Council Sustainability Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay. So should we start? Yeah. Tell me, mom. Are we on? Yes. Oh, hello.

So this is the council sustainability committee meeting from 06/26/2025. I'm gonna call the meeting to order. This is item one, call to order. This meeting is being conducted with a virtual component. Anyone wishing to address the council's sustainability committee virtually may join the meeting on Zoom using the link or phone number and webinar ID shown on the screen.

When the chair announces the item on which you wish to speak, click on the raise hand feature in Zoom or dial 9 on your phone. When the chair calls your name to provide public comment, if you're participating via phone, please press 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. We're now on item two, which is roll call. Ms. Lee, can you take roll call, please? Certainly. Chair Hicks?

Yeah. Member Shellwalter? Here. Member Clark is absent, on his way.

I understand he'll be here momentarily, but we have the majority at this point. Number three is minutes approval. This would be the CSC meeting minutes from 04/29/2025. Does anyone have any comments or questions about the meeting minutes?

I

don't see any comments or questions. Would anyone like to make a motion to approve the meeting minutes?

Sure. Move approval.

And I second. And all those in favor? Okay. Majority of those here. Four item number four on our agenda is oral communications from the public.

This portion of meeting is reserved for people wishing to address the committee on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits the CSC from acting on nonagendized items. So would any member of the public like to provide comment on an item that is not on the agenda? If so, please click the raise hand button in Zoom or press star nine on your phone. Or if you're here in person, turn in a speaker card. Do you have any speaker cards?

No? No. We do not.

Okay. Any virtual speakers? No. Okay. In that case, we'll now close the oral communication item and move to discussion and action items. We are on item number five, which is new business. 5.1 is, 2035 and 2040 decarbonization goal analysis update. This item will be presented by sustainability division staff. I believe we'll commence the presentation. Chair Hicks, if, the committee would be willing,

might we, hear the agenda items out of order and set the Okay. Reach

Let me see what that one asked. Okay. 5.2. Yes. We can see we can do five point two first, which is presentation on reach code updates. And this item will be presented by building division staff, miss Hagan. Ms. Hagan, would you like to begin? Yes.

Good evening, committee members. My name is Lindsey Hagan, assistant community development director, and I'm here tonight to provide you with an update on the 2025 triennial building code update at ReachCodes. I'm here tonight as well with Christian Murdoch, our community development director, and, Nina Viszak, our chief building official online. So moving on to the next slide. Some of the stuff that we'll sort of provide an update on tonight is really providing some background on the triennial building code update process, the progression of our Mountain View reach codes, over the years, talk a little bit about the current regulatory environment related to building code updates and reach codes as well as the twenty twenty five reach code items.

So proceeding on, a little bit of background just to kind of make sure everyone understands. We often refer to them as the California building codes, but the formal name is the California building standards code, which is part of California Code of regulate regulations or title 24. And, really, these codes regulate the design, construction, operations, life safety, and sort of the laundry list of items on the second bullet here on your screen. It's overseen by the California Building Standards Commission, and this code is updated every three years as new technologies, advancements, you know, lessons, and safety enhancements happen over time. All cities in California are actually responsible for enforcing these state codes, and then cities have the option to locally amend them.

But any local amendments done by a city are sort of limited to ones that are related to administrative or procedural, items, or, cities are allowed to be more stringent or strict than the state code, due to unique climactic, geological, or topographical conditions. So a little bit about how the codes actually get developed. So big picture, a lot of these codes are built off of the international sort of at the international and national level. So for example, we have an international fire code or an international property maintenance code. And then we have national codes that are often built off of the international.

And then how the California state building code comes to be is it actually is modified versions of those international and national codes that are built or modified to meet California's needs and objectives. In addition to that progression in the code, there's also state legislation that that also can enact requirements in the state building code. And then from a local perspective, essentially, cities can do in their local codes is amend the California code. And for us, a lot of it's around centered around the Bay Area reach codes, which is really a conglomerate of agencies in our region. We also have gotten input, you know, from Silicon Valley Clean Energy as well as groups like Valley Water and some of our energy or water efficiency improvements.

And so a little bit more about the code itself. We often refer to it as if it's one code, the California building code, but, really, it's made up of 13 parts, which are listed here on your screen. So, you know, we're talking thousands of pages of code requirements that are really centered around different types of construction and building components. I do wanna highlight that the California energy code, which is sort of highlighted in green there as part six, is a really, relevant code in terms of, our reach code requirements. Often, they're amending that, part.

And so an important aspect of amending that code section, is that it requires the city to prepare a cost effectiveness study, and it also requires approval by, the California Energy Commission for any of those amendments. And that process can take anywhere from two to four months, generally speaking. So moving on to the next slide, a little bit about what a cost effectiveness study is. Really big picture, it's ensuring a cost effective investment that reduces energy use for customers. So, it's a study that evaluates how many years it takes to recoup the initial cost of a requirement compared to the ongoing operational outcome.

And so over the years, the California Energy Commission has allowed cities to kinda work together on sharing the same cost effectiveness study if the local amendments you're proposing are studied in that study. So that is something we've done over the years. So Silicon Valley Clean Energy, you know, has been a big proponent of this and has helped us in that way, in the past. And a really important point about the cost effectiveness study is you're only required to really demonstrate that there's at least one path that's cost effective. So this comes into play when you have requirements that might have a menu of options.

You don't have to show that every option is cost effective. You just have to show that there's one. And so that's just an important distinction. Talking a little bit about how our local amendments are actually how they come together. It's really you know, the term it takes a village is really no joke when it comes to developing our local building code.

Really, the code starts at a regional level. We try and work, you know, with other cities and regional groups to kind of learn not only what reach codes are out there and ideas out there, but also learn from each other. And so we, like I mentioned before, work with the Bay Area Reach Codes, sort of group, Silicon Valley Clean Energy. We also work with technical experts in the building and fire worlds. And in terms of how our city as a team works on these improvements or these amendments, it involves quite a few different teams and staff.

So we have the fire marshal. We have staff from public works related to flood control, recycled water. We have most of the building teams, so building plan checkers, fire protection engineers, building inspectors, and, of course, our city attorney's office. So we are talking about a large number of staff who, quite literally are turning turning pages in terms of how they're kind of looking at the codes and, putting together the actual local amendments. So getting into more of the progression of our reach code over time, I think one statement that any of us can say pretty definitively is that Mountain View has been a a regional leader in reach codes over the last decade.

And so what this slide is trying to convey is a couple pieces of key information. One is the columns here represent the different triennial code years. So starting in 2016 is really when the city started introducing reach codes. And so it really started with new construction, both regionally and in Mountain View. And we started with, sort of, I'd say, things, but at the time, we're more advanced, like electric vehicle charging readiness.

In that case, it was more about building the electrical infrastructure. We introduced dual dual plumbing requirements in 2,016 for new construction. And then getting into 2019 was our largest reach code year in terms of introducing new requirements. It's really when we introduced all electric requirements, solar requirements, as well as expanded on our EV. We also introduced safe, bird safe glass requirements.

And that year, we were actually one of the first cities in the region to require re these reach code requirements into existing buildings, primarily around what we're calling major renovations. So, essentially, remodels where you're modifying more than 50% of the structure, you would be subject to these requirements. Most cities in 02/2019 were still on new construction. And then we move on to 2022. This is where, we continued, with our requirements, and really that was the year that cities, started getting into the existing buildings.

In 2002, we focused primarily on, expanding our solar requirements, requiring battery storage, requiring the faster EV chargers to be installed. And then as, committee members may recall, last year, we had to, go through a process of suspending our all electric requirement. In in its place, we introduced, electric prewiring requirements last year, that are effective now. And then in this upcoming cycle, I think a lot of the focus is really on existing buildings and really trying to capture the smaller renovations and work being done. So you'll see that as we move on in conversation.

In terms of the regulatory environment, this is a pretty key, topic to talk about today. So I think when I was here last, we talked about the VACmed requirements. But in 2023, VACmed established the sale prohibition on natural or nitrogen oxide emitting water heaters and furnaces. And so, really, what that established is a benchmark in the future point at which manufacturers will only be able to or I should say, retail will only be able to sell equipment that, you know, is not producing nitrogen oxide. So, it's gonna encourage more, electric appliance, in the marketplace, which is a really important factor in trying to encourage, all electric.

And then in 2024, the California Restaurant Association and the city of Berkeley lawsuit, finally came to a conclusion and an outcome. It's what caused us to have to respond in suspending our all electric requirements. And like I just said, we and it's placed, started with the phase one prewiring requirements that we adopted last year. And then moving on to, I think the hot topic in terms of the regulatory environment today is assembly bill three zero six. This has been a bill that really generated out of the Southern California wildfires.

This, but as well as the housing crisis, this, bill that introduces a prohibition on local amendments to the state building code by cities until 06/01/2031, that impact residential development unless you meet certain sort of, limited provisions. And so, really, this would mean, that cities, generally speaking, would not be able to add additional reach code requirements, requirements, for example, in a six year stretch. And so there's been some recent amendments to it, but, which I'll talk about on the next slide, actually. So, some of the timelines in terms of sort of what's been going on with this bill, it's a it's a fast moving bill, going through the process. So in the last couple of weeks, there's been a lot of changes.

I'll say, starting on June 10, the bill was amended to adjust, a timeline that was originally established of June 1, where essentially, cities can't add any new requirements after June 1 this year. That got modified to October 1. Sorry. And I should explain why June 1 was problematic was because the state code for this 2025, triannual code update doesn't get released to cities until July. So by putting in a June 1 deadline, it doesn't even allow a city an opportunity to have the new code to amend.

So, moving into October 1, potentially provided, you know, some opportunity to do that. And then this week, there's been further changes to the bill. On Monday, the bill was adjusted from October 1 to September 30 in terms of the deadline for when cities could, have amendments. And then they also added a provision about the possibility for limited new amendments in the future during the six year pause. And then just yesterday, a new bill was released where essentially it took this a b three zero six and added it into this budget bill.

What that really means is once you get sort of put into the budget bill, it essentially fast tracks the possibility for the bill to get approved. And so the blue dates you see on your screen, the July through September dates, are dates that a typical bill would have to go through and sort of meet those deadlines to get through the process to get recommended to the governor. In this case, with a fast tracked bill, it may or may not need those dates that may get, you know, to the governor sooner. And then the important date in this conversation is really the September 30. Currently, you'll see in the bill both dates, September 30 and October 1.

But for this conversation, I think we're sticking conservatively with September 30. So that is officially sort of the deadline for any new local building code amendment to be in place and be accepted by the state. So I think, if it isn't already obvious from going through this timeline, it's a pretty fast moving bill. It has really strict deadlines, and it's so fast moving, it's hard to interpret. So it provides very little opportunity for city staff to really respond to it, and to successfully adopt new reach codes for 2025, and potentially for six years.

But we can talk a little bit about our efforts. So, moving on to the next slide. I think big picture here, what this bill is also suggesting is that, you know, the state is really serious about housing. And I think as we've seen over the last couple of years, with different state bills that have come into play, the state's made it pretty clear that, housing is a priority and has, in many ways, limited local authority over regulations. And so this bill is really just an extension or expansion on that.

And so with all these fast moving parts, it's really hard to guarantee that we we can achieve new reach codes this year, but we are willing to try. I think what it does mean is instead of having sort of four months, that we normally have to do a triannual code update, we have essentially two. And so it will mean that, it will sort of temporarily impact some of our building staff services. So inspections, for example, might take an extra day, or so to schedule out, but, you know, we're willing to put in that effort. It also means since we only have two months, we really can't do any community outreach.

This would be an effort to do reach codes and then sort of have to do outreach after the fact. And, ultimately, to adopt our building code updates, it does require two council meetings. So right now, we're sort of penciling that or tentatively thinking that it'd be in September. And then, of course, following the council adoption, we would submit everything to the California Building Standards Commission and then as well as to the California Energy Commission, if we have a cost effectiveness study. And so as I mentioned before, the current sort of interpretation of of what we are actually what the deadline means is that we have to have, you know, fully executed ordinances submitted to the state, and the state has to provide a written acceptance back by September 30.

So it's a pretty tall order. And I think, you know, to be transparent, if it's not possible for us to meet that deadline, then we still will proceed with a 2025 code update. The state does still allow you to amend your code to align with the new code. It just means we wouldn't be able to introduce any new requirements. And so if if we end up in that spot, it just means we'll be coming to counsel, like, a month or two later, but it would definitely still happen before the end of the year.

