Today's the February 2026 meeting of the Transportation Environment Committee to order and start with roll call, please.

Tortillos?

Here.

Campos?

Absent?

Ortiz?

Present.

Vice Chair Foley?

Here.

And Chair Cohen?

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

All right.

We have one work plan review item.

That's an update of the Climate Advisory Commission work plan.

Don't think we have any presentation on this or anything.

Is there any public comment?

No public comment.

Okay.

I'll take a motion on this item.

So moved.

Second.

Okay.

And then Tayden's currently down.

We'll take a verbal vote if that's okay.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

That passes unanimously.

No, opposed.

Motion carries 4-0.

Thank you.

And we have a consent calendar.

Oh, wait.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We were supposed to add this item to the agenda so we could consider it a consent calendar.

Why is it listed twice?

So that item was just to have it so we can now have it on the consent calendar.

So now we're on to consent calendar.

I assume there's still no public comment on this item.

No public comment.

And now we'll need a motion to adopt this item.

Second.

All right.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

All right.

Motion carries 4-0.

That item is adopted.

Thank you.

I thought I was going crazy for a minute there, trying to figure that one out.

All right.

Now we're on to our reports.

The first report is our large load energy customer development status report.

I think, Erica, you're taking this one.

Good afternoon committee members and members of the public. Erica Graffo, assistant to the city

manager and large load energy customer development lead. Today I'll be providing a status report on

the city's large load energy customer development activities including the implementation agreement

with PG&E and related electrical transmission and distribution infrastructure grid enhancement

projects. Reliable and timely access to electricity has become a defining constraint

on San Jose's economic growth. Over the past several years, significant economic drivers,

including data centers, advanced manufacturing, and other large energy users, have faced growing

uncertainty about electric capacity, delivery timelines, and accountability. These customers

are critical to the city's fiscal health, they generate significant general fund revenue,

create high-quality construction and permanent jobs, and typically require fewer ongoing city

services relative to the revenue that they produce. Ensuring San Jose can attract and

retain these customers is essential to maintaining long-term fiscal stability.

In response to these challenges, the city conducted an extensive evaluation of its options to secure reliable electric infrastructure.

That work culminated in a special city council meeting in March of 2025,

where the administration presented the results of the 18-month exploration of potential municipal electric utility

and recommended a path forward focused on performance, accountability, and speed to delivery.

At that meeting, the City Council authorized the administration to pursue a formal implementation agreement with PG&E

while preserving the City's ability to revisit other options if performance expectations were not met.

Following that direction, the City and PG&E negotiated and executed an implementation agreement

Oh, go back.

Too far.

Are we good? Okay.

Following that direction, the city and PG&E negotiated and executed an implementation agreement in July of 2025.

The agreement establishes clear roles, dedicated staffing, and enforceable performance measures

to accelerate electric infrastructure delivery for large energy users.

It reflects the city's priority to support these large load customers, which is defined as projects requiring 20 megawatts or more, because of their outsized impact on economic activity and city revenue.

The city's work to improving electrical infrastructure directly supports the city council-focused area growing our economy, particularly the goal of ensuring infrastructure readiness.

Within this focus area, there are three infrastructure readiness goals which guide the city's effort to attract and deliver large energy projects.

The first goal is to energize three large load projects by June of 2026.

So far, two have been energized on time, and the third is scheduled to be energized next quarter.

The second goal is to facilitate two projects entering the building plan review phase,

And so far, we've had three projects that have submitted building plan applications since July of last year.

The third goal is to facilitate five new projects entering the planning entitlement phase.

So far, we've had two projects that have submitted development applications.

Looking ahead, we have indication of a possible two additional applications coming in March, but we may not hit this goal by June of 2026.

Much of Goal 2.3 is driven by the project's ability to secure power from PG&E.

Since June of 2025, our focus has been on standing up the people, process, and technology needed to advance these goals.

We established a cross-departmental data center development team made up of staff from planning, building, fire, public works, energy, water supply, and the Office of Economic Development.

The team oversees all large energy projects in the city's development pipeline.

We also brought on a data center development facilitation officer in PBCE to assist with permitting.

The team tracks each project from early planning through construction and meets regularly with developers to ensure a coordinated citywide approach.

The primary objective of this team is to move projects through entitlement and permitting without unnecessary delays so that they are ready for PG&E energization on schedule.

Under the implementation agreement, city staff meet biweekly with PG&E to track substation

upgrades, transmission planning, and project-specific energization timelines.

This coordination is intended to reduce uncertainty, surface risks earlier, and align city permitting

and development timeline with PG&E's capital planning and construction schedules.

This team also plays a key role in monitoring PG&E's performance.

On a quarterly basis, projects are formally scored to confirm whether PG&E is meeting the milestones established in the implementation agreement.

So far, the city has held two quarterly check-ins to score PG&E's performance on meeting their obligated timelines for the 12 projects in the implementation agreement.

As of January 2026, I'm pleased to say that two of the projects have been energized, and PG&E is on schedule, or has a path to get back on schedule and energize the remaining 10 projects by the end of 2030.

The city is also coordinating with LS Power on the two high-voltage transmission projects

totaling 2,000 megawatts of capacity that traverse San Jose and are critical for increasing

regional capacity.

These transmission investments are foundational to serving future large-load demand and improving

grid reliability citywide.

LS Power's utility permits are on track to be issued by June of 2026,

and construction should not impact the remaining 2026 sporting events.

As the city continues to advance infrastructure readiness and attract large energy users,

it is important to outline the benefits and concerns that data centers pose,

starting first with the fiscal benefits to the city.

Large data centers represent a significant fiscal opportunity for San Jose,

particularly through the utility user tax.

Because data centers consume large volumes of electricity continuously,

they generate stable and predictable utility user tax revenue

that directly supports the city's general fund.

For example, a 50 to 99 megawatt data center, once fully ramped up,

could generate between $3 and $7 million in unrestricted annual revenue for city services.

Unlike many other forms of development, data centers do not add traffic,

require limited public services once operational,

and do not generate school or public safety demand at the scale of residential growth.

The city benefits from capturing economic activity

that would otherwise be located in other states or regions.

Retaining these projects locally allows San Jose to share in the financial upside of the digital economy

while leveraging existing infrastructure investments.

Turning now to environmental impacts.

Across the country, residents have raised concerns about the environmental footprint of data centers,

particularly related to water use, energy consumption, air pollution, and noise.

These concerns have prompted legislative hearings, which highlight the need for careful sighting, transparency, and regulatory oversight.

In San Jose, data center development is already subject to a comprehensive set of environmental requirements that significantly mitigate these impacts.

All large data centers projects undergo review under the California Environmental Quality Act, which evaluates air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, water use, noise, hazardous materials, and energy demand.

Projects that meet defined thresholds are classified as water demand projects and must demonstrate the availability of reliable water supply under both normal and dry year conditions.

These projects must also demonstrate that recycled water was evaluated

and, when reasonably available, will be used in lieu of potable water supplies.

The city's general plan and municipal code also require the use of recycled water where feasible,

contribution to a recycled water infrastructure, and protection of groundwater recharge areas.

