Agenda packet, study session — Los Altos City Council, July 12, 2022

CITY COUNCIL STUDY

SESSION -

ENVIRONMENTAL

COMMISSION REACH
CODES
AGENDA
6:00 PM - Tuesday, July 12, 2022
Telephone/Video Conference Only
Please Note: Per California Executive Order N-29-20, the City Council will meet via Telephone/Video Conference Only.

Telephone:1-253-215-8782 / Webinar ID: 853 4376 7267
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/85343767267?pwd=aXFOa2E5aUtHQXA5VkxhR1VEeXJEdz09 Passcode: 355221
TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEO: Follow the link above. Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of Zoom installed (available at available at https://zoom.us/download). To request to speak, please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

TO PARTICPATE VIA TELEPHONE: Members of the public may also participate via telephone by calling the number listed above. To request to speak, press *9 on your telephone.

TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Please include a subject line in the following format:

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE STUDY SESSION Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record.

Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor, and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments.

AGENDA

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER

CONFIRM QUORUM
1 7/12/2022 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION - ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REACH CODES AGENDA Page 2 of 2

PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM(S)

DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

1. Environmental Commission Reach Codes Presentation: Receive a presentation from the Environmental Commission regarding Reach Codes

ADJOURNMENT

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.

Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html. Council Meetings are televised live and rebroadcast on Cable Channel 26.

On occasion the City COuncil may consider agenda items out of order. 2 Reach Codes 2.0
City Council Study Session
July 12, 2022
City of Los Altos
Environmental Commission Presenters
Tom Hecht, Laura Teksler & Don Weiden
SVCE & TRC Contributors
Anthony Eulo, Jose Garcia
3 Agenda Item 1.

Reach Codes
Presentation Overview
 Context: Existing Los Altos Reach Codes & 2022 CA
Energy Code
 Electrification: Concerns & Considerations
 Reach Code 2.0 Options
 Q&A
City of Los Altos
4 Agenda Item 1.

Los Altos Reach Codes – Context
• 1/1/2023 expiration of current codes
• CAAP objective of Carbon Neutrality by 2035
Drivers
Existing Codes
Buildings
“Mostly Electric”
Water and space heating must be electric.

Electrification ready panel and wiring.

EV Charging More charging infrastructure for higher % of spaces.

LA compared to
SVCE territory
cities
Mostly Electric focus puts LA “in the middle”
• 3 cities less aggressive (incl. 1 with no reach codes) • 4 with similar focus
• 6 with more aggressive codes
5 Agenda Item 1.

Los Altos Reach Codes 2.0
Options
• No Los Altos Action  2022 CA Energy Code Applies in Los Altos beginning 1/1/2023
• Renew current reach code (via Part 11 of building code or as municipal code*)
• Adopt new reach codes before 1/1/2023 (new construction only) • Adopt new reach codes (new construction & existing building) *Decision regarding adoption via municipal code currently under review by legal - not a topic of discussion during this study session 6 Agenda Item 1.
2022 Building Codes
CA Energy Code
(Title 24, Part 6) CalGreen Code
(Title 24, Part 11)
• Specifies required coverage for
new single-family homes,
multifamily dwellings, hotels
• Increases overall % of space
coverage
• Requires L2 for new homes
New Construction
Existing Buildings
• Restricts electric resistance heating
• Simplified language for heat pump retrofits
• Heat pumps are prescriptive baseline
• Residential
• Space heating in climate zone 3, 4
• Water heating in climate zone 12
• Nonresidential – water and/or space-heating
• Performance credit for all-electric design
• Residential
• Pre-wiring required for gas appliances
• Higher ventilation rate for gas stoves
• Solar PV
• Energy storage readiness
• Nonresidential - PV and Storage prescriptive
EV Requirements
7 Agenda Item 1.

Building all-electric saves money.
• Reducing the need for new gas
lines and hookups saves
money.
• Building all-electric now
reduces the need for costly
retrofits later.
8 Agenda Item 1.

New Construction Reach Codes
City of Los Altos
2022 CA ENERGY CODE

CURRENT LOS ALTOS
CODE

PROPOSED BAY AREA MODEL
CODE
Effective Date Effective 1/1/2023 Expires 1/1/2023
After City Adoption or State
Filing
New Buildings1
(Not previously
used/occupied)
(Not previously
used/occupied)
(Applies if >50% foundation
or framing modified)
Air Heating/Cooling EHP (Climate Zone 4) EHP EHP
Water EHP or G EHP EHP
Cooking E or G E or G E
Clothes Drying E or G E E
Fireplaces E or G E or G E
Exterior (Pool, SPA, Firepit) N/A N/A No G
End of G Service N/A N/A 1/1/20452
1 Does not apply to Building Alterations, Renovations, Tenant Improvements 2 End of Service cannot be established via building code, only municipal code.

EHP = Electric Heat Pump, E = Electric, G = Natural Gas (must be wired for replacement) 9 Agenda Item 1.

Existing Building Renovation and
Alteration Reach Codes
City of Los Altos
 Model Bay Area Codes Recently Released
 EC just beginning to review model code
 More complex than new building to develop
code
 Options
 Time of permit
 Building performance standards
 CA Cities Implementing: Portola Valley, San Jose,
Brisbane, Berkeley, Piedmont, Chula Vista
10 Agenda Item 1.

Single Family Residential Construction Permits
(1/26/2021 – 5/11/2022)
City of Los Altos
Permit Type Number Percent of Permits
Single Family Residence 39 3.6%
Detached ADU 58 5.3%
Additions > 750 SF 39 3.6%
Additions < 750 SF 109 10.0%
Residential Alterations 419 38.3%
Water Heaters 109 10.0%
Furnace/AC 321 29.3%
11 Agenda Item 1.

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
City of Los Altos
2022 CAL GREEN
CODE

CURRENT LOS ALTOS
CODE

PROPOSED BAY AREA

MODEL CODE
Effective Date Effective 1/1/2023 Expires 1/1/2023 After City Adoption or State Filing
Single Family Residence 1-L2 EV Ready 1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L2 EV Ready
1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L1
EV Ready
Parking Addition,
Alteration, Renovation
N/A N/A Applies
12 Agenda Item 1.

Electrification
Common Questions & Concerns
 Grid: Can the grid handle more load? Are there really carbon savings if electric appliances are running at peak times when renewable sources aren’t available to power the grid?
 Electric Appliance Performance & Cost: Do electric appliances perform as well as their gas counterparts? How do costs (capital and operational) compare? Aren’t electric appliances more susceptible to electricity interruptions?  Other: Beneficial impact; Choice & Preference; Home electrical service/capacity; Contractor familiarity with heat-pumps
City of Los Altos
13 Agenda Item 1.

Questions, Answers & Feedback
City of Los Altos
Thank you!
The Los Altos Environmental Commission
14 Agenda Item 1.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
15 Agenda Item 1.

From: Roberta Ph llips
To: P ic Comment; City Co ncil
Subject: Public Comment/ Study Session Reach Codes July 12 Counc l Meet ng Date: Saturday July 9 2022 10:19:32 PM
Dear Council Members
"California Once Pioneered the Way in Renewable Energy. Now It’s Turning To Fossil Fuel To Beat a Heatwave"
"A sweeping energy proposal Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Thursday puts the state in the business of buying power to ensure there’s enough to go around during heat waves that strain the grid." It is time for the Los Altos City Council to pull back on banning natural gas.Please do not have any additional restrictions than currently exist in our codes. We all need to deal with the reality that the Grid cannot support energy needs with renewable energy only.

Here is the article
https //time.com/6193087/california-fossil-fuels-blackouts/ Also there is an article from CNBC that states"
Europe will count natural gas and
nuclear as green energy in some
circumstances
https //url avanan click/v2/___https //www cnbc com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-somecircumstances-.html .YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOjM2ZjEzM RjZjE0MTRiY2ZiZWIyM2MyMjU3NGUxZjhmOjY6ZGJkODozODk4YTZkNWZlZmNiNTlhNTQyNDhhMmMwYTViN2M5YmQ1Y2U5NDkxOGU3ZGNiMmFkMmYwYzRjZDE1OGU4MmFmOnQ6VA I ask that you please use common sense.

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
16 Agenda Item 1.
7-9-22 To City Council re Reach Codes
I’m concerned about climate change. I live in a “green” home with solar panels and storage batteries.

I’ve been driving an EV since 2013 and have a charger in the garage. But you are asking too much if you would expect me to replace a broken heater or water heater with a heat pump. And you are asking too much of me to spend hours reading through aspirational climate action plans and do my own homework to find information that should be provided by staff and consultants.

I watched the June 6 meeting of the environmental commission and saw the same presentation you will see at this study session. It’s clear the city has spent a lot of money and time on extending the Reach codes, but none of that effort has resulted in information regarding costs to residents converting from gas to electric.

As elected officials, you’re responsible to represent your constituents. How can you do that when you have no data on the financial impact Reach codes will have on residents? I’m told staff has not done any detailed analyses. I realize costs depend on the home and number of householders, but surely some examples could be provided. In the absence of any, I offer a few of my own:

1. Our contractor just told me he spoke to a homeowner who switched to a heat pump for hot water. Cost of equipment alone was $30,000. Upgrading electric service would be a minimum of $5,000. A $1,000 or $2,000 rebate hardly makes a dent.

2. https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/whole-home-electrification-electricity-ischeap-so-why-stop-at-net-zero October 19, 2020 I Fully Converted a Home to Electricity. Here’s How It Worked — and What It Cost Cost would probably be higher today, given supply chain issues. 17 Agenda Item 1.

Much of the information you’re seeing has been provided by SVCE (which stands to gain financially from increased electric use). Their representatives provided answers to questions at the workshop, many of which I found unconvincing. Please take time to read the examples below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L41np51ff6s&t=7s
21:43
Q The question of the grid and whether it's stable and able to handle more load as we electrify.

A “… the capacity of the great grid will need to be increased as California throughout the state that we electrify. There's several agencies that are responsible for ensuring that the state has adequate energy supply and a stable grid including the public utilities commission and Cal iso and the California Energy Commission so they are overseeing that transition that will happen over time.” Over how much time? Can we really trust PGE and the agencies that have done such a poor job so far? They will also have to provide more power for all the new housing and offices being built. “It is important to note that that many of the electricity outages that we've experienced in California have been due to wildfires and storms, not from an inadequate supply of electricity on the grid …” Some would disagree:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/california-faces-summer-blackouts-from-climateextremes/# May 23, 2022 “For the next five summers, extreme heat and other climate change impacts will threaten the reliability of California’s electrical grid, state officials said Friday. Available electricity supplies might not be able to keep up with demand if heat waves hit, droughts make hydropower less available or wildfires reduce electricity transmission, staff of the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Public Utilities Commission advised agency leaders.” https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/148908/whats-behind-californias-surge-of-large-fires October 4, 2021 “ … a confluence of factors has driven the surge of large, destructive fires in California: unusual drought and heat exacerbated by climate change, overgrown forests caused by decades of fire suppression, and rapid population growth along the edges of forests.” https://time.com/6193087/california-fossil-fuels-blackouts/ July 1, 2022 “Looking to avoid power blackouts, California may turn to the one energy source it’s otherwise desperate to get rid of: fossil fuels. … California gets most of its energy from renewable sources during the day, but doesn’t yet have the storage to dispatch enough solar power after the sun goes down”
24:07
Q Won't electric appliances be more susceptible to these kind of interruptions in electricity? A “… gas appliances all have electronic ignitions so they are not any more resilient in when the electricity is out …”
I can light my gas cooktop with a match.
“ however if you are building an all-electric home and you want that resiliency for outages you can get that achieve that by um adding in uh you know increasing your having solar power but adding um storage to that with a battery so that's one way to achieve some resiliency in your home during electricity outages.”
How much will that resiliency cost me over the price of a match? Q What's more costly to run, an electric or a gas appliance? A “It is a little bit difficult to answer in general terms because it does depend on the appliance you're talking about and what the climate is and how and how you are using it as an occupant ...” 18 Agenda Item 1.

But you could provide some example scenarios.
“ … but generally costs can be considered similar in terms of … the heat pumps are running more efficiently so even if you think of gas might be slightly cheaper than electricity that the efficiency will make up for that we may also see natural gas rates going up higher and rising faster than electricity rates and that's a little bit beyond our control.”
Exactly! As soon as everyone goes to all electric, PGE will probably raise the price of electricity. “… so and again if you're pairing your additional solar in with your electric appliances that can also be a way to make it more economical to run electric appliances.

After you invest about $20,000 in solar panels and another $20,000 in storage batteries, how economical are those appliances?
48:12
Q Contractors seem very opposed to heat pumps for water or space heating. Why is this? Since I've never seen one, are you able to put them in the same form factor, for example the same spot a tank water heater would go or is there more to the installation? A “There's numerous reasons why you will hear some contractors be hesitant to heat to pump technology. One of the concerns with new development is contractors believing that the customer will not be as satisfied with the product as they would have been … “ Contractors are slow to adopt new technology because they have to spend time learning it (instead of spending time earning money) and then learn which vendors and products to trust. Satisfied customers are essential for future business.
“For water heating, a heat pump water heater is a tanked water heater. It is not an instant on ondemand water heater … so it is a different form factor but much closer to the traditional form factor where you have a tank with a heating unit on it. It's slightly larger and because it takes a little longer to heat the water up people often install larger tanks so if you would have gone with a 40 gallon tank for example you might install a 50 if you were installing a heat pump water heater. One of the big challenges with heat pump water heaters is in the retrofit area when you're putting them into a house that's already built and has a natural gas water heater and that is because there isn't often an adequate amount of electrical current and capacity available where the water heater is so it takes a second permit and a second kind of level of work in an existing building.” That’s a major consideration! Some homes may just not have the space. “if we look at the space heating, the dynamic there is a little different because we are kind of spoiled and many of us are used to gas furnaces that act like blast furnace essentially you wake up in the morning you turn it on and a bunch of hot heat comes pouring out of your vents and warms your house and that's not the experience of living with a heat pump. With the heat pump space heater you typically keep your house a little warm, you don't let the low go as low as you would otherwise, so you operate it a little differently because it does take a little more time to come up to temp.