So with that dire sort of news, I wanted to at least, provide also an update on what some of the reach codes are that we're looking at. And so, these are sort of potential things that we're considering, and I'll talk a little bit about these each in in greater detail and also highlight, you know, some of the challenges of these. So there are four in particular that are centered mostly around single family homes and duplexes. These are gonna be an AC to heat pump requirement, expanding on our electric prewiring, also referred to as electric readiness, which we're sort of viewing as a phase two to our phase one. The energy performance, which, maybe some of the committee members remember talking about this in the past.

It's now also referred to as a flex path. And then lastly, a zoning incentive for single family. I do wanna note that for multifamily residential and nonresidential development, we don't currently have any specific reach code suggestions or, considerations at this time. A lot of that gets developed, in the code cycle a little bit later, later this year and actually early next year. So, we're still working with groups like Silicon Valley Clean Energy on those.

But, until we sort of know where a b three zero six officially lands and what those might be, you know, we'll we'll still review those and consider if they qualify for any of the local amendments at that time. So diving a little bit deeper into each one of these, the AC to heat pump is really when someone comes in to replace or add space cooling, which is really AC essentially. Basically, you have one of two paths you can go down. You can either install a heat pump space conditioner and comply with state requirements. And so, really, what we're talking about is that unit that sits outside, could be a heat pump.

Or if you wanted to keep a traditional AC unit, which, of course, just does cooling, you can do that And then instead, do other energy improvements in your home so that, you know, improvements kind of like greater attic insulation or sort of ceiling air ceiling, the ducts to ensure there's no air gaps. And so, really, this requirement stems from, the California Air Resources Board or CARB and BACMeds restriction, on furnace sales by 2029 sort of partner to that. And, ultimately, this requirement, does require amending the energy code part six as well as the California green building code, which is part 11. And so because it does touch the energy code, it would require a cost effectiveness study and approval by the California Energy Commission. There are a couple of cities that already have a requirement in place, Portola Valley and the city of San Mateo.

So if we wanna move on to the next one.

So could we use their study their effectiveness study?

So there is a study that's about to be released, so we'll take a look at that. But, yes, in theory, if we were to adopt exactly what those other cities had, we could look at that. I will say there are changes that can evolve, though, with the different code cycles, so we would have to to make sure it kinda met the requirement. Moving on to electric readiness or, prewiring requirements. So this is pretty similar in some ways to what our phase one, requirements were.

It's just lowering the bar. So, maybe some committee members remember this term of you touch it, you prewire it. That's kind of what this this item is. Essentially, what it would require is installing electrical infrastructure when when someone comes in to install install a gas appliance. So it would mean reserving space on your breaker, running the actual conduit line from the panel to within three feet of your appliance, and installing one of the following, either, you upgrade an outlet, from one twenty to two forty volt with an extra basically, an extra electrical line, or install, an empty conduit, which is, largely more or less what we have in our requirements now.

Additionally, it requires specific dimensional space to be shown for water heaters or space heaters. It could apply to kitchen remodels, water heaters, clothes dryers, space heaters, and includes outdoor appliances as well. And then an interesting proposal, this year is sort of this effort to encourage fewer electrical panel upsizing. And really what the proposal on the table is really looking at using, an alternative calculation methodology that's already allowed in the state code, and basically pairing it with a prescription for folks or prescriptive requirement for folks to also install an electrical appliance or a load management system. And in the combination of those two, hopefully not requiring an electrical panel upsizing.

So it's not necessarily a new concept. It's just a certain pairing of things that may make it easier for people to electrify without updating their panel. And so that's something we'll have to look further into. And like I said, this is really an expansion of our existing phase one requirements. It does require the cost effectiveness study, but we are talking to Silicon Valley Clean Energy about if there's other options that may not require that.

And cities like San Mateo, Patrola Valley, and Atherton have some of these requirements in place today. Moving on to the energy performance or FlexPath. And so this option is really setting up a menu of options for folks to consider when electrifying their projects, and it uses essentially a percentage or point system above the state code with energy improvements. So it's really a tie a reach code that is most effective for new construction and major renovations. It's really not a great tool for smaller renovations.

It does require a cost effectiveness effectiveness study and California Energy Commission approval. However, there are a small group of cities that have this type of program in place. San Jose would be a prominent example. It can apply to all development types, but right now, we only have a cost effectiveness study available for a single family. And I'll be honest, this is the most challenging reach code item on the table for us to be able to implement with the timeline we have.

And just to try to kind of explain a little in greater detail of what, this energy performance, how it works. So, towards the bottom half of the slide here is it's sort of trying to demonstrate two different options. So if you were customer one who wants to install a heat pump hot water heater and a heat pump space heater, you could get enough points. In that case, 19 points is the threshold. With by installing those two items, you could meet the requirement.

Alternatively, like, customer two, shown in the blue in the bottom, might choose not to install a heat pump system and instead, is willing to do other energy efficiency improvements like attic insulation, upgrade their windows, install wall insulation or new ducts, and do some duct sealing and keep their gas furnace. So they have to do a bit more work, but, it would also add up to the 19 points. So this is sort of showing how you can have different menu of options. As long as you get to the 19 points, you've effectively met the requirement. And so, like I said, this is gonna be a little bit more challenging for us to consider, but we are gonna look at options that are out there.

And then the last reach code item to discuss is the zoning incentive. And so this would be a voluntary exchange. So, essentially, somebody who voluntarily is willing to build all electric construction, we could grant them additional floor area, for their home beyond the current zoning minimum. So this is gonna be a tool that's most effective for new additions and new homes that are already at their maximum. And, essentially, it would be granting them a certain amount of additional square footage.

It may require loosening other development standards, you know, setbacks or lot coverage, And it would ultimately be something that they'd have to display and show in their construction drawings. Depending on the scope, it may require retrofitting existing portions of the home. That's something we're gonna have to look further into. And really just provide a little more background on this, this really started our conversations on zoning incentive started as part of our phase one updates with Silicon Valley Clean Energy. The city of Sunnyvale actually has an incentive program that we've been talking to them about, that's similar.

And in order to effectuate this, it would require us to amend, chapter 36 or zoning code to add in this incentive. And so, ultimately, when you amend chapter 36 of our code, it does require going to the planning commission as well as council. And so our thought process for this incentive is that we don't have to do it in the same timeline as the building code updates since it doesn't live in the building code. So we'll sort of handle those separately, and so they would sort of follow suit later, in the process. And then lastly, just wanted to share sort of our immediate next steps.

So as I briefly mentioned before, we're expecting in the next week or so to actually receive the new 2025 state code, to begin our our process of code amendments. And so for the next two months, July and August, city staff will be working diligently away. And we will also be working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy and TRC Companies who is the consultant that helps us, actually develop the code. So we'll be working closely with them. And then the game plan is that in September, we would present these code of updates to council for consideration, and then, of course, submit them to the state for acceptance. That concludes staff's presentation, and we're here for any questions.

K. So are there any committee members with questions on this side?

Can we can we go back to the list of the three so I don't forget? Alright. Now a little farther back. Just the the three items total. Yeah. I this will help me remember. I think the so the There are four. Right?

Yeah. There's four. Sorry.

One more. Yeah. Okay. There you go.

You're okay. Sorry. Thank

you. The I just wanna make sure I understand correctly. So the zoning incentive, is that is that actually does that impact breach codes? Could we do that outside of could we creatively do that outside of the breach code ban or pause?

Yes. So I think that's really what we're suggesting is that because it doesn't live in the building code, it's not subject to a b three zero six. Yep. And because it would be a fully voluntary you know, an applicant would choose to do it, they wouldn't conflict, you know, with other you know, like, the Berkeley lawsuit outcome. And so, yeah, we are suggesting that that be on a different track and that we still pursue that.

Okay. That makes I mean, the I know there are stick approaches, but the carrot approaches, like, that's a really valuable incentive. It's additional especially if it's not just new construction, if it's, you know, a remodel and you get to add, you know, an addition that you really want, maybe not a full addition, but it's just it adds value to the property just in and of itself. So even if you don't build something. So yeah. Or you don't do the addition at the time. But sorry. That was more of a comment. Arguably, it becomes more important now than prior to the a v three zero six context. So, yeah, it's something we're thinking about.

And then at one point,

you mentioned outdoor appliances. Like, would you would you require someone to put in a two forty electric conduit and everything for, like, a a gas fire pit if it would just maybe it'll just get rid of the gas fire. Yeah.

So current

to, like, a grill.

Sure. Yeah. Currently, the phase one updates that we did that are currently effective, it does require if somebody chooses to install a gas fire pit or fireplace or grill outside and they're doing new construction or the major renovations, they would be subject to installing, an electrical line in outlet.

I see. But if it already exists and they're doing a major remodel, would you require that they

So if they

to an existing appliance?

Yeah. Great question. I think if they already have an outlet that meets the requirement in terms of being within three feet and meets, all the requirements, then we wouldn't require them to install anymore.

But if it's like a gas fire pit that probably wouldn't have electricity in the remodeling half of the home but not touching the out door, would they

So, typically, how it gets presented to us in a permit is traditionally outdoors included when it's total brand new construction.

I see.

A lot of projects where, folks might do, an addition, they're not typically also doing a lot of the outdoor at the same time under the same permit.

And then the last question is just the sequencing of this. It sounds like you so it would be an ordinance. So there would be here, we have to do a separate meeting, and then it's not effective for some number of days. I And don't know what point you can submit everything to state to get the written approval. So it sounds like we even if we were to meet in early September, because isn't there thirty days after the first reading? So we'd have to meet over the summer, I would guess.

So, I think at this point, we're not suggesting that the council meet over the summer. I think in terms of the actual requirement is, that we have to have an adopted ordinance, not necessarily that's ineffective. I think a key piece of information to know is every triannual code cycle when this council adopts you know, does the two readings and it gets adopted, we turn it into the state. And even if we pass thirty days and our ordinance becomes effective, we can't enforce it until the state accepts the filing. And so it's sort of a two two part to actually start enforcing it.

So in this case, the bill, the way it's drafted and how it's been interpreted, it doesn't have to be effectuated by the city. It just has to have been adopted formally by the council. Okay. Thank you.

Do you have a question?

Yeah. I I have a couple questions, particularly about the zoning incentive one. That's kind of new to me. Sounds like a great idea. When you say that the construction would be all electric, is that just the addition would be all electric, or they would have to make their house all electric?

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

Another possibility might be to say that, you know, you're increasing the FAR. Right? That you're increasing the FAR, say, 15% if it's just the addition that's all electric, and you're increasing it 20 or 25% if you make your whole house electric. I mean, it doesn't it could be phased. Right?

Yeah. Yeah. It's a great suggestion.

Okay. And and then going back to the the other ones, the prewiring and and the energy performance. I I know I've talked to some colleagues who Los Altos Hills has the energy performance. I just I just feel like that's a a really difficult thing to to administer. I That one makes me very nervous. I mean, theoretically, people could be very creative. I just think it would be very confusing. So don't

know.

I would want to hear other people's thoughts on that. On the other hand, it it does allow for maybe some, you know, some more innovative spirit anyway. But but I that one makes me nervous. But the other two, the the prewiring and yeah. The prewiring. So how would our prewiring that we're we're putting in we would be approving it to be different from what we currently have? I'm a little I'm not sure about I'm not sure I understand that.

Yeah. So it's a great question. What we had done last year for simplicity, we already have a threshold in our beach code requirements for what we call new construction, and it it includes ground up new construction. It also includes major renovations of 50%. So what we did last year just to make it sort of as streamlined as possible is we inserted requirements that were within that threshold.

So it really only applies to brand new construction and then the 50% major. This is really trying to get the next bar down for the smaller projects where someone's coming in to swap out an appliance or maybe do a kitchen renovation. So it's a smaller scope that's that's trying to be captured here with this requirement. And, again, it gets at this idea of if you're installing a gas appliance, you have to prewire.

Oh, okay. So it's it doesn't have to be a remodel at all. It could just be a new appliance. It could be. Yep. So alright. So if you're gonna your guest of dies and you want a new one, then you have to make sure that it meets these prewiring where you put in the new one.

Yeah. So the idea, I think, water heaters, you know, dryers, space heaters, those kind of things. And I think a common sort of scope of work we see are Kitchener remodels where, yeah, you

can get the stove in. Yeah. Okay. Then my other question is I know that we in terms of saving energy, installation is amazing. It really does a lot. And, well, where in this are we incentivizing insulation, or are we with this, or is this outside

of it? So I think, you know, a lot of the insulation is gonna come depending on the scope of the project. So where, for example, insulation requirement gets tough is something like where electric readiness where someone's not really breaking open walls or their ceiling. It doesn't. Right. It wouldn't really hit this threshold. I think where you would see a lot more of that come into play is with the energy performance or flex path where instead of doing certain all electric appliances, you're willing to do some of those other improvements. And then I would say just as a catch all, new construction requirements require a lot more. You know? Just the base code requires a lot more energy efficiency requirements.

