Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, September 6, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

4.2 A no data n/a n/a 0.1 FTE to develop guidelines

4.2 B City's electricity is
carbon-free; no GHG
reductions
n/a n/a Assumed $40k for solar + storage installation
Assumed $2.1M for 1MW of microgrid
capacity

0.05 FTE/year to monitor system

4.3 A ClearPath Assumes current 22 MPG for fleet
Assumes fleet mileage grows at rate
of household growth
Change in fuel economy x
change in VMT replaced

0.1 FTE/year to administer program
Assumed $500k incremental cost of EVs
Assumed $100k in EVSE

4.4 A CAPCOA TRT-1 Assumes 2% VMT reduction VMT reduction x per-mile emissions factor
Assumed total cash incentives of $10k

0.05 FTE/year to develop and administer
programs
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 113526 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX E TECHNICAL APPENDIX
Action
#
Quantification
method(s)
Assumptions GHG calculations Cost source/methodology

4.4 B CAPCOA TRT-6 Assumes 5.5% employee commute
VMT reduction
VMT reduction x per-mile
emissions factor

0.05 FTE to develop program

4.5 A CAP 2013 Assumes 100% waste diversion Tons diverted x per-ton emissions factor

0.05 FTE to develop program

4.5 B n/a n/a n/a

4.6 A n/a n/a n/a

4.6 B n/a n/a n/a

4.6 C n/a n/a n/a

5.1 A n/a n/a n/a 0.05 FTE/year to develop and administer programs

5.1 B n/a n/a n/a

5.2 A CAP 2013 Assumes 10,000 new trees by 2035 # of new trees x per-tree energy savings
Assumes $300/tree

0.5 FTE/year
to administer program

5.2 B n/a n/a n/a

5.2 C n/a n/a n/a 0.1 FTE/year to identify partners and develop program

5.2 D n/a n/a n/a 0.05 FTE to develop ordinance

6.1 A n/a n/a n/a

6.1 B n/a n/a n/a

6.1 C n/a n/a n/a Assumes $300,000 per impervious acre
managed. Memo from Geosyntec
consultants (2018) estimates an average
range of $100-200K/acre impervious area
treated with green infrastructure. The Santa
Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program's Stormwater Resource
Plan (2019) lists a range of $35K-$600K/acre
impervious area treated with green
infrastructure. Lower costs are typically for
much larger sites like stormwater detention
ponds.

6.2 A n/a n/a n/a

6.2 B n/a n/a n/a

6.2 C n/a n/a n/a

7.1 A n/a n/a n/a

7.1 B n/a n/a n/a

7.1 C n/a n/a n/a

7.2 A n/a n/a n/a

7.2 B n/a n/a n/a

7.2 C n/a n/a n/a

8.1 A n/a n/a n/a

8.2 A n/a n/a n/a

8.3 A n/a n/a n/a

8.3 B n/a n/a n/a
Cross-Cutting Actions Adaptation Actions
114 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 527 Agenda Item # 4.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 115 Action # Implementation lead Implementation partners Estimated cost Funding source(s) Funding program(s)

1.1 A
Engineering Finance/Executive $ 44,778,000
Caltrans
U.S. DOT
Calbike
Active Transportation Program
Surface Transportation Block
Grant Program
Funding Sources list

1.1 B
Engineering/Planning
Chamber of Commerce
$ 215,000
BAAQMD
Caltrans
Vehicle Trip Reduction Grant
Program
Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants

1.1 C
Planning/Engineering
Environmental Commission/
Complete Streets
Commission/ Planning
Commission $ 400,000 BAAQMD
Vehicle Trip Reduction Grant
Program

1.1 D
Economic Development Engineering $ 135,000

1.2 A
Planning Commission/Planning
VTA
$ 300,000
Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Transportation project grants

1.2 B
Executive/Sustianability Chamber of Commerce $ 380,000

1.2 C
Economic Development Chamber of Commerce $ 110,000

1.3 A
Economic Development $ 250,000
BAAQMD
Caltrans
Caltrans
Vehicle Trip Reduction Grant
Program
Active Transportation Program
Sustainable Transportation
Planning Grants

1.3 B
Engineering/Planning
VTA
$ 140,000
Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Transportation project grants

1.3 C
Sustainability/Economic
Development
Neighboring jurisdictions
$ 650,000
Mitigation Actions
Building/
Franchise waste hauler

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
528
Agenda Item # 4.
116 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022

1.3 D
Complete Streets Commission/
Planning Commission Planning $ 200,000

1.3 E
Parks & Recreation/Economic
Development
Executive/
Los Altos School District
$ 5,000

1.4 A
Economic
Development/Sustainability Finance $ 15,000

1.4 B
Economic
Development/Sustainability
SVCE
$ 160,000
Silicon Valley Clean
Energy (technical
assistance)
CARB
U.S. DOT
FutureFit Assist
Clean Vehicle Rebate Project
RAISE grants

1.5 A
Economic Development Executive $ 140,000
CA Energy Commission
U.S. DOE
California Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP)
Electric Vehicle Supply
Equipment Loan and Rebate
Program (small businesses)

1.5 B
Economic
Development/Executive
SVCE
$ 1,350,000
CA Energy Commission
U.S. DOE
California Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure Project (CALeVIP)
Electric Vehicle Supply
Equipment Loan and Rebate
Program (small businesses)

1.5 C
Sustainability/Economic
Development/Engineering
SVCE
$ 10,000

1.5 D
Planning Commission Sustainability/Building $ 50,000
Silicon Valley Clean
Energy (informational
resource) eHub

1.6 A
Sustainability/Planning
SVCE
$ 150,000

2.1 A
Maintenance Services BAAQMD/SVCE $ 900,000

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
529
Agenda Item # 4.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 117

2.1 B
Building/Planning
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 63,000
PG&E
PG&E
BayREN
Santa Clara County
BRACE Grants
U.S. Dept. of Energy
CA Public Utilities
Commission
Residential Rebates
(thermostats, water heaters,
etc.)
Business Rebates
Home Energy Advisor program
Property Assessed Clean
Energy (PACE) Financing
Energy Upgrade California

2.2 A
Building/Planning
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 10,000

2.3 A
Sustainability/Building/Planning
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 305,000
Silicon Valley Clean
Energy
BayREN
EPA
CA Energy Commission
FutureFit Program
Single-family and multi-family
electrification programs
Solar Energy System tax credits
Low Interest Loans

2.3 B
Building
Planning/
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 305,000
BayREN Home Energy Advisor program

2.3 C
Building
Planning/
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 305,000
BayREN Home Energy Advisor program

2.3 D
Building
Planning/
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 305,000
BayREN Home Energy Advisor program

2.4 A
Building
Planning/
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 130,000

2.5 A Environmental
Commission/Planning
Commission
Building/Planning
SVCE
$ 65,000
Silicon Valley Clean
Energy
CA Energy Commission Lights On Silicon Valley
Low Interest Loans

2.5 B
Building Planning $ 65,000

3.1 A
Engineering
Building/
MTWS
$ 20,000

3.1 B
City Council
Sustainability/Engineering
$ 10,000

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
530
Agenda Item # 4.
118 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022

3.1 C
City Council
Building/Engineering/
Franchise waste hauler $ 63,000

3.2 A
Planning/Building
Calwater
$ 100,000 CalWater
Residential and Commercial
water efficiency rebate
programs

3.3 A
Economic
Development/Sustainability
Chamber of Commerce
$ 130,000

3.3 B
Economic
Development/Sustainability
GreenTown Los Altos
$ 130,000

4.1 A
Building/Planning
SVCE/
PG&E
$ 600,000

4.2 A
Building Planning $ 10,000
California Energy
Commission CEC grants

4.2 B
Building Planning $ 2,200,000

4.3 A
Maintenance/Finance Executive $ BAAQMD 700,000 Carl Moyer Program

4.4 A
Human Resources Executive $ 75,000

4.4 B
Human Resources Executive $ 5,000

4.5 A
Sustainability/Engineering
Finance/
Franchise waste hauler $ 5,000

4.5 B
Executive Human Resources Low

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
531
Agenda Item # 4.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 119

4.6 A
Executive All Dept. Low

4.6 B
Executive All Dept. Low

4.6 C
Finance Executive/All Dept. Low

5.1 A
Environmental
Commission/Planning
Commission Building/Planning $ 65,000
Water Resources Control
Board
Valley Water
Division of Financial Assistance
Landscape Rebate Program

5.1 B
Maintenance
Calwater
Medium
Natural Resources Agency
Landscape Rebate Program

5.2 A
Engineering
City of Palo Alto Public
Works $ 3,650,000
CA Natural Resources
Agency

CAL FIRE
CA ReLeaf
Urban Greening Program
Urban and Community Forestry
Grant Program
Urban forestry grants

5.2 B
Maintenance Planning/Engineering High
CA Natural Resources
Agency

CAL FIRE
CA ReLeaf
Urban Greening Program
Urban and Community Forestry
Grant Program
Urban forestry grants

5.2 C
Parks & Recreation Engineering/Maintenance $ 100,000

5.2 D
Sustainability Engineering $ 5,000

6.1 A
Maintenance Parks & Recreation
Cost for analysis likely
to be $50,000 -
$500,000.

Design/construction
order of magnitude
more.

FEMA/Cal Offices of
Emergency Services
Building Resilient Infrastructure
and Communities (BRIC)
Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA)
Cross-Cutting Actions

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
532
Agenda Item # 4.
120 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022

6.1 B
Planning Engineering Medium
Department of Water
Resources
Wildlife Conservation
Board
Habitat Restoration Program
Urban Water Management
Grants
Stream Flow Enhancement
Program
Wildlife Corridors/Fish Passage

6.1 C
Planning
Engineering
Valley Water
$1.5 M to construct
systems to manage 5
acres of runoff/5 year
period, beyond what
is already funded
Natural Resources Agency
Wildlife Conservation
Board
Water Resources Control
Board
Urban Greening Program
Protect Fish and Wildlife from
Changing Conditions
Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Pollution Grants

6.2 A
Engineering
City Council/Planning
Commission Low
Office of Planning and
Research
Climate Adaptation &
Resilience Planning Grants

6.2 B
Engineering Planning Low
California Transportation
Commission
Transportation Improvement
Fees (Highway Users Tax
Account (0062))

6.2 C
Planning/Building
Environmental
Commission/Planning
Commission Low
California Energy
Commission CEC grants

7.1 A
Planning Building Medium
Office of Planning and
Research
Climate Adaptation &
Resilience Planning Grants

7.1 B
Human Resources/Emergency
Op
Building/Planning/

BAAQMD/
Santa Clara County Public
Health Low

7.1 C
Maintenance Executive Medium

7.2 A
Maintenance
Executive/
Valley Water
Medium Public Information Officer
Santa Clara County Fire
Department

7.2 B
Emergency Op
Police/
BAAQMD
Medium
Office of Planning and
Research
Regional Climate
Collaboratives
Adaptation Actions

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
533
Agenda Item # 4.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 121

7.2 C
Emergency Op
Santa Clara County Public
Health Medium

8.1 A
Engineering
Emergency Op/
Finance/
Santa Clara County Public
Health Medium
Office of Planning and
Research
Climate Adaptation &
Resilience Planning Grants

8.2 A
Emergency Op
Sustainability/
Santa Clara County Public
Health
Medium
Office of Planning and
Research
Climate Adaptation &
Resilience Planning Grants

8.3 A
Emergency Op Sustainability Low
Office of Planning and
Research
Climate Adaptation &
Resilience Planning Grants

8.3 B
Environmental Commission City Council Low

IMPLEMENTATION LEADS, PARTNERS, COSTS, AND FUNDING SOURCES

APPENDIX F
534
Agenda Item # 4.
122 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 Action # 2022-2025 2026-2030 2031-2035 KPI 2025 2030 2035

1.1 A
xxx
Miles of bike path built
Miles of pedestrian path built
Number of traffic calming projects completed
7 miles of bike trail built
2 miles of pedestrian path
built
5 traffic calming projects
completed
20 miles of bike trail built
5 miles of pedestrian path
built
10 traffic calming projects
completed
38 miles of bike trail built
10 miles of pedestrian path
built
22 traffic calming projects
completed

1.1 B
xx
Car-Free Zone initiative developed (Y/N)
Pedestrian areas created
Miles of downtown bike lane
Sqft new sidewalks created
New bus stops built
Initiative developed All Car-Free Zones
completed
50% of pedestrian areas,
bike lanes, sidewalks, and
bus stops completed
All pedestrian area, bike
lanes, sidewalks, and bus
stops completed

1.1 C
xxx
Number of EV-only, handicapped, and total parking
spaces
Number of drop-off/pick-up zones
PMP started PMP completed and
adopted
track

1.1 D
xx
Number of bikes, ebikes, and escooters available to
community members
Number of partnerships formed/active
bike, ebike, and escooter
pilots launched
programs scaled based on
pilot program results
track

1.2 A
xxx
Additional percent of population living in high-density areas
5% 18% 20%

1.2 B
xxx
Number and amount of incentives provided track track track

1.2 C
xxx
Community-wide VMT reduction track track 25% of employees telecommuting 1.5
days/wee

1.3 A
xx
Program developed (Y/N)
Partners identified (Y/N)
Program developed
Partners identified
Program implemented track

1.3 B
xxx
Number of transit riders
Green Transit App progress
Percent of population living within 10 min walk from transit Green Transit App Ready 100% population within 10
min walk from transit

1.3 C
xxx
Number of employees participating in TDM programs
Communitywide VMT reduction
track track track

1.3 D
xxx
Number of Car-free days/month
Percent of students taking the bus
2 car-free days/year 1 car-free day/month 2 car-free days/month 60% reduction in school
related SOV travel

1.3 E
xxx
Number of shared cars available to
community members
track track track

1.4 A
xxx
Number of EV fairs held
EVSE/EV-only parking map complete (Y/N)
Webinar series published (Y/N)
track track track
Mitigation Actions
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AND KPIs

APPENDIX G
535
Agenda Item # 4.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 123

1.4 B
xxx
Percent of community-wide vehicles that are EV 10% higher annual EV adoption beyond ABAU
20% higher annual EV
adoption beyond ABAU
15% higher annual EV
adoption beyond ABAU

1.5 A
xxx
EVSE Master Plan developed and adopted
Number of publicly available chargers
Number of workplace chargers
EVSE Master Plan developed
and adopted
70 workplace L2 chargers
240 workplace L2 chargers 400 workplace L2 chargers

1.5 B
xxx
Number of publicly available DCFC 4 DCFC stations 12 DCFC stations 22 DCFC stations

1.5 C
xxx
Number of new permits track track track

1.5 D
xxx
Percent of residences with access to home charging 50% of residents with access to home charging
70% of residents with access
to home charging
100% of residents with
access to home charging

1.6 A
xx
Type and number of equipment replaced
Number/value of incentives provided
track track track

2.1 A
xxx
Number of audits performed
Number/value of incentives provided
track track track

2.1 B
xxx
Number of buildings retrofitted with energy-efficient
appliances and building envelope
3,325 5,985 9,310

2.2 A
xxx
Number of new buildings and remodels per year and total track track track

2.3 A
xxx
Number of residential HVAC replaced with all-electric
alternatives
3,325 5,985 9,310

2.3 B
xxx
Number of residential water heaters replaced with allelectric alternatives3,325 5,985 9,310

2.3 C
xxx
Number of commercial HVAC replaced with all-electric
alternatives
395 711 1,106

2.3 D
xxx
Number of commercial water heaters replaced with allelectric alternatives395 711 1,106 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AND KPIs

APPENDIX G
536
Agenda Item # 4.
124 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022

2.4 A
xxx
Task Force formed
Program implemented
Funds raised per year and total
Task Force formed
Program implemented
track

2.5 A
xxx
Yearly and total installed capacity (kW) 120 kW new capacity 320 kW new capacity 520 kW new capacity

2.5 B
xxx
Number and capacity of new battery storage systems track track track

3.1 A
xxx
Landfill diversion rate 85% diversion 90% diversion 95% Diversion

3.1 B
x
New ordinance passed (Y/N) Ordinance passed

3.1 C
xx
Ordinance developed and adopted
Number of yearly and total buildings deconstructed
Ordinance adopted track track

3.2 A
xxx
Community-wide water use track track track

3.3 A
xxx
Farmers Markets held/year
Local businesses contacted
track track track

3.3 B
xxx
Individuals and businesses contacted
Articles published
Certified Green Businesses in the community
track track track

4.1 A
xxx
Number of audits performed
% reduction in energy use
10% reduction in municipal
energy use
20% reduction in municipal
energy use
30% reduction in municipal
energy use

4.2 A
xxx
Number of new municipal buildings track track track

4.2 B
xx
Solar capacity installed
Battery systems installed
Microgrids built
track Microgrid pilot developed
track
track

4.3 A
xx
Percent of municipal fleet that is electric 25% 100% 100%

4.4 A
xxx
Percent of staff taking alternatives to SOV commute track track track

4.4 B
xx
Percent of staff working alternative schedules or
telecommuting
track track track

4.5 A
x
Tons of waste diverted from the landfill track track track IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AND KPIs

APPENDIX G
537
Agenda Item # 4.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 125

4.5 B
xxx
Number of remote participants at City meetings track track track

4.6 A
xxx
Up-to-date list of City projects with descriptions of
sustainable procedures, project lifespan, climate
parameters and emissions scenario considered
List completed, current, and
published annually

4.6 B
x
Number and percent of City plans and standards
incorporating climate change.

Number and percent of city departments with staff with
designated climate mitigation and/or adaptation roles.
track track track

4.6 C
xxx
Annual Goals for CAAP advancement; annual reports on
CAAP Advancement
track track track

5.1 A
xxx
Percent of Buildings with Rainwater Harvesting Systems.

Percent of Buildings with Greywater Systems.

Acres private Green stormwater Infrastructure as reported to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program (SCVURPPP)
and submitted as part of City’s annual stormwater report to the Water Board
Number of Systems at Municipal Facilities.

Percent of Municipal Facilities with Greywater systems.

Percent of Municipal Facilities with Rainwater Harvesting.

Number and amount of incentives/rebates provided
track track track

5.1 B
xx
Determination/Memo from RWQCP of availability
Receipt of proposal for reuse
10%
35 acres
25%
40 acres
40%
45 acres

5.2 A
xxx
Number of Existing Public and Private Trees
Number of Trees Planted
Percent Survival of Planted Trees after 2 years, 5 years, 10 years
2,000
98%
6,000
96%
10,000
95%

5.2 B
xxx
Acres of wilderness/natural areas
Acres of Impervious Park Area
Plus 0.5 Acres
Plus 2 Acres
Plus 2 Acres
Plus 5 Acres
Plus 5 Acres
Plus 15 Acres

5.2 C
xxx
Number and square footage fo carbon farming pilots track track track

5.2 D
x
Ordinance developed and adopted Ordinance adopted

6.1 A
xx
Citywide Flood Risk Study
Completed with policy and
capital project
recommendations at
conceptual design
Updated FIRM
Policies Implemented
10% of projects completed
25% of projects
in construction
25% of projects in design
40% of projects completed
30% of projects in
construction
30% of projects in design

6.1 B
x
Comprehensive Riparian
Ecosystem Restoration Plan
Developed.

Pilot projects funded.

Pilot projects constructed,
monitored, evaluated.

Projects completed
Cross-Cutting Actions
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AND KPIs

APPENDIX G
538
Agenda Item # 4.

6.1 C
x
Number of green infrastructure installations
Acres of public impervious area managed by GSI
submitted as part of City’s annual stormwater report to the Water Board.
25 acres 35 acres 45 acres

6.2 A
x
Percent of projects completed, in construction, in design Heat Study conducted with policy and capital project
recommendations.

Implemented
10% of projects completed
25% of projects
in construction
25% of projects in design
40% of projects completed
30% of projects in
construction
30% of projects in design

6.2 B
x
Heat Management Plan
Developed and Piloted

6.2 C
x
Standards enacted

7.1 A
x
Number of engagements Heat Safety Protocols
Enacted. Education and
Enforcement Mechanisms
Piloted
Education and
Enforcement Mechanisms
finalized

7.1 B
x
Policy enacted, staff overtime
paid for

7.1 C
x
Number of drinking fountains/refillable water stations Existing public fountains identified, new sites identified,
25% of projects completed,
75% of remaining sites funded

7.2 A
x
Protocols and city documents
updated

7.2 B
x
Early warning system
developed and tested

7.2 C
x
Number of masks distributed
Percent of community facilities with air filtering
50% 100%

8.1 A
xx
Number of existing facilities surveyed
Number and percent of upgrades completed
Number and percent of new facilities completed
Facilities identified,
immediate actions
undertaken, upgrades and/
or new facilities identified
and costed
75% funded,
25% constructed
25% in construction,
50% in design
100% of upgrades
and/or new facilities
funded
75% constructed
25% in construction
100% of upgrades and/or
new facilities constructed

8.2 A
xx
Number of people engaged
Number of caregivers engaged
Vulnerable Populations
identified. Education and
resource program
established.

8.3 A
x
CERT materials updated All new volunteers trained
using updated CERT
All new volunteers trained
using updated CERT
All new volunteers trained
using updated CERT
Adaptation Actions
50% of projects
completed
100% of projects
completed

8.3 B
x
Grant criteria established
Number of grants awarded
Micro-grant program
established, 5 grants awarded
30 grants awarded 75 grants awarded
126 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE AND KPIs

APPENDIX G
539
Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H:

CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
AFOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA ppendix E: Climate Vulnerability Assessment for the City of Los
Altos, CA
Prepared by EcoShift Consulting
Executive Summary
The City of Los Altos (Los Altos) is located on the eastern edge of the Santa Cruz mountains, roughly 15 miles East of the Pacific Ocean and 5 miles from the San Francisco Bay. Proximity to these large water bodies has made for a stable climate and will somewhat temper future climate hazards compared to other areas in California.

This Vulnerability Assessment is intended to assist Los Altos in understanding the climate risks it faces under future emissions scenarios. In keeping with California Senate Bill 379, the assessment relies on resources provided by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) including Cal-Adapt and the California Adaptation Planning Guide to describe how the frequencyand intensityof climate hazards are changing. The Vulnerability Assessment is just the first step in Los Altos’ effort in planning for and adapting to climate change, outlined in Los Altos’ Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP). The Vulnerability Assessment is an appendix to the CAAP. The documents should be read together.

Purpose of SB 379
Senate Bill No. 379 of the California Legislature requires local jurisdictions to address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies in either the local hazard mitigation plan or an update to the safety element of a jurisdiction’s General Plan, depending on the date of adoption of a local hazard mitigation plan. The update includes a climate vulnerability assessment “identifying the risks that climate change poses...and the geographic areas at risk,” along with a set of goals and strategies to address those risks.

The Cal-Adapt tool and projections of climate change taken from other government plans describe how climate is changing, but they do not describe what the impact will be on Los Altos. The goal of the Vulnerability Assessment is to understand how and how much a changing climate will impact the community sectors - assets, people, economy - that make Los Altos what it is. Adaptation strategies developed in response to the Vulnerability Assessment are described in the CAAP.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 127540 Agenda Item # 4.

Introduction
Natural variability in the climate and weather produce extreme events like droughts, wildfires, and floods over long time periods. While natural systems respond to and even rely on these phenomena, our dense settlement and production of greenhouse gas emissions have greatly changed the impacts of climate hazards.

Increased capture of solar radiation, generally referred to as global warming or climate change, is having massive and long-term effects on climatic conditions and global systems like the water cycle, jet stream and ocean currents that transfer energy. Generally, the oceans are rising and temperatures are increasing. Disruptions in jet stream patterns have caused highly unseasonal weather. Some naturally occurring hazards are expected to occur more frequently and with greater intensity, putting our infrastructure, environment, housing, and populations at greater risk.

Indicators of Climate Change in California, a report prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, describes the rapidity with which climate change has impacted the state. Included are the following statements. 1 ● Average maximum temperatures have increased by 2.2°Farenheit over the past century
● The 2012 to 2016 drought was the most extreme since instrumental records began, producing a moisture deficit not seen in the last 1,200 years. It is consistent with a trend of California becoming increasingly dry.
● Glaciers in the Sierra Nevada have decreased in area dramatically, with several of the largest glaciers decreasing by half.
● The amount of water stored in the state’s snowpack has been highly variable from year to year, dropping to a record low 5% of the historical average in 2015. Snowmelt runoff during April through July has declined.
● The area burned by wildfires across the state is increasing. ● Over the past 80 years, California’s forests have been changing in response to decreasing water availability, driven by warmer temperatures. Small trees and oaks have increased, while pines have decreased.

