Hey everyone, thank you for attending the Tuesday, September 2nd uh meeting of the Belmont Planning Commission.

Uh there's multiple ways to attend and participate, of course, in person here at City Hall.

Uh we're broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 27.

Uh it's streaming live on the city's website at Belmont.gov, and there is a link in the agenda that uh for our Zoom.

Um you can participate by filling out a speaker slip here if you're in this in the in the council chambers, please do that if you could and pass it forward to the clerk.

Uh or you can call in at one six six nine nine hundred six eight three three.

Uh or you can participate on Zoom.

Please raise your hand when you would like to speak, and we will try and get everybody a chance to speak three minutes.

Uh could we do the roll call, please?

Yes, a roll call.

Uh Commissioner Adam Kavich here.

Kramer?

Here.

Twig?

Yeah.

Jadala?

Here.

And absent tonight we have Chair Coolidge and Vice Chair Majeski.

Uh okay.

Could you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

The flags here behind me.

I agree to flag of the United States of America.

One nation under God.

Indivisible.

Okay.

Uh next up we have a community forum section on the agenda where uh the public is welcome to address the planning commission on anything in our purview that is not on tonight's agenda.

If you wish to discuss something on the agenda, please wait until that comes up.

Uh do we have any speaker slips for the community forum?

Um, no current speaker slips or raise hands on Zoom for this item.

Okay.

Anything of interest on the C dev email?

We do not.

Okay, excellent.

So let's and no one in the chamber wants to address us on anything.

Good.

Well, not good.

Moving on.

Uh commissioner announcements and agenda amendments.

Do my colleagues have any announcements they need to make?

No.

Any agenda amendments from staff?

None from staff.

Excellent.

Moving on.

No study session tonight, correct?

Correct.

Okay, so we can go to the public hearing session.

First up, two nine one four San Juan Boulevard.

Single family design review.

Uh do any commissioners have any ex parte communications to report or site visits?

Start down at the center.

Site visit.

Site visit.

Site visit for me only.

Nothing to report.

Okay, very good.

Mr.

Ruiz, please proceed.

Good evening, Commissioners.

This is for a single family design review for 2914 San Juan Boulevard.

The proposal is for a 732 square feet upper story addition to an existing already established second story with a lower floor addition of 135 square feet.

The total comes out to 867.

The lot summary for this location is that the lot size is 7,376 with an estimated slope of 22.91%.

This gives a floor area ratio of 0.454 maximum, which would calculate to the maximum gross floor area of 3,349.

Per the existing home size is 2,288.

The proposed is 3,113, and which is less than the maximum of 3,349.

Per the requirements for design review, the findings for additions was that they are well designed, articulated, and consistent, that they do not impact public views, and that they are compliant with residential design guidelines and criteria.

While it's a bit more hard to see from the site plan as it's in grayscale, um the proposed setbacks for this location is that it has a front setback of 15, uh side setbacks of seven feet, and a rear setback of 15 minimum.

The proposed setbacks here are able to meet those requirements.

Noted that they all at least establish the minimum of 15 and 7 for the front and sides, with the rear being approximately 47 feet from this uh rear property line.

Um in the dark gray are the areas of scope of work for reference.

As you can see from the front elevation of the existing, um, this is the already two-story home uh in Board and Batten uh with several windows and a deck and railing.

Um it is currently going to be transformed into a more modern um contemporary look with the gray stucco, this stone veneer, and you can see the articulation and wall depths uh being adjusted and giving that uh Belmont design for a cake look in the front, um, having the walls jet out and then become smaller as it goes further in.

Similarly for the rear elevation, you can see that two-story existing already.

The um point is that the walls are only going to be changed in terms of material from uh primarily here.

And then from the rear onward, it's going to actually expand back for that area and have these new windows and adjustments for that location.

Similarly for the left elevation for existing.

You can again see that articulation as the walls tend to go back forward more and giving that Belmont cake tier look.

And lastly, for the right elevation, same concept.

The color materials proposed for this location is that they're gonna meet the charcoal shingles, uh, off-white color exterior stuckos, black window trims and door trims, um, the velex skylight, and as well as a color entry wood door.

Staff recommends for approval.

Thank you.

Uh there any questions from the commission.

All right.

Uh would the applicant like to make a brief presentation?

It's not required, but it's uh you're welcome to applicant or the owner.

Thank you, Jeremy.

Hi, all pending commissioner.

My name is Ming.

Uh, we're going to IXang.

Uh, uh is have an inversion meeting.

I have an emergency issue, so you might might not be able to come.

So I just pick up your work.

I've been working on this project uh since the beginning.

So yeah, this is this project design is pretty straightforward to open up uh open floor plan and also adding audition for the lower for uh gas gas bathroom and bathroom for in case of gas, and also we added a front project for for a well-defined welcoming entries, also adding a second on the second floor, we added a massive suite for and also uh for our office, new new small office accommodating the and also rearranged uh layout of the uh upper floor to accommodate the owners uh up uh upgoing children's and also I believe that the design is uh carefully cropped it to Fouvio or Bellman Songing criteria, also care and coherent remain coherent with the uh with the surrounding neighbors, and I believe this is a quite upgrade for this house and also yeah, this is my presentations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant or for staff?

Okay, thank you.

Uh so let's go ahead and open up the public uh meeting portion.

Are there any speaker slips for this?

Um no speaker slips or raised hands on Zoom for this item.

Anything in the email box for C dev?

Certainly not for this item.

Okay.

Uh so let's close the uh public statement portion and move on to deliberation.

Let's start on this end.

I think it looks like a great project, great addition, and I agree that it meets the design standards.

Very good.

It looks well designed.

It looks like you've incorporated the edit floor area.

Why else not adding to the bulk, especially from the street view?

Um I can make the findings.

Me else, yeah.

I agree with what's been said.

I can make the findings.

Excellent.

Uh I agree.

I can also make the findings.

So we have a consensus.

Could would someone like to make a motion, please?

Uh sure.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh I make a motion to pass the resolution of the planning commission of the city of Belmont approving a single family design review at 2914 San Juan Boulevard, application number 2025-0001.

Excellent.

Is there a second?

I'll second it.

Uh can we have a roll call vote, please?

Yes, uh, roll call, Commissioner Adam Kavich.

Aye.

Kramer?

Aye.

Twig?

Jadala?

Aye.

Um motion passes four zero for two nine one four San Juan Boulevard single family design review.