But I think, really, the energy performance would be the biggest bang in terms of encouraging people to do those other improvements.

But just in providing education. I know you brought this up a lot when you talked earlier when we talked about, you know, like, remodeling a kitchen. We should make people when we when when the staff is is talking, you know, in this this great new program, you have the the what's it called? The express. Yep.

You have your meetings with people. Are are you is part of that to educate them about the value of things like insulation? Or, I mean, is there a way we can what I'm getting at is is there a way we can incentivize these improvements that you typically the requirements would be in the flex path without it without it being a flex path, just having it be voluntary by education and that kind of stuff. Because I remember going to the MERS innovation program and these people from Iowa where it's much, much colder than ours. I mean, they were talking about, you know, the the the insulation program that they had, reducing people's energy bills by to, like, a third of what it was.

And and that I mean, we wouldn't have. We don't have those. But still, it really made me remember.

Well, in the summer, we do.

So well, maybe in the summer, we do. I know most anyway, I just so we're that's what I'm I'm just is there a way for us to also roll in promoting insulation?

And I think what we've started doing, and I think this stems from previous feedback we got, we have been working with Silicon Valley Clean Energy on trying to produce more communications about things sort of educational or encouragement, type of information. So we have started developing that with them. And I think our thought is in getting more information online or in sort of flyer form and being able to distribute it sort of more unilaterally across potentially across permitting projects would be a little bit more effective. I think what's challenging is necessarily relying on all of our staff to communicate that consistently across the board. So I think having that information available, you know, on our website all the time and in those kind of ways.

And then just

then you could Distributing it.

You could just say, take a look at that.

Yeah.

Yeah. So I

think that's stuff that we've been starting to develop with them.

Okay. Well, do you have a recommend did you hear do you have questions?

I have many well, I have questions. I have comments, but we do public comment, and then we do our comments. Oh, okay. So yeah, I have things to say.

Go ahead. Please.

Do you

think I would not have

things to No. No. I can't.

But I mean, but

I the only question is mine is is your recommendation. My recommendation? Yeah.

Oh, well, let's go through so most of my comments, so I'll hold most of them. I assume that we think from this that we think AB three zero six has an excellent we just it's gonna go through, and we don't know that there are gonna be any more modifications. Have we heard not that you would hear not that they call you and But are we thinking there might be any modifications that would swing more in the direction of what we would like, like allowing, you know, allowing some things that would I mean, I understand their objective, but we could have building code reach codes that wouldn't, you know, wouldn't get in the way of what housing production or fires. Do we think there's do we think there's little chance of that or we have a good idea?

Yeah. Think well, it's a little bit of a challenging question to answer, but I will say there are there is at least one letter I'm aware of that we are coordinating with on trying to kind of further express. We've already participated in some communications previously on desirable changes to the code. Mhmm.

You're saying we're that was gonna be my next if if there's any movements like that, do we have our lobbyists on it?

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

Think it's on the fast track, and we're doing all the lobbying we can. Okay. So how does the flex path one align with the council goal for an end of gas? Because we're giving a second path that continues gas. Has there been any discussion around that?

And and this intersects with what councilmember Schirwalter oh, good. I have that one right in front of me. So heat pump, water heater, or attic insulation. Windows water. Keep existing gas furnace.

So one thing that I would so so I'll so I wanna know how how this intersects with that and how we feel about that because that makes me a little more hesitant, personally. That's a comment. And, also, it intersects with Pat's questions on on educating people because because what I've seen is that people come in with an idea. You know, they've been talking with their spouse or whatever, and they've come up with their dream ideas, and they don't know these other things. Even people, you know, friends of my neighbors of mine who are extreme environmentalists, but they don't know this stuff, and they make a plan, and they come in.

And they I mean, I know people who've bought gas stoves and wish they didn't because nobody told them or put in a a gas heat pump because the contractor because they not gas heat pump, gas furnace. They wanted a heat pump, but the contractor said, no. It's too early in the, you know, way for your next one. Don't do it now. And they were not very well educated.

So what how will educate like, I would hate people to pick path number two, and then we go and then we tell them later, you know, We didn't tell you we're going to end of gas. So how does all that work together, the education while we're presenting alternatives that we frankly don't want them to follow?

So I think there's sort of two parts. I'll respond in two parts to

your question.

In the terms of all of these reach codes, you know, none of them conflict with that goal. I think none of these also mandate or restrict, I should say, somebody from using gas. We are out of the Berkeley lawsuit, we can't. Uh-huh. And so in that respect, you know, this doesn't conflict.

I think I might defer somewhat to the sustainability team here on sort of if they have any additional thoughts on how this contributes. But I think in terms of the educational piece, I guess the educational piece, in terms of sort of, I think, what you're getting at really requires education from many angles. I think the city side, for sure, we can be part of that. But it is challenging because you also have contractors who can also be viewed as a funnel for education. And I think in terms of how CDD is trying to approach this, there's sort of what we can produce.

We can partner, obviously, with sustainability team on producing stuff, which we have, as well as Silicon Valley clean energy. So I think there's sort of, many angles you can try and take on that, and I think we're trying to kind of, do that partnership and get that information out there. I think, we're definitely not the sole source. So I think that's kind of how we've been trying to approach it. And I don't know if I'll defer to the Oh,

thank you, miss Hagan. I the only thing I would add, is that this is sort of the hand that we're dealt. We're we're left with these imperfect choices. And so the way we would see FlexPath is it's one of the tools to to move us along the adoption curve. It will encourage a little more electrification than should we not adopt it.

It's it's certainly not perfect. We really liked our all electric code from 2019 much more. But once that was struck down, you know, we were left with these other options to try to get back at where we were already. This, though, if you think about it in combination with Bachman's rule about all electric appliances or no natural gas appliances in the future, and then our prewiring requirement, you know, each of those is sort of a screen that will capture some subset of buildings. And if we start to layer them all together, we'll capture more and more and more of the buildings and will help move them towards electrification. So this it would be useful in that, but it's certainly not a panacea.

Because we would prefer that they choose pack number one.

We would. And it sort of nudges you that way pretty strongly.

Okay. But it's pretty strong. I guess I'm just I guess it just takes me back to what you had been saying before. It would be nice to have a web page that says that. I mean, I just don't wanna miss the opportunity to just tell people there is talk of end of gas. So you can choose path two, but it might not work out for you. Right. Because that's truthful. And, you know, to just miss the opportunity to even say that to someone is probably not good.

And then the next

two years, we'll be looking more closely at the council priority about end of flow. I think that's in the next two years, two fiscal years. So we'll be doing some analysis of the grid capacity. We'll be also developing more communication. If council adopts a formal resolution or ordinance actually banning the flow, then there would be additional information and public outreach and engagement to to further support that. So this would would nudge us more in that direction.

And then and then the number four, item number four here that you said they I have some I don't know how to state this except as a comment. Is it the zoning, the floor area incentive? Is that popular in Sunnyvale? So

No. Sunnyvale's program, actually includes all development types, but where they've seen the most, like, it's most popular for single family.

Mhmm.

And the way that they've set it up there, it's a little bit different of a zoning environment than here in that, Sunnyvale in particular actually requires planning permits for second story additions and certain, like, single family permits that we just don't do here. And so how they've set part of their incentive is actually permits that would normally have to go to the planning commission for approval for a single family addition. They do not if you do this all electric pass. So that's how they've structured their incentive. Either way, they've found that that that sort of resident base has been really interested in that setup versus some of the other types.

Yeah. I I I guess I have a fear that this the kind of incentive you're suggesting here is an incentive to build a monster home that you don't really need instead of an idiot. But I won't I won't I won't go there right now. So so those are my questions. And now it's time for comments from the public on this item. So are there any are there any speaker cards? There appears to be a speaker.

Yes. I'll fill out a card as soon as I've spoken. I'm Bruce Carney. I wanted to share several thoughts about this. It was a wonderful presentation. Thank you for addressing the emergency with a possible escape path for Mountain View. When I worked at SolarCity in 02/2009, city of Los Altos Hills was trying to incentivize solar on residential buildings. As I recall, they offered to let a home be 500 square feet larger than would otherwise have been the case. I think that requirement was 500 square feet of solar panels, but I could be wrong about that. And I don't know if there was a sunset for that.

But what I would suggest is that homes in my neighborhood, your neighborhood, Allison, sell for about $1,700 a square foot. So if you permitted a 200 square foot addition because going all electric, that would create $340,000 of value for the owner of that home. That's a huge amount of money, I think. So I believe it would be a very strong incentive. I would suggest that there'd be a cap on the number of square feet you would allow.

I think 200 square feet plus or minus is a good cap that's essentially a room, and that it'd be time limited so that if such a thing were put in place, that it had a three year sunsetting so that people would rush to take advantage of it and install the electric equipment right away. And I would think that the requirement should be absolutely all electric. No gas at all. That's that's the deal. I also agree wholeheartedly with the comments about insulation.

There are two points in the year when clean electric energy is gonna be a challenge. One is hot summer afternoons when we have to bring on the gas peaker plants currently, so better insulation would help reduce demand for electricity then. And the other is winter nights when wind and solar and battery power and geothermal nuclear are just inadequate to heat, our homes and light our homes. And so insulation also helps there. It keeps our wintertime homes more comfortable.

I don't know how an insulation program might work, I think it's a great idea if somebody can figure out exactly how to pull that off. You all know that many of the kinds of home upgrades that were talked about in this presentation presentation don't get permits, and I'm not even sure that all of them need permits to replace a window air conditioner with another window air conditioner. I wouldn't have thought that that required a permit. Now if it does require a permit, I'm sure 95% of those replacements are noncompliant with the requirement. Yes.

I think, you know, the the main thing for people like me to do is to try to get three zero six to fail or for the governor not to sign it, But it's acting at the budget bill, and perhaps even that opportunity is is gone. But one last thing, Mountain View is not banning or not I hope not thinking about banning gas. Think about stopping piped natural gas. An alternative is tanked propane gas. So it's fairly inexpensive to convert an a natural gas burning appliance to burn propane.

What is challenging is that Mountain View says you could only have a 20 gallon propane tank, the canister that we have in barbecues and patio heaters. Many parts many rural areas have much larger propane tanks. But

actually over time, but I think the point is Are there any online speakers? No. Okay. So we now bring it back for, committee discussion. Are there points people wanna make? Yes.

I can start, and then, you all might say things that I makes me think a little bit more. I think I think we should operate under the assumption that if this this if this ends up, you know, it's it's going to going to happen. So I think, conservatively, we just have to assume September 30. And then the question becomes, what's the focus on and where the biggest bang for the buck is? And if we if we think super, super high level, my my very first thought was, okay, this update, at least for us, was really really focused on single family homes as opposed to multifamily.

So we're not getting as much bang for our buck, but then when you stop and think about if this is really six years, you know, a lot of people are going to do if you think about our housing stock, which is mostly built in the sixties, there's a lot of right now, there's a lot of people buying lots, scraping the the site and building something new, or they're because land is so expensive, they're doing second story additions, or they're really trying to maximize the value of that, what what they can build on that small parcel in terms of relatively small lot of land. So I think it it does move the needle. And then the question becomes, which of these, given limited resources and time, do we focus on before September? And I think AC to is is a big one. I I personally would I like the structure of the flex path, but in thinking about how difficult that would be as council member mentioned to implement, I would kind of marry that point system into your structure with the zoning incentive.

I think you could create a tier structure or a point system, and and Bruce mentioned sort of talked about this too where we can talk about whether you're allowed to to, you know, do something short of all electric, you know, if you're just replacing things longer term. But maybe there's a point system that applies to the zoning incentive, there's a tier of, you know, how much additional or or what incentive you get based on that tier system. So maybe that's maybe you kind of deprioritize FlexPath for now, but not forget about it and kind of use some of that that structure to inform whatever the zoning incentive is long term, and that allows you to really focus on AC to heat pump and maybe the the phase two of the expanded electrical prewiring. I think, personally, know, if we if for some reason we can't get the expanded electrical prewiring in by September 30, it sounds like the the changes aren't so significant that the you know, it will ruin our goals, but I think it's it's worth at least trying, to see if to see if we can do something along those lines. So I think the the first two are kind of the the two that I would focus most on given limited amount of time, and then I think you have more time to kind of work on the zoning incentives.

And you can use the work that's been done on FlexPath both here and elsewhere to inform what a what a zoning and center structure might look like, and and that will have much more flexibility on since it's outside of since it's in the zoning code and not necessarily in the the you know, not building code specific.

