Clean and Green Commission - Regular Meeting

Today is September 14th, the day before we celebrate Mexican independence. That's my guayabera. Justin and I will be happy having a shot of tequila tomorrow, and we're going to enjoy, we're going to invite Ms. Vargas to join with us. Okay, so tomorrow about 5 p.m. All right, so we are the Council Sustainability Committee, and I believe the first item is to take roles.

Council member Goldstein?

Present.

Council member LaRouche? As a chair's opinion.

Thank you. Next time is an election of chairs. The chair is a little uncomfortable, so we're going to elect new chairs.

I want a chair like hers.

Okay, so I am presently the chair. Sub-chair is We don't have a second chair, do we? We do not. So would you like to nominate?

Yeah, I would like to nominate Council Member Goldstein to be the next chair.

Thank you. I accept the nomination. I haven't had a second yet. I second the motion. Thank you. I accept the nomination. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Okay. And you'll take over the next meeting, correct? Or you want to do it now? I don't know. Either way. What's protocol? Protocol.

After after this meeting, OK, next week.

OK, very good. Thank you, sir. Bring up a price. OK, a price. Yes, from whoever answers the question. The question. Yeah, your question that you make up. I'll make a price. So next item is public comments. Any public comments? Mr. Commissioner, they have a public comment from us. No, I'm here to listen. OK, all right. My apologies. I forgot to have you interview sister.

I'm Alex and Mary. Eric Pearson, Environmental Services Manager.

Meryl Vargas, Sustainability Specialist. Melanie Chavez, Sustainability Fellow.

Justin Tamores, Fleet Maintenance Manager.

Todd Woolman, Maintenance Services Director. Mary Thomas, Assistant City Manager.

Jeff Hammond, Budget Commissioner.

Excellent. Our next item is the approval of minutes, dash 26, dash 08, approval of minutes of Council Sustainability Committee of March 9, 2026. They have been duly memorized. There will be an exam next meeting. I'll move if there are no comments.

I will second.

Very good. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Excellent. Next item is report action items. This one, environmentally preferred purchasing policy proposed amendments, discussion and recommended by staff. Looks like it's an action item.

Yes, it is an action item.

Okay, very good. So, you're right.

So, we adopted an environmentally preferred purchasing policy in 2010, 2011. It is time now to update this question specifically to make it compliant with SB 1383. So there is a presentation here that if you allow us, we'll go over. Eric, you want to introduce? Yep.

Thank you. Good afternoon. So yes, staff is seeking comments from the committee on the draft updated environmentally preferred purchasing policy. And joining us today for this item, we have our maintenance services director, Todd Rollman, and our fleet manager, Justin Tamores. And they'll be able to help answer any questions. So environmentally preferred purchasing is the purchasing of products and services that have a reduced effect on human health and the environment. when compared with competing products that serve the same purpose. When looking at potential impacts and which products are preferred, we look at a variety of factors, including raw materials acquisition, production, manufacturing, packaging, distribution, and all the items on this list that make up the lifecycle of a product. The city's current policy was approved by the city manager in 2010 and updated in 2011. So there's been quite a few changes since then, both in the regulations that pertain to purchasing and also in the purchasing resources that are available. One of the regulatory changes, as Director Emery just mentioned, is SB 1383. This is the same law that requires a separate collection of organic material, organic waste. It also requires... that we purchase recycled content paper, copy paper and janitorial paper products. Some of these examples include that copy paper must be have at least 30% post-consumer recycled content. Toilet paper must have 45% and facial tissue 10%. Updating the policy also gives us the opportunity to incorporate stop wastes. sustainable purchasing guides. These guides provide clear and specific information that staff can refer to when deciding which products to purchase. They address a variety of products and services that you can see on this slide here. The guides are included as an attachment to the policy and each one includes minimum requirements and then also leadership opportunities. Both the minimum requirements and the leadership opportunities are both subject to cost considerations. So as it's been drafted, the policy would not require the city to exclude competition or to purchase products that do not perform adequately or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time. To ensure that the policy does not result in spending increases, we have a definition for reasonable price, which means that the environmentally preferred product is available at the same or lesser cost compared to the non-preferred or non-recycled product. When it comes to SB 1383, this same language is in the state law. So, for example, cities are not required to purchase recycled paper if it costs more than the virgin paper or non-recycled paper. However, on this point, We are proposing that we might consider a small allowance to encourage or to avoid the purchase of virgin or non-recycled paper. So right now, the city spends approximately $20,000 a year on coffee paper. And sometimes recycled paper is the cheaper option, but sometimes the virgin paper is cheaper. It really fluctuates throughout the year. And so one thing we could consider is that if we allow, say, a 10% premium to direct staff to go ahead and purchase the recycled paper, as long as it's not more than maybe 10% beyond the virgin paper, that that would be, you know, it could be directed in the policy. And 10% would be roughly $2,000 extra per year. So that's something we'd like the committee to consider. And so we drafted or we shared the draft policy with all city departments. And we received some comments on recycled paper, noting that sometimes the non-recycled paper is cheaper. And so that's sometimes what city staff purchases. Actually, but right now, it's interesting that the 30% paper, 30% recycled is cheaper than virgin paper and 100% paper. So yeah, so that's a good thing. And 30% is that minimum requirement required by SB 1383. Computers, you know, the Sustainable Purchasing Guide calls for computers and laptops to be certified by either EPET or TCO. EPET is the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool. So the minimum standard is EP silver. We looked at a sampling of laptops in the city hall here and found that they are already EP gold, which is the highest level. So we seem to be in good shape there. When it comes to vehicles, we've heard that, well, so we know that the California advanced clean fleets regulations are coming. The staff report actually says that this begins January 1, 2027. However, we found an update today that the requirement that 50% of the vehicles must be zero emissions has been delayed to January 1, 2027. And then the 100% requirement that 100% of the vehicles be zero emission has been delayed to January of 2030. And it's the purchase. This is for new purchases. This does not apply to existing vehicles. And it only applies to the medium and heavy duty vehicles. So we're 8,500 pounds.

Yes.

All right. Yeah. So, however, regardless of the, you know, it is that we have a few extra years, but it's still going to be a challenge to get all the EV charging infrastructure in place that we need. Yeah. Yeah. We heard about janitorial paper. We're working with our new janitorial contractor to make sure we're in compliance. And then regarding bottled water, the policy calls for avoiding the purchase of bottled water where feasible, although we know that we will need to continue to buy bottled water for certain events and functions, including emergency operations. And so staff recommends that the committee receive any public comments and then comment on this report. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you. So I think I know the answer to this, but I, you know. have to ask. The slide that showed the recycled paper products had toilet paper at a 45% recycled content. And of course, we can choose paper products that are usable. But the concern that I had, there's two of them. One of them is, Although the intent of recycling is to activate excess water usage in the development of the finished product, as well as greenhouse gases, I suppose recycling conserves on those, and there might be other issues along with it. Have you tested the products? Are they at 45% content level? Are they similar to what we currently use?

leaf we're already using the the 40 percent and um i can just say from personal experience we're using 100 recycled at home and it's it's fine and no problems yeah my parents use it too good thank you for that that'll open open my eyes to what's possible when i'm out shopping for them for the house and then uh

The concern that I had over the allowing a cost of 10% more. So if the idea is to properly award and incentivize for the right behaviors, I'm sure the virgin paper industry is already looking at reducing greenhouse gases and water use and so forth in their preparation. And so I'm just wondering, have those, differences between version paper and recycled paper, but they kind of equalized. And if we're allowing a 10% for recycled paper, are we possibly incentivizing the wrong behavior?