From an energy standpoint, data centers in San Jose can receive between 65% and 100%

renewable carbon-neutral electricity through San Jose Clean Energy, and must incorporate

energy-efficient design and compliance with state and local air quality regulations governing

backup generation. Taken together, these requirements place San Jose among the most

tightly regulated jurisdictions for data center development, addressing many of the environmental

concerns being debated nationally. The attachment accompanying this item's memo provides a more

comprehensive list of the applicable environmental regulations. In summary, the March 2025 City

Council Action and the subsequent implementation agreement established a structured, accountable

framework for advancing electric infrastructure delivery in San Jose, one designed to support

large-scale development, protect the city's fiscal interests, and ensure accountability

over PG&E's performance.

This partnership is particularly important given San Jose's strategic position within

the regional transmission grid network.

Large energy customers have the potential to generate strong revenues, and building

data centers in San Jose means they are built and operated more cleanly than in other states.

In just the past eight months, tighter coordination has shifted San Jose from infrastructure constraints to infrastructure-driven growth.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Erica, for the comprehensive presentation.

We'll start with public comment.

We have two speaker cards for Alina and Mashika.

Please make your way down to the podium.

We will each have two minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hello, the Transportation and Environment Committee. I'm a lifelong resident of San Jose, and the last time I spoke on this was on November 18th.

And I had brought up the lack of study and public engagement on the public health impacts and our environment. And I specifically remember Councilmember Cohen saying that this is California, what's happening across the nation is not going to happen here.

And as we've seen from the most recently powered facility of South Bay Great Oaks, the EIR clearly states that what's happening across the nation is also what's happening here.

And so the city staff report just stated that you will use recycled water when possible.

In the EIA report, it says SV1 met with a great South Great Water Oaks company, and it was not feasible.

So they're not going to be using any recycled water for their data center.

And so if it's like that for here, then how will we be treating all the other data centers that are happening?

Additionally, that data center has 36 diesel generators, and that's just for one data center.

And the Bay Area Quality Management District, in their report that was submitted in the EIR, also stated that there were data centers found in San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara that operated some of their diesel generators for 400 hours outside of non-emergency and maintenance hours requirements.

And so when we think about the cumulative impact of San Jose saying that they want to be the center of AI revolution,

and we want to build out all of these data centers,

what is the cumulative health impact that the residents are going to be facing?

That is our burden to carry.

And if we weren't having these projects here, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But because we are, then that burden on legislator falls on the city of San Jose,

since the city of San Jose is the one bringing these projects to our doorsteps and to the residents here to deal with.

And the projected $4 to $7 million...

Thank you, that's your time.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Mashiki Allgood.

I am an AI ethicist and the founder of Ally Consulting LLC.

I'm also a South Bay resident.

I'm here today out of concern for the impacts that large-scale AI data center build-out is

having on the quality of our air and the scarcity of our water.

I read the memo that was provided to you for this agenda item and was deeply concerned

by the message that was being conveyed by the attachment to that memo.

It's a list of environmental rules and regulations that seems to have been provided in an effort

to assuage any concerns about the sufficiency of the environmental review process for these

large load customers. But that review process is not without flaws. I provided extensive

written comments addressing major concerns and the environmental review process performed

on Equinix's recently opened data center. My main point in providing that information

was to make it clear that city government cannot rely blindly on the efforts of others.

When things get missed in those processes, it's the residents of San Jose who will pay

for those errors. So it is incumbent upon all of you to oversee these evaluations and

ensure the people of San Jose are well protected. The decisions this committee and this broader

council will make now will determine the survivability of the entire Bay Area over the next 30 years.

I ask that you review my written comments and lean into your oversight authority. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm back to the committee. All right. Thank you for the public comment. And now we'll

start with Casimo Ortiz. Thank you, Chairman Cohen. I want to thank staff for their presentation.

and the work that has gone into this report.

I also want to acknowledge the public comments submitted on this item

and thank those who are advocating on this issue.

I continue to hear concerns daily in regards to the rapid expansion of data centers.

I know I've mentioned this in the past,

especially as it may have impacts both environmentally and to rate payers.

And so I just had a few questions as we were talking about data center development

in regards to our oversight structures.

So as we build more data centers,

are we monitoring their intake of potable water

and actively considering the implications

that this may have on the availability

of affordable water for our residents?

Thank you, Council Member.

I'm going to ask Environmental Services.

Jeff looks like he's walking over

to kind of give that perspective.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Jeff Provenzano, Director, Environmental Services Department.

It's a great question.

Yeah, we're looking at not only us as a San Jose municipal water system, but all the water

retailers and the wholesalers are looking at data centers, how much water they're using,

where it's going to come from.

It is a big topic.

We do have water supply available, both potable water and recycled water, and we work closely

with all these data centers, especially the larger ones, on the right type of water supply

mixture, what's available in order to both facilitate their development, but make sure

that we are providing them a reliable water supply that's available at minimal impact

to our communities.

Great.

And so how do we determine if it may impact the affordability of water?

or do we have any safeguards for that?

Good question.

It actually is almost a net zero.

Water usage is dropping, but our infrastructure is here.

And there's a cost to keep that infrastructure running.

By adding water usage is efficient and smart water usage,

even for data centers, it'll help keep our systems running

and actually, in the end, may make our systems more affordable.

versus trying to keep these water infrastructure going with a declining revenue source.

So there is a positive benefit for everybody by continuing to move water through our water systems for new development, including data centers.

Great. Thank you. Thank you so much.

I have another question.

What data does or will the city receive as it relates to diesel generator runtime and emissions at the operating centers?

And has staff conducted or does it plan to conduct a study comparing a real-world generator use

versus what was assumed during the environmental review?

Thank you.

And I don't know if Chris will have anything to add to that, so he'll walk towards the podium here.

I will note, just kind of based on my experience with data centers,

so the runtime is part of their air permit that they have.

And typically, runtime for generators is just what's needed to make sure that they can maintain and operate the generators,

and they have a limited number of hours that they can run a year.

Of course, if there's an outage, those generators will run during those time periods.

But typically, large data centers are actually fed from transmission lines, not distribution lines,

which have a much higher rate of stability, and they don't really have as many outages.

So in general, most data centers, large data centers that I worked with in the past, their run time is limited to what's needed as part of their permit to make sure they can operate and maintain those generators.

Although if there is an outage, they will run during that time period.

I'll have Chris add anything else to that.

Yeah, I think that pretty much covers everything.

Sorry, Chris Burton, Director of Planning and Building Code Enforcement.

Through the environmental process, we rely very heavily on the standards that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District has for diesel generators and any kind of emitting.

As a local agency, they actually have an enforcement capacity as well.

So usage is actually continually monitored by them.

They'll send inspectors out in the field, and they'll make sure that folks are either staying consistent with their permit,

and if they're not, sort of much like we would with code enforcement,

they have procedures on the back end that they would follow up with the individual user.

Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that.

I wanted to ask in regards to electricity rates.

The memo notes that large load customers may ultimately help lower rates, but that outcome

also depends on infrastructure, how infrastructure costs are allocated.

So how are we working with the city, how is the city working with PG&E and state regulators

to ensure that the new transmission and distribution investments driven by data centers are not

shifting costs onto residential and small business rate payers?

Sure.

Sure. Yeah, that's obviously on the top of people's mind, is making sure that the costs aren't going up.

