5 years. These are the things that we had immediately focus on based on the vulnerability assessment. You know, we've seen sort of the initial highest areas of vulnerability. And so, you know, our initial response would be to address the most vulnerable, um, the most extreme vulnerabilities that we have identified within the community.

[01:34:14] Member Alison Hicks: So we're also doing that within other departments, and there was some of this in the staff report. How are you addressing overlap between an overlap is a good thing. Um, but, like, the one that stands out is that, I mean, you mentioned some, but the one that stands out is that we're doing biodiversity, planning, and active transportation, which I think, a good part of that is shade trees. Um, and, you know, so, and parks and rec, where some residents are arguing for more green space and not so much. You know, astra turf and so forth. So, how does what, it seems like there's a huge overlap there. How does that work?

[01:35:02] Ms. Lee: Yeah, I mean, I think up until now, it has been behind the scenes, just building relationships across the departments. We've talked with the urban forestry manager and shared that we're doing this analysis. He asked to see the maps as soon as they're ready, because, um, it can be one of the guiding posts for the forestry program to look at where we see heat already occurring, and and see if there are tree planting opportunities within those areas. Their decision won't solely be made based on that, of course. They have, you know, are there available locations for trees within those parts of the city. Are there other constraints, but it can be more information for the departments. And so we've consulted with many of the departments in even just this initial work to understand the vulnerability, and we would certainly think about how to integrate resiliency, thinking, kind of mindset, and incorporating the information that we've uncovered. into future projects across different topic areas. So, we would meet what we've already met with. Um, Department of Housing staff, and we would continue to share information with their staff, um, when I was in San Mateo County, we talked about, um, how to build more, build more resilient housing because San Mateo County had a priority of building more housing, and it had a priority of, um, addressing climate vulnerability. So we put out a whole toolkit about how to address both our housing goals and our resiliency goals. As an organization. We worked with the Department of Housing to develop that. So we could look for strategies like that, that help us achieve building more housing, which is, of course, a priority, and how to build more resiliency. You know, newer buildings have cooling more often. They can actually be a source of resiliency. I mean, I think this is

[01:37:00] Member Alison Hicks: getting into comments, but I think it's super important to not be, you could be working against each other. Like asking for money when, frankly, the low income people in our community that I talk to, they just want housing, they don't want resiliency kits. If that means that you're spending a lot of money on that and not on house. Um, So, and the same for cooling. People just want trees. Structures all over the place. But I think you could help by talking to the department. You could work with them or against them. I mean, I just want to make sure that you have that perspective. But now I'm going into comments. So are there other questions? Okay. Um, so, then now. Uh, now we're at the part where, um, public place speak. Um, So, are there any comments from the audience, either in person? Yes. So

[01:38:07] Public Speaker: I'd like to try to answer your question. So I think, um, frustration you're feeling may stem from the fact that the question that your advisors, staff advisors, Cascadia, Isn't the right visionary question. So the right visionary question is. What has to happen to get us in 2045 or whatever the appropriate year is, to the kind of greenhouse gas emissions and the kind of resiliency that we want to see? The visionary answer is perhaps a set of scenarios of how there are probably multiple ways to get there. All of them are hard. But you need to know what the possible 2045 realities are, and then decide which one you want to pursue in 5 year steps. But if you don't have that vision of 2045. I doubt that you'll be able to get a 20, 30, 20, 35, 20, 40 set of steps to achieve it. One needs to begin with the end in mind. And so that's, I think, where your frustration comes from. That question has never been asked to my knowledge. And I've been in this room for 15 years. I was in this room when the 1st 2050 goal of being 80% below 2005 was set. I was in the room when it was decided to have a 2045 goal. I was here when we decided to do a 4.7% reduction every year. I mean, I've really tracked this all. And the challenge is in the role that you play. Um, You don't have the support you need to answer these really challenging visionary questions. And so, whatever you do with Cascadia or whatever consultancy you use in the future, I think it's really important to focus on getting them to answer that question, what does this world look like? And just one quick example. Vulnerability to soft stories and 2 story old apartment buildings will kill a lot of people if an earthquake comes along. Climate change will kill a lot of people in a very different way. It won't all happen on the same day. It will happen over time. Can you pull these 2 things together? Can you save people both from building collapse and from heat and smoke? Maybe you can. That should be part of the visionary answer that you need to hear.

[01:40:29] Member Alison Hicks: So I see no more members in the audience. Um, are there virtual members of the public who want to speak? We have, um, I'll show you. Excuse me. Well, I'm now allowed to speak.

[01:40:49] Hala Al Shawani: Yes, good evening, uh, sustainability committee members and city staff. Uh, I'm Hala Al Shawani. I a longtime resident in Mountain View. Um, I found the consultant presentation very interesting. The 3 things that jumped out at me were very non-intuitive and not expected, where they showed those really hot and dangerous places in mountain view. They seem to be in places that I would not have expected to see them like the parks, um, Costa Park, Sullivan Park. Um, I think there was one other park, um, um, and the reason it seems like the root cause was mentioned in, uh, in the consultant report. Uh, they were either plastic turf or uh, lack of trees or the presence and or presence of, um, you know, concrete and cement. Um, and then the one by the freeway, which was interesting too, the, uh, diesel particulates and, you know, the, the, the greenhouse, the polluted air, um, which also produces, of course, greenhouse gas emissions. Um, those were really, really hot areas. And when I was looking at that and listening to that, I was thinking, These could be mitigated. Um, with policies that really should not be difficult to implement. Um, and I know the biodiversity plan that the, um, forestry, uh, folks are working on, is definitely includes some of these mitigations. Um, so it's easy to, to, you know, think of, well, plastic turf, let's eliminate plastic turf. Let's uh, make it illegal to have plastic turf and mountain view. I mean, that's um, that's a very attainable, uh, a solution to to lowering the, the, uh, you know, the danger in those parks and the schools that we saw. Um, increasing the the number of green trees of, you know, green canopy. I mean, that's another thing that I know the biodiversity plan has, um, the draft that I've seen have definitely encouraged that and have some good suggestions about, um, how and where to do that, that, that should be attainable. Um, and then keeping any green barrier that we have by the freeway. That's, that's something that we should really incorporate in our, you know, protection of, of trees and and green canopy. So, you have these low hanging fruit solutions that are already some of them being discussed in other departments. Um, so definitely collaborating and pushing really for them as solutions as goals to attain very soon, sooner rather than later, I think it would could make, you know, some positive impact. Um, thank you.

[01:44:02] Member Alison Hicks: Do we have any other members of the public virtually? Uh, no other East chance? Okay. So, we're back to, um, go back to the committee for, um, we'll close oral communications, and we'll, um, It's time for committee discussion. And possible motion, do people want to start discussion? Yes. Okay, go ahead.