How much extra energy are you using keeping your house warm all the time? Consider hot days when you want A/C and no heat and cool nights when you want some heat. “… Lastly is the heat pump clothes dryers … does actually definitely take longer to dry. Again more efficient but substantially longer to dry.”
How much longer? How much extra energy?
53:02
Q “It's all very well to say quote add solar battery storage end quote, however currently doing so roughly doubles the price of solar. What is being done to reduce the cost of these vital batteries? 19 Agenda Item 1.
“I can't comment on the questioner’s assertion that it roughly doubles the price of solar. Certainly sounds feasible to me. What's being done is that a couple things the shortage of lithium and the challenges in the supply chain are very well documented in this day and age and certainly seems like everything is getting more expensive these days and batteries are no different. There's also a backlog on demand of batteries because so many of the new big solar farms … so there's only so much battery storage capacity and as we all know the laws of supply and demand indicate that when there's a lot of demand and not enough supply the prices are going to go up. So what's being done is that just about every level of government is working and doing what they can to improve the supply chain and to expedite the production of batteries people have really seen the value in them and the need for energy storage in order to make our transformation successful.

Lots of wishful thinking. The government hasn’t been very successful so far. “… We [SVCE] did see some alternative technologies be proposed to us and the reason i mention this at this moment is because of course if there is other storage technologies that will in fact make more supply of energy storage in general available and therefore reduce the cost of energy storage.” No doubt this will happen, but when and at what price no one knows. 56:09
Q For replacing a hot water heater in an in-house closet I was told that I need to relocate the heater to the garage as the heater generates a noise that you wouldn't have inside your house.

A “Yes and I think that's absolutely potentially true that heat pumps are basically refrigerators. The same technology is what we use in our refrigerators and we're not used to our water heaters making sounds like that. It's also worth noting that heat pump water heaters kind of export cool air, so having them in the house can be a challenge. So I think that that maybe the contractor astutely pointed out that the garage might be a better place for a heat pump water heater in a retrofit situation as opposed to an inhouse closet.” A space issue, particularly for those with no garage or a one-car garage.

I urge you to abandon the extension of Reach codes to remodels or replacement.

Pat Marriott Los Altos
20 Agenda Item 1.

From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 1 JULY 12, 2022 -- second comment Date: Sunday, July 10, 2022 11:28:20 AM
Council Members:

I encourage you to read this article regarding the power grid. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/11/electrical-homes-are-the-future-the-grid-isntready/ Electrical homes are the future. The grid isn’t ready.

Some excerpts:

PALO ALTO – One out of every six homes in this leafy birthplace of Silicon Valley has a plug-in car, with more to come. Other homes have heat pumps, induction cook tops and arrays of glistening solar panels that help reduce climate change.

Yet yesterday’s electrical grid can’t keep up with tomorrow’s carbon-free ambitions. … As Berkeley, San Jose and a growing number of other communities commit to an all-electric future, their transformers and distribution lines are being sorely challenged by the need to deliver much more power.
… In Palo Alto, the grid of this entire city was built around the electrical needs of the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, not long after Hewlett-Packard was conceived in a small wooden garage on Addison Avenue, giving birth to what became a transformational tech revolution. At that time, few had electric heating or air conditioning. Water heaters used gas. So did cars. An entire home consumed as much electricity, per day, as a single high-speed EV car charge. … “We have these aspirational goals … but the practical steps to get there are really complicated and involve a lot of difficult choices,” said A.C. Johnston, a retired intellectual property attorney now with the city’s Utilties Commission. … Existing transformers, the white 500-pound cylinders that sit atop poles and downsize power from high-voltage lines, are often too small. So are some wires and poles, he said. Even rooftop solar and battery storage units can create problems because when they produce more electricity than used, they overload transformers.
… “If we go out and begin heavily promoting electrification … we’re going to be just chasing our tail trying to keep up,” he said.

Pat Marriott
21 Agenda Item 1.

From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Administration
Subject: City Council reach code study session
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:43:22 AM
I strongly object to the Los Altos Environmental Commission's proposal that the Los Altos City Council ban all gas appliances, including gas cooking appliances, in all new construction and remodels. Most annoying and unreasonable is the proposal that if any existing gas appliances including gas furnaces and your gas cooking appliances break, you will be required to replace them with all electric appliances.

We are constantly being warned about blackouts due to an overstressed electrical grid. These "reach codes" will only make this matter worse.

Bill Hough
Los Altos
22 Agenda Item 1.

From: roger heyder
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Public comment agenda item 1, July 12 study session Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 10:15:30 AM
Hello,
Please include in public comments in study session permanent record.

Roger Heyder
resident of Los Altos
California has decided to revert to fossil fuel, including natural gas, to meet electricity needs. https://time.com/6193087/california-fossil-fuels-blackouts/ The European Union has declared Natural Gas and Nuclear as Green Energy sources. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-somecircumstances-.html It seems a very poor time indeed for Los Altos to arbitrarily decide to remove natural gas as an energy source for the residents of Los Altos.

Sadly it seems there are a lot of ill-informed zealots on Council and the Commissions that do not care a whit for what the residents want and need. All the residents get is virtue signalling at every opportunity, which is extremely counter productive to the health of our community. 23 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:47 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:21 PM
To: Adelina Del Real <[email protected]>; Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Get Outlook for iOS
From: hedden < >
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 12:59:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Honored Council,
Orange skies. Fires up and down the State. Extreme heat. Disruptions to our water supply. The list goes on and climate change is at the root of it.

We must think about the future. We must think about our kids and grandkids. I do so all the time.

The good news is that we can do something right now, and even better, we have started. Los Altos now has a Director of Sustainability and has begun to implement the CAAP. There are many components to the CAAP. One of my favorites is planting trees. One of the most impactful is switching from fossil fuels to electricity. The reach codes will help us do that. Please adopt the strongest reach codes possible. Please exceed the State minimum.

One contentious issue is switching from gas to electric in the kitchen. I recommend hosting a cooking demonstration to learn about the advantages of cooking with induction cooktops and ovens.

I think you would find it fascinating; I know I would. I am sure there are people in the community who would be pleased to help. I'm sure it doesn’t have to be a celebrity chef, but … wouldn’t that be exciting!
Sincerely yours,
Gary Hedden
24 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:14:15 AM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:59 AM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Get Outlook for iOS
From: J H
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 11:30:25 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Dear Los Altos City Council members,
Please adopt the Reach Codes proposed by the Environmental Commission.

Burning methane (natural gas) in our homes is hazardous. This is a serious health and safety issue.

Methane gas in our atmosphere heats up the planet, causing environmental damage. Please do the right thing for our children's future and establish Reach Codes in Los Altos.

Thank you,
Jessica Hirschfelder
Los Altos
25 Agenda Item 1.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
26 Agenda Item 1.

From: Kacey Fitzpatrick
To: Public Comment
Subject: Yes on Reach Codes
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 4:47:49 PM
Dear esteemed City Council members,
Please vote to accept and pass the Reach Codes the Environmental Commissions is proposing.

The EC’s proposal will largely align with the Bay Area Reach Code being proposed by SVCE, PCE, and EBCE.

Combined, these entities cover 37 municipalities. It will be in everyone’s interest for Los Altos to stay in step on this.

Residential energy in Los Altos is generally renewable, as we participate in SVCE. Therefore, adopting the reach codes and transitioning new homes and major remodels away from natural gas to all-electric will make a significant impact toward reaching our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. This is a must; every community must do it’s part.

Importantly, this reach code will not force anyone in an existing home or a fixed income to make a change.

It is strictly forward-looking.

Moving away from natural gas will reduce demand and lead to less methane emissions. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, and the amount of leaks in our supply system is *quite* significant according to studies on the matter by EDF and others. Clean energy is the future, and now is the time to lock this in.

Moving away from natural gas will also result in significant improvements in indoor air quality and safety.

Health and safety are the top concerns for every family.

Our youth and future generations will thank you for this Yes vote.

Many thanks,
Kacey Fitzpatrick
151 Mountain View Ave
Los Altos, CA
27 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 1 - July 12 STUDY SESSION Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:59:53 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:19 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 1 - July 12 STUDY SESSION Hi Angel and Adelina,
Can you pls post this as public comment, and I will forward the others that have come in? Thanks.

Best,
Neysa
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Cindy Sidaris <
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:37 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Aida Fairman
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 1 - July 12 STUDY SESSION I urge you to accept the recommendations of the Environmental Commission regarding REACH codes. The Bay Area Reach Code, is being proposed by a coalition from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE), Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) and East Bay Community Energy (EBCE). Combined, these entities cover 37 municipalities. Los Altos REACH codes should align with these local towns and cities.

Cindy Sidaris
Los Altos Resident
28 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: In support of the new Reach Codes
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:04 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:19 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: In support of the new Reach Codes
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Comcast
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:32:12 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: In support of the new Reach Codes
Please vote to pass the Reach Codes proposed by the Environmental Commission, which largely align with the Bay Area Reach Code, proposed by a coalition of 37 municipalities.

Thank you,
Jennifer Mitchell
Los Altos Resident
Sent from my iPhone
29 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:15 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:19 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Anna J <
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:32:00 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Please vote to pass the Reach Codes the Environmental Commissions is proposing.

Thanks,
Anna Janakiraman
Los Altos resident
30 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:25 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Adelina Del Real <[email protected]>; Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Neil Wolff
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 5:20:39 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>; Ann Wolff > Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
I support extending the Reach Codes. Anything we can do to shift towards an electricity-based world is better because we can generate endless electricity from renewables.

Neil Wolff
235 Marvin Avenue
Los Altos
31 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Code Study Session: July 12, 2022
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:30 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session: July 12, 2022
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Connie Miller
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 4:47:44 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session: July 12, 2022
Mayor Enander and Council Members Fligor, Meadows and Weinberg:

Please support the Environmental Commission’s efforts and pass their proposal for updated Reach Codes as presented.

Do NOT follow the advice of a hyperbolic, inaccurate, one-sided, unscientific survey created by oft-complaining residents belonging to a singular faction of your City. Most of the Los Altos population cares about climate change and expects you, its leaders, to look ahead to what needs to be done and pass sound advice that has been extensively researched by your commissions.

The Environmental Commission’s proposal largely aligns us with the Bay Area Reach Codes, created by a coalition representing over 37 Bay Area municipalities. The proposal before you offers a sensible, not radical, positioning of our region’s future energy needs. It relies on proven, energy saving electric technology that directly targets one of two areas that our CAAP states emits our most greenhouse gasses. Moving toward the inevitable all-electric future will not break the grid nor will it impair our quality of life. It has reached the juncture where passing Reach Codes is a health and safety measure.

It is the right thing to do.

No amount of time studying what has already been studied will change the facts. We need to pass this sensible proposal.

Respectfully,
Connie Miller
VP, Clean Air Lead
GreenTown Los Altos
32 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Codes
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:35 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Adelina Del Real <[email protected]>; Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Codes
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Eric Warmoth
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 4:28:53 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Codes
Dear Los Altos City Council,
My name is Eric Warmoth, I am a recently graduated college student who grew up in Los Altos, attending Almond, Egan, and Los Altos High School. I, along with many of my peers and other students, am in strong support of the Reach Codes that the Environmental Commission is reporting.

Los Altos must do our part and keep up with other cities and towns across the peninsula in transitioning to an electric future and being part of a crucial climate solution.

I urge you to vote yes to pass the Reach Codes the Environmental Commission is proposing.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best,
Eric Warmoth
33 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Codes
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:39 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:20 PM
To: Adelina Del Real <[email protected]>; Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Codes
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Ann Wolff
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 4:25:40 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Codes
I am writing to ask you to support the adoption of Reach Codes for our city. We must end our dependence on Fossil Fuels.

Best,
Ann Wolff
235 Marvin Ave
Los Altos, CA 94022
34 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach codes
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:00:53 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:52 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach codes
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Mary Prochnow
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:50:50 PM
To: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Cc: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach codes
Hello all, thanks for all that you do for our Community.

I support the Reach Codes proposed by the Environmental Commission.

I believe that we , as a privileged Community, have the responsibility to lead the way on this and other issues that affect our future so critically.

I support the wisdom and hard work of our Commissioners.

Thanks for hearing me,
Mary Prochnow
35 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Code Study Session
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:05:41 PM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:04 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Linda Ziff
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 7:02:56 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session
City of Los Altos Council Members,
We applaud the Environmental Commissioners' work on the updated Reach Codes for our community. Please vote to pass the proposed reach codes and Los Altos will be safer and healthier for our children and grandchildren.

Thank you,
Linda and Harvey Ziff
36 Agenda Item 1.

From: Karl Danz
To: Public Comment
Cc: Aida Fairman
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #1 - July 12, 2022 STUDY SESSION Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 10:59:04 PM
Hello,
Please vote to pass Reach Codes as per the Environmental Commission's recommendation.

Thank you,
Karl Danz
1540 Morton Ave.

Los Altos, CA 94024
37 Agenda Item 1.