One of the ways that costs are assigned are through rules through the CPUC.

So that's the California Public Utilities Commission.

And right now there's an interim rule 30 that's working its way through.

The way that rule 30 works is it assigns costs and who bears those costs for bringing on projects.

And rule 30 is particular to large load development.

And I'll summarize it in layman's terms. Essentially, most of the cost burden is on the developers for these data centers. So the data center is required to pay for and or build out all of the infrastructure that's required to bring them up onto the grid.

to the extent that they wind up paying for substation upgrades

or things that otherwise benefit other ratepayers.

There is a mechanism to pay them back for any cost that they ought to be paid back for,

but that's only after they've been running.

So the idea is to really minimize any stranded infrastructure costs

and make sure that any of those costs are borne by the data centers themselves.

Thank you.

And so we won't necessarily see ourselves in a situation where our rate payers will be impacted due to our scalability of these data centers.

I mean, I think that's the intention of those rules.

Now, this is obviously something that's before the CPUC, so that's part of their governance to look into that stuff.

But I will say one of the things that PG&E has put out there is that their infrastructure costs are spread over all rate payers.

And to a large extent, those infrastructure costs are kind of steady.

So the more load that they bring on, the more they can kind of spread out those costs.

And so while you see increasing amounts of energy usage, you actually see the per kilowatt hour rate go down because the infrastructure costs are spread across more.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You know, obviously I still have questions.

I'm not an expert on data centers, and, you know, I do some research online,

but, you know, not all articles are written equally.

I did, you know, request, and it wasn't a formal motion,

but I had asked if it would be possible to have a study session specifically on data centers

and what the city is doing to prevent environmental impacts as well as impacts to rate pairs.

Has there been any consideration?

I don't know, Manuel, if you've had any thoughts about that, because I'm sure that other council members, you know, we want to support the data centers, but we want to make sure that there isn't unintended consequences as well.

Yeah, I think certainly if there's an interest from the full council to have a study session, that the administration can look at that.

We always offer, and I'm willing to offer for any council member who wants to get into any level of detail and spend as much time as possible to actually have those conversations as well.

I think the best part, it's not necessarily education to me, it's also education to the public.

And it's also on the record.

You know, individuals who come in and, you know, have those concerns,

they don't get insight into our conversations in my council office.

And so I heard you say to the entire council, if you'd like, I could submit a memo to rules,

or if you guys want to move forward with it, that's fine.

Let me take that back, and then I will communicate with you directly

if there's a more formal process for the request,

If you're interested in something, the administration can just look at kind of availability on your council study session schedule.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for the good set of questions, Councilmember.

I'm sitting in on a lot of forums from around the country for climate groups and others who are raising the alarm, who are concerned.

Many jurisdictions are asking for moratoriums on this.

And so it's important for us to understand the ramifications and what the implications are locally for our residents,

but also globally in terms of the overall good or bad that comes from this expansion, proliferation.

Remind me, because time, I can't keep track of time, but we did have an agenda item recently,

when recently meaning last six months, I don't know, on one of our council meetings where we did have an item to review,

and the whole council got to hear that.

Is that correct?

When was that that we did that?

a few months ago we had

well it was not

didn't we have a more general data

center discussion at a council

meeting? I remember

I have recollection of what you're referring to

we did have a conversation I think at that meeting we actually

said we were coming back to T&E with a

discussion of data centers

I think this is the kind of topic that has enough

public interest that probably an annual

agenda item on a

council meeting to hear it. It might not need a whole full

study session of a few hours

but an agenda item where the public has an opportunity to weigh in

and hear how we're monitoring.

And once some of these data centers come online,

we get more data that we can share with the public

about the effects that they're having.

So it might be a good standing annual report to council

to do this discussion, to Council Member Ortiz's point.

So I think what I'm hearing from the committee

is either a formal council item that would come once a year

or a study session at least to kind of to begin the process.

So I'll take both those back and see kind of what works best

and what works best for the council as well.

Okay. I have some further questions, but I'll turn to Councilman Tordios first.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, just one quick question on my side.

There was a note before about, you know, this requirement that projects use recycled water

wherever feasible and cost effective.

There was mention during the public comments about previous data centers

that have not moved forward with using recycled water.

Do we have a sense based on those previous examples of whether this was, you know, a geographic proximity issue, you know, too far from the existing recycled water system?

Or if it was a cost question or a technological question, if you could just provide some more context there.

Looks like Jeff is coming down as well, so please come down.

I will note that we do have over 100 miles of recycled water in San Jose, but not in every geographical location.

So I'll let Jeff expand on that.

We work with the data center industry every year.

We're meeting with different developers.

There's a strong interest in the industry to use recycled water.

They want it.

They'll bring it in half a mile away.

Some need it if they're producing energy.

They're licensed there.

They need to use recycled water.

So a lot of cost drivers, all in California, especially here locally,

They are looking at using these resources, recycled water as one, lower energy usage, air cooling, loop systems.

So they're trying to do everything they can to build these data centers as efficient and resource conscious as possible.

We don't require recycled water, I think, and the question was, what I think if I understood the question, it was, what are they doing?

And yeah, they're looking at it. We have some that are bringing in recycled water from almost a mile away to bring it in.

So they want to use it. We don't, our system isn't everywhere, like our potable water system.

So if it's nearby and cost feasible, they have a strong interest in doing that investment.

Thank you. And just for the record, how does the cost of recycled water compare to our potable water usage?

Assuming that a project is close enough to the existing recycled water network,

Are there any other factors that would impact the feasibility of using recycled water in some of these projects?

Well, the cost is that water overall is very cheap.

A cost of a gallon of potable water is about a penny.

So there isn't a lot of cost savings from one to the other,

just because it's all cheap, unfortunately, from this perspective.

But for each retailer, our rates are a little bit different.

but overall recycled water is about 40% less expensive than potable water.

So there's a strong interest.

It does matter for the big water users.

They are going to see some savings,

but those savings don't necessarily cover the cost of the infrastructure,

even over a 30- or 40-year period.

But there is savings recycled to potable.

Thank you.

If I could just add,

So data centers have a choice between how they cool their data centers.

Sometimes it's water-cooled, sometimes it's air-cooled.

So it's also possible that even if they're not using recycled water,

they could be using air-cooled system,

which would not have as great of an impact on the potable water supply.

Thank you for that additional context.

I would just say, obviously, we are in a deficit year.

The city is looking for ways to increase revenue.

I continue to believe that data centers are an interesting idea here

to generate reliable new revenue sources

that don't come with significant additional service costs to the city,

but agree with the public commenters and some of my other colleagues

that we need to be mindful of the environmental impacts.

So thank you.

Thank you.

And just to follow up on that first on the water and air cool question,

I appreciate the standards that we have that you published.

I was wondering whether we want to review those standards

It's about what kind of cooling we want to require in the data centers that are here.

And I know that many of the ones I talk to now are doing air cooling and not water cooling.

For the air-cooled data centers, sometimes they have to have a little bit of water still for the heat exchangers,

but the amount of water that they're using, and it's often a closed loop,

reuse the same water with a little bit of fresh water.

They're using about the same amount of water as maybe 10 houses.

It's not a huge user.