I think that another benefit of the recycled paper beyond water use and energy use is also just the reduced harvesting of trees out of the forest. So I think there's another component. And to be honest, we haven't done the analysis here as our staff. We're relying on folks that are writing the state regulations requiring this, and we're also relying on Stop Waste. They are in line with the state regulations, and we're considering the staff at Stop Waste to be experts on this.

They are definitely. Yes, they are. They spend all day every day looking at exactly the issues on this. They're good at that. Okay, thank you. Good questions. Julie?

Thanks. Yeah, I was wondering about the water, but I think all of these always show us that the tradeoffs we're making, you know, like, for example, we're trying to move to all electricity, but then we have to produce more energy for that. And so does that mean we're activating coal power plants to produce all that, you know, before we can catch up with the renewable energy? And it's the same with paper, right? We still have to use a lot of water to create these recycled paper products. The only way beyond that is to reduce our paper use in general. And I think that's really hard to do anyway with it, right? So did you say, what was the sort of specific comments you wanted about paper you were asking for about paper?

Well, I guess we're suggesting that we write into the policy an allowance for staff to spend. For the 10%. Okay. An extra 10%. Okay. Yeah. I mean, as it is right now, staff are generally going to choose the cheaper product. Yeah.

Well, yeah. I mean, I think that's the environment. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I suppose if it's sort of like cyclical, if in general, it's still like right now, it's cheaper to get the 40%, right?

The 30%. 30%, right.

So if in general, we're able to buy recycled paper at the same rate or reduce rate, right? And then every once off, there's some reason why they couldn't produce enough recycled paper for that quarter or some shorter period of time, I would be okay with the 10%. But yeah, I mean, I think in general, if we're, you know, we're trying to incentivize manufacturers to, you know, sell recycled paper and that is urgent. Yeah, I don't, I, sorry, I suppose I would be okay with that incentive, with that, the 10% allowance to buy the recyclables so that we stay with our policy, you know, and using recycled paper. But I don't know that if that just became sort of year after year, we're constantly paying 10% more. Yeah. We want to keep that up. I don't know how to write that into policy, though.

I think it's something that we're going to track and see what's the cheaper option. Because we're required to... track these purchases by SB 1383. It's actually fortunate that at Staples, our vendor, they're providing these reports specifically for SB 1383. So it makes it really easy for us to see what we're purchasing each year and how much we're spending.

Okay. And then on the bottled water, yeah, I mean, it sounds like, because I know post-COVID and during COVID, it's so hard, right, because of the contamination factor with, you know, pitchers and all that. I assume we're sort of back to using, you know, pitchers or recycling, you know, using, everyone makes their own cup or whatever it is. But I hear you that there are some instances we're going to be using bottled water still. But I assume at events, we're trying to use water pitchers and recycled cups, right? Is that what we're doing? OK. And then on the fleet stuff, yeah, I mean, it just seems like we can't. Is it that we're not able to purchase them quick enough because they're not being made quick enough for some of these larger vehicles?

Yeah, I think it's twofold. They're not able to produce them quick enough, and it's really the cost factor. If we use a street sweeper as an example, right now we're paying $350,000, $400,000 for a street sweeper. A full EV one is $850,000 to $900,000. So I think especially as you get into the larger specialized vehicles, the cost is two, three times. So I think it's just trying to make good decisions of how bad do we want to go EV and also available dollars. that coupled with the fact that we have no very limited EV charging in the city. We have to make that investment at some point. I think we've delayed it. quite a while so those things factor in and is that what about the small vehicle fleet like the cars that sap would bar to go somewhere or i think that's the for us that's really the low-hanging fruit the easiest for us to do again we need ev chargers to be able to do that so right now we are trying to purchase ev wherever we can and we're really piecemealing chargers in we buy an ev in facilities we'll find money somewhere to put one charger. So I think until we can get a larger project together, our easiest, our best opportunity for EV charging is for vehicles assigned to City Hall. So we're looking at some projects in the parking garage upstairs over there to expand there, knowing that most of the stuff that is assigned to City Hall, there is an EV alternative on the market now. Some of the specialized stuff in the courtyard, other facilities, You're dealing with cost if they are available.

And do you think the state law will continue to, you know, evaluate? I mean, every city must be in the same position, right?

Yeah. I mean, Eric can speak to this. We're finding ourselves in the same place.

So two things. One is that the purchase of EV is another example of paying more. to get something that is environmentally protected. That's one. And the other is that, unfortunately, we are competing, our local agencies are competing with large state agencies, Caltrans, that has a monopoly and a whole lot of resources to purchase this equipment. And for us, it is very difficult to procure them and get them in a timely way. We have to wait a long, long time sometimes for some of these specialized equipment to be available for us.

Yeah, I mean, so in that sense, as far as keeping the gold, then, you know, as we have to move along, because if there's a reality and, you know, our budget can't afford to pay twice, you know, the cost of street sweeper, then we have to be realistic about that and still provide the service of street sweeping.

Three or four years ago, I say three or four, so it's probably five to six, but the county of Los Angeles, bought some of the first EV street sweepers from the Vendor W's back east. We were super excited. We wanted Hayward to be the first one. And we got the proposal on it. It was just shocking how much money it was. We could buy two or three years worth of street sweepers for the price of one and just didn't, no matter how bad you want to go EV at some point, it doesn't make fiscal sense.

Yeah. Yeah. An example of where the market has gotten into reality, you know, but all of our cities. Okay. Well, thanks. Yeah. We'll keep, you know, I guess looking and putting our name on the list, right. Because of these vehicles and then see, see what happens.

Okay.

Um, let's see. I think it was that it's just the, um, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, otherwise, you know, it's outside the policies. With it being in line with South Waste, I think we're okay.

Do you think AVAG could help us out with a grant of some sort?

Well, I mean, we're doing some things with AVA. We have the courtyard installation.

They're more actively working on publicly available chargers. I was supposed to say that. A few years ago, we thought they might offer a kind of charging as a service program where they would own the equipment for city fleets. But yeah, I guess it didn't work. Justin and Todd, 2030, 100% emission free.

Is that doable?

I'll let you answer that.