[01:44:32] Member Pat Showalter: Okay. Yeah, um, I, uh, Uh, I was really stuck when I read this, that there, um, there aren't as many things that we have to, as many broad subjects, that we have to work on resilience. That's what we might have thought. I mean, basically we found out that, um, cooling is a big travel, right? Extreme these days. We found that localized flooding can be, or actually, I want to talk about that, I think localized flooding can be a big deal. And, um, air pollution from, uh, from fires is a big deal. So then I think, That's, that's just 3 things. We've already managed sea level rise or we're working on sea level rise. So we have 4 topics. That's not. We shouldn't, I mean. We've identified them. that's good Then I think the other thing that we have to do based on, you know, what? Um, the chair was talking about, what you were talking about, what we all know, is that, um, uh, we, uh, we can't count on the federal government to help us out of along these lines, like we, um, like we thought we could 3 or 4 years ago. The, um, the, uh, the IRA and the BIL are pretty much, um, defunct. And so we need to look at what is within our kin. What can we do? And that is a very major um, uh, You know, that's amazing, kind of a major paradigm shift in a sense. But it's one that, I think is very necessary and it's what you were talking about, I think, with focus. So, um, uh, I think that that's what we really need to worry about is what can we do? And, um, and the other thing is, what can we do? Not, even 5 years down the road. What can we do next year? You know, I, I, I don't really think, oh, I, I mean, some of these things obviously will take longer, but some of them we could start very, very soon. And or we could just identify that they're part of our cooling process. For instance, they eat pop thing. I mean, we all talk about heat pumps as if it's just about decarbonization, but it's not because in a large part of the community, which was, you know, there was that interesting chart about when all the housing was built, pretty much stuff that was built. And before the 70s didn't have any air conditioning. That's a lot of our, a lot of our housing stock. Certainly the area I live in. I mean, everybody had to put it in. It didn't come with it. And, and so, so, um, upgrading to a heat pump has does that. And I think we need to recognize that that's another reason why we want to do that. Then, um, another thing I want to talk about is localized flooding. And, um, uh, there's basically 2 kinds of flooding that people typically talk about. There's riverine and coastal flooding. That's the kind of flooding that occurs when um, water that's supposed to be in a stream or a bay gets out of it. And that's the kind of flooding that somebody like Santa Clara Valley water district deals with or the core of engineers deals with. That's not what the city of Mountain View deals with. The kind of flooding we deal with is the kind of flooding that happens when the water doesn't get into the creek properly. In other words, our storm water system isn't adequate. Storm? Or or we have too much painting, or we don't have enough stuff to absorb it. All of those things contribute to it. But storm water systems are traditionally designed to handle a 10 year flood. That's it. And with this intensification of rainfall, We're gonna have a lot of little bursts that function like more than 10 years storms, but they are very, very localized. Now, the way we handle those now, we do, we have identified in our community what we call hotspots. And they are areas where, you know, we know a storm, water, storm, drain doesn't work well, or there's a low spot in a road, or, you know, I mean, um, or just, or there's likely to be more brushed. There's a lot of reasons that you have them, but, but, they're not new. Um, uh, our public works department knows what they are, and so does the water district. They're mapped. We don't have them want to map it here. That is a major flaw of this. We need to add, um, the hot spots. Um, they are, um, identified as part of the community rating system. So we, there is maps for those. And, uh, we need to concentrate on that because when, when, um, I mean, it's true that we could have, you know, some, uh, biblical flood that would, you know, wipe out houses, et cetera, et cetera. And we may very well have that someday, and, and that's what all the planning for the 100 year flood plan and the 500 year flight plane. It's very, very, when it happens, it's awful. But every year, every year we have localized flooding. And um, and the thing that's so important about this is, if you have localized planning on 101. Well, what does that do? That means that everybody that's on 101 right there has to be diverted off of 101, and they have to go somewhere else, or say on El Camino, there's a number of places on El Camino. We have localized funding. It's a big problem. So, we get on it fast, but, I think that's something we're responsible for. And we can work on. And it's in our capital improvement project to work on our storm water system. So, to me, that is the biggest hole in this vulnerability, um, evaluation, that that I see. And I, it's not something we can't plug. We can, but it hasn't been plugged, and I think it needs to be added into this. Um, and then, uh, And then the other thing I talked about a little, when the question was a really comment about, about the collaboration. I really do think that, um, you know, along the lines of this looking inward. Uh, you know, what we can do collaboratively with Silicon Valley, clean energy, community services, that sort of stuff. I mean, that's really powerful. And that's what we should work on. And again, I don't think it's necessarily stuff we should be doing in 5 years. I think it's just stuff we should be either ratcheting up or doing next year or the year after. I mean, I really, I don't see why we have to wait. And, um, And uh, Then another thing I thought was interesting. I, you know, I've, I've, I've been a, um, You know, as a hydrologist, I worry about weather, et cetera, I've always done that. I was really surprised to find out that Derek is claiming the average humidity in that view is 70, you know, because it can be 75%. I watch the community at my house on a regular basis, it's almost never that high. And so I wonder if this is something that varies throughout the community. And it would be interesting to know that. Um, and, uh, because 75 is, Right. Yeah, it's pretty high. And I, I mean, a lot of times, I know when I look at the humidity, it's, it's in the 30 or 40 range. So, or maybe maybe we have our meter in the wrong place. Anyway. Um. But I would be interested is if this, is this a, you know, is this it? But I did, I did Google it. And the AI says, said exactly what Cascadia said. So, certainly somewhere, it's, you know, it's 75%, but that's, uh, that, um, that's a lot. And, um, And then another thing that, um, I wondered about is, that, that we didn't talk about in here, that, um, is power outages. It was mentioned a little bit, but it wasn't talked about too extensively. And, um, I'm sort of curious about. Is that because we've, um, we feel like we don't have control over that? Is that because it's not, um, it hasn't been, if you look at it statistically, maybe it hasn't been that big an issue here, I mean, I, um, I just felt like, I wasn't sure that that was handled well, and I, I, it just, you know, I just wondered about it. Um, because, um, I've certainly, um, had friends that live, for instance, in the Santa Cruz Mountains that have had their power cut off for like 2 weeks at a time. And that is just, you know, that is, is just devastating. But in our area, unless there's some, uh, um, damage to a part of the power grid. Things typically go off for a couple hours at a time. That's that's what people had it were

[01:54:28] Member Alison Hicks: off. It was a major complaint last year. People had them on for a couple days over and over again. Okay.

[01:54:34] Member Pat Showalter: Well, then anyway, so I want my neighbor. Yeah, I wonder about that if the power outage thing is, because, you know, as we move forward, we're all getting more electricity, you know, we're oriented, and, and again, one of the things that we could maybe not make in super big inroads in, but we could certainly set the course for is making sure that, um, there's more, um, We could be looking into micro grids. Or we, particularly for our, um, you know, critical facilities. And also we could put, be putting more emphasis in our community and with SVCE on, on getting batteries. So that there's, so those were the, some things I kind of wondered about as as vulnerabilities as the power thing and, and the, the localized flooding. And then, um, Uh, But, but generally, I feel like the, the recommendation is is reasonable. I just really want to jump to the actions real fast. I don't feel like we have to have. I don't think feel like we need. We don't want to get into the, um, the perfect is the enemy of the good thing. You know, I think that, um, it's perfectly acceptable for us to, because we're at this on a regular basis. It's perfectly acceptable for us to try a program, get it started, and find out that, oh, this part of it doesn't work. And then we go back and we just visit. No, we need to set these programs in stone and just let them keep, you know, running and running, running. If we know that there are parts of them that aren't working finally. Um, so, so I, I'm much more for, let's jumping in and get some of these things done. Um, and also, I was fascinated by that heat. And um, I would really like a better explanation of what, some ground truth thing, of what is on the ground at those sites, and is there a commonality? Because, I mean, is it artificial turf? Are we finding that that's, that's really, you know, a huge contributor to, to heat, um, uh, to heat islands here. Well, that's really interesting information. And um, we, we could take action on that, that, you know, has more than just heat implications. So, um, I would, I, I would really hope that round truth, what, I guess that goes to a question as say, what what would is ground trooping that you expect to do in the next phase? Um, Oh,

[01:57:31] Ms. Lee: I was wondering if Miss, when you go, I could speak to what ground truthing looks like, but, you know, we would meet with organizations that are directly serving the community. So for example, the day worker centers. They have workers who throughout the year are trying to go out and do outdoor type work. You know, are they experiencing loss in wages or um, heat impacts, things like that? Same with the community services agency, they're going door to door. With working with people who live in their vehicles. You know, are they experiencing some of the vulnerabilities that we see typically arise when we have extreme hate events? And then it can be more detailed, um, looking at the localized flooding, the storm water issues. Well,

[01:58:19] Member Pat Showalter: that's what you would get, I think, with these listening sessions. Yes That's, but, but ground truthing, I mean, usually ground truthing is somebody goes out and looks. It says, okay, what? Yeah, what's in all that sites? And, um, and certainly our, um, our, it doesn't have to, it can be somebody separate, but it could, it could very well to be done with our, um, you know, with our, our parks department, really, perfectly.

[01:58:49] Member Alison Hicks: Sustainability staff could... This is a planner. You described every site and look out... satellite view. Yeah,

[01:58:57] Member Pat Showalter: you can what I was doing. Yeah, you could look at satellite views. You go out on your bicycles. I mean, there's so many different ways, but but I mean, it's just going out there and saying, what's really there? Right. Um, I think that, that, especially on that heat nap. we Yeah,

[01:59:11] Ms. Lee: because certainly before recommending resiliency strategies, right? Like we would want to go to the hot spots that we see and see what the conditions are on the ground if there are any differences from what the satellite imagery reveals. If there's just more information. You know, we've, we've, um, on a previous sea level rise, vulnerability assessment. We did this very detailed mapping of the flooding, but you know, like, there's an underpass that we've just not caught on the map. And so like water just goes right through it. Right, right, right. And so you have to go there on the ground and see things like that. You know, people were like, well, it floods there. It's like, well, it shouldn't, you know, the map doesn't really say it should. Um, until you understand that there's little channels, ways that the water can move. So, I don't know, Miss Fujiko, did you have anything to add to that? Um,

[02:00:05] Celine Fujikawa: I think thisly, you covered, covered it well. Um, I think the maps are a really great tool to use, especially the heat maps to kind of check that hotspot to see if like are those areas lacking shade, trees, um, and I think also like visiting a lot of those mobile home parks um, that are in within those high heat or flood risks and being able to kind of, um, do some of that ground truthing there. So, I think for, For that, it could look a variety of different ways and even with community engagement, we've oftentimes brought a lot of these heat and flood maps to these listening sessions to help them, um, do some of that ground true thing to say, like, um, you know, this is, these are areas where we do experience localized flooding that's not here on the map. So I think that's a really critical part of the, um, the CVA that I feel like was a little bit limited in terms of the initial ground true thing, but we're hoping to to do some more of that, um, if we were to move towards a resilience strategy. So

[02:01:15] Member Alison Hicks: every, do you mind if I just say, I, I usually speak last, but I'm,

[02:01:20] Member Chris Clark: since, I was going to make a motion, so you go ahead and say, whatever you want to say.