Excellent.

Uh congratulations to the applicant.

Um this is appealable within the next 10 calendar days.

Um but good luck with your project.

Carry on.

Uh and thank you to staff for making doing everything so this goes so smoothly.

Appreciate it.

Uh on to the next.

Just this one.

Oh, yeah.

Uh next one up is 1641 Francis Avenue, single family design review.

Um checking again for um ex parte communications.

Commissioner?

Uh just a site visit.

Just a site visit for me.

Slight visit only.

And a site visit.

Excellent.

Uh so let's go ahead with the staff report, please, Ms.

Riz.

Hello again, Commissioners.

This is for 1641 Francis Avenue.

Again for another single family design review.

Um the proposed is for a tier three um design review due to the upper floor uh addition of 1,156 square feet in order to create a new second story.

Uh the lower floor will also be adding 52 square feet um for its ground floor base, and this will accumulate to a total of 1,208 square feet.

The lot summary for this particular location is that the lot size is 5,500 square feet, the slope being 9.421%, which equates to a floor area ratio of 0.533.

And this all comes out to a maximum gross floor area of 2,932 square feet.

The existing home size for this location is 1,717, the proposed being 2,872, um, with the noted max of again 2,932.

As noted per the findings, the design review must be well designed, articulated, and consistent.

Um the public view should not be impacted, and that it is compliant with residential design guidelines and criteria.

For the site plan in and of itself, you can see that the majority of the addition here is noted in the gray uh for that second story edition.

Uh it has a proposed front setback of 29 feet two inches, side setbacks for left and right of six feet, and a rear setback of 37 feet 10 inches as measured from the second story addition.

Um the required setbacks for this location should be 15 feet for the front, uh, six feet for the sides, and rear of 15.

The existing is a single story home, um, as you can see here, uh, with the horizontal lap siding and composite single shift roofing.

But as you can see, it is going to a board and batten with that second story addition doing the articulation.

Um again, uh the portions of the second story are pushed back away from the main articulated ground floor in order to omit the second story step back rule as well as the prescribed articulation requirements for residential design criteria.

This all accumulates to getting that uh Belmont wedding tier cake look-esque.

Similarly, for the rear elevation, you can again see the walls being articulated, the sideboards and uh the board and banner and sidings um giving that composite look, um, as well as the windows being primarily for the bedroom areas.

Left elevation has a similar story, um, where you can see that the second story is primarily in the front.

Try not to impact the rear as much as it can.

And for the right elevation, you can again see the articulation with the uh second story stepbacks being prescribed, as well as the uh general windows being smaller on the site, as they're mostly utilitarian versus actually needing it for a room, for instance.

For the color material board for this location, it will be the white off-gray white uh board and batten with stone veneer as well as composite shingling and cedar wooded posts.

Staff recommends for approval.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

Um would the applicant like to make a presentation?

You're welcome to, but it is not required.

Following the previous one.

Um just so really quickly.

Um we have three kiddos and a small house, so uh adding uh two rooms as uh is the goal here.

Um also a place for the parents that live uh pretty far to come and stay with us.

Uh we chatted with the neighbors uh in the houses next to us.

One of them went up a few years ago to make sure that where they went up and where we are going up is kind of in an offset.

They went up in the back, so we did that in the front, so the windows don't look at each other.

Uh chatted with the neighbors across to make sure that they're fine uh with uh any changes to view and stuff like that.

So I think uh at least the folks we talked to, they're happy and happy to answer questions that you have or the folks uh that may be online.

Excellent.

Thank you so much.

Um questions from the commissioners for staff or the applicant.

Um I think you answered my question, which is why mass near the front.

So that's interesting because the the front setback is fairly small in Belmont, I would say, and this is a fairly large home to be pushed all the way to the front setback.

But it it sounds like you're trying to avoid having your second story and your neighbor's second story line up horizontally.

Um so I'll clarify it.

Um answer, I hope.

And we're not changing the footprint of the house.

Uh so where we're going up is above the existing house.

So we decided to go up there and not in the back part because yeah, of the neighbor that is uh left to us.

Yeah, that was the reason.

Okay.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh so let's open the public hearing.

Are there any speaker slips in-house?

Um uh public speaker slips or uh raised hands on Zoom for this item.

Neither.

Okay.

Anything in the email box for CDV?

There's nothing on this item as well.

All right, very good.

Then we will close the public hearing.

Thank you very much.

And go on to deliberations.

I forgot where I started last time.

Let's go this way.

Um I would say doing the site visit, it it seemed like the proposal was a little large relative to the lot size, but it meets all the findings, and the neighbor did something similar, at least in terms of uh size.

So I uh I had no issues.

Excellent.

I find it handles the volume well.

I my only use kind of wrinkles with the board and bats and siding, which I don't feel is consistent with the area.

I think it's there's nothing similar on that street as far as I can see.

There's a lot of stucco and even siding type panels, but this board and bats, and I think that doesn't mean it's bad, it just means it's not necessarily sitting so comfortably alongside its neighbors.

Um the volume I don't have as much of a problem with things sitting forward, and you've obviously spoken to your neighbors and that's that comes across.

I think it was useful to have your outreach letters um scanned and telling us when they were delivered because it makes it very clear that these letters went out and they were received, and the the feedback you got was in response to those.

So even though that probably cost more than just a normal postage, it actually really kind of helps get across in one glance that that was done and that was done really comprehensively.

So thank you.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, nothing to add.

All right.

Uh I can also make the filings uh findings.

Um it doesn't it might appear that we're rubber stamp things, but that's because a lot a lot of work goes on beforehand.

Um the uh applicant spends a lot of time uh working with staff and the staff spend a lot of time with us and our predecessors, making sure the rules are objective now, not subjective.

Uh so and the reports are prepared in advance and we review them in advance.

And so there's not that many questions that we have to ask.

Um it's uh uh a lot of what we're doing is purely educational uh and checking staff's work.

And it's very easy to check people's work when they do everything correctly.

So thank you for that.

And um uh so if someone we have a consensus, would someone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

I move to approve the single family design review at 1641 Francis Avenue application number 2025-0024.

Very good, thank you.

Is there second?

Seconded.

Very good.

Uh roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Adam Kevich.

Hi.

Kramer.

Aye.

Twig.

Jadala.

Aye.

Motion passes four zero for 1641 Francis Avenue single family design review.

Very good.

Congratulations to the applicant.