In my honest opinion, currently, no. But that being said, so zero emissions, meaning full electric or hydrogen powered, right? The problem with hydrogen currently in the Hayward is there's only one on a station on a station on the H-Train. So that makes it a challenge, right, to have Drivers going from the courtyard all the way over there to fuel line. And then there's some of the specialized equipment that we have. Knuckle wound trucks for picking up the trash, which is a big majority of what streets does, right? Cleaning up illegal dumping. And electric units that are built like that are not quite there yet in the market. And again, going back to what Todd said about comparables. So Aerial tree truck, 240,000, roughly the last one we purchased. We looked at an EV option and it was 640,000. And then on top of just the acquisition of the vehicle and then the infrastructure to charge it, you have training and equipment for the people that work on it, right? There's certain OSHA regulations for when you open up a battery of that size. To keep everyone safe. And it's about having the space. And we don't currently have that space. But they've made leaps and bounds just within the last few years in terms of availability and even some of the battery technology. And it's brought costs down quite a bit. So I don't personally think that we're going to be there then, but I think we'll be very close. All right.

Well, keep working on it. Thank you for doing a good job.

A lot of times, too, these regulations, they put them out there and it's like, oh, my God, how are we going to get there? They incentivize you to get going in that direction. I'm going to extend it a little. So I think we'll always make good effort to try to lean into it and keep it working.

Good. I would prefer recycled paper, whether 10% or not. I would say recycle, recycle all right. Water, I prefer these and paper as opposed to plastic. Stay away from the smaller bottles of bottled water. Don't buy, what, 10 ounces? So if you're going to buy a bottle of water, buy the normal size. I was thinking maybe a gallon of Bottle of water, but that's not going to do you any good if we have any problem. Yeah. So stay with them. And those are my comments. Good report. Thank you very much. And keep up the good work. All right. And that takes us to our next item, which is. Action said it was action.

Well, is it recommendation to staff? Yes. So this is going to be a city internal policy that once finalized, we'll go to the city manager.

So do you need some kind of a motion action today or not?

We just got your comments.

Okay.

All right.

Public comment. Public comment over there? No public comments. Thank you. Oh, okay. Anything online? All right, let's go over to item number three with ATT26-043, expansion of heat pump water heater direct installation program.

You remember that in 2021, RCC had an incident that resulted in an explosion. So as part of that, the city worked with them and worked on something that RCC paid an amount of $1.5 million to the city. to mitigate the impact of the explosion. So as part of that program, a certain amount of money, $328,000, has been allocated to changing, retrofitting the existing water heaters and replacing them with heat pump electric water heaters. And this report is about what we've been able to accomplish and how the program is going to be expanded to sit in one.

So our sustainability specialist, Mariel Vargas, will make this presentation. She's been managing the program from the beginning, so she's an expert on this.

All right. Good experts.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND GOOD EVENING, SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. AS MENTIONED, THE FOLLOWING PRESENTATION AND AGENDA ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION TO EXPAND THE HEAT PUMP WATER HEATER DIRECT INSOLATION PROGRAM TO BE A CITYWIDE PROGRAM. AS MENTIONED, THE CITY RECEIVED SETTLEMENT FUNDS FROM CAL FINE DUE TO THE EXPLOSION AT THE RUSSELL CITY ENERGY CENTER IN 2021. AND THE SETTLEMENT FUNDS WERE USED TO CREATE THE CAL FINE CLEAN ENERGY FUND IN WHICH $328,000 were allocated to create a program to provide approximately 40 heat-punched water heater installations at no cost to eligible households. To ensure that the limited funding would have the greatest possible impact, the original program was intentionally targeted to income-qualified households in the three census tracts closest to the Russell City Energy Center. Eligible households must be enrolled in PG&E's CARE or FARE programs or in the city's low-income discount program, live west of Hesperian Boulevard, and currently have a gas water heater. We also prioritized older water heaters because those households are more likely to need a replacement sooner. The Roth Road Planning, or LDP, was selected as the city's contractor based on its experience, proposal, and ability to meet the city's global labor and equitable labor standard requirements. And the program officially launched in late September 2025. Since the program launch staff and have been extensive outreach within the service area. We began by trading residents who are already known to meet the income requirements through the city's low income discount program. We sent targeted mailers and conducted door to door outreach with door hangers. We then expanded our outreach to residents in the census tracts with the highest poverty percentile, according to state data, and residents with estimated household incomes of $65,000 or less. In total, approximately 1,800 targeted mailers were distributed. Additionally, outreach included approximately 1,000 door hangers, nine marketing emails to approximately 750 email addresses, Fires at community events and at eligible Hayward Unified School Districts schools. Outreach through Habitat for Humanity and Rebuilding Together East Bay and targeted next door post. These outreach efforts generated interest from Hayward residents who initiated the application process. 22 of those households have completed an installation. 18 applicants were ultimately determined to be ineligible for a variety of reasons, including electrical panel or space constraints, code violations, income eligibility, or having a relatively new water heater. And then six of those applicants met the other program requirements but lived outside of our original service area. The program currently has approximately $132,404 in remaining funds. which is estimated to support approximately 15 additional incidents. Based on the extensive outreach conducted within the original service area and the remaining program funding, staff is proposing to expand the geographic eligibility to the entire city of Hayward. Importantly, this would not change the program's other eligibility requirements. Households would still need to meet the income requirements and have an existing gas water heater, and we would continue to prioritize older water heaters. The proposed change would simply allow eligible households elsewhere in Haiti to participate. Next steps. Staff will bring the program modification to City Council by the end of 2026. If approved, staff will begin digital outreach to new eligible residents. Staff recommend that the committee receive public comments, reviews, and comments on this report, and recommend that the City Council approve program expansion.

Very good, thank you. Anything, any public comments online? No, thank you.

Are you here for this? I'm here in general, but I have a question. How did you pick the contractor?

How did we pick the contractor? We had an RFP process where we gave it out to contractors that we already knew from prior contracts, contractors in Hayward. And then they had approximately about two months, three months to submit their application. And afterwards, we reviewed that. We had a grading criteria. And from there, we interviewed all the proposals that we received, the contractors from that. And then based on both the interview process and the rubric, we gave it to the highest score.

LVR. I think I saw the name of the contract.

Okay. So were they the lowest bidder per unit to install?

They had roughly around this average unit price compared to the other two. They were on the lower end. But they also had really good scores in terms of their proposal. They had the one that suggested the most installations compared to the other proposals that we received. And then experience as well.

And if they have any complaints?

Complaints from installation?

Installation complaints from the... However, there's 15 left of the ones that they've installed. Have there been complaints?

There have been some minor complaints regarding knowing how to more so use the heat pump water heater. And for example, there was a resident who In the colder months wasn't sure they didn't know how the heat pump water heater would take a little longer for warming up the water. So there's been have been to do that educational out piece as well to the residents, let them know this is what comes with having a heat pump water heater.

So it has nothing to do with the equipment itself that they're installing or the workmanship.

No, not in that case. We've gotten pretty good customer feedback that we've actually used for and promoting for future installations, telling them, hey, we received these quotes from residents to just prove that they are good workers.

That was three minutes. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay.

Very good. Ms. Thomas, do you have anything, any questions as far as now? Okay. Ms. Julie?