While efforts at the State and County levels have addressed climate risks and methods to mitigate them, this document is the first to consider the climate risk to Los Altos on the local level, in accordance with SB 379. Although future climate conditions are not certain, models developed by the scientific community and recommended by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) provide a range of possible changes to the climate and serve as the technical basis for understanding Los Altos’ climate risk.
1 Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency (2018).

Indicators of Climate Change in California. Sacramento, California.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
128 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 541 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Background
California has been divided into 16 different climate zones based on shared characteristics to understand the energy needs for heating and cooling throughout the year. Los Altos is in California Climate Zone 4, which uses San Jose as a reference city. The climate in Zone 4, of which Los Altos is at the very northern boundary, is inland enough to have hot summers but is influenced by the ocean which moderates high and low temperature extremes. Much of the year falls within the comfort zone of 68-80F. Typically, winters are cool and wet. However, Los Altos is in a “rain shadow” of the Santa Cruz mountains, limiting winter precipitation, as well as wind and fog as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Relationship Between Topography and Precipitation in Simplified Cross Section of California showing how Los Altos is in a rain shadow of the Santa Cruz Mountains (Modified from: C. Ahrens, Essentials of Meteorology, 2nd Edition) Climate Hazard History in Los Altos
Los Altos has experienced many climate hazards since its incorporation almost 75 years ago and more in recorded history. The frequency of these hazards provides a baseline for considering future hazards, even if Los Altos continues to change and the rate of climate change is increasing. Greenhouse gas emissions will change the frequency and intensity of experienced climate hazards but will not introduce new hazards altogether. Many of these experienced hazards are enumerated in Table 1 of Federally declared disasters. Table 1 indicates the relative prevalence of climate LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 129542 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
hazards that reach the level of Federal disaster declaration. Severe winter storms that caused flooding were the most frequent climate event followed by wildfires.

Since the Federal government declares disasters at a county-wide scale, the severity of damage to Los Altos specifically is difficult to ascertain from this data set alone.

Incident Type Declaration Title Date FEMA Declaration
Biological
COVID-19 March 13, 2020 EM-3428-CA
COVID-19 PANDEMIC March 22, 2020 DR-4482-CA
Coastal Storm

COASTAL STORMS, FLOODS,
SLIDES & TORNADOES February 9, 1983 DR-677-CA
Drought DROUGHT January 20, 1977 EM-3023-CA
Earthquake LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE October 18, 1989 DR-845-CA Fire

GRASS, WILDLANDS, &
FOREST FIRES July 18, 1985 DR-739-CA
CROY FIRE September 25, 2002 FM-2465-CA
SUMMIT FIRE May 22, 2008 FM-2766-CA
WILDFIRES June 28, 2008 EM-3287-CA

SCU LIGHTNING COMPLEX
FIRE August 21, 2020 FM-5338-CA
WILDFIRES August 22, 2020 DR-4558-CA
Flood

SEVERE STORMS, FLOOD,
MUDSLIDES & HIGH TIDE January 7, 1982 DR-651-CA

SEVERE STORMS &
FLOODING February 21, 1986 DR-758-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING, AND
MUDSLIDES April 1, 2017 DR-4308-CA
Freezing SEVERE FREEZE February 11, 1991 DR-894-CA
Hurricane

HURRICANE KATRINA
EVACUATION September 13, 2005 EM-3248-CA
Severe Storm(s)

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING, LANDSLIDES,
MUD FLOWS January 10, 1995 DR-1044-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING LANDSLIDES,
MUD FLOW March 12, 1995 DR-1046-CA

SEVERE STORMS,

FLOODING, MUD AND
LANDSLIDES January 4, 1997 DR-1155-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS
AND FLOODING February 9, 1998 DR-1203-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING, AND
MUDSLIDES February 14, 2017 DR-4301-CA
130 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 Table 1: Relative prevalence of climate hazards that reach the level of Federal disaster declaration
FEMA declares disasters on a county level, even if the disaster only affected part of the county. Pandemics and earthquakes, though shown in Table 1, are not climate hazards so are not discussed in this report. Notably absent from the table are several hazards that reach the level of Federal disaster declaration. Severe winter storms that caused flooding were the most frequent climate event followed by wildfires.

Since the Federal government declares disasters at a county-wide scale, the severity of damage to Los Altos specifically is difficult to ascertain from this data set alone.

Incident Type Declaration Title Date FEMA Declaration
Biological
COVID-19 March 13, 2020 EM-3428-CA
COVID-19 PANDEMIC March 22, 2020 DR-4482-CA
Coastal Storm COASTAL STORMS, FLOODS,
SLIDES & TORNADOES February 9, 1983 DR-677-CA
Drought DROUGHT January 20, 1977 EM-3023-CA
Earthquake LOMA PRIETA EARTHQUAKE October 18, 1989 DR-845-CA Fire

GRASS, WILDLANDS, &
FOREST FIRES July 18, 1985 DR-739-CA
CROY FIRE September 25, 2002 FM-2465-CA
SUMMIT FIRE May 22, 2008 FM-2766-CA
WILDFIRES June 28, 2008 EM-3287-CA

SCU LIGHTNING COMPLEX
FIRE August 21, 2020 FM-5338-CA
WILDFIRES August 22, 2020 DR-4558-CA
Flood

SEVERE STORMS, FLOOD,
MUDSLIDES & HIGH TIDE January 7, 1982 DR-651-CA

SEVERE STORMS &
FLOODING February 21, 1986 DR-758-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING, AND
MUDSLIDES April 1, 2017 DR-4308-CA
Freezing SEVERE FREEZE February 11, 1991 DR-894-CA
Hurricane HURRICANE KATRINA
EVACUATION September 13, 2005 EM-3248-CA
Severe Storm(s)

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING, LANDSLIDES,
MUD FLOWS January 10, 1995 DR-1044-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING LANDSLIDES,
MUD FLOW March 12, 1995 DR-1046-CA

SEVERE STORMS,

FLOODING, MUD AND
LANDSLIDES January 4, 1997 DR-1155-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS
AND FLOODING February 9, 1998 DR-1203-CA

SEVERE WINTER STORMS,

FLOODING, AND
MUDSLIDES February 14, 2017 DR-4301-CA
543
Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
Table 1: Relative prevalenFOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA ce of climate hazards that reach the level of Federal disa CONTINUED ster
declaration
FEMA declares disasters on a county level, even if the disaster only affected part of the county. Pandemics and earthquakes, though shown in Table 1, are not climate hazards so are not discussed in this report. Notably absent from the table are several multi-year droughts, based on how FEMA calculates event losses. The only FEMA-declared emergency classified as a drought - in all of California’s history - occurred in 1977. However, Santa Clara County has experienced three additional extended year droughts: 1987-1992, 2007-2009, 2012-2017. As of this writing (summer 2021), California is experiencing persistent severe drought.

Based on this history and Cal-Adapts projections, this vulnerability assessment has been framed around three climate-related groups of hazards:

1. Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought

2. Precipitation & Flooding

3. Wildfires & Air pollution
Reports produced by other jurisdictions may include different climate variables and climate hazards, or categorize the variables and hazards differently based on their climate conditions.

Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought
Average temperatures and the number of extreme heat days are projected to increase throughout the century, according to Cal-Adapt. The number of extreme heat days are projected to be almost 300% more in a high emissions scenario than in a medium emissions scenario.

Whether or not droughts get worse depends on the definition of drought. One definition is a prolonged period with below-average or no precipitation. The length of dry spells is expected to increase as much as 15%, while average annual precipitation is not expected to change. Higher temperatures combined with less consistent rain will impact both water supply and outdoor water demand.

Climate Hazards like droughts, heat waves, and air pollution are stressors that are usually less dynamic than floods or wildfires. Droughts occur on a slower timeline and can last longer than other climate hazards. Droughts may not cause a loss of property or impair infrastructure like other hazards, but prolonged droughts impact the environment, the economy, and residents’ quality of life. The Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA) Hazard Mitigation Plan declares:

Historical drought data regarding Santa Clara County OA indicate four significant droughts over the last 40 years, with drought occurring in 12 of those 40 years. Based on risk factors and this history, droughts likely will continue to occur in the Santa Clara County OA. Moreover, as temperatures increase, probability of future droughts will LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 131 544 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
likely increase as well. Therefore, droughts likely will occur in Santa Clara County at varied severities in the future, even after conclusion of the current [2012-2017]drought. 2 Similarly, across Santa Clara County, several extreme heat events were experienced in the past 20 years, including during 2000, 2006, and 2009. None of these were Federally-declared disasters. Yet heat waves have become stronger across the region, including mid-summer night-time heat waves and increases in day-time heat waves. Though heat waves are invisible, they can have great impacts on human health, particularly for vulnerable populations.

Precipitation & Flooding
Los Altos has experienced numerous severe winter storms that have caused flooding, and multiple climate models predict at least one severe storm a year under high emissions scenarios by the end of the century (See the section Future Changes to Climate Hazards, below). Interestingly, while severe storms will happen more frequently, they will not be much more intense according to projections produced by Cal-Adapt. Similarly, the average annual precipitation is not expected to change.

Floods are caused by the duration, intensity, and spatial distribution of precipitation interacting with terrain and land use characteristics like ground cover. In other words, floods are not exclusively a climate hazard. They are the result of a climate phenomenon in interaction with physical conditions. These local conditions that influence flooding range from short-term characteristics such as soil moisture to long-standing features like the size of storm sewers. Similarly, the impact of floods depend on what is flooded: The storms of 1998 caused overtopping of Adobe Creek, flooding properties and damaging structures in Los Altos Redwood Grove Nature Preserve, but producing much less damage than if somehow downtown were flooded.

Wildfires & Air Pollution
Despite increased temperatures, wildfires are not projected to be a significantly worse threat in the future for Los Altos, based on the average area burned by wildfires. That indicator of wildfires is projected to decrease as Los Altos urbanizes.

Regionally, Los Altos and the surrounding area is not high risk, though the relative risk for natural areas in the Santa Cruz mountains is projected to increase slightly.

CAL FIRE’s somewhat outdated maps do not consider Los Altos or most of the areas around Los Altos to be very high fire hazard severity zones because they are urban.

The closest very high fire hazard areas are in southern Cupertino and Saratoga.

Some areas west of Los Altos are in a high hazard severity zone.

However, the analysis is limited to direct wildfire impact in Los Altos – acres burned.

Secondary impacts like air pollution can be significant and prolonged. 2 Santa Clara County Operational Area Mitigation Plan, Office of Emergency Services, p. 117, http://sanjose.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?event_id=2690&meta_id=642821, accessed June 8, 2021 132 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 545 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
In some ways, wildfires are an interesting analog to floods, influenced both by weather and local conditions. The Santa Clara County Climate Adaptation Guidebook describes this complexity. “Weather is one of the most significant factors in determining the severity of wildfires; [however,] natural fire patterns are driven [both] by conditions such as drought, temperature, precipitation, and wind, and also by changes to vegetation structure and fuel (i.e.) biomass availability.” Just as floods are exacerbated by high soil moisture, wildfires are more destructive when they occur on top of strong droughts.

Of course, wildfires can start from any number of human sources and not only during dry weather. Like floods, wildfires present the greatest risk to life and property when they cross the wildland urban interface into developed areas. However, the spread and duration of wildfires is less predictable than floods. Wildfires are most likely to spread through embers directed by wind and the air currents of the fire itself.

These air currents can bring particulate matter hundreds of miles from the fire.

During the SCU Fire and even the Paradise Fire, Los Altos was impacted by poor air quality which kept people in their homes.
3 Summer can already produce poor air
quality due to photochemical (sunlight) smog and the long-term suspension of particulate matter that rain in the winter and spring dissolves. These periods of air pollution increase the health risk for people with pre-existing respiratory conditions and/or who experience occupational hazards through outdoor work. 3 As shared in the Apr. 23, 2021 focus group
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 133546 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Figure 2: Average concentration of particulate matter 2.5 in Los Altos and surrounding area Although a verdant city, Los Altos has only average air quality. The Bay Area as well as the Central Valley south of Sacramento are all non-attainment areas for ambient air quality standards. Figure 2 shows the concentration of Particulate Matter 2.5, a specifically harmful irritant. According to OEHHA, “PM2.5…can have adverse effects on the heart and lungs, including lung irritation, exacerbation of existing respiratory disease, and cardiovascular effects. The US EPA has set a new [in the last decade] standard for ambient PM2.5 concentration of 12 μg/m3, down from 15 μg/m3.” Most of Los Altos is higher than 10 μg/m3. The EPA classifies the whole of Santa Clara County as “moderate” in the category of PM 2.5. It should be noted that ozone, another indicator of air quality, has improved considerably throughout the Bay Area since the 1960s. Given the moderate baseline air quality, added pollution from wildfires even far from Los Altos can create unhealthy levels of PM2.5 134 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 547 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Future Changes to Climate Hazards
There are several sources of information about future climate hazards and their impact on Los Altos. Described below is information from several State, County, and local documents and tools. These sources are not exhaustive, nor are they entirely in agreement, however, together they provide a helpful composite.

California State Hazard Mitigation Plan
The California State Hazard Mitigation Plan is the state’s primary document which describes historical and current hazards and articulates goals to mitigate those hazards to reduce injury, death, and damage. The Hazard Mitigation Plan is helpful background for the Vulnerability Assessment, although hazard mitigation is not exactly the same as climate adaptation. Specifically, the goal of hazard mitigation planning is to understand the probability and impact of natural and man-made hazards and to outline actions to reduce or eliminate the loss of life and property from those hazards. Some of the hazards in the hazard mitigation plan are natural hazards and most of those natural hazards are climate related. The plan lists fire, flood, and earthquake as the primary hazards based on number of events, deaths, and cost. Climate change, it says, will result in “more frequent incidence of severe events, such as extreme rainfall, wind, wildfire, extreme heat, and extended drought.”4
California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment – San Francisco Bay Area Region Report
California’s fourth climate change assessment was produced in 2018. Given the size and physical diversity of California, the assessment was divided into region-specific reports. The San Francisco Bay Area Region report describes that temperatures in the Bay Area rose almost 2°F between 1950 and 2005 and are expected to rise significantly by mid-century. If emissions continue through the end of the century, temperature changes will be major, with an increase of 7.2°F. However, inland areas will heat up more than coastal areas, both generally and when comparing the hottest day of the year in each area.

According to the report, precipitation will continue to vary significantly year to year, based on the occurrence and path of winter jet stream flows which produce “atmospheric rivers.” Winter storms from the atmospheric rivers will continue to produce significant snowfall in the Sierra Nevada and heavy rainfall capable of causing floods. Under a high emissions scenario, the wettest day of the year in 2100 may produce 30% more rain. The Bay Area may experience precipitation “whiplash” year to year.
4 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, Section 4.3 – p. 129 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 135548 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Even if total precipitation increases, changes in the timing and form of precipitation (rain or snow) along with expected increases in temperature are likely to cause longer and deeper droughts. Average Sierra snowpack is expected to decline between 30% and 60% by mid-century and over 80% by the end of the century under a high emissions scenario.

Future fire activity is expected to increase as climate warms; however, the distribution of risk is uncertain because it depends on changes in urban development. Where the wildland-urban interface expands, fire risks will increase.

Rural and suburban areas that urbanize will see a decline in fire risk.

Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan The Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan is the county-wide hazard mitigation plan for Santa Clara County. The plan describes briefly how climate will impact the frequency and severity of climate hazards. Specifically, it describes that the number and length of heat waves is expected to increase, as are the number of single-day extreme heat days. According to the document, “precipitation projections for California remain uncertain,” however, the combination of temperature increases combined with the timing and form of precipitation is expected to change stream flow and river flooding. Wildfire risk as defined by area burned in Santa Clara County is not expected to change significantly by mid-century.

The average area burned is expected to decrease by 10-20% by 2085.

Los Altos Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex
The Los Altos Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex is a Los Altos-specific addition to the Santa Clara County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Los Altos Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex not only lists the history of declared disasters, it also ranks natural hazards based on their probability and their impact. According to the Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex, the hazard with the highest risk score (probability x impact) is earthquake (48) followed by severe weather (33), flood (18), drought (9), dam and levee failure (6), wildfire (3) and landslide (3). Severe weather includes severe storms from atmospheric rivers or thunderstorms, extreme heat and frosts/freezes, high winds, and so-called space weather, which refers to disruptive variations in the sun’s energy.

The risk score ranking is useful for understanding how the hazards compare to one another. While earthquakes are a natural hazard, it is not considered in this climate Vulnerability Assessment.5
5 With the exception of sea level rise increasing the liquefaction risk in coastal areas outside of Los Altos, there is no relation between atmospheric phenomena and earthquake risk. More simply, whether we reverse or continue climate change will not increase or decrease the risks of earthquakes. Earthquakes are well considered in the Hazard Mitigation Plan for Santa Clara County and its Los Altos Annex. 136 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 549 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Rankings of the CAAP Task Force
The CAAP Task Force is a group of City staff and Environmental Commission members who guided the development of the CAAP. They are involved in many aspects of Los Altos operations, planning, and environmental management and so were asked what climate hazards they were most concerned about in the future.

They ranked their concern (high, medium, low) for primary and secondary climate hazards. Primary climate hazards are phenomena that are climate variables.

Temperature and precipitation define climate. Secondary climate hazards are hazards resulting from changes in primary climate hazards in relation to community sectors like the natural environment, the economy, and the public. All twelve respondents on that Task Force completed the survey ranking hazards of concern.

Responses are shown below
Primary Climate
Hazards Score
Temperature Increase 2.4
Precipitation Changes 1.8
Sea Level Rise 1.3
Table 2: Average Scores and Ranking for Primary Climate Hazards according to the CAAP Task Force
Secondary Climate
Hazards Score
Drought 2.8
Extreme Heat/Heat Waves 2.4
Wildfire 2.4
Air Pollution 2.4
Flooding (Riverine, Areal) 2.3
Urban Heat Island 1.9
Flooding (Coastal) 1.4
Landslide 1.3
Table 3Average Scores and Ranking for Secondary Climate Hazards according to the CAAP Task Force The CAAP Task Force was most concerned about increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns. Each of the hazards of high and medium concern were related to the impacts of heat, with drought receiving the highest average score and extreme heat, wildfire, and air pollution receiving the next highest scores. The hazard with the highest score, drought, is driven both by heat and by precipitation. Air pollution, wildfires, and urban heat island are hazards that are not entirely a natural phenomenon.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 137550 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Cal-Adapt & Adaptation Planning in California
The OES issued the California Adaptation Planning Guide (APG) to help municipalities and all stakeholders involved in the vulnerability assessment process with recommendations and tools to develop a scientifically grounded, relevant, and actionable adaptation plan.

One of the public resources provided by OES to be used in consult with the (APG) is a web-based climate projection tool called Cal-Adapt. Cal-Adapt provides historical and projected climate information, including “local snapshots” of several different climate phenomena under different emissions scenarios through 2100. The global climate models selected by OES are particularly well matched to California’s climate.

Cal-Adapt was used for this vulnerability assessment to predict what future temperature and precipitation Los Altos will experience based on scenarios of future global emissions or Representative Concentration Pathways, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, adopted by the International Panel on Climate Change. These emissions scenarios are based on models of population growth, economic growth, food production, technological advancement, political activities to curb greenhouse gas emissions and other factors. RCP 2.6 represents a “very stringent” pathway, in which emissions start declining by 2020 and go to zero by 2100. It is not included in Cal-Adapt. RCP

4.5 represents a global growth scenario in which emissions continue to 2040 and then decline. RCP 8.5 represents a “business as usual” scenario in which emissions continue unabated. Because these scenarios and models are global, they do not consider how Los Altos reduces its emissions.

Cal-Adapt plugs these global emissions scenarios into global climate models (GCMs) to produce local information about areas in California, including Los Altos.

Cal-Adapt describes the process on its Guidance on Using Climate Projections webpage, from which the text below is reproduced.

Climate scientists create projections of future climate using powerful tools called global climate models. Global climate models are complex pieces of computer software that crunch through thousands of mathematical equations representing the scientific theory of how the climate system works. They can be used to simulate climate over past periods, or to run experiments in which scientists impose certain conditions on the model to see how the climate system responds. A future climate projection is the product of global climate model experiments in which scientists impose upon the model some scenario of the future atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases [eg. RCP

4.5 and RCP 8.5].

When climate scientists run a climate model, they divide the area of study into a grid, and the model performs calculations for each 138 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 551 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
individual cell within the grid. The output from those calculations can then be visualized on a map, similar to the visualizations in Cal-Adapt [shown in Figures 3-9]. In climate model projections, for any given snapshot in time, each grid cell is represented by a single value for temperature, precipitation, or other climate variable of interest.

The grid cells in most global climate models are very large—from 100 to 600 kilometers [roughly 100 to 375 miles] squared. This coarse resolution is OK when scientists are studying climate on the global scale, but it is not very useful when we are trying to understand climate change on smaller scales. We know that present-day climate varies greatly from region to region in California, and so we expect future climate to vary accordingly. But that detail is lost in the global climate models, in which all of California may be represented by just a few grid cells. To be able to plan for the future, we need to produce higher-resolution projections of future climate. Climate scientists do just that by using various techniques to "downscale" global climate model output to finer spatial scales. The data in Cal-Adapt is taken from a selection of global climate models and downscaled to about 7-kilometer [roughly 4.5 mile] resolution.

Understanding Cal-Adapt Graphs
The Cal-Adapt graphs presented in this Vulnerability Assessment display several types of data illustrating how variables like temperature, extreme heat, drought, precipitation, and wildfire are expected to change as climate change continues. The next series of images describes how information on the Los Altos graphs are displayed.

The line in grey represents historical
observed values for each year shown
on the graph. The year-to-year
differences represent the natural
variation in climate. Although the
planet is warming over the long term,
some years are still cooler or warmer
than others.

The colored areas of the graph below represent projections under different emissions scenarios, RCP 4.5 representing continued global emissions until 2040 and RCP 8.5 representing continued global emissions through the end of the century.

RCP 4.5 is shown in a light
blue or teal color.
individual cell within the grid. The output from those calculations can then be visualized on a map, similar to the visualizations in Cal-Adapt [shown in Figures 3-9]. In climate model projections, for any given snapshot in time, each grid cell is represented by a single value for temperature, precipitation, or other climate variable of interest.

RCP 4.5 is shown in a light
blue or teal color.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 139 individual cell within the grid. The output from those calculations can then be visualized on a map, similar to the visualizations in Cal-Adapt [shown in Figures 3-9]. In climate model projections, for any given snapshot in time, each grid cell is represented by a single value for temperature, precipitation, or other climate variable of interest.

RCP 4.5 is shown in a light
blue or teal color.
552
Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
The blue line represents the most likely outcome for whatever variable is being graphed. Because it is produced by averaging multiple climate models, it smooths out the year-to-year variability that each model predicts. The line does not indicate that year-to-year variability will disappear.

The shaded blue or teal area around the line represents the full range of climate projections for the variable across all the models. If one model predicts a high value and one model predicts a low value, that information is shown in the shaded area.

In sum, under a medium emissions scenario, Los Altos may experience any value within the shaded blue area and is most likely to experience the value on the blue line.

The same explanation for the image holds true under a high emissions scenario, shown in light purple. The purple line represents the most likely outcome for the variable, and the shaded area around the line represents the full range of climate projections for the variable across all models.

When both emissions scenarios are
graphed, the darker purple-grey
area represents the possible values
which are projected in both medium
emissions and high emissions
scenarios. For some climate
variables, like temperature,
differences between emissions
scenarios become clear later in the
century by less and less overlap in
blue and purple shaded areas,
indicating that reducing emissions
will reduce how much temperatures
rise. For other variables, like
precipitation, there is not a significant visual difference between the blue and purple shaded areas, indicating that the range of values for precipitation is more or less the same in either emissions scenario.
140 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 553 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Precipitation & Flooding
Figure 3 shows the observed and projected annual precipitation for Los Altos. The graph indicates that there is expected to be little change in annual average precipitation in a medium or high emissions scenario for both Los Altos and Santa Clara County (not shown), a remarkable reality considering that many areas across California and the country are projected to experience much greater drought in the future. As shown in Table 5, average annual precipitation is projected to increase marginally.

Figure 3: Annual total precipitation, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios. The shaded area represents the range of likely annual precipitation totals in each scenario; the colored lines represent the most likely precipitation total in each scenario. Produced using Cal-Adapt.