So that triggers for me a question, if I can, that, does staff think that like, is that making sense? Does it sound like FlexPath is that program could become a part of the zoning incentive, or are you having trouble wrapping your brain around it, or you'll think about it later?

No. I think it it makes sense in terms of using the framework of how the FlexPath is is structured to maybe consider looking at structuring the zoning incentive in a similar model. Obviously, the technicalities are very different. But, but yeah. No. I think it's it's pretty clear

on what

So that's that's what I was saying. It's really just the it's not like trying to integrate FlexPath. It's really just, you know, that framework where you're assigning point values to things. Maybe there are a couple of tiers of FAR and they don't even have to be FAR incentives. Maybe you maybe your ADU can be a little larger or something. Like, you were worried about ADUs. I think, you know, second story additions or, you know, stuff where you're you know, you have enough space to create an additional, like, bedroom with an on speed bath or whomever. I don't know.

Is that more at this

Not at this juncture. I mean, maybe I know this isn't really meant just to be an update to us, but I just wanted to provide Mhmm. My thoughts in terms of, you know, the next sixty to ninety days. You really have to pick and choose, I would probably focus on Mhmm. The first one or two, and we can deal with

the rest later. Okay.

Councilmember Schulofter. Yeah. I would have

to say, you described it very well, Chris. Well, I'm thinking, I think, you know, that the AC to heat pump is pretty straightforward, or it seems straightforward. I hope it's straightforward. You expand the electrical prewiring if we have time to do that. I think that's good.

And then I also have a question. I know you had some statistics when you came to us about the prewiring about how many houses had been, you know, done with a 100% electric just in the ensuing three years, you know, and how effective it had been. And I was wondering, you know, in the period when we've had the prewiring, have most people, when they've heard about the requirements, continued with natural gas appliances, or are they Yeah. They putting in a pre electric? How effective has it been?

Great question. I think, I will say prewiring in and of itself is not necessarily changing people's behaviors in the sense that, a lot of times I mean, what's the scope of work that triggers that requirement today that's in our code, they're already doing a lot of electrical work. Asking them to install an additional outlet's really not Not much. Cost. Yeah.

There's not much of a cost there. It's not necessarily driving behavioral change in people changing out or not using a gas appliance. But I will say even with, you know, since our suspension, on our all electric code, while we do have people who are still installing gas appliances, overall, it's not as many as you might think. And I will say, you know, the statistics haven't really changed in terms of, like, the amount of brand new single family home construction we see and things like that. It's still pretty consistent with some of the numbers I shared previously. So I hope that answers your question.

I think

prewiring alone doesn't change behavior. It's more just putting the infrastructure in place to make things like the BACMed prohibition easier for folks to to change. I think what really pushes more of the change is when we get into requirements that are like the AC, the heat pump, where you kind of give them only two options. Right? You're saying either do the heat pump, or if you really wanna keep your, well, heat pump related equipment, you have to do these other improvements. Okay. And

yeah. No. I I concur with what Chris said. I think that's really true. And and moving forward, in particular, we seem to have really hit the single family home renovation very well. We seem we seem to have, you know, really gotten that. But we are interested too in what we can do

for

multifamily. And I you know, it says none currently available. I I don't know. You know? They still have the prewiring requirement. Right? And it's less expensive to do all electric than to put in new gas. So that would be For new. For new. So is are we finding that the multifamily residentials are are going all electric?

Are they

continuing to do that? Yeah. It's a great question. I think what based on all the current sort of base code requirements with our current reach code requirements, a lot of our new construction multifamily is significantly all electric. And it's a lot of other reasons why they choose to go all electric.

It usually is also a further protection against potential future fires in the building. So a lot of them are choosing to go down that path. I will say we do still see a little bit of the desire to have gas fire pits and stuff in common areas of of multifamily. So I think that is a lower threshold bar for us in terms of we'll come in after the fact and sort of want to get a permit for that, and we can't deny it. So I think that is something in the future we wanna look at, but I think there isn't anything in place right this minute that would allow

us to frame that. But that's another area. Well, thank you. Yep.

Okay. Well, it's gonna get easier and easier as you make comments. I strongly prefer the first two as priorities. I like the idea of rolling the flex because I wasn't too thrilled with the flex anyway, of rolling it into a zoning incentive, which I was also not too thrilled about. I I so I'll explain my my hesitancy about the zoning incentive as it's described now is that, first, there's at least a lot of talk in my neighborhood about monster homes coming in, just really large homes.

And these are homes that are allowed. So we already allow very large homes and people taking out all their trees and people saying, they could do ADUs now. Why don't why you know, they're they're losing the I feel like monster homes are losing the opportunity to add more housing and instead adding something that often, frankly, people regret later because they don't realize their kids are gonna go to college. So but and usually by the time they finish the large home. So and often people are who can afford to do something that large are already going all electric, all out on a lot of energy things anyway.

So on paper, it may sound like you pushed them to do it, but they might have been intending to do it anyway. So I'm kind of not particularly thrilled about that one. The Sunnyvale one seems the incentive seems a little different because it's not if I understood what you said right, it's not allowing more square footage. It's just allowing less permitting time.

They do, sorry, allow additional square

footage also.

Okay. Then I misunderstood. But I do like you know, we have more time to work through it and work through it in the way that council member Clark talked about. And then I also like the suggestions that mister Kearney brought up, you know, having I think we would need a cap on square footage and time limited and make it either all electric or something that's, you know, go to the max and do it at two you have 200 square feet or something along those lines. I'm willing to entertain it, but I'm not I'm not super thrilled with that one.

I think it's actually kind of anti housing in terms of incentivizing more units. Even a j a d I mean, you can do so much now. You can build massive amounts of square footage. I don't know what you would get. You'd get, like, that looks like a like a, you know, like a 10 unit building, but it'd be one unit.

I don't know what it really gets at the community. So but that may not be a popular. And I also think people are going in this direction, and a lot of it is just education. The people I know who haven't gone all electric, it's because they didn't know something, not because they weren't willing to. And that some of these incentives don't have to be that big. There's kind of, like, the paper versus plastic or the bring your bag versus buy a bag example. What do the bags cost? I can't remember. 10¢. 10¢.

So it's not gonna break in the bank for anyone, but just that little incentive got people to think about it. And I don't know if that's where we're at in terms of electrifying. I don't I that's, I guess, a question that I have. How much incentive how much do we actually need to give away in order to get people there? But I I like where people are heading. Concentrate on the first two, make the others outside the building code. And if we need I'd say if we need a special meeting in September, do it. Or, yeah, September would be

Or it'd be August.

Or August. Yeah. Yeah.

We go back on the twentieth or the twenty sixth, something like the twenty

fifth or sixth, I think, was our first something or

Yeah. You might be able to get the majority of us. Four of us. Yeah.

I just have one comment and one other question. The comment was yeah. Yes. Maybe we we don't wanna incentivize someone scraping aside, and they're probably gonna they're gonna build something new. They're probably gonna mostly go all electric or all electric anyway.

So but but I do see a lot of, a lot of folks who aren't quite that wealthy who they just wanna add a second story above a garage to, you know, add a add a fourth bedroom or whatever. And so maybe maybe if we were able to incentivize them as part of that to take a look at all the other things in the house, whether it's insulation or, you know, replacing that that instant gas hot water heater they thought was good idea ten years ago with, you a heat pump water heater.

Right.

Maybe those are the types and schemes, but there's different ways to structure it. But and then you mentioned, I just wanted to make sure that we aren't preventing or strongly discourage there there's a lot of really good reasons to upsize your panel as you go all electric. And so but you have Span and other really, really great smart electric panels that can allow you to not upsize, you know, if you're at 200 amps or or it's really tricky if you're at a 100 amp. But I just wanna make sure that the goal there is really to educate folks about you can do this without spending an enormous amount of money with upsizing the panel, but, they're not, like, you know, penalizing someone who wants to go up to a 200 or whatever the next level up is because of the size of the whole.

So, we have a minimum, panel size requirement, and our panel requirement is and has been the same for quite a while, but it is technically higher than the base state code requirement. And what we're actually seeing is in this code cycle, and we saw it in last code cycle, is other cities are falling suit in terms of some of our of our minimum amp, requirement. And a lot of that has to do with just the amount of electrical appliances and things we have these days. But to your question, we're not we don't penalize people for upgrading their panel. It's it's a choice.

Right? I will say we do see a lot, and we have seen a growing amount of load management systems. And so there's a couple that are particularly popular that we see a lot of, and so that is becoming more popular. And I think I think you it depends on the situation on whether if somebody wants to invest in that instead of upsizing versus not. I think it just sort of depends on what they're doing and sort of their circumstances, but, we're definitely not in a position where we're penalizing somebody for going larger.

Think, however, what I will say is what this REACH code is trying to do is just, I would say, do a mixture of things. It's trying to more encourage another path or another alternative, by formalizing it a bit more and structuring it because it's the electrical code is so overwhelming Yeah. That it it it's probably of all the building code related items, at least that I've been, educated on in the last couple of years, it is single handedly one of the most complicated ones and the most problematic. So, I think something that we've been looking into, and would like to kind of do more work into is trying to find ways to make electrical panel sizing a little bit easier to figure out.

But Yeah. But yeah. Does it to to jump off that, is this something that people with the panel management systems, is this something that helps people with condos? Yeah. So

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

Okay. So are there further comments or questions from committee members? And it I thought the outcome of this was pretty clear, but you have clear notes. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. I love the history with

the the person. And an interesting discussion. Okay. Next, let's see if I can get this one right.

We go back to 05/01, which is 2035 and 2040 decarbonization goal analysis update, and this item will be presented by sustainability division staff. Ms. Lee will commence the presentation.

Thank you, chair Hicks, and members of the committee. We wanted to bring you the first part of the analysis that's been done to to basically achieve our, basically, analysis of which decarbonization goal makes sense for the city map. So as you recall, when CSC discussed this item initially, we talked about looking at the potential of a 2035 or a 2040 acceleration of our carbon neutrality goal. We currently have already adopted a 2045 goal. So this component is looking at what will happen in the system absent city action.

It's been a very interesting time. I think I have almost the same intro for the fleets policy that it's a very interesting time right now to be doing this analysis. You'll note that there are some, graphs figures that are appear duplicative, because the time when we started this analysis and now certain legislative tools that were at our disposal are no longer available. So we wanted to show because the modeling had already been done, we wanted to show that impact. I know that in other conversations, we've been asked, you know, what is the impact of some of these federal decisions that have been happening?

So in this particular item, you'll see that, the clean cars rule, in particular, has had an impact, but, you know, we we will see also impacts if the inflation reduction act is removed. Are those incentives, you know, that would have helped, accelerate the air district rules around all electric appliances. If the incentives in the inflation reduction act go away, we'll start to see even more emissions reductions fall off. I wanted to take a moment to introduce our colleagues with Cascadia Consulting who have been doing the technical analysis. We have both Alicia Fennel and Haley Weinberg that have joined us.

They're going to be presenting the analysis that they've helped us with up until this point, and we are all available for any questions that you may have. So with that, go to the next slide, and I'll turn it over to the Cascadia team.

Thank you, miss Lee.

Sorry.

I believe one more slide.

One more slide.

Excuse me. Yes.

Yes.

Perfect.

So the this first portion is really, as I was explaining, you know, model of what are the emissions that we expect to be happening, and then what are the emissions reductions that we can hope for from regional, state well, really state and federal impacts. The the emissions are forecast

through sorry. Oh, okay.

We finished this phase, this slide, though. The emissions are forecast through various models. This is what we were going to have Cascadia walk us through.

Go ahead. Sorry.

Thank you, miss Lee. I appreciate it. Great. Well, thank you council members for having us tonight. So as was just introduced to you, this decarbonization goal analysis is a projection model which forecasts Mountview's greenhouse gas emissions into the future under multiple different scenarios.

So this model uses the city's 2022 greenhouse gas inventory as a baseline, and it forecasts emissions out into 2045. And so these emissions are modeled through 2045 using various projected changes to Mountain View's demographics, specifically projected population and employment growth. And this analysis looks at three different scenarios. So the first one is a business as usual scenario, which forecast the city's 2022 greenhouse gas emissions assuming no policy or programmatic, intervention. And this scenario is sometimes called a no action scenario.