Note this is appealable within the next 10 calendar days.

Good luck with your project.

All right.

Moving on to other businesses and updates.

A climate action and adaptation plan update.

Okay, so we have Karen Clark joining us tonight.

We have Kathy Kleinbaum as well, who are the architects for this project and in uh providing this presentation to you tonight.

There is no action before the commission.

Great presentation.

Looking forward to you getting it and the discussion or questions that might come out of it.

This is scheduled as well for an upcoming city council meeting, I believe for the next council meeting, uh September 9th.

There's no public hearing, right?

Is there any invitation for public on it?

Okay.

Correct.

Very good.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Karen, if you want to take it away, thank you very much.

Yes, uh, thank you, Commissioners.

Um we are here with you tonight to introduce the city's climate action and adaptation plan update.

We will be going over a project overview and discussing the baseline greenhouse gas emissions in Belmont, taking a look at emissions trends forecasts and the state's targets for emissions reductions.

Um we'll be touching on adaptation planning, um, which will be augmenting the safety element update work, um, and then going into background research and progress to date on the prior climate action plan and some opportunities and challenges for the future, which will feed into our key climate strategies, um actions the city can take to help mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and meet those state targets, and then we'll finish up with community engagement and next steps.

Our project team here with you tonight is Kathy Kleinbaum, the assistant city manager.

I'm Karen Clark, an analyst for the city and project manager.

Jeremy Ruiz, who you know well, is also on the project team, and we've engaged Rincon consultants for this project.

So we have Ryan Gardner, who is their director who will be presenting tonight for the rest of the presentation, and we also have Olivia Mendoza, the project manager who is joining us virtually.

All right, and I'm going to turn this over to Mr.

Gardner.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioners.

I'm Ryan Gardner.

I'm uh the director of climate action with RinCon Consultants.

Happy to be here tonight.

Um so what is a climate action and adaptation plan?

Um, it's really our strategy on how we're gonna address climate change.

And there's two major pieces to that.

Um one side we have mitigation, so that's like how are we gonna reduce the emissions, the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing and exacerbating climate change.

And then on the flip side, we already know that the climate is changing, we're already seeing impacts, um, and even if we were carbon neutral today over the entire world, there's still enough momentum in the system that it's gonna get worse over the next handful of decades.

So we need to adapt to those changes and start preparing for the changes that we expect to see.

Um in this plan, we're gonna look to find those opportunities where we can do mitigation and adaptation at the same time and really optimize our our approaches.

Um these plans are you know, we're gonna look at new ways to address climate, but we're also going to integrate a lot of the work that the city is already doing and has been doing, um, and look to find those synergies across the actions we're already undertaking.

Um, and then we're also gonna help prepare for funding that's coming down the line.

Um, and we hear a lot and we'll talk a lot a little bit more about losing funding, especially from the federal federal level.

Um, but we are seeing a lot of funding continuing to come from California, um including Prop 4, which is a few billion dollars slated for climate planning in California.

Um so on the mitigation side, the foundation for this work um is really data driven.

So we're gonna be basing our approaches and our strategies and our actions on our greenhouse gas inventory.

This inventory is already completed for the city as part of the RICAPS program, which is a county-led initiative that provides greenhouse gas inventories, which takes all of the emissions that we're generating within the city and adds them up and provides a total inventory, and we'll cover that.

And then we do a forecast that looks out into the future and tries to look at how emissions are going to change based on population growth, jobs, and things like that, as well as key state legislation that's gonna help us reduce some of those emissions.

On the adaptation side, um, Karen talks a little bit about the safety element update.

Those uh that vulnerability analysis that is done is based on global climate models that have been downscaled for the state of California and even further for our region.

Um, and those look at how climate is going to change over time and what types of impacts we expect to see.

Um that will be kind of the starting place for this, and then bringing in those higher level policies from the safety element into more specific actions that can live in this kind of shorter term climate uh action adaptation plan.

Um, and then throughout all of this, we're gonna be developing these strategies and actions that would get put in here and really looking to drive a lot of this through community engagement and interaction with key stakeholders throughout the city.

Um this plan is going to build on the 2017 climate action plan that the city adopted.

Um this new plan will go in and update with new data, current best practices, um, and then also incorporating adaptation measures, which weren't in the first plan, they were just mitigation.

So, this is gonna try to do both.

Um, and we're also gonna update our targets to meet uh or align with the current state legislation.

So the two most important uh statewide pieces of legislation that we work under are SB32, which is requiring the state to reduce emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, which is just five years away.

Um, and then SBR AB 1279, which is a long-term target of reaching carbon neutrality with at least a 15% reduction in emissions by 2045.

Um, we're gonna be working towards coming up with a plan that achieves those targets.

Um, and by doing that, aligning with the state, you get benefits like um being more competitive for state funding.

So just some project milestones and a little bit of a schedule of what this project is gonna look like.

We kicked off in March of 2025 through July.

We pulled those inventories together, um, made some updates for current legislation and made them you know as accurate as possible.

And then we also did our greenhouse gas forecast and identified our targets, uh, which we'll go over in a few minutes.

Um in August, we started our initial effort for community engagement.

So we got our website updated, um, started doing some community pop-ups where we're getting some feedback from folks just out and about doing other things, um, and then also started our survey online.

Uh through September, uh, we're gonna start doing our commission initial commission meeting.

So we're here tonight.

We'll be at City Council next week.

And then also doing our first community workshop, which will be virtual on the 11th in the evening.

Um, so you can sign up for that on the website.

And then in January, we'll start our draft actions based on what we heard from the community, um, and we'll review those with you all as well as city council.

Um, and then February, another round of community surveys and our second community workshop, and then getting into summer, um, having our draft plan for adoption next fall.

So kind of a long iterative process, a lot of feedback, a lot of checkpoints along the way, um, and hopefully a lot of feedback from the community.

Okay, so on the greenhouse gas emissions side, um, this is a pie chart of the emissions and where they come from in the city of Belmont.

Um this is in CO2 equivalents or taking multiple greenhouse gases like methane and nitrous oxides and converting them all to a single unit of CO2.

Um so when we do this, you can see right away the two biggest sectors that create 90% of the emissions are on road transportation, so that's our passenger, mostly our passenger cars on the road, uh, a little bit of commercial vehicles on our road, and then we've got natural gas is the other 40%.

Um, this is pretty standard.