But I think we ought to be very clear about what we want out of our users and start with a starting point of what our expectations are as we negotiate any agreement that comes into the city, that we want to start with air-cooled and negotiate from there some kind of general basic standard.

Back to the other question about proximity.

So all the data centers that are being proposed in my district,

which is the preponderance of them,

they are within the location that they can use recycled water,

and they will be required to use recycled water.

At least that's my expectation,

and I want to make sure that, you know, how we have that conversation.

Clearly, the one down in Great Oaks was too far from a recycled water line

for them to use it.

Is that a fair statement?

Great Oaks does not currently offer recycled water.

Right, so that was the issue, was the location of that data center.

So, you know, are these standards that are here on this attachment official, are they kind of our guidance?

I mean, are they actual standards?

Are they requirements?

Like, how are they being presented?

This is a summary of current regulations that apply.

You know, in some cases, these are taken from our general plan.

In other cases, it's taken from CEQA.

but the intent with this is trying to provide kind of an overview

of what's currently on the books of what we would require,

but happy to go into any detail on any of the specifics.

Yeah, I've raised this before.

I mean, my main thinking is that we ought to be very clear

about what our expectations are,

and it's not just for the discussions we have

with the developers of data centers,

but for our public to understand, because we get questions,

and I get questions all the time from residents of my district

when we say, hey, this new data center construction is starting,

to make sure that what people ask, you know,

they're hearing stories from other parts of the country

about the huge loads, about the cost of it, about things,

but we do things a little differently.

For example, just the idea that we're requiring the data center,

the developer, to build the infrastructure of their electricity

means that we're not passing on costs

that other parts of the country might be seeing.

But it's hard for us to explain what advantages we have

and what we're doing differently and what our standards are.

And so this summary is great,

but I'm wondering if we can create a portal, a site,

or something that we can point the public to

to say here's what we are requiring,

here's what our expectations are for people

so that we can share it when we get these questions.

Yeah, I mean, certainly we'll take a look at doing that.

And from our perspective, this was kind of a starting point to have the conversation with the committee.

I think this can be further refined to be a document that's a little easier to read and follow.

In addition to that, we're also working with PG&E to talk about Rule 30 and the different requirements and who pays for what.

And easier to understand than kind of the typical documents that you might see that go to the CPUC.

So we can share with the community exactly who pays for what as part of the process.

So we're seeing this as a starting point, and we'll work to further refine to make sure we can make it available to the council and the public.

And we're going to have this conversation soon on a different item in front of about our energy costs and things.

But, you know, PG&E does pass along these infrastructure costs to everyone.

And but the more users there are, the better that will be for for that PCI or IA portion.

So there is a value to having some large users added to the system

as long as the infrastructure cost isn't passed along.

We have a different structure than Santa Clara, for example,

which because it's a public utility, the costs do at some point fall to the city,

but that's not true with PG&E's infrastructure.

Costs shouldn't be falling directly to the city.

Yeah, and they do have a pretty clear direction

as to kind of the infrastructure that's paid by the actual data centers that use it as well.

And most of it is paid by them.

There's some transmission upgrades that happen up the line that help the overall system.

And that's funded a little separately.

So we'll strive to create a document that explains that in probably a more simple way

than the CPUC documentation does.

I will note, since you brought up Santa Clara, that it's a good example that when you have

large customers that do a lot of large load and large sales that sometimes can help rates.

Santa Clara has, I think, over 60% of their load is data centers, and they have the lowest rates of

any utility with more than 10,000 customers in the state.

Right, that's right. And then, as far as the backup generators, I think it would be great for us to

have some data to say, how are they actually being used? I know it's pretty inconsequential

in some sense. The data center that, the active data center in my district that I've toured,

ran their generators for a total of 20 hours the entire year last year, and the only reason they do

that is they have to once a month run them for 20 minutes or half an hour just to make sure they're

working but they're not running them there are very few outages but I think it's important for

us to be able to explain and it's also important for us to basic to codify a requirement that they

use the clean energy source of energy so that we're being you know carb requiring carbon-free

sources of energy in there as they install anyway that's just some input and feedback that I have

Thank you.

I'll move approval of the item.

All right.

We have a motion.

Is there a second?

All right.

Is the system working now for voting?

Okay.

Well, then let's vote to accept the item.

All right.

It's not working.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

That motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Cast is 5-0.

Thank you.

And that brings us to our second item, which is our climate adaptation and resilience plan.

I see the team coming in the box.

Lori, you're going to kick us off, or Julie?

Yes, I'll kick us off.

So Lori Mitchell, director of the Energy Department, and really pleased today to be joined by Julie Benabente.

She's our deputy director over Climate Smart, and Jeff Promisano, who's the director of ESD,

as well as Michael Gonzalez, who is a program manager in the Environmental Services Department.

This item is our Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan.

And I'll just wait for the slides to load.

Looks like...

Well, while we're waiting, I'll just introduce this.

So in addition to our Climate Smart plan that focuses on climate mitigation,

over the last couple of years, staff have looked at climate adaptation and resilience plan

and developed this plan with the help of state funding.

So very appreciative of that.

And here, under Julie's leadership, Michael really has done the heavy lifting here

in developing this adaptation and resilience plan.

And so we're excited to present this to you today

for your approval,

and then it will be cross-referenced

to the full city council later this spring.

I think we're almost there.

There we go.

Perfect, thank you.

So just as a reminder about what we're going to talk about today, we're going to talk about

the background of this plan, which I just introduced.

Importantly, part of the plan did a vulnerability assessment of what we could expect in San

Jose in terms of climate impacts.

And then it lays out a framework and measures that we should work on to reduce impacts of

climate change here in San Jose.

And then finally, we worked a lot on engagement with the public and getting their community impact.

We'll talk a little bit about that and the next steps as well as our recommendation today.

And with that, I'm going to pass it over to Julie.

Thank you, Lori.

Well, getting to our background for this project, Lori did key it up pretty well.

So we actually, as you know, we have our Climate Smart Plan, which was approved in 2018,

which focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

and as

Lori mentioned in 2023 we were awarded

a grant to be able to work on this climate

adaptation resilience plan.

Some of the partners that we've had

both for the application and during the

process were the Santa Clara

Valley Water District

who provided technical review

and input on the plan as well

as the San Francisco Bay

Area Planning and Urban Research

Association, better known as SPUR

who helped with a lot of the community engagement

that we were doing.

There we go.

And just to, again, kind of, I think there's some confusion around what is this plan compared to other things that the city already has in place.

I already talked about Climate Smart as a reduction for greenhouse gases emissions.

And so the plan that we're presenting today is focused on reducing the impact of climate change as we're seeing those already play out here and other places in the United States and the world.

and so this really helps us identify how we can reduce that impact on our community.

Part of the process also included looking at other plans within the city,

which included emergency planning, which is more on the ground when a response,

when immediate hazards are happening versus thinking about how we can reduce those hazards going forward.

So here is our project timeline.

I won't go into detail on this, but you can see that there are a lot of steps that have happened

since the grant was provided to the city, and leading to today's meeting with you guys,

and future meeting with city council.

One of the important steps that OE completed in order to develop the Climate Adaptation Resilience Plan

was this vulnerability assessment that was specific to San Jose.