July 11, 2022
Dear Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows and members of the Los Altos City Council, As you all are aware, managing climate change is critical, and if we don’t figure out how to reduce greenhouse gases soon, nothing else will matter. We all, individually and collectively, have a part to play.

So, I applaud your decision to listen to what our Environmental Commission has to say and to study what role the City might play with regard to Reach Codes and encourage you to adopt them for new construction.

As the Commission’s presentation points out, retrofits are expensive. We will need to replace our aging gas cooktop soon, and would go with induction in a heartbeat, except for concern about how to cook during increasingly common power outages. Once that issue is resolved, I see every reason to require that Reach Codes apply to retrofits and remodels as well.

Many thanks for tackling this vital and challenging issue.

Marie Young
Los Altos homeowner since 1977
38 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Reach Codes
Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:50:14 AM
Attachments: Outlook-dnpmsjv1.png
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 8:55 PM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Reach Codes
___________________________________________________________________ Neysa Fligor │Councilmember, City of Los Altos
Los Altos City Hall
1 North San Antonio Road │Los Altos, CA 94022
Main: (650) 947-2700 │ Direct: (650) 509-7909 │ [email protected] From: Martin Lastowski >
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 8:35 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Aida Fairman <[email protected]> Subject: Reach Codes
Hello,
I am hoping Los Altos and its leaders can take a leadership role in adopting the reach codes.

The codes affect new construction and hence will not unduly burden those who cannot afford new construction. Science has already shown that the billions of tons of CO2 from burning goes into the atmosphere. The current rate of burning exceeds the amount that the natural carbon cycle can handle.
39 Agenda Item 1.
40 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Updated LAR Reach Code Survey Results - 400 Responses Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:14:13 AM
Attachments: Los Altos Residents - Updated Survey on Proposed Ban of Natural Gas in Los Altos - July 12 2022.pdf LAR Survey - Updated Narrative Comments - Proposed Ban on Natural Gas - July 2022.pdf From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:59 AM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Updated LAR Reach Code Survey Results - 400 Responses Get Outlook for iOS
From: Los Altos Residents <
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 12:34:10 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Subject: Updated LAR Reach Code Survey Results - 400 Responses Dear Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, and Councilmembers Lee Eng, Fligor and Weinberg, As of July 11, 7:40pm, we have received 400 responses to the LAR Reach Code Survey. Godbe, the survey company favored by the city to conduct surveys, considers 400 responses in a city the size of Los Altos to be statistically significant. We are leaving the survey open so that all Los Altos residents have an opportunity to have their voices heard and will update you periodically.

The survey results demonstrate unequivocally that a majority of Los Altans do not support the Reach Codes proposed by the Environmental Commission.

We trust that you will listen to your constituents and act accordingly.

Respectfully,
Los Altos Residents
www.LosAltosResidents.org
41 Agenda Item 1.
42 Agenda Item 1.

Executive Summary
• 400 respondents (95% homeowners, 1% business, 2% renters, 2% Other) • 86% do not support a ban on all gas appliances in new residential contruction
• 93% do not want Los Altos to require replacement of
defective/broken/end-of-life gas appliances In a residence with electric • 89% do not want the City to require replacement of gas appliances with electric in the event of a remodel
• 97% do not want the City to require replacing existing gas appliances with electric prior to a sale of residential/commercial buildings • 67% want to vote in a citywide election on whether the city should ban natural gas usage in homes
2 43
Agenda Item 1.

Q1: I am a Los Altos resident.
3 44
Agenda Item 1.

Q2: I am a Los Altos …
4 45
Agenda Item 1.

Q3: How would you identify your type of
business?
5 46
Agenda Item 1.

Q4: How long have you lived in Los Altos?
6 47
Agenda Item 1.

Q5: My zip code is…
7 48
Agenda Item 1.

Q6: My age group is:
8 49
Agenda Item 1.

Q7: Do you support a ban on all gas appliances
(stove top, furnace, water heater, dryer) in new
residential construction?
9 50
Agenda Item 1.

Q8: Do you want the City to ban gas cooking
appliances (e.g. range cook top, stove) in new
residential construction?
10 51
Agenda Item 1.

Q9: Do you want the City to require you to replace
any defective/broken/end-of-life gas appliance,
including gas cooking appliance, in a residence
with an electric appliance?
11 52
Agenda Item 1.

Q10: Do you want the city to require replacement
of gas appliances including gas cooking appliances
such as gas cook tops, with electric appliances in
the event of a remodel?
12 53
Agenda Item 1.

Q11: Do you want the City to ban gas cooking
appliances in new commercial construction such
as restaurants?
13 54
Agenda Item 1.

Q12: Do you want the City to require installation
of electric cooking appliances with any remodel of
a commercial space such as a restaurant?
14 55
Agenda Item 1.

Q13: Do you want the City to ban gas
fireplaces in remodels of residences?
15 56
Agenda Item 1.

Q14: Do you want the City to ban gas
fireplaces in new residential construction?
16 57
Agenda Item 1.

Q15: Do you want the City to require replacing
existing gas appliances with electric appliances
prior to sale of a residential or commercial
building?
17 58
Agenda Item 1.

Q16: I want to vote in a citywide election on
whether the city should ban natural gas usage in
homes.
18 59
Agenda Item 1.

Q17: May we contact you for further input? If so,
please provide your name and email address here:
• Contact LAR for list of 87 names.
19 60
Agenda Item 1.
1 Survey of Los Altos Residents on Proposed Ban of Natural Gas in Los Altos For City Council Study Session on July 12, 2022
Narrative Comments
Table of Contents
Q7: Do you support a ban on all gas appliances (stove top, furnace, water heater, dryer) in new residential construction? .................................................................................................................... 2 Q8: Do you want the City to ban gas cooking appliances (e.g. range cook top, stove) in new residential construction? .................................................................................................................... 9 Q9: Do you want the City to require you to replace any defective/broken/end-of-life gas appliance, including gas cooking appliance, in a residence with an electric appliance?.....................................12 Q10: Do you want the city to require replacement of gas appliances including gas cooking appliances such as gas cook tops, with electric appliances in the event of a remodel? ....................15 Q11: Do you want the City to ban gas cooking appliances in new commercial construction such as restaurants?......................................................................................................................................18 Q12: Do you want the City to require installation of electric cooking appliances with any remodel of a commercial space such as a restaurant? ........................................................................................20 Q14: Do you want the City to ban gas fireplaces in new residential construction?..........................22 Q15: Do you want the City to require replacing existing gas appliances with electric appliances prior to sale of a residential or commercial building?.......................................................................23 Q16: I want to vote in a citywide election on whether the city should ban natural gas usage in homes...............................................................................................................................................26 61 Agenda Item 1.
2 Q7: Do you support a ban on all gas appliances (stove top, furnace, water heater, dryer) in new residential construction?

1. Government continues to go overboard with restrictions. If somethings breaks how about the city will pay for the changes that you have to do. Electricity is too expensive unless you take off a perfectly good roof just to pay for solar panels. Not all houses have the proper sun exposure..

2. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

3. The whole idea is ridiculous!

4. I do not believe they can supply all the electrical if they can't do it now without rotating outages.

They are not dependable. When the electrical is out during the winter, we use the fireplace for heat. This has happened many times. I do not want to cook on gas. I have cooked on both and gas is much more controllable that electricity. You should not force this on the people of los altos.

5. Although banning gas is a step towards cutting green house gases this is just low hanging fruit in fighting climate change. If you are really interested in fighting climate change put more effort into population control.

6. Natural gas is a cheaper, clean energy and will not take away electricity from the overtaxed electric grid. This is an overreach by progressives trying to run peoples lives. Gas is easier to control and heats the house faster.

7. Gas provides an alternative energy source when there are electric grid failures. It is not wise to force residents onto a single energy source. You will get far better reduction in green house gas emission if the city enforces a ban on gas-powered landscape tools such as movers, weed wackers and leaf blowers which have far dirtier emissions than natural gas. You'll probably end up with more wood burning.

8. When PGE cuts off electricity, gas is the only life saver for cooking food, hot water and home heating. This is a life and health issue. City cannot mandate who lives and who does not when electricity is cut off.

9. Gas furnace is for example heat a room faster and warmer than electric. Gas furnaces are just more efficient.

10. No actual benefit. And benefit measures are inaccurate? Where does the electricity come from?

11. I believe Los Altos residents should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their homes, such as gas, electricity or solar

12. Natural Gas is cheap, plentiful and safe for the environment. Why in the world would you want to restrict it's use when California is relying on Solar, Wind, and Prayers to keep the State operating. The lone nuclear plant is set to close in the near future...10% of our electricity comes from that source. And pushing electric cars will cause more stress on the grid. Instead of using electric cars we should be using natural gas vehicles.

13. This is a "feel good" measure that will not make any difference to anything in our environment.

The math of all this effort does not add up. It is clear that we are doing these dumb things to help the "Green energy" company which was part owned by the previous mayor deliver more electricity to our city and profit her family. I'd be willing to reconsider this if we move back our electrical services to PGE and dump this ex mayor's company

14. Houses have 50+ yr lifetimes. We can’t be using fossil fuels 50 yrs from now so we need this change.

15. Let people make their own decisions. I like cooking and drying my clothes with gas, I also heat with Gas. I should choose what fuel I want to use based upon the efficiency of the appliances and cost of the utility being used.

16. I don't understand the move to ban natural gas, it seems unfairly targetted considering that not that many years ago it was advertised as one of the cleanest fuels compared to many alternatives. Not enough information has been provided comparing the cost for heating using natural gas vs. electrical.
62 Agenda Item 1.
3 17. With PG&E struggling with solvency and struggling with keeping the electrical grid stable, it makes no sense to rely on a single power source like electricity. It will only get worse as EV demands on our grid increases. This one makes zero sense because most of our power comes from natural gas power plants now already.

18. I would not ban gas cook tops

19. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

20. Not at this time because I depend on my gas stove top, furnace, water heater and dryer.

However, I think all new construction on remodeling requests should require electric only.

21. They should allow some limited use of gas, such as for fireplaces and burners on stoves. Gas fireplaces are less harmful than wood burning. I'm OK with banning wood burning in densely populated areas such as the Bay Area. The city should allow both gas and electric hookups, so people have a choice, and so gas could still be used until there is a better supply of electricity to meet the needs. They could require electric hookups along with gas, and then transition to electric in the future when there is an adequate supply of electricity to meet the needs.

22. If gas line is available at the parcel, then should be ok to be connected and used.

23. No, absolutely not. Never, ever. This is just horrible virtue signal. Leave us alone.

24. Please no more virtue signalling

25. Gas cooking is essential for temperature control when cooking. Electric stove tops do not heat up or cool down as fast causing food to burn.

26. The current electrical grind needs to be fixed first.

27. We need diverse energy sources to maintain consistent availability of energy for the residents.

No one source will cover everyone all the time. Natural gas is a good second to electricity. It is a noble goal to strive for all renewable non-polluting sources, but the sun doesn't shine at night or during cloudy/rainy weather. The wind doesn't always blow consistently. These are things dependent on the WEATHER and we all know how reliable/predictable the weather is. ( It is not.)

28. Ridiculous

29. This is a "feel good" type of activity. The math does not add up. Also, with PGE routinely asking residents to curtail usage of appliances during peak hours because they cannot keep up with demand, it makes no sense to add to electrical demand by banning all gas appliances.

30. While I appreciate gas stoves very much, natural gas is still a fossil fuel. We need to get away from them despite how expensive it will be to change.

31. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel we have, besides most electrical power is generated with natural gas. Banning natural gas just shifts the consumption of this resource to another geographic location and transports the electrical power here on infrastructure that causes wild fires. Furthermore, any such ban will be challenged in court and results in unnecessary expenses for the city.

32. Absolutely yes! Boomers really need to stop their entitled attitude for destroying the earth! So selfish!!!!!!

33. If this allows for existing appliances to be grandfathered in, allows them to be replaced with like appliances

34. Nat gas is reliable. Placing all this emphasis on all electric is going to result in lots of people without power during inevitable blackouts with our feeble electric grid. I worked for PG&E and understand their system.

35. It’s the right thing to do.
63 Agenda Item 1.
4 36. Natural gas is not the evil energy source everyone thinks it is. We are not at a point to be able to generate all electricity without using fossil fuels. Just because it’s electricity doesn’t mean it’s clean energy. This is a poorly conceived knee-jerk response to appear forward thinking.

37. Burning fossil fuels causes pollution, indoors and out. We want a cleaner world for our children and our grandchildren.

38. This is alarmist nonsense.

39. Power outages are more and more frequent. We stopped setting our appliance clocks because the power goes out at least twice a quarter.

40. Ban on any new gas line to a new address would be the most sensible measure. Repair and maintenance of existing services to existing address (means ok to connect ADUs to gas on prem).

41. Natural gas is clean burning and relatively easy and clean to obtain from the earth. It is cheap and readily available

42. There needs to be a balance between electricity and natural gas.

43. Our electric infrastructure is already expensive and unreliable

44. This should not apply to remodels when it would require installi a new electric panel and new house wiring.

45. Why in the world would we limit ourselves and ban this?

46. Until the City can state exactly where the electricity is coming; most electrical plants obtain their electricity from oil or coal. When they talk about crating electricity through wind or sun, each of those kill off wildlife.

47. Not only no, but Hell No

48. Overreach by city government

49. The existing electrical infrastructure in Los Altos cannot handle the additional load placed on the grid by converting to all electrical. The peak load on the grid is from 4pm to 9pm, this will increase the peak load tremendously..

50. I currently view access to gas as a safety issue in the event of an earthquake or other catastrophic event. I would like to have access to gas and electricity in case one is unavailable.