[02:01:24] Member Alison Hicks: So in order to support, that's what I want to speak. In order to support emotion, I'm feeling like I need a little tightening up. I'm basically supportive of doing a five-year plan that includes both. But I feel like we also have the goals to get to 2045. And that I I feel like. Like the way it's presented in the staff recommendation. I don't know how much vulnerability you're going to do and how much decarbonization. I don't really know what I'm what I'm endorsing here. And I feel like if we don't, you know, we keep marching towards, it's been, I've been on council for over 5 years. We're talking about another 5 years, so 10 years towards the 2045 and I don't have, maybe this is part of what Bruce was saying. I don't really know what our plan is to get there or if we have one. And I'm not comfortable with that. So I'm not going to be able to, and now we're throwing vulnerability in with it. And there were many, many things. Said in terms of vulnerability. I don't know if we're going to take on mental health and health, which honestly, I don't think is something the city should do. I, you know, I don't really know what I'm endorsing. And I need it to be a little more defined than the way it is in this. Uh, I need, and I'm feeling that I'm fine with addressing vulnerability, but I think a lot of them in terms of the hotspots are very overlapping with other projects we're doing, which is good. Um, with other projects we're doing and things that residents really want. We're having a lot of problems, for example, with parks, in that we can't assess the fees, we're, as we densify, we should produce, be producing more parks, but we can't, we can no longer assess the fees we used to on developments. So we, that's, that's a problem. That's gonna come up. We're gonna have to address it. It's gonna come up with our revenue measure. I don't know. and residents are gonna be very opinionated about it. When we endorse this tonight, I don't know. Are we saying we're going to put other things in a revenue measure that, that what are they? Are they mental health things? I don't know where we're going with this. And I need it a little more defined or I'm not going to be able to vote for it. Um. It's just too, it's too like saying the same thing over and over again. It's too loose. We have a definite goal, and we have no, we haven't spelled out how we're getting there. Now we're adding vulnerability in, so we're doing more projects, and I don't know how many of them are decarbonization projects. And we've lost a lot of the ones we can do because of the state and local, the state and federal changes. So, I need things more to find, maybe. other community members and figure out how to define it. Cherry,

[02:04:26] Ms. Lee: if I, if I may, um, I think one way to think of this is that permission to pursue developing a plan would bring more clarity. It's to kind of what we were actually proposing. And we would bring it back to this committee. And, of course, council ultimately. So this is really a contract amendment to enable us to move forward into developing, like actually fleshing out what the next steps might look like. And then we would come back to the committee, with an actual proposal of like, here's what we would think the next 5 years look like. And at that point I could answer, like, Is this a resiliency thing? Is it a decarbonization thing? I mean, I'm hoping to shift the way we talk about it to being that this is our climate work, but still, we can talk about how things address vulnerabilities more within our vulnerability assessment or they address our carbon neutrality goal. Um, But this this contract amendment that would go to council, of course, and we could certainly refine it before it goes to council. Um, would then allow us to put some more structure to it, right? Like all we have is really the concept, and then we're asking for permission to build it out. So then you could say, yes, this is a plan that the council, the committee, and then ultimately, I would hope the council could feel comfortable adopting. But, um, You know, we're asking for permission to be able to answer that question, I guess, is. So

[02:06:01] Member Alison Hicks: I guess what I'm saying is that if we, if within that answer, we don't have, so between now and, If we are focusing primarily on the next 5 years, between now and 2485, we're 25% of the way they are. If we don't have even, if the decarbonization projects don't foresee even solving 25% of that, then, when is presented to me, I'm not going to be able to support it. We can't put that off anymore. We either have to say, we're not making it, and we're not doing carbon offsets because the atmosphere has changed on a federal level, and we just can't do it. Or we have to get 25% of the way there. Um, because otherwise we're making bad policy. And we're putting future counselors in. Well, they'll probably just say, has counsels made bad policy, but I don't feel like being the council who didn't think about what they should have been thinking about. I

[02:07:04] Ms. Lee: think earlier this year, I would have been able to say fairly confidently that we can get 25% of the way there in the next 5 years. Um, I want to know,

[02:07:14] Member Alison Hicks: do you think we can or can? I mean, sure, maybe I'll vote for it tonight, but when I see that, I want some thought into, we can't have a 2045 goal and no goal post between now and there. I'm just not going to support that. Yeah,

[02:07:28] Ms. Lee: I mean, I think, um, Right now, the math doesn't add up to us getting to carbon neutrality absent offsets by 2045. But, you know, in 2 weeks time, I'm meeting with cities from across the state, we're doing a day long retreat with the local, um, climate policy alliance, gathering of cities to talk about our legislative priorities for the fall session around electricity, affordability. Maybe we can talk about direct access and like changing all the ways we supply electricity to our communities. There's room to make big progress at the state level, even beyond our borders, which is even better as far as I'm concerned, if we could get 10% of the way there, but have that statewide. That would actually enhance our outlook for the vulnerability side of the house, you know, like we're just going to be reducing emissions overall much more. So, um, I think that things may evolve. You know, we we may have a north star of a goal for carbon neutrality, but we may be looking at the whole system. you know, member Shelter talked about flooding and we think about flooding at the local level. We've convened elected officials from across Santa Clara County to talk about flooding as it crosses our jurisdictions. We've been working with the climate collaborative. Then there's Bacan, which is the whole Bay Area. Um, looking at the same issue of flooding and we have to be able to move from all of these different levels. It might not be that we hit a specific goal, like at our own city level, but we get farther at the regional level or the county wide level. Um, I think maybe there's a way for us to move from very specific goals, like focusing only on the goals, and thinking about moving more towards thinking about the whole ecosystem, and where can we make the most change? In a given moment. Well,

[02:09:48] Member Alison Hicks: that's really, and that, I think, is what, uh, council member Sher Walter was saying. I want more action now. I want less paperwork and more action now. So whatever this can do to, to do that, that, you know, that's what I would like. I would also like more collaboration with other departments that are, which you've been doing, but I think, There's certain traditional ways that parks have been planned. incre- which includes a lot of grayscaping, and creational facilities that now have rubberized surfaces and, uh, you know, the plastic grass, plastic turf. And I think they may have impacts on the wider community, and I think our, our community, particularly in the Cuesta Park area, have been speaking up. I don't think they want that, but I think that's the traditional way of planning suburban parks. I think that's what our consultant has pushed. He hasn't pushed trees, he's pushed shade structures, and people are livid about that. I think your engagement, sustainability staff's engagement with that department could be very helpful. But I think if you go off and do things that are other projects that are resiliency projects that are not engaged with them, then it could be not very helpful. Yeah,

[02:11:07] Ms. Lee: it might feel, um, in the shorter term, more effective because we, we might appear to be going faster, but if we're working at cross purposes over time. It doesn't work. Yes, go. I

[02:11:21] Member Chris Clark: guess I just viewed all this very differently. I guess what I, what I, just tell me if I interpreted all this incorrectly, I viewed this report as a preview of a broader and more comprehensive, um, report instead of plans, and a request to amend the contract to basically integrate everything so that, yes, we're spending more time. Um, maybe a few extra months, getting everything together, but once that is all together with all the actions and everything identified. will be in a much better place to move more quickly than we would have been. Have we done those things separately? And in the meantime, we're doing all the other things. Like, this isn't, just because we're doing this and studying it doesn't mean that all these things are going on. Those are, those are, those are all still happening.

[02:12:17] Member Alison Hicks: The chief sustainability. So there's a piece of the picture that you're missing. What is that? Which is that when you were not yet on this committee. And when Margaret was on, we had a meeting where we cut down the number of, we cut down, we, There was a discussion around doing a lot of paperwork and not a lot of implementing a lot of projects. And so we kind of put the resilency. We, we said do the vulnerability report, but maybe we won't, I don't know how we put, do a deep dive into it because we want what patches it. We want to see action. We're doing a lot of planning and no action. So, or little action. Um, so that's a piece. And then on top of that, we have what, what happened at the federal estate level. So that making it even harder to take decarbonization action. So I think that's some of where I'm coming from. That makes sense. I

[02:13:09] Member Chris Clark: guess what I'm saying is doing this does not take away from all of the short-term actions in the CIP and all the other plans that are going on that are already in progress. And so I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't view movie board with this as somehow. not allowing us to move quickly on all the, which are coming up and I only wanted 2 hours for this semester. I am one, but that's why. So that's what the, I, but that's okay. What? Sorry. over my head. No, I just, I was trying to move us along since we're still on item one and our 2 hour window for this committee meeting has inspired. Um, but, but I will. I'm happy to move the staff recommendation because I think it makes sense if there are friendly amendments or other things that you would like to attach to it. That's fine too. just to kind of get things moving. But if we're, if you're overall uncomfortable with this and you'd rather do separate plans, then I'd, I'm happy to hear that. I

[02:14:14] Member Alison Hicks: mean, I'm a little uncomfortable with it, and I'm. And the other thing I should say is I, you know, I appreciate having some back and forth because this group discusses important things and we have no ability to have a brown act group. Right. So this is essentially kind of our discussion place. So I feel a little bit differently about this than I do about council meetings where if it were this important to me. Pick 2 other people and go off and discuss it for several hours. Um. So, uh, yeah, I was hoping we could come up with some quick tweaks that would make sure that we emphasized, um, emphasize, what, what past that, uh, you know, actually doing? I don't know what you mean about the decarbonization projects that are in the CIP. I don't know. I

[02:15:05] Member Chris Clark: mean, the next item is decarbonization roadmap with many, many Oh. things to... Okay, I got to take those risks. And then there's all the other, I mean, we're... I just...