Thanks. So what you said that there were 65 people who met the requirements from the time that they were outside the service area. Can we just go back to it? And because otherwise, I am worried if we go to a whole new outreach, what does that do? It sounds like there was probably quite a bit of staff time, door hangers and vetting them and all this stuff. If we already have 65 people that have that were accepted, like you said, just outside the area, can we go back to them?

We have done that time. yeah and that's a good point um to clarify the door hangers was done by lvp very little to staff time was conducted in terms of the marketing emails we've already have um templates for us to use so it's very minimal staff time required for using um these emails and that's why we propose a digital outreach approach so it wouldn't require as much staff time but what if you got like a whole new a whole other hundred and you would have to bet that many Yes, we would first reach out to the ones, those six that were mentioned that were outside the program area. Afterwards from there, we would do the same process as we did the first round, which is go with the city's low income discount program. This time without having that filter of the service area and just all of them. Just target that amount. before we go full on. Yeah.

I think if we received an overwhelming response with the next wave of outreach, then we would simply just go down the list in terms of first people to respond would be the first people that we would evaluate.

Rather than vetting a whole bunch of new contracts.

Yeah.

Okay, because anyway, you said there's enough money to do 15 more. And then I assume part of it is people that have the money to upgrade their panels, right? Their electricity panels. Is that part of it? Why some people just can't do it? Because it's for the heat pump and the installation, right? But it's not to upgrade their electricity to the house, right?

Yeah, there have been some cases. But I would say the majority of the cases that haven't continued on the application process is just, well, lack of interest. We've had renters completely have an installation done, so we've thought about that as well and we've asked them just to provide the homeowner information so that we can contact them and keep it simple to that part. But if there are concerns already or if they don't have a good relationship with the homeowner, then that's understandable if they don't want to pursue the application.

And then, you know, given that how long it, you know, it has been going on for a while and we, you know, we haven't been able to fully use the grant, has there been any discussion about using that money, that remaining money for something else that would meet other sustainability goals, right? If we're not able to, if it has been hard to, you know, find enough people, if we're going to be like sort of trying to, job people out again, has there been discussion about something else within the sustainability plan that might be more effective?

So we haven't seriously considered that. I think given the amount of money that we have remaining, I think designing a new program.

Not a new program, something existing.

Oh, okay.

Like reallocating it to something. Because it just seems like you are going to now spend more staff time trying to pull 15 more people out of the community to do this.

I think that the If we expand the program, the marketing is actually going to be much easier. It's been a challenge having to limit ourselves to these few census tracts because we can't do like, for example, like our stack newsletter, citywide newsletter. We have not put it in that because we were trying to really, we didn't want to announce it to everybody. We wanted to market to the people that are eligible. I don't, I don't think it's going to be that difficult to man. Okay. Okay. Yeah.

I just want to make sure, you know, just in times of scarcity again. Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks for your work on the project.

Yeah, you answered all the way. I was a very good report and I'm glad that it's happening and that we're going to expand it or at least use the rest of the money. The outreach with direct contact was about over 3,000 people. So that's good with the door hangers and everything. That's a good number. And we'll do maybe another 1,000 outreaches, we think, with the door hangers and the emails.

Maybe even more, considering that we could do social media once it gets to that point.

Very good. Okay, thank you.

Do you have to vote on this? Because you said this one has to come to council, right? Right.

Okay, so let's who's going to move all of it. All right.

Yeah, wait, can I wait? Let me just pause. Like, just like really quick. I mean, if there's if you do this, I guess my one caveat is, is there a discussion? Because how much is it? 125,000 remaining funds? Yeah. We have 154,000 because I mean, I guess I am seriously asking the question again in times of scarcity. Is there something where. That money would be better used to me a program that's already existing that maybe needs a little more money or, um. or a program that we wanted to get started or something like that that might go towards it. But if you're saying it would actually be cheaper at this point to just continue this program and go out to the people, then I'm okay with that. But I wouldn't want us to print anything new. So yeah, the Stack Center, do social media, anything that's easier like that, I wouldn't want us to print new materials for this.

This is the type of technology that we are trying to encourage our residents to consider because it is the technology of the future. It does the same thing without producing greenhouse gas emissions, which is one of our goals.

And when we started this program, I was all for it because to give low-income people the opportunity to do this, right, because it is expensive. We haven't done it because it's expensive. Yes. And to have the opportunity, I think it's wonderful. You know what I'm saying. I'm just worried about using any more time or effort on it, really.

It seems like it's minimal. So I think it's good that they continue. Yes. Okay.

So I think it actually might be a good idea to have it be in the static. if what we're trying to do is encourage people to adopt the technology, they will see, they will read, they will be thinking about the grant. They may apply for it and realize that they're not eligible, right? Don't want to add more work to you. Wouldn't want to see a hundred and, you know, what is it? 27,000 homes apply. And then, you know, have to have you, you know, bet all that. But if you think it's not going to be a huge, lift for you to do that. I think it would be a great use of the stack to get the word out that this technology exists. In that case, I will second. You did already.

I did.

All those in favor?

One thing I will say is I think that the idea of, because this is keeping it with the same sort of intent as the settlement, because it was part of a settlement, is that it would take quite a bit more staff effort probably to reimagine what we could spend this on in a different way in a city that would still be intent. So they've already done the work. And I wouldn't want to do that. I was just thinking that we could just add that. I was just going to add, Councilmember Roche, the area we were focusing on encompasses the industrial area.

It doesn't reflect as much as the Hayward residents that we could reach out to. That will be our entire city, so we'll be doing a lot more. Thank you.

So motion by my colleague Colstein, seconded by colleague Roche. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. No abstentions, no negatives. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for the report. Next, yes, anything? Okay. Next four is RPT 26-065, 2024 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory.

Yes, that's what it is, what you just mentioned. We are going to present the report to you and show you that the greenhouse gas emissions has gone down about 40% compared to 2005, and that we are making progress. The report was prepared by Stephanie Dumont, who was one of our Stephanie?

No, no.

Who was one of our sustainability specialists. Unfortunately, we shouldn't be here today. But we had a new presenter that I think is going to introduce.

Welcome to the family. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Yes. Stephanie could not be here today. So we are grateful that Melanie, our sustainability fellow, stepped up to make the presentation. So Melanie, please take it away. Should I turn this on? Yes. I think we've been forgetting to do that.