We are installing solar and batteries, but I am sure this expense is not attainable by all. I expect that down power could last weeks.

51. Natural gas is clean, efficient and cost effective. If the city wants to incentivize the change to more costly forms of energy with tax credits and the like, that would be acceptable.

52. I am a chef and "cooking with gas" is a real thing as an advantage to creating great food. I also think there should be a plural approach to energy use.

53. Virtue signaling. Will have no impact on environment. Will de-value homes in Los Altos.

Freedom works better than government.

54. The quality and efficiency of my gas service is great. In a power outage I can still prepare neals

55. Too expensive to go all electric at this time; much of our electric power is powered by natural gas and will continue to be so powered for many more years to come. When furture substantial development is made in alternative power sources then "ALL" electric power will be truly a meaningful.

56. I feel a ban is too strong. Instead, if non-gas appliances are environmentally better AND cost effective, financial incentive program should be created

57. This is a stupid idea with no merit. This ban is based on non-scientific and idealogical interests of a few people pushing higher cost options when we have natural gas provides us with clean energy, at low costs and also energy independence from other countries.

58. They do not help the environment and force us to use unreliable PGE Electricity for all uses. 64 Agenda Item 1.
5 59. There is no sound environmental reason to do this. AND take a hard look at what is going on in the world and our insane energy policy based on poor science. We cannot afford to be this strident based on flimsy data. The environmental impact should take into account a more fuller picture including the unintended consequences of such strident ideas that lead to other issues.

60. I use gas for cooking. It is reliable and I do not like to cook on electric. I feel it's my right to choose, not the city's right to take away. It would change the whole dynamics of the kitchen.

Also, many times we have lost electricity in the winter when it's cold. Thank God we had a gas fireplace we could use to warm up the house.

61. We don’t have enough power to run our state now.

62. Nothing we do here will make a difference. It is ridiculous to ban natural gas use when electric energy produces at least as much CO2. Do not wreck gas cooking and heating!

63. In some cities it is a law to have 2 or more ways to heat a home for safety reasons.

64. I like the "transition" approach that Saratoga is using. Choose the most important gas appliance to you and the rest are electric.

65. This is ridiculous. Global warming is not being caused by residential gas usage for heaters and stoves. Allow home owners to choose for themselves.

66. Heat pumps and induction cooking are not only much more efficient but also healthier. In the long run they are cost-efficient, also.

67. The electric supply in California is already second rate and goes out at times. Why further stress the infrastructure? Gas allows partial redundancy

68. Absolutely opposed to this. It is our right as a resident and homeowner to buy, own and operate whatever kind of appliances we want!!!!!!

69. I definitely DO NOT support a ban. Gas is much cheaper, cooks better, is far cheaper when connected to a tankless water heater, and provides a more comfortable heating source than a heat pump furnace. Those who are pushing a ban on natural gas are lying to the public about heat pumps.

70. Gas for a cook top, furnace and water heater are far superior to all-electric versions.

71. No, cooking and baking with gas is optimal

72. This is absurd -- All aspects of this proposal, not just this item. The fraction of total emissions that result from the use of gas appliances is miniscule. Banning natural gas in Los Altos won't have any real effect, and causes a drastic decrease in the efficiency and quality of many home appliances.

73. Hurt resident, higher cost of heating, 0 impact on climate change

74. City Council has no business dictating (like a Dictator) what common energy sources residents want to use. This was all started by council member Jan Pepper on our previous Council. Pepper had a clear ulterior motive in doing this. She was getting a whopping one-year salary from an ELECTRICAL COMPANY!!!! Three of the current Council Members belong to the same camp as Pepper. I am sure the ulterior motive still exists with these folks. They have no business dictating resident's energy decisions.energy

75. Electric appliances are more expensive to operate than gas appliances. For example, https://homeguides.sfgate.com/average-cost-hour-run-dryer-68320.html. PG&E is already forecasting rolling blackouts because they have not kept up with demand https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/outages/planning-and-preparedness/safety-andpreparedness/find-your-rotating-outage-block/find-your-rotating-outage-block.page.

76. Gas cooking is far superior to electric. Our electric grid is insufficient to support 100% electric homes and vehicles. Removing any other option is shortsighted and dangerous. 65 Agenda Item 1.
6 77. Standardizing on only ONE option limits flexibility to respond to unplanned situations. If PG&E goes down no one can cook, heat water etc. We have earthquakes, fires, weather conditions which can and will impact us at any time.

78. I think neat.gas is more efficient and less expensive

79. They could charge a person extra for the permit to connect to gas….you know….tax it to discourage it in new construction. But it should remain a choice

80. I do not support the Reach codes in residential buildings

81. Too dependent on grid blackout- gas lines have very rare failure.

82. When the electric power is shut off we have no means of cooking, staying warm, showering and other necessities. With all the electric cars using power there will be a strain on the system.

There are more fires caused by electricity than by gas.

83. Electricity usage isn't greener than residential gas usage doesn't. Electricity needs to be generated mostly from same resources (gas). There will be energy loss during electricity transmission as will. Gas stove will still function well during power outage!

84. Why would you place so many unnecessary restrictions?

85. But not strongly. I think cars will be requiring a LOT of electricity; where is all supposed to come from, when we can't even get through a hot summer spell without problems.

86. With the recent power cuts , I don’t find electricity 100% reliable in California

87. I don’t feel there is a need to change what our city has right now. Our tax money can be spent on more meaningful and impactful issues.

88. What would we do In power outages?

89. Gas as a stable alternative energy source is very much needed. In the past years, there were many incidents of large scale electricity outage due to fire, weather etc. Complete ban on all gas appliance will cause trouble in life. In addition, sudden surge of electricity use due to the ban may create further shorage of electricity.

90. the home owner should be given the choice

91. Cannot replace NG until there is an equivalent consistent, lower price energy alternative. A bit racist in that many ethnic foods cannot be prepared using electricity the same by the restaurants.

92. Gas is more friendly and has better efficiency for cooking, furnace, dryer.

93. Yes and no. I'd be happy to replace my gas stove top with an induction one, but I am concerned with the greater cost of an electric dryer to a gas one. One could add more solar and solar batteries to cover the electric dryer, but in my case, I do not have the funds to do so. As seniors, the additional cost of the electric dryer, and the heat pump heater for that matter, would be difficult if not impossible currently.

94. This is complete overreach from the council. I object in the strongest manner.

95. Gas is clean, and cheaper than electricity. I have some gas appliances and fireplaces. If u ban the use of gas when I sell my house I have to remodel to be able to sell it. If I sell it as is it will loose value. I do t want to find myself in a box when the time comes.. global warming and climatic catastrophic conditions notwithstanding or a nuclear war between Russia , China and the USA, I Olán to live to 100+ years in this house.

96. Just as soon as the feds and states Stop methane gas releases and require all autos to be battery powered then we can consider electric replacing natural gas

97. For construction of new homes, I believe this is reasonable.

98. Let home owners decide for themselves. Eventually, electric may make more sense, but needn't regulate it.

99. I experience an electic power outage several times per year. My gas never goes out. Heating water or the air with electricity is more expense than gas. 66 Agenda Item 1.
7 100. This proposal is stupid virtue signaling that will do nothing to help the environment. The world as we are currently seeing has an energy crisis and natural gas is a critical resource to help keep the lights on. Wind and solar only provided 2-3% of energy. This proposal also adds a great deal of cost to construction and maintaining homes.
101. We have a mix of appliances and have selected the option that we feel works best for each use.
102. Most cities in Santa Clara and San Mateo have adopted reach codes for new construction and are likely to readopt them for the coming code cycle. They provide consistency across jurisdictions and allow more housing to be built since all electric housing is less expensive to build.
103. No I do not I want to make my own decisions about my environmental approach. 104. While I would be open to all electric power the current infrastructure simply does not support it. Build the systems, make them reliable, and the revisit the ban, Do not put the cart before the horse. Currently on hot days people are told not to charge their electric vehicles or run AC. Are we going to be told not to coo food?
105. Never eliminate an option
106. Electric is more expensive.
107. Our grid is outdated and overloaded already. Adding more load to an aging grid just means more outages and more fires. Diversifying our energy sources reduces the likelihood of outages. Further, having natural gas may provide you the means to stay in your home during a prolonged outage. You could still cook and have access to hot water. With a little preparation, you could still use a gas furnace. It would only be necessary to have the blower motor connected to 110v outlet. This could easily be powered with a small generator. 108. Until we have alternative power choices for these devices other than electrical, this is not logical.
109. The infrastructure for this could not support this concept. Any plan to create the infrastructure that could support would be outrageously expensive for both suppliers and individual consumers.
110. Electricity creates more CO2 pollution than natural gas 111. I oppose any natural gas ban at this time for new construction because when the sun does not shine we depend 95% on natural gas. Meaning this ban will do nothing at all until we invent a way to store grid electricity from sustainable sources like wind and solar. When we have a way to store grid power this would make sense. Not to mention that in the event of power failure most people have no backup from grid power because it is too expensive. In my location I can have hot water to cook or warm my house because I have natural gas. What happens when there is a power failure?
112. Natural gas is a vital utility alternative resource. Electric is not an unlimited resource,. 113. New homes will likely last 50 years. We should be thinking about the impact of fossil fuel emissions that far out. The added cost of installing appliances that run on cleaner energy sources should be insignificant compared to the overall cost of new construction. The city should consider providing financial incentives for adoption of solar and geothermal water heaters. Anyone who has gone through PG&E new connection process in the last 5 years knows what a pain they are. The first step in the path to independence from these utility monopolies is to move away from gas. Then incentivize adoption of residential solar panels and battery backups. The future is off-grid living!
114. Burning of natural gas contributes to indoor air pollution. 67 Agenda Item 1.
8 115. Gas burns cleanly. I’d much rather see us do something about the old polluting cars or trucks. And some peoples houses are not good candidates for solar. So this is a big cost burden for them.
116. We are over reliant on an electrical grid that is not reliable. Having a single source of energy increases this reliance to our detriment.
117. people should have a choice
118. Absolutely no ban. We have invested several tens of thousands of $$ in gas appliances ust 5 years ago when we remodelled. We want to be able to replace those appliances as needed with new gas appliances when needed. Unless the city of LA is willing to reimburse the cost of electrician to run new wiring for new electric appliances when the gas appliances break down. 119. Especially given the unreliable nature of PG&E electricity, this idea is sheer idiocy. As it stands now, if PG&E cuts my power for 8 hrs or a DAY, I can deal with it using a generator. A generator CANNOT HEAT A HOUSE.
120. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy 121. It is necessary to combat global warming. The US is responsible for a whopping 40% of global greenhouse emissions
122. Any elected officials who denies the right for the people to choose energy source of their preference should be recalled and banned to serve the public 123. Gas is efficient, and there is a large shortfall in electricity generation capability. Much of the electricity purchased is generated with natural gas. The whole proposal is poorly thought out, by people with a narrative rather than any knowledge or facts. 124. It’s hypocritical. The council would just be biased against new homeowners, which we want to attract to Los Altos. It would also be purely symbolic, since so little new construction happens in Los Altos, less than 2% of units per year.
125. Absolutely against a ban on natural gas appliances! 126. Electricity relies on a secondary power source. Natural gas is a direct energy source, Thus, using natural gas is better for the environment and reduces carbon emissions, (but we need carbon dioxide to survive.)
127. No opinion
128. this ban is ridiculous - what problem does it solve and it just creates another one with electricity
129. Gas appliances are not the major issue for global warming and this is just greenwashing and not something that we need to pursue. Much of the electricity in the state of CA is generated by natural gas sources. So banning gas does not really achieve anything. Who are we kidding?
130. Most electricity in California is generated using natural gas. This ban will do nothing for the environment and just make pressure on the electric grid worse. It is nothing but feel-good posturing by uninformed individuals trying to fool other uninformed individuals 131. Banning gas appliances will have no impact on climate change. More gas will be used to produce electricity. The science doesn't support this push to ban all fossil fuels. 68 Agenda Item 1.
9 Q8: Do you want the City to ban gas cooking appliances (e.g. range cook top, stove) in new residential construction?

1. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

2. Maybe. If question 6 says to ban all gas appliances are cities allowing exceptions to the ban? I know a lot of people love cooking with gas.

3. WTF, this is the same question as 6- If I don't support a ban in general why would I support it for our City?

4. Gas provides an alternative energy source when there are electric grid failures. It is not wise to force residents onto a single energy source. You will get far better reduction in green house gas emission if the city enforces a ban on gas-powered landscape tools such as movers, weed wackers and leaf blowers which have far dirtier emissions than natural gas.

5. See above.

6. Over time this will make Los Altos an undesirable location and real estate value WILL drop

7. I believe Los Altos residents should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their homes, such as gas, electricity or solar

8. It is crazy to limit natural gas. How many times has your electricity gone out, but you were able to cook your meals and keep your house warm because of gas? When you rely on electricity only you are screwed with the power grid goes down....do your homework, the USA power grid is a mess...look at how much higher CA electric rates are then the rest of the country. Montana rate 6.7 cents, ours start at near 40 cents a KW.

9. This is a "feel good" measure that will not make any difference to anything in our environment.

10. Indoor air studies show that they produce unhealthy air.

11. Leave us alone, to make decisions that work for us. The fact that I have to take this survey is an example of an overreaching of Government

12. More objective information needs to be provided before a ban is considered. Natural gas used to be considered a clean energy alternative. Now it's considered dirty??

13. This one makes zero sense because most of our power comes from natural gas power plants now already.

14. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

15. Same answer: If gas line is available at the parcel, then should be ok to be connected and used.

If not, then ok to ban.