[02:15:23] Member Alison Hicks: You mean like the act of transportation plan or something? That

[02:15:27] Member Chris Clark: in the urban forestry plan and all the other things that are going to...

[02:15:33] Member Alison Hicks: other projects. Yeah, I don't think of the as in the CIP. The modified reach. Other projects we have. Yes. Yeah, the recycled

[02:15:40] Member Pat Showalter: water plants.

[02:15:42] Member Alison Hicks: So Pat, you said getting things done. Do you have any? Yeah, I guess I

[02:15:46] Member Pat Showalter: would, you know, I would, you know, your motion.

[02:15:50] Member Chris Clark: You're making emotion.

[02:15:50] Member Pat Showalter: I'm going to just...

[02:15:52] Member Chris Clark: I haven't made a motion, so feel free.

[02:15:55] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I mean, I guess for me, the motion is, I think it's really important that, um, the, the, uh, for sure that the heat map, the ground truth, extensively, and that sort of, because, because it seems like, So that's one thing, because it seems like the extreme heat, um, and the wildfire smoke, um, are, are really impacted by that. And, um, and then we want to get to actions, the goal should be to get to actions that can be administered, um, or at least begun. In, um, in the in the next year or two.

[02:16:39] Member Alison Hicks: And that would be decarbonization action?

[02:16:41] Member Pat Showalter: No, resilience

[02:16:42] Member Alison Hicks: actions. Oh, well, I want, I will not vote for it unless it's decarbonization. Well, they should be both. I mean, to me, I don't want to just name vulnerability, and not decarbonization. Well, I

[02:16:57] Member Pat Showalter: mean, the decarbonization actions that we have, the long term going forward are, um, we have the amended reach code, which require... We did that already, but it's it's important. We have, um, uh, What additional decorbization actions are you talking about?

[02:17:19] Ms. Lee: Last week we sent a letter to the air district to encourage them to continue moving forward with implementation of their appliance rule. So the heat pump water heater program is meant to, um, accelerate the transition to electric appliances. Um, We will be presenting later this evening about the EV charging, proposal for multifamily, um, properties, which is hopefully helping to build out enough infrastructure to allow residents and multifamily to switch their transportation to decarbonize transportation. Um, we have our, outreach programs, which have been focused around partnering with SPCE and promoting the rebate opportunities. Um, looking at legislative opportunities, working with the climate collaborative on, um, regional grant applications. We have 3 solar projects that are underway. each of the 2 gymnasiums at our middle schools and then at the senior center. And we're vetting an additional 3 uh, Solar projects. We have the fleet electrification plan that was, um, our policy, excuse me, that was adopted by council in June, and we've been working with departments to move forward and bring um, AV charging for our fleet so that we can transition that to be all electric. And then we continue to look for decarbonization within our own city facilities. So, as, um, heating systems fail, we're replacing them with, um, electric, um, we early moved our landscaping. We're moving our landscaping tools, um, to be all electric as well. I think the city just announced its 1st park that is going to be serviced with all electric landscaping equipment and we've been, um, bringing additional infrastructure to help with having charging capacity. I just approved an invoice today to cover out of the sustainability action plan. Um, charging infrastructure for some of our landscape being equipment so that CSD can service our parks with all electric tools, you know, eventually, you know, we're transitioning us, um, vehicles. Uh, reach their end of life. Or not vehicles, Google. There's like a ride on mower, but, um, equipment and landscaping equipment. Um. I mean, that's that's some of our decarbonization work. Um,

[02:19:56] Member Alison Hicks: I think what I, I think what I need is that this plan, the 5 year plan, either has a plan, includes a plan and says it's an attempt to connect. But in an attempt to get to 25, It's under the way there because we have, or saying that we don't, we can't. And if we can't, we have to reconsider the 2045. Because we can't, you know, I mean, when I started, we're, we will be, since I started this, 2 fifths of the way there, and if we haven't gotten even 5%, and we're not making it, and we have to say that. So I want some re- since we have a reality check at the end, I need some gold.

[02:20:42] Member Alison Hicks: So you need some quantification for the decarbonization. Now for the resiliency.

[02:20:47] Member Alison Hicks: I need some goalposts for the decorganization. And they can, you, we cannot meet them in 5 years. That's fine, but or you can tell me there's no way we can do it. You know, or we're only going to get 5% of the way there. Anything, but I need some. I, I need something to say that we're doing because the charging stations, it, it's like. There are 2 different levels you can do them at. It's 150 charging stations, home charging. That's hardly any. So, if that's our plan for getting, to carbon neutral at 2045, we should just say right now we're not doing it. These are little tiny steps, and I wanted acknowledged. It's fine if we're taking little tiny steps forward because the rest of the country is taking big steps backward. So it's fine, but I want to be honest about it. I want to know it. I don't want it to be obscure, and then later, pretend I didn't know what's happening because I do know what's happening. I mean, I think, oh, basically, I was just going to say, um,

[02:21:52] Rebecca Luck: I'm remembering the materials from the last meeting where the, the local strategies were, were listed and, um, estimates were given around the, uh, carbon reduction, um, potential with those strategies. And then, at various points, we've compared that to what, we've been the carbon reduction potential, had some of the, the, other, you know, strategies at the, the larger level than the local other, well, the state level and the federal level. And I'm recalling that it is in the, you know, less than 5%. So what we have identified so far as things that we can do locally, um, save offsets, um, you know, other than offsets are not going to get us to, um, 25% of the reduction in 5 years. What I've also heard Miss Lee say is that, There are a lot of people who are as bothered by this as as we are and having these kinds of hard conversations also to see what some of those bigger vision, um, bigger possibility items could be, but they're, they're not yet. We don't yet know, um, what they are and what their reduction potential, um, would be. And I'm just wondering, is that fair? Yeah,

[02:23:19] Ms. Lee: I think the final thing. I mean, the inflation reduction act went away in July. Um, so it's very recent, much of this change is significant and recent. It's not even been 6 months. The EV incentives within the IRA only expired in October. Um, So we don't have a plan yet. Um, but I will say, in some ways, it's not that we can't get to zero, but at what price, I think, also, as part of the question, could certainly, um, just electrify every home in the community. But, It's hard for us as staff to bring forward recommendations, and we could get us to zero. Like I could get us to zero. We could get there through offsets. We could get there through, um, subsidizing an electric vehicle for every household or paying the cost to electrify every household. You know, those are ways that get us to zero. So mathematically, maybe I misspoke when I said that I can't see a pathway to it mathematically. But it's hard as staff to bring forward a recommendation like that. Um, We have put our hat in the ring to participate in PG&Es pilot for neighborhood scale decarbonization where the utility would pay the cost as opposed to investing in their natural gas upgrades, but we have to be selected. Um, You know, we've we've raised our hand. Um, to participate, but, Um, you know, There are ways to get to zero. But if we do it all on our own. If we just say that the federal government has taken away, does that, you know, quite a bit of our emission reduction potential? Um, It would be extremely costly. You know, we we did sort of back of the envelope and I think it was something like $75000000 to electrify just the homes because, you know, PG&E says $50,000 per home to electrify it. And of course, that will vary grossly, but if we wanted to just think in very broad numbers or, you know, it's, Now without the inflation reduction act, maybe it's 15 or 20 million, $20,000 more per vehicle. So, So we could bring forward strategies like that. Um, But it would swamp even our revenue measure, not all of those things would even be allowed, uh, as things to fund through a revenue measure. We'd have to identify different ways, um, different revenue streams. So, Um, what we've been trying to do is think through, where can we apply pressure in the system to help things move more quickly, or to help them align better, so that we can be as efficient as possible, with the resources that the city has, which are admittedly limited. Every city, no matter, um, how affluent, of course, we still have limited resources and many priorities. So how do we align our priorities so that we're trying to meet our housing priorities, our green spaces priorities, and our climate priorities, um, Being as efficient as possible with our resources. We could bring forward a plan that could get us to 25% reduction in the next 5 years, but it would be extremely difficult to pay for it. So

[02:26:47] Member Alison Hicks: I would just like, since we have, since we have a goal that's 20 years out, I need some accounting for whether we think we're making it or not. And I'm not, well, now I'm repeating this, because I, I think that if we're not making it, we need to say we're not making it. early. We

[02:27:06] Ms. Lee: need to be honest about it. We could certainly share the results of our wedge. I mean, we're not done with the wedge analysis. That was only half of the local measures. We can try to project out additional things. Um, even things that are more costly. Um, and share with the full counsel, the results of that. I think that's what we. Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah,

[02:27:32] Member Chris Clark: I don't disagree with that at all. I think I'm just, I'm just, from a strategic level, I'm trying to think, okay. We started with a goal of 2045.