What we see throughout California, I will say the one thing that is very noticeable is the impact of carbon-free electricity from Peninsula Clean Energy.

That represents only one percent of your emissions.

Um, in places that still use PG ⁇ E or other sources, you'll kind of see more of a split between natural gas um and electricity.

Um, and we'll talk a little bit more about the opportunities that represents around electrification, where basically if we can convert something from natural gas or from uh diesel or gasoline to electric, those emissions essentially go to zero.

Um so it's a really easy way to decarbonize.

We also have off-road equipment that's like construction equipment, lawn mowers, um equipment that is not driving around but still burning gasoline and diesel.

Um, wastewater, very small, water also very small, driven by electricity.

So as electricity went to zero or towards zero, so did water.

Uh and then stationary sources are like big generators and things like that.

So also a pretty small amount.

Sorry, quick point of clarification.

Should we hold questions till the end?

Or is this intended to be interactive?

Well, we have a few more slides here, and I know questions might be brewing.

It might be better if we could hold them to the end, just to allow for that kind of comp.

You've had that compilation, if you will.

So thank you.

So this slide looks at how those emissions have changed over time.

So that previous slide was our 2023 emissions.

Um, and you can see from 2005, um, we've made some really significant improvements.

Um, a lot of that is due to electricity going from fossil fuel sources to renewable sources.

So there was a 95% reduction in electricity emissions from 2005 to 2023.

Um, solid waste also went down significantly, uh, 41%.

That's a mix of having less organics in the waste stream, uh, which is what creates a lot of the emissions, and also just less waste overall.

On-road transportation also went down, which is great.

A lot of that is being driven by electric vehicles and hybrids, um, and just better efficiency, even with the internal combustion engines we have, and building natural gas also went down a little bit, which is uh rare in most cities, I would say.

Um sectors went up, off-road equipment went up.

That one is a little tough because we use a we use a countywide estimate of emissions and then scale that based on popular on like population growth and construction and a few other metrics.

So I would say it's not super accurate, but it gives us a good idea of where things are.

Um yeah, we've been able to drive emissions down, um, but what we see here, and we see in a lot of places in California is we got this big emissions reduction from clean electricity, and we've kind of been plateauing since then.

So the next thing that we look at after we look at our historic emissions and understand our current emissions is we do our forecast.

Um there's kind of two different forecasts we look at.

The first is the business as usual, which essentially says if we took the average person's emissions today, and then we just grew at the rate, our general plan and our arena numbers, say we're supposed to grow at um, where would our emissions be in the future if all those people acted like the average Belmont citizen today?

And you'll see that blue line obviously just goes up as more people move to the city.

The red line takes into account state uh legislation.

So things that are gonna help us drive our emissions down.

And you see that those pieces of legislation pretty much offset our population growth for the most part.

But they don't they still kind of trend up by 2045.

Um the green line is our target pathway.

So if we were to hit the state targets, we would follow that green line.

Um you can see that going to zero by 2045, and the gap that we have is the difference between that red line and the green line, and that's what we're gonna try to close down through this plan.

So that was on the mitigation, greenhouse gas emissions side.

On the adaptation side, like I mentioned, the plan is going to work to integrate the information and the findings that are coming out of the safety element update and build those into the plan and really look for opportunities for synergies between mitigation and adaptation.

In that safety element, the kind of biggest hurdles or climate impacts we expect to see are extreme heat, wildfire, and impacts from wildfire, like wildfire smoke.

We've all probably experienced that already.

Fires don't have to be here in order for that to be an impact.

Potential flooding in some areas of Belmont.

The flip side to that is drought.

So a lot of the climate models are projecting both less precipitation overall, but when we get it, it will be much faster and all at once.

So you get both flooding and drought potential.

And then the potential for sea level rise in some areas of the bay, which could cause flooding, saltwater intrusion, and things like that.

To kick off our project, we started off with background research just to get an understanding of what the city has already accomplished and the plans that are already available.

So RankCon has a tool we call the measure analysis and success tracking tool, or MAST.

Can't ever resist a good acronym.

But that tool just when we go through all of the plan, so we review the general plan and the old climate action plan and other you know planning documents of the city has put together and we pull out all of the climate-related actions and we put them into this tool.

And then there's an opportunity within the tool to for staff to go through and provide updates on if those things have been implemented, if they haven't, and then why.

Again, grant funding limitations.

So if there's no resources to do a project, it's hard to get them done.

Staff capacity, legal barriers.

So if there's legal challenges in other cities that cause us to stop having to do things, there's been a lot of challenges back and forth with like building electrification, for example.

And then capacity and framework to monitor ongoing progress is always a challenge as well.

But a lot of work did get done.

So the 2020 target was a 15% emissions reduction below 1990 levels, and the city was able to achieve 28%.

So really exceeded the 2020 target.

And statewide were also able to exceed the target for 2020, which was driven by AB32 of previous legislation.

So really great progress so far, again, driven by that clean electricity from Peninsula Clean Energy.

And then also implementing a lot of work throughout the city, energy improvement projects or any energy efficiency projects at municipal buildings, LED street lights, building retrofits, implemented bike lane improvement projects, reach codes requiring electrification, which are currently on pause due to some of those legal challenges that I mentioned, EV charging requirements, which are still online, Caltrain electrification, and just this general rise in EV ownership and some of the highest EV adoption rates in the country, which is great.

However, Belmont, along with probably every other jurisdiction in California, the state included, are not tracking to meet the 2030 targets currently due to that kind of leveling off in the reductions that we saw just looking at those three years from 2005 to current.

So as we're starting this kind of update process, there are a lot of opportunities but also a lot of challenges as we look into this 2030 target, especially.

On the bright side, you will all be seeing and adopting the 2025 building code or Title 24 or Calgreen, which is going to set the standards for all new construction and major renovations, and that code very heavily favors all electric construction.

So prescriptive requirements for that code, which no one follows, but it does set the performance requirements, or heat pumps for air condition or space heating and water heating.

So that's going to just be standard, and the result of that will be almost all new construction is likely to be all electric unless someone really wants to spend a lot of extra money to have a gas line for like one or two appliances.

So that's great.

The flip side to that is recently AB 130 was passed, which helps streamline CEQA for new development, which is great for getting new development, especially in urban infill areas, but also limits REACH code amendments that can be adopted until 2031.

So that is a potential challenge for us as we look for ways to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from that 40% of emissions that is existing natural gas usage.