16. No, absolutely not. Never, ever. This is just horrible virtue signal. Leave us alone.

17. Please don't do stupid bans to profit some Los Altos City politician's private "clean" energy company. This reeks of corruption. We moved away from PGE with promise that clean energy would reduce our bills. We all know that was not true and our bills are more expensive now (than people having PGE service) Please don't lie.

18. Induction stoves- which I have - work much better than gas stoves anyway.

19. I want the city to stop this initiative completely.

20. This is alarmist nonsense.

21. Gas burners are more efficient for cooking.
69 Agenda Item 1.
10 22. New residential construction on existing gas infrastructure should be allowed. New construction on undeveloped parcel (no new gas feeder from main) should be be banned.

23. This is a “feel good” proposal and has no actual basis in science

24. I haven’t seen a powerful enough argument to ban natural gas.

25. This should not apply to remodels when it would require installi a new electric panel and new house wiring.

26. No, mainly because gas is much more controllable on the amount heat the user needs/wants as opposed to electricity.

27. You ever tried to prepare gourmet food on an electric stove top? Good luck with that. Quality of life also matters.

28. Overreach by city government

29. I expect that downed electric power could last weeks in a very severe event.

30. This is a draconian, unnecessary measure.

31. See previous comment. i.e.: electrictricty is powered in large part by natural gas.

32. Open to encouraging non-gas cooking appliances. Also, existing residences should be grand fathered to replace existing gas appliances.

33. Cooking with gas is faster and more efficient. Plus saves the environment.

34. Cooking is a very small part of energy use and this destroys the joy of cooking as well, leading ever more to the decline of household cooking and its attendant benefits for families, health and nutrition. Besides banning gas wholesale is not benefiting the environment and will lead to other types of energy dependencies that create greater issuse.

35. We as a people are over regulated now

36. Why turn new development into second class citizens!

37. It is more energy efficient to heat with gas.

38. Again this is not going to stop climate change. Give home owners their liberty.

39. People are not educated about the harmful health effects and beneficial energy savings and convenience of induction cooking. If they knew, they would want induction cooking, and anything that helps them get there is beneficial. It totally make sense for new construction, but also any incentive for replacement is welcome. Regarding health: Methane has been found to be unhealthy, especially to children and seniors. Berkeley and Stanford have done studies on gas cooking concluding that they are unhealthy. https://news.stanford.edu/2022/01/27/rethinkingcooking-gas/ The lead Stanford researcher, Rob Jackson, says "“I don’t want to breathe any extra nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide or formaldehyde,” I think parents of young children do not want to subject their kids to these toxins. And an induction cooktop is MUCH easier to clean.

40. The overall full life cycle analysis of gas vs electric is NOT CLEAR. Do not rely on biased data from an electricity provider.

41. I have been using a portable induction cooktop for several years. Anyone that has used induction would find no reason to use gas. I will be replacing my gas cooktop with induction.

42. Again, that should be up to the new home owners or contractors.

43. By switching to all-electric appliances, especially for cooking, we risk ending up with periods where we can't even cook our food.

44. Following the 1989 earthquake we could cook and several of my work mates stayed here for several days because they had no alternative to electric.

45. I prefer to cook on natural gas

46. They should just tax it to discourage it if they want to,

47. Ban would be a reduction in cooking quality and thus lifestyle

48. See above

49. Unnecessary
70 Agenda Item 1.
11 50. "Want" is too strong a word. I'm OK with it, but not jumping up and down about it.

51. There are already brown outs and our electric grid is already taxed

52. I cook on a 1400 BTU wok gas stove

53. Electric appliances are way more expensive.. businesses will take all the advantage they can from buyers

54. The electric service is not reliable and there isn't enough available to do this now.

55. See above.

56. Gas cooking is easier to control and also allows us to still cook during power outages.

57. The indoor air quality and health impacts of combusting fuels in the kitchen are proven. For safety, health, convenience, temperature control, and emissions of CO2, NOx, CH4, and others, electric cooking is better in all respects.

58. Why is this even an issue? I want choices

59. I don't care in new construction

60. It's irresponsible and foolish. Even if you accept the mistaken idea that global temperatures are a function of CO2 levels, it is ridiculous beyond words to think that anything Los Atos, or even California, might do will have a measurable effect on temperature with China and India firing up new coal generation plants on a weekly basis.

61. Same as above.

62. Electricity creates more CO2 pollution than natural gas

63. Indoor ban is okay because Induction heating cooktops are great and makes this choice feasible An electric oven is also okay because I would assume many homes like mine already have one .

But I oppose the ban if it includes outdoor barbecue that I depend on most of the year for my cooking.

64. Residents should be allowed to choose alternatives for cooking.

65. Electrical cooking appliances have been around for decades and are comparable in cost to gas counterparts and less expensive to operate. Welcome to 2022!

66. Same

67. I say "yes" because I am neutral, and obviously the city wants to do something, mistaking action for result, so, fine, ban gas cooktops. The amount of gas consumed by gas cooktops is negligible, but go ahead, feel good about banning something.

68. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

69. Any elected officials who denies the right for the people to choose energy source of their preference should be recalled and banned to serve the public

70. See elaboration above. In addition, I prefer to cook with a gas cooktop rather than electricity.

71. It’s hypocritical. The council would just be biased against new homeowners, which we want to attract to Los Altos. It would also be purely symbolic, since so little new construction happens in Los Altos, less than 2% of units per year.

72. A waste of city time to regulate and enforce, not to mention bad for the environment

73. I do not know

74. See above

75. I want the city government including the commissions and the council to do the work required and to stop coming up with proposals that strip the rights of residents. That's not what you were elected to do and appointed commissions have no role in taking away the rights of residents. 71 Agenda Item 1.
12 Q9: Do you want the City to require you to replace any defective/broken/end-of-life gas appliance, including gas cooking appliance, in a residence with an electric appliance?

1. This maybe difficult and expensive. Availability may be limited, you may need to rewire your house , which may be expensive and electricians may not be readily available. (Imagine being without a furnace for a month.).

2. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

3. hell no. since when do we apply new code to existing construction. over reach

4. I think cities should encourage replacing gas with electric appliances but it's not always possible. If cities want to require it then they should pay all the costs from switching over.

5. The City has no business telling me or anyone else what to buy!! Get rid of the progressive liberal mind set and work on something more important- like crime and homeless scumbags encroaching into our city.

6. My house doesn’t have the electrical wiring for this.

7. The phrasing of this question is presented in a way such that the results of the survey as to this question should be invalidated.

8. Many house electrical systems are not wired for this. Such a ban would force residents to make a costly conversion to run the required electrical power circuits and then expose them to energy failure should the electric grid fail.

9. It should be the owner's choice!

10. I believe Los Altos residents should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their homes, such as gas, electricity or solar

11. Because supply chain issues make the wait unrealistic

12. Craziness!

13. City needs to focus on WATER, ELECTRICITY, ROADS, SEWER SYSTEM, & TRAFFIC in Los Altos. We are being asked to conserve and the only plan city has is to increase our costs and reduce our services. All these services are at breaking point in Los Altos and you want to add housing and remove gas appliances. Please focus on problems we have, and not make them worse.

14. Most homes would need to have their electrical services upgraded to take the increased load of the new electrical appliances. My home had a 100 Amp service when I bought it, during our remodel we upgraded to a 200 AMP panel, now I'm being told that some homeowners are installing 400 amp services to have capacity for the new electrical mandates. It's not as easy as just buying appliances and installing them, there are significant secondary costs.

15. There are many consequences to replacing. For one, it is cheaper to repair. For another, every place with electric such as induction burner requires buying a whole new cook set. Also, have you heard the expression “cooking with gas”. It’s simply better.

16. If the city requires this, We will simply spend less time in Los Altos and more time in another home.

17. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

18. This would be a hardship on some people, especially older people, and people living in older houses. Also, it is predicted that there will be electric power outages due to not enough "clean" electricity--so it does not make sense to go all electric at this point until there is enough electricity to meet all the needs throughout the state.

19. Undue cost and disruption.
72 Agenda Item 1.
13 20. No, absolutely not. Never, ever. What right do you have to force us to use an appliance of your choice. If an electric appliance works and is the economic right choice you have no reason to mandate it.

21. People should be allowed to fix their existing appliances.

22. Not sure of the relative cost.

23. Do you have any idea ho expensive heat pump water heaters are?

24. City should focus on figuring out the traffic congestion on the key city roads, lack of water in the city, lack of electricity, before adding more housing and ADU's. Those are more important things.

25. This would be unbelievably expensive. If you are retired like me who is going to pay for it?

26. This is alarmist nonsense.

27. Critical minerals are required to make electric appliances. Some don’t have the funds to pay to covert their gas connection to a 220 for a dryer or oven.

28. Repair replacement should not unduly force resident to upgrade (including any required constructions) its residential infrastructure.

29. This would require quite an expenditure of funds for cookware compatible with an induction range in addition to the cost of the induction range. I burn a lot of food with an electric range.

30. No, mainly because gas is much more controllable on the amount heat the user needs/wants as opposed to electricity.

31. expensive and limiting

32. This is over reach.

33. Overreach by city government

34. Replacing a gas appliance with electrical could require the house to be rewired to supply the necessary current. It could also require an upgrade of the load panel and an upgrade of the PGE wiring into the house. The cost of these changes could be HUGE.

35. I feel much more strongly about this the new construction. I feel it is unfair to require homeowners to incur the additional expense of electric appliances and wiring when they purchased homes with gas appliances and gas pipes. Further, given how electricity is often generated, it’s not clear to me that it is any more environmentally friendly.

36. As stated above, additionally, replacing a gas unit with an electrical will most likely entail very differently configured appliances and therefore the dimensions of an electric unit are unlikely to fit into the space where a gas appliance once stood. It could make the kitchen require additional remodeling. This is unfair.

37. This is not enforceable and a hardship on us homeowners. Expect a recall if council votes for this .

38. This is an unnecessary intrusion into the running of my household.

39. Same reasoning!

40. See above response

41. This adds unnecessary expenses at no value to the environment.

42. This is another huge expense that is a horrible and dictatorial tax being imposed by the our city.

How is this justified? If the city wants to do this THEY should pay for it vs. imposing the whim of a few extreme minded city officials and their cronies.

43. That is over reach by the city.

44. This is beyond stupid!

45. Gas cooking is superior.

46. Too many constrained regulations

47. I have a small gas floor heater. I’m a widow on a fixed government pension & I couldn’t afford to replace the gas heater (house built in 1945) with an electric heating system. 73 Agenda Item 1.
14 48. I currently have a gas stove but use it as rarely as I can. Instead I regularly use an induction hotplate which I LOVE! I don't have to use the noisy fan when I am cooking on it, and it does not generate heat in the kitchen. Plus I am afraid of the bad health effects of the toxins the gas stove emits even when off. Unfortunately, gas cooking appliances leak methane even when they are turned off. I plan to replace the gas stove soon with an induction cooktop, and I look forward to the incentives that will help me make this cost effective and provide me with exceptional cost savings as well as health benefits. And again, it is MUCH easier to clean.

49. This could lead to major expense if it requires an electrical panel upgrade. Exception should be made available when cost would greatly exceed a box swap expense.

50. Not their choice or right at all to decide what appliances I choose to replace any defective or broken down appliances with.

51. We are in favor of replacing gas appliances with gas appliances.

52. I am not interested in subsidizing appliance replacement with my property taxes.

53. same above

54. There are cooking techniques favored by some groups that will not work on an electric stove top. The Reach codes are a racist policy.

55. Absolutely NOT. Cost, especially for seniors, would be prohibitive. Also, this is still a free country where we must decide how to fix what we own.

56. See above

57. Unnecessary

58. Absolutely not.

59. That is over reach and will increase costs to people - especially those who can not afford it

60. As righteous as electric energy is, it costs trillions more, hurts the poor, and does not solve the problem.

61. Cost is pretty high when changing from gas to others. PG&E services are not stable, there are lots of outage every year.

62. You have to make allowances for seniors on fixed incomes.

63. I don’t want the city or any other government agency to tell what to do in my house or personal life.. we are having too much of that lately everywhere.

64. Requiring this for new house construction would be bad enough, but forcing older home owners expensive retrofits would be onerous.

65. efficient electric heaters and stoves are very expensive. Also, older homes may not have enough amperage.

66. This puts an enormous expense on homeowners, especially seniors, and accomplishes nothing of value. See above

67. We invested in running gas to our cook top and the specs of our opening are for gas. Changing it would be expensive and very frustrating.

68. It is highly unlikely that Los Altos will be the first city to do this, but it will be necessary and prudent to stop burning natural gas in buildings. Appliance standards and electric replacements at end of life are a common sense method to ease the transition, especially when combined with financial supports for low and moderate income households and rental property.

69. Every time you make a new requirement, the replacement costs dramatically more and doesn’t work as well. What happens with rolling black outs. The individuals with the “good” ideas never consider the unintended consequences. Maybe they do, which is more disheartening.

70. Just quit. What if the grid goes down?

71. It could cost from $5,000 for a simple electric service upgrade to over $20,000 if underground wiring or if transformers need to be updated.
74 Agenda Item 1.
15 72. I want the City Council to get its nose out of my personal business. If they can't find anything useful to do, at least stop doing damage.

73. Electricity creates more CO2 pollution than natural gas

74. This would be far too expensive for homeowners like me because I have a gas furnace, gas water heater, and gas cooktop. It also would not allow me to convert my gas water heater to a tankless solution that would save both water and gas use.

75. Residents should be allowed to choose alternatives and not be forced to one utility. Especially if both are available!!