Period Years
Emissions
Scenario Average
Range of
Averages Units
Baseline 1961-1990 Observed 19 inches
Mid-Century 2035-2064
Medium (RCP

4.5) 20.1 17.5 - 26.4 inches
End-Century 2070-2099
Medium (RCP

4.5) 20.6 16.7 - 25.2 inches
Mid-Century 2035-2064
High (RCP

8.5) 20.5 16.4 - 26.1 inches
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 141 554 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
End-Century 2070-2099
High (RCP

8.5) 21.3 14.7 - 28.6 inches
Table 4: Annual total precipitation, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios over 30-year periods according to Cal-Adapt. The numbers in the average column represent the averages of the most likely outcome over the 30-year periods. The numbers in the range of averages column represents the averages from all climate models over the 30-year periods. The range of averages is generally greater in the high emissions scenario, indicating the greater uncertainty under high emissions.

Even if annual precipitation is expected to remain consistent as an annual average, the timing of rainfall is expected to vary from the existing seasons. Winters may be wetter and spring and autumn may be drier. The variability may include more intense, infrequent rainfall causing riverine flooding, preceded and followed by longer dry spells without any precipitation. The maximum 1-day precipitation event is expected to increase marginally.

Flooding is likely to increase as a result of an increased number of days with extreme rainfall events. That increased risk may be compounded with a slight increase in the number of wildfires in areas uphill and upstream from Los Altos that reduce the ability of plants and soils to absorb rainfall. Conversely, back-to-back extreme rainfall events in late winter may fall on areas already saturated and unable to absorb rainfall. The result in either case is a change in the intensity and pattern of flooding. Determining flood risk requires hydrologic and hydraulic analyses that are outside the scope of this assessment- the last study performed for FEMA was in 1977, indicating that a new analysis should be performed. 142 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 555 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Figure 4: Maximum 1-day precipitation, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios. The shaded area represents the range of likely precipitation totals in each scenario; the colored lines represent the most likely total in each scenario. Produced using Cal-Adapt.

Period Years Emissions
Scenario Average Range ofAverages Units
Baseline 1961-1990 Observed 1.5 inches
Mid-Century 2035-2064 Medium (RCP

4.5) 1.6 1.35 - 2.06 inches
End-Century 2070-2099 Medium (RCP

4.5) 1.6 1.36 - 2.01 inches
Mid-Century 2035-2064 High (RCP

8.5) 1.6 1.35 - 1.86 inches
End-Century 2070-2099 High (RCP

8.5) 1.7 1.36 - 2.29 inches
Table 5: Maximum 1-day precipitation, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios over 30-year periods according to Cal-Adapt. The numbers in the average column represent the averages of the most likely outcome over the 30-year periods. The numbers in the range of averages column represents the averages from all climate models over the 30-year periods.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 143556 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Figure 5 shows a slightly different representation of future precipitation under a high emissions scenario and, using four models recommended by Cal-Adapt, shows an increase in the number of extreme precipitation events annually. Through mid-century, all of the models predict some years with no extreme precipitation events annually. By the end of the century, three of the four models predict several extreme events annually – it will be more likely than not to experience at least one extreme event annually. Since the annual precipitation is not expected to increase, it can be assumed that there will be a decrease in the amount of precipitation occurring during non-extreme precipitation events.

Figure 5: Number of extreme precipitation events projected under high emissions scenarios according to 5 different global climate models (GCMs) recommended by Cal-Adapt.

Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought
As shown in Figure 6, the annual average maximum temperature is expected to increase over the rest of the 21st century. Under the high emissions scenario (RCP 8.5), temperature is projected to increase nearly 8 degrees F, nearly twice as much as under a medium emissions scenario (RCP 4.5). Table 6 indicates the certainty of temperature increases. Even the low end of the range of averages is higher than the observed average, 1961-1990.
144 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 557 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Figure 6: Annual average maximum temperatures, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios. The shaded area represents the range of likely temperatures in each scenario; the colored lines represent the most likely temperature in each scenario.

Produced using Cal-Adapt.

Period Years Emissions
Scenario Average Range ofAverages Units
Baseline 1961-1990 Observed 67.7 °F
Mid-Century 2035-2064 Medium (RCP

4.5) 70.3 68.8 - 71.8 °F
End-Century 2070-2099 Medium (RCP

4.5) 71.4 69.5 - 73.7 °F
Mid-Century 2035-2064 High (RCP

8.5) 71.1 69.2 - 72.9 °F
End-Century 2070-2099 High (RCP

8.5) 74.3 71.5 - 78.1 °F
Table 6: Annual Average Maximum Temperature, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios over 30-year periods according to Cal-Adapt. The numbers in the average column represent the averages of the most likely outcome over the 30-year periods. The numbers in the range of averages column represents the averages from all climate models over the 30-year periods.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 145558 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Drought
As a product of increasing temperatures and increasing precipitation variability, including less spring and autumn precipitation, drought may increase. The maximum length of dry spell is expected to increase by 10-15% as shown in the table below.

Figure 7: Maximum length of dry spell, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios. The shaded area represents the range of likely number of days of dry spell totals in each scenario; the colored lines represent the most likely maximum length in each scenario. Produced using Cal-Adapt.

Period Years Emissions
Scenario Average Range of
Averages Units
Baseline 1961-1990 Observed 120 days
Mid-Century 2035-2064 Medium (RCP

4.5) 133 119 - 151 days
End-Century 2070-2099 Medium (RCP

4.5) 135 115 - 150 days
Mid-Century 2035-2064 High (RCP

8.5) 137 125 - 151 days
End-Century 2070-2099 High (RCP

8.5) 140 112 - 172 days
146 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 559 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Table 7: Maximum length of dry spell, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios over 30-year periods according to Cal-Adapt. The numbers in the average column represent the averages of the most likely outcome over the 30-year periods. The numbers in the range of averages column represents the averages from all climate models over the 30-year periods. Under a high emissions scenario, the range of averages at the end of century (112-172 days) is significantly wider than the range of averages mid-century (125-151 days), indicating the uncertainty of the impact of high emissions longer term.

Average temperatures and days with extreme heat are expected to increase, increasing evaporation and evapotranspiration (release of water vapor by plants)in turn. Residential water use for landscaping may increase in response. Defining drought as simply the length of a dry spell obscures the complexity of Los Altos’ water supply and use. Future droughts will be defined not just by precipitation and temperature, but by water supply storage levels across the water system and water use by end users. In other words, drought is not an entirely natural phenomenon.

Extreme Heat/Heat Waves
Heat waves are expected to increase in severity, frequency, and duration.

Figure 8: Number of extreme heat days, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios. The shaded area represents the range of likely number of extreme heat days in each scenario; the colored lines represent the most likely number of extreme heat days in each scenario. Produced using Cal-Adapt.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 147560 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Period Years Emissions
Scenario Average Range ofAverages Units
Baseline 1961-1990 Observed 4 days
Mid-Century 2035-2064 Medium (RCP

4.5) 11 7-17 days
End-Century 2070-2099 Medium (RCP

4.5) 13 9-23 days
Mid-Century 2035-2064 High (RCP

8.5) 14 8-20 days
End-Century 2070-2099 High (RCP

8.5) 24 13-49 days
Table 8: Number of extreme heat days, observed and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios over 30-year periods according to Cal-Adapt. The numbers in the average column represent the averages of the most likely outcome over the 30-year periods. The numbers in the range of averages column represents the averages from all climate models over the 30-year periods.

As shown in Figure 8, the number of extreme heat days (defined as days with high temperatures above 90.2F for Los Altos) is expected to increase above 10 by mid-century. By the end of the century, Cal Adapt projects more than three times as many days of extreme heat under the medium emissions scenario and as many as 40 days of extreme heat under the high emissions scenario.

Wildfires & Air Pollution
Remarkably, given the expected increases in average and extreme temperatures, the area of Los Altos burned by wildfires is projected to decrease,according to Cal Adapt, under both medium and high emissions scenarios.
148 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 561 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
End-Century 2070-2099 High (RCP

8.5) 19 14.9 - 22.7 acres
Table 9: Number of average acres burned, modeled and projected under medium and high emissions scenarios over 30-year periods. The average number of acres burned is expected to decrease under both medium emissions and high emissions scenarios.

Additional Sources for Wildfire
Since the Cal-Adapt projections and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex indicated that wildfire was low risk and yet wildfire was a relatively high concern of the CAAP Task Force, additional research was conducted on the future risk of wildfires. Sources identified were the Santa Clara County Climate Adaptation Guidebook, Caltrans Vulnerability Assessment for District 4 (San Francisco Bay Area), and CAL FIRE.

According to the Santa Clara County Climate Adaptation Guidebook, climate change is projected to increase the frequency of wildfires, the extent of burned areas, and the duration of wildfire seasons. “Wildfire seasons are projected to begin earlier in the spring due to drier and warmer spring conditions on average.” However, this increase in wildfire seems to be minor in the areas surrounding Los Altos and other already urbanized areas, as shown in the CALFIRE maps of Santa Clara County.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 149 End-Century 2070-2099 High (RCP

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Figure 9: Maps of Santa Clara County indicating current (above) and future (below) wildfire risk level, according to CAL FIRE.
150 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 563 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
In Figure 10, some mountainous areas west of Los Altos move from “moderate” to “high” risk and a large area southwest of Los Altos moves from “high” to “very high” risk.

The section of Caltrans’
Vulnerability Assessment
focusing on wildfire risk
shows the likelihood of
wildfire in 2085 increasing in
some areas of Santa Clara
County, but not
Los Altos or the entire San
Francisco Peninsula.

Figure 10: Caltrans’ Vulnerability
Assessment focusing on wildfire risk showing the likelihood of wildfire in 2085.

Air Pollution/Air Quality
The minor increase in risk of wildfire in areas surrounding Los Altos may relatively worsen air quality in Los Altos, however, climate projections focus on the relative risk of areas to wildfire, not to air quality impacts based on prevailing wind patterns. Air quality was not a climate variable for which Cal-Adapt produced projections. The California State Hazard Mitigation Plan describes how air pollution could deteriorate in the future
Climate change has the potential to worsen PM concentrations in California due to increased incidence of wildfire as well as the increased temperature and reduced precipitation in many locations. Smoke and ash produced by fire increase PM concentrations. Similarly, dry, warm weather can result in greater amounts of dust being blown and suspended in air. 6
In summary, even if Los Altos isn’t as vulnerable to direct impacts from wildfires, it should be prepared for the indirect impact of air pollution.

Impacts on Los Altos’ Assets/Community Sectors
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 151 In Figure 10, some mountainous areas west of Los Altos move from “moderate” to “high” risk and a large area southwest of Los Altos moves from “high” to “very high” risk.

Figure 10: Caltrans’ Vulnerability
Assessment focusing on wildfire risk showing the likelihood of wildfire in 2085.

Impacts on Los Altos’ Assets/Community Sectors
Information about the impacts of climate hazards was supplemented by a survey of the CAAP Task Force and a focus group with City staff and non-profit leaders.

Specifically, the CAAP Task Force was asked to rank what natural and built assets and facilities and what sectors of the economy were most important to Los Altos’ quality of life. Results receiving 40% or more are shown below.

Natural Environment
Assets
Asset Percent of Respondents
answering as Most
Important
Managed landscapes (yards, parks, street
trees)
80%
Air & air quality 70%
Natural habitat (soil, plants, wildlife) 40%
Creeks, rivers and other water bodies 40%
Local Assets
A former orchard, Los Altos has an incredible canopy of native and non-native trees on streets, in parks, and in homeowner’s yards. Those trees, along with a creek and the Santa Cruz mountains, grace the seal of the City. According to the City’s website, there are approximately 12,000 trees on Los Altos streets creating a stunning tree canopy, which helps to promote better air quality, cooler summers, natural shade and less reliance on air conditioning.”7
In addition to trees, yards and parks are well regarded by residents. Shoup Park and the Redwood Grove Nature Preserve were mentioned multiple times by respondents as assets that provide a real sense of nature. The Hillside Trail connecting both parks features a boardwalk along Adobe Creek. 7 https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/tree-maintenance, accessed May 6, 2021 6 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, SECTION 9.1 - PAGE 583
concentrations. Simil
being blown and sus
In summary, even if Los A
should be prepared for the
Impacts on Los A
Information about the imp
the CAAP Task Force an
Specifically, the CAAP Ta
and facilities and what se
quality of life. Results rece
Natural Environment
Assets
Asset
Managed landscapes (yar
trees)
Air & air quality
Natural habitat (soil, plants
Creeks, rivers and other w
Local Assets
A former orchard, Los Alt
on streets, in parks, and i
the Santa Cruz mountains
there are approximately
canopy, which helps to p
and less reliance on air co
In addition to trees, yards
the Redwood Grove N
respondents as assets
connecting both parks fea
7 https://www.losaltosca.gov/public
6 California State Hazard Mitigation
583
564
Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED concentrations. Similarly, dry, warm weather can result in greater amounts of dust being blown and suspended in air. 6
In summary, even if Los Altos isn’t as vulnerable to direct impacts from wildfires, it should be prepared for the indirect impact of air pollution.

Natural Environment
Assets
Asset Percent of Respondents
answering as Most
Important
Managed landscapes (yards, parks, street
trees)
80%
Air & air quality 70%
Natural habitat (soil, plants, wildlife) 40%
Creeks, rivers and other water bodies 40%
Local Assets
A former orchard, Los Altos has an incredible canopy of native and non-native trees on streets, in parks, and in homeowner’s yards. Those trees, along with a creek and the Santa Cruz mountains, grace the seal of the City. According to the City’s website, there are approximately 12,000 trees on Los Altos streets creating a stunning tree canopy, which helps to promote better air quality, cooler summers, natural shade and less reliance on air conditioning.”7
In addition to trees, yards and parks are well regarded by residents. Shoup Park and the Redwood Grove Nature Preserve were mentioned multiple times by respondents as assets that provide a real sense of nature. The Hillside Trail connecting both parks features a boardwalk along Adobe Creek. 7 https://www.losaltosca.gov/publicworks/page/tree-maintenance, accessed May 6, 2021 6 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan, California Office of Emergency Services, 2018, SECTION 9.1 - PAGE 583
152 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 concentrations. Similarly, dry, warm weather can result in greater amounts of dust being blown and suspended in air. 6
In summary, even if Los Altos isn’t as vulnerable to direct impacts from wildfires, it should be prepared for the indirect impact of air pollution.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Adobe Creek along with Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek and Hale Creek are significant natural features that provide habitat corridors that connect beyond Los Altos’ boundaries and contribute to groundwater recharge. Their importance is demonstrated by a pending (2021) lawsuit regarding pollution from a permit for Lehigh Quarry expansion upstream.

In such a verdant city, it is not surprising that many respondents in the CAAP Task Force mentioned air quality as an important asset. Outdoor recreation and outdoor living are prized and are dependent on comfortable temperatures and clean air.

Description of Impacts & Sensitivities
Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought
The biggest impact of extreme temperatures and extended heat waves on the natural environment will be heat stress on plants with the potential for slow native species die-out and replacement by non-native species. These tipping points will depend on many factors including species and age.

Managed landscapes will require greater care and watering. California Water Service predicts roughly 3.5% increase in mean temperature by 2040 and will correspond to a roughly 2% increase in demand.
8 Home gardeners and city staff may find formerly
tried and true ornamental plants less reliable – or untenable due to new ordinances or demand management measures. Having dealt with drought, Parks & Facilities staff has a reasonable capacity to manage the landscape for temperature increases and increased drought. The capacity of native, non-native, and ornamental plants to survive in a hotter, drier climate is not known.

Precipitation & Flooding
Severe precipitation and repeated flooding may increase stream bank erosion and flooding and erosion of managed landscapes. As the probability of multiple severe winter storms increases toward the end of the century, downed trees may be more common as trees rooted in soils saturated from previous storm events contend with heavy winds.

Wildfires & Air Pollution
Acres burned in Los Altos is expected to decrease. Increases in acres burned in the Santa Cruz mountain areas surrounding Los Altos are expected to be minor.

Thankfully, Redwood Grove is being managed by Parks & Facilities staff for wildfire, as redwoods are not native to Los Altos and so require extra care. The greatest wildfire risk to Los Altos is expected to be from wildfires in and even beyond the Santa Cruz mountains creating unhealthy levels of air pollution in Los Altos.

Built Environment
8 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Los Altos Suburban District, p. 36 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 153566 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Assets
Asset Percent Selecting as
Most Important
Housing 80%
Schools 60%
Transportation (roads, sidewalks, buses, trains,
parking spots & bike racks)
40%
Utilities (power, drinking water, stormwater &
sewer, natural gas, phone, internet)
40%
Description of Local Assets
Buildings
The built environment includes all the public and private buildings, structures, and infrastructure that people in Los Altos rely on for shelter, commerce, and the functions of daily life. (Commercial assets are described in the Economy section.) Los Altos is primarily a bedroom community where most residents live in single-family homes, although there is multi-family housing as well. Many elderly residents live in retirement communities and senior centers. Housing was the asset most chosen by CAAP Task force members as most important.

Los Altos has more than a dozen school facilities across multiple campuses, as well as more than thirty child care/day care facilities, preschools, and tutoring centers that provide care and education to the youth of the City.

Focus group participants shared that theatres, galleries, and other cultural assets contribute to quality of life and should also be included as built environment assets.

In addition to the assets listed above, Los Altos has buildings for daily and emergency government services. Critical facilities include an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) co-located in the Municipal Service Center, the City Hall and Police Department, and Fire Stations. There are no hospitals located in Los Altos.

Infrastructure
Transportation assets include, most importantly, roads and bridges that connect drivers, bikers, and pedestrians to different neighborhoods, shopping centers, the freeway, and areas outside the City. Public parking supports commercial areas.

Water supply is a complex multi-jurisdictional hybrid natural and built system, including groundwater supply, surface water, and recycled water sources. While the sources are natural, the management includes sophisticated, interconnected built assets. CalWater (California Water Services) Los Altos Suburban District water supply comes from both wells and purchases from Santa Clara Valley Water District 154 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 567 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
(SCVWD) which partially imports water from the Federal Central Valley Project and San Francisco Power and Utility Corporation’s Regional Water System. The Los Altos Suburban District includes Los Altos, Cupertino, and other areas. There are a handful of water pumping stations in Los Altos.

Los Altos has a minority stake in the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) along with Palo Alto, Mountain View, East Palo Alto, Stanford University, and Los Altos Hills. The City also owns a wastewater pump station to convey waste to the WQCP.

Stormwater management is provided naturally by Los Altos’ four creeks as well as by the Permanente Creek Diversion Channel and the storm sewer system – storm drains, catch basins and pipes below the street.

Description of Impacts & Sensitivities
Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought
Increases in temperature and extended heat waves will change the cooling needs of all building types and may tax the energy grid. Pacific Gas & Electric’s Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS) to reduce wildfire risks during heat waves will require alternative and off-grid energy sources to cool homes, commercial, and government buildings. The recently constructed/renovated Los Altos High School and the Los Altos Community Center are high-performance buildings that may be better able to maintain comfortable temperatures during extreme heat.

In general, homeowners in Los Altos have the financial resources to adopt new technologies to manage heat and produce and store renewable energy. Fixed income homeowners and renters have less of an adaptive capacity.

Assisted care facilities have backup generators. Senior centers do not, according to discussions with the City’s emergency management coordinator. The City relies on Santa Clara County to provide cooling centers, in the form of public libraries.

Most transportation infrastructure will be unaffected by extreme heat and drought.

Risk of asphalt softening is limited to extended temperatures above 100°F. Safety power shut offs and brownouts caused by heat can cause outages of traffic signals and street lights. Extreme heat will increase use of private vehicles at the expense of walking, biking, and taking public transit.

Temperature changes and extreme heat throughout the region will impact the availability of the water supply in SCVWD’s system, which supplies as much as 65% of the water in the Los Altos Suburban District.9 Los Altos water is sourced locally and imported, although not from snow-fed Hetch Hetchy.10 If the Los Altos 10 Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, Office of Emergency Services, 2017, p. 113. 9 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Los Altos Suburban District, p. 47 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 155568 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Suburban District is partially protected from the risk of decreased snowpack in the Sierra Nevada mountains, nevertheless supply is projected to decrease by 3-18% by mid-century and 10-28% by 2100.
11 The projected decrease underscores how many
of the critical systems and natural resources of Los Altos extend beyond its borders where climate change may produce more extreme impacts.

Water supply issues are heavily regulated and very much in the public eye, in contrast to the climate risk of extreme heat. To a degree, water suppliers are already preparing for climate change. CalWater is developing new water supplies to improve reliability. The impacts from climate change to Los Altos water availability may come indirectly through external adaptive measures like increased regulations, including updates to the State’s Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, prohibitions, and demand management measures, rather than severe restrictions.

Safety power shut offs and brownouts caused by heat can disrupt pumps in the water supply and wastewater systems.

Precipitation & Flooding12
Severe precipitation and repeated flooding may increase stream bank erosion and flooding, causing scour under the numerous bridges and creek crossings. Buried pipes may be exposed and/or damaged. Storm sewers may get backed up and cause localized flooding. With multiple heavy storms occurring yearly by the end of the century, wear and tear on roads and within pipes may require repair and replacement more frequently than planned for.

Los Altos has experienced limited flooding of homes or structures, although there are many buildings that have a 0.2 percent annual chance of flooding, according to FEMA flood maps. Hydrologic and hydraulic modeling outside of this report scope would be needed to understand how the risk of flooding in specific areas may increase in the future.

Los Altos already has a Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan which includes an assessment of flood-prone storm drain catchments among its prioritization criteria.

With some changes, this document and the capital planning that results from it can integrate climate risks to adapt to the risks from precipitation changes.

Wildfires & Air Pollution
Wildfires pose a greater hazard to structures, including homes and above ground assets, than to underground assets. Air pollution from wildfires outside of Los Altos 12 Although Los Altos is not coastal and so not directly at risk from sea level rise, sea level rise will have an impact on groundwater supply and the Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plan. 11 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Los Altos Suburban District, p. 70. Projections estimated based on climate change impacts on the mix of groundwater, local surface water, and purchased imports relative to the historic average of available supply.
156 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 569 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
does not have a significant impact on buildings and infrastructure, simply requiring changing filters on buildings and vehicle fleets more frequently.

Economy
The impact of climate hazards on the economy are hard to predict. Climate extremes will generally cause more wear and tear of physical assets, leading to shorter lifespans and faster replacement cycles for buildings and infrastructure.

Increased spending on maintenance will be needed. Disasters cause a drop and then rise in expenditures, following Federal assistance and insurance payouts, though in sum disasters produce both environmental and economic losses.

Description of Local Assets
Los Altos has several areas of economic activity, as listed in the economic element of the General Plan. Listed roughly from north to south, these are Sherwood Gateway (including the Village Court Shopping Center), El Camino Real, Downtown, Rancho Shopping Center, Loyola Corners, Woodland Plaza, and Foothill Plaza.

When asked what sectors of the economy were most important to quality of life, most survey participants responded that School District/City Spending (60%) and Restaurants (60%) were most important. Half of survey participants responded that real estate, development, and construction as a single sector were important. Fewer than half of respondents selected retail, the service sector, or tech/IT.

Property taxes on Los Altos housing provides the key revenue source for City finances. At the same time, the affordable housing shortage throughout the Bay Area extends to Los Altos, affecting the disposable income available for other purchases.

Description of Impacts & Sensitivities
Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought
Temperature, extreme heat, and drought are most likely to cause a negative effect on the economy as residents and businesses spend more on air conditioning (and California-wide on food) to maintain the same quality of life. Outdoor living is important to quality of life and outdoor comfort is an important free asset for downtown restaurants and retail businesses.

Decreasing comfort negatively impacts worker productivity and may disrupt outdoor businesses like landscaping and construction. Temperature-related mortality is also a projected loss. Power outages and brownouts caused by extreme heat will also negatively impact the economy through everything from loss of perishable items to adding uncertainty to business operations. Expensive solutions for managing electricity unreliability like diesel generators add environmental externalities. At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic has been longer lasting and more far reaching than most of the direct climate hazards of the near future.

LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 157570 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
Precipitation & Flooding
Property damage and temporary disruption of utilities and infrastructure can create temporary or extended loss of operations for businesses, particularly for businesses with non-durable goods. Even perceptions of flood risk and flood safety can influence the housing market.

Wildfires & Air Pollution
Temporary disruption of utilities and infrastructure from wildfire-related PSPS can create temporary or extended loss of operations. When poor air quality keeps people in their home, they are less likely to spend in Los Altos’ commercial centers.

Vulnerable Populations
Description of Impacts & Sensitivities
Temperature, Extreme Heat & Drought
Projected temperature changes will impact the seasonality and frequency of outdoor recreation, biking and walking, and even passive enjoyment of the outdoors.

Outdoor comfort will increase in winter, spring, and fall and decrease in summer.

Parks, yards, and other outdoor areas will become undesirable during heat waves, and parking lots and streets may become dangerous to certain populations during extreme heat.