The second one is the adjusted business as usual scenario, which models the expected impact that key climate policies will have on mountain views emissions. This scenario looks at a collection of federal, state, and regional policies and also includes the expected impact of the electric vehicle market trends in California. And then the third scenario, which has not yet been modeled, will analyze the impact of 10 key decarbonization actions which might occur at the local level. So looking at these three scenarios that I just introduced, I'd like to quickly walk through the high level results of the business as usual and adjusted business as usual scenarios. So as we discuss these results, we will be highlighting the three potential goal years, which are 2035, 2040, and 2045.

And, as mentioned earlier, I would like to acknowledge that the numbers that I'm about to walk through, may be slightly different than what you received in your meeting packet, which is due to the nature of the rapidly changing state of policy, especially under the current federal administration. Since we began this analysis, the Trump administration has revoked the EPA waivers that enabled California's advanced clean cars to policy, which is likely to have significant implications on transportation emissions in Mountain View specifically. And we will be continuing to evaluate the policies included in this model to ensure that this analysis represents only relevant legislation. So on that note, starting with the business as usual scenario, emissions are expected to increase steadily all the way through 2045, which corresponds with projected increases in population and number of jobs in Mountain View. So compared to the city's twenty twenty two community wide emissions, Emissions are expected to increase by 60% by 2035, 81% by 2040, and a 103% by February.

So that's the business as usual. And so the second scenario is the adjusted business as usual, which models the impact of those key climate policies in addition to changes to the EV market. So this analysis indicates that emissions in Mountain View will increase above the city's 2022 baseline by 2035 and 2040, but at a lower rate than the business as usual scenario. And this model does show that by 2045, total emissions will actually have decreased 11% from the city's 2022 emissions as adopted legislation continues to have impacts on emissions.

That's good.

Next slide, please. Thank you. So to provide some more insight into how this analysis was completed, we wanted to identify the key federal, state, and regional policies that we included in this analysis. So to address emissions from buildings in Mountain View, we modeled three adopted policies. So first, we modeled SB 100, so California's renewable portfolio standard, which sets more aggressive targets to reach a 100% clean electricity in California.

Then we modeled the impact of increased energy efficiency, achieved for new construction under California's green building standards code. And then lastly, we modeled the impacts of implementation of the Bay Area air district's rules nine four and nine six requiring that natural gas heaters, water heaters, and furnaces when replaced are replaced with clean alternatives. And then to address transportation emissions, we have modeled the impact of two policies as well as EV market trends. So first, we modeled California's low carbon fuel standard, which requires a 20% reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels by 2035, 2030. Excuse me.

And and then as mentioned previously, we also included the, California zero emissions by 2035 executive order, which sets goals for the sale of zero emission vehicles and equipment. But the results that we have been showing this evening so far exclude the impacts of this policy given the current legal challenges surrounding it. And because of this, we have also included the expected impacts of EV market trends despite policy changes because it is expected that as Californians replace their vehicles, more will continue to purchase an EV, rather than purchasing an internal combustion engine, which is reflected in this analysis. And then to address emissions from the solid waste sector, we modeled the impact that compliance with SB thirteen eighty three, California's short lived climate pollutants policy will have. This policy requires statewide reductions in the disposal of organic waste being landfilled.

And a key objective of this analysis was to support the city with decisions, considerations to think about to potentially adopt a new decarbonization goal for either 2035 or 2040. So the figure on this slide shows the remaining emissions to be reduced through local projects, policies, and programs to achieve one of those potential goals after we account for the expected emissions increase due to projected population and employment growth and expected emission reductions due to adopted policies and market trends. So looking at this figure, this represents the results of the analysis showing Mountain View's greenhouse gas emissions over time, which are represented in the unit of metric tons of CO two equivalent. So beginning on the left side in 2005, the black line represents the business as usual scenario. And this shows Mountain View's historic emissions as well as the community's projected emissions in the absence of climate policy or any local emission reduction efforts.

So as you could see in this scenario, we do we are expecting a significant increase in emissions under this scenario. And then starting in 2022, you can see there are three goal lines that are visualized, which each represent different emission reduction pathways, which are decarbonization goals of 2035, 2040, and 2045. So below that black line, there are a series of colored wedges, and those represent the forecasted emission reductions from adopted climate policies or from the continuation of the EV market trends that are currently occurring in California, which are shown in the legends to the right, which are the policies that I just outlined a couple slides ago. And then the gray the light gray space below these colored wedges, that represents the city's emissions gap, which represents the emissions that will need to be reduced, through local decarbonization actions in order to achieve these targets. And as mentioned previously, we are continuing to evaluate the state of policies that will impact Mountain View.

So the next slide presents the same analysis, but it includes the projected impacts of the Clean Cars two policy. So as you can see, the bottom teal wedge grows significantly when we include the expected impacts of the clean cars policy, which reduces the remaining emissions that would need to be addressed by local actions. So without this policy, the city will be responsible for reducing a significantly higher level of emissions through local policies or programs across all potential goal years. And this is just one example of how our expectations of future emissions are rapidly changing with the current climate and environmental policy landscape. So as we've discussed, California's ability to implement the Clean Cars program has been revoked, which will have a significant impact on the decarbonization goal analysis.

So we just wanted to call that out here. And for reference, the transportation sector made up 63% of the city's twenty twenty two greenhouse gas inventory with on road vehicles being the single largest emission source in Mountain View. So the table that is shown below shows a comparison of adjusted business as usual emissions both with and without the clean cars to legislation. So prior to the removal of California's authority to implement this policy, adjusted business as usual emissions were forecasted to drop very, very significantly by 2045, leaving only 7% of expected business as usual emissions left to be addressed by local actions. And if you look below that at these orange rows, you could see with the removal of the clean cars policy, Mountain View would now be responsible for reducing 44% of your 2045 business as usual emissions in order to achieve carbon neutrality in that goal year.

So these values have been adjusted to include the electric vehicle sales trends to give a more accurate picture of emissions that Mountain View will need to actually reduce, through additional local actions. So we will be revising these memo, these values in the memo to reflect that change as well. So looking at, this bar chart, this represents the makeup of any remaining emissions to be addressed by local actions. So this shows each goal year, and this is after accounting for the impacts of policies and market trends. So this highlights the key areas where the city may want to focus decarbonization efforts.

This chart shows the remaining emissions without the clean car policy. So without this legislation, on road vehicles will continue to make up a significant portion of Mountain View's emissions representing 69% of all emissions by the goal year of 2045. And and then as other policies are implemented that affect other sources of emissions, for example, energy emissions are expected to decline significantly, that leaves off road equipment as the second largest source of emissions by 2045, making up 18% of emissions, which is another emission source that would have been impacted by the clean cars policy. So this bar chart shows the same thing. It represents the remaining emissions to be reduced by each goal year, but it does account for the impact of the clean cars policy.

So by 2045, Mountain View's emissions would be projected to decrease significantly with natural gas making up 36% of remaining emissions while Onward makes up 32%. And miss Lucky and miss Lee will now conclude this presentation by sharing some of the planned next steps for this process.

Thank you, miss Weinberg. I am Rebecca Lucky, the sustainability manager, and we just wanted to close out the second phase of this analysis would be looking at local actions over the summer, and then staff will review those local actions. The scope of work with Cascadia includes modeling 10 key actions at this time, and that's really to include in a five year strategy for the city to undertake. So we haven't really looked at building out a total plan for each goal year just because, as you can already see, there's lots of changes even at the federal level of policy programs or even, you know, innovative technology or partnerships like like the one we created with Silicon Valley Clean Energy. No one anticipated that, but it led to a huge reduction.

So a five year plan allows flexibility for us to change gears if we need to, you know, increase actions or decrease actions based on kind of what's happening externally. And as miss Weinberg mentioned, we wanna focus on the largest sources of emissions, which for the city is natural gas used in buildings and passenger vehicles. So potential actions for reducing natural gas in buildings that we could look at going forward are the reach codes as, miss Hagan presented, time of sale requirements. So this is something that's pretty new. We've learned a little bit about what Berkeley is doing in this area about maybe not holding up the sale of homes, but having the buyer and the seller contribute to an escrow amount and having the buyer at it by a certain time install electric equipment upgrades, and then they can get that money back from their Escrow account.

So it's an interesting concept that we like to explore. Of course, outreach and education campaigns, as we have really mentioned in Ms. Hagan's presentation and the last agenda item, continuing to do that to let people know how efficient heat pumps are, how you can save money, how it helps, address climate change. And then, of course, the council's, work plan includes the inflow of natural gas, so incorporating that as a local action and seeing what impacts can help us get closer to reaching each of these goals. And so for actions to reduce the use of gasoline powered passenger vehicles, The city's already looking at transportation demand ordinance, which could help in this area, looking at ebike, escooter rebates for the community or share programs, EV charging at multifamily complexes, existing multifamily complexes, all electric community shuttles, and even looking at drone delivery services.

So the city's currently looking at a drone ordinance. We've, in the past, have seen pilots of personal delivery devices of little robots that we've seen around Castro Street, a couple years ago. So those are potential areas where we can see reductions in the use of passenger vehicles and using electric equipment to get their goods or get people around for other modes like ebikes or scooters. So the purpose of the agenda item tonight, as miss Lee mentioned, is to give you an early review of this analysis and provide feedback if you desire. And as I mentioned, the local analysis will take place over the summer, and then we'll review it and then present the results to you by the end

of this

year. That concludes our presentation from the project team. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. So do committee members thank you.

So do committee members have questions?

Yeah. I I was really thank you so much for being so responsive to the changes that have occurred recently with your modeling. I know that that that takes a lot of work. But I I also wondered about what would it look like if we only have a cessation of the TAR waiver for four years instead of forever. Because it seems like, you know, this could really be something that could it could change a couple of times, I mean, sadly.

So so that would be I don't know how hard that would be to model or how much it would cost, but something, you know, something I think about. It it might be viewed locally as an incentive. A goal incentive. Right.

Thank you for the question. I we would essentially just move out the implementation. So it just would scoot over that curve by several years. You know, if you think about the car manufacturers, they have to make pretty significant changes to what they're actually producing. So it would take them time.

This has already built in a significant delay. So at best, you know, at best, we we could Okay. We could hope for a significant delay. On the other side with the inflation reduction act, we've had kind of these internal thoughts that we could you know, there's a lot of work in congress right now to eliminate the inflation reduction act, but soonest they can do it is by January 1. And our our heat pump water heater rebates are available now, and people can draw down that plus the inflation reduction act right now and kind of claw some of that money that congress is trying to have for

So And are people doing it?

We're we'll have a quick update for that.

Oh,

sorry. We'd like And to and then, normally, what's we don't get new information in the in the the meeting, so these slides will be available.

We'll host them online. Yes. Okay. We can send them to the committee as well

as a link or something like that. Thank you. I appreciate that.

They're just comments, I think, about questions.

Most minor comments also. So, the the one the I guess the two questions I have, one is that the projections are based on both our residential and work population doubling by 2045, which is a pretty steep I mean, I think it'll probably growl, but it's a pretty steep increase. And I know there's been I've never done a deep dive into this subject. But I know there's been some talk of, you know I mean I mean, the residential growth is driven by, business or job growth here. So there's been some talk of, you know, companies moving to other places and and those projections being different.

So I guess I have two questions. One is, where did the figures come from, and are they based on, like, post 2022 or three figures? Are they can you give me more information about where they came from?

Certainly. I can take a first pass at an answer, and then Ms. Weinberg, who did the analysis, could fill in any gaps. Those were based on the most recent housing EIR that was conducted by the city. And

I think that Do you know what year that was? 2022.

Is that correct, miss Weinberg?

The baseline year for the jobs and population are 2020, but they provided the report provides both 2020 and 2022 and 2031. So it's my understanding

from reading the report and also from what was just said is that they it was looked at in 2022 before we expected any of the things that are currently happening

Right.

And that it projects out to 2022 and 2031. So so just my I mean, I I don't have, you know, I don't have that summon as any money in the game, but it might be worth looking at different just because we're trying to pick a year, it might be worth looking at different population models because this is pretty steep growth, and maybe that's maybe jobs are spreading out for any number of reasons. So

One of the things to consider is that the corresponding emissions reduction potential, you know, Uh-huh. It also tracks with demographics too. So if we have, you know, lower population growth than is projected, then the emissions reductions that we could achieve through the different strategies

Both halves of it go down. Proportionally. Reductions and the increases.

Exactly. So the the overall shape of it stays the same, and, basically, you

know, everything is kind of condensed. So I would just like, you know, if it's easy to Yeah. Do something

We would be happy to replace we'll reach out to economic development.