76. The city should provide financial incentives to switch but mandating that the appliances be replaced with electric could be a burden on some residents. And guess what? If you need to upgrade the electrical meter due to increased load and file an application with PG&E, you are looking at 2+ years in the best case. I am living through that misery that no one else deserves to go through.

77. This is outrageous. I can’t imagine you all are going to make people that spent $15k on good quality ranges and ovens replace them when something small goes wrong. I’m in that boat. This is like an ex post facto law, punishing me for a decision I recently made.

78. I think there should be a variety of incentives (rebates, etc) to encourage a switch but not a requirement. For seniors or limited income residents and others, cost can be a significant burden.

79. only if broken

80. Unless the city is willing to reimburse upto $80,000 for all current gas appliances and for electricians cost

81. The cost of replacing, rather than repairing, a gas furnace is prohibitive for many people.

82. More idiocy, especially as it regards gas furnace.

83. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

84. It is idiotic. Often if a location is plumbed for gas, the homeowner would have to add wiring for an equivalent electrical appliance. Since there is actually NO BENEFIT for shifting to electricity, it makes no sense and is not cost effective.

85. Geez when will it stop?????

86. Two years ago I purchased an expensive gas oven. It was an investment. I cook at home and that is one of my pleasures. If the city restricted my ability to use this oven, I would be livid. I had no warning when I purchased the oven and you can’t just change rules at your whim. You need to grandfather these items and allow people to use them until they are no longer usable. If something breaks you don’t just throw it away if it’s an investment. I feel as if you’re trying to control me and that’s not the type of city I want to live in.

87. absolutely not - I should be able to use what I want in the home I own

88. See above.

Q10: Do you want the city to require replacement of gas appliances including gas cooking appliances such as gas cook tops, with electric appliances in the event of a remodel?

1. I hate my new electric cook top. It remains hot for at least 1/2 hour after I turn it off. Now I need an air conditioner to cool down my hot house.

2. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up. 75 Agenda Item 1.
16 3. I think you should encourage replacing gas with electric but not require it. If the city requires it then the city should pay for it.

4. Same as above, get out of our lives. Don't try to legislate the green agenda in our city

5. Only in rooms being remodeled. If I remodel my bathroom I don't want to be required to replace my gas cooking top

6. Many house electrical systems are not wired for this.

7. Individuals should have the choice. Preferences Include cooking styles warranties on appliances, where the appliance is made, how easy is it to get replacement parts, and loyalty to a brand, type. This is too early to pass any type of work ordinance on these matters. There should be a street fair with S ilicon Valley expertise In this field presenting the Fax.

8. It should be the owner's choice!

9. I believe Los Altos residents should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their homes, such as gas, electricity or solar

10. Craziness!

11. This increases the costs of remodels unnecessarily.

12. There are many consequences to replacing. For one, it is cheaper to repair. For another, every place with electric such as induction burner requires buying a whole new cook set. Also, have you heard the expression “cooking with gas”. It’s simply better.

13. Homeowners decision

14. Can there be an incentive? Maybe reduction in permit fees?

15. This one makes zero sense because most of our power comes from natural gas power plants now already.

16. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

17. They should allow gas hook ups along with electric--and transition to all electric in the future-- same as in #6. They should not require this in minor remodels at all.

18. Undue cost and disruption -- remodeling bathroom should not effect ban on cooking gas or gas heating -- any narrow carve-out would not be acceptable (no ban - clear and certain terms).

Should be left to the home owner. Long term view would sway all to electrical and heat pump, but this decision is with the home owner.

19. No, absolutely not. Never, ever. What right do you have to force us to use an appliance of your choice. Why do you want to tell us how we can cook?

20. How many times do you want to ask the same question ?

21. Omg I have not used gas stove for over ten years. People tell me my dinners are so good “like a restaurant dinner.” The people creating this survey are ignorant!

22. Again unbelievably expensive and complete government overreach. This will prevent lower income people from being able to better their life.

23. Please stop until electrical power is as clean as gas. Electrical power still requires the burning of fossil fuels. This is an ill-conceived attempt to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Until the country is in a position to create electricity from all “clean” sources, this expensive bureaucratic effort will not have the impact projected. In fact, it may be worse than using natural gas. This will be a major cost and time consuming exercise for homeowners, businesses and contractors and will make owning a home or business or building or remodeling in Los Altos more of a nightmare than it already is. Other cities in the Bay Area, for instance Los Altos Hills and Atherton were much more adept at pivoting to allow for building permits and inspections to take place during Covid-19. Los Altos, San Jose and others were deer in the headlights lost in their own bureaucracy.

24. This is alarmist nonsense.
76 Agenda Item 1.
17 25. It’s a free country!

26. Repair replacement should not unduly force resident to upgrade (including any required constructions) its residential infrastructure.

27. No, mainly because gas is much more controllable on the amount heat the user needs/wants as opposed to electricity.

28. This is over reach.

29. Overreach by city government

30. The requirement could mean a complete rewire of the residence, even if you are remodeling a bathroom. The complete rewire would trigger additional changes such as sprinkler systems.

Both of those changes will trigger a complete re-assessment of the property by the county instead of an incremental change.

31. See above

32. See sbove

33. This is unjustified - see reasons above

34. Over reach by the city.

35. No one will ever get a permit again. Do you want to go there?

36. Gas cooking is a superior culinary experience.

37. See above

38. Once again, I LOVE my induction hotplate. I think people are not educated about the convenience, energy efficiency, ease of cleaning and health benefits of induction cooking or they would not want gas. And I hate the noise of the fan and the heat generated by the cooktop. I believe forthcoming financial incentives will be good - providing me with up-to-date, efficient and healthier appliances.

39. Again, gas appliances, especially cook tops are far superior to electric versions.

40. same above

41. If I remodel my existing kitchen within its footprint, maybe move the appliances to different spots even, gas cooking should remain an option.

42. Again see above

43. Again - it's too strongly worded. I'm ambivalent.

44. Like I said: I do not want the city to tell me what I can or can’t do in my house.

45. How do you define "remodel

46. see above

47. I think homeowners should make their own decisions.

48. When appliances are being replaced anyway, this is a great time to implement the safety, health, performance, efficiency, and convenience benefits of electric appliances.

49. It might add to the cost.

50. Same reason

51. No for the same reasons as question 7. The current ban that I opposed already has a provision for a major or almost tear down remodel. This seems to be another creeping escalation to force the majority of homeowners that oppose a natural gas ban to move in that direction. Stop this nonsense - enough is enough.

52. Same comment above

53. The same reasoning as before with respect to the fantastic utility company we have operating in NorCal. If the existing electrical meter can support the load, makes sense to mandate. But please don’t have residents lining up at PG&E otherwise. Thanks

54. People remodel without touching stoves.

55. This needs more clarity. For a kitchen remodel, for example, I would accept being required to switch to gas kitchen appliances. I would not want to have a kitchen upgrade force me to also 77 Agenda Item 1.
18 upgrade my furnace or water heater. Would a bathroom remodel require a water heater upgrade?

56. Again, I am *neutral* on this, because a remodel is VOLUNTARY.

57. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

58. If it is a complete new house, then it’s OK I guess.

59. See above
Q11: Do you want the City to ban gas cooking appliances in new commercial construction such as restaurants?

1. stay out of our personal lives. People are moving out of California in droves, while Government overloads our lives with so many restrictions. Go after India, China, Africa. They are the big polluters. Don't waste your time on little things like a gas dryer.

2. Some ethnic cooking, like asian, is not the same without gas.

3. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

4. It is up to the owners of the businesses to determine how best to run their businesses. Get the city out of our pockets and cut the budget of useless bureaucrats

5. No food if the power goes out?

6. If the electric grid fails, restaurants go out of business during the grid failure.

7. This is a Draconian method. How many new restaurants do you think will be installing commercial commercial kitchens. Isn't there a protocol already for the best way of cooking?

8. Electric cooking is not precise. Restaurant quality will go downhill!

9. I believe Los Altos businesses should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their businesses, such as gas, electricity or solar

10. If we ever have one of those long periods of power outage then these places would have to shut down completely. If they had gas, they can still cook.

11. Craziness!

12. This will not solve anything.

13. Talk to any Chef and ask them what they would rather use to cook, Gas or Electric - they choose gas. As far as other types of properties, other than restaurants, let the owner make the choice in consult with his engineering team.

14. Negative impact on small businesses

15. There are many reasons why chef's at restaurants prefer gas. Most meals are cooked late afternoon and evening exactly the same time of day when electric rates peak.

16. Let's not make it even harder for struggling restaurants and commercial kitchens already devastated by COVID.

18. I don't know because I think restaurants depend on gas stove tops. This would be a financial burden on restaurants where it is difficult to make a profit. I would offer an incentive if the city demands electric.

19. This type of construction and business will require a heavy use of energy for years to come--so it makes more sense.

20. Gas cooking ban in new construction of i.e. restaurants, -- Yes. e.g. restaurants, no. Should delineate what you mean. New commercial apartment construction? perhaps Yes, perhaps No.

But this survey is meaningless if leave it to discretion. 78 Agenda Item 1.
19 21. No, absolutely not. Never, ever. What right do you have to force a business into how it can cook your meals. What now, an electric BBQ joint? Idiots.

22. Like I said, the math does not add up and you don't generate enough electricity right now and adding electrical appliances in restaurants to the load does not make sense.

23. There is a big difference between cooking on a gas stove and electric stove as heat cannot be controlled in the same way. This would be detrimental to restaurant

24. Gas appliances are more efficient than electric . You also cannot get the same effect cooking electric

25. Gas is a much better source of fuel for cooking. Electric power is not all “clean” at this point. This effort is certifiably crazy.

26. Induction cooktops induction cooking is faster, more responsive and cleaner than gas. We love ours!

27. This is alarmist nonsense.

28. Ask the city council to two identical meals, at the same time, one on gas the other on electric.

Every night for a month. Then compare the time it takes to make the meal, and the utility bills.

29. Such requirements on new commercial construction would be fair -- cost of doing business. This should INCLUDE ban on gas space heaters (outdoor).

30. This may not be practical for some restaurants due to type of cooking

31. No, mainly because gas is much more controllable on the amount heat the user needs/wants as opposed to electricity.

32. hurts our businesses with increased regulations and higher costs

33. Unless you want to have inferior chefs making inferior meals.

34. Overreach by city government

35. Electrical cooking appliances are totally impractical in a restaraunt.

36. I am not as sure about this answer. A lot of commercial establishments may not need access to power in the same way a resident would in the event of an emergency. However, on the other hand their services may be very valuable if they had access to gas when electricity goes down.

37. I don’t feel strongly

38. Restaurants would not be able to run efficiently without natural gas (with present day technology).

39. Commercial Operations need to use gas to cook. It is safer as well. Electric surfaces do not cool down as quickly as gas burners do once they are turned off.

40. I understand that chefs prefer gas cooking. It gives them greater control.

41. Terrible food and cooking as a result. Restaurants will refuse to locate here and we already have a loser set of restaurant options in Los Altos.

42. Over reach.

43. Again, ridiculous. Great chefs always use gas!

44. Gas cooking is faster and more efficient.

45. I am agnostic about businesses. But you don’t allow this answer.

46. Yes, for the same reasons that induction is good for me at home, it will be good for restaurants and restaurant workers. The French Laundry and other top restaurants have induction cooking.

47. I don't know enough about commercial cooking appliances to judge this

48. It would be extremely difficult and costly for commercial kitchens to go all electric.

49. Absolutely not. Gas is overwhelmingly the choice of top chefs and this will cause those chefs to go elsewhere and severely diminish the quality of restaurants in Los Altos forcing residents to have to drive elsewhere to eat out.

50. It should be up to a restaurant to decide what sort of cooking appliances they want to use.

51. same above
79 Agenda Item 1.
20 52. Most chefs prefer an open flame. Some recipes won’t be possible. Such a law would essentially prevent new restaurants from being built in Los Altos.

53. See above

54. It's hard enough for Los Altos restaurants to compete. Now they want to make it so that the dishes won't be as good as they are in other towns?

55. You can not have good cooking without real fire.

56. Same readon

57. see above. gas stoves are much better for quality cooking than electric.

58. This was done in Sunnyvale and went into effect at beginning of 2021. There has been no pushback from new restaurants that I’m aware of. Many restaurant owners, chefs and employees are seeing the benefits of cooler work environments, improved employee safety and control over cooking processes.

59. That's up to the restaurant owner.

60. Many cultures have developed their own styles of cooking over open flames. This contributes to our diversity which is our strength. Right? Besides, it's none of the damn Council's business.

61. This question should be polled to restaurant owners.

62. It may not be ideal but let’s start now so we can make the world a better place for the next generation.

63. i love to cook with gas but we must help the environment,

64. Again, I am neutral. I think it is a bad idea, but since it is NEW construction, then someone looking at beginning new construction knows what they're getting into, so go for it, make it even tougher to run a restaurant in Los Altos.

65. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

66. Ask professional cooks if they want to use gas appliances, or can cook as well on one. Again, people with no specific knowledge, or common sense for that matter, defining how other people should behave.

67. If it is a complete new situation, then it’s OK.

68. See above

69. The owner of Enchante Hotel spoke about this issue when this was proposed in 2020.

Restaurant chefs do not want to cook with electricity. It is very difficult to hire chefs and banning gas cooking appliances in restaurants and requiring replacement of defective gas appliances with electric will make it very difficult for Los Altos restaurant owners to hire chefs. Be prepared to eat your own boring cooking!
Q12: Do you want the City to require installation of electric cooking appliances with any remodel of a commercial space such as a restaurant?

1. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

2. Get the city out of our private lives.

3. If the electric grid fails, restaurants go out of business during the grid failure.

4. Way too early to implement This suggestion it needs community buy in based on facts

5. I believe Los Altos businesses should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their commercial space, such as gas, electricity or solar

6. Craziness!

7. Talk to any Chef and ask them what they would rather use to cook, Gas or Electric - they choose gas.
80 Agenda Item 1.
21 8. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

9. see above

10. This might be too cost prohibitive --since it is difficult enough to operate restaurants at a profit as it is--since this type of business typically is risky.

11. Same answer: gas cooking ban in new construction of i.e. restaurants, -- Yes. e.g. restaurants, no. Should delineate what you mean. New commercial apartment construction? perhaps Yes, perhaps No. But this survey is meaningless if leave it to discretion.

12. No, absolutely not. Never, ever. What right do you have to force a business into how it can cook your meals. What now, an electric BBQ joint? Idiots.

13. Same as above.

14. Please no. What a waste of time and money - this will not have the desired impact until electrical energy is generated from clean sources

15. This is alarmist nonsense.

16. Such requirements on new commercial construction would be fair -- cost of doing business. This should INCLUDE ban on gas space heaters (outdoor).

17. No, mainly because gas is much more controllable on the amount heat the user needs/wants as opposed to electricity.

18. hurts our businesses with increased regulations and higher costs

19. Overreach by city government

20. If electric appliances are better than gas, the commercial establishments will choose them. You should not require them to do it. They should have freedom. Additionally, new restaurants often buy used equipment. This is a big cost savings when trying to get a business off the ground. You will make a significant impediment to entrepreneurial operations.

21. See sbove

22. Terrible food and cooking as a result. Restaurants will refuse to locate here and we already have a loser set of restaurant options in Los Altos.

23. There Weill be no more remodels.

24. Many restaurants already use induction. Ask them what they prefer. Do not add more restrictions to a category that is already suffering from the pandemic.

25. See above

26. For the same reasons above, yes. Electric cooking appliances are much healthier, convenient, energy efficient, easier to clean.

27. Same answer as above.

28. It should be up to a restaurant to decide what sort of cooking appliances they want to use.

29. gas is just better cooking

30. Most chefs prefer an open flame. Some recipes won’t be possible.

31. See above

32. See above.

33. This could be part of a phased implementation. It doesn’t all have to be done at once.

34. Restaurants should be able to use gas, e.g., for wok cooking. Commercial spaces are different so I would say YES for them.

35. No for the same reasons I oppose for residential use.

36. This needs more clarity. If a restaurant adds more seating space through a remodel, would that require switching the kitchen to electric? That seems like an unfair cost burden. 81 Agenda Item 1.
22 37. Again, since it appears you need to do something symbolic, at least do it to somebody else.

38. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

39. See above
Q14: Do you want the City to ban gas fireplaces in new residential construction?

1. Gas fireplaces are unnecessary. Gas fireplaces are useless.

2. I would at least like to option to replace an existing wood burning fireplace with a gas fireplace.

3. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

4. Again. This is a way to heat the home when the electrical goes out during the winter. It is the only time we use the gas fireplace.

5. Who uses their fireplace anymore? If the data shows a huge problem with gas fireplaces then maybe gas should be banned but where is the data on this?

6. Keep out of our lives. Most people like fireplaces except liberals, so let them not build with gas appliances

7. No because it forces residents to rely on a single energy source for heating, this is dangerous.

8. I believe Los Altos residents should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their homes, such as gas, electricity or solar

9. Craziness!

10. Never did understand why people have fireplaces when we don't have that many cold days. In parts of the country with real winter, gas fireplaces are not that common.

11. We took out our wood burning fireplace and replaced it with a natural gas fireplace as a backup to our furnace for heat in the winter. Thankfully, we only need it once or twice a year.

12. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

13. I'm a little undecided on this. I would rather see gas fireplaces than wood burning fire places in new construction.

14. Same answer: If gas line is available at the parcel, then should be ok to be connected and used.

If not, then ok to ban.

15. Screw you guys. I like my gas fireplace. Near 0 pollution.

16. I am mixed on fireplaces because I’m asthmatic. We should not be using natural gas, but it burns more cleanly than wood so that I can tolerate winter a little better.

17. This is alarmist nonsense.

18. New residential construction on existing gas infrastructure should be allowed. New construction on undeveloped parcel (no new gas feeder from main) should be be banned..

19. Wood is worse for the environment.

20. Overreach by city government

21. I am less invested in this answer. Gas could provide heat if one's electric heating system fails in an emergency.

22. We are older people. Gas is more reliable than electric. As I stated before, the only time we have used our gas fireplace is to heat the house when the electricity was out. I do not trust PG and E.

23. This is a waste of time And just plain mean

24. Easier to take in new construction.
82 Agenda Item 1.
23 25. Gas appliances leak methane...as Rob Jackson of Stanford says - nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and formaldehyde. Do I want to breathe this, or have my family breathe it? There are some great, non-gas alternatives. https://modernblaze.com/blogs/shopping-guides/water-vaporfireplace-buying-guide

26. The look of a fire can still achieved using the latest in electrical fireplaces

27. This is the only aspect of the proposal I could be on board with, since gas fireplaces can be somewhat of a safety hazard too.

28. Gas fireplaces are more economical and less polluting than wood or coal burning fire places, but it's not an essential or efficient heating method. It's purely decorative. A gas heater would probably be more practical. But it should be up to the home owners if they want to use a gas fireplace instead of a more economical heating mechanism.

29. See above

30. Didn't we just go through asking people to replace wood-burning fireplaces with gas, because it's cleaner?

31. I just installed gas inserts into my two fireplaces. It lowered my energy bill, reduced CO2 (no wood), and I can heat just one room in my large house saving energy.

32. No feelings either way.

33. Unless we live in a communist socierty. No

34. Wood fireplaces are already banned, I believe, so wouldn't this mean no one can have a fireplace at all?

35. Having just one or two gas appliances will require a gas line and negates some of the savings of all-electric construction.

36. What the hell? And burn wood instead

37. There are not effective electrical fireplaces, so this is a ludicrous idea.

38. Fireplaces are not necessities.

39. I currently depend on a central gas furnace for heating that is supplemented by a gas fireplace in both my living and family rooms. In the winter I use mainly the family room fireplace for heating because it is uses less gas overall than if I used the gas furnace because I am only heating one room. This approach is great for both new or existing construction. Conversion would be many tens of thousand dollars.

40. I wish that my fire places were gas fired but I don't want to spend the money to have them converted to a gas system. So I have not used them for at least 25 years.

41. I don’t even know what this means. Burn wood? Fireplaces become decorative only ?

42. Wood smoke is a bigger problem.

43. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

44. On this point, I think fireplaces in general are an appliance of the past. We don't need fireplaces in homes at all

45. see above

46. What's the alternative to a gas fireplace? Do electric fireplaces exist?

47. Hands off our amenities!
Q15: Do you want the City to require replacing existing gas appliances with electric appliances prior to sale of a residential or commercial building?

1. More pollution throwing away good appliances into dumps. 83 Agenda Item 1.
24 2. Absolutely not. This would be stupid and expensive in the event the house is a tear down or a remodel. It may require electrical work and most houses are sold with some appliances. Best the new owners can choose what they want. Don’t burden the seller. Also, the new owner can do it before they move in if they want.

3. We need diversity in power supplies. Electric power is highly unreliable especially in summer with frequent brown outs and winter storms. Gas is cheep and electricity costs keep going up.

4. this is an outrageous proposal

5. That's going too far.

6. Get the hell out of our lives! Take your liberal agenda somewhere else

7. No because it forces residents to rely on a single energy source for heating, this is dangerous.

8. Need more facts.

9. I believe Los Altos residents and businesses should have a choice in using different energy sources, in their homes or businesses, such as gas, electricity or solar

10. Craziness!

11. This should be buyers responsibility

12. Require NO. But do consider an incentive.

13. The proposed gas ban will not have any measurable effect on global warming. It is simply a symbolic gesture to please a few people who are off-the-chart with their opinions. Why not do something really serious? Like ban cars from downtown Los Altos. Make downtown into one huge pedestrian-only area. Even that will not have any measurable effect on global warming. At least it will provide some pleasure to Los Altos residents.

14. In particular, this does not make sense in the case of older houses, since some of the older houses might be razed to put in new construction either right away or eventually--so this would be a waste of money and resources. In any case, this puts a burden (including financial) on people selling a house, especially elderly people.

15. Undue cost and disruption.

16. Screw you guys with even the thought of this. Is this liberty? I'm going to have to recommend you take a class in the law.

17. Again unbelievably expensive.

18. Unsure

19. This is alarmist nonsense.

20. I want the new owners to choose the appliances of their choice.

21. Repair replacement should not unduly force resident to upgrade (including any required constructions) its residential or commercial building infrastructure.

22. This creates undue hardship to seniors who wish to downsize their homes. The turnover of homes leads to a higher appraisal and gets more funds to the schools.

23. This should be up to the new owner.

24. You are kidding, right?

25. Our house is not wired to allow for an electric stove and we would have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to upgrade our electric panel.

26. You can't be serious.

27. Overreach by city government

28. The cost to do the modifications could easily exceed $50,000, making many houses "unsellable".

29. Absolutely not.

30. Electricity production causes an impact on the environment. The production of solar panels cause an impact on the environment. The media has communicated that there is not enough electrical production to meet our current needs. I do not pretend to know all the impacts nor all the wide ranging effects of natural gas and electricity. However I do not agree with unilaterally restricting the use of natural gas.
84 Agenda Item 1.
25 31. This will reduce the value of Los Altos real estate and will accomplish nothing for global warming!

32. Wasteful.

33. Easier to take when new construction and up for sale. Emerald Hills requires all electric in new construction.

34. We can make buildings much healthier and energy efficient if we can make the change, and upon sale would make it convenient.

35. This could produce a major expense for the seller. Electrical conversion could be required in a remodel that the buyer may choose.

36. This would be a huge burden on existing home owners.

37. This is a major imposition on the home seller, which may require expensive rewiring. Electric appliances like stoves and ovens require higher amperage than regular appliances, which requires upgrading of breakers and, in case of an older house, may require additional power to be brought in to the house. This requires expensive, professional work.

38. I suppose the buyer could agree to replace all that at their expense before occupancy. But it’s a drag, a friction on real estate transactions.

39. Absolutely not- again, cost to seniors and too much “Big Brother “ meddling

40. See above

41. where is John Gault?

42. OMG, the cost!

43. How stupid is this!! The new owners can do what they want in this area. This would be especially onerous for people or estates selling their homes

44. Putting cost on sellers who might have difficult financial situations feels wrong.

45. This could be phased in over time. There will be plenty of work to keep up with replacements and no need to require a tear-out of equipment that is not at end-of-life.

46. Terrible idea! Forcing changes prior to the sale of a house places a terrible burden on homeowners and you don’t know the financial situation, maybe they have to sell the house.

Taxes and regulations make it prohibitive to live here, you’re forcing middle income homeowners out. Also, this would create an underground market for the items you are trying to ban.

47. THIS IS AN INSANE IDEA. If I wanted to sell my home, it would be hugely expensive and timeconsuming to switch my water heater, furnace, gas fireplace, clothes dryer, stove to electric. It would be prohibitively expensive.

48. Yu should realize that induction cooktops are a hazard for people with pacemakers.

49. If an investor buys a commercial property without this knowledge [as is now the case for existing owners] the financials did not take this cost into consideration. This policy essentially changes the premise for the investment and is not fair.

50. Again punishing people for recent decisions and an ex post facto law.

51. Are you kidding. Add cost & headache to a homeowner when they sell a home. You really must be kidding about this one, or the commission needs to resign.

52. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

53. The city does a poor job at almost everything. Why in the world would they want to take something like this on, aside from increasing staff levels and city operating cost for the residents.

54. This is a really crazy idea. Like, are we to be held prisoners here?

55. Why would you put the burden on someone who is selling their house such as an older person to replace an oven? This is a terrible idea. I am even shocked that you have it on the survey.

People made big investments and it’s not OK.
85 Agenda Item 1.
26 56. undue burden on homeowners

57. Allow the buyer to replace them, so that they can decide what brand/model they get.

58. See above

59. Can you just imagine the extra expense this would incur! Seniors who finally sell their homes and hope to use the proceeds of the sale to fund their move to an assisted-living facility will suffer because this huge expense will take a significant bite out of the money they hoped to live on.

Q16: I want to vote in a citywide election on whether the city should ban natural gas usage in homes.

1. If the city council thinks gas appliances should be banned, I want a vote to see if the residents agree. If the city council thinks usage of gas appliances should be left to the homeowners, I see no need for a vote.

2. Let the people vote!

3. If you actually did a non partisan survey, you would find most people don't want electric only and don't want bureaucrats interfering with our lives.

4. A ban will cause problems when the power goes out.

5. I do not want the cost of an election to vote on whether we should acquiesce to state law.

6. I don't think a ban on natural gas should even be considered. The Los Altos government should focus on ridding our community of the far more toxic and noise polluting gas-powered garden tools. All city vehicles should be electric, an ideal solution to reduce pollution for driving around Los Altos.

7. First off, common sense says this crazy notion should never be considered in the first place. But, if crazy folks are thinking about doing this then let's have a discussion and a vote.

8. People have been brainwashed by the constant propagandizing about the Climate agenda, judging by all the Ukrainian flags I see around town, people are uniformed. The City Council is also uninformed, the fact that they want to phase out a cheap efficient fuel that people use to cook and heat their homes speaks volumes on their malignancy. They want brownie-points from the Globalists instead of doing what makes the most sense. Doing nothing, and leaving us to make our own decisions makes the most sense. What happens when the power goes out, which it will when all this increased demand hits the grid? The grid is not ready for this.