So this, we worked with our technical consultant to Ramey and Associates to be able to prepare

this assessment, and it had a high-level analysis of how projected climate hazards can affect

the city's populations, buildings, critical facilities, utility infrastructure, as well

as transportation systems.

And this information was really important to be able to inform the prioritization and

the development of the actual strategies and measures that are currently in the proposed

plan. Some of the hazards that were identified, I'm sure no surprise to you all, but that are

certainly things that we need to be aware of in San Jose are flooding, severe drought, wildfire,

smoke and events, sea level rise, and the frequent and extreme heatwaves were the primary ones that

were identified for San Jose. And so those, some of the information that went into looking at some

of the impacts and how we can reduce those included a variety of data sources, some of those listed

here that other organizations, including the county and federal and also other state agencies

have completed. So we made sure to try to look at those and align this plan with those as well.

In terms of some of the key findings, through the vulnerability assessment, one was that flooding is the most impactful hazard to infrastructure, which includes our critical facilities, buildings, transportation assets, and utility infrastructure, and to populations in the city.

And that was followed by extreme heat and sea level rise.

Extreme heat will impact the entire city, but it does not greatly affect infrastructure.

its greatest impact is on health and safety for our residents, particularly for vulnerable

populations. Sea level rise and storm surge pose increasing long-term risks, but they also are

geographically limited to northern portions of the city. Wildfire risk is present within city limits,

but also geographically limited. And wildfire smoke from regional fire activity is a more

impactful hazard for San Jose residents as it presents

significant public health and service continuity concerns.

Vulnerable populations are disproportionately impacted by extreme

heat, air quality, and flooding in terms of the resources that they

have available to them, and the assessment concluded that

the adaptation plan strategies should focus on facility assessments,

infrastructure upgrades, community engagement, and resilience measures tailored

to vulnerable communities.

Within the city, oh, I'm sorry, so part of the work also that was done was to look at kind of

a framework for how we should structure the plan itself. And we focused on measures that were

within the city's direct control to implement, as well as integrate with related city plans and

policies, measures that address infrastructural community and ecosystem impacts from climate

related hazards and also address inequalities and reduce climate related impacts to vulnerable

communities. And so the measures themselves are structured within these four categories

that are listed here, including knowledge, governance and policy, structural and communications.

The measures, the next two slides do list the measures. They don't list all of the 62 strategies.

Those are attached to the report, but just to kind of give an understanding of the types of things that were included as measures within the plan itself.

And those were 19 measures, and each of those are supported by the implementation strategies, which are there's 62 of those.

And so you can see here some of those items.

Under the knowledge and governance and policy ones.

and then as well under the structural and communications ones.

These things included items like community engagement.

They include additional studies to gain more knowledge

and to then be able to strategize on direct steps forward and items like that.

There was quite extensive engagement that we conducted during the development

throughout the entire process.

that included both an internal working group that held regular meetings to look at and provide input

on all the items coming forward, as well as a wide variety of community engagement, which included

agency interviews, presentations, a survey for the public, tabling events, a public comment period,

and virtual open house, as well as some small group meetings with some of our community-based

organizations to get more direct input.

The Climate Ready Working Group, which I had mentioned for the internal coordination, it also

included Valley Water, and it included a variety of departments shown here to provide input based

on their areas of knowledge and interest.

so as part of our next steps and there are some current city activities that are supporting

carp measures already happening most of those through grant funding and those include a

roosevelt community center resiliency hub development a sub-regional shoreline adaptation

planning report that will is coming out of a grant led by the county which the city and many other

cities in the area are a partner on, as well as reducing water demand and or increasing

non-potable water sources. It's happening through South Bay Water Recycling. The Urban

Land Institute Technical Assistance Program workshop that we will be hosting on March

18th through 19th this year in order to get some more input on best practices for community

engagement around the CARP, as well as implementation efforts. As well as that, we will continue

to implement additional efforts over time as we acquire additional funding.

And our recommendation is that the council consider and take action to adopt the Climate

Adaptation and Resilience Plan, as well as approve incorporation of the Climate Adaptation

and Resilience Plan into the annual Climate Smart updates and cross-reference this item

to the March 3rd City Council meeting.

I'm open for questions.

Thank you for that report.

Do you have any public comment?

Yes, we have two speaker cards for Anne Ferris and Jordan Muldell.

Please make your way down to the podium.

You will each have two minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, committee.

I'm Ann Fieras, and I represent your Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

We express support for the City of San Jose's Climate Adaptation and Resilience Plan

and urge the Transportation and Environment Committee to prioritize shaded infrastructure for pedestrians

and flood control and climate resilient design along major bicycle pathways.

These elements are essential for protecting public health, maintaining mobility during extreme weather,

and ensuring equitable access to active transportation as climate impacts intensify.

Extreme heat poses a growing risk to pedestrians, particularly seniors, children, outdoor workers,

and residents without access to air-conditioned vehicles.

Shaded sidewalks, trails, and public spaces through trees, shade structures, and climate-appropriate landscaping

can reduce surface and ambient temperatures.

These measures improve walkability, encourage mode shift away from car travel, and directly support public health and equity goals.

Bicycle infrastructure is most effective when it remains safe and usable year-round.

Flood-prone bike corridors can become impassable during storms, disrupting commutes and discouraging cycling as a reliable transportation option.

They remain impassable after storm due to drainage issues.

Integrating flood control strategies such as improved drainage, permeable surfaces, green infrastructure, and setback design into major bicycle pathways will increase system resilience, protect investments, and support San Jose's climate and transportation objectives.

We respectfully urge the committee to affirm strong support for climate adaptation and resilience

to ensure this shaded pedestrian infrastructure is a core consideration in transportation and streetscape projects

and prioritize flood-resilient design and green infrastructure along major bicycle corridors,

especially those serving daily commuters and under-deserved communities.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hi, Jordan Muldow, District 3, speaking on behalf of myself.

Obviously, I support everything that was said in the letter from the BPAC that Ann just read.

And I want to emphasize again the strong need for shade and flood protection.

I also want to emphasize the strong need to fund this plan once it's adopted

and to continue to fund and increase funding for the Climate Smart Plan in general.

We just talked about data centers in the previous item.

Yesterday, we hosted the Super Bowl,

and I just want to emphasize that if we have heat waves

and we don't have any way to keep people cool,

people aren't going to go out into the economy and spend money.

If the area around the data centers flood,

people aren't going to want to build more of them.

So there's a strong economic incentive for us to implement this plan.

Furthermore, I think there's a strong economic incentive

to make sure that the things we do going forwards are climate positive.

Again, going back to the data center item,

making sure that the building that we're doing is climate positive

isn't just good for the environment, it's good for us.

Because if it's climate negative,

then we end up having to spend more money on these resilience plans.

So I'd like to just ask you to think about it in those perspectives

as well as the environmental perspective on its own.

Thank you.

Thank you. Back to the committee.

All right.

Don't see any hands raised yet,

but I want to thank you for the work.

I know that you've vetted this pretty heavily

through the Climate Commission,

so they were involved a lot in making sure,

and they were supportive of the plan

as it's been brought forward.

It's very important for all of us

to be prepared for the effects of climate change,

which are real and happening now.

We know sea level rise is happening,

And I know that in the district that I represent, North San Jose, is very vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise, as is true along all of our rivers.