[02:27:42] Member Chris Clark: The world changed around us. We can only do so many things right now. And one of the things there are low hanging fruit and things that we can absolutely do that we're already working on and that probably some things that we'll identify through this. But the other thing that you go, the other thing that I think

[02:27:56] Member Alison Hicks: you do strategically, when you're in a position where you can't move

[02:27:59] Member Chris Clark: forward, like you want to do, is you, you take a step back, and you, put the plan in place, or do the analysis that you need, so you, there's a goalpost, but you also need to know where you're currently starting from and have a strategy of how to get from here to there. both under the current world, and then if the world changes again, we don't have to go back and redo this. We've got a whole set of things that we can very quickly start to implement on a. That's why I think it's, I'd much rather we, take this extra few months while we're in a not great position to put ourselves into a really good position for a world where, hopefully, And I'm not sure it will, but hopefully we'll be in a better scenario in two, 3 years.

[02:28:47] Member Pat Showalter: And I would just like to add to that, the sustainability task force that met in 2016, 17. Um, there did put together, um, a list of actions and decarbonation, um, that went along with those actions. But they didn't talk about vulnerabilities. It was all about, um, it was all about uh, reducing GHGs. I think they did say we should do a vulnerability assessment. And they did say we should, and this is where we are. And to me, I look at vulnerability as Middick is not is adaptation. We're not mitigating um, uh, climate change with these actions. We're adapting to it. And I think as local leaders, It's our job to identify what are the adaptation mechanisms and things that, as I said before, are within our, you know, uh, within our ability to do, what are the things we can do that will make, um, our, us all more comfortable as we face this new reality. And, you know, a big one. I've pushed a lot, has sea level rise, and I'm very glad we're making really good progress on that. But I think what this, this, shows is that there's some others that are, you know, we need to go on, and they care more about, and, um, like, like, you know, like the heat centers, one of the things that, the goal centers, one of the things they brought up that's really, um, hobbyist, but we haven't done. Um, and until somebody tells you you need to do it, you don't think it's obvious is, we, we got to extend the hours, you know, so we have to, we're going to have to put together a plan for it. Okay, how can we keep the library open till 10 o'clock? It's just, it's not, it's not rocket science, we can do it. But, um, So, uh, I just think that's where we are with this player. We're talking about those, um, those adaptations. Okay.

[02:30:51] Member Alison Hicks: So you added something regarding you made the motion, you added something regarding the heat map. And we're adding something regarding quantification. Do you have, of, some guests at guest some, uh, quantification of, uh, how much decarbonization will be able to do, which may be a shifting, you know, shifting policy landscape, but some, uh, quantification of decarbonization expectations. Okay, that's a good phrase. And then the other thing I would like is to, uh, maximize overlap with our existing projects because I would prefer that we do a job, that the job we do with parks and recs and the ATP and urban forestry and so forth, um, be informed by the work that you're doing because I think that would be very helpful. Absolutely. And

[02:31:54] Ms. Lee: then I believe, uh, membership Walter also mentioned, um, adding more additional information about localized flooding. Oh, yeah,

[02:32:02] Member Pat Showalter: yeah. Yeah. I think we need to add a map about localized flooding and hotspots and how to deal with that. So will

[02:32:12] Member Alison Hicks: you accept the, the, overlap with our, our, yes, you phrase it better or something, with existing programs. Okay. Okay. Is that clear? Okay, sorry, all right. Okay, now you can take a vote.

[02:32:29] Ms. Lee: Chair hicks.

[02:32:30] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:32:31] Ms. Lee: Emercial Walter.

[02:32:32] Member Pat Showalter: Yes,

[02:32:32] Ms. Lee: member Clark.

[02:32:33] Member Chris Clark: Yes.

[02:32:34] Ms. Lee: Okay.

[02:32:35] Member Alison Hicks: Now, we move on to, which is local actions under consideration for the decarbonization roadmap. And this item will be presented by sustainability manager, Rebecca Luck. Thank

[02:32:51] Rebecca Luck: you, Chair Hicks, and good evening to the members of the council sustainability committee and the public. I'm here to provide an update on our decarbonization roadmap initiative. I don't have a formal presentation tonight as I want to keep it tight and brief given the number of agenda items before you tonight. However, we are going to display Attachment 4 from a staff report as a point of reference. So last month, um, we presented an initial list of local actions under consideration for the 5 year decarbonization roadmap. And the committee provided feedback and we committed to returning today to kind of show you how we incorporated that input. At the November meeting, the committee identified several guiding principles for our roadmap. Uh, one was the emphasis on substantial emission reduction actions. Oh yeah, the table. It's scroll down to the attachment floor. Oh, sorry. Okay. Um, so one of them was emphasis on substantial emissions, emission reduction actions, review the plan regularly every 3 to 5 years, and as things change beyond our city of mountain view borders. Um, collaboration with Silicon Valley Clean Energy or other partners is crucial. So that's another siding principle that we took away from our meeting last month. And identifying cost saving actions as a priority. And enhancing community education and outreach efforts. Additionally, the committee wanted to include specific actions. and those have been incorporated in this updated list. They're shown in bold, italicized. One was explore the integration of autonomous vehicles, particularly minibuses, into transportation, um, into mountain views transportation systems. So this measure has been incorporated into the expand and electrified mountain view shuttle services. Another was to include groups to support outreach and education in all actions that involve these efforts. And so we've included it anywhere in the table where we talk about outreach and marketing. And education. And another recommendation was to provide education on mountain views bicycle infrastructure, we've included that as part of the action under explore accelerated implementation of the active transportation plan. And then for buildings, 2 new actions have been added as a result of last month's meeting. Which is enhanced permit streamlining, streamlining for admission reduction activities, my career and construction, and explore integrating emission reduction actions into other city policy and programs. I just want to emphasize that the, what was presented in November was a very early draft of our initial action list, and we're considering more ideas, that just reach codes for commercial buildings and programs that support multifamily building electrification, and we've mislead mentioned the last item, the PG&E neighborhood decarbonization program. And as we progress in identifying these local actions, some of the actions you see tonight may be removed and others may be added, allowing us to determine, you know, which the, which best areas are to focus on over the next 5 years to meet our 2045 organization goals. Um, and we'll, of course, return to the council sustainability committee throughout the next year as we develop the 5 year roadmap. And we appreciate your ideas as well as any members from the public. Over the next few months, you could feel free to reach out to me or Danielle. And with any suggestions that you have. And with that, I'll return back over to Chair

[02:36:48] Member Alison Hicks: Hicks. Thank you. So now it's time to ask any committee questions. Just a comment for later. Okay. Any questions? So my only question is about the structure of this. So, we, I assume we can just say yes to all of them and then you evaluate, not that you actually go out and do all of them. Then you evaluate which ones are the best. the best next steps to take, I assume, that's what we're doing. Okay. Um, are there comments from members of the public in person? Indeed. Um, I

[02:37:34] Public Speaker: believe all of you received 2 documents from me. One was a presentation I gave for carbon free Mountain View a week and a half ago. Essentially sharing my concerns about the Cascadia report. Um, and then also there was an email about the dirty, direct access energy that produces a very substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions in Mountain View it has for decades. One of the core recommendations of the 2017 task force was to find a way to make that electricity 0 carbon, like Silicon Valley clean energy was at that time, and like PG&E is now. Um, The approach that was recommended back in 2017, 2018 was essentially to seek voluntary commitments from companies or entities that use direct access energy to choose a 0 carbon direct access supplier. And if they didn't do that, to change the business licensing fee so that they would pay more for business licensing than they were saving by using dirty energy. Um, This to me seems not as bold as ending the flow of pipe natural gas by 2045, but between those 2 ideas, neither of which cost the city any money, and in fact, the 1st idea could make the city money, I think you would solve that 25% in 5 years. And I'm very disappointed that the carbon neutral end of flow by 2045 was taken off the list of recommended items to study. I think it should go back on. In addition, I think that putting solar, thermal, hot water heaters on apartment buildings to preheat the water that goes into their boilers could be a very effective thing in our lovely solar climate as the, as the, as our environment warms. And I'm also disappointed that the recommendation around time of sale, which was briefly discussed, but not really put forward in a positive way. I can put it off the list. I don't know whether this is going to be, would be a big deal. Berkeley won't be implementing it for another month, but I have a feeling that it should be modeled because it is modelable. Many of the suggestions for, you know, uh, what is the charm in table for? Um, things we should do or we should be considering doing are not modelable. Simply, there's no numbers to associate it with them. Cascadia didn't show their assumptions, except for population where I think they got the assumption wrong. And it's really hard for me to say that this is the kind of analysis that you should be paying a 3rd of a $1000000 for. Um, when they don't even show their assumptions. If this were a college class proposal, and I were a professor, I would flunk them. So that's my thoughts. Okay,

[02:40:28] Member Alison Hicks: are there any um, are there any virtual speakers? Yes, Mary, detail. Mary?