9. The Environmental Commission is studying/evaluating what's right for the future of our city.

Based on their research, they make environmentally sound recommendations. They're on the right track.

10. This is government overreach at its worst.

11. This issue is too important with too many details to leave it to a committee of people who already have their opinions.

12. People should be able to choose how they live in their own homes. We need gas and electricity.

13. With PG&E struggling with solvency and struggling with keeping the electrical grid stable, it makes no sense to rely on a single power source like electricity. It will only get worse as EV demands on our grid increases. This one makes zero sense because most of our power comes

14. A citywide election would be almost as good as a countrywide election on this matter. It is the only fair way to decide this controversial issue. Councilmembers were never elected to change our overall lifestyle and way of life. The "Chosen Five" need to put their egos aside and let the residents vote. November is not far away and the ballot will be here anyway. Go for it !!!

15. People who live in affluent areas need to take a look at ALL the ways that their life style contributes to their carbon footprint. Use of natural gas is just one small area where they contribute. I think there is a lot of hypocrisy around this issue. Some people feel sanctimonious because they drive EVs (are able to afford them) or have all electric appliances, but at the same 86 Agenda Item 1.
27 time they consume a lot of manufactured items (including electric vehicles--which they are able to afford to keep replacing); travel a lot--e.g., take a lot of commercial airline flights for vacations or other recreational, leisure uses; build or buy huge houses that suck up a lot of energy resources of any kind--including electricity; and ultimately may have a larger carbon foot print than people who just have a few gas appliances. There are studies comparing the carbon footprints of affluent, versus other communities, that show this disparity.

16. Undue cost and disruption.

17. Nope, just kill this idea.

18. Don’t put it up to a vote. Leave it as is.

19. This reeks of corruption.

20. Don’t have a vote because clearly people are to ignorant and selfish to do what is best!

21. Natural gas is the most efficient and clean way to provide energy to Los Altos. Most people don’t seem to understand that our electric plants use gas to fuel our electric grid. Adding these requirements does Nothing to improve the environment except raise the cost of energy for everyone.

22. I think change is hard but a necessity. Leadership is hard but a necessity. Unfortunately most people don’t embrace change simply because it is right.

23. This is alarmist nonsense.

24. I would rather no need to vote. Just keep things as they are. Forcing everyone to go electric feels like North Korea. 1984. USA is about choice and freedom to choose. Food cooked on electric tastes bad. Chefs need gas. We will all suffer if gas is banned. Food will never taste as good again.

25. This is a republic. We have Democratic processes for a reason

26. I guess our elected officials are trying to run even more people out of California. Whatever happened to freedom of choice?

27. We should ween off natural gas use organically. 1. No new gas main -- except for repair and safety maintenance. 2. Existing homes and addresses with sign of gas use should continue to have access to the gas. 3. Forced conversion ("ban") to electric on commercial properties *MUST* have reasonable electric power capacity infrastructure available at reasonable cost of connection (or planned city-wide infrastructure upgrade, or equivalent) prior to any such ban. I do not want you to waste my tax dollars in legal fees. Also such ban would be unfair and unreasonable. If electric power capacity is available within the existing commercial facility, then encouraging/forcing electrification may be ok.

28. This will result in a poorly informed decision

29. This should NEVER even be brought up for a vote. What a joke. Keep gas.

30. Overreach by city government

31. See above responses.

32. I would prefer the city not to have the power to ban natural gas in any way. Since this is not the case, I would want to vote to oppose this ban.

33. Let the voters decide not a few radicals.

34. Several years ago, a neighbor's tree that was located across the street from our home, came down during a Winter storm taking out all utility lines connecting to our house. It was 5 days before our power was reconnected. Had we not had a gas stove, gas water heater and gas fireplaces we would have needed to move to a hotel or find other accommodations while we waited for the tree removal and utility lines to be reinstalled.

35. I would only want to vote on this if the city council was going to pass it and that was our only way stop it.
87 Agenda Item 1.
28 36. An election costs lots of money-city tax payer monies. We are in enough of a financial crisis. Just petition city council-mobilize residents to tell our elected officials what WE want. Thanks

37. I would only want the public to vote if the city Council was going to decide by their vote to restrict gas appliances.

38. Don’t even think about enacting this restriction without a vote

39. I think we should cut back on natural gas usage. However, in new construction, there should be a "choice" on which appliances are preferred for marketing and selling.

40. Let the community decide

41. No...the US is a Representative Democracy, not a Direct Democracy. "A representative democracy is a system of government where citizens elect representatives to vote on laws on their behalf. A direct democracy is one where citizens vote on every issue themselves." https://academy4sc.org/video/representative-vs-direct-democracy-power-of-the-people/ Voting on every single item that comes before a governmental body would bring the city operations to its knees. Additionally, Los Altos is known for being a great place to raise a family.

Many young families are so busy raising children that they are not aware of city issues and would not be able to vote on singular issues. I raised a family here and know from personal experience. They do not keep up with the actions of the city that may be beneficial or harmful for their family and their children. They need to vote for representatives they trust, and then rely on them to act for the best for the future of their families.

42. The city should spend its time on more important issues than this where the pro con debate is far clearer

43. I believe the residents should be able to vote on this issue but I'm afraid this liberal community will vote for the ban even though our current power grid is already struggling to keep up with the demand. PG&E has warned us we may see rolling blackouts this summer but the liberals are saying, "power grid be damned, we want to ban evil natural gas".

44. Eliminating natural gas consumption should not even be up for debate, let along put to a vote.

45. I'll vote if there is such an election but would prefer I didn't have to waste time fighting off nonsense proposals like this.

46. If there is a vote, rather than the city government simply making a decision without consulting the residents, I want to vote against it.

47. Balanced options are the key to addressing the issue.

48. Let the homeowner decide what they want.

49. I would prefer the city council would have the brains to NOT increase the span of our current Reach Code or just adopt the CA state building code as is. But yeah, I’d vote for that because right now they are 3 to 2 going do what the Environmental Commission recommends. Though I personally doubt the EC will go after remodels this 2 year cycle.

50. The cost for electric appliances operation is higher and the environmental impact is reflected in the increased demand on the grid and pollution from power stations

51. See above

52. I fear that people will give knee-jerk responses, on both sides, without enough knowledge.

53. This is why we have a city council. Enough with the expensive, divisive elections for things we elect representatives to handle.

54. A vote costs resources, which could have been spent on somewhere else, including public safety and child education.

55. City officials,please use your energy to resolve school education quality issue, drug issue in the community and burglary problem in the community. If you still have extra energy, build more sports facility in the city.
88 Agenda Item 1.
29 56. The fact that we have gas appliances gives us resilience when there are electrical outages. I think every homeowner is well equipped to make their own informed decisions about which appliances they would like in their homes or commercial businesses and we don’t need government overreach forcing these decisions upon us.

57. There should never have such ban. Any city council support such ban will face losing the election.

58. The city needs to step back and stop intervening in the lives of its residents

59. These proposals are so foolish and irresponsible that a vote shouldn't be required. If our city council implements any of this they should be recalled and then the matter put on the ballot to be overtuned .

60. If the alternative is someone deciding for us, then we should definitely be able to vote.

61. The costs of an election should be carefully considered. Elected officials should be trusted to make the right decisions for the people who elect them.

62. No an election is another waste of tax payer money. I’m sick of it. Let us make our own decisions about gas. Keep govt out of my kitchens.

63. So the short sided woke crowd can force their agenda? I want choices. My choice

64. I think the state is going to force some changes, regardless of what the city does. But someone needs to calculate the cost of GENERATING all this electricity -- in $$ and environmental concerns. Our PGE power grid can't handle current needs. The city shouldn't do this just to be virtue-signaling. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=667&t=6 The annual average amounts of coal, natural gas, and petroleum fuels used to generate a kilowatthour (kWh) of electricity by U.S. electric utilities and independent power producers in 2021 were:1 • Coal–1.12 pounds/kWh • Natural gas–7.40 cubic feet/kWh • Petroleum liquids–0.08 gallons/kWh • Petroleum coke–0.80 pounds/kWh

65. Couple it with a recall.

66. This should absolutely be up to the voters. We cannot trust city council or staff to make this decision for us.

67. These regulations would destroy value for certain individuals (e.g. chefs; residents and small businesses forced to incur expenses for compliance) and groups (e.g. people frequently preparing and eating Asian foods; lower income/ wealth people). Also it seems likely to increase the strain on PGE's faltering ability to deliver electricity reliably. If anything policy should be encourage less electric utility demand wherever possible. These regulations would be a benefit principally for certain very small groups (e.g. appliance OEMs, distributors/ sales and installation businesses). Perhaps makers/ distributors and installers of gas grills as those who prefer cooking with gas might move their food preparation to the grill. Of course this is a much less efficient and perhaps less convenient way to consume gas (based on metal canisters instead of utility gas lines). Would like to see it all defeated once and for all, but this is Los Altos so it would probably pass unfortunately.

68. Based on the poll I conducted for another resident that far more than 400 responses over a very short period we know that far more residents would vote against a natural gas ban if given this chance.

69. A citywide election would be expensive and hopefully avoided. However, if it is the only way to get City Council to listen to residents then I would agree.

70. This keeps coming up but everyone I know that did a recent kitchen build or new build would be furious. I think people are up to help the environment but this is big pain for little gain.

71. I am uneasy with a citywide election because citizens very often vote based on emotion or targeted advertising. It is very difficult and time consuming to be fully informed on the pros and 89 Agenda Item 1.
30 cons of major issues. I would like to believe that the city council can provide a balanced analysis and that all interested parties can put their information forward for consideration to the council

72. This matter should not be decided by the city council.

73. This is not negotiable - absolutely not. City needs to stay out of homeowners life

74. Most people don't even know their gas (Therms) or electric (kWh) consumption. All they know is the amount of the bill (in dollars.) Most people know nothing about thermodynamics, and are thoroughly unqualified to make a rational or informed decision about mandating sweeping changes in regulation of energy consumption.

75. Electric power is highly unreliable and expensive. We need multiple sources of energy

76. Because I do not have faith residents have enough information or concern to do the right thing.

77. Banning gas is a massive government overreach

78. Best to do it with paper ballots, and have LAR people overseeing the count. Some are not above cheating and misrepresentation to get what they want.

79. First, banning natural gas usage in my home is a stupid idea. Second, if any city, county or state government is considering this it MUST be left up to the people of that city, county, or state to decide by vote. NOT a group of 7 council people!

80. Stop stop stop with all this. Focus on jobs and inflation and retaining small business and public safety.

81. PG&E has a lot of electric power outages in our area. With no gas in our appliances it means we won't be able to cook or heat! This is just a bad idea.

82. Your assumption that all residents can afford this absurd. With PG&E’s lack of reliability, going all electric assures your residents will be impacted. You can’t do this unless all residents can have access to solar, which the city of Los Altos should then subsidize.

83. It's none of the city's business what kind of power I use. This is gross over reach.

84. If a commission or the council proposes an ordinance that will take any of the Los Altos residents' rights away, the residents should have the right to vote on whether they agree. I thought we lived in a democracy. Members of the city council were elected to represent the residents and carry out their wishes. They were not elected to push their own agendas. # # #
90 Agenda Item 1.

From: Angel Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022 Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 7:14:24 AM
From: Neysa Fligor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:59 AM
To: Angel Rodriguez <[email protected]>; Adelina Del Real <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022 Get Outlook for iOS
From: Eric Wolff <
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 9:57:16 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022 I am writing to express my strong support for reach codes as defined by SVCE and the other CCAs to be adopted by Los Altos.

My opinion is based on personal experience: We replaced a gas range with an induction range and could not be happier.

Eric Wolff
Los Altos resident for 22 years.
732 Morgan Place
Los Altos, CA 94024
91 Agenda Item 1.

From: Neysa Fligor
To: Adelina Del Real; Angel Rodriguez
Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Monday, July 11, 2022 6:20:45 PM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: hedden
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 12:59:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Honored Council,
Orange skies. Fires up and down the State. Extreme heat. Disruptions to our water supply. The list goes on and climate change is at the root of it.

We must think about the future. We must think about our kids and grandkids. I do so all the time.

One contentious issue is switching from gas to electric in the kitchen. I recommend hosting a cooking demonstration to learn about the advantages of cooking with induction cooktops and ovens.

From: Neysa Fligor
To: Angel Rodriguez; Adelina Del Real
Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 6:59:08 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: J H
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2022 11:30:25 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Dear Los Altos City Council members,
Please adopt the Reach Codes proposed by the Environmental Commission.

Burning methane (natural gas) in our homes is hazardous. This is a serious health and safety issue.

Methane gas in our atmosphere heats up the planet, causing environmental damage. Please do the right thing for our children's future and establish Reach Codes in Los Altos.

Thank you,
Jessica Hirschfelder
Los Altos
93 Agenda Item 1.

From: Neysa Fligor
To: Angel Rodriguez; Adelina Del Real
Subject: Fwd: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
Date: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 10:54:24 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Carrie Shaked < >
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2022 10:07:15 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Aida Fairman <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session, July 12, 2022
As a resident of Los Altos Hills I support the Reach Codes. We must lead by example for other less progressive districts to follow if we have any hope of keeping our planet habitable for the next generation.

Carrie Shaked
13725 Robleda Rd, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
94 Agenda Item 1.

Los Altos City CouncilJuly 12, 2022

Los Altos City Council
July 12, 2022