And then we're also just in really uncertain times about the future of federal incentives, things like inflation reduction act that was providing you know tens of thousands of dollars to homeowners and building owners to do retrofits, EV incentives, all could be gone, some could be gone.

It's really hard to know what's going to happen and what the support is going to be.

But again, the flip side to that is still pretty significant commitment from the state of California and billions of dollars in funding from Prop 4 and other building electrification programs that are kind of helping to fill that gap.

But these are some of the things that we're gonna have to kind of work within and work around as we work towards putting a plan together that kind of aligns with the state goals.

So climate is you know, it's this big complicated thing, and we talked about a lot of pieces.

It really boils down to like six or seven things that we can do to reduce those emissions from that big pie chart that we talked about.

Um really we need to figure out is how are we going to do those things in Belmont and what the approaches are to do those.

So one of our key climate strategies is going to be healthy and resilient buildings, so tackling that 40% of emissions that are associated with natural gas in our existing buildings.

We already have carbon-free electricity for the most part from Peninsula Clean Energy, so that's a huge benefit that we can leverage to get significant reductions.

And we need to switch our gas appliances to electric appliances.

That's gonna be uh you know, a 40% of your overall emissions.

So we can do that by encouraging people to switch from gas furnaces and gas water heaters to heat pumps that are 400% efficient.

Uh heat pump furnaces provide heating and cooling, which is a great opportunity to make our homes more resilient against extreme heat and wildfire smoke.

Um we can look at creating incentives for that.

We can also look at opportunities to continue adopting ordinances that encourage electrification.

Um we can work with partners like PC Peninsula Clean Energy to expand incentives.

We can look at our electric infrastructure and make sure it's resilient to climate change and that people can rely on that to run their homes and their vehicles.

Um we can provide education on the benefits of not burning fossil fuels within your home.

So cleaner air, less impact to health, um savings on bill, and a lot of incentives from Peninsula Clean Energy and others.

On the vehicle side, so this is the other kind of half of that pie chart, 52% of our emissions.

We need to try to figure out a way that people can drive single occupancy vehicles less.

So if we reduce, there's kind of two ways that we can reduce emissions from vehicles.

We can drive less or we can make vehicles uh have less emissions.

Those are kind of our two options.

Um, so this is on that first option, which is how do we get less vehicles on the road or driving less miles?

And we can get people on bikes, we can get people walking, we can provide transit opportunities, uh, we can encourage carpooling, we can look at identifying gaps in infrastructure, we can create more diverse land use types, so you are closer to the things that you maybe want to go to.

Um, and we can make things safer to do all of those uh activities.

And when we can't reduce VMT or vehicle miles travel, we can electrify those vehicles because every time we switch from a gas or diesel vehicle to an electric one, those emissions uh go to zero.

Um so expanding access to EV charging is a big one, making people feel comfortable that they'll have a place to charge.

Um electrifying the city fleet, which is still a requirement from the state of California.

Um, so that's one thing that we can just incorporate into this plan.

Um removing hurdles for installation of infrastructure, so looking at our zoning codes, looking at our permitting processes and making sure that we're not prohibiting or making it challenging to install EV charging in certain places, um, and then again providing education on the benefits of the EVs and like long-term cost savings and things like that.

The next strategy is addressing our waste.

Um, in waste, the really the only source of emissions is organic material decomposing in the landfill and turning into methane, which is 28 times worse than CO2.

Um state of California has a rule, SB 1383 to reduce organic material uh sent to landfill by 75% by 2025, which is now.

Um, so they've started to make uh keep track of folks on where they are here and and start to um verify that waste haulers and cities and uh are starting to make progress on this, so we're starting to see um more pushback from cow recycle on this.

Um when we take that compost or organic material out of the landfill, we make it into compost, we can apply that to our outdoor lands, sequester more carbon, um, grow more trees that sequester carbon, and through all of that, we also have to manage our wildfire risk, right?

So if we're planting a ton of trees and getting a bunch of shade and protecting against extreme heat, we also need to make sure that we don't have catastrophic wildfires, which are a potential with the topography we have in the city.

And we've already started to do some engagement on these topics.

So these are some poster boards that staff went out to some community events and provided stickers for folks to kind of vote on the different approaches that they were most interested in or their top three priorities, and then also some opportunities for some writing in some other ideas.

Um we've started to get some feedback on our surveys as well, but this is a great opportunity for anybody listening, or if you have your own channels that you would like to push those information out, that would be amazing.

Um we've got our website up and operational, and you can take the survey there, you can register for the workshop, um, and you can also sign up to receive email updates on future opportunities.

And just some next steps.

Um, we're gonna continue with our survey.

We're gonna go to City Council next week as well as host our first workshop, which will be virtual.

We'll talk about uh visioning for this project, what the community wants to see as end goals, um, and then start talking about some of the challenges, the hurdles that make it hard to implement some of the things we talked about tonight, um, and then some of the solutions, what would make it easier to do those things?

What would you need to have in order to ride your bike to work or to buy an EV?

Um, so we can start problem solving some of those uh perceived or real challenges.

And then after we get done with that, we're gonna come up with our draft measures and start to look at how much we those measures will get us as far as greenhouse gas reductions.

We'll come up with our Spark tool, which is like a scenario planning tool that will allow us to kind of change how much of each of those things we talked about we're gonna do in order to get to those targets, um, and then we'll develop our actions that kind of get us to those measures or those amounts of reductions.

Uh, once we get our draft measures, we'll be working with city staff to refine them, uh, make sure that they're feasible and implementable in the city, and then going out to the community with our first list of draft actions.

And that is all I have tonight.

Happy to take questions.

I have a couple.

Um so if I heard you, you're saying that that the city implemented certain measures.

Are you measuring how well Belma has done in certain ways?

And I'm wondering how that might kind of dovetail with the county measurements that you just you know work down to Belmont's population or whatever.

Oh yeah so for for the off-road emissions maybe so that's the only one where we're using kind of this countywide model that adjusts um so we didn't do any further adjustment on that on the off-road emissions and that's kind of a standard like best practice in the climate action planning space is to use the state off road model it's called okay um and then uh I guess second question is what if we fail what happens um as far as like a consequence from the state nothing happens um there's if you're trying to use unless you're trying to use your your climate action planning document to streamline CEQA projects um there's really no legal ramification for not meeting your goals um so it's it's okay.

Okay.