Good evening, committee members and members of the public. Today I will share the results of the community-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory that was recently completed for calendar year 2021. This chart summarizes Hayward's greenhouse gas emissions reduction and actual greenhouse gas emissions inventory data. In the first row of this table, it shows ingress emissions goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And in the second row of the table, it shows the actual emissions reductions. In 2019, emissions were 29.8% below 2005 levels. So we were just shy of meeting the 2025 goal of reducing emissions by 30% below 2005 levels. IN 2020, EMISSIONS WERE 42% BELOW 2005 LEVELS. HOWEVER, THIS LARGE INCREASE WAS RELATED TO THE PANDEMIC AND PANDEMIC-RELATED DISRUPTIONS. EMISSIONS SINCE 2020 HAVE INCREASED BUT NOT SINCE PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS. IN 2024, WE HAVE a 39.9% decrease in emissions from our 2005 baseline. The goal for 2030 is 55% emissions reduction below 2005 levels. We are currently focusing on this 2030 goal by implementing the programs from the updated cap, which was adopted by council in 2024. And finally, in this slide, you can see that this column shows the emissions were reduced in every category except for off road vehicles. This category includes construction and landscaping equipment. I will now go over and summarize each of the sectors. The first here is energy used by buildings, meaning electricity and natural gas. This chart also shows that emissions from both electricity and natural gas decreased significantly since 2005. Electricity emissions shown in light green and dark green have decreased 93% since 2005, while electricity emissions were very low in 2024. They were the lowest in 2019, as this was the first year, first full year that AMA community entered into operations. AVA's Bright Choice product increased its use of carbon-intensive sources in 2020. However, emissions have decreased since then. And looking at the chart on the right, you can see in 2024, Bright Choice was 96% carbon-free and PG&E was 98% carbon-free. AVA Community Energy aims to make Bright Choice 100% carbon-free by 2030, which is expected to further reduce emissions.

Can I ask a quick question? Because Hayward is a R100, why are we looking at Bright Choice? I guess I'm wondering why we're not also comparing that one. Is that just because that's for Ava?

Why are we looking at?

Well, just because since Hayward chose the R100 version.

Because 30% of our residents are still using Bright Choice. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you.

Next, we have the transportation emissions, which decreased by 34% since 2005. This green line shown in the slide shows vehicle miles traveled or BMT. Due to the pandemic and related disruptions, we saw a large decrease in 2020. BMT increased in 2021 and 2022, but decreased slightly in 2023 and 2024. BMT still has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, and this may be due to the continued popularity of hybrid and remote work. Another thing to note here is that emissions are not exactly following the growth of BMT. This is likely due to the continued increases of electric vehicles and electric cars. IN 2024, WHEN COUNCIL ADOPTED THE UPDATED, THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS THAT THE INVENTORY DID NOT INCLUDE THE EMISSIONS FROM THE HAYWARD EXECUTIVE AIRPORT. SO AS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL, STARTING WITH THE 2023 INVENTORY, WE HAVE INCLUDED AIRPORT EMISSIONS TO THE INVENTORY. WE WORKED WITH BAY AREA DISTRICT TO DEVELOP THESE ESTIMATES AND WE ESTIMATED THAT IN 2024 THAT APPROXIMATELY 4,310 And it took tons of emissions came from aircraft operations. This is approximately 1.2% of the city's total transportation emissions. And you can also see from this table that majority of the operations are from single piston aircraft, but most of the emissions are from larger And for off road emissions, which include construction equipment emissions have increased 147% since 2005 partially due to construction activity, but also in 2022 we added lawn and garden equipment emissions and that data was previously unavailable. So overall off road emissions are less than 6% of the total community wide emissions. In solid waste, we saw a 38% decrease in emissions from 2005 levels, likely due to the continued diversion of organic material from the landfill. And lastly, for water and wastewater, we have seen a 61% decrease in emissions from 2005 levels. And since 2005, we've seen a significant decrease in overall water use. Our per capita water use decreased from 69 gallons to 47 gallons per capita per day.

That's a while.

Even though our methodology is used by cities around the world, there are still limitations to this inventory, and the numbers presented in this report should be considered as estimates. For example, our inventory does not account for upstream emissions from the production and transportation of products like food and clothing. So with that, staff recommends that the committee accept any public comments and review and comment on the report. Thank you.

VERY GOOD. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? ANYTHING FROM ONLINE?

WELL, THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU ADDED IN THE transportation, airport-related stuff, because that conversation seems to come up a lot, especially around a certain group of people that live over by the airport. So I appreciate that we actually have some valid metrics that we can discuss with that. I'm definitely encouraged that we're making progress on all fronts. What's the prognosis for meeting the next level, which I think is, is it 2030 or 2045?

2030 is the next target year.

50%, right? 55%. Oh, 55.

You know, the one thing that I think maybe we didn't emphasize in this presentation today is that our updated climate action plan focused more on the per capita emissions. And so when you look at the per capita levels, I think we have a much better chance of meeting that target, especially when you consider the new housing units that are when we gain new population, but those new housing units are much more efficient, much more dependent on electric versus natural gas. So we're not getting the corresponding emissions along with those new residents. That's good. OK.

Thank you. Ms. Froese.

Thank you. Yeah, it's obviously very encouraging. I'm so glad we're checking the airport emissions, not because of the public comments we get about that. I think using facts to combat some of the comments we've gotten, I think, is really important. I did want to, you know, because how often is a sustainability meeting? I guess we're only meeting quarterly now, right, or twice a year? Twice a year.

Twice a year, okay. But that's not enough. We are going to ask you for a special meeting in November or December. Great, okay.

Because I do think, you know, there's obviously some big issues coming up around. things in the city. And so I was wondering, you know, at some point, I think we do want to track emissions from data centers or just large industrial uses that have on-site generators, generators, because I think that's a question we're going to get. And then, you know, so encouraged by the water reduction, but I am curious how we're going to track that to the addition of potential water usage and what You know, will it go back out, Barnard? Maybe we can get some analysis on that somehow. But, you know, I guess that will continue to track in the water. And I don't know if I'm looking like we add emissions in general from potential data centers or just the backup generators, emissions from the backup generators. I don't know how you would look at that.

at least in Hayward, the approvals, recent approvals have been based on use of 100% renewable energy by data centers.

But the generators are diesel, right? Yes.

But whether the generators are diesel-powered or natural gas-powered, there is going to be some emissions. They have dozens of these backup generators. They have to exercise them at least an hour, maybe a little bit more per month. So that adds up to something. Obviously, we can come up with emissions from them and share with you. Great.

Yeah, I mean, my hope is like, again, like the airport, right? Like it's a big concern that, oh, the emissions are so much and it's actually gone down. So I'd like to be able to, you know, continue to provide facts like that so we can use this as a reality. And same thing with the water, you know, maybe the water consumption won't go up much higher than we think, but I'd like to make sure we're tracking that so we're being transparent and open.

Absolutely. Again, you're going to be hearing about it tomorrow. Yes.

Yeah. But since we don't meet as often, I thought I'd better get that in there now so we can.

And the water usage for data centers is not going to be continuous. It's going to be during seven hours of warm days. So it's not going to be as much as it's perceived to be. It's going to be much less than that.

Yeah, I mean, that's what I think and hope. And I just want to make sure we're tracking it somewhere so that we're getting reports on the sustainability so that we can make sure we're being transparent with the public about it.

The good thing about water is that we have control over it. every drop of water that they use. We know how much water they have used, not only on an annual basis, but even during the day, how much they use during what hours of the day. So we can provide that information.