[02:40:40] Mary: Are you there? Yes, just waiting for the unmute symbol. Um, I wanted to, um, also echo the comment about, um, considering a, a time of sale. Um, Requirements for uh, putting money aside as they do in Berkeley to help uh, future owners electrify. Um, parts of the Bay Area. Have, um, much more complicated, uh, time of sale requirements as regards, uh, sewage. So, um, inspections are required and actual improvements, I believe, are required to be made. Um, at time of sale. Um, in certain of the counties that have, um, apparently really poor water quality. So that, that is, um, Pretty complicated thing to make happen. Um. I'm assuming this is still in place that was, is there, I don't know, 5 years ago when I was looking into this. So, requiring people to put uh, money aside in an escrow account um, for electrification at time of sale. I realize we're concerned about increasing the cost of housing, but, It's a pretty, it would be a relatively small number, I think, what I've seen at Berkeley anyway, that they're being asked to set aside to help future owners with. So I, I, feel pretty strongly that this is a, a useful, um, um, thing to keep an eye on in Berkeley and to start discussing and considering. Thank you. Thank

[02:42:27] Member Alison Hicks: you. Is there anyone else online? No one else. Okay.

[02:42:33] Ms. Lee: Sure, Hicks may clarify, um, both the point of sale and the end of flow of natural gas were, um, contained with an attachment for our apologies if we scrolled through it too quickly during the presentation, but it is, uh, both are still within the staff report. Yes,

[02:42:50] Member Alison Hicks: actually, I have a question regarding that is it, um, now that, uh, several members of the public have brought it up. There's a list of 10 things above the table. Are those included in the table or not? I don't know very clear in the way I'm asking. Yeah,

[02:43:12] Member Chris Clark: page two. On page two, yeah. Right

[02:43:14] Member Alison Hicks: about. report? Yeah. How are those included in the, the, The

[02:43:24] Ms. Lee: preliminary list that we showed at the last meeting. We had discussion and I think in, rather than trying to trek all of the changes in real time, we committed to coming back to the committee to inventory to make sure that we captured all your additional feedback. We didn't remove anything from the list, but those items are the things that were incorporated into the list, to this expanded list. So the

[02:43:48] Member Alison Hicks: 10 items are now put into the table, colored detail.

[02:43:53] Rebecca Luck: The 1st 5 are guiding principles that we took away from the meeting. And then 6 through 10 are things that have been actually incorporated into the okay. So they're all included in some

[02:44:04] Member Alison Hicks: way, either as guiding principles or incorporated into the table. Thank you for that clarification because I think maybe it was an additive activity, not a...

[02:44:12] Ms. Lee: If you go down to

[02:44:13] Rebecca Luck: building table in the blue... Oh, sorry, stop, go up again. For example, there was a recommendation to include groups in outreach and marketing, so where it's bolded and italicized. So we added, you know, that wasn't there before.

[02:44:31] Member Alison Hicks: Those are the comments that were made during the meeting and then you show us how you incorporated the specific ones, but not the overall guiding principle. Yeah,

[02:44:40] Rebecca Luck: and if you go down to building the 1st page. If it's still have, yeah, explore time itself. But then it was, you know, there was some feedback to consider establishing a regional partnership. For that, instead of the city just doing it on its own, and adopt a goal for end of flow of natural gas sustain. Yeah, did not show. Right. And then we had these to insure education, it includes contractors, engaged local community groups to assist in educated community as well. Okay, sorry if that... Okay,

[02:45:09] Member Alison Hicks: clarification. Um, so now it's time for, um, discussion and committee discussion and possible motion. Hello.

[02:45:23] Member Chris Clark: I have 2 suggestions. Um, it's okay. The, um, So I thought a lot about the, Because I don't just, like, saying, no, we shouldn't do this, make, instead, like, thinking about something that might be, with respect to time of sale, something that might be replicable, um, not just here, but in other cities, without increasing the cost of the, of housing in the administrative overhead, with time of sale. And one thought that I had, and this might just, Maybe this doesn't make sense, but one thing that we could do is partner with an organization like SVCE on a, on a trial, maybe like for a year or 2 to see how something goes. And instead of a specific, like a traditional time of sale requirement, one thing that we could do is set aside, uh, a bucket of funds, and maybe SVCE would be willing to match or cover some portion of it as part of a trial. Um, we could, we could find the source of funds could be anything, it could be, um, it could be from the property transfer tax. It could be from any, that we already collect at time of sale, um, and just have a pool funds and then say, okay, if you're a new homeowner, because we know all the sales that occur. And let's just say that sales under a certain threshold, do your number, X $1000000, um, When those happen, the owners, we'll publicize this, but we can also send those folks a notice and say, like, hey, you qualify for this grant program, um, to, uh, where we'll match, you know, we'll do, you qualify for this set of funds to do energy upgrades as long as you're using them within a certain time frame. And SVCE already has, um, the reason I say partnering with someone like SVCE is, they already have either, they can themselves or through a partner, kind of vet these very basic applications, just to confirm that folks are, um, you know, using the money for heat pumps or other things. And and maybe something like that, if we were just to do a pilot with them for a year or something and we were to set aside the funds ourselves and maybe they can match or at least they'd partner on the administration of it. That might be more recordable, and then you're not, you're not imposing a charge on the new homeowner, it's, it's something that, you know, they're already kind of paid for it through either a property transfer tax, or maybe we have grant funding from other sources for this trial, that might work. Um, I don't know if this is a good idea or a bad idea. It was just kind of my my play on like a version of time of sale that might be more palatable to certain interest groups.

[02:48:08] Member Pat Showalter: Well, also, you know, we're both serving on Silicon Valley clean energy. We're always looking at ways to kind of increase participation. And our grant programs and the electrification. I mean, that's really the goal is with, with any extra money we have this year, we're not adding to that kitty, but most years we do. We had quite a bit. Um, We want to increase participation. Is this a way to increase participation? Um. So I, I don't think that's a bad idea to suggest. Um. I mean, I know if, if

[02:48:42] Member Chris Clark: someone who, you know, purchased a new condo for, you know, under some, some threshold or whatever, choose your, choose your threshold, but then you, you know, if you get a letter in the mail and it's saying, like, you qualify for $2,500, $3000 toward energy upgrades, and here's a list of things, all you have to do is, we know we know the property records through the, through the county recorder, so all we have to do is just, Um, make sure they're aware of it and then process that and see how it goes. Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. It could almost be formatted

[02:49:16] Ms. Lee: like a matching rebate, like what we do with our heat pump water heaters now. Something like that. Certainly. Yeah, we would we would include a measure like that and then fully designed it out and actually implement it in the next.

[02:49:28] Member Chris Clark: Yeah, so I'm not I'm not suggesting kind of moving around. I'm just saying that could be one play on it. Thank you. And then this

[02:49:37] Member Pat Showalter: is sort of a question. But it's also a common. Um, you know, I wonder about the multifamily um, EV charging infrastructure. And, um, uh, and kind of how affected that is and what. What are the most effective ways to get um, people in apartment buildings to, um, you know, to buy electric cars. Now, certainly, having an electric charger at every cardboard, if you were building a new one, that's probably easy. But for retrofits, I'm also wondering about, how do, um, uh, do we have any information about how people in multifamily homes, uh, utilize existing charging facilities around the community? Um, and, uh, to find out, you know, I mean, would it be better for us to have, like, um, build a gas station that was essentially a supercharging station that everybody would go in and pay, I don't know, 10 bucks to charge their car or whatever was the amount. And it would charge their car in half an hour. I mean, uh, uh, is sometimes I wonder whether, um, you know, the road we're following is the, um, is the best one. And with these EV chargers, um, in multifamily homes, it just seems like, because of the, um, of the, uh, the incredible number of buildings that are involved. It's really a heavy lift. So if there are other, I'm just interested in, in part of the, um, from the other things we're doing, effective. Yeah,

[02:51:26] Member Alison Hicks: I think explore, actually, I think exploring that would be, uh, given that there are faster and faster chargers, and they're starting and I'm not on top of all of them, but they're starting to put in faster chargers. I used one yesterday or something, but it doesn't, it's not faster on my car. I know where the, but I'm starting to see where they are and how many of them there are. They're not the ultimate 5 minute ones, but they're much faster. So I do, it does make me wonder about that, but I have to say it's super handy to charge even very slowly at home. Overnight, overnight. Oh, yeah, yeah. Um, and but I do wonder, you know, what's the bang for the buck? And I also wonder why aren't we, and I think that Bruce Kearney brought this up at the last Carbon Free Mountain View meeting to some degree. Why aren't we? he didn't say it this way, but I'll say it this way. Why aren't we, given the atmosphere we're in now federally and so forth, and no more clean car campaign. Why don't we, uh, promote, plug in hybrids more? Because maybe that's for a lot of people, that really the way to go, to electrify. Then you lose your range anxiety. I

[02:52:43] Ms. Lee: don't have all the answers. We do have our final item this evening is a presentation, a council. Yes, right. Yeah.