From medical and sociological research, we know that certain populations are more vulnerable to extreme heat. However, not all of these populations exist in Los Altos.

Based on CAAP Task Force survey respondents, the vulnerable populations present in Los Altos include the elderly, people with chronic or pre-existing medical conditions, people with disabilities, children, and people with limited English proficiency. If projected temperature changes are experienced, incidences of heat stroke, hospitalization, and heat-related mortality will increase first and foremost within these groups.

While only 40% of Task Force survey respondents selected “people who work outside” as a vulnerable group, a subsequent focus group confirmed that day laborers in landscaping and construction are a vulnerable population who may commute into Los Altos to work outdoors. Los Altos does not have experience providing services or communications to this population, so managing their health risk will be a challenge.

The focus group additionally identified seniors who are “house rich, cash poor,” and may potentially be impacted by increased costs of energy as temperatures increase.

Assisted care facilities have backup generators, but senior centers do not. Santa Clara County libraries act as the city’s cooling centers. 158 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 571 Agenda Item # 4.

Figure 11: Graph showing how CAAP Task Force members responded to question asking them to identify which vulnerable populations are present in Los Altos Precipitation & Flooding
Vulnerable populations often have fewer resources and/or limited mobility.

Preparations for flooding, evacuations, and clean-ups are all made more difficult by these circumstances.

Wildfires & Air Pollution
While flooding is likely to be limited to areas near the City’s four creeks, the impacts of wildfires may be felt citywide. Like flooding though, preparations, evacuations, returns, and clean up are all more difficult for vulnerable populations: people with limited mobility and functionality, people with chronic or pre-existing medical conditions which could be exacerbated by poor air quality, and people with limited financial resources.

Long before emergency situations, air pollution will directly impact people with respiratory conditions and people who work outside. Wildfires far outside of Los Altos can create unhealthy levels of PM 2.5, especially since existing air quality is only moderate to start with. Air pollution can limit the mobility and quality of life of sensitive groups.

The N-95 masks which are now easy to obtain and with which people are now very familiar with as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic may mean that air quality will not limit activity for vulnerable groups as much as it might have without the pandemic.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 159572 Agenda Item # 4.

Summary
Los Altos appears better off than many other areas in California with regards to climate change. Los Altos is not directly coastal so it will not experience the impacts of sea level rise, but its relative proximity to the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay should temper climate extremes in the near term. Earthquakes are projected to be a relatively more common and more damaging hazard than any single climate hazard.

Many of the impacts of climate change on Los Altos will not be direct but instead reverberations from nearby. Los Altos depends on the natural environment, the water supply system, and the energy grid outside of its borders, so the availability and affordability of water and energy within Los Altos are likely to be jeopardized by climate change across the Bay Area and California as a whole.

Within Los Altos itself, by mid-century particularly under a high emissions scenario, the number of extreme heat days are projected to increase substantially. Heat and poor air quality from wildfires outside of Los Altos are most likely to impact the quality of life, particularly for vulnerable populations, and increase energy demands for additional building air cooling/filtering. Extreme heat, poor air quality, and blackouts or PSPS that occur simultaneously will present novel emergency situations that have the potential to strain or overwhelm City resources.

Similarly and more uncertain will be the resilience of Los Altos' natural and maintained landscapes. The annual precipitation amounts in Los Altos are not likely to change, but will become less consistent and in combination with expected temperature increases will in turn increase the amount of water that plants need.

Considering water pressure outside of Los Altos, it is likely that water customers will face financial incentives and regulatory pressure to reduce daily water use.

In the winter and spring, seasonal storms which Los Altos has experienced in the past are likely to continue. Rainfall amounts that used to occur once every several years are projected to occur multiple times a year by the end of the century, increasing the need for maintenance and repair of stormwater infrastructure on building sites and across the city.

Los Altos’ government, residents, and businesses are somewhat prepared after living through years of drought and the COVID pandemic. The scale of climate change and the need to reach new vulnerable populations during heat waves may be challenging.

APPENDIX H: CLIMATE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT

FOR THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CA CONTINUED
160 LOS ALTOS ▶▶▶ CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN ▶▶▶ 2022 573 Agenda Item # 4.

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]
574
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jim Burns
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas Ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:43:01 AM
I don’t support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Jim Burns
725 Orange Ave
Los Altos, CA
Sent from my iPad
575
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Pat Marriot
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 4 Sept 6, 2022 Reach Codes Date: Saturday, September 3, 2022 3:18:45 PM
Council Members:

Re the March 1, 2022 CAAP:

Item 2.4A: Establish a fee or penalty on the use of methane gas “Work with PG&E and community partners to develop or expand a fee on the use of methane gas within City limits.

Set up a City-led Task Force in 2022 to lead this effort. Funds collected will be used to fund incentives for electric appliances adoption. Potential estimated funds available each year of at least $500k.”
This is arguably the most repugnant recommendation in the CAAP.

Will the new hire in charge of enforcement knock on doors in the middle of the night? Will I be rewarded for turning in my neighbors who use gas appliances? The commission should be ashamed of even suggesting this idea.

Pat Marriott
576
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sandy Wihtol
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 12:06:17 PM
My wife and I completely disagree with this over reach by any town or city to ban gas appliances and impose governmental sanctions and fines against home owners here in Los Altos.

Sandy Wihtol and Karen Rowsey
Since 1986, Working For & With My Customers
And Your Real Estate Referrals Are Always Greatly Appreciated Alex "Sandy" Wihtol
& The Wihtol Group
Realtor, Presidents Club
Website: http://www.sandyswebsite.com
BRE #00886625
Reminder: email is not secure or confidential. Intero Real Estate Services will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. If you receive an email message concerning any transaction involving Intero Real Estate Services and the email requests that you send funds or provide nonpublic personal information, do not respond to the email and immediately contact Intero Real Estate Services. To notify Intero Real Estate Services of suspected email fraud, contact:
577
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Amy Madsen
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 12:10:55 PM
Hello. I don’t support a gas ban, and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Best Regards,
Amy Madsen
Los Altos
578
Agenda Item # 4.

From: roger heyder
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 council meeting Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 12:20:02 PM
As you are hopefully aware, California is going through an electricity crisis at this time. We are told to expect rolling blackouts, told to not run AC, and not to charge EVs. Given the admitted failure of green generation, it will likely be years before this is successfully fixed.

Natural gas is plentiful and takes a large load off the electrical grid. It is pure idiocy to even consider banning natural gas until the electric supply issue is resolved. All of the load that could be handed with natural gas, heating and cooking, will then default onto the already over stressed electrical grid.

Do not approve the natural gas recommendation by the Environmental Commission. I recommend that the Environmental Commission be eliminated - it is unclear that there is any real contribution an Environmental Commission can make. If the city decides it really needs an Environmental Commission, then it should be composed of people with common sense and the ability to operate in the real world, rather than zealots that have no sense of reality.
regards -- Roger Heyder
579
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Donna Shoemaker
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 12:39:45 PM
All current gas appliances should be grandfathered. To make people convert to electric prior to selling unduly burdens the elderly and many new electric appliances do not fit into gas appliance spaces. Homes would have to be reconfigured at great expense! Donna Shoemaker
436 W Portola Ave
Los Altos
580
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Donna Shoemaker
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 12:42:04 PM
All current gas appliances should be grandfathered. To make people convert to electric prior to selling unduly burdens the elderly
Many new electric appliances do not fit into gas appliance spaces. Homes would have to be reconfigured at great expense!
Donna Shoemaker
436 W Portola Ave
Los Altos
581
Agenda Item # 4.
582
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Birgit Shay
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4 - Sept 6, 2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:31:34 PM
Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my opposition to any proposed gas bans in the city. I also oppose adoptingany codes that are more stringent than those set out by the State as sufficient.

Thank you, Birgit Shay 142 Del Monte Ave
583
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jessica Davidson
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:35:15 PM
NO ban on natural gas! Electricity COMES FROM COAL at energy plants!! This is not a Green plan. Natural gas is the best option right now
Los Altos needs its base of homeowners who pay property tax. Do not dis-incentivize home ownership in Los Altos!!! Who will pay for all the Green initiatives if we chase them away? 584
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Xinxing Ren
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:46:23 PM
Hello,
I am a Los Altos resident. I don’t support a gas ban and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Xinxing Ren
585
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Rana Davis
To: Public Comment
Subject: Household Gas limits.

Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:48:02 PM
Dear folks, I wish to express my outrage on the proposed new limits and regulations from the EC. Just like the governor who has no clue how to implement reasonable changes to quality of life for Californians, the commission is overreaching. Please count my vote to reject this particular proposal.

Thank you for listening.

Rana Davis
Los Altos resident
Sent from my iPhone
586
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Zane
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:49:08 PM
Do not ban natural gas
This will not help reduce global warming at all. Stop your nonsense. zane morris
575 Tyndall St unit 7
Los Altos, ca
587
Agenda Item # 4.

From: becky sarabia
To: Public Comment
Subject: Los Altos Environmental Commission (EC)
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:54:31 PM
I vehemently do not support a gas ban and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Just look at rolling blackouts now. Our grid is not ready for this. I feel the gas ban and adopting more stringent codes is too far reaching! Thank you.

Becky and Rafael Sarabia
588
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bill Moniz
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas appliances bans
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:55:30 PM
I am opposed to the overeach of eliminating gas appliances. This is a draconian proposal that distorts freedom of choice.

Vote against this propsal.

Thank you
William Moniz
1485 Marlbarough Ave
Los Altos
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
589
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Dave Beggs
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 1:59:56 PM
I do NOT support a gas ban in Los Altos. Please reject the EC’s request for their proposed mandate.

David Beggs
648 Spargur Drive
Los Altos
590
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gayle Mujica
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:02:06 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
We are writing to let you know that we as citizens of Los Altos completely disagree with any further reach codes or gas bans in Los Altos at this time.

We do not support the latest recommendations by the Environmental Commission to further ban natural gas in Los Altos.

The current reach codes additional restrictions being proposed by the Environmental Commission are already beyond what the state has put in place, and they have been in place for such a short time. It makes no sense at this point to add further reach codes when we have not even seen the true impact of the current excessive reach codes.

On top of this, our electrical power grid in California is not able to handle the additional load that further natural gas bans/reach codes would impose on the power grid. The power grid is really not able to handle the current load. Also, the majority of electrical power plants in California use NON renewable energy.When the power grid is more stable, supported by more renewable energy, and we have more efficient electrical appliances, then we should consider further reach codes.

We are property owners in Los Altos, continuing to invest in the city, and wholly disagree with any further reach codes at this time.

We urge you to vote NO on any further gas bans/reach codes in Los Altos.

Gayle and Fernando Mujica
591
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Stepheny McGraw
To: Public Comment
Subject: Not Pragmatic
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:03:26 PM
Your plan to put an all electric requirement in place is premature and not well thought out.

Just this week, our electric grid proved once again that it cannot weather temperatures of 85 degrees without asking residents to turn off appliances and charge stations in individual homes.

Each year, this same PG & E grid is using more fossil fuels for its existing power than it did the year before. We are simply not ready for such draconian measures, either in Los Altos or Palo Alto.
592
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Steve Smith
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:04:07 PM
As a property owner inside the city limits of Los Altos, I oppose REACH codes that are more strict than what the state of California has adopted.

While I understand the requirement for new construction, I vehemently oppose the proposed ban on replacing broken/end of life gas appliances with electrical ones. When I bought my 1950s era house, I upgraded the electrical panel from 110A to 200A. That's thousands of dollars just to do that, plus another thousand or two to run new electrical lines to current locations of gas appliances. Oh, and add in another thousand or so for repair and painting of stucco/siding and wallboard.

Stephen J Smith
593
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bonne L Alden
To: Public Comment
Subject: Electric vs Gas Appliances
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:07:20 PM
Electric vs Gas. Already existing gas appliances should not have to be replaced with electric at time oh home sales.

Sent from my iPad
594
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Michael Schuh
To: Public Comment
Subject: Sept 6, 2022 Item 4 Public Comment
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:14:20 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I have lived at 1630 Elmhurst Drive for more than three decades. My wife and I care a lot about Los Altos and are very active in supporting the youth in our community.

I learned that the Los Altos Environment Commission will ask the City Council to ban the use of Natural Gas for water heaters, home heating, and cooking. I think it is very unfair to mandate that a homeowner spend large sums to replace broken and end of life gas appliances with electric appliances. My home would have to be rewired and have upgraded electrical service installed if I was required to replace any of my current gas appliances. This would be very expensive and very likely generate much more net CO2 emissions than using replacement gas appliances. It would also likely take weeks to months for the wiring and electricity service to be completed and I could be without hot water and heat during this period. This is hugely unfair for homeowners.

I ask that you reject all of the Los Altos Environment Commission's recommendations on banning gas appliances. Let people decide for themselves if they want to use electric or gas appliances in their homes. Please do not take away people's freedom to use gas appliances.

Sincerely,
Michael Schuh
595
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bonne L Alden
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas vs Electrical Appliances
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:14:54 PM
Houses/Homes already built should not have to convert to electric at time of sale. Also all building should not have to go beyond State Law requirements. New buildings is one thing, but Old building owners are not made of money and converting all appliances would be extremely expensive to install new lines! Sent from my iPad
596
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Judy Beggs
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:18:48 PM
I do NOT support a gas ban in Los Altos. Please reject the EC’s request for their proposed mandate.

Judy Beggs
648 Spargur Drive
Los Altos, CA
Sent from my iPhone
597
Agenda Item # 4.

From: C. Baeuerlen
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:19:07 PM
I don’t support a gas ban and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Carl Baeuelen
1949 Alford Ave.

Los Altos
598
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Publ c Comment
Subject: Publ c Comment Agenda item 4 Sept 6 2022
Date: Sunday September 4 2022 2:22:17 PM
Dear City Council
I am not in favor of adopting reach codes for gas bans that are more stringent that what the State of CA requires. The plan being proposed by the Environmental Commission is not considering the facts in their entirely to make these recommendations.

First of all 46% of electricity generated in CA is produced by natural gas.https //url.avanan.click/v2/___https //www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electricgeneration/2018.___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOjkyNDc0MDczZmFjNzNkMWFjMTNmNmIyNDc5ODA2ZTUxOjY6NjA3OTowNTA0NWQ4ODMxZjRmZjdlODllNGRiYjFiNTk5MWY1NWU2NWY0ZWIzM2RmMjk0Njg5NjY1MzhiMjEyZWI2ZjAxOnQ6VA How will banning natural gas in Los Altos affect that? It won t. It will make such an insignificant difference in clean energy that it's not worth doing. In fact, what it wi l do instead is put more pressure on a electric grid that is overtaxed.

Why is that? Because the electricity demand cannot be met with clean energy sources. The ridiculous notion that we can ban gas in Los Altos at the tail end of the process is absurd. What about all the natural gas pollution that is being generated right into the air upstream of our gas stoves?
Until PG&E can meet the demand for electricity with clean sources at night without the use of natural gas, we are kidding ourselves. I find it unconscionable that the Environmental Commission would be trying to fool people with partial information.

Do not make these changes and do not implement these reach codes.

Don and Nancy Phillips
Los Altos Residents
599
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Marji Karlgaard
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #4 at 9/6/22 meeting Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:24:27 PM
We do NOT support the gas ban, and specifically oppose more stringent levels than California legislature has stated.

Sincerely,
Rich and Marji Karlgaard
1250 Montclaire Way
Los Altos, CA 94024
Homeowners
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone
600
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Kevin Kluge
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:28:03 PM
Hi. I object to the city adopting codes more stringent than that of the state. The state already has experts guiding its policies, and I have confidence in them.i Further, I have already bought gas appliances for a remodel but they won't be delivered for many months. I have no idea what would happen to me here, and I can't cancel or return them.

Kevin
601
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Mike Cleary
To: Public Comment
Cc:

Subject: City of Los Altos Reach Codes
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:28:27 PM
We do not support a gas ban, and oppose the City adopting reach codes more stringent than those mandated by State law.

J. Michael Cleary and Patricia J. Cleary
Los Altos residents (49 years)
Sent from my iPad
602
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Rita Held
To: Public Comment
Subject: reach codes
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:31:25 PM
I do not support a gas ban more stringent than those set by the state. 603
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Ruth Prillinger
To: Public Comment
Subject: Potential gas ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:34:41 PM
To Los Altos City Council:

We do not support the proposed ban on all gas appliances. We also oppose Los Altos adopting more stringent codes than those set out by the State.

Ruth Prillinger
Robert Prillinger
773 Arroyo Road
Los Altos, CA 94024
Sent from my iPhone
604
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Roberta Phillips
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: REACH Code Item # 4 Council Meeting Sept6,2022 Public Comment Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:34:54 PM
Dear City Council Members
I am opposed to any change to the Los Altos REACH Codes that go beyond the State Law or current rules or ordinances in Los Altos.

I can't believe that there is a proposal to fine people in the community. Who will be checking up on all the houses to see what kind of energy they will be using? Are neighbors going to turn neighbors, like in Nazi Germany ? I Can't believe that with the electric grid unable to handle demand for electricity, that the Environmental Commission is recommending using more electricity to heat our homes, cook and get hot water. In California we don't have enough hydro power because of the drought. Not enough Solar power or nuclear power. The Governor has the power to buy more electricity , but Los Altos does not.

I urge you to use common sense.

We all agree that we have concerns for global warming, but the suggested solutions are unrealistic and expensive.Staff can't tell you how much this will cost. How can you move forward without knowing the fiscal impact first ? The City is already down 16 employees and over twenty two million dollars short on approved CIP projects.I urge you to take limited action until we all know the fiscal impact. Can you tell me how much it will cost me to convert my house to all electric? Can you tell me what I am supposed to do if my hot water heater breaks? Should I replace my entire electric panel, as I have no more room on the existing one? It looks like the proposed plan takes punitive actions only.

The survey done by the Environmental Commission is unscientific. Only 50% of the respondents are homeowners in Los Altos who are the ones that will be directly impacted.The Commission received feedback from the City Manager in a red line format, that the Commission chose to ignore. Does the Environmental Commission have so much power that a communication to the community is not approved by the City Manager before it is sent out ? The proposal to redefine new construction is outlandish. New Construction should be just that- -New Construction, not some tricky way of including remodels. Forcing people to convert to all electric before they sell their home is a crazy idea.If I die , does that mean that my children have to spend tens of thousands of dollars before they can sell the house ? I am concerned that Neysa is on the board of Silicon Valley Clean Energy and of course they want people to use more electricity because it increases their income.

The Community Members should be able to choose if they want to cook with a gas stove. I don't want to feel like I am living in a dictatorship , where I have no power to decide how I want to reduce my own carbon footprint.It is disrespectful and insults the intelligence of the people who live and work in Los Altos.

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
605
Agenda Item # 4.

From: sunita jayakar
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4 Sept 6 2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:37:33 PM
Dear City Council
I am NOT in favor of adopting reach codes for gas bans that are more stringent that what the State of CA requires. I do not want gas appliances banned in the city of Los Altos. I opposed the onerous suggestions of the Environmental Commission and I do not want my elected officials to adopt their recommendations.

Sincerely,
Sunita Jayakar, MD
1181 Volti Ln
Los Altos CA 94024
606
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Melissa King
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4, Sept. 6, 2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:39:22 PM
Re the above Agenda Item:

I am thoroughly opposed to the extreme ban on natural gas that the Los Altos Environmental Commission is seeking. Please follow the recommendations of the vast majority of Los Altos residents who clearly believe a total ban is improper. I also see no reason for this city to impose codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this important issue.

Melissa W. King
1435 Highland View Court
homeowner of record since 1982
607
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Victoria Byrd
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:41:15 PM
I DO NOT support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the State of California. And I am really getting tired of filling out surveys only to have the city ignore them.

Victoria Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
608
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 2:48:36 PM
My husband and I do not agree with the proposed ban on gas appliances for the replacement of current appliances.

We also do not support the proposal that for all houses to be sold in Los Altos, homeowners would have to replace all gas appliances.

Regards,
Eileen and Roger Bettman
1862 Colleen Drive
609
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Heather Lattanzi
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:00:41 PM
I have issues with some of the reach codes proposed about gas vs. electric appliances. Specifically I think the following are unduly burdensome:
• Replace all gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, water heaters – with electric before you can sell your house.

It is sufficient to require that gas appliances be replaced with electric when they break or reach “end of life. Please do not burden home sellers and buyers with replacing all appliances when they sell their homes. Buying a home is difficult enough without adding additional hoops to jump through that are not required by the state. • Impose fines/penalties for using gas.

Gas appliances are still legal, and until they become illegal, it is completely out of line to impose fines for using gas.

Sincerely,
Heather Lattanzi
Resident of Los Altos
610
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Frank Martin
To: Public Comment; Frank Martin; Roberta Phillips; Freddie Wheeler; Janet Corrigan; Pat Marriott Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:03:36 PM
Attachments: REACH CODES 09-04-2022.docx
Enclosed are my public comments about Reach Codes.

I pray you come to your senses and reject this radical proposal that 95% of your constituents oppose.

Regards,
Frank Martin
611
Agenda Item # 4.

I am very concerned about climate change and that is why I installed solar panels for my Los Altos home and will purchase an electrical vehicle sometime next year or beyond. But I have serious concerns about whether the Reach Codes as proposed make any practical sense whatsoever or are fair to residents.

In my humble opinion, your radical planning commission is out of touch with climate change science and the will of residents. Therefore, instead I believe the reach codes should remain the same as state wide - not as proposed.

Here are the facts for my home which does have solar panels and central A/C. (1) My net annual electrical consumption is a small surplus. But, there is no way to offset usage during the December-March period because it is impossible to store enough energy for this amount of time. So, during this period I am consuming power from the grid. Not to mention anytime the sun does not shine – especially from dusk to well past dawn. My solar panels actually are only useful between 10 am to 4 pm most of the year. However were it not for the $10,000 cost or more to add a Tesla Power Wall I could offset some of night time power use.
(2) Appliances that require a dedicated circuit already include refrigerators, freezers. Electric cook top, oven, electric water heater, electric furnace or heat pump, electric washer, electric dryer, dishwasher, and garbage disposal.
(3) If a new service panel is required the estimated average cost is $5,000. (4) If a dedicated circuit is required the average cost is $2,000. (5) Because 95% of our grid power comes from natural gas and the daytime sustainable power is about 50%; average users would only save about less than 50% of the emissions from switching any appliance to natural gas.

My house would need a new service panel and new dedicated lines for an electric water heater and electric cook top for about $9.000 not including the cost for these new appliances and the added cost to add roof venting. The electric water heater replacement would be $4,000 and the cook top about $2,000.

The switch to an electric water heater would increase my electrical energy usage but not add much more to my electric bill for this appliance. But, It would also eliminate the use of my outdoor gas barbecue which I use about 150 days each year and therefore increase my electrical usage.

Preventing the use of a gas insert fireplace in my living room and gas fireplace in my family room would actually increase my energy use because we keep the main gas furnace off and use the family room gas fireplace in the winter - heating only one room instead of the whole house is much more efficient.

Moreover, we do not use any heat during the time we are sleeping at night. The heat pump to replace my current central A/C would cost about $25,000 or more.

So, in summary the radical planning commission recommendations would cost at least $40,000 and also make me totally dependent on the electrical grid. And, when power goes out I would not be able to heat my home with my two gas fireplaces or cook or have any hot water.

Ironically, since there is no way to prevent me from repairing my gas appliances because you will never know if I do not inform you. What do thing most people will do? 612
Agenda Item # 4.

If you really think this is a good idea then why not provide tax credits or rebates to make this happen just like the new IRA legislation does. Otherwise please follow the state guidelines instead of forcing radical reach codes on residents that 95% of us oppose.

Most importantly, if this is what you want to do, please ask every planning commissioner and council member that votes for these recommendations to convert all of their personal appliances now to set a good example before asking any resident to do so. In the words or some, “please put your money where your mouth is”.

If it matters at all, I believe that a far better approach to fighting climate change would be to encourage the use of solar panels and whole house energy storage batteries by providing rebates or tax incentives or both. After all isn't if far more likely that we will need A/C rather than central heating as our climate gets hotter and hotter?
I hate to be cynical I wonder if the Reach Codes are just another way to encourage seniors to move away to increase your tax revenues.

Regards,
Frank Martin
613
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jp Mcnulty
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:09:19 PM
Dear Council Members,
I strongly oppose passage of any of the reach codes you’re currently contemplating. The state codes are already too stringent. Please don’t exacerbate the situation.

Joan McNulty
460 Lassen St.
614
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Carol Fenwick
To: Public Comment
Subject: Oppose gas bans in Los Altos
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:14:06 PM
As a homeowners in Los Altos, We strongly oppose gas bans that exceed the stringent gas limitations set by the state. The effect of this gas ban will have negligible impact on climate change. Fossil fuels are still needed to supply the State with adequate electricity.