Yeah, great. I think that kind of information is going to be so important. Okay. And then let's see. I wanted to ask a question about the mission's goal, but I think we met that. And then... Yeah, so on, I think I said it, touched on it earlier, but, you know, as we move to all electric homes and, you know, heat water pumps and cars and vehicles, are we concerned about our emissions going up because of the use of, like, will Russell City Energy have to be engaged more? Will that go to our emission allotment? And will we have to, you know, track that?

Yeah, so we've asked similar questions to A, the community energy staff, regarding upcoming large loads. And they are confident that because they are required to go through a planning process with the California Public Utilities Commission, along with all the other utilities, they're already planning for electrification of homes and cars. And I think because it is happening relatively gradually, they can build up the renewable resources in the portfolio at the same time. And, yeah, along with their goal to be carbon-free by 2030, so that they're ramping up the renewables and carbon-free sources anyway.

Okay, this will track it, right?

Yeah, that's what works out.

Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah, it's great to see all those numbers coming. Okay, except the off-road vehicles. What's going on? It's just because they're more building? How is that so much higher?

It seems like it's been something to do with construction activity, but also, yes, the lawn and garden equipment was not included in the early years. So, yeah, it's not a direct comparison.

You may want to talk about state regulation. Right, and then...

You may know that January of 2024, the state law went into effect so that small gas engines like lawnmowers and leaf blowers are no longer available for sale in California. So we expect that lawn and garden emissions are going to decrease as that equipment... Minus electric.

So as that, because all of a sudden we had to take this jump in 1946. So as that standard comes through, you expect that to now, if we try and get next time, then it should be the same or lower, hopefully, right? Is that the idea? Okay. Thank you. Thanks so much, Scott. So it's always so interesting to get these numbers in.

Your key word was tracking usage. And I like that because that's what we're going to have to be doing with the data centers. So something interesting, the water usage went down, even though we have three data centers in operations. They're included?

Yes. So two things. One is that the water usage, overall water usage in Hayward 15 years ago or so was close to 20 million gallons a day. Today, the average usage in Hayward, although we have had population growth and industry and so on, is about 14.

Even with the three data centers?

So from 19 and a half has gone down to about 14. Data centers have a reputation for water usage, but that is related to data centers that are hot climates, maybe in Utah, in Phoenix. In Hayward, their usage, based on what we understand today and the information that I have from the current usage of data centers, is not as much. It is about, it's definitely less than 10,000 gallons per day. Compare that to an industrial laundry that uses 100,000 gallons a day. Remember, 200,000 gallons during the peak days. Comparing it to them, the water usage is not the same.

And I mentioned that because tomorrow we're going to hear that we are going to have no water because the data centers are going to use it.

Because of the data centers.

Okay. I was surprised also that the airport is only 1.2% of the overall usage of Hayward. And it's a busy airport. It's supposed to be the busiest in the United States municipality. And only 1.2%? Correct. That's a wow. Okay. Let's see. So, 45, 48 now, 55 by 30, we should be able to, it seems 7%, it should be doable, no?

It's 7 points. It is getting more difficult with every... The hunger that goes by. And I mean, I think even community energy was, you know, that was kind of a big deal getting the organization going. But I think in the grand scheme, it might have been one of the easier things, right? Compared to electrifying all of our cars or that kind of stuff. It's going to be really difficult.

All right. Okay.

We've squeezed everything out now.

Yeah. And the penalty for us now reaching 55% is? We're not sure what the penalty is.

We are doing much better than a lot of other students.

That I know. Through stopways. Yes, absolutely. Okay. Off-road is construction or is that people... Riding up on the hill.

Anything.

Yeah, I think it includes, yeah, like the large like bulldozers.

Okay. And really, we have no control over that.

There's limited, I mean, we do, when it comes to, we do like a, if there's a large subdivision and the environmental analysis, you know, it requires best technology on the heavy equipment. So, yeah.

All right. Action item or not?

This is information.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Very good, Tom and young lady. Excellent. Congrats. All right. Our next item is 5ACT26-046, EV curbside charging pilot design. Exciting.

So again, we have Mirelle Vargas presenting this item and she's been managing this project. She even was the one to secure our participation in the program and funding that came with it. So, Mirelle.

Thank you, Eric. It's good evening again, Sustainability Committee. As mentioned, the following presentation and agenda item is on the preliminary design for a potential EV curbside charging pilot in Payward. We're looking for the committee's feedback on the proposed approach, potential locations, and some of the operational considerations for moving forward with product development. One of the main reasons we're exploring curbside charging is that not every resident has a practical way to charge an EV at home. About 71% of Hayward's existing homes were built before 1978, and 6% of multi-family buildings were built before 1980. And older homes may have electrical panels that make installing a home charger more difficult or expensive. At the same time, about 30% of New York residents live in multifamily housing, where residents can face additional barriers, including shared parking, limited electrical capacity, and challenges installing charging infrastructure in common areas. Curbside charging can provide another option for residents who don't have access to dedicated home charging. It can help expand access to EV charging throughout the community. There's also a policy reason for the city to begin exploring this now. The state adopted AB 2427 in 2024, which requires local agencies to develop a permitting checklist for EV charging stations in the public right-of-way by January 1st of 2029. By piloting curbside charging now, Hayward can gain practical experience with permitting, site design, and other requirements that can help inform the city's future funding process and prepare us for compliance with AB 2427. To help address these barriers and requirements, Hayward Flight Board was elected to participate in LACI's City Climate Innovation Cohort. LACI is a Los Angeles cleantech incubator and economic development initiative that connects startups with local governments, utilities, and companies. The cohort gives the city access to technical assistance, charging technology providers, and funding to perform these pilots. So rather than developing a full-scale program immediately, we're proposing a relatively small pilot that allows us to test the technology, business model, permitting and enforcement requirements, and community access before considering broader deployment. At a high level, the pilot would be relatively small, proposing two sites with two level two charging ports in each location for a total of four charging ports. And the goal is to have the pilot launch by summer of 2027. Importantly, the city would not own, purchase, or maintain the charging equipment. The city would enter into the appropriate agreements with the provider, including an agreement allowing the equipment to be located on city property or within the public red. The provider would handle installation, operations, maintenance, and charging revenue. This allows us to test curbside charging without creating an ongoing equipment maintenance responsibility for the city. The two providers we're evaluating are It's Electric and Switch Energy. It's Electric has deployed curbside charging in several cities, including Alameda, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Switch Energy specializes in charging solutions for multifamily, workplace, public, and commercial properties, and is both a software provider that has collaborated with It's Electric and a hardware provider. The level two chargers would connect to either a nearby utility pool or an adjacent properties electrical panel, depending on the site. When locations were being considered, staff looked at several factors, including proximity to residents and community amenities, parking availability, anticipated charging demand, the availability of existing charging infrastructure nearby, the feasibility of connecting to electrical infrastructure, and curb width or curbside charging location. The first potential site is Weeks Branch Library. This is a highly visible community serving location and is adjacent to Weeks Park. It could serve nearby residents without home charging, as well as library visitors and other community members. One consideration is that there isn't much available curbside space, so the preliminary concept would place the charging spaces within the existing parking lot. Library staff have indicated that the lot is typically about half full, which suggests there may be some capacity to dedicate free space. The second potential location is the Matt Jimenez Community Center at the Saks Center. This is a particularly promising location because it is centrally located and has on-street parking that could serve several different groups, including nearby residents, visitors to the community center, an Eden Youth and Family Center, and visitors to Tennyson Park. The preliminary concept would place two charging ports on Panjong Street and connect them to the community center's electrical infrastructure. Staff is also considering Municipal Watt 5 as a backup location. Our preference is to prioritize South Bay Worth because there is relatively less existing EV charging infrastructure in that area. However, Municipal Watt 5 is centrally located near commercial businesses and multi-family housing, including Lincoln Landing. If we need a passage site, the two charging spaces would occupy a relatively small portion of the lot, and we would look at locating them in the southwest portion of the lot to improve visibility and security. We will still need to evaluate the available electrical capacity before determining whether this is a feasible site. Security and safety is also an important consideration, particularly for equipment located in public spaces. Both Finselectric and Switch Energy offer a linear-owned board model, So rather than having a charging cable permanently attached to the station, drivers bring compatible charging port and connect it to the charger when they need to charge. It's electric has indicated that charging ports would be provided at no cost to nearby residents within a one mile radius and at a reduced cost for other drivers. This model may help address some security concerns because there is no permanently attached cable that could be damaged or removed. Switch also has additional security features, including protective wire coating designed to make the cables more difficult to cut, as well as the option to install security cameras. For the curbside location, its electric charger is designed to be approximately the size of a computer, so it would have a relatively small footprint along the curb. Both proposed sites have sufficient curb width to accommodate the equipment while continuing to meet minimum ADA accessibility requirements. As we move into final design, we will also evaluate lighting, visibility, equipment placement, and other site-specific safety and security concerns. Enforcement is another important piece of making the pilot successful. Staff is proposing a two-tier approach. If a vehicle is parked in a designated EV charging space but isn't connected to a charger, that would be handled through city parking enforcement. with a proposed citation of $83, which is aligned with similar city citations, such as right of third violations. Enforcement would occur after a 30-day leniency period. And then for vehicles that are connected but remain in the space after charging is complete, then the charging provider could administer an EIDL fee to encourage turnover. And details are still to be determined, but cities in the area would put an EIDL fee of $10 an hour after 15 minutes of a complete charge. This distinction allows the city to adjust the misuse of the space while allowing the provider to manage charging related fees. And city staff will make sure to have appropriate signage and noticing regarding citations and fees. Following tonight's discussion, staff will incorporate the committee's feedback into the pilot design, continue working with the technology providers and other city departments. Our goal is to launch the pilot by summer of 2027. staff recommends that the City receive public comments, review and comments on this report, and provide feedback on the pilot design.