I I do have a third question actually so was there a ratio of funding for climate action initiatives that's state versus federal just kind of you know roughly that is a really tricky question.

I would say that for a brief moment in time federal was probably equal to California target uh incentives but it was like for four years or something.

Um and prior to that there was really no federal assistance and there is going to be less and less moving forward.

So um it's unfortunate but not uh unheard of or unparalleled the situation we'll be seeing.

Okay thank you.

Quick question just going back to the scale of the issue you mentioned a couple of percentages but what is the percentage from the 1990 greenhouse gas level to today?

We're 28% lower I thought that was from 2005.

Yeah that was from 1990 it was 29% to 2005 but what is it to from the 1990 to today?

A bit more than that.

Okay so our 1990 levels were a bit higher than our 2005 levels.

And our goal is 40% so but you're saying it's leveling off so we don't want to pump on brakes just yet.

Oh absolutely not we're our pace of change is not nearly fast enough currently to get there.

When you talked about uh gas appliances and homes uh does that capture like grilling and barbecuing and things like that or is that something that's not factored in if your griller barbecue is natural gas like piped into like a natural gas line then yes if it's a propane tank then no.

Okay.

Do you have a feel for how much a split is for uh heating versus kitchen appliances say generally in our climate zone you're looking at probably 40 percent probably 40% water heating and 40% plus space heating and then a small much smaller amount for like your gas stove and your dryer.

What about cooling?

Many of us don't have air conditioners but some people do and more going in most air conditioners are electric.

So what's really interesting and we'll probably talk about this at some point is one of the cool strategies right now is most like a traditional air conditioner is a heat pump that just works in one direction.

So if you have an opportunity to install if you're gonna be installing a new air conditioner you should install a heat pump that does both directions.

The marginal or like the incremental cost to switch to that is like a thousand bucks or two thousand bucks and PCE has a $1500 rebate currently and then when your furnace does eventually fail you'll have both heat and cooling with that unit.

So there's like a really awesome opportunity to reduce emissions by doing what they call an AC to heat pump switch.

But that thousand dollars it doesn't capture having to improve your building fabric because you need to improve air tightness for your heat pump to work effectively.

If you have a very old building you could need to do that but they're pretty efficient either way if you're running your furnace or air conditioning now it probably will continue to run fine.

That's kind of one of my questions if you don't mind me jumping in is I didn't say anything here about the conservation weatherization of houses.

Much of Belmont housing stock is quite old and I can my husband I actually applied for grant tread weatherized our house and didn't get it but like our houses are leaky.

So is that not a big is not not enough to move the needles it's not one of our strategies.

When you do the math, the efficiency doesn't pencil great.

Um and the greenhouse gas emissions are relatively low.

So you could spend quite a bit of money.

Well weatherization in some instances can be super effective.

Like if you have a very leaky house or you have no insulation near your attic, blowing in some cellulose can give you great gains.

Um like windows and things like that, just don't pencil here uh because it's not hot or cold enough.

Um and taking that money and putting it towards a heat pump, even if that heat pump runs a little bit extra, it's running off of carbon-free electricity.

Um so the greenhouse gas emissions are the impact is way better by switching that heat pump than doing the efficiency with like a gas furnace or something.

And if you can do both, that's probably the best case.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I guess a similar question because this is the planning commission.

Um, so and I've brought this up before, you know, there's things like cool roof materials, right?

Shingles that are much more reflective.

That means that you don't have to cool your house as much.

So if you live in Phoenix, for example, but again, I don't see anything like that.

Again, the gain isn't enough to make it worth writing into our code, even if it's an objective standard, we could add it.

Doesn't add much to the cost of a house project, as far as I understand it.

Yeah, what is interesting is that because we're heating dominated climate zone, I'd have to double check this.

But in some climate zones in California, so in the building code in the climate zones where it's cost effective, they already require cool roofs.

Um my guess is that in this climate zone, you'd actually increase your heating more than you decrease your cooling by putting a cool roof on.

But wouldn't it make sense from the adaptation?

Fewer urban heat sinks.

Potentially, yeah.

But it might not work math-wise.

Yeah.

Okay.

But the math does work.

If I my house is gas heat, no air conditioning, like a lot of my neighbors.

Uh so it would still be beneficial.

I've put off doing it because I know as soon as we have air conditioning, the windows will close and the air the thermostat will be set at 74 all year round.

And um, but uh emissions-wise, it's still a big win, then, right?

Yeah.

And probably efficiency-wise as well, right?

Because the heat pump is so inherently efficient.

They are incredibly inherently efficient.

Um there's a really great statistic from I think it's switches on or rewiring America, one of the national um kind of emissions building folks.

They did a deep dive into like national greenhouse gas emissions, and they found 40% of our national emissions come from four kind of kitchen table decisions, and that's what car you drive, how you heat your water, how you heat your food, and how you heat your and cool your home.

So if you make the right choice on those four decisions, you can reduce your emissions by 40% nationally.

The tricky part is like my lot of houses were built when mine was 1965 and they had a 100 amp service, and you can't run a heat pump out that.

You can okay.

So uh Peninsula Clean Energy uh just finished a study of a couple hundred of the I think 700 of their all-electric homes.

Um and none of them went over a hundred amps over the course of a year.

Um there's also so 100 amps is kind of the threshold.

Um you've also had an induction stove to that though, and a heat pump.

There's yeah, so there's some really cool stuff going on.

Um I nerd out on this super hard, so if I get going too much, you can cut me off.

But on the induction stove side, there's um, and this isn't a solution maybe for everyone, but there are new stoves that have batteries built into them.

So you can plug them into a hundred and twenty amp out or outlet, and they'll charge during the day when solar is plentiful and electricity is very inexpensive because we have time of rate or time of use rates now.

Um and then it'll power when electricity is more expensive.

You don't take up a full 240, like a full dedicated circuit.

Um, and you can cook for several meals while the power is out if that is an issue.

Um so that's something that's new.

And then the other thing that we're seeing a lot is in a hundred amp, like if you had you should have enough room.

Um if there's not space on your panel, you can do a subpanel.

Um if you don't have enough room because you also have like a pool heater or multiple EV chargers or something, you can do a smart circuit, um, which will say if you're like trying to charge your car and run your electric dryer and turn your induction stove off on all at once, it'll say, you know what, Eevee, like you can wait 10 minutes until they're done cooking and then um go back there.

So there's some really great ways that you can avoid doing a service upgrade, which with PGE can be a hassle and takes several months.