And then the other is I mean, I expect jobs to grow. It's just by how much. And then the other thing is is it so even if population was not growing that much or if it was in either case, what about is power use per person, you know, with outside of cars and just with AI and other smart stuff, are we expecting more power use, and is that or is this projected on you know, is it like it's if it was, I don't know, 1920 and we didn't project that everybody would get a refrigerator in the future, are people gonna get more energy consumptive stuff? Is that in here? And then I

think that the the impact of it when we think of greenhouse gas emissions is dampened because we have all these assumptions about our electricity becoming cleaner and cleaner Okay. And ultimately greenhouse gas free. So even if they are consuming more electricity, it won't be captured here. And when we think about our electric grid and its ability to meet that demand, that's a separate question. And and, certainly, there is something to be, you know, contemplated there. But for emissions measurement purposes, it won't show up in that way because of our wonderful partners at Silicon Valley Clean Energy Okay. Cleaning our electricity.

Okay.

Unless it's natural gas powered AI,

which let's hope in this.

Okay. So those were my questions, and everything else is a comment. Are there any other questions that committee members have? Are there comments by members of the public in person?

So as I think everyone in the room knows, but not your consultants at Cascadia, I chaired citizen task forces twice, once in 2008 and once in 02/1718, to look at these questions. And each time those task forces produced a a set of local action recommendations, some of which are quite significant and were not on the list. And I'll I'll send an email to the CSC and staff in a few days reminding them of which those actions are. But, clearly, the thing the pandemic has taught us is, you know, that commuting is a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions that is potentially dampenable through a variety of things such as requiring, businesses whose employees park in vast parking lots to somehow remediate the greenhouse gas emissions of that commute. I know that the city, it looks at its own carbon footprint, looks at employee commuting as one of the biggest portions of it.

The other thing I would say is that direct access electricity is not clean, like Silicon Valley Clean Energy or PG and E's electricity. Both of those utilities provide almost carbon free electricity. But in the emissions inventory that was presented a couple of months ago, it's pretty clear that direct access electricity is dirty, and yet the city doesn't do anything to discourage businesses from using dirty direct access electricity providers. I also I agree with the comment that some sort of per capita analysis is really important because the good news is that in the last twenty years, Mountain View's per capita greenhouse gas emissions have gone down by 50%. And that's largely because we have more housing, but it's energy efficient housing.

And the big local companies have been very focused on being as carbon friend or carbon neutral as they can be. So let's see. I look forward to the underlying details, like what was the projection for EVs in Mountain View. Mountain View is ahead of Santa Clara County. Santa Clara County is ahead of the state of California. California is ahead of The United the rest of The United States. So if the numbers that were driving that are county or state numbers, they're, not, accurate. Thanks.

Thank you. Are there online speakers? Online speakers. Okay. Do committee members have comments?

Just have brief comments. I think overall, the I'm mostly focused on the local actions. I think most of them are are are good to explore. I think the ones that I think most might be a bit more nuanced. I I have mixed feelings about the the structure of I like the idea of the time of sale electrification requirements.

I have some qualms with the way Berkeley's program was implemented. You know, if we were to look at something like that, I think that would also pair really well with the thing we were talking about earlier with incentive structures. And instead of just saying, thou shalt for every home sale, effectively, we're doing a new transfer tax. You know, saying that every buyer and seller has to contribute 5,000 or 10,000 to to this fund. You're saying more like, you know, if you do this thing, you know, we can't really reduce the transfer tax because it's passed by the voters, but, you know, there could be credits for things.

There could be there could be incentives that we offer if if folks are willing to do that. Right? I I don't know if they're financial incentives. I don't know if they're building incentives. I I just think that it's a good thing in concept.

I just think that folks naturally react a little bit better if there's some sort of incentive or reward for doing that as opposed to, now shall I do this because then it starts to feel more like a tax. And and that, you know, I just don't wanna make homes more expensive than they already are. And while this is a a good a good a good goal or a good reason for someone. You know, it isn't going into the city coffers. It it just feels you I think you'll get more buy in from the public if we structure it a little bit differently.

And and, you know, there are there are carrots as opposed to mandates, but it's just my own personal feelings. And then, you know, I think you talked about ebikes and scooters. I think as long as we're focused on, you know, electric micro micromobility options because scooters, bikes, unicycles, they all change over time. Right? How how you get around in different ways.

You know, same with I I think on the delivery side, I'm I'm all for the, you know, the public private partnerships and and, and electric means of delivering things because the delivery economy has become is is grow is only going to grow. And I think there are good actors out there like, you know, Amazon to their credit is really trying to, like, try their fleet despite where they were. I don't know where they are now, but but I think those are things that are probably going to be not that we shouldn't do the things to identify, but my guess is that you're gonna have a much bigger bang for your buck if that is a Bay Area wide or a statewide thing where, you know, maybe there's a maybe there's a $1 delivery fee if it's delivered by a gas powered vehicle because they you know, those DoorDash and others know who's delivering what and and what what vehicle is. So, you know, I I would just focus more on, like, the really significant local things that we can do, and and I think it's really hard for on a city by city basis to to try and control the delivery economy.

But I think we should be open to trialing new things and being, you know, being kind of known as a hub of innovation in that space. But I think when it comes to the regulatory framework, that's probably gonna end up being something that's either Bay Area or statewide or super regional. But I think those were the you know, in a TDM, a larger community shuttle. I think all those things are are moving forward. And like I said, I like the the I like the the idea behind the time sale requirements. I just think the way that we might structure it might be a little bit different from the way that Berkeley would, but if I were doing it, I I could I'm just one of seven, so I could be in the minority. But

Yeah. I I was gonna say that, basically, I think these are sound suggestions, but I do feel like in terms of making people getting people to implement new changes, there's, you know, there's been a lot of work in the last ten, twelve years done on on on how the psychology of of of making people make environmental changes. And it's not just necessarily telling them, you know, we'll save money. Although that's always a good one. But I know that's a whole field study.

So so I just think that it's something we should we should think about. I imagine many of you had classes of it when you were and I didn't. It wasn't part of the deal, but I've read some books on it, and I think it's really important. So kind of that would be my suggestion is to in you know, make sure that those those incentive structures and things that we know work are are part of our program. And then the other thing I would say is one of the things about ebikes and bikes and and all this infrastructure that we're building is it's not gonna lower our emissions if people don't use it.

And so I I find that as a, you know, as a I'm a I'm a biker, but I'm not a brave biker. I'm not you know, I like trails. I like quiet street biker. But I love, organized programs that, you know, take people on bike rides and that kind of thing. So I think that sort of programming where you get people out for bike rides, for group bike rides, and have them explore, you know, explore the tech the infrastructure that we have.

I think those are really effective. So that would I hope that that would be part of programs. And I know what's going on, but I I think we we really should continue that. Does any have any have you jumped on any The US bike lanes? No. My bike is broken. Oh, we need to fits. Yeah. But, anyway

Not recently. I did during during the pandemic when everyone got creative, I think.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, anyway, I still think it's, you know, it's a good idea. And then the other thing along those lines is awards. I think it's helpful to highlight some of the people who've done all life at homes.

I mean, I'm not sure what the next wave of things we want to incentivize are, but creating an award system or a competitive system, like one neighborhood against the other, how you know, our neighborhood's gotten more heat pumps in your neigh I mean, people care about that stuff. So that would be my comment. But, basically, I think this is great. And the other thing I think is that we should use the knowledge that we've based here in our advocacy. I mean, like, there's a couple of paragraphs in here.

I think we should list list and send it to Sam Liccardo, Alex Padilla, and and Shift, like, soon. Say, this is what's happening because this damn waiver's gone away. No. Sorry. But, anyway, that I think, you know, your understanding of the impact of those things is is meaningful. So very good. Good job, guys.

So basically agreeing. My comments are that so the the program as it was being set up before the election and rollout of Trump administration plans was was really reliant, a lot reliant on state and federal pro it was as if we were doing something ourselves, but not so much. And now I what I see as the shift is to be is to do local programming. And by local, I agree with what council member Clark said. Not just that doesn't mean Mountain View has to do everything.

We we can do co city things or county things or regional things, and we can lobby the state, but and join with others to lobby the state. But I think we're gonna have to be more active locally. I agree with and and to some degree, that's a good thing. I mean, as being on council when we voted for this, I didn't think we were voting for carbon neutrality program that we would then just say, oh, look. The state and federal government are doing it for us.

It's done. I did that's not what I envisioned anyway. But and I, you know, I agree with what Pat said about just because we have the current administration federally doesn't mean that we'll have them forever. But I think it's useful to see it as, you know, we can let's pretend we do, and then what do we do? Like, take a conservative look at it.

And and, you know, the best case scenario is that we get a bunch of good local and regional projects together that are effective and great examples. And then when there's a new administration, there's learning from that. You know? Maybe it puts us in a better place not to be too probably amish because that's not the way things have been lately. But but, you know, that is a possible rollout. So I think we should look positively at local programs.

And

let's see. I agree with mister current what mister Kearney said about we need to look at Mountain View. I also want our data to be as accurate as we can get it, and I think there is a difference between I'm always worried about our vehicles because they're so important. They're so such an important portion of the data. And if we're just basing them on the county or the state, we're getting no matter how many EVs and micro whatevers we incentivize, we're not counting those changes.

So I I really need to see more honest data around that. And then in terms of key actions oh, the other thing I should say is although, of course, the, you know, the the weakening of our various actions to fight global warming from federally and the impacts on the state. Of course, those of course, those are bad, but the you know, in terms of reaching our goals. But the the good news is that people are and I think you mentioned this a little, Pat. People, residents, our residents are very incentivized to you know, they they're building groups called the resistance and so forth, and they're very incentivized to do something about it.

And, you know, so for example, you can see changes in purchases, for example, away from Tesla, which I know is an electric car. But but that shows that people are incentivized to make their purchases count. And I don't know whether other people have, but I've been, you know, approached to talk to groups of people like Indivisible or church sustainability groups because people wanna know what they what they individually can do with their purchases. I think there's an incentive to do the kinds of things that we're talking about if people know how you know, whether it's electrifying their homes or buying electric cars. I I just think we need to engage more, and that's probably not as good as the, whatever you call that, program car program that's disappearing.

But but I think there is a lot of incentive to change purchasing patterns within the city. So there's that. I I think that the the Berkeley point of purchase, whatever it's called, program, that is one that I would like to look at. We can, as you said, make it our own, the time of sale program. And then they had another for I think for larger buildings, decarbonization measure that you know, I think there was a a full disclosure.

I have friends and family in Berkeley who didn't vote for it and told me why. You know, I think there's a lot of learning from it. And somewhere down the road, maybe it was for larger buildings and not homes, so it may be appropriate make a it our own and in our own form at some point. There's also there's also, LA County has this is in the category of electric micro mobility programming that council member Clark mentioned. LA County has a, small vehicle program, so small electric vehicle.

I think they're neighborhood electric vehicles that they're incentivizing because there are some people who would like elderly people, for instance, who would never take an ebike, but these are a step up from those. So sort of incentivizing those as well. And I think there are a variety of things you could do in that space. That's something I'm hearing a lot more about as a a growing market. You know?

So there are a number of iterations above above the micro mobility that we commonly talk about. There's also compacts. There's subcompact cars. I think there are things we could do too that are cheaper, and I think there are things we could do to encourage those as well. Oh, and there's I don't know. There's used electric vehicle incentive programs for lower income people. I think we could look at a lot of those things and and ideal case to a lot of great local programs. And then, federally, it it That's Silicon Valley. Clean energy is such

a

program at the moment.

A used electric vehicle.

Okay. Good. And you don't have to necessarily be low if have to be any. Yeah.

Okay. So, yeah, those are my comments. More local more and better local programs, more outreach and education to people who are incentivized to implement those things.

Great. Well, thank you. One thing I just wanted to add to what Ms. Lucky closed the presentation with was that, you know, in doing this analysis, initially, we contemplated 10 local programs to model. From the size of that gap, I think, realistically, we'll be open to considering modeling more.

Yeah.

And what we hope that that offers is that in the fall when we come back to the committee, we'll have not only a more robust list of programs, incorporating, you know, all of the feedback that came to us previously through task forces and community input and what you've all shared tonight. We'll also have kind of emissions reductions associated with those different policies so that we can start to really think about which of these will be most effective and in which order might we do them based you know, what we know of electrification adoption curve. You know? Maybe a given policy is a great option. It has a good potential for reducing emissions, but we're not there yet.

But the acceptance rate for it is just not there yet. So we would say maybe in year five, we would consider something like that. Or so we'll have more information to be able to make, kind of a better informed set of recommendations for the committee to consider. Sounds fabulous. And I

know that, Mr. Karnes can give us a list or remind us of the list that he has. Any closing comments for committee members?

Do we have an announcement? I I I wanted to make a Oh, we have more agenda.