[02:52:53] Member Alison Hicks: But I do think. kind of exploring what's the what's the best where's the biggest bang for the buck? Is it encouraging more fast charging stations? Is it encouraging plug-in hybrids? Anyway, we are moving too. And I will,

[02:53:07] Ms. Lee: I will simply, I will, you know, briefly say that we are thinking of the pilot program for multifamily to address the current situation, you know, being cognizant, and it's all funded through SPCE grant funds, being cognizant of the fact that we are where we are now, the infrastructure that we have is what we have now, and what can we do? Right now, to start that transition to more electric. Um, even a plug-in hybrid if they don't have plugs, um, where they live in multifamily properties, then it still doesn't work. And so, We're taking this small pilot to address the need. We are very excited about the day when we have fast chargers that are widely available, but we don't have them yet. And we don't want to wait and not take any action until that technology is deployed. But we aren't investing 1000000s, 10s of 1000000s of dollars into something that we know will be solved in a few years. We want to just address the current need and start to shift, make early changes. So, It might not be the long-term solution that ends up emerging. The way that people that live in multifamilies ultimately charge their vehicles, and we do hope that ultimately they will all be in electric vehicles, but for now, and the disparity that already exists between access to charging for people who are in single family homes, and people who are in multifamily properties. It's addressing a need that already exists.

[02:54:33] Rebecca Luck: I'm just to add to that. Yeah, I think, you know, there's going to be a balance, you know, is what we're looking into. And I can say for when I had an EV and I lived in apartment complex, I returned my EV after having it for 2 years. It was hard with small kids. to try to find charging and wait for 40 minutes, and I think their other part was the cost. You go to these fast chargers, some of them cost like ¢68 a kilowatt versus you could charge at home for a lesser amount. Um, but yeah, I think, you know, the future is still kind of unfolding on how EV charging is going to work. But if we're working toward this goal, It's kind of like, wow, what are the short-term solutions that we could provide today for someone to jump into an EV tomorrow. Or do we want that to be further out? Do you want them to jump in when the infrastructure's in place? So back

[02:55:24] Member Alison Hicks: to this item. Are there any more? So are there more comments? I have a good call at you.

[02:55:31] Member Chris Clark: I just had one more comment, and then maybe make a motion, or you can, um, be, I think this is a reach code, but Mr. Carney talked about, and rightly, so, you know, from, especially multifamily buildings, solar, hot water heating, and so just, I'll give you an example of our ability, which is built, you know, within the last 10 years. We have a central gas fire boyware that serves hot water the entire complex. It would be, for our small HOA cost prohibitive to replace that early with something, um, something electric. Uh, but one thing that would make a huge difference in the amount of water that we use is having those dedicated return lines for recirculation pumps so that folks on the 1st floor don't have the hot water turned on for 2 minutes waiting for hot water to get down to that level. Um, I think that's probably a reach code, but which we can't do at the moment, but in a multifamily building, that would make a huge difference. If folks can't convert, the central heating, or the central, um, flaw is something else, just having recirculation pumps would make a huge turf runs. Absolutely. Maybe that's an idea for a grant program someday. And at our

[02:56:46] Ms. Lee: senior center, we've, we started with solar hot water and now we're in the process of electrifying it, but the solar hot water was the 1st measure undertaken. Of course.

[02:56:56] Member Chris Clark: I'm fine with the staff recommendation on this one, but I want you to be able to...

[02:57:01] Member Alison Hicks: I just have 4 people brought up, mostly Mr. Kearney, but maybe I have one. Additional ideas to add. So one was the solar thermal hot water, one was, uh, from, uh, past, um, a past task force idea which was eliminating emissions associated with direct access electricity. Um, which I think. So, you know, that one is. Another would be, is there any possible program with what they're calling balcony solar or plug-in play solar? I don't know if there's any way to. That's getting a lot of airplay now anyway to incentivize that. And then you just brought up recirculation. So, so to add those as possibility. There's

[02:57:56] Member Chris Clark: something to think about. Yeah.

[02:57:59] Member Alison Hicks: A wife, some business. Anyone happy to make emotion? First made the motion, right? Yeah,

[02:58:05] Member Chris Clark: I'll move the soccer recommendation incorporating the comments that we've made.

[02:58:08] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, I'll 2nd and I'd just like to also say that, uh, I fight and capture our discussion very well and I remember what those were one of those wandering ones. Thank you. Okay. Uh,

[02:58:24] Ms. Lee: Chair Hicks?

[02:58:24] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[02:58:25] Ms. Lee: member show Walters, member Clark.

[02:58:27] Member Chris Clark: Yep.

[02:58:28] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. So now we're up to 5G, which is the electric vehicle charger rebate program for existing multi-pamily properties. This item will be presented by climate fellow. So,

[02:58:49] Remy: hey, everyone. My name's Remy. And yeah, I will be presenting on our electric vehicle charger rebate program for existing multifamily properties. So 1st of all, this program will be funded completely by the Silicon Valley Clean Energy non-competitive member agency grant. Um, this was a grant from last year that assigned each of SUFE's member agencies, a predetermined um, amount to spend on a decarbonization or resiliency project. Uh, so the city of Mountain View's formula grant is $379,921. And on November 18, the city council approved staff to use this grant towards an electric vehicle charger rebate program. Next flight, please. So as we've covered in previous meetings, transportation accounts for roughly 58% of mountain view's annual greenhouse gas emissions, most of these emissions under the transportation sector are passenger, gasoline powered vehicles. Um, and also, as we've mentioned, multifamily residents, have a significantly lower rate of EV adoption compared to single family residence in the city of Mountain View. Um, This is partially because single family homes in Mountain View are far more likely to have dedicated garages and these garages have at least one standard 120 volt outlet, um, giving some opportunity for charging installation. Next side, please. So currently, um, an estimated 13% of multifamily units in Mountain View have access to on-site EV charging. Um, it is worth noting that this charger charger availability is often limited per property. Um, there may be just a few chargers for any number of EVs or folks who are interested in purchasing an AV. Um, and incentives are available for properties to install EV charging, most notably and consistently SECE's rebate program, uh, that launched in 2022. Um, Currently, uh, SVCE offers up to $100,000 to install EV charging at multifamily properties. So as of recently, 10 sites in Mountain View have installed a total of 159 charging ports. With an additional 114 ports in progress. Uh, on average, SVCE rebates have covered around 66% of total project costs for properties. However, through outreach, that stuff I've conducted to property managers and owners, we have still been hearing that this cost is still too high, especially among competing priorities and lack of market saturation of EV charging and multifamily properties. Uh, so, Our proposed uh, Mountain View rebate adder will be stacked on top of SVCE rebates, kind of in a similar fashion to the heat pump water heater grant or uh, rebates, uh, and will cover up to 100% of project costs for multifamily properties. Uh, this partnership with SPCE will enable simple application process, low admin fees, and increased outreach capacity. Um, the program's goal is to encourage early adoption of EV charging stations, hopefully inspiring other multifamily properties to follow suit. So create drumming up a little bit of market competition as well. And through the program, approximately 180 electric vehicle charging outlets or ports are expected to be installed. Oh, next life, please. Uh, so here is our proposed uh, incentive chart. We collaborated very closely with SECE on creating these amounts. Um. So for level one or level 2 outlets. The current incentive is $4500 combining both SCCE and Mountain View. Fair level 2 EV charging ports, which are have so far been more popular in the program. It's 8500 per port. And then for panel upgrades, uh, SVC offers an additional 5000 per project, and then mountain views, amounts will also be eligible to cover other project costs, such as panel upgrades, trenching, any other costs are covered, um, in this, in this chart. Yes, next slide, please. Uh, for the outreach portion of this program, we are proposing to, uh, hire a property owner ambassador, uh, who will provide guidance and support to existing multifamily property owners. Um, they will assist property owners, managers by answering questions and offering support throughout the process. Um, Ideally, this would be someone who has property management experience, who has worked in this space, who, you know, maybe is a property manager owner. And of course, staff will also promote the rebate program through city events and communications. Okay, please. So, the proposed budget for the program is, um, most of it going to the rebate funds, of course, and then we're, uh, we propose to allocate $25,000 to the liaison and other outreach. Um, outreach efforts. A CCE may have a 4%, um, admin fee, as of now. You know, we think probably not, um, but if it, admin becomes burdensome, this fee may be charged. Exide, please. So for going into the future, the rebate program is expected to launch this spring. And throughout the program, a CCE will share regular reports, so the city can track remate reservations and any other project metrics. Um, towards the end of the program, the city may consider using an evaluation process that would conduct surveys to property managers, contractors, uh, or tenants. And yes, that is, that is all. Thank you.