Carol and John Fenwick
615
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jp Mcnulty
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:20:34 PM
Dear Council Members,
I strongly oppose implementation of any of the natural gas reduction codes that you’re currently considering. The state codes are already too stringent. Please don’t exacerbate the situation.

Joan McNulty
460 Lassen St.
616
Agenda Item # 4.

From: larry moore
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4 9/6/2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:23:14 PM
Pls DO NOT approve any
Reach codes
Larry Moore Win Moore 15 Rockpoint
617
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sandy Salinger
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:23:43 PM
We strongly oppose adopting Reach Codes more stringent than those required by our state.

Thank you.

Sandra and Sheldon Salinger
618
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Reena Kapoor
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:24:23 PM
PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022
I DO NOT support a gas ban AND MOST CERTAINLY AND FULLY OPPOSE Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary anti-gas codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Please listen to citizens who live and pay taxes in Los Altos, instead of going by the wishes of dictatorial and destructive environmental extremists who are vocal and misguided.

Thanks!
Reena
︵‿︵‿︵‿︵‿︵

REENA KAPOOR
1927 ANNETTE LN
LOS ALTOS, ca 94024
619
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:24:23 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
WRT the upcoming vote, as.a long time resident of Los Altos, I absolutely disagree with this motion and do not support Los Altos taking a position that is more restrictive than the state law. There are enough headwinds relating to house prices and falling retail receipts in Los Altos, without a far reaching rule like this. I assure you this motion will have a detrimental impact on taxes for Los Altos.

I urge the city to reject this motion entirely. My address is 615 Orange Avenue, Los Altos. My cell is should you wish to reach out.

Rgds//Shane
620
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Lizebeth Burch
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment: Agenda Item #4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:28:33 PM
To the Council:

We do not support the excessively stringent anti-natural gas measures being considered by the City. These merely replace one energy use with another, to no major net gain.

It makes a certain amount of sense that new construction, perhaps, should be limited to electric appliances, as we all try and find alternative ways to power our lives. It makes no sense to mandate the replacement of gas-using items in existing homes, and it is punitive to require by law this replacement in existing homes coming to the market.

The State already has its own requirements for conversion and saving of energy. We should not attempt override these, at least, not at this point in time.

Thank you for your attention.

L. Burch
130 2nd Street
Sent from my iPad
621
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jeanne
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:34:54 PM
I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set by the state. I oppose a gas ban.

Sent from my iPhone
622
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Drew Van Horne
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:39:12 PM
We absolutely do NOT support a gas ban. We are opposed to adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.
1) The California electric infrastructure is not reliable. Case in point, this weekend, PG&E asked that everyone forego recharging their electric vehicles due to the strain on the electric grid due to the week-long heat wave.
2) To require that all broken and end of life gas appliances need to be replaced with electric appliances is a huge financial burden on the population. Re-wiring would be required to support 220 volt runs to locations where they were not required beforehand. In our case, this would require an upgrade to our electric panel as we are near the overall electrical capacity that is coming into the house.
3) Professional cooks do not use electric cooktops. If restaurants are required to adopt these measures, then some restaurateurs will simply opt to move elsewhere. 4) Adopting these measures will directly lead to lower property values.

Los Altos residents overwhelmingly are not in support of this ban on natural gas with 95% of homeowners surveyed indicating as such, yet the city continues to move forward with the idea.

The population of Los Altos will have a negligent impact on overall climate change adopting these measures.

The Los Altos City Council MUST not adopt the Los Altos Environmental Commission's recommendation and to do anything otherwise would be reckless - it goes against the will of the people which is what rightwing extremests hope for. We are a liberal society in Los Altos and California in general and this goes beyond all core beliefs.

Sincerely,
James Drew Van Horne
Cindy Diane Van Horne
Los Altos residents and homeowners since 1999.
623
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Kelly Byrd
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda item 4 (reach codes for electric/gas) Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:41:05 PM
I have been a Los Altos resident for a little over eight years. In the last few months, I have taken two surveys asking about reach codes concerning gas/electric in homes. It is my understanding that in both surveys the overwhelming response did not support reach code. I also do not support them in ANY form .

Now, I recently read there will be yet another attempt at reach codes for gas/electric. Can we finally end this? The proponents get to keep trying again and again, hoping to catch us when we're not paying attention. It seems the focus is on "doing something" rather than listening to the voting citizens of Los Altos.

I do not support a ban on gas in any form stricter than the CA state codes.

Kelly Byrd
1516 Wistaria Ln, Los Altos, CA 94024
624
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Laird Powers
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas/electric
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:47:34 PM
530 Hawthorne Court, Los Altos
Hello,
I appose, once again the mandate to change from gas to electric in our homes.

First of all the, electric grid will not be able to handle all the power needed to charge automobiles let alone all the electric appliances in our homes.

When there is a “brown out” or "black out", we will be stuck in the dark with no way of cooking food for our families. Our governor recently said we were heading to a “brown out” due to the high temperatures expected in the next few days.

When we sell our home, it will be a tremendous expense to many since the electric panel are way under rated now.

Many of the homes in our are have 100 or 150 AMP panels. To change all of those to a 200 amp panel and run the electric wires and breakers to the appliances will be an extreme burden on homeowners.

I do not understand that if the majority of the people were apposed to this requirement, why is it still and issue? Seems to me you are not listening to the people you are supposed to represent.

Laird Powers
625
Agenda Item # 4.
626
Agenda Item # 4.
627
Agenda Item # 4.
628
Agenda Item # 4.
629
Agenda Item # 4.
630
Agenda Item # 4.
631
Agenda Item # 4.
632
Agenda Item # 4.
633
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Raymond Wheeler
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:51:45 PM
As a long-time (27 year) homeowner I do not support a gas ban in our community and oppose Los Altos adopting codes more stringent than the state requires. Moreover, the proposal from the Los Altos Environmental Commission is radical and extreme. (The proposed fines for lawfully using gas even in compliance with the Reach Code is beyond comprehension and may even be unlawful). Every poll I have seen confirms discussions with my neighbors.

Most homeowners here strongly oppose mandates beyond state law, devised by zealots who have no interest in freedom of choice but instead insist that everyone conform to their extreme and apocalyptic views. I urge the Council to reject the proposed ban on natural gas in our homes.

Thank you,
Raymond L. Wheeler
Sent from my iPad
634
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Kbullis
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 3:52:08 PM
Dear Sirs:

I am writing to object to the ban on gas appliances proposed by the Los Altos Environmental Commission. In addition to being unreasonably burdensome to Los Altos homeowners such as myself, this ban far exceeds state restrictions.

Thank you,
Kenneth Bullis
Ken Bullis
635
Agenda Item # 4.
636
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Carla Bottenfield
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:04:05 PM
I do not support a gas ban in the City of Los Altos. The city should align with the state guidelines on this matter.

Carla Bottenfield
614 Palm Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94022
637
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Mitch Stanley
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC DOMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:13:49 PM
I 100% do NOT support ANY modification to gas appliance requirements being considered by our City Council.

For our City Council to waste their time and our money on such an outlandish proposal borders on criminal. Los Altos has REAL issues that the City Council should be trying to solve. Instead, you’ve found a ridiculous idea, (which the State of California is, or will, handle quite nicelyl) and decided to come up with MORE restrictive rules.

Do any of our City council read the papers? We are in a heat wave and for days we are being told to reduce electrical consumption. But…our ELECTED officials feel it’s best to increase the city’s demand on Electricity. Like a third world country, we live with the threat of rolling blackouts…and our City Council want to make that problem worse. Wake up…our power grid cannot handle more demand.

The majority of the citizens of this City, do NOT want this. Please, put your agenda aside, put your ego’s aside, and listen to those that elected you. We are not fools that need your sage guidance or want our City to “become an example” for the rest of the world to follow. If your that convinced it’s an important issue, put it on the ballot and let the citizens decide.

A council that doesn’t listen it’s voters, won’t be a council for long. 638
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Tien Nguyen
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:21:48 PM
Hi Los Altos City Councils,
I do not support the gas ban in Los Altos. The gas ban should not be more stringent than those are set by the CA State already.

Regards,
Tien Nguyen
639
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Anurag Wadehra
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:27:08 PM
I DO NOT support a gas ban AND MOST CERTAINLY AND FULLY OPPOSE Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary anti-gas codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Please listen to citizens who live and pay taxes in Los Altos, instead of going by the wishes of dictatorial and destructive environmental extremists who are vocal and misguided --
Anurag Wadehra
P.S. subscribe to my newsletter on Growth Patterns
640
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Ruby Vaswani
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas ban OPPOSED
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:28:12 PM
Hello!
I do not like the idea of a ban on gas appliances in Los Altos. To me it's a regressive move and I strongly oppose it.

Thank you!
Ruby Vaswani
1184 Eureka Ave, Los Altos, CA 94024
641
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Michele Rowe
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM #4- 6 September 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:35:27 PM
Please note our vote to not impose restrictions greater than already taken by the state. Why penalize Los Altos residents when the rest of the state will not be mandated to take the same steps. These are very costly renovations/penalties that will be borne by the citizens of Los Altos only.

Michele and Pete Rowe
740 University Avenue
Los Altos, CA
Sent from my iPad
642
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Tracey Musick
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:37:17 PM
Regarding Agenda Item 4
I don't support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Thank you, Tracey
643
Agenda Item # 4.

From: randallhull
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 4:56:45 PM
Councilmembers,
I do not support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set by the state.

The proposals from the Environmental Commission are without merit, border on draconian, and are counter to the wishes and current needs of Los Altos residents.

The city funded Climate Action and Adaptation Plan showed the environmental impacts of replacing natural gas in Los Altos homes with electricity are de minimis.

The Commission’s proposals are burdensome without benefit.

Please make the responsible decision and reject the Environmental Commission’s reach code proposals.

Randall Hull
108 Hillview Avenue
644
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Public agenda number 4, September 6, 2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 5:01:02 PM
Please leave natural gas as an option. Do not mandate only electric. Please!! Laura Greenstein, 943 Terrace Dr. Los Altos
Sent from my iPhone
645
Agenda Item # 4.

From: THERESA IANTOSCA
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 5:06:39 PM
I do not support a gas ban.

Theresa iantosca
1610 Ben Roe Dr
Los Altos CA
Sent from my iPhone
646
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Pattie Woerner
To: Public Comment
Subject: Proposed Gas Ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 5:19:34 PM
To whom it may concern:

We do not support adopting the more stringent gas ban proposed. It makes no sense to ban a fossil fuel that is clean! We do not have the infastructure to support all electric homes at this time.

Fred & Pattie Woerner
1266 Montclaire Way
Los Altos, CA
Sent from Mail for Windows
647
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Paz Yogev
To: Public Comment; Einat Yogev
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 5:37:49 PM
Dear council,
I do not support a gas ban in the city of Los Altos.

I strongly oppose items # 2, 3, and 4.

2.Replace ALL broken/end of life gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, gas ranges/ovens, and water heaters – with electric.

3.Replace ALL gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, water heaters – with electric before you can sell your house.

4.Impose fines/penalties for using gas. No exceptions! No exemptions! The EC estimates the city will collect $500,000 per year in gas fines.

Thank you
Paz Yogev
624 Hollingsworth Dr.

Los Altos, CA 94022
648
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gene Sinclair
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 5:49:38 PM
As as long-time Los Altos resident and home owner, I am opposed to a gas appliance ban.

Gene Sinclair
649
Agenda Item # 4.

From: dayita bhat
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment agenda item 4- 9/6/2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 5:49:50 PM
I DO NOT support a gas ban and MOST CERTAINLY ND FULLY OPPOSE Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary anti-gas codes more stringent than those set out by the state.Please listen to citizens who live and pay taxes in Los Altos, instead of going by the wishes of dictatorial and destructive environmental extremists who are vocal and misguided.

Thank you
Dayita Bhat
Sent from my iPad
650
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Kurt Ayers
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 6:07:22 PM
I find the newly proposed Reach Codes and gas bans as proposed by the Environmental Commission to be draconian and absurd. This is woke-inspired governmental overreach that needs to stop now.

Thank you,
Kurt Ayers
601 Stardust Lane
Los Altos, CA
651
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Wendy Reynolds
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 6:18:02 PM
I strongly oppose a gas ban. Look what is happening with our electric grid. Every day I get a notice to restrict my electricity and asked not to charge an electric car between 4 and 9pm. I don’t understand why politicians ban something before they fix something. Please do NOT pass this ban.

Sent from my iPhone
652
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Pam Jacobs
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: No on reach codes
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 6:24:02 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Pam Jacobs
Date: September 4, 2022 at 12:47:21 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: No on reach codes
Regarding the vote this week on reach codes, I have not previously expressed my opinion but DO NOT WANT Los Altos codes to exceed state codes.

You were not elected to impose codes exceeding those of the state - or in the case of 5G - federal law. Please just stop with the overreach before you continue to cost citizens even more money.

I encourage the City to invest its efforts on enforcing the codes it already has on the books….

Sincerely,
Pamela Jacobs
885 Santa Rita Ave
Sent from my iPhone
653
Agenda Item # 4.
654
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Dave MCLAREN
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 7:00:03 PM
Please note that I do not support the proposed natural gas ban in Los Altos.

PG&E is already unreliable and unable to keep up with demand. Removing an important alternative fuel source at this stage is amazingly short sighted. We have already removed wood and coal as permitted home energy sources.

Let’s not make us 100% dependent on monopolistic, unreliable, poorly managed PG&E.

Thank you,
Dave McLaren, concerned resident and voter.
655
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Lucky Rae Gomez
To: Public Comment
Subject: I don’t support a Gas Ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 7:14:45 PM
I am a voting Los Altos resident and I DO NOT support a gas ban and will NOT support Members who do.

Thanks,
Lucky Rae Gomez
656
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Robert E. Jacobsen
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 7:17:58 PM
Dear City Council and EC,
I do not support a natural gas usage ban in Los Altos. I have been a resident for over 40 years, and the amount of natural gas my home uses is infinitesimal (water heater and furnace) compared to other sources of GHG. (According to the CA Air Resources Board, total residential use counts for only 8% of greenhouse gas emissions, compared to industrial 24% and transportation 41%. ) Like the electric car controversy (more electric cars = less pollution in the city of use, but more pollution by power plants), replacing natural gas in the home with electricity simply diverts the CO2 emission issue to power plants, of which 79% run on fossil fuels nationwide. According to the California Energy Commissions’ February 2020 report,
63% of CA’s power is NOT
from renewables. Natural gas is the fossil fuel that produces the fewest CO2 emissions.

A ban would place unnecessary financial and logistical hardships on homeowners, landlords and renters (installing upgraded service to homes to handle increased power load in addition to the cost of appliance replacement, plumbing and rewiring), and heavy requirements on an already taxed electrical grid.

City Council is supposed to take residents’ opinion into account when making policy decisions.

Please listen to reason and 95% of homeowners surveyed in July, and do not mandate a ban on natural gas.

Robert E. Jacobsen
Homeowner
Stanley Avenue
Los Altos
657
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Catherine
To: Public Comment
Subject: Natural Gas Ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 7:51:29 PM
We do not support the adoption of a natural gas ban that is more stringent than that required by the state of California. Requiring new construction to only use electric appliances, heating and water heaters is ok but to force existing gas equipment be installed prior to sale of property is too extreme. As is replacement of existing applIances by current owner.

Roger and Catherine Dellor
953 Russell Ave
94024
658
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Rosie Birnel
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:05:58 PM
It's too Draconian to have laws that are stricter than the state 659
Agenda Item # 4.

From: craig carpenter
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Item Agenda Item 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:11:20 PM
My wife and I have lived in Los Altos for over 50 years and we are against this converting from gas to electric proposal. Thank you for voting NO! Lindsay & Craig Carpenter
68 Bay Tree Lane
Los Altos 94022
660
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Christine Talbott
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:12:49 PM
I DO NOT SUPPORT THE GAS BAN!!
Christine Talbott
Sent from my iPhone
661
Agenda Item # 4.

From: bjbelkin
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas restrictions
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:14:25 PM
I strongly oppose the proposed strict limitations on the use of natural gas, especially in existing homes and requiring them to eliminate it before being sold.

Thanks,
Bernie Belkin
662
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Harsh Sharangpani
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:21:34 PM
I am sending this email to emphasize that I do NOT support a gas ban. I also oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Harsh Sharangpani
10251 Magdalena Road,
Los Altos, CA 94024
663
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Rosemary Gellman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda #4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:32:14 PM
As a resident and homeowner I DO NOT support a ban on gas appliances, heaters or generators.

Rosemary Gellman
664
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gregory V. Wadden
To: Public Comment
Subject: Ban on Natural Gas
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:33:32 PM
Good evening Los Altos City Council:

We want to go on the record as opposing Codes on Natural Gas that are more stringent that the state mandates.

Respectfully yours,
Gregory V. Wadden
Rosemary S. Wadden
159 Frederick Ct.

Los Altos, CA 94022
665
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Suruchi Mohan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:36:34 PM
Dear Environmental Commission Members
This is to let you know that I'm against a gas ban. If the ban wins, then I would like you to not adopt regulations that are more stringent than those required by the State of California.

Thanks,
Suruchi Mohan
666
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jenny Teng
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda item 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:36:56 PM
Dear Sir,
This is to stress that I don't support the gas ban and I also oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set by the state.

Thank you very much.
--
Jenny Teng
Real Estate Professional
DRE#: 01023687
578 University Avenue
667
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Dinesh Desai
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment on agenda item 4 (on 9/6/22)
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:44:37 PM
Let us not forget the evil Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant. The powers to be had planned to decommission it, but now they have decided to extend its operating life by at last five years.

Let us not be foolish and think that we will have unlimited electricity for ever.

What if there is a drought for several years and we can't generate hydro power? It is only wise to have some alternates.

Dinesh Desai
870 Highlands Circle
Los Altos
668
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Daryl Shafran
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 8:49:37 PM
We don’t support a gas ban in Los Altos. We are homeowners.

Michael and Daryl Shafran
444 Orange Ave
Sent from my iPhone
669
Agenda Item # 4.

From: mina parivash
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA- 4 SEPTEMBER 6, 2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:15:36 PM
I don’t support GAS BAN.

Mina Parivash
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
670
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Camille Casale
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas replacement
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:17:27 PM
I’m in my 70’s and on a limited income and have a gas floor heater. If my gas floor heater failed I could not afford to replace it with an electric heating system.

Please don’t vote to mandate replacing failed gas floor heaters & all other established gas appliances with new electric ones.

Thank you,
Camille Casale
1445 Oakhurst Ave.

Los Altos
Sent from my iPhone
671
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sherveen Parivash
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:20:40 PM
To the City of Los Altos,
As a resident of Los Altos, I strongly oppose a natural gas ban and I oppose adopting more stringent codes than those set out by the state. Please do not adopt this agenda Item.

Sincerely,
Sherveen Parivash
672
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Anita Hansen
To: Public Comment
Subject: Opposition to Natural Gas Ban
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:22:48 PM
Banning natural gas in any other case than new construction is unfair and too costly for homeowners. In many cases the change over from gas to electric requires costly upgrades to the electrical system and P G and E is extremely slow to upgrade old power panels. Also California electric rates are exhorbitant.

Do not ban natural gas!
Anita Hansen
Los Altos, CA
673
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Effy Parivash
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda item 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:38:00 PM
I do not support the gas ban.

Sent from my iPad
674
Agenda Item # 4.
675
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sue Cheng
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]NO to ban of natural gas using in residential in Los Altos Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:49:21 PM
Sue Cheng
Realtor, Designer
Intero Top 1%
DRE # 02027196
Los Altos, CA 94022
“Reminder: email is not secure or confidential. Intero Real Estate Services will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. If you receive an email message concerning any transaction involving Intero Real Estate Services and the email requests that you send funds or provide nonpublic personal information, do not respond to the email and immediately contact Intero Real Estate Services. To notify Intero Real Estate Services of suspected email fraud, contact: Intero Client Services at
676
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gail Hall
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 9:54:45 PM
As a long-term Los Altos homeowner (30+ years), I wanted to voice my opposition to the proposed gas ban for residential properties. And I oppose Los Altos adopting codes that are more stringent than those set out by the state.

I believe there are other options that have less adverse impact on residents and a total gas ban with a push to more electrical creates other challenges.

Thank you.

Gail Hall
677
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Priya Anant
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 - Sep 6, 2022
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 10:16:46 PM
Dear Los Altos Council,
I am writing to register my opposition to the proposed ban on all gas appliances. While I am environmentally conscious, I also oppose standards that are more stringent than state standards.

Our electricity grid is over-stretched and unreliable as it is. I’m not supportive of putting our heating/ cooling and cooling on electric wigjoit the necessary infrastructure upgrades - when it is in excess of state codes.

Thank you,
Priya Anant
1706 Oak Ave, Los Altos, CA 94024
678
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Christina Hildebrand
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 10:53:25 PM
I am opposed to a gas ban and adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient.

We do not have the electric power capacity in CA to go electric. It is also not fair to have to replace all appliances prior to selling a house. That is an expense that many cannot afford even in rich los altos.

This is not the right time for this.

Christina Hildebrand
679
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: [External Sender]PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM 4 September 6, 2022 CAAP Date: Sunday, September 4, 2022 11:25:49 PM
Council Members:

I have been asked why I wrote a public comment about item 2.4 in the CAAP when the September 6 council meeting is only about Reach Codes for new construction and EV infrastructure. Please allow me to explain.

I’m feeling like the frog in the pot of cold water with the Environmental Commission turning up the heat (on an electric stove of course), hoping I won’t notice when the water starts to boil.

Yes, the commission has stepped back and is looking at all electric only for NEW homes – for now. But one of the 6 (confusing) attachments in the agenda packet is the March 2022 CAAP, which Council approved (vote of 3:2). That means the CAAP is the roadmap for the future.

Item 2.4 on page 48 of the CAAP says: “Establish a fee or penalty on the use of methane gas.

Work with PG&E and community partners to develop or expand a fee on the use of methane gas within City limits. Set up a City-led Task Force in 2022 to lead this effort. Funds collected will be used to fund incentives for electric appliance adoption. Potential estimated funds available each year of at least $500k.”
This topic is not part of Agenda Item 4, but we’re nearing the end of 2022, so when is that task force going to come up for discussion? Or will it just start up because it’s already been approved?
The Environmental Commission is supposed to speak for residents when it makes recommendations to Council. I don’t know who created its survey, but I can’t give it any credence. It doesn’t represent a statistical sample of the city’s residents – particularly homeowners, who would bear the brunt of recommended changes.

From attending the virtual workshop in June led by Silicon Valley Clean Energy and from GreenTown emails, I get the sense of a well-orchestrated PR campaign with a lot of wishful thinking and unsubstantiated promises behind it. Let me provide just one example:

From the 6-6-22 workshop:

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 … however if you are building an all-electric home and you want that resiliency for outages you can get that achieve that by adding … storage to [solar] with a battery so that's one way to achieve some resiliency in your home during electricity outages.” A glib answer from SVCE completely ignoring the cost of solar and battery storage.

Coincidentally, I received this email today from a friend in Marin: “My research shows the cost of batteries has gone up if you already have solar. You have to retrofit your panel and inverter. And it is very difficult even to get a vendor to do a battery only job. If you aren’t financing new rooftop solar, they never return my calls. Finally I pressured my original solar contractor to just do a battery and they want $40,000 for a Tesla power wall installed. That’s never going to work for 24hr backup. And the new panel and PGE to the street is $7,000 extra with an electrical contractor.”
So yes, I’m jumping ahead of the September 6 agenda with these issues, BUT – like many other residents – I have no confidence in this process nor in the EC recommendations represented in the CAAP. I don’t want to wait until the water is boiling to speak out.

Respectfully,
Pat Marriott
680
Agenda Item # 4.
681
Agenda Item # 4.
682
Agenda Item # 4.
683
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Dell Fischer
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:59:56 AM
Dear City Council,
I am opposed to the Los Altos Environmental Commission's proposal to require all end of life gas appliances to be replaced with electrical appliances. I also oppose the requirement that all gas appliances be removed prior to sale of a house.

My house's electrical service is maxed out. I would need to install new underground electrical service when my cooktop, furnace, or water heater fails. This is a $15,000 to $20,000 proposition not including the new appliance. PGE would need to dig up the street and run new conductors to a pull box on my side of the street. When one of my appliances fails, I could be without hot water or a furnace for months if this proposal is enacted.

I suggest that Los Altos limit the city's laws to new construction and 50% or greater remodels.