Yeah. Not that kind of. Sorry. Be unclear. Okay. So now then we'll move on to the next item, which is 5.3 presentation on climate vulnerability assessment progress. And this item will be presented by sustainability division staff. Ms. Lee will

commence the presentation. Thank you. I wanted to take a moment to introduce our third colleague from Cascadia Consulting, Celine Fujikawa, who has been working more on the climate vulnerability side of our project. So if you recall, Cascadia was, contracted to both assist the city with the decarbonization analysis as well as to conduct a climate vulnerability assessment. Slide.

Just by way of background, I just mentioned that we we are working with Cascadia to undertake this CVA. We brought the framework to the committee, at our last meeting in April. And today, what we have is really a 30% complete analysis or 30% complete climate vulnerability assessment. And what we really wanted to do is just bring a progress update to you to give you a sense of what you can anticipate for the fall in terms of a full CVA. It we'll bring that draft to you this fall, and then at the end of the year, the final would be complete.

So here we are, and we're you know, we've been reviewing all of the existing plans. And we don't have a climate vulnerability assessment for the city of Mountain View, but there is a lot of work that's been done, whether it's specific to sea level rise, you know, one climate impact, or whether it's countywide data through Santa Clara County's climate collaborative. So we've been working with Cascadia to review the available research and to develop sort of summaries of the climate impacts. And now we're at the point where the work is underway. Some of the technical analysis has been done for the CVA, and that's what we're here to talk with you about this evening.

I'll hand it over to miss Fujikawa to continue the presentation.

Thank you. So to kind of ground our conversation a bit, I wanted to start off with just reviewing some of the goals of the climate vulnerability assessment, to kind of help give some context behind some of the goals and outcomes for this for this work. So the assessment is really meant to identify local climate vulnerability. And so as, miss Lee said, we're using existing city and regional resources to help understand how, climate risk like extreme heat or flooding impacts, have effects on various assets within the city, such as, like, the different infrastructure services, as well as the different community groups within Mountain View. It also helps inform future climate strategies.

And so, really, the goal isn't just to identify problems. It's also meant to support strategies that can be tailored to help in you know, inform the different unique needs and vulnerabilities within the city. And then lastly, it's really meant to support cross sector planning. And what this means is it's really helps, ensure that departments can work together, more collaboratively across, you know, public, private, and community based partnerships to help ensure long term resilience for the city of Mountain View. And so while the city or while this document is more of a technical document, really, it's meant to hopefully ensure that we can all make, more smart and equitable decisions that can protect residents, and services, from climate impacts.

And so I'll really briefly touch on, some of the top climate hazards that we've evaluated for the city of Mountain View. So this slide summarizes the four main hazards, the first one being extreme heat. So extreme heat is one of the fastest growing threats, and Mountain View could see up to, 17 extreme heat days. And I apologize if the numbers are a little different. We made some tweaks to, the slides since this was sent out.

But, seeing up to 17, up to 17 extreme heat days per year, and 38 warm nights annually by the end of the century. And what this means is this could significantly increase health risk for outdoor workers as well as, older adults over 65 years Mhmm. And renters, without AC. And we've also seen a lot of correlation, in worsening air quality on hot days as well. The next is extreme weather events.

We're seeing a lot of, more heavier, more intense storms. And even though we're seeing that the total rainfall doesn't change very much, We're still expecting heavier storms and more localized flooding, especially in low lying areas like North Bayshore, and also seeing more frequent storm water overflow and stronger windstorms associated with these these extreme weather events. We're also looking at wildfire and wildfire smoke. And so as many of you know, you know, we're really seeing a lot of this effect around the region. And even if Mountain View isn't really at a high fire risk, it's more of a moderate fire risk.

The city regularly still experiences poor air quality from regional wildfires, which has major impacts on youth, elders, and people with asthma. And lastly, sea level rise. We know that sea level rise poses as a long term risk for the city. And while the city is actively planning and has already made significant investments in, sea level adaptation planning, we're starting to see that there is still, you know, the risk of flooding and emergency access challenges around certain areas that are low lying, and coastal areas, as sea levels continue to rise and storms continue to intensify. Next slide.

And so just a quick reminder, these are the four main sectors that we're analyzing in the CVA. The first is health and well-being, which includes, physical health risks like heat, stress, and respiratory illness. And we're also evaluating mental health impacts such as trauma and anxiety. The next is emergency management, which looks, specifically at public safety services and critical facilities, so things like fire stations, shelters, schools, and hospitals. We're also evaluating, economic impact.

So this really focuses on how local industries and small businesses within Mountain View may be disrupted by the various climate hazards, like heat and flooding or even power outages. And then lastly, buildings and infrastructure. This includes housing, especially for our vulnerable populations and the different transportation systems and networks that include, like, roads and public transit. Next slide. So now I'm gonna, walk through, one of the climate hazards in more detail to just give you a clearer sense of how we're assessing impacts.

I'll walk you through kind of what the data is telling us, what this specifically means for Mountain View, and how, extreme heat, is already affecting key sectors like health infrastructure and emergency services. We chose to focus on heat, because, this is one of the most imminent and immediate risks. And just based on kind of, feedback that we've heard from the sustainability team that this is also something that is already being felt by many residents today within Mountain View. And so I just wanted to quickly kinda provide a little bit of context here on what kind of extreme heat means. So in Mountain View, an extreme heat day is defined as any day over 90 degrees Fahrenheit, but it's important to remember that the actual experience of heat can feel much worse depending on humidity.

And so this chart from the National Weather Service shows the heat index, which is which also means what the temperature actually feels like when the body to the body when you factor in humidity. And so, for example, on a 90 degree day with 75% humidity, which is not uncommon during summers here, it can feel like a 109 degrees. That is well into the danger zone for heat related illness, and so we want to really draw attention to the kind of the orange and red zone areas where this is where you start to see, you know, more, like symptoms like heat cramps, exhaustion, and even heat stroke when we start to see prolonged exposure in physical activities during these conditions. And so while nine 91 degree Fahrenheit may not seem or sound extreme to some folks, this data really helps explain why even moderate sounding temperatures can quickly become dangerous, especially for people who are working outside, those that are living without AC, or those that may have, preexisting health conditions. Next slide.

So I'm gonna go dive a little bit deeper into some of the preliminary data and what the data is kind of telling us. And so this chart shows the projected increase in extreme heat days in Mountain View under a high emission scenario. And so, historically, from 1961 to 1990, we saw about two extreme heat days per year, and that increases to six seventeen days per year by the end of the century. And so we're using a high emission scenario here because it helps us understand kind of what the worst case risks are and also gives the city a more, protective baseline for planning, especially since we're starting to see these impacts sooner than expected. And this increase doesn't just reflect sort of the hotter summers, but it it helps, it shows that there is more sustained health risks, greater energy demand, and more pressure on services like our cooling centers and emergency response.

So we also looked at the number of days over 80 degrees, which gives us a broader sense of prolonged heat exposure, not just extreme days. Historically, Mountain View has had twenty three days per year, over 80 degrees. That number is projected to climb up to seventy days by mid century and up to a hundred twenty four days per year by the end of the century under a high emission scenario. That's over four months out of the year, with temperatures above 80 degrees, and, this is a really important threshold where many residents start to feel the effects, especially those in homes, again, without AC or insulation, and and also, like, individuals living in vehicles. And so even even outside the official extreme heat days, this kind of prolonged heat can still be harmful, especially when it stretches over weeks without relief.

Next slide. Another important trend that we're tracking as part of the CVA is the rise in warm nights as defined as nights where temperatures stay above 61.8 degrees Fahrenheit. Historically, Mountain View has had, four warm nights per year. That's projected to rise to 17 nights by mid century and up to 38, per year by the end of the century. And this matters because hot nights, help reduce the body's ability to recover from daytime heat, especially for people without air conditioning or insulation.

And so, more warm nights also mean higher health risks, more energy use, and less relief for vulnerable populations, which include, some of the vulnerable populations I had mentioned earlier, like older adults and those that are maybe unhoused or housing insecure. Next slide. And so when it comes to extreme heat, certain groups in Mountain View face significantly higher risks. This includes, older adults aged 65 years and older whose bodies are less able to regulate temperature and, who may sometimes live alone or, have no access to cooling. We're also seeing, you know, unhoused and individuals living in vehicles as they sometimes often have limited access to water, cooling, and safe places to rest.

We also see children under five within Mountain View as they sometimes relay rely on caregivers and are often more sensitive to heat stress. Our outdoor worker population, includes construction, transportation, warehousing, and manufacturing industries, oftentimes, they are, facing long hours or prolonged exposure to heat and sometimes without adequate relief, and so they are oftentimes more vulnerable to extreme heat, impacts. And then we're also seeing low income residents and those without air conditioning. Many of them are renters as well, and so sometimes, many of these, buildings or facilities may lack air conditioning or the resources to safely cool their homes, also making them more vulnerable to these impacts. Next slide.

And so I just wanted to briefly talk about some of the, impacts that extreme heat has to health and well-being. So extreme heat can have serious and even deadly effects on health, especially when people are exposed for long periods or can't cool down. The most common progression starts with heat exhaustion and oftentimes can include symptoms like sweating, dizziness, and nausea, and if untreated can lead to heat stroke, which is a life threatening condition. And so this is why heat isn't just about discomfort. It's actually a public health issue, especially for those with limited access to cooling, rest, or care.

Next slide. And so just to put these risks into perspective, here's what the data is showing us for Santa Clara County. So between 02/2020, there were, four hundred and thirty seven hospitalizations directly tied to extreme heat within the county, and there were also over eighteen hundred emergency room visits for heat related illness. And so these aren't just statistics, but really reflect the growing strain and reality that heat puts on also our health care system, and the very real risk that it poses to residents across the county and in Mountain View. And so as extreme heat days continue to increase, we're also expected to see these numbers increase as well unless, the city can take steps to prepare and protect vulnerable communities for from from these exposures.

And so extreme heat doesn't live and work in a silo. We know that extreme heat doesn't just affect health. We also see, it places more strain on our emergency response systems, and so our police and fire departments may see increased calls during heat events, from traffic accidents caused by heat related fatigue, to elevated tensions or sometimes even spikes in violent crimes, which some studies have linked to higher temperatures. Heat can also worsen, heat or mental health symptoms that can also lead to more public safety calls or crises. And we're also seeing a higher demand for ambulance services, especially to respond to heat related illness among, older adults, unhoused residents, and outdoor workers.

Next slide. And so extreme heat also has economic ripple effects, especially for workers, businesses, and essential services. First, it can lead to reduced productivity, so particularly in physically demanding jobs like construction, when you're working when it's too hot to work safely, this means less output and potential lost income for both workers and businesses. We also see an increase in energy demand during heat waves. More people are using AC at the same time, which constrain the grid, raise utility costs, and increase the risk of blackouts.

And then finally, we also see health care costs go up as well. When treating, heat related illnesses, this adds pressure to our medical systems, and this can also lead to higher public health spending. Next slide. And then lastly, I wanted to kind of just briefly touch on how extreme heat can also weaken physical systems, that we rely on every day. So things like roads, railways, and utility infrastructure, these are also vulnerable to heat related damage.

Oftentimes, we see that this can lead to potential costly repairs or service disruptions, especially during high, demand summer months. Heat can cause, material degradation over time. So surfaces like concrete, asphalt, or even sometimes roofing materials as they expand and contract repeatedly, This can weaken their overall integrity and lead to cracks or eventual structural failure. And so as heat becomes more frequent and the planning for for this, you know, becomes more necessary, I think it's important for us to consider, more durable and heat resilient materials, especially in our public buildings and transportation networks. And so I will pass it over to miss Lucky, who will conclude this presentation with the next steps for the CBA.

Thank you. So as this was a, again, a preliminary analysis to have walk you through what it would look like for the rest of the climate hazards that are gonna be presented by the end of the year to you. And so

we're

working on projections and impacts on all of the other, like, major storm events, wildfire smoke, all those other areas, and also incorporating our existing city efforts into kinda figuring out, okay. We know what this list has it is, how many people it impacts, you know, what services or resources do we currently offer, and then kind of looking, you know, with all of our departments on knowing now what extreme heat, for example, looks like in the future.

You know, do we you know, what do

we need to is it, you know, more cooling centers, or what kind of strategies can we help with people who are in house or living in vehicles during extreme heat events to kind of potentially starting to touch on some solutions or strategies that we can look at further. Next slide. And so part of those next steps look what they look like is creating spatial maps so we can kind of understand you know, a lot of times even, you know, there's microclimates within a city. Some areas of the city have more shade, other cities other parts of the city doesn't. So looking at where the hot spots might be, so where we can potentially target services or resources.