So there's a lot of good ways to avoid that on a hundred amp panel now.

Interesting.

Um I guess more questions.

So uh the figures you showed for transportation in Belmont, does that include vehicle trips that originate and end somewhere else?

I'm thinking about all the trips on El Camino or Caltrain, like it is that counted in our total or not.

It is not.

So the way the methodology we follow for um calculating vehicle miles traveled.

So we use the MTC or Metropolitan Transportation Commission model.

Um we leave out any trip that starts and ends outside of Belmont.

We include every trip that starts and ends inside of Belmont, and we take half of the mileage for all the trips that start or end inside of Belmont.

Okay.

Cool.

And then so for the forecast going forward, um, what kind of assumptions are you using about like car ownership per person and what is the source of those assumptions?

Does the state dictate what assumptions we should use?

Because one thing we face a lot here is the state dictates what we have to assume about parking and how many cars people will own that probably aren't very realistic.

So I'm wondering what assumptions you have to use for your forecast.

Um I wouldn't say we have to, but what we do use is so we're we're using the state model for the makeup of the vehicle fleet, but we're using current you we'd essentially be using current ownership trends to project into the future.

Um so if people, if everyone today drove one vehicle per family, and then everyone switched to two or two to three or whatever, that would skew things.

But if they're currently using more or less than you think the state average is, then that would be reflected in our numbers.

Okay, interesting.

Um and it sounds like your forecasts do already sync with as you said you mentioned Rhina and things like that.

So you're already forecasting the amount of population growth that so that's the place where it seems like that housing lines up.

Um but this thing about the vehicles probably doesn't, because again, the building laws seem to assume that nobody's gonna use a car if you put a building next to Caltrain, which I think is unrealistic.

And similarly, you mentioned um development standards that can help with mixed use.

Not happening here, not happening on any city in the peninsula.

So it's interesting that the state kind of works against itself with these different things.

It passes some housing laws and then some climate action and the two flat out block each other sometimes, unfortunately.

Um I guess I'm wondering also, because Belmont is so small.

Um, can you explain how our plan fits in with like large neural there there's certain things, you know, Caltrain is regional, BART is regional.

How do we if we wanted, let's say, to reduce vehicle miles by having a shuttle from Caltrain, we'd probably want to do it with San Carlos, right?

So can we make plans like with other communities, or is this just a Belmont thing?

That's a great idea.

So we've got in San Mateo, you are super lucky to have the RICAPS program, which is regionally integrated climate action planning services.

Used to be suite, so or something like that.

Um but basically it's a collaborative, it's uh run by the county office or department of sustainability now, and it works with the 20 um incorporated cities within the county.

And we have monthly meetings and folks are working on those things.

So right now we're actually in a mobility uh phase, I guess, um, where we're bringing together folks from Caltrains and from SAMCAR and from a bunch of other um groups and stakeholders to come together and talk about like how do we fix this?

Like, how do we work on a regional problem like transportation?

Because most of your VMT is people starting here and ending somewhere else in the peninsula mostly, or even San Jose, and then um vice versa.

So not like probably only 10 or 15% of that VMT is trips within Belmont.

Oh, that's interesting.

That was gonna be my next question, actually, because unfortunately the way with our schools are, and I think we're all um parents here, people are driving their kids to Ralston, they're driving their kids wherever.

So you're saying that that's actually a small fraction, it feels like a lot of traffic, but you're saying it's a small fraction of our VMT.

Yeah, it's just it's a small fraction.

It's it's definitely much less than half.

I don't have the exact number off the top of my head.

But um yeah, it's a small amount just because the distances are short versus um driving to like San Jose or San Francisco or something like that.

Right, I see.

Yeah, this is about greenhouse gas emissions, not necessarily about congestion.

It's like number of cars on the road isn't relevant here.

Level of service is no longer in our vocabulary.

Yeah, interesting.

And then I'm curious, can you go back to the the solid waste?

You mentioned you know this 41% decrease since 2005.

I'm sure that's due to recology and we don't have to do worm bins in our backyard anymore if we want to compost.

But what's our fraction of residents who actually compost?

Like how much more could we gain?

Like I know some of my neighbors don't have green bins, or they only use them for like lawn clippings.

They don't actually put household like uh organic waste in there.

So how could how much more could we do there?

I don't remember the so one of the challenges where the organic waste right now is the last time that we had like a statewide inventory of organics in the waste stream was 2014.

Um so it's been quite a long time, and that was before a lot of the work that's been done because of this SB 1383 law.

Um I'm guessing that there's still somewhere between 25 and 50 percent of waste is organic that could be diverted somewhere.

I mean, Recology must have figures on how many uh households in Belmont have a compost bin because some people say no, I don't want it.

Or they can tell us how much ton they pick up.

They have they must have those data.

Yeah, and there's reporting for SB 1383, so that's something that we can dig deeper into and try to get some better information on like where that stands currently.

And Recology is quite good out of the haulers, so they should have the information available.

Yeah, because just along the lines of like which strategy is gonna be most effective.

You mentioned that's something you'll work on with the measures, just how much more room do we have to save on solid waste.

We get to know what the data are.

Just to add to that, if you don't mind.

Um, so commercial composting is a really critical thing where although I think it is actually required, but many restaurants aren't doing it or aren't doing it effectively.

Um so that that really does add a significant amount of organic waste to the waste stream.

But like in Palo Alto, uh you can't use garbage disposals even in uh commercial installations.

It's super annoying, but I would guess it would increase the use of composting.

I didn't know that.

They're very committed to it.

Interesting.

Okay, and then I guess um last question uh for transportation, you mentioned things like uh increased um bike riding, for example.

Um you said one of our successes since 2017 was uh bike lane improvements, and I've definitely seen those around the city.

Um but the bike lane itself doesn't mitigate climate change.

So do we have any data on the number of bike riders in Belmont?

Has it actually gone up since we put in all these bike lanes?

It's a great question.

We I don't have that data off the top of my head.

We do use we have access um potentially to some big data sets that look at that um that we can check and see how things have changed over time.

Yeah, I think that'd be useful.

Um I'm gonna uh channel one of our residents who's a passionate bike safety advocate and um who's not here tonight, but I agree with him that unfortunately our our bike safety here in Belmont is not good enough to inspire people to ride.

I wouldn't let like my kids ride um like across Ralston um through downtown where there's basically no bike lanes.