I think that the California State has already been aggressive with the conversion of cars from fossil fuels to electricity and hydrogen. I am predicting huge problems in upgrading the electrical grid and supply to meet goals that have already been legislated. I am already predicting Texas size problems with our energy grid. Even the next couple of days are a nailbiter with regards to California's electrical grid.

I think it is impractical and imprudent for Los Altos to go beyond what the state has already legislated.

Kind regards,
Dell Fischer
684
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Morgan Yang
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 2:09:09 AM
I strongly do not support a gas ban.

For example, replacing broken/end of life gas furnace and water heater with electric will most likely trigger a breaker panel AMP increase either from 100A to 200A service or from 200A to 300A service. This is a major additional expense and electrical wiring efforts.

As a Los Altos homeowner who had just completed a major whole house rewiring in 2021 upgrading from 100A to 200A service with roof/exterior stucco wall/internal wall penetrations and later patch up/painting plus major conduit routing from emergency cutoff main circuit breaker to the internal sub-panel breaker, I definitely do not want to go through the upgrade again. I am an engineer and studied the residential electrical wiring in detail including rewiring textbook and the latest electrical code book before working with the electrical contractor.

Homeowners should not be forced to upgrade the electrical service (a major undertaking/expense and life disruption) simply because the furnace or water heater broke.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Morgan Yang
685
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Von Packard
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Item 4 for September 6, 2022 meeting Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 5:29:55 AM
My wife and I oppose a ban on natural gas usage in Los Altos and also oppose any laws or codes regarding the same more stringent than already California State law.

Von and Ann Packard
1339 Carvo Ct. Los Altos, CA
Sent from my iPhone
686
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Katie Skinner Wiederholt
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 6:32:25 AM
We are homeowners at 774 Vista Grande Ave, Los Altos, CA 94024 (since 1994).

We oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state for natural gas usage.

Thank you,
Katie & Jeff Wiederholt
687
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Katie Skinner Wiederholt
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 6:43:52 AM
Sorry, let me clarify our position.

Requiring electric appliances in *new* construction is smart and we support this agenda item.

Katie & Jeff Wiederholt
774 Vista Grande Ave, Los Altos 94024
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022, 6:31 AM Katie Skinner Wiederholt < wrote:

We are homeowners at 774 Vista Grande Ave, Los Altos, CA 94024 (since 1994).

We oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state for natural gas usage.

Thank you,
Katie & Jeff Wiederholt
688
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jayleen Rael
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 6:57:59 AM
I do not support the gas ban in Los Altos.

Jayleen Rael
689
Agenda Item # 4.

From: JAS BARNUM
To: Public Comment
Cc: James Barnum
Subject: No Gas Ban!
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 7:28:19 AM
The Gas Ban proposal sounds absolutely ridiculous!
I do not support a gas ban.

I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state, which are sufficient.

James R Barnum
61 Dalma Drive
Mtn View, CA
690
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Suresh Shanmugham
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4 - September 6 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 7:41:31 AM
I do not support a gas ban which has negligible impact on emissions and is more stringent than state requirements. We all appreciate the need for taking action to impact climate change.

This goes too far and does not meet a simple cost-benefit analysis.

Suresh Shanmugham
1089 Eastwood Court, Los Altos
691
Agenda Item # 4.

From: robert kline
To: Public Comment
Cc: LYNETTE Lee Eng
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4- September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 7:51:44 AM
To whom it may concern.

I respectfully request that Los Altos does not implement the proposed Reach Codes.

Natural gas consumed in our homes is far more efficient than burning it in a Utility Plant.

Heating a home with electricity is FAR more EXPENSIVE than using Natural Gas.

I learned personally one winter 5 years ago when my furnace quit.

In the 3 months in which I used electric space heaters, my PG&E bill TRIPPLED! I'm very concerned about Global Warming, but "WE" MUST BE SENSIBLE ABOUT IT.

When "WE" overreact to problems, everyone suffers for very little positive effect.

Los Altos has an ageing community who will be burdened with significantly higher PG&E bills. 692
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Medini Gore
To: Public Comment
Subject: No support for gas ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:08:50 AM
I have been a resident of Los Altos for over 20 years. I do not support the proposed gas ban.

Best Regards,
Medini
693
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bin Hu
To: Public Comment
Cc: Bin Hu
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:32:33 AM
Dear City Council member,
Being a long-term resident of Los Altos, I, my whole family and our neighborhood don’t support a gas ban in Los Altos. We oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the State of California.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Bin
Resident in Alicia Way / Casita Way / Distel Dr / Los Ninos Way / Panchita Way neighborhood.
694
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Brenda Blanchar
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:34:32 AM
City Council Members,
As a resident of Los Altos, I DO NOT support a gas ban on any existing or new construction.

Stop trying to control residents.

Brenda Blanchar
695
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sandra Rudloff
To: Public Comment
Subject: Ban of Gas Appliances
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:38:36 AM
Los Altos should look at what it can do as a city to help the environment, rather than dictate what home owners must do. Businesses and government cause far more harm than private citizens, and they can afford to make changes.

If the elected officials do not follow the choice of the people, we WILL replace you with officials who do.

You asked for our opinion, we gave it. Do not ignore it! Sandra Rudloff
Los Altos Resident
696
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4 September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:38:57 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
I do not support adopting reach codes restricting new or replacement gas appliances more stringent than those already set by state law.

Sincerely,
Joh Eisenberg
25 Parsons Way
Los Altos, CA 94022
697
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Steve Klesczewski
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:48:04 AM
Attachments: FA5F4C241CBA4330B3392D845B7CC045[49892579].png I don’t support a gas ban. I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Please do the right thing and NOT MANDATE A BAN ON NATURAL GAS! Steve Klesczewski
Broker Associate
BRE#01471144
Reminder: email is not secure or confidential. Intero Real Estate Services will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. If you receive an email message concerning any transaction involving Intero Real Estate Services and the email requests that you send funds or provide nonpublic personal information, do not respond to the email and immediately contact Intero Real Estate Services. To notify Intero Real Estate Services of suspected email fraud, contact:
698
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Elaine Levenson
To: Public Comment
Subject: URGENT--PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:56:34 AM
Please DO NOT agree to the radical "REACH" proposals you are being asked to implement in Los Altos on September 6.

I disagree with imposing a gas ban and oppose adoption of such ordinances far surpassing the rules of the state which are over governance in themselves.

Thankyou.

Elaine Levenson
1235 Monte Verde Court
Los Altos, California 94024
699
Agenda Item # 4.
700
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Molly Hammerstrom
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4!
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:09:28 AM
I vehemently oppose agenda item 4! It is crazy to propose and to implement a rule without warning/information which would allow the community to prepare for the proposed changes! What happened to education and agreement on this rule!
Please think about the complications ramifications of the rule/law! Respectfully,
Molly Hammerstrom
Sent from my iPhone
701
Agenda Item # 4.

From: John Fennell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item # 4 (Over) Reach Codes
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:16:03 AM
The proposed (Over)Reach codes on natural gas appliances defy common sense, are draconian, uninformed, and discriminate against senior citizens and others on fixed incomes.

Just say NO.
- John Fennell
702
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Edward Loizeaux
To: Public Comment
Subject: Natural Gas Ban vs. Electricity
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:20:15 AM
Attention City Council: Please note my strong objection to this proposal. It is an idiotic and crazy attempt to do something purely symbolic without any meaningful effect on overall global warming. It would be a shame to disrupt the lives of our citizens for this nutty scheme. I would like to think the City Council has more important things to do than listen to ridiculous wild ideas.

Thank you.

Ed Loizeaux, Los Altos resident and homeowner.
2221 Via Maderos
Los Altos, CA 94024
703
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bill Daley
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:22:34 AM
City Council:

I strongly oppose the City adopting the REACH codes.

This is the sort of issue that will garner recalls.

Bill Daley, 741 Del Centro Way, Los Altos
704
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Anne Schmidt
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:30:03 AM
Dear Council
I am a long time resident, having lived on Orange Ave for over 20 years and I do not support the proposed ban on natural gas. As my representatives, please vote against this ban.

There are solutions to help improve our collective environmental impact but I don’t believe imposing these types of requirements on your residents is one of them. Let’s work together as a community to find a solution.

Sincerely
Anne Schmidt
Sent from my iPhone
705
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Subodh Gupta
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4 — September 6,2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:41:03 AM
Hi — I do not support a gas ban and most certainly fully oppose Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary antigas codes more stringent than those set by the state. Please listen to citizens who live and pay taxes in Los Altos, instead of going by wishes of destructive environmental extremists who are vocal and misguided.

Thanks,
Subodh Gupta
13551 Paseo Del Roble Dr
Los Altos Hills, CA, 94022
706
Agenda Item # 4.

From: AT and T Service, Inc. [US]
To: Public Comment
Cc: Laird Powers (Builderone); Molly Hammerstrom; Madhu Sanjanwala Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:41:14 AM
I believe the proposed mandate to convert from gas to electric is premature and should not be considered until the State of California can guarantee an uninterrupted supply of electricity which may require, in addition to solar and wind power systems, additional dams be built and water storage levels (assumes sufficient annual rainfall) achieved to permit the continuous generation of sufficient hydroelectricity.

Respectfully,
John S. McNeil
205 Silvia Ct.

Los Altos, CA 94024-3859
707
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Anthony Iantosca
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda item 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:44:49 AM
I against enacting the codes for the above.The State codes are sufficient.Thank you.

Anthony and Theresa Iantosca.
708
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Lori Roman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment AGENDA ITEM 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:47:27 AM
I do NOT support the proposed requirements that the Los Altos Environmental Commission will be presenting to City Council on Sept. 6, 2022.

I do NOT support a gas ban, as outlined in these proposed requirements.

I am a Los Altos resident and a homeowner.

Lorraine Roman
Sent from my iPad
709
Agenda Item # 4.

From: R Kane
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:56:27 AM
Hello,
I do NOT support a gas ban for Los Altos and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state of California.

Thank you,
Richard Kane
Los Altos resident
710
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Judie Johnson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas Ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:01:40 AM
I oppose the gas ban that the Los Altos Environmental Commission is asking the City Council to mandate.

Judie Johnson
824 Terrace Dr
Los Altos, CA 94024
711
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:07:59 AM
Dear City Council Members and Staff:

We are very concerned about climate change, but we have serious concerns about whether the Reach Codes as proposed make any practical sense whatsoever or are fair to our Los Altos residents.

We have owned a hybrid vehicle for over 12 years.

It is our opinion, that your radical planning commission is out of touch with climate change science and the will of residents. Therefore, we believe the Reach Codes should remain the same as state wide - not as proposed.

Our house would need a new service panel and new dedicated lines for an electric water heater and electric cook top for about $9,000 not including the cost for these new appliances and the added cost to add roof venting.

Preventing the use of a gas insert fireplace in my family room would actually increase my energy use because we keep and use the family room gas fireplace in the winter - heating only one room instead of the whole house, which is much more efficient. Moreover, we do not use any heat during the time we are sleeping at night.

If you really think this is a good idea, then why not provide tax credits or rebates to make this happen just like the new IRA legislation does. Otherwise please follow the state guidelines instead of forcing radical Reach Codes on residents that 95% of us oppose.

Most importantly, if this is what you want to do, please ask every planning commissioner and council member that votes for these recommendations to convert all of their personal appliances NOW to set a good example before asking any resident to do so. In the words of some, “please put your money where your mouth is”.

The impact to our community and especially those of us who are seniors is very great. Thank you for your consideration.

June & Aram Darmanian
1595 Ben Roe Drive
Los Altos
712
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Aram Darmanian
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:09:24 AM
Dear City Council Members and Staff:

We are very concerned about climate change, but we have serious concerns about whether the Reach Codes as proposed make any practical sense whatsoever or are fair to our Los Altos residents. We have owned a hybrid vehicle for over 12 years.

Most importantly, if this is what you want to do, please ask every planning commissioner and council member that votes for these recommendations to convert all of their personal appliances NOW to set a good example before asking any resident to do so. In the words of some, “please put your money where your mouth is”.

The impact to our community and especially those of us who are seniors is very great. Thank you for your consideration.

Aram & June Darmanian
1595 Ben Roe Drive
Los Altos
713
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Farhad Parivar
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda #4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:15:44 AM
I totally disagree with dictatorial decisions of the city. These decisions should be voluntary. May be the city can create incentives to encourage residents to convert voluntarily FP
Sent from my iPad
714
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jennifer Sandland
To: Public Comment
Subject: Do NOT support the gas ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:18:36 AM
Dear City Officials,
I do not support the gas ban. In a community where high end gas stoves are a must, this is short sighted. If you would like to put a ban on plastics used in grocery stores or put an extra surcharge on trash w/ rebates for recycling, that would be fantastic.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Sandland
715
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Susan Klepper
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:21:47 AM
I OPPOSE the ban on natural gas that goes beyond state regulations.

Thank you,
Susan Klepper
726 Campbell Ave
716
Agenda Item # 4.

Thank you,
Susan Klepper
726 Campbell Ave
717
Agenda Item # 4.

Thank you,
Susan Klepper
726 Campbell Ave
718
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sam Klepper
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:21:56 AM
I oppose the ban on natural gas that goes beyond the state regulations. Residents oppose it according to the survey and it seems overly restrictive and costly for minimal benefit and impact.

Thnak you,
Robert Sam Klepper
719
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Nivedita Mathur
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:30:57 AM
I oppose this ban on gas appliances.
-Nivi
895 University Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024
720
Agenda Item # 4.

From: David Smith
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:45:04 AM
As a long time resident of Los Altos I strongly OPPOSE a gas ban or adopting codes to ban natural gas more stringent than those set out by the state. This proposal will impose a severe financial burden on residents of Los Altos especially seniors (e.g., a senior who has lived in their home for 50 years is selling and they are forced to hire a contractor to replace all gas appliances before selling. First what are the odds they can find an electrician and Second, if they succeed they then watch their home torn down having doubled the number of appliances going to landfills) --
David M. Smith
Mobile:
721
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Karen Merchant
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:52:16 AM
I don’t support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Karen Merchant
Los Altos Resident
722
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Ashish Mathur
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:54:30 AM
I oppose the ban on gas appliances.
-Ashish Mathur
895 University Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024
723
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Lianne Thompson
To: Public Comment
Subject: Reject Ban on gas
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:55:36 AM
>>
>> To Town of Los Altos Mayor and Council,
>> I am not supportive of the ban on gas appliances for homes in Los Altos. While I recognize there is climate change and that the town is attempting to make adjustments. I do not support this particular proposal as it will yield little impact on the environment but have a major impact on home owners. If you force people to change appliances before sale of the house that seems ridiculous as the new owner should pick what they want. >> Your proposal also puts an additional strain on the electric grid which makes no sense as a green alternative. >> I would support the Town looking for other ways to impact the environment such as forcing commercial buildings to plant gardens on their roof tops to reduce heat, reduce watering of their lawns or mandate ground cover at commercial buildings, plant more trees, making solar panels mandatory on new buildings. >> While our little town can do some small things to help gas emissions should not be the starting point. That should be tackled at the state level and aim at large industries which are the worst contributors. >> Regards
>> Lianne & Craig
>> Thompson
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
724
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Arif Merchant
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 10:58:01 AM
I do not support a gas ban, and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state. The proposed mandate is expensive to residents, intrusive, and excessive.

Sincerely,
Arif Merchant
725
Agenda Item # 4.

From: ROBERT Rodriguez
To: Public Comment
Subject: Natural gas ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:00:17 AM
Los Altos City Council,
We do not support a gas ban of natural gas for city of Los Altos or Los Altos Hills as being proposed by the Los Altos Environmental Commission (EC).

We oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Robert & Louise Rodriguez
11000 Mora Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
726
Agenda Item # 4.

From: JOAN WILLIAMS
To: Public Comment
Subject: REACH codes
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:07:45 AM
I am a long time resident in Los Altos. I am retired and a widow like many of us here.

It would be very expensive to have to replace our gas furnaces, stoves, etc with electric should that be needed. This would create a hardship for a great many of us
who have lived here for many years and always supported this town. Please leave well enough alone! Thank you.

Mrs. Joan Williams
1987 Wimbledon Pl.

Los Altos
Sent from my iPad
727
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Karl kneip
To: Public Comment
Subject: Reach Code - Gas ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:09:51 AM
Hello:

Now is not the time to implement a Gas Ban - Reach code. We need a state wide solution that address all stakeholders.

Regards,
Karl Kneip
728
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gary Dinneen
To: Public Comment
Subject: Natural Gas Ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:23:00 AM
Dear City Council: My family and I have recently studied the potential Natural Gas Ban that you are considering for implementation in Los Altos. Please reconsider this approach and listen to the science behind maintaining the status quo. Natural gas is one of the least pollution-based uses when compared to electric power which may be outsourced from other utilities, etc.

In a time when overuse of utilities is crucial, please listen to the electorate, of whom the majority would prefer to allow natural gas to be a part of the present and future.

Thank you!
Gary Dinneen
Rosita Avenue, Los Altos
729
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Nanette Wobber
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:24:02 AM
We're writing to express that we DO NOT support a gas ban in Los Altos and that we OPPOSE adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Codes imposed by the state are sufficient. The expense of what you propose is unfair and an undue burden for residents.

Mike Wobber & Nanette Wobber
872 Campbell Ave
Los Altos
730
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Reena Kapoor
To: Sally Meadows; Public Comment
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:26:43 AM
Dear Ms Meadows —
I don’t appreciate the tone of your response but let’s ignore that and focus on the content of your email to me.

A few points —
1) I didn’t write to the council to have an argument. My stance and request to the council stands as is. Please pay heed. I live and pay taxes in Los Altos. My voice should count at least as much as that of any vocal group led by extreme and largely ineffective agendas.
2) The comparison of gas vs electric is an unscientific and invalid comparison. It begs the question what’s the source of electricity? Let me tell you - it’s mostly coal, even in CA. Gas is clean and does not leave emissions like other fossil fuels do. 3) I live in a fully solar home and drive an electric car so before you make assumptions about educating me on environmental issues, we may need to talk science. I mean actual data-led, evidence based science not the kind that’s represented by silly lawn signs.
4) If you truly care about climate change you’d be taking on parts of our economy/ industry/ power generation where the impact actually matters - not hapless residents who are busy with their lives, earning a living and paying taxes. 5) A few facts for you to consider:

Replacing natural gas in the home with electricity simply diverts the CO2 emission issue to power plants, of which 79% run on fossil fuels nationwide. According to the California Energy Commissions’ February 2020 report,63% of CA’s power is NOT from renewables. Natural gas is the fossil fuel that produces the fewest CO2emissions.

According to the CA Air Resources Board, residential use counts for only 8% of greenhouse gas emissions and commercial 6%, compared to industrial 24% and transportation 41%.

Please take my voice and protest against these ineffective, virtue-signaling measures seriously and count my voice and vote as a council member instead of trying to push your agenda and argue with me.
731
Agenda Item # 4.

As an aside, I also feel all city council members should be forced to reveal all potential conflicts of interest they may be holding as they vote on this issue. The fact that there are so many “interested” parties here makes me very concerned about this vote.

Thanks!
Reena
︵‿︵‿︵‿︵‿︵

REENA KAPOOR
On Sep 5, 2022, at 10:52 AM, Sally Meadows <[email protected]> wrote:

The Environmental Commission is NOT recommending Los Altos ban natural gas, they are NOT recommending we require replacing all gas appliances with electric when they fail or before a home is sold, and they are NOT recommending penalties for using natural gas.

The Environmental Commission does recommend that the City of Los Altos adopt the Bay Area Model Reach Code:

Require all Newly Constructed Buildings to be all electric “New construction” defined as a 50% or greater modification to foundation or framing.

Electric vehicle infrastructure requirements (which are largely already in place) The recommendations support Los Altos' Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) which sets long-term goals around greenhouse gas reductions by 2035.

I’ve attached three slides that explain the Commission's recommendation below.

Best regards,
Sally
Sally Meadows
Vice Mayor
Los Altos City Council
phone: (650) 947-2766
email: [email protected]
732
Agenda Item # 4.

On Sep 4, 2022, at 3:23 PM, Reena Kapoor < > wrote:

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022
I DO NOT support a gas ban AND MOST CERTAINLY AND FULLY OPPOSE Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary anti-gas codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Please listen to citizens who live and pay taxes in Los Altos, instead of going by the wishes of dictatorial and destructive environmental extremists who are vocal and misguided.

Thanks!
Reena
︵‿︵‿︵‿︵‿︵

REENA KAPOOR
1927 ANNETTE LN
LOS ALTOS, ca 94024
<EC recommendations.pdf>
733
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Meg Burns
To: Public Comment
Cc: Margaret Burns; Jim Burns
Subject: Gas Ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:27:03 AM
I don't support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Margaret Burns
734
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Christine Chu
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4-September 6,2022
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:28:31 AM
I do not support a gas ban.

In addition, I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient.

Christine Chu
Los Altos Hills
Sent from my iPhone
735
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Aloke Bhandia
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Opposing the Recommendation of Environmental Commission Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:28:52 AM
Hello Los Altos City Council:

I am a long-time resident of City of Los Altos at 2415 Cristo Rey Place, Los Altos since 1992.

I am strongly opposed to Los Altos City Council adopting more stringent version of REACH codes than those required by the State of California. I do not want gas appliance banned in the City of Los Altos. I oppose the onerous suggestions of the Environmental Commission and I do not want my elected officials to adopt their recommendations. We already do not have enough availability of electric power and if the recommendation of Environmental Commission is adopted, it will cause additional shortage. Moreover, orders of magnitude more environmental damage is caused by our consumption of animal product than the gas appliances. Please address the primary causes of environmental damage.

Sincerely,
Aloke Bhandia
2415 Cristo Rey Place, Lost Altos, CA 94024
Aloke Bhandia
736
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Steven Hussey
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:32:28 AM
To Whom It May Concern:

I have lived in Los Altos on Benvenue Ave for 20 years. I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient.

Steve Hussey
Sent from Mail for Windows
737
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Roland Dow
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:35:04 AM
To Los Altos City Council,
don’t support a gas ban or you
oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient. ·Replacing natural gas in the home with electricity simply diverts the CO2 emission issue to power plants, of which 79% run on fossil fuels nationwide. According to the California Energy Commissions’ February 2020 report, 63% of CA’s power is NOT from renewables. Natural gas is the fossil fuel that produces the fewest CO2 emissions.
738
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Susan Russell
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item #4 - September 6 Council Meeting Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:35:47 AM
We are writing to support the Bay Area Model Reach Code recommended by the Environmental Commission. The proposed changes for newly constructed buildings and those that have more than a 50% modification, along with the EV infrastructure proposed, are reasonable and important in terms of climate change.

We had not planned to write in support of what seemed like such a non- controversial proposal until we received the letter from LAR with so much misinformation that we decided we should voice our opinion. Perhaps by the time of the Council meeting, this group will have corrected its newsletter.

Susan and David Russell
744 Los Altos Ave, Los Altos, CA 94022
739
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Amy AJX2
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:41:49 AM
Hi there,
We don’t support a gas ban and are opposed to adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Thank you,
Amy & Alex Johnson
Los Altos residents
740
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Paul Gavarini
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:45:11 AM
I strongly oppose the ban on gas as the use of electricity instead of gas will produce more negative effects as important part of it is still made with coal.

I suspect some corruption in the decision to use electricity instead of gas as Science does not support this.

Paul Gavarini
Los Altos
Get BlueMail for Android
741
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Mark Goodman
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:47:09 AM
I do not support a gas ban. I do oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state, which is sufficient.

Mark Goodman
Los Altos, ca.
742
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Smart Tools
To: Public Comment
Subject: I do not support a ban on natural gas.

Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:54:38 AM
I do not support a ban on using natural gas in homes.

Byron Siu
743
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Ann Daugherty (MASI)
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:54:56 AM
Regarding AGENDA ITEM 4 – for September 6, 2022 We oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient. It would be hardship to replace our relatively recently installed gas oven and range before selling the house, as well as our relatively new on demand hot water heater and furnace. before selling our house. We remodeled only 5 years ago.

Thank you for your measured response to the need to reduce natural gas usage.

Ann Daugherty
11620 Buena Vista Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
744
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Opposing STRICTER VERSION of REACH CODES PROPOSED by Environmental Commission Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:55:27 AM
Hello Los Altos City Council:

I am a long-time resident of City of Los Altos at 2415 Cristo Rey Place, Los Altos since 1992. I am strongly opposed to Los Altos City Council adopting more stringent version of REACH codes than those required by the State of California. I do not want gas appliance banned in the City of Los Altos. I oppose the onerous suggestions of the Environmental Commission and I do not want my elected officials to adopt their recommendations. We already do not have enough availability of electric power and if the recommendation of Environmental Commission is adopted, it will cause additional shortage. Moreover, orders of magnitude more environmental damage is caused by our consumption of animal product than the gas appliances. Please address the primary causes of environmental damage.