[03:05:12] Member Alison Hicks: So do committing members have questions? This

[03:05:17] Member Chris Clark: is for all any multifamily property, good qualify for the most part. I'm sure there are some parameters, but. Oh, sorry. It doesn't necessarily mean it. A rental property or a small condo property that's older or something like that would qualify. Wait,

[03:05:34] Member Alison Hicks: I don't know if I understand the question. I think there are

[03:05:36] Member Chris Clark: some, especially some older, um, In Mountain View, there's a lot of them are soft story structures. There's, they're both apartments. They're the garden apartments. Um, and then some of those have been converted to condos, and I guess the question was, would either version of those multifamily properties qualify? Yeah, they have to be rental. Condos

[03:05:57] Remy: would also qualify. Yeah, any kind of multifamily like facility. Okay. Yeah, we're trying to make it. I mean,

[03:06:03] Member Chris Clark: we qualify under SVCE's program. I assume it would just be the same. Exactly. Yeah. Well,

[03:06:12] Member Alison Hicks: we started this discussion during the last time. Do you have additional questions? No, it sounds great. Yeah, I was gonna ask, uh, can the ambassador promote plug-in hybrids, but I don't really see how they could. There's not much of an overlap. But if you can think of a way, for them to promote with,

[03:06:32] Member Pat Showalter: yeah, as well. I guess one question I have is, could, could, I've heard that there's a lot of these chargers that aren't functioning. Is can this rebate program be used to, uh, repair chargers or is that not expensive? I don't know anything about it. Great question. Oh,

[03:06:52] Remy: not functioning at apartments? Yeah. I mean, like existing chargers that aren't functioning for. That's a great question. I can definitely ask FCC. Yeah. It's a great question. If

[03:07:03] Member Pat Showalter: you're people moaning around it, you know, hobby. Well,

[03:07:07] Member Alison Hicks: the general corporate ones, they often don't care, but that's another. Yeah, that's awesome. It's not helping the other subject. Okay. Oh,

[03:07:14] Member Pat Showalter: no, I'll move move the sacrifice. Oh, we have to

[03:07:16] Member Alison Hicks: let the public, sorry. So we're not there yet. Okay, so any in-person people want to come in. Is there anyone virtually who would like to comment? Okay, so Mary has her handwritten Mary.

[03:07:33] Mary: Good evening. Um, I guess this is, I apologize, almost more of a question than a comment, but, um, I'm, I wonder about the effectiveness of putting, uh, at the extreme end, one charger at, did we say, however many, uh, chargers we can afford, one charger at, uh, 20 apartments versus 10 chargers at 2 different apartments. So, I'm hoping, um, staff is, um, working with SBCE and kind of doing an analysis, that sort of optimize the number of chargers that go in at different, um, at different, uh, places. It, it seems like it might be useful to, work with a larger number of apartments and get more people exposed, but, um, that's, that's just a gas, and I'm hoping maybe there's some analysis to support a good answer to that question. Thank you. So

[03:08:34] Member Alison Hicks: that's a good question. Are you going to do some analysis of what the, some question and answer on what the, what the, sort of optimal? You know, how many you have to put in before people have the confidence that they can actually buy a car in charge when they need to?

[03:08:52] Ms. Lee: I think that's the kind of data that we might be able to glean after our initial thinking was to qualify participants in a very similar fashion to the existing SVCE program. So however many they allow per building. Um, we would just mirror all of the structure of their rebate and add to it. But afterwards, if we do pursue a survey, we can try to find out, you know, different buildings may have pursued different levels of charging access, and then we can start to answer that question. It's very hard with such a small sample size.

[03:09:25] Member Pat Showalter: That may be a question that I should get Silicon Valley.

[03:09:30] Member Alison Hicks: what information they may already have on that question. Yeah. Is

[03:09:33] Rebecca Luck: there a, I mean, didn't he's Ms. Lynn or is there a cap on the level? I think I thought I... on level 2 charging? There's a cap per property. 18 per poor cop for

[03:09:46] Remy: level 2 charging. And there's no, sir, there's a cap for level 2, um, charging on the program, um, for until 8 or until 18, and then on the outlets, they're they're removing the cap, so there won't be, oh, there won't be any cap on how many outlets. So that might kind of mess a little bit with how many charging, you know, that's also partially based on that, but they found that people haven't been running up against that limit super often. Okay,

[03:10:16] Member Alison Hicks: thank you. Any other comments are we ready for motion? Ready? Okay. Just make a motion. You

[03:10:28] Member Chris Clark: want to make your motion, Pat, earlier. Sorry, I move

[03:10:32] Ms. Lee: the staff recommendation. Second. Chair Hicks.

[03:10:36] Member Alison Hicks: Yes.

[03:10:36] Ms. Lee: member show Walter.

[03:10:37] Member Pat Showalter: Yes,

[03:10:38] Ms. Lee: member Clark.

[03:10:42] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, so now we are, um, to, uh, 54. Which is a verbal update on sustainability and resiliency division progress. And this item will be presented by sustainability division status. Staff is lucky will commence the presentation. Thank you, Chair

[03:11:07] Rebecca Luck: Hicks. We could have a very short presentation, but I think we can get very brief highlights. We've subscribed fully to our water heater program, and so we'll be returning back to council, um, to amend our agreement with Silicon Valley Clean Energy to add more funds to get the program. So we do have budget to do that. So it's more to amend our agreement with SBCE. That's why we would be going to council probably in January. Um, it's, And we've done a lot of outrage. I don't wanna make the presentation too long. Um, but we'll definitely come back and update you on all of our other programs as well. Um, but. Uh,

[03:11:50] Ms. Lee: we can include something in council connections, a brief update. We got one of those. Yeah,

[03:11:57] Member Alison Hicks: exactly. Okay. It's gold. All

[03:12:01] Rebecca Luck: right, well, thank you, and the internet.

[03:12:07] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, now we're to six, which is committee staff, comments, questions, and committee reports. I'm

[03:12:15] Member Pat Showalter: sorry, I know this is gone, gone on. I just have a few. I do. Okay, okay, one. I just want to share with everybody that they should check the 5th grades and the mercury news from this morning because it was this great article by Paul Rogers about, um, the A2W salt pine. And how far along, like, what a great job is. So that's one. Two, um, uh, we did have, uh, as, as Miss Lee mentioned about a month ago, we had a, um, a sea level rise elected officials meeting. And there was sort of a kerfuffle. And that I was the only, um, I was the only Mountain View council member there. And, uh, that sort of sprang from, uh, We didn't, um, tackle the idea of the Brown Act early enough to get it through, uh, the, um, the our staff. And so, um, So, uh, I would like to suggest that next year or the next time we have this meeting, we make it a special sustainability committee meeting, and we just, we just notice it as a meeting. And that it's public. And so, you know, that way, all the sustainability members, you know, will be able to come and participate, and other members could come, they just wouldn't be able to participate. But that would be my suggestion and request. So I've like staff to sort of think about that as a way to handle the brown act, um, um, issue because as, it just seems like in the last year or so, we've gotten much more strict. The staff has gotten much more strict about the, um, about carrying out the brown act, and we want to make sure that things are done. Properly, but at the same time we want people, you know, it's important for people to be able to take part. So, want to bring that up. And then another thing I would like us to think about, sometime, is, um, the, uh, long term establishment of an advisory board for sustainability. I'm just going to drop that as a, you know, as a thought here. But, um, you know, I really think that we, um, Sustainability and working on climate change, that is, that is not something we're going to stop doing anytime soon. And we know that, um, we have several organizations in the community that have been very helpful with that, and our sustainability task forces that we convene twice were very helpful. Now, I just, I think that it would, it would function as a good source, um, of volunteers, for many of the, um, the efforts that we are going to have to continue to do for many, many years. And and also there's just a lot of interest in the community. So just wanted to drop that as a, something I live like, my fellow, um, committee members to give some thought to. So that's it. Thank you. Okay. Any more updates? The parts? Questions.

[03:15:33] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, in that case, we are now on item number 7. His adjournment? This meeting is adjourned at 918 p.m.

• ← Previous
• Next →