So um personally I feel like we have a long way to go there and would love to see if it's part of the climate action plan or part of zoning, whatever it might be to help reduce cars would be to really focus on bike safety.

Yeah.

Um I would agree with that.

Sorry to interject.

Because there are bike lanes, but they're disparate, and so there's not like a clear path we can go throughout Bell.

And they're not segregated, they're like Sherrows on the road, which is not safe.

In fact, it's worse.

Um I've seen people use like Cheryl says I can be in the middle of the lane, you get the honking and the like the the like the aggressive passing.

It's like it's like an invitation to get hit.

It's like an opposite of a bike lane in my opinion.

Anyway, so it'd be great to see.

Um I would love to see that be more of the um the plan.

Yeah, that's great.

There's there's definitely a threshold where you need enough bike infrastructure to like actually see bike riders on those lanes because if you have these big gaps or areas where it's if you have great bike lanes and then an area where it's unsafe before and after that, you're not gonna see that.

Uh one of my favorite stories was at a city council meeting, and we were talking about bike lanes, and they're grilling me and saying, like, hey, we have this great bike lane, nobody I've never seen anyone on it.

We spent millions of dollars on this thing.

And the lane they're talking about starts and ends on like a four-lane major thoroughfare, and the only way to get to the bike lane is by riding on that four-lane thoroughfare with no bike lane.

So, like talking about like, hey, if you can't get there and it doesn't go anywhere, it's really hard to ride your bike.

So it's great to hear you're kind of thinking about those challenges, and that's something that we can definitely look at trying to address.

Okay, cool.

Thanks.

Yeah.

What is the time scale on an electrifying the city fleet?

Because that seems like something that should be quite achievable.

Yeah.

Um, so I don't know specifics about um where Belmont is at and where we'll be, but we do have um advanced clean fleets is a statewide rule.

Um that was going to apply to every fleet in the state.

Um, but it has been kind of there's current legal battles going on about how it's gonna apply to private fleets, but it still will apply to all public fleets.

Um, so cities and special districts and the state.

Um and I believe in 2025, half of all new medium and heavy duty vehicles have to be all electric, and then by 2027 a hundred percent due.

Um so that phase out is gonna happen as a requirement, especially for larger vehicles, and then cities can look out also electrifying their smaller vehicles as well.

Right, so the fleet encapsulates school buses, buses, city stuff.

City school buses would be separate.

Um school districts have their own kind of structure and governance that's separate from the state, but it would be like any city vehicles, um, and then yeah, any like public works vehicles, things like that.

So it it does encompass like the larger trucks that are used for like pumping or you know, I don't even know all the uses they are, but um those are challenging to electrify.

There's not a lot of options out there that have the power that is needed for those like really large scale vehicles that we rely on.

So it's not a quick it's not as easily achievable for these larger vehicles.

Right.

Okay.

Anything else?

No, thank you.

Thanks for telling you guys.

Good presentation.

Good luck.

Uh and I don't see anything else on the agenda.

Oh, I think you do need to take public comment on this.

Oh, I thought you said we did not have to take public comment.

Okay.

On a formal hearing, but it's our I see.

So uh public comment.

Are there any speaker slips?

Yes, we do have one at public speaker slip here.

Uh Dow Jane Pay.

Sorry, I leave that.

Come up to the lecture and you'll have three minutes.

Thank you for your patience.

Hi, good evening, members of the planning commission.

Uh, my name is Dow Jane Pay, and I am uh the program and operations manager for an organization called Build Up San Mateo County.

Um the mission of uh uh build up San Mateo County is to preserve, expand, and improve the supply of high quality child care facilities.

Um I also wanted to share that I am I am a resident of Belmont.

I've lived here since 2011, so that's 14 years.

Um so I have I also have a personal interest in what I'm gonna talk about today.

Um I'm commenting on this item because my organization recently released uh a report uh called Sam the San Mateo County Early Childhood Climate Action Plan.

Um our climate action plan that was released in July, this past July, 2025.

Um it is a call to action for all of those who care about children and families and climate resilience in San Mateo County.

So too often our youngest children, birth to five years old, and child care providers are who are essential to our community, are often overlooked in climate resilience discussions, plans, reports.

Um so when we face extreme heat or wildfire smoke, our children under five are extremely vulnerable vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable.

For example, a bad air quality day can actually mean a trip to the emergency room for a child with asthma.

Um a heat wave can make their classroom and playground unsafe.

And our local child care providers are who are the backbone of our economy, also know these risks.

But a lot of them are small businesses.

Um they operate on razor thin margins, and they don't have a lot of resources to be climate resilient or combat um the the the dangers of uh that the climate presents.

Um that's why the the early childhood climate action plan is so vital.

It's uh it is a roadmap that protects our most vulnerable residents.

The plan outlines practical strategies for local government, businesses, and nonprofits to partner together to fund and support critical climate ready upgrades for our child care facilities.

So since I live in Belmont and this report was released, I have three seconds, sorry, um I was like, oh, this is a great opportunity for me to talk about this county level early childhood climate action plan and really kind of test it out on this great city that I live in.

Um and I know we do a lot of innovative things um in this city, and I really I would really like to see um this plan also intentionally call out early childhood um and really consider this very vulnerable population.

I can also provide the report.

Um I know there's a the city planning commission email that I was going to email the the report to so you guys can all read it.

Um I also connected with the folks who presented today, and you'll see me at the city council meeting next week.

And you'll see me at the city council meeting next week.

And so thank you for your time.

Thank you for your participation.

Are there any other speaker slips in house?

No more speaker slips for this item.

How about on Zoom?

Any people looking to participate?

No raised hands.

Okay.

Any any other possible venues?

All right.

Definitely not.

So let's uh close the public comment section of the presentation.

Is there anything else from staff on this issue?

No, we appreciate your time in having the presentation heard, and we appreciate the great presentation and your questions.

Very well thought out.

And again, this is this is part of the feedback that we're looking to get from the commission and the council, and then of course the public at the outreach meeting that we're scheduling as well on September 11th.

So lucky day.

Okay.

Oh, thank you.

So is there anything else for the or can we adjourn?

Uh don't think if I'm just looking at the formal makings of the agenda.

I don't think we have anything else.

This takes you to item nine.

Yes, you can move to adjournment.

All right.

So I am going to call us adjourned at 817.

Thank you, everyone, for your participation.

Great.

Thank you.