Sincerely,
Anita Bhandia
2415 Cristo Rey Place, Lost Altos, CA 94024
745
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Roland Dow
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 11:55:50 AM
TO: Los Altos City Council:

We DO NOT support a gas ban.

We OPPOSE Los Altos City Council adopting codes MORE stringent than those set out by the State of California.

Roland and Kathleen Dow
[residents and homeowners since 1986]
406 Deodara Drive
Los Altos, CA 94024
Here are some common sense facts:
"Replacing natural gas in the home with electricity simply diverts the CO2 emission issue to power plants of which 79% run on fossil fuels nationwide. According to the California Energy Commissions’ February 2020 report, 63% of CA’s power is NOT from renewables. Natural gas is the fossil fuel that produces the FEWEST CO2 emissions.":

According to the CA Air Resources Board, residential use accounts for only 8% of greenhouse gas emissions and commercial 6%, compared to industrial 24% and transportation 41%." GET THE PICTURE?
rd
746
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Corrie Reynolds
To: Public Comment
Cc:

Subject: Citizens Against Gas Ban in Los Altos
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:04:48 PM
We are two long time Los Altos citizens and firmly opposed the gas ban in Los Altos.

It’s impractical and expensive and exerts far too much control over private citizens for very little gain, just to divert to the power grid.

Two big NO votes from us!
Corrie Reynolds and Frank Brucato
747
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Karen Ho
To: Public Comment
Subject: Oppose new band on natural gas
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:08:25 PM
We oppose the proposal for new band on natural gas.

Thomas and Karen Ho
1291 Green Oak Ln.

Los Altos, CA 94024
Sent from my iPad
748
Agenda Item # 4.

From: THERALIFE,THERALIFE *
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:11:08 PM
City Council
I am writing to voice my opinion opposing this change from gas to electric.

Looks like from the environmental point of view, gas is more efficient and produce less damage to the environment that electric.

Lily Yang
Residence of Los Altos
749
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Frank Martin
To: Public Comment; Frank Martin
Subject: REVISED PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:12:30 PM
Attachments: REACH CODES 09-05-2022.docx
I have enclosed my revised public comments for the record. Please replace my earlier document with the attached file.

Thank you.

Frank Martin
ps - I find the CLIMATE ACTION & ADAPTATION PLAN - especially pages 45-55 very alarming. One member has written back to me but the comments made do not agree with this document as far as I understand it.
750
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Hi
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:14:40 PM
I do not support the ban of gas in our homes. This is a very expensive fix for residents.

Nancy Franck
Sen from my iPhone
751
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Deb Skelton
To: Public Comment
Subject: Reach Codes
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:17:22 PM
Hello!
Thank you for the work you do for our community. I do not support a gas ban at this time, and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set by the state. Please keep our City codes consistent with those set by the State of California.

Thank you,
Debbie Skelton
1045 Fremont Ave
Los Altos, Ca 94024
752
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Eloise Moll
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:27:42 PM
I don’t support a gas ban in Los Altos. I think that adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is not a good idea. The Labor Day Weekend PGE calls for cutting back on electric power usage in the afternoons suggests that putting everything on electric may not be the wisest move.

Richard Moll
1 Cypress Court
Los Altos
753
Agenda Item # 4.

Richard Moll
1 Cypress Court
Los Altos
754
Agenda Item # 4.

From: L Weingram
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda ITEM 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:40:57 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council and/or anyone else making city laws about gas appliances, *I don’t support a gas ban.
*I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set by state. * In Los Altos each of us supports government much more through enormous property taxes. As in matching or higher than a teacher’s annual salary. Therefore, people paying those taxes expect the good life. * Food cooked in/on electric appliances is sub-par. This means you will suffer each time you cook or eat. *This may cause property values to plummet.
* Electric outages are increasing.
*IF YOU ADOPT THIS ITEM TO LINE YOUR/THE CITY’s pockets and there is electric outage new residents will not be able to keep warm (no gas heaters!) or cook food (no gas appliances!) * The Scout Motto:
“BE PREPARED”
I put solar hot water panels on my roof in Los Altos 18 years ago.

I put solar panels on my roof 18 years ago.

I own an electric car.

I am a leader in conservation.

I still keep a gas car for long drives where I cannot make it on a charge and there are not charging stations.

Starting a path to make gas appliances/heater/ovens obsolete will ruin my solar hot water system. It pairs with my gas hot water. Alten Solar retired.

Thank you very much,
Lauren Weingram
755
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda item#4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:43:12 PM
Hello,
RE: agenda item #4, we oppose adopting codes Re: gas
usage which are more stringent than those set by the
State of California.

Respectfully,
Jolly and Ron Perkocha
900 Santa Rita Ave.

Los Altos, Ca
756
Agenda Item # 4.

From: V. Chandrasekaran
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 12:51:31 PM
I don’t support a gas ban and I strongly oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient.

Thank you.
\shekar..
757
Agenda Item # 4.

From: gus sanchez
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item #4 Against new gas prohibitions Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:30:14 PM
Hello,
As a long term resident(40 years) of Los Altos.I am opposed to any additional changes to prohibit or the elimination of existing uses of natural gas uses in our home. Please just use and follow the already passed State laws and regulations.

Thank you,
Gus Sanchez
1062 St. Joseph Avenue
Sent from Mail for Windows
758
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:36:24 PM
I DO NOT support this proposal to ban all gas usage for homes in Los Altos. I believe it goes too far.

Please reject this extreme proposal.

Thank you.

Long time home owners (since 1986) and resident (since 1960) Terese and Brian Blockhus
759
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Thomas/Amy Lin
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:37:13 PM
We oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state is sufficient !
From : Thomas T.H. Lin & Amy H.M. Lin 11645 Dawson Dr. Los Altos Hills, CA 760
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Vicky Powers
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment, Agenda item 4 Sept 6 Meeting
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:39:10 PM
Respectfully submitted:

How about we save the time and money trying to come up with our own codes/plans and just adopt the Mandatory CA State Building Code that goes into effect January 1, 2023? Two reasons:

1. Los Altos will not have to spend money on a cost effectiveness study.

2. It will mitigate the complaints of the citizens who are cconcerned about restrictions on the use of gas in their home.

Vicky Powers
530 Hawthorne Court
Los Altos
761
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 -Mandate a ban on natural gas Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:49:54 PM
Dear City Council and EC,
I do not support a natural gas usage ban in Los Altos. I have been a resident for over 50 years, and the amount of natural gas my home uses is infinitesimal (water heater and furnace) compared to other sources of GHG. (According to the CA Air Resources Board, total residential use counts for only 8% of greenhouse gas emissions, compared to industrial 24% and transportation 41%. )
Like the electric car controversy (more electric cars = less pollution in the city of use, but more pollution by power plants), replacing natural gas in the home with electricity simply diverts the CO2 emission issue to power plants, of which 79% run on fossil fuels nationwide. According to the California Energy Commissions’ February 2020 report,63% of CA’s power is NOT from renewables. Natural gas is the fossil fuel that produces the fewest CO2 emissions.

City Council is supposed to take residents’ opinion into account when making policy decisions.

Please listen to reason and 95% of homeowners surveyed in July, and do not mandate a ban on natural gas.

Matt Siragusa
Homeowner
Warec Way
Los Altos
762
Agenda Item # 4.

From: iris Avidan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda item 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 1:50:10 PM
Hello
I’m a Los Altos resident for 27 years now. I completely oppose the proposed Los Altos gas ban. The California state codes are sufficient.

Thanks
Iris Avidan.
329 n. Avalon Dr Los Altos.
763
Agenda Item # 4.

Reach Codes 2.0
Environmental Commission
Recommendation
City Council Meeting
September 6, 2022
City of Los Altos
Environmental Commission Presenters
Tom Hecht, Laura Teksler & Don Weiden
764
Agenda Item # 4.

Environmental Commission
Reach Code Recommendations
(Commission Meeting of 8/8/2022)
City of Los Altos
 Develop Reach Codes that Modify the 2022 CA
Building Code for
 NEWLY CONSTRUCTED BUILDINGS
 ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE
 Adopt Reach Codes for 1/1/2023 Effective Date
765
Agenda Item # 4.

Newly Constructed Buildings
City of Los Altos
2022 CA Building Code
Mandatory Bay Area Model Reach Code
Current Los Altos Reach
Code
Environmental Commission
Recommendations
Effective /
Expiration Date Effective 1/1/2023
Amends Building Code.

Effective after Adoption /
State Filing. Expires 1/1/2026 Expires 1/1/2023
Amend Building Code.

Effective after Adoption /
State Filing. Expires 1/1/2026
New Buildings*
(Not previously
used/occupied)
(Applies if >50% foundation
or framing modified)
(Not previously
used/occupied)
(Applies if >50% foundation
modified or >50% framing
modified)
Air Heating/Cooling EHP EHP EHP EHP
Water EHP or G EHP EHP EHP
Clothes Drying E or G E E E
Cooking / Fireplaces E or G E E or G E
Exterior (Pool, SPA,
Firepit) N/A No G N/A
No G (and no extension of
existing exterior G)
*Does not apply to Building Alterations, Renovations, Tenant Improvements EHP = Electric Heat Pump, E = Electric, G = Natural Gas (must be wired for replacement) 766
Agenda Item # 4.

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
City of Los Altos
2022 CA Building
Code Mandatory Bay Area Model Reach Code
Current Los Altos Reach
Code
Environmental Commission
Recommendations
Effective / Expiration
Date Effective 1/1/2023
Amends Building Code. Effective
after Adoption / State Filing.

Expires 1/1/2026 Expires 1/1/2023
Amend Building Code. Effective
after Adoption / State Filing.

Expires 1/1/2026
Single Family
Residence
1-L2 EV Ready 1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L1 EV Ready 1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L2 EV Ready
1-L2 EV Ready + 1-L2 EV Ready
Multi Family
Residence and Other
Buildings
Various Requirements Various Requirements Various Requirements Apply Requirements the Greater
of Bay Area Model or Current Los
Altos
Off-Street Loading
Docks N/A Applies N/A Apply Requirements of Bay Area
Model
Parking Addition,
Alteration,
Renovation
N/A Applies N/A Apply Requirements of Bay Area
Model
767
Agenda Item # 4.

Community Outreach Survey
 Promoted via newspaper, city manager
weekly, email lists, community-based
organizations.
 Open 8/17/22 through 8/30/22  550+ respondents, 7 questions + comments  Good overall engagement  2/3rds of respondents are very concerned with climate change
 Greatest number of respondents favored
“Adopting EC RC recommendations” vs
other options
 Top 3 appliances for electrification:

Clothes Dryer, Space Heater, Water
Heater
 Bottom 3 appliances for electrification:

Firepit, Fireplace and Cooktops 768
Agenda Item # 4.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
769
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Aronson, Jeff
To: Public Comment
Subject: No reach code
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 2:07:55 PM
Hi - we are NOT in favor of reach codes. Please reject. Thank you Jeff & Kristine Aronson
451 Valencia Drive
Los Altos
Get Outlook for iOS
The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to [email protected]. Thank you. 770
Agenda Item # 4.

From: John Meaney
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment for Agenda Item 4, Sept 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 2:59:22 PM
I would like to register my opposition to the proposal to ban natural gas appliances in Los Altos. Not only has this proposal been rushed without adequate public outreach and gathering of various stakeholder input, I find it to be a knee jerk reaction to climate science as well as city council overreach. California state is often on the leading edge of public policy. Is it really necessary to be out in front of the state legislature on this issue? Our state electrical grids is struggling to keep up with demand especially during red flag alerts and heat waves. What will happen when we put all of our vehicles and the additional load of our appliances also on the grid? This is insane. Pls refocus City Council leadership on keeping our city safe from crime and our small businesses in town thriving. Please resist the urge to stray from why we elected you.

I am a 28 year resident of Los Altos.

Sincerely,
John Meaney
771
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Susan Meaney
To: Public Comment
Subject: Opposition to ban on Natural Gas Appliances
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 3:18:30 PM
I would like to register my opposition to the proposal to ban natural gas appliances in Los Altos. Not only has this proposal been rushed without adequate public outreach and gathering of various stakeholder input, I find it to be a knee jerk reaction to climate science as well as city council overreach. California state is often on the leading edge of public policy. Is it really necessary to be out in front of the state legislature on this issue? Our state electrical grids is struggling to keep up with demand especially during red flag alerts and heat waves. What will happen when we put all of our vehicles and the additional load of our appliances also on the grid? This is insane. Pls refocus City Council leadership on keeping our city safe from crime and our small businesses in town thriving.

Please resist the urge to stray from why we elected you.

I am a 28 year resident of Los Altos.

Thank you,
Susan Meaney
______________________
Susan Meaney
772
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Joan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Keep Gas Appliance Option
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 3:23:18 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
As a Los Altos Resident, I believe we should not be instituting restrictions beyond those imposed by the state with regard to allowing gas appliances. I would like to retain the ability to enjoy cooking with a gas stove at home.

Thank you for your consideration,
Joan Loney
1849 Alford Avenue
Los Altos, CA 94024
773
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bob Simmons
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 3:38:21 PM
Los Altan's surveyed do not want a ban unnatural gas. Please listen to your constituents.

We're are senior citizen's on a fixed income. Think about the unintended consequences of these stupid REACH Codes have on us long term residents. It’s foolish to believe that this proposal will do anything to save the planet.

You know it and we know it.

Please do not go along with a mistaken Commission.

Bob and Diane
774
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Vikas Aggarwal
To: Public Comment
Subject: RE: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 3:40:24 PM
I DO NOT support a gas ban AND MOST CERTAINLY AND FULLY OPPOSE Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary anti-gas codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Thanks!
-- Vikas Aggarwal
Aggarwal
Vera Cruz Ave, Los Altos, CA
775
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Salvador Gomez
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 3:43:08 PM
I am a long time Los Altos Resident. I am also an involved voter. I am adamantly opposed together with the 95% of Los Altos residents polled to a gas ban in Los Altos.

Pay attention to the constituency and represent OUR concerns.

Salvador Gomez
776
Agenda Item # 4.

From:

To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 4:11:19 PM
To whom this may concern:

As a long term resident of Los Altos Hills, my family strongly opposes the proposed gas ban as outlined. There is absolutely no need to ban “Nature” gas under the disguise of “climate change” (or global warming). Moving from “Nature” gas to electricity will do nothing to change our environment other than cause unnecessary misery to the people. What our town needs is how to lower the crime rate, reduce the potential fire hazard, preserve the open space and improve the deteriorated road way to better serve the people who empowered you to manage our city and not create more rules and laws to dictate the people’s way of life.

Sincerely,
Yuhgeng & Margaret Tsay
11657 Jessica Lane
Sent from my iPhone
777
Agenda Item # 4.
778
Agenda Item # 4.

From: David Schnur
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Consent Agenda 9/6/22. Item4
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 4:41:11 PM
Please don't change the rules to electric only appliances. I am happy with my gas stove and water heater. Don't really see the savings as gas is used to produce the electricity which you want to use to replace our gas appliances with electrical appliances David Schnur
385 Monterey Place
Los Altos
Get Outlook for iOS
779
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Robert Scholl
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 5:00:53 PM
I do not support a gas ban and oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Robert Scholl
780
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jean Xie
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas ban
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 5:01:00 PM
Dear public servant of Los Altos,
I as a resident and home owner in Los Altos do NOT support the gas ban. I hope you will listen to the voice of the community and not impose your will on us. It’s a democratic society, right? Resident of Los Altos
781
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Sharon Ziony
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 5:47:02 PM
I am opposed to the proposed requirements of requiring all electric appliances. The power grid is already stretched to the max as this hot weekend proved. You are going to the extreme. It is not necessary to exceed state law!!!!!! 782
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Rena Orgera-Mandey
To: Public Comment
Subject: I do not support natural gas ban or more stringent codes than our state codes.

Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 5:54:21 PM
Rena Orgera-Mandey
783
Agenda Item # 4.

I don’t support a gas ban and oppose
adopting codes more stringent than
those set out by the state
From: Sean J Dorsey
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 6:11:28 PM
784
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Li-Chuan Egan
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 7:03:16 PM
I am a Los Altos resident and I do not support a gas band and do not support making rules that are more stringent than the state.
-Li-Chuan Egan
785
Agenda Item # 4.

From: SV.Strategy
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:06:34 PM
Current Electric supply is not reliable and can have forced electric blackouts in the future.

The city council needs to spend its time & resources on issues that are important to the residents of Los Altos and stop wasing time on frivilous items.

We strongly oppose the following requirements

2. Replace ALL broken/end of life gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, gas ranges/ovens, and water heaters – with electric.

3. Replace ALL gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, water heaters – with electric before you can sell your house.

4. Impose fines/penalties for using gas. No exceptions! No exemptions!The EC estimates the city will collect $500,000 per year in gas fines.

Sarosh Vesuna
300 Avalon Drive
Los Altos
786
Agenda Item # 4.

From: debbie.kitani
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 4- September 6th, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 8:06:39 PM
Council,
We are opposed and don't support the gas ban happening here in Los Altos. It is clear that we will eventually need to stop using gas but what I'm unhappy about is there is no real plan for us homeowners to migrate off using gas. If there was a migration plan which is slower and doesn't cost thousands of dollars to implement in the short term as a result you'll have more of us buy into it. Why do we always want to fine people instead of incentivize?...

If you're hiring consultants to help you do this, then I'm disappointed in the outcome of this project. Help us get there instead of just placing rules.

We are taking advantage of the CalWater rebate to take out our lawn and put in drought tolerant plants. This is a great incentive which takes time but more folks are doing this to save water. Los Altos needs to do something similar...

Regards,
Debbie
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.
787
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:10:08 PM
I strongly object to any implantation of so-called "reach codes" in the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan'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. This will place an undue burden on retired people on reduced incomes who are already getting hammered by 10% inflation.

We are constantly being warned about blackouts due to an overstressed electrical grid. These "reach codes" will only make this matter worse. And all this virtue signaling will have no impact on global warming as long as China and India continue burning fossil fuels.

Another offensive thing is the proposal to impose fines/penalties for using gas. This is nothing but a proposal to hurt citizens already being pummeled by inflation and high fuel prices. The EC estimates the city will collect $500,000 per year in gas fines.

I'll believe global warming is a problem when the rich people who are telling me it is a problem start ACTING like it is a problem. They can start by getting rid their carbon-spewing private jets.

I do NOT support a gas ban and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Bill Hough
Los Altos Resident and taxpayer
+
788
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Zane
To: Public Comment
Subject: Do not ban natural gas
Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:10:11 PM
This will not help reduce global warming at all. Stop your non sense. zane morris
575 Tyndall St unit 7
Los Altos, ca
789
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Val Arnesen
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Monday, September 5, 2022 9:10:14 PM
Dear Members of the City Council,
I oppose a total ban on use of gas in homes.

I also object to the city adopting restrictions stricter than that mandated by the State of California.

These requirements may cause residents to incur significant additional costs, including cabinet/millwork modifications and upgrading of electrical panels.

How about instead providing incentives to promote voluntary switching to gas appliances? Thank you,
Valarie Arnesen (Resident of Los Altos)
791
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Laura IVY
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Agenda Item 4
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:46:03 AM
Hello,
As we experience more and more heat waves and random power outages from overuse or strain on the power grid this gas ban will only add to this problem. We DO NOT support the ban on natural gas. Furthermore as more massive housing developments are being built, these dwellings are already taking water and electricity to strain the grid. Let’s put our money and resources to better use
Laura Ivy, Founder
Kitchen-wise.com
Skrub™ Knife Cleaner
792
Agenda Item # 4.

From: John Yu
To: Public Comment
Cc: John L. Yu
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:30:12 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We do NOT support a gas ban.

We oppose strongly to adopt codes more stringent than those set out by the state.

Thank you,
John & Louisa Yu
48 years long time Los Altos resident.
1180 St. Charles Ct.
793
Agenda Item # 4.
794
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gabriel Engeland
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Item 4: Support for Reach codes as proposed by Environmental Commission Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:59:51 AM
Thanks,
Gabe
Gabriel Engeland
City Manager
City of Los Altos
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
From:

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:05 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 4: Support for Reach codes as proposed by Environmental Commission Hello Council Members,
I support the Reach codes as proposed by the Environmental Commission. I believe it is reasonable to adopt the Bay Area Model Reach Code for new and >50% remodeled buildings.

Also, there has been a tremendous amount of FUD (Fear Uncertainty, and Doubt) created on this topic by the Los Altos Residents. Their latest email (below) states four new proposed requirements, of which only #1 is accurate. They are also spreading this misinformation on Nextdoor.

I would appreciate it if one or more of you "suggested" to them tonight during your meeting (or privately) that if they are going to publicly lobby on City topics that they get the facts straight. What they are doing is similar to the lies and misinformation being spread at the national level. Our community should have higher principles and values than this.

Thank you,
Joe
Forwarded message ---------
From: Los Altos Residents
Date: Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 1:20 PM
Subject: STRICTEST VERSION REACH CODES PROPOSED - URGENT TAKE ACTION NOW To: >
795
Agenda Item # 4.
796
Agenda Item # 4.
797
Agenda Item # 4.
798
Agenda Item # 4.
799
Agenda Item # 4.
800
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Ron Ellickson
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:10:23 AM
I am a Los Altos resident. I strongly oppose the strict "no natural gas" proposal. This is a costly mistake that will do nothing to alleviate pollution in California because the needed electricity will be generate by natural gas power plants.

Ron Ellickson
801
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Bill Hough
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:26:36 AM
This is a clarification of a prior comment submitted September 4. I have been advised that my previous statement was not clear.

The bottom line is that I do NOT support ANY gas ban and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Whether or not the Council is considering any major changes to gas appliances in today's meeting is immaterial. The council must immediately terminate discussion of any restrictions beyond state requirements.

The staff memo regarding this item is confusing and unclear about specifics and timeline. For this reason, along with comments previously sent, you must terminate this discussion.

William Hough
Los Altos resident and taxpayer
802
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jim Fenton
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 - 9/6/2022
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:36:55 AM
Attachments: PastedImage.png
Council members,
I generally support the conversion from direct use of fossil fuels such as gas to electricity, and have switched from a gas furnace to an electric heat pump for my home within the past year. However, I am concerned that our electrical infrastructure is not up to the task.

Much of Los Altos is served by obsolete 4-kilovolt transmission lines from electric substations to the pole transformers outside our homes and businesses. This service was sufficient in the past, but our electricity needs have grown dramatically since that service was installed, due to the building of bigger homes, installation of heat pumps and air conditioning, and the increased use of electric vehicles. Under load, these 4- kilovolt lines cause significant voltage drop, while newer 12-kilovolt service has 1/9 the voltage drop.

In Monday’s high temperatures, line voltage at my home dropped in the late afternoon below 100 volts (see graph below). PG&E’s own specifications call for a range of between 114 and 126 volts. As a result of the low voltage, my solar inverter shut down and could not contribute to our energy needs. Low voltages also are hard on some devices, particularly motors. This is not an isolated incident; we have observed significant low voltage conditions in 2017, 2019, and 2020.

I would like for the City to apply pressure on PG&E to promptly upgrade our electric infrastructure to current standards, and then implement incentives and mandates (such as Reach Codes) to accelerate electrification only when our electrical infrastructure can support that.
-Jim Fenton
803
Agenda Item # 4.
804
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Gregg Meyer
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:09:29 AM
Requiring any resident to not have the choice between gas and electric is government over reach. We are not at the point of being able to adequately supply. This last weekend’s back outs during the high heat are a great example.

Your proposal is a bad president other areas will looks at. Do not impose these new restrictions.

Gregg Meyer
Sent from my iPad
805
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Vaughn Stanek
To: Public Comment
Subject: DO Not mandate all electric
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:45:33 AM
Maybe in 20 years. I you do not have the infrastructure for an all electric environment. Wake up.

Sent from my iPhone
806
Agenda Item # 4.

From: James Klazura
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:48:19 AM
Hi,
I’d like to express that I don’t support a gas ban. The state is aggressively moving toward zero carbon emissions, and I feel we should follow their lead. 1276 Russell Ave, Los Altos, CA
Regards, |
Jim Klazura
807
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Victor Platonoff
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]Gas Ban
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 10:49:51 AM
I do not support a ban on natural gas.

Victor Platonoff
Your Exclusive Agent since 1984
Intero Real Estate Services
BRE#00860354
Reminder: email is not secure or confidential. Intero Real Estate Services will never request that you send funds or nonpublic personal information, such as credit card or debit card numbers or bank account and/or routing numbers, by email. If you receive an email message concerning any transaction involving Intero Real Estate Services and the email requests that you send funds or provide nonpublic personal information, do not respond to the email and immediately contact Intero Real Estate Services. To notify Intero Real Estate Services of suspected email fraud, contact:
808
Agenda Item # 4.