And we've seen flooding incidents in recent years that I know that we're going to continue to see them.

So I appreciate this work to try to make sure that we're ready and do as much as we can to prevent impacts for our residents.

And I see that Councilman Ortiz has raised his hand.

I just wanted to move item for approval.

Oh, cross-reference to city council.

All right.

There's a motion in a second.

I don't know.

I see.

Before we vote, Council Member Tordias has his hand up now.

Thank you.

Just wanted to echo some of the public comments around kind of public realm improvements,

increased shade near pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, but also highlighting some

of the opportunities around resilient design standards for private development.

I think one of the things that I like about this one, if we look at things like increasing

the thermal envelope requirements for new buildings, higher energy efficiency windows

and insulation.

It seems like the sort of thing where we can kind of have an impact on multiple fronts,

both reducing greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing air heating and cooling needs,

but also providing that resilience and adaptation benefit

in terms of making these buildings more resilient to things like wildfire smoke

and also extreme heat with that active solar protection.

So I like the strategies that allow us to kind of dip into both sides of the problem from multiple angles.

Thank you.

All right.

I think we're ready to vote.

Okay.

Item's approved 5-0, and we'll see it at council in a few weeks.

Our third item is transportation.

We're going to get our update on our citywide pavement conditions, funding, and maintenance program.

Go ahead, John.

Get us kicked off.

Thank you, Chair and Committee.

John Ristow, Director of Transportation.

We are here to present the pavement program report to the committee, and with me today

is Jennifer Sagan, our Deputy Director for Infrastructure Maintenance, and Division Manager

Frank Farshidi in charge of our pavement program.

I'm going to turn it over to Jennifer.

Good afternoon, committee.

Where's the clicker?

Thank you.

Thanks, John.

So moving to our first slide here, I think all of you are aware, but just focusing in on this,

at the bottom you see the combined pavement condition index for the city after our 2025 paving season is 73.

And we've gone up a little bit on our local street network from 73 to 74,

and a little bit down on the major street network, 76 to 71,

and that's because we've been prioritizing the local streets to get through paving all of them in our 10-year time horizon.

And moving to the next slide.

It's not moving.

Okay.

There we go.

Okay, so the key point of this slide is if we were in school and we were grading our streets, this is what we would see.

So on the major street network, which is about 967 miles of streets, 75% of those are in the good to excellent condition.

In the at-risk to fare is about 21%, and we've taken down the poor to fail to only 4%.

So we're going to be addressing those as we move forward, of course, with a priority on the worst first.

Looking at local streets, over 1,552 miles,

we're doing a little bit better there,

because, again, the emphasis on local streets,

we're at 79% of them are the good to excellent or A to B category,

12% at risk to fair, and the D to F is 9%,

and, again, we're going to try and address those

over the course of the next few years.

Now, there's a lot on this slide to look at,

but I'm going to point you to the overall network box

at the top, near the top of the triangle,

and the key thing there is the $66.3 million annual need.

So to keep our pavement at 70 PCI, which is our goal,

we'd like to be at 70 or above,

we need approximately 66.3 in annual funding

to stay at that goal,

and of course each year as material cost changes

and labor and everything,

that it's kind of a moving target,

but that's where we are right now.

A portion of that is for the major street network, of course.

A portion of that is for the local street network.

And this is just a graph over time

showing where we have gone with the pavement condition index.

So 10 years ago, we were at 63 overall for the city,

and we've been able to raise that 10 points to 73 in 10 years,

which is pretty incredible for a network our size.

And I'm going to pass it on to Frank now to keep going.

Thank you, Jennifer.

So this slide shows our 10-year funding status and where we're at right now

and what we're projecting to have for pavement maintenance.

A couple of important lines here to note is the green and the red that we have, we're showing here.

So the red is our annual funding required to maintain 70 PCI, as Jennifer mentioned.

And overall, if you add up all of the bar charts that you see for each fiscal year,

we're going to be at $66.1 million on average for the next 10 years.

So we're just a tiny bit lower than the funding needed to maintain that 70 PCI,

and as some of you and all of you know, that is because of the measure T sunset, right?

So it is a 32% of our funding that will sunset in a couple of years that is going to affect us.

Now to maintain our current PCI of 73, that's the green line,

So we need to have an average $74.9 million over the next 10 years, and we're definitely going to be below that mark.

So we anticipate that we're going to see that effect on our network as far as the PCI is concerned.

So deferred maintenance backlog is something that we have been communicating to the committee

and the council over a few years now.

So these two lines, the first one, the orange or the red one is back right before 2018 when

we started the residential repaving and maintenance.

We were projecting at that time over the next 10 years,

if we didn't have any other new funding sources,

we would be at $1.1 billion as far as the maintenance backlog in 10 years from 2018.

But since then, a few favorable things have happened.

So we have now Measure T funding as well as VTA Measure B and the SB1

that we have combined into our pavement maintenance dollars.

So the blue line, that is the more updated right after we started implementing Measure T in 2020

and also VTA Measure B starting in 2018 on residential streets.

So we have definitely decreased that deferred maintenance backlog.

So as you see in a few years from now, and then it is still going down.

but we are still projecting it to go back up.

It's not going to happen right away, so it's a gradual increase,

but we are projecting to be at $673 million of backlog 10 years from 2026.

Now, this next slide is kind of backwards and forwards,

So it's looking back, you know, what we have delivered and implemented on the pavement maintenance side and also projections for the next few years.

So as you can see, I mean, we have since so the two milestones that kind of explain some of the spikes here are the passage of VTA Measure B back in 2016.

But it was held in the course for a couple of years.

We were able to start implementing in 2018.

So we see the numbers and the productions that we were able to put those dollars into actual projects for the community right after that.

And then, of course, Measure T that we started implementing in 2020.

Now, on the dash lines, so those are all the planned miles that we are projecting to implement and deliver based on the funding that we think we're going to have.

Obviously, we can't tell what's going to happen exactly in the future, but that's our projection.

Once Measure T sunsets, we're going to definitely have less miles that we are able to maintain.

So what does that all mean for this year?

2026, our pipeline, we are going to have a good-sized program still.

So we're going to, in total mileage, we're going to have 201 miles.

This includes 60 miles that went into inter-suspension last year.

But still, it's a solid program.

We're going to have, between our residential streets and major streets, 20 projects.

So we're still using minor contracts and concrete preparation in advance of our big pavement projects.

So we are going to have a combination of both minor contracts and major contracts for delivery of our projects.

Local and neighborhood streets project delivery is still going to be based on the pavement zones that we have been implementing for a few years now.

So the main points behind that project selection and planning is these zones are geographically contiguous.

It gives us flexibility to do projects in neighborhoods and finish one neighborhood and then move on to the next.

It's very efficient and effective in terms of delivery, and it maximizes our work for these neighborhood areas.

We also consider equity priority communities, so that's a tool that we have developed for a few years, and we're still monitoring.

Some pictures of the work that has been happening on the ground, some before and after pictures.

So we use in big picture, we have two types of treatments.

We use pavement preservation for extending the life of our good pavements.

So those are the pictures of seeding job from last year.

And then we also use resurfacing terminology for some of these larger rehabilitation projects that we implement on our network.