First, let's see, anyone online on this item? Any public comments?

I'd like to see the chargers at the shopping destination. said that a lot of times. I know that like Tesla has a map. If you're out of town, you need to charge. The map will take you to a certain location. Having it in a place where we've tried to grow maybe downtown businesses might be a really good place to be able to.

Great recommendation. Very good. I think Ms. Julie is the first this time.

Thank you. Yeah, I'm excited. My daughter and I visited Oregon this summer and they had a lot of curbside charging, which is interesting to see. So I think it'd be great. So have you chosen which one or does the grant program choose the?

We still need to do a site visit at SAP Center. Just to confirm that everything would look good. And if it does, then those two would be the preferred sites that the Matthew men is that center and weeks. Yeah, at least library. And then we have the backup those minutes. Okay, five. It's the center doesn't work out.

We might use both companies one one company.

Oh, for instance, sort of see how it turns out. So it's one company offered like doing the cables like it will have cables on site and one is without cables. Is that what I heard?

Yeah, Switch has also the bring your own cord model. And that's who would be working there at the Wix branch library. So it's something we could explore as well there. Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I have a little bit of a problem with the Wix site only because, you know, just, I mean, this is my sort of anecdotal experience there. But there's a lot of on-house over there. I see a lot of spots there are taken up by people that live in their cars. All their stuff is in their car. And so I see sort of more... you know, see those two spots as being taken up by that. I'm concerned about that. And then the people that come and go in the library, you know, they only have a few spots available when they do have them available. We've also seen a lot of vandalism over there, both in the park and in the library. So I am concerned about us setting ourselves up for failure there. But, you know, I'm going to leave that note. You're going to be looking into it. But I worry if we're trying to make this a successful program, that Lot 5 might be a little bit more of a place where, you know, like you said, you do have Lincoln Landing. There's, you know, there are people that are shopping, coming and going there. Does that lot already have EV charging? Oh, then I'm surprised, right? We didn't require that when that went in?

Sure. Yeah.

So while I would like to see this in South Hayward, and I don't want to preclude any desire for maybe the librarians or somebody to want that, I am concerned. I don't want to, again, I don't want us to set ourselves up for failure there. There are some places I think of, like, for example, Long Industrial. You know, if you head sort of, you know, West and Industrial from Mission Boulevard, there's a lot of on-street parking there all the time because there are different apartment complexes. And I think some of Soho is there. So I would see that as far as a busy on-street parking corridor or someplace like that. But I'm definitely good with the man who has said, I think that's a great location because people are going to park in the center. There's dance housing over there. But yeah, I would definitely recommend questioning the Weeks Park over the lot five. I just think that might be a more productive place to put it. So that's my recommendation on that one. But others, I'm excited. We're going to need to participate in this panel. Thank you.

Yeah, very good. Winter, go. I happen to agree with my colleague, I think. So I have heard that we're in the process of doing some changes over at Weeks Park in the library. So if that comes together and that site is a place where people want to go, Again, because right now, people avoid it. And I think that's why there's parking space available there. It's because people just don't want to go there anymore. So if that changes, then I think that would be a decent spot. And if it doesn't, then Lot 5 does make sense. And Matt Jimenez definitely makes sense. I'm a little concerned about... the pricing that some of these vendors charge. I know that daytime rates at my house are one thing, and out in the public, I should expect to have to pay more, but I've been appalled at some of the places that I've been where the charging rate off-peak was 65 cents, 85 cents, $1.15, and there's no consistency to it. And I don't think these people are paying for the land for the charging station. So I'm not really sure what's causing that pricing. But I would like us to have a say in what our public is going to pay. Of course, we want these guys to make profit so that they stay in business. But price counting is a concern. I'd also like to have us make sure that they're connected to renewable energy. So that should, in my opinion, that should be a requirement. And as to the security, I like the idea of the bring your own cable. There have been a lot of thefts. And quite frankly, you know, my years of experience working with law enforcement, I can tell you that, you know, you could put a concrete sheath on that cable and then wrap it in titanium and You would still have people cutting through it stealing the cables. So I think the bring around the cable model is the right way to go. And in terms of the enforcement, you know, some people just leave their cars and in their in their if they leave their car and they're not there to charge. I think they should be fine for that. $83, I think, is a suitable fund. I don't like to overcharge people, even ones that are bad manners, but I think $83 sounds pretty reasonable. I'm okay with that. The EIDL fees, though, $10 is kind of high. You know, when you think about a full charge for your car, it might only cost $10, and then all of a sudden that operator is getting paid again as you overstayed your 15-minute race period. I'm a little concerned about that. I'm not really sure how else to handle that because I know we need to encourage people to move, but maybe with an app, they're told your car is done, right? Please move. By the way, do our chargers have that app? Do we have that downstairs? Do we have an app for the chargers we use downstairs? We don't? All right.