And then, of course, reviewing the draft findings, city staff, and also kind of ground trucing our findings with partner organizations that serve vulnerable communities or low income residents as well. We understand that we're hitting the right marks with our data.

And

then as I as we mentioned, we'll present these findings to you by the end of this year and then city council order one of 2026. That concludes our presentation from the project team. Welcome any questions. Thank you. Thank you. So do committee members have questions?

Any questions? Any questions? Thank you.

I guess my only question is when will you how will the links to the solutions be rolled out?

We currently have a contract with Cascadia to conduct the clinic vulnerability assessment. In the fall, we'll be bringing that back to the committee. And if desired, we can amend the contract and look at the process of developing a full strategy, including mobile solutions and, you know, recommendations for that. We we decided to just do a contract for the beginning phase and then, kind of reassess at that point.

Yeah. I think the committee talked about that. Right? Yeah. So so what's gonna come to us next is we did the heat, is the other ones, and then it will be laid out in a similar process, and then the solutions come later. We make a choice about how to do that. Okay. I understand that. Members of the public, any comments? Yes.

So I certainly feel the heat. I just got back from New York where records were being set with very high humidities that they weren't even on that chart. They were too hot and too humid to be charted by the weather service. But the thing I'm particularly interested in over the last few years has been flooding, not sea level rise, but flooding on rivers. I didn't grow up in California, but those who did may remember the great flood of eighteen sixty two, which caused governor Stanford to get to his inauguration in a rowboat because it rained for forty days and forty nights and really flooded all of the Central Valley.

These kinds of events are happening more and more often around the world, and I'm particularly concerned about what would happen if the Stevens Creek Dam were to fail or just to spill uncontrollably like the Oroville Dam did eight years ago, where the dam itself almost dissolved. It's an earthen dam, and it was spilling, over the top as well as through the spillway, which was breaking apart because of poor maintenance. So I hope that Cascadia will look specifically at river flooding in Mountain View, and in particular, what would happen if the Stevens Creek Dam were compromised or overtopped. It would certainly be a disaster of enormous impact. I know that Los Altos and Los Altos Hills are particularly worried about fires, and the reference was that this is Mountain View is moderately at risk from wildfire.

I'm not sure if we're not on the higher end of moderate because of how close we are to Los Altos Hills and Los Altos and because of how much tree cover we have. Increasing our tree cover is a city goal, but it also comes with some risks. So, hopefully, Cascadia will address those comments and concerns.

Thank you.

Do we have, any online questions? Okay. So it's back to us for comments.

Absolutely.

We do have inundation maps Yeah. In our emergency I forget exactly the beginning of that. But but we do have inundation maps for if Stevens Creek overflows. I would say that, honestly, what will be more of a problem or at least as much of a problem is the stormwater issues because our, typically, stormwater systems are designed for a ten year storm and are, you know, like, the the creek to carry the the amount of water that the creek itself in Erie once it gets you, that's a hundred year storm. So there will be local backups, and that is something that I I'm sure Public Works has hot spots that they know about that, but those are they're gonna get worse and bigger.

So dealing with them is really important. And, yeah, this is going in right direction. Thank you.

So I come and say thank you very much. And as far as the mapping goes, I'm hoping that when we get hot spots, we can use those to target not the plant trees because it makes a tremendous difference. I used to know how much. 10 degrees, 20 degrees. I can't remember, but it makes a really big difference.

So if we're finding hotspots, there are solutions that are, you know, not just wait and build a cooling center there. I hope that we you know? And there are other advantages of planting trees. So and then as for flooding, yeah, that's the same the comes up in during our our CIPs, our capital improvement project discussions a lot as green streets. Part of that is trees, and part of it is planning strips for stormwater to address exactly what you're talking about.

And I think that, you know, looking at hot spots to, in particular, identify where to put in, you know, whether they're bioswales or whatever the that's really important and kind of, I think, currently under addressed in CIPs. And I so and then it might be good to actually have after the fires in LA, I talked to the fire chief because I wanted to know how vulnerable we were, and he is actually he he's quite good at talking about it. He says we have fairly low risk because he says I was comparing it to LA. He says they're in a wind tunnel that blows the fire wind right on the areas that were in fire. And we have the opposite case where it the wind tunnel blows it away.

And then he has some other reasons that we have a good water supply and some other things that I didn't know about. And he it might be good for him to talk to either Cascadia or this committee because he can articulate it. We

have had preliminary conversations with the chief, and he has assigned some staff to work with us.

Great. Because we're already doing, like, weighing cities in terms

of water supply. That's what water supply and things.

So with that, unless other committee members have thought of something else to say on this subject, we'll go on to

5.4, which is a

verbal update on sustainability and resiliency division progress. And this item will be presented by sustainability division staff. Ms.

Lucky will commence the presentation. Thank you, chair Higgs. So this item is just to really update you since the last time we met in April about what we've been up to and we get to see quite a bit.

And I'm going to hand it off to our wonderful analyst staff here to go through a few of our slides, and I can close it out. Slide. Gonna hand it off to Ms. Ramos first. Thank you.

So here at the water heater, last time we announced that it kicked off, it is now going along. We're averaging about 10 rebates reservations a month so far. We have sent two rounds of postcard mailers to residents, reaching 1,846 homes. And next upcoming, there will be, every door direct mail to every home in the city. And then, also, we're scheduled to be included on the utility mailer in the fall, which also reaches, about 11,000 homes.

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

You're gonna match them up with the water heater? We're going

to be able to send

them better targeted information about the benefits of an older water heater to a new one, or they're more likely to be near that change out date. So these are just quick examples of the mailers we sent out. We let people know that they can get a water heater for less than a for electric heat pump water heater for less than a gas water heater. Right now, with us talking all these rebates Great. We it's okay. We directed them to our water heater web page on our city website as well as application, which is on one application through Silicon Valley Clean Energy will

allow

you to access Mountain View's $2,000 rebate as well as SVCE's $2,000 rebate. And then the next mailer we sent was focused on getting people to participate in this activity. Three people who enter will be chosen to win a prize, which is an electric efficient prize, including potentially electric leaf blower, grill, or air purifier, for example. And then on the back of this one, we also promoted our rebate and the program overall. That's a little peek into that.

As we get our grant funding, activities will ramp up further in the other water heater. Outreach that we've done since April include the summer kickoff ice cream social. We had a activity that people really enjoyed of drawing their own Watson heat pump water heater.

Mhmm.

We attended the Spanish Civic Language Leadership Development Academy, State of the City photographed here on the bottom. The council neighborhood committee in two different locations, one with a presentation and one as part of the panel of city staff, as well as the Bay Run Property Managers Forum. So in a few short months here, we have been really proactively promoting this. And next up is an update from miss Can. So

as a quick reminder, we're doing the extreme heat and community preparedness program. It is a $25,000 grant from Santa Clara County, to do outreach to vulnerable populations, specifically those who are living in their vehicle to help them prepare and stay safe during heat and poor air quality events this summer. So so far, I have created the flyers, one for heat and one for air quality, and they are also translated into English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian. We are working with CSA Community Services Agency to do this grant as our partner. They already have the flyers, and they've started distributing distributing them.

And they are also linked on our website as well. And then the second part of this grant is doing resilience toolkits. We're putting together 200 of them. So here is a picture of one of them. It includes items such as electrolytes, an air purifier, instant cooling compresses, reusable water bottle, a water misting fan, and a hat to help people prepare and stay safe during the summer. So we are hoping to distribute those soon.

Great. Next, I can provide an update on city operations and decarbonization projects. Firstly, the, application for the Pacific Gas and Electric EV fleets program has been submitted, and this is the first step for the city to receive a dedicated electrical meter at the municipal operation center for electric vehicle charging for the city fleet. So it provides that electrical capacity that will be needed to charge the city fleet at the MOC. New water heater upgrades have been completed at two sites, the Mountain View Sports Pavilion and the Wiseman Sports Center.

And the gas water heaters at these two facilities were converted to electric heat pump water heaters through a PG and E program at no cost to the city. The senior center electrification project, which consists of upgrading the kitchen and water heating from gas to electric systems, has construction scheduled to begin in January, and the projects will be complete by the 2026. And lastly, the construction on solar photovoltaic systems at three sites, Senior Center, Mountain View Sports Pavilion, and but or and then two middle schools. Crandon Middle School and Graham Middle School will be complete by April 2026 as well. So we have quite a few projects underway in partnership with the public works department.

Alright. And to wrap up this update, we wanted to give a preview of some items coming to the CSC and city council for the remaining part of this year, for the calendar year. For the CSC, staff is planning to present a multifamily electric vehicle charging analysis, a 2035 and 2040 decarbonization goal analysis update, draft climate vulnerability assessment update, and also annual update on municipal decarbonization initiatives, little more detail than was given today. And to the city council, staff will be be bringing an item for a noncompetitive Silicon Valley clean energy grant as well as a potential item for a reach code update, which was discussed earlier today.

Now I'm turning back

to Ms. Lucky if you wanna close out with anything.

No. No. You did a great job. Thank you.

Okay. So any questions on this item? No. Public comment? Committee member comments? No? Thank you very much. I look forward to seeing the rest of it. See. So now we're on item six, which is committee staff comments, questions, and committee reports. And no action will be taken on any questions raised by the CSC at this time. Do any CSC members or staff have comments or questions?

Yeah. I have an announcement I'd I'd like to make or share. Yesterday, I with with other people from Silicon Valley Clean Energy, toured Google's thermal thermal plant in Sunnyvale, and it has been designed to provide heat and cooling to about six or eight buildings that are kind of near the intersection of Borrego and Caribbean. And one of the things my husband had noticed when he drove by is that, well, these these, these buildings are kinda cool. They they all have rooftop gardens.

Well, one of the reasons they can have rooftop gardens is because all of the equipment that you would normally put on the roof, you don't have to put on the roof because it's in this this, you know, in this big package plant kind of thing. And they've designed it so that it it it can be it's very modular. So they can bring things in and take things out as technologies change. And as they need more, you know, more heat pumps, there's room for more. And but another thing so if you get a chance to go visit this place, go.

It's really fun, really interesting. But another thing they had that I had never seen before that I thought was really interesting is instead of having rooftop solar, they have developed solar panels that they are essentially using as siding for the building. So the siding on this building on three sides is is are are essentially solar panels. And I don't know, you know, if we could ever use these, but it was just really and it's interesting to see how the technology develops. And then then on the other side, the northern side, they have mostly glass, but they do have some more siding.

And it looks just exactly like siding on the other side that's actually solar panels, but it's not. So they they faked it anyway. But but but I just wanted to share that experience with you. And if you get a chance, go visit. And if not, you'll probably be driving by it. And and, you know, Google has this, idea that they kind of like to share their technology. So the there's a lot of windows you can

look in and see things. And

they they incorporated artwork as well. That was that was nice. So that's what I wanted to share. Interesting. It sounds worth

a look, but I'm a little what kind of thermal plant? What what kind of energy they're generating energy?

Oh, they're recirculating water, primarily. They they have heat pumps, and they also have they literally have a water battery that they are using with they have a huge these a couple of big silo type things, and one of them holds hot water and one of them holds cold water. And they literally use it I mean, it's a water battery. Sort of that's something I learned about.

Ask you more questions offline because I'm just getting more questions.

But, anyway and and then they have they have some pilings, not too many, but but they're using geothermal circulation Okay. Of of the you know, so they're Okay. They're circulating the water.

It's geothermal with water as battery.

Yeah. Mhmm.

Interesting. Thank you. Anyway Okay. Any more questions, announcements, reports? I have one question. Have you been going to the council neighborhood committee? You have with your and announcing the heat pump water heater and any associated I was able to

do it at one of them, and then the other one we had on the table. Uh-huh. It was but the one that had the most attendance, the Wiseman, yeah, people were grabbing me left and right after the meeting to talk about it. That's great.

Yeah. The more and better you can do that, the happier.

Oh, yeah.

Can we use the postcard that Whitney's

Yeah.

If you wanna get get get up and give a little talk about that, yeah, you can

do that. I'll find you.

I mean, on the chair.

It was very effective. Yeah.

Yeah. I think neighborhood groups are one of the big places we should do. Yeah.

And they were taking additional flyers for their neighbors. It was like I was just talking to

one person today.

We're gonna have it. Like, well, I don't know. I forget the the date. September.

I think it's September.

But, anyway, yeah, you're definitely very welcome to that. An update. Yeah.

Any other last words from

staff or meeting members? Okay.

So we're on item seven, which is adjournment, and this meeting is adjourned at 08:49. See you all after the break.