Again, going to focus on local and neighborhood streets or our residential streets.

For this year, we have a total of eight major construction projects.

Three of them are preparation work.

two ceiling projects and three resurfacing projects.

We're going to also have four minor construction projects.

Those are all in the preparation category,

and we will be maintaining about 156 miles,

including the winter suspension ceiling streets from last year.

Total contracted amount adds up to $50 million

on this local and neighborhood streets that we will be maintaining.

Now, just another statistical data here

is approximately 1,234 miles are expected to be maintained from 2019 until 2026.

So that's roughly 80% of the network that we're going to be completely done with on the residential streets.

Sustainability and green infrastructure is something that we have been also focusing on to use in our project delivery because we do a lot of work on these projects.

We want to be doing the right thing for the city and for the environment.

So a few of these innovations that we have been successfully able to implement is low-carbon concrete that we started piloting, and actually now it's into our full program.

So by using this technology, we're able to reduce 40% of our footprint from the baseline for all the ADA care ramp work that uses concrete materials since 2021.

Permeable interlocking concrete pavement, so that's another technology that we started looking into last year.

And we implemented that as a pilot project on one of our local neighborhood streets.

We will be continuing, so that project has been successfully delivered.

We are going to continue monitoring this project for implementation in other locations

where there is no existing infrastructure for stone water runoff collection.

And that was the case for our pilot project that we implemented in ASIA.

This year, for 2026, we are looking into a CAPESIL pavement treatment.

This is a different type of treatment that we haven't done in our CIP program.

The city used to have an in-house chip seal, which is a little bit different than what we're going to do this year.

The reason that we are looking into Cape Seal is in anticipation of our funding shortage that's coming after 2028.

And at Measure T sunsets, we need to do more with less.

So this treatment will give us a little bit more lifecycle cost and more bankrupt to do hopefully more projects.

Public right-of-way accessibility guidelines.

We continue monitoring this to see how it gets developed.

This is not something that has changed our business model.

We have it on our radar.

The requirements are not into effect yet,

so because of the political aspect of it,

of it. It's not into effect and into implementation, so we are not required.

We are still doing our diagonal ramps, so there will be some changes

in future that we're going to continue and monitor, but

we are monitoring that one.

Now, I'm going to pass this back to Jennifer

for the conclusion slide.

Thank you, Frank.

Okay, so in conclusion, we've made a lot of results.

We've gone from 63 to 73 over the 10-year period.

Most of the major streets network and local streets network is rated it good or better.

We're going to continue moving forward with the plan and try and get those numbers to all the local streets.

future pavement funding is expected to decrease

and we're looking at options

both for future funding

and also different ways to deliver

the product and our paving program

so that we can be as efficient as possible

and then as a result of that

with the pavement funding decreasing

we're expecting some of the PCI numbers to decline

but hoping to keep it at 70.

And we are ready to deliver the payment program this year

and building capacity to move forward.

And with that, we'll take questions.

Thank you.

I was just reading some of the notes.

All right, let's start with public comment on this item.

We have two speaker cards for Anne Farris and Jordan Muldow.

Please make your way down.

You will each have two minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Anne Ferris, and I'm here on behalf of your Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

We thank you so much for using repaving as an opportunity to create safer streets

and acknowledge the difficulty in reformatting older streets, which are car-centric,

to create pathways for multi-modality use.

At the same time, we must encourage efforts to create the safest possible streets in alignment with San Jose City's stated goals of safe streets for all.

Given Measure T will expire in 2028, we have recommendations for priorities before our city's pavement improvement fundings significantly diminishes.

Please make sure our Measure T money is being used for the greatest impact, not just to maintain a status quo,

use it for improvements that will achieve both street safety and our city's climate smart, climate action, vision zero, and mode shift goals.

We request more attention to the degeneration of pavement that affects pedestrian and bicycle safety in between routine scheduled maintenance.

Street repaving is a once-in-a-decade opportunity to restripe our roads for maximum safety.

please ensure that our city's repaving standards employ the best practices,

daylighting, narrowest allowed width, crosswalk and cross-bike markings,

and multimodal expansion, including protected bike lanes.

And again, please align this department's paving and repaving with our city's climate action goals.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Jordan Muldow speaking on behalf of myself.

And it's clear that the city can't afford to maintain the roads that we have without taking out bond money.

And I don't think that we should be doing that.

Bonds, in my view, are something that you build something new and it benefits future generations,

not something that you repave a road every 10 or 15 years.

So I really encourage the city to look at ways of trying to reduce the cost burden.

And one of the most effective ways that we can do that is to figure out ways to get people out of their cars

so that there's less cars on the road doing less damage to the pavement and it lasts longer.

So I really encourage the city to find ways to stretch its money.

I've passed out a policy proposal where I think we should use some of our SB1 gas tax money

to fund more Vision Zero and bike plan projects.

Again, this will allow people to get out of cars and into their bikes,

and it will also save lives and all the costs associated with emergency care.

So I hope you will consider doing that and also consider more bus lanes,

which will also get people out of cars.

And then regarding the ADA ramp, so I have pictures up above.

Top is a typical intersection.

Bottom is something that you see in parts of downtown

where the entire angle is flush to the ground.

And that feels more people can use the intersection,

and it also naively feels to me like it requires a lower volume of concrete.

So I've always been curious if there's a way for us to do the latter

as part of our standard design.

And so I'd be interested in hearing whether that's possible

or if there's reasons why that is not possible.

But if it's possible, I think we should consider doing it.

it's a lot nicer when you can walk out into the street in any place rather than one little street.

Thank you. Back to the committee.

Okay, thank you. We'll start with Vice Mayor Foley.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and the work you're doing to repave our streets.

I think those residents who've had their streets repaved are very happy,

and those who are waiting are doing so patiently and very anxious to have their roads repaved.

And I also know that this is an opportunity, particularly on our major streets,

to take an opportunity to put in quick builds and protected bike lanes and more bike lanes

because we can do it all at the same time instead of adding the bike lanes after the fact.

So I appreciate the members of the public speaking as well.

and I received your policy briefing earlier,

so I will take a look at it as we get through the budget,

move further into the budget.

I do have a question about the ADA ramps.

It seems that we are redoing our ADA ramps.

Well, the public would think we redo them all the time.

So now with this new federal,

this is a federal regulation on how we're supposed to redo our ramps.

are we under obligation to implement these within a certain time frame?

And I raise concerns about that because as we're redoing all of our streets,

we're redoing our ramps, and in many areas that did not have ADA ramps,

they do now with the repaving.

So this seems like an added major expense for areas we already have ADA ramps.

Thank you for the question.

So the PROAG guidelines were moving ahead steadily at the federal level a couple years ago.

And with the change in administration, with the Trump administration coming in, they just put the brakes on it.

So we're looking carefully at what the timing looks like.

But it would be a change in direction from what we've been implementing, the diagonal ones versus the directional ones.

And we're anticipating when it might hit and what the impact will be, but it would be significantly more expensive to do.

So when we are redoing all of our streets now, we are still complying with the ADA requirements and making sure that our corners all have ADA ramps.

Correct.

Okay, so this is just a different level of accessibility.

Can you address the public comment about in the downtown where we have the crosswalks or the curbs that are flush with the street?

Is that a possibility?