And maybe it moves into more like a parking meter mode in LA.

It's like a quarter of each of the units.

Yeah, yeah. So I don't know if you've ever used like ParkMobile or any of those other parking apps. You know, when it's about to run out of things, you get the notification so you can go move your car or feed the meter again. I think... we need to ask our EV charging vendors to do something like that too. We don't want them raking in the cash on fines.

In other words, that's... Yeah, we should have some say over the idle fees. And one of the vendors we spoke with... They prefer to have a smaller idle fee during the nighttime hours. So if you want to charge your car overnight and it's not going to force you to get up at three in the morning to go move your car, right? It'll give you a little extra grace period. Yeah, good. I like that idea.

Got it? Got it. Yeah. I see it as an amenity for our residents and our visitors, so it's good. So what does the city earn from these things?

Experience.

Experience. Experience. Are we going to get any money from these stations? Anything at all? Are we going to get any revenue from these stations? What's our revenue?

No, we won't.

Bummer.

But, you know, if we, after the pilot, once we learn and get this experience, we might decide that it makes sense to install more chargers where maybe we do take on the ownership and we actually collect the revenue. So it's a possibility. It all depends on how much maintenance these things require.

And the vandalism, the liability of that. Right, right.

Okay, the benefit is that the funds for this pilot being provided by Lacey. So providing any expense. All right. For the installation. And as Eric mentioned, it could be an opportunity to see if we want to do the charging as a service where we receive a portion of revenue or some other cities, for example, Alexander in Virginia, they have like an encroachment fee. for being in that area, considering it kind of like a rent. We can see future models based on what we learned from other cities and from our relatives as well.

And the enforcement is very good. I like that. So it needs to be enforced. Absolutely. Now, Weeks Park. South Edward Parish has stopped giving out food. So that means they're now less homeless in that area, in that park. Because now they don't have any place where they can get free food. So I believe that it will clear up as much as possible. It probably already is cleaning up. Because now they're not going to get free food. So I don't mind the stations there. But I do like Jeff's suggestion of picking up Another area, Strip Mall, Southland. And as we expand, we have, you know, Cal State, Chabot. We have Southland, Moritz Southland, et cetera. Maybe even the corner of Tennyson, Hesperian, where we have Food Max. That place is always full. Anyway, so good program. Thank you for the report. thank you all right any action on this no just uh no action yeah we just wanted your input okay thank you okay all right let's see future agenda items and i believe you have um a request for a new meeting that will be chaired by our new chair and i'd like to add to that oh okay yes so go ahead yes and i was gonna

Here this screen real quick so we can that look at that.

The option this is that proposed agenda planning calendar review and comment a CT to 6 dash 0 for 7.

So as noted in the report. We have a a shoreline planning document that's in the works and we'd like to bring into this committee before bringing to the city council. And we'd like to bring it to the committee during the public comment period, which is going to be basically mid-October to mid-December. So this is going to be an implementation plan for the Shoreline Adaptation Master Plan that was approved by the City Council in 2021. And then it also includes a governance analysis for HACCP as an organization looking at Should we grow? Should we change the way we operate and see grants and manage projects? So anyway.

Can you look at these dates?

Yeah, so we're looking. And so Monday, November 30th and December, Monday, December 7th are the two preferred dates because December 14th, the Youth Commission has this room starting at six o'clock. So if we can, the November 30th or December 7th would be good.

December 7th, because I usually go away for Thanksgiving and we're usually driving back on the Monday after Thanksgiving. So December 7th would be better for me.

I can do the 7th over the 30th.

Excellent. Yeah. Okay. February is fine. December 7th. Oh, even November 2nd. November is fine. So December 7th. I can't do it. Yeah. I mean, November 7th is excellent. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

And then I wanted to, can I, can I go ahead? Yes, please. You know, just again, in anticipation of what, you know, I think part of the potential recognition tomorrow is the idea that we'll sort of come up with new standards for assessing data centers, existing data centers. And so I want to make sure that then gets on our agenda, right? Then however I'm going to be doing that, whether it's, and if we only meet twice a year, it seems like that needs to be a standard agenda item potentially.

It won't be enough.

Yeah, but at least, I mean, I hope it is. I hope once we get some standards in place about what we're evaluating, then the information becomes available, but we're getting a report on it.

So allow us to add this to the special meeting on December 7th. Okay. So you'll have two items. Okay. And then you can decide at that time what you want to do based on the information that you get tomorrow evening. Yeah, okay.

That sounds great.

Yeah, just wanted to flag it. Good idea, Julie.

Thank you.

Anything else? That's it. That was it? Oh, gee. Jiminy crickets. I was having fun.

It's been so long, right? You want to start at the top?

You can only talk about what's on the agenda. Staff announcements. Staff announcements. Announcements.

Two brief announcements. On October 11th, which is a Sunday, Avon Community Energy will offer a e-bike test ride program. It'll be at the downtown Haywood Mark Station at be in Grand. And yes, we'll be sending out more information about that soon. And then our biannual compost giveaway will be Saturday, October 24th. Fantastic.

Miss Roche, do you have anything for the agenda?

No, thank you. I don't know if chipping falls into sustainability that the paper and fire department is doing. It could be chipping again. I'm trying to get the word out about that.

What time is the evening bike event?

I think it might be 10 a.m. Yeah. I think it might be 10 to 3. But that's a place I'll wait for your update on that.

Okay. My announcement is, as you know, I am a member of Stop Waste. Yes. All right. So a great organization. I love it. All right. What will, you two are not eligible. What will Stop Waste be celebrating this month? And this is your prize. Yes. When will Southwest be celebrating this month?

Well, I happen to know the answer to that, so I'm not qualified to answer. Okay. 25 years? 25 years? Oh, any other guesses? 30 years. 30 years.

I was going to say 25.

You just wait until the other person returns soon.

Five minutes?

Because I have a meeting.

Oh, it's 50 years. That's right. You're the closest. I'll break the ice. Take one. Oh, well, that's right.

50.

I will be there. It must be 50. Yeah. And I actually special order a piñata in the shape of a waste management garbage bin. which karen it was especially made in tijuana and came in two weeks ago so that's what i'll be taking but uh they haven't decided if they want to hit it or not so it maybe will just hang somewhere for yeah it's kind of cute and it has 50 year anniversary stuff And with that, 6.27, I adjourn the meeting. Our new leader will take over in December this afternoon.