September 6, 2022
Dear Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows and Members of the Los Altos City Council, We are dismayed by the misinformation being spread through newsletters and NextDoor about the proposed modifications to Los Altos’ Reach Codes. Whether intentional or inadvertent, the effect is confusion among the public about the very important decision before Council. We urge you to to be clear and to state clearly that at this time the Los Altos City Council is only considering whether to add the requirement that new construction and remodels consisting of more than 50% trigger the need for all electric appliances. The Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and other aspects of Reach Codes will be discussed at a later time.

Thank you,
Robin Abrams, Curtis Cole, Kim Cranston, Bill Sheppard, Marie Young Steering Committee, Los Altos Community Voices
809
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Freeze, Suzanne
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 12:27:20 PM
I do not support gas bans in Los Altos. The state's mandate goes far enough. Instead of mandating how I live why do we as a group look at the real culprits of global warming? Those preaching the loudest and flying around on private jets with multiple cars/SUVs. Yes, I am talking about politicians and community leaders.

Suzanne Freeze-Manning
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 810
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Willem De Lange
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:37:14 PM
To Los Altos City Council, Los Altos City management and Environmental Commission, Within this email I would like to express our FIRM OPPOSITION to the following proposals from the Environmental Commission:

2. Replace ALL broken/end of life gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, gas ranges/ovens, and water heaters – with electric.

3. Replace ALL gas appliances – including furnaces, ACs, water heaters – with electric before you can sell your house.

My wife, Margriet and I have been living in Los Altos for 35 years. We enjoy participating actively in this great community.

My (Willem's) education and entire professional career has been in the field of Electrical Engineering.

To convert a broken water heater or furnace to electrical equipment, it would require installation of new electrical supply wires, we would also need need to upgrade our electrical panel and add new circuit breakers. This would most likely involve an upgrade for our current 125A main panel by requesting approval from PG&E to supply our home with new upgraded electrical supply lines to allow 200A to our home. This involves paying for digging a trench from the main supply to and paying for a new electrical panel in the back of our home. In addition we would need to install new wiring to all the new electrical appliances.

This all could cost us in excess of $ 70,000.00 . In addition, we would need to WAIT un il all of this would be completed (at least 3 months and maybe more when many households would need to do this at the same time).

Imaging having to live without a hot water heater for such an extended period!! The cost of any of these policy proposals are enormous for homeowners like us!! In the light of the tremendous inflation we are facing at this time, and living off of a modest retirement income, we would ask you to please reject these proposals! We don't deserve these requirements and proposals as residents.

Recently I have experienced a bit of costly conversions at our home, as we decided to go to "green" energy generation.

We have decided to install solar panels with a capacity of 6KW, costing us around $ 23,000 on our own, to help us transition into a more sustainable energy supply for our current and future electrical cars.

If you would want to do some hing for the environment, you might want to ban wood burning fireplaces and offer financial incentives to residents who would convert these to electrical heating systems.

Willem and Margriet De Lange
811
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Ken Girdley
To: Public Comment
Subject: Vote NO On All Reach Codes
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:00:39 PM
I am adamantly opposed to all Reach Codes especially the commission-proposed Reach Code to eliminate natural gas appliances from new construction, major remodels, and gas appliance replacements. To ban homeowners from an energy source that is literally right in front of their home is a penalty that our city council must reject. Several surveys have shown that the majority of Los Altos residents do not want their natural gas taken away. As elected officials, our council members need to listen to their constituents.

Not only is natural gas the cleanest of fossil fuels, it is also an affordable source of energy that is literally right at our doorstep. Why rob residents of that resource? Instead of going straight to the "stick", why not extend the "carrot" by reducing permit fees for those homeowners who elect to abandon natural gas at their street and go with all-electric appliances?
As standard building codes are being proposed, planned, revised, and ultimately voted on, a cost analysis it performed to make sure the benefit outweighs the cost and that the cost does not put an undue burden on the average property owner. Has a legitimate cost analysis been performed by professionals to determine how much switching to electric will cost versus sticking with affordable natural gas appliances? I doubt it. I suspect the commissioners just want their city to be on "the bleeding edge" and don't really care how much of a financial burden is placed on someone who wants to final rebuild, remodel, or just replace that broken gas appliance. Not all Los Altos residents are millionaires. Many are senior citizens living on a fixed income.

Does our commission and council want those residents to go without a cooktop, range, furnace, or water heater simply because they can't afford the triple or quadruple cost to convert from gas to electric? Many older homes do not have the capacity to just add another 50A or 60A dedicated circuit to the existing 100A or 120A main service panel.

It seems that every change made by our state politicians is a restriction and that each restriction requires that we Californians accept a lower standard of living. California already has the strictest Green Codes in the nation. Don't add more unnecessary restrictions on those of us who choose to remain in this city by adding burdensome Reach Codes to the already expensive CALGreen Codes. I'd recommend our city council adopt and implement California's mandatory CALGreen Codes every three years and forgo adding Reach Codes. Let the state drive the codes.

Sincerely,
Ken Girdley
Los Altos
812
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Mahesh Kailasam
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment agenda item 4 - September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:30:15 PM
Hi,
I do not support the proposed gas ban in Los Altos (stricter than those set by the State of California). I do care about the environment and have invested in solar/battery installations to do my part but also believe we need to have flexibility/back up energy sources. The ban on household use of natural gas will do little to address the major challenges we all face. Please do not pass this proposal to ban household gas usage.

Thank you.

Mahesh Kailasam
1583 Landell Ct.

Los Altos, CA 94024
813
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Dareld Nishijo
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:53:57 PM
Please DO NOT ban gas in our city. We do not support this ban.

We use gas to heat our home, heat our water, and cook our food. Switching from gas to electric would be prohibitively expensive for us. Forcing this transition does not make sense at this time, considering California does not have enough electricity for the current load.

Dareld and Kay Nishijo
814
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Tom Gordon
To: Public Comment
Subject: Gas ban
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:16:09 PM
To whom it may concern:

I will simply register my opposition to the existing gas ban and certainly to any further extension and tightening of gas ban or related regulations and requirements.

Sincerely,
Ralph Gordon
Lorraine Gordon
Los Altos, CA 94024
815
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Jeri Goodman
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 3:48:04 PM
I am completely AGAINST this natural gas ban proposal.

I would have hoped that this city had a better grasp of basic science behind such ridiculous proposals as this . There's no panacea in making everything electric except everything will cost more and nothing will work when (not if) the electric grid fails. We don't want this.

Period.

Bill Goodman
125 Marvin Ave , Los Altos
816
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Anusuya Rao
To: Public Comment
Subject: I DO NOT support a gas ban
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 4:19:36 PM
PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022
I DO NOT support a gas ban AND MOST CERTAINLY AND FULLY OPPOSE Los Altos adopting extreme and unnecessary anti-gas codes more stringent than those set out by the state. Please listen to citizens who live and pay taxes in Los Altos, instead of going by the wishes of dictatorial and destructive environmental extremists who are vocal and misguided Thanks!
Anu
817
Agenda Item # 4.

From: C T
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 4:35:01 PM
Dear City Council:

I do not support a natural gas ban.

Thanks and regards,
Curt Thiem
1444 Fallen Leaf Lane
Sent from my mobile device
818
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Harriet Girdley
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Vote NO On All Reach Codes Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 4:40:54 PM
Dear City Council,
I do NOT support a gas ban, and I oppose adopting codes more stringent than those set-out by the state.

Please vote NO on all Reach Codes.

Best Regards,
Harriet Girdley
1330 Ranchita Drive, Los Altos, 94024
California
P Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email? 819
Agenda Item # 4.
820
Agenda Item # 4.
821
Agenda Item # 4.
822
Agenda Item # 4.
823
Agenda Item # 4.
824
Agenda Item # 4.
825
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Anurag Wadehra
To: Public Comment; Sally Meadows
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 5:05:24 PM
This is a breathtakingly bad idea, driven by ignorance and ideology.

I don't support the CAAP plan. I don't support replacing gas appliances either new or old.

Going 100% electric for homes will not be good for citizens.

IF the CAAP plan is fully implemented...

This will result in Los Altos residents not being able to heat their homes during winter or cook at all during grid brownouts. Grid failures are happening more often than before. They will not be able to charge or drive their electric cars when the grid is down, or when they need to flee during an emergency, such as during wildfires.

At least today we have gas fuel as an alternate source of energy into the homes to help in heating and cooking. This move will make our electric grid a single point of failure.

Upstream to the electric grid, California does not have enough renewable energy sources in place for the next decade to feed the grid, especially since the state has decided to switch out of gas and nuclear sources.

Read this twitter thread by Michael Shellenberger, a Bay Area native and an environmental expert, for full facts.

PLEASE DO NOT PROCEED WITH THIS PROPOSAL OR CAAP
Thanks
Anurag
--
Anurag Wadehra
P.S. subscribe to my newsletter on Growth Patterns
826
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Adele Hennig
To: Public Comment
Subject: City Council Meeting September 6th
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 5:32:14 PM
City Council Members,
I have lived in Los Altos for over 60 years. I am very concerned about the direction the City Government is taking in our village and the overwhelming debt the City owes due to bad
management among other things.

I strongly oppose a mandate on our citizens banning natural gas. More and more regulations despite residents'
wishes.When will it stop. Are the fines what draws you to this mandate? If you are for this mandate consider moving to Berkeley or any one of many liberal towns in California who are taking away the rights of the residents.

Please do not vote for this ridiculous mandate.

Adele Hennig
781 Raymundo Ave.,
Los Altos, CA 94024
827
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Alice K.

To: Public Comment
Cc: Alice K.

Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 4, September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:48:48 PM
Dear Los Altos Mayor and City Council:

I am a long-time Los Altos resident. My family and I do not support a gas ban. We are opposed to adopting codes more stringent than those set by the state.

Thank you.

Alice Kwei
828
Agenda Item # 4.

From: B T
To: Public Comment
Subject: Possible Ban on Natural Gas appliances
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:55:59 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
While I support all that we can do for the environment, forcing everyone away from gas at this point is expensive and goes a bit overboard. The state should take the lead on this without each and every city/county taking their own action which may be more stringent than the state rules. There should be common building codes throughout the state but not a mishmash of codes which are difficult to understand and follow.

Additionally, I don’t believe the electric power grid and electrical generation are up to the task especially with hydropower likely being limited due to declining water levels in the reservoirs. We just aren’t ready for this from a practical standpoint. Realistically the state (and the country) need to take a more serious look at expanding wind and tidal power generation. From a personal standpoint, I have solar panels (I need more) but I would also like to have a wind generator. Maybe the city could help with this type situation before forcing us away from natural gas.

Please take my opinion(s) into account when debating this issue.

Sincerely,
Bill Taylor
(A retired long time Mountain View resident of Shoreline West and Old Mountain View) 829
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Tom Shoup
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:56:03 PM
Dear Council,
Please stop wasting time on REACH codes to ban natural gas in homes and force an all-electric conversion. You ignore the complete economic picture to a homeowner by ignoring the true cost of conversion. If an electric panel must be upgraded, it's likely at a cost of $2K to $5K as well as the operating cost with electricity being 3x more expensive per unit of heat than gas. You also ignore the capacity of the electrical grid in Los Altos to handle the added load of all-electric conversions and EV car chargers.

Palo Alto learned that their grid can't support heat-pump water heaters they've encouraged so they stopped pushing residents to convert until they can replace almost every transformer in their grid.

There are bigger fish to fry. For example, water companies uses electricity to pump that scarce resource. Please spend the time you've wasted on REACH codes to enact a building code regulation to prohibit all lawns which require irrigation.

Similarly, requiring more R-value for exterior walls and ceiling insulation in new and remodel construction would be a better use of your time and our money: less heat loss, less energy used.

Very truly yours,
Tom Shoup
112 Garland Way
830
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Tom & Laurel Olsen
To: Public Comment
Subject: Is our concern about CO2 emission founded in reality? Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:56:09 PM
It might behove us to consider the situation in India where the increase in CO2 emissions over the last 50 years has increased its ability to feed its people with a surplus to export. Please consider the article found below written by an Indian climate researcher.

A clip from author Vijay Jayaraj’s article: “Contrary to the popular narrative of a changing climate being an “existential threat,” Earth’s green plants have been recovering from the “browning” of the Little Ice Age, which occurred from the 14th to 19th centuries. Modern warmth and CO2 levels are facilitating a greening that shows up on satellite photos and contributes to record crop harvests."
Tom Olsen
Climate Change Transformed India Into An Argricultureal Superpower— Just Ask My Grandparents. Author: Vijay Jayaraj, September 3, 2022. https://dailycaller.com/2022/09/03/opinion-climate-change-transformedindia-into-an-agricultural-superpower-just-ask-my-grandparents-jayaraj/ 831
Agenda Item # 4.

From: Dave Ziony
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 4 – September 6, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 6:56:13 PM
As a long time Los Altos resident who has added solar electric, solar pool heat, ultra high efficiency water heaters, very efficient home heaters, extra insulation, modern windows, etc during our remodels, in order to minimize our electric and gas consumption, I would encourage the council not to require that appliances be replaced with electric in new or remodeled construction.

The concept is severely flawed for several reasons:

1. Our current grid capacity cannot support today’s demand, let alone the additional demand that would be required by all electric houses.

2. Our current electric grid relies predominantly on natural gas and fossils fuels to produce electricity. Natural gas/fossil fuels are a very inefficient way to produce electricity, but a very efficient way to heat things. As a result, requiring electronic homes will in actuality burn more natural gas and fossil fuels than a regular gas home.

3. Out current grid will not be sufficiently ‘off’ of natural gas and onto renewables or nuclear for, at best, another twenty years.

So requiring electric homes will continue to burn more natural gas and fossil fuels for the foreseeable future.

4. When electricity is more cost effective than gas for producing heat, people will naturally move the to electricity, so there is no need to mandate their move.

I also understand that the council is considering redefining a remodel at greater than 50% of the current square footage. The state taxing agency only counts a new house as a newly built house. If you keep even one wall of the old house, it is classified as a remodel.

Changing the Los Altos definition will only cause problems with optimally designing the house for the owners needs - which might also include energy efficiency.

Keep the remodel
definition where it has always been.

Any wall kept, and it's a remodel, not new construction.

In addition, I understand the the council is considering adding a fee for households that continue to use a gas hook up.

This is misguided for the reasons above.

Sincerely,
Dave Ziony
Los Altos
832
Agenda Item # 4.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
GE
JH N/A
Reviewed By:

City Attorney City Manager Finance Director
Reviewed by:

City Attorney
City
Meeting Date: September 6, 2022
Subject: Commission Appointments
Prepared by: Angel Rodriguez, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

None
Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration: None
Fiscal Impact:

None
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:

Does the Council wish to appoint the applicants to serve on the following Commissions?  Parks and Recreation Commission
 Design Review Commission
 Planning Commission
 Historical Commission
 Public Arts Commission
Summary:

Below is a summary of the number of seats to be filled, the terms, number of applications received for each Commission, an alphabetical listing of the applicants. Eligible incumbents seeking re-appointment are indicated with an asterisk (*) following the applicant’s name. All, but one of the applicant’s invited to the interview were interviewed by the City Council on August 30, 2022.
833
Agenda Item # 5.

Subject: Commission Appointments – Parks and Recreation Commission, Design Review Commission, Planning Commission, Historical Commission, Public Arts Commission
September 6, 2022 Page 2
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 1 partial term expiring in March 2025

2 applications received
Mike Tkalcevic
Steven C Brocksen
DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION: 2 full terms expiring September 2026 3 applications received
Chepe Mantica
Stuart Klein
Urvashi Nagrani
PLANNING COMMISSION: 3 full terms expiring in September 2026 4 applications received
Joe Beninato
Kate Disney
Mehruss Jon Ahi*
Theresa May Couture
HISTORICAL COMMISSION: 4 full terms expiring in September 2026 3 applications received
Jonathan Adams
Jonathan Baer
Liza Coe
PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION: 1 partial term expiring September 2025 0 application received
834
Agenda Item # 5.

Appoint applicants to fill the vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission, Design Review Commission, Planning Commission, Historical Commission, Public Arts Commission.
835
Agenda Item # 5.

Subject: Commission Appointments – Parks and Recreation Commission, Design Review Commission, Planning Commission, Historical Commission, Public Arts Commission
September 6, 2022 Page 4
Purpose
To fill existing or upcoming, due to expiration of terms, Commission vacancies.

Background
The City Council appoints individuals to serve on the various City Commissions and one Committee.

Except for Senior and Youth Commissioners, members are appointed to four-year terms and may serve a total of two consecutive terms plus the fulfillment of an unexpired term should they be so appointed.

Discussion/Analysis
Currently there are eleven (11) vacancies total across five (5) Commissions resulting in the following Commission seats to be filled:

Parks and Recreation Commission: One partial term expiring in March 2025 Design Review Commission: Two terms expiring in September 2026 Planning Commission: Three terms expiring in September 2026 Historical Commission; Four terms expiring in September 2026 Public Arts Commission: One partial term expiring in September 2025

On August 30, 2022, the City Council interviewed all but one of the applicants. 836
Agenda Item # 5.

City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar September 2, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept/
Date of
request
to add.

September 20, 2022* REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
FY 22/23 Agreement with Traffic Patterns Consent Marisa AB 481 Discussion Katie
Solid Waste Disposal Agreement Consent Aida
330 Distel Circle Public Hearing Nick
Sewer Treatment Plant Amendment Consent Aida
Commission Outreach Info Item Anthony
C
Fee Waiver Policy Discussion Anthony
C
FY21/22 Street Resurfacing Consent Morgan
Amendment 1 F&L Corrosion Rehab Project Consent Thanh
Non-Profit Contribution Policy Discussion Anthony
C
SFPUC License Agreement Discussion Manny
October 11, 2022 Study Session – Downtown Vision – 6 pm start Study Session Anthony C
October 11, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Complete Streets Master Plan Consent Marisa
Raising Flag Policy Consent Anthony
837
Agenda Item # 6.

City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
September 2, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
151 Hawthorn – Mills Act Consent Jia
Holidays to be referenced on employee rules Consent HR
October 25, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Commission Appointments Consent Anthony
C
Ceding time Consent Anthony
SFPUC Discussion Manny
Restriction of Fire Arms on Public Property (JW/NF/AE 7/12) Discussion November 1, 2021 Joint w/Commissions
November 15, 2022 * 1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022

REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 29, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
December 6, 2022 CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December December 13, 2022 Special meeting REORG.
838
Agenda Item # 6.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Future Agenda Topics To Be Scheduled….

Proposed City policy that modifies the environmental analysis standard for circulation impacts from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis.

Public
Hearing
League of California Cities – Role and Representation Presentati on/Discu
ssion
Council Initiated
Subcommittee on Grants NF 03.25.2022
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) ES
PCI Report
Funding mechanisms for housing and housing programs
Open Government Cmte
MWENDO
Dark Skies Ordinance (LLE/AE/NF 7/12)
839
Agenda Item # 6.

Los Altos City Council
Legislative Committee
September 6, 2022
The Committee tracked 16 bills during the 2021-22 session. Of those, eight did not move forward and eight passed the Legislature. One bill amended late in the session that the Committee did not track is of interest; it moved forward and is included here for information (SB 6). It would be consistent with prior Council direction to support vetoes of AB 2011, AB 2097, SB 897, SB 932, especially if the League of California Cities seeks support for such veto letters.

PASSED LEGISLATURE
AB 2011 (Wicks) – Allow housing and mixed-use in office, retail, or parking regardless of general plan or zoning (Los Altos opposed)
AB 2097 (Friedman) – Prohibit any requirement for parking on developments within one-half mile of major transit stop (Los Altos opposed) AB 2164 (Lee) – Use business license tax to provide financial assistance to small businesses re: Disability access (Los Altos supported)
AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva) – Specifies additional staff requirements on processing ADU applications. (Los Altos took no position)
AB 2625 (Ting) – Exceptions to Subdivision Map Act for leasing or easement on land involving an electrical energy storage system. (Los Altos took no position) SB 897 (Wieckowski) – Requires objective standards for ADUs/JADUs; prohibits limiting to less than 25 feet; reduces parking; further limits owner-occupancy requirement (Los Altos opposed)
SB 922 (Wiener) – Changes sunset for exempting certain bicycle and other transportation plans from CEQA. (Los Altos supported)
SB 932 (Portantino) – Changes requirements in Circulation Element of General Plan. (Los Altos opposed)
Added for information: SB 6 (Caballero) – Would allow construction of certain multifamily housing on a parcel that is zoned for office, retail, or parking. (A late gut-and-amend; Committee made no recommendation; Los Altos took no position)

FAILED TO ADVANCE OR WERE WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR
AB 1944 (Lee) – Amend Brown Act to allow hybrid meetings, change notice and requirements regarding legislative body officials participating remotely. (Los Altos supported)
AB 2053 (Lee) – Would create a new California Housing Authority (Committee watched but made no recommendation; died early) 840
Agenda Item # 7.

AB 2063 (Berman) Would prohibit collection of certain impact fees on “density bonus” units
(Committee watched but made no recommendation; died early) AB 2181 (Berman) – Change composition and selection of VTA board (Los Altos opposed)
AB 2762 (Bloom) States intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to allow local agencies to build affordable housing on parking lots that serve public parks and recreational facilities
(Committee watched but made no recommendation; died early) SB 930 (Wiener) – Originally a housing bill, amended by author to be alcohol control bill. (A late gut-and-amend; Committee made no recommendation; Los Altos took no position)
SB 1067 (Portantino) Would prohibit a city with population greater than 200,000 from imposing any minimum automobile parking requirement on a housing development within ½ mile of public transit under certain conditions. (Committee watched for amendment that would cover Los Altos; made no recommendation)
SB 1292 (Stern) Would require jurisdictions that constrain development within certain fire hazard zones to provide for replacement development double the number of units eliminated in the fire hazard zones.
(Committee watched but made no recommendation; no application to Los Altos) Possible action on ballot measures for November 2022
Councilmember Weinberg asked the committee to consider SCA 1 (Proposition 1) and Councilmember Lee Eng and others, in response to request from a community member, asked the committee to consider Proposition 31. City Attorney offered to provide guidance memo.

The Legislative Committee has, over the past three years, made recommendations to the Council to have letters of official council positions conveyed to the Legislature and/or Governor on matters before them. Previously, the Committee has not taken up, nor has it been directed to take up, any matters that will be appearing on State ballots.

Policy question for Council: Does the Council wish to expand the historical remit of the Legislative Committee to consider State ballot propositions? Policy question for council: Does the Council wish to expand the historical remit of the Legislative Committee to consider State ballot propositions? 841
Agenda Item # 7.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
842
Agenda Item # 7.

From: Jonathan Weinberg
To: Public Comment
Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Jolie Houston
Subject: Public Comment on the Legislative Subcommittee meeting calendared for Sept. 5, 2022 Date: Friday, September 2, 2022 6:38:01 PM
Attachments: DAAC0FD62BAC4CFCB0C2F921A55C88A9[5651033].png I submit this note as part of the record for the Los Altos City Council Legislative Subcommittee meeting calendared for Monday, September 5, 2022. Please include this note as part of the official record for the meeting and the meeting packet.

I object to the Los Altos City Council Legislative Subcommittee meeting on Monday, September 5, 2022 for the following reasons:

1. Notice for the meeting was posted on Friday, September 2, 2022. This is a Friday before a long, holiday weekend;

2. The meeting is set to take place on Labor Day which is a national holiday;

3. City staff is being forced to give up a holiday so that they can set up, support, record, and post the video of the meeting;

4. The extremely short notice for this meeting violates the City’s policy of giving at least 8 days’ notice prior to a meeting; and

5. The agenda does not include discussion of the two ballot measures that the Council directed the subcommittee to consider.

I ask that the September 5, 2022 Los Altos City Council Legislative Subcommittee meeting be taken off calendar and that the matter be referred for consideration by the Council’s open government subcommittee.

Simply put, this meeting lacks transparency. I anticipate a statement by the subcommittee that notice was given in accordance with the requirements of the Brown Act. In response, I will end this note with the observation that just because something is legal, that does not mean it is ethical.

Sincerely:
- Jonathan Weinberg
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Esq. │Member, Los Altos City Council Los Altos City Hall
1 North San Antonia Road │Los Altos, CA 94022
Main: (650) 947-2700 │ Direct: (650) 947-2768 │ [email protected] 843
Agenda Item # 7.
844
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos City CouncilSeptember 6, 2022

Los Altos City Council
September 6, 2022