The guidelines are very strict, and that type of a treatment is not allowed in the guidelines, but we will be looking at that to be sure.

It's not allowed in these future guidelines?

Correct.

Yeah, maybe I could just add to Jordan's photo.

I wasn't exactly sure where that is, but when we are doing certain streets,

we do consider that full flush.

If you have been out to Valley Fair where it crosses, this is just an example,

if it crosses Stevens Creek from south to north along that area right there at Valley Fair,

we actually rebuilt that street.

This was costed by the developer

when they rebuilt that.

And it actually is flush all the way

across that street on purpose

to make it very easy for pedestrians to get

from one side to the other.

That's a unique situation.

We do look at doing those kinds of things

in other places where funding

exists and or the pedestrian

levels are high. We want to do that.

It's not something we're going to be able to

regularly do because those are expensive

when we have to completely redo that street profile to make that work.

I'd love to do more of them.

It's just maybe a cost issue right now.

And just on top of what Jennifer was talking about,

the ADA ramps that we do at all the corners,

we do about 2,000 of those per year.

It is part of our paving program in advance of when we're getting there.

That's following the existing ADA requirements.

And in some cases, we have had to remove ramps that were done a number of years ago because the ADA requirements changed slightly.

Then we had to go back in and redo them.

So some people notice that, bring it to our attention, and we have to explain it that way, that we still have to comply with that ADA requirement as it is today.

Pro-wag is something bigger and different and quite more we're going to be keeping an eye on.

But right now, we're just anticipating that may come back again in the future, but we're just planning on it right now.

Okay. Well, thank you for bringing the future plan to our attention and that it's on pause.

Thank you for all of your work. With that, I'll move approval of the item.

Is this a cross-reference or no?

No.

No.

Just one question.

On the lower carbon, the 40% reduction, I've heard some recent reports of actually negative carbon materials.

Has the city looked at that at all in terms of carbon capture paving materials?

We have not.

We have also heard about some other technology that uses completely cement-free concrete.

There are a couple of startups actually in the Bay Area that have that technology,

but that's something that we could definitely look into.

I assume we want to keep our eye on the latest and greatest.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't see any other hands, so let's vote.

Okay.

Motion carries 5-0.

Thank you all.

And we're on to our last item. This is our sewer rate setting audit report.

Good afternoon, I'm Joe Royce, City Otter.

I'm here with Abela Obi from our office to present our audit of sewer rates,

reviewing rate model assumptions, and developing reserve policies

to improve the rate setting process. Also in the box is Jeff Provenzano from the Environmental Service Department

for ESD.

The city sets sewer rates to recover the costs of providing sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment services to residents and businesses.

ESD sets the rates based on the overall volume of a customer's wastewater

and the concentration of pollutants in the wastewater.

The concentration of pollutants is also referred to as the strength of the wastewater.

All customers pay the same unit rate for each wastewater component that ESD treats.

How a customer is billed, however, depends on the type of residence or business

and the assumed or actual volume and strength of the wastewater.

The objective of this audit was to assess the city's process for setting sewer rates.

We had three findings.

The first finding was that ESD should review assumptions within its rate model.

The rate model follows guidelines set by the state, which provides a reasonable basis for allocating costs to users.

And integral to the rate model are assumptions about the volume and strength of wastewater, which affect how San Jose sets rates.

We found that in 2014, the state determined the city's rate model complied with clean water state revolving funds.

We also found that a 2015 consultant study reported that the strength of wastewater reaching the regional wastewater facility

did not match what was assumed in the rate model.

However, the study recommended that the city should continue it with its current strength parameters until field sampling occurs.

This field sampling has not yet occurred, but I want to note that during the audit, ESD hired a consultant to begin that work.

In this finding, we had recommendations for the ESD to study assumptions in the rate model and update them as necessary,

update procedures around when assumptions should be reviewed,

and consider implementing a software solution for rate calculations.

The second finding was that ESD should develop formal reserve policies.

ESD maintains reserves in the Sewer Service and Use Charge Fund for operations and capital projects.

We found that the amount of funds held in reserve and unrestricted fund balance in the fund has fluctuated over time,

and that ESD did not have a formal policy that defined the intended purpose or set target levels for the different reserves.

Formal reserve policies or practices are common among other wastewater facilities.

So we had a recommendation to develop a formal policy for sewer fund reserves that defines

their intended use and target levels.

Our last finding was that ESD can improve transparency around the rate-setting process.

We found that consolidating procedures on the frequency of wastewater sampling would

improve transparency for how bills are calculated for industrial users.

We also noted that ESD sewer rate webpage could be enhanced with clear explanations of how

rates are set.

And for this finding we had recommendations in the document procedures for sampling decisions

and notifying users of changes as appropriate and updating the sewer rate webpage to add

clear rate setting explanations.

The report has six recommendations.

I'd like to thank the Environmental Service Departments for their time and insight.

During the audit process I ask you to accept the report and cross reference to the March

third city council meeting. We're happy to answer any questions, but first I'll turn it over to Jeff

for the administration's response. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Joe and team, for the audit. Oh, response from

Jeff.

No response? No response.

Just we're always happy to work with Joe and the team, and we really appreciate

the deep dive into our program, so I always look for improvements, and so

thank you. It's been always a very positive experience. Prepare to implement the recommendations.

All right. Let's go to Vice Mayor Foley. Oh, wait. We don't have a public comment, do we?

No public comment.

As always, thank you for the presentation on your audit, and thank you for the briefing.

With that, I will move acceptance of the report and cross-reference to the council meeting.

All right. We have a motion and a second. I don't see any other hand, so let's vote on this one.

Motion carries 5-0.

Thank you all so much, and we're on to open forum.

We have one speaker card for Jordan Muldow.

Please make your way down.

You will have two minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jordan Muldow, District 3.

So I went downtown the past couple nights checking out the festivities,

and I think when we have March Madness and the World Cup,

I hope we can do better in terms of traffic safety.

I was walking and biking around East Santa Clara Street Friday night.

It was crazy.

And I hope we can maybe get some more motorbike cops

and parking enforcement officers on bicycles around downtown

during times when we have these big events,

and especially if we have parts of Santa Clara Street blocked.

Additionally, where else?

Oh, yeah, I was trying to cross a particular street,

and I guess we must have maybe changed the,

I don't know if we changed the signal timings for the event

or if it was just all the buses stuck in traffic and the new TSP thing messing things up.

But I was trying to cross Santa Clara Street at Almaden,

and there were three light cycles where it just kept going straight,

and it never gave pedestrians or cars the opportunity to cross the street,

which created a dangerous situation because people started crossing anyway,

and there were buses and cars partially blocking the intersection,

so lots of blind coroners.

I hope no one got hurt Friday evening in the traffic,

and I hope when we have more of these downtown events

we can figure out better traffic plans.

And, you know, I did see a lot of cop cars downtown,

but I don't believe the cop cars do traffic enforcement,

and they're also just very bulky.

You can't maneuver a cop car around downtown

when there's gridlock,

And so if we can get more folks on bicycles, e-bikes, motorcycles,

I think that'll make it easier to do enforcement

when we've got these really big events.

Thank you.

Thank you. Back to the committee.

We're adjourned at 3 o'clock.

Thank you.

Thank you.