Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-12-12 Climate Action and Sustainability Committee Summary MinutesCLIMATE ACTION & SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 10 Regular Meeting December 12, 2025 The Climate Action & Sustainability Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 1:38 p.m. Present In-Person: Veenker (Chair), Lu, Burt Present Remotely: None Absent: None Call to Order Vice Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order. Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmember Lu were present. Councilmember Burt will join this meeting later as his attendance was needed at a regional board meeting to maintain quorum. Public Comments None Standing Verbal Reports A. Staff Comments Brad Eggleston, Director of Public Works, reminded the Committee of tomorrow’s Climate Action Workshop on the challenges and opportunities of residential building electrification and looking at further developing next steps to include in the 2-year work plan for 2026 and 2027. Tomorrow’s meeting starts at 9 a.m. in the El Palo Alto Room at Mitchell Park Community Center and expected to end about 1 p.m. The agenda included breakout sessions, opportunities for group collaboration as well as light refreshments in the morning and lunchtime. B. Committee Member Comments and Announcements Vice Mayor Veenker reported the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) Executive Committee was searching for a successor to retiring General Manager Randy Howard. NCPA retained Korn Ferry to formally announce the position. General Manager Randy Howard agreed to stay on for a few months during the transition. Vice Mayor Veenker was reelected as Vice Chair of the Bay Area Air District Board for a 2-year term. Air District staff recommended flexibility amendments to Appliance Rules 9-4 and 9-6 related to reducing nitrogen oxide emissions from water heaters and furnaces. The matter went before SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 the Air District Board’s Stationary Source Committee last Wednesday and the flexibility amendments were passed on to the full Air District Board for consideration anticipated in February of 2026. Action Items 1. Review and Discussion of City Facility Electrification; CEQA Status - Not a Project Kimberly Jarero was introduced as the Utilities Engineer whose position was dedicated to City facility electrification projects. As part of the S/CAP work plan, a Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) was completed in 2024 and was the foundation for advancing the City’s electrification efforts. The FCA included onsite visits to evaluate building conditions and gather a list of facility infrastructure and equipment inventory of 53 buildings either maintained by City Facilities staff or leased buildings. There were 26 facilities with at least 1 gas-burning unit, 18 of those buildings were maintained by City staff and accounted for 94 gas-burning units. Approximately 40 percent of buildings contained gas-burning equipment with an average remaining useful life (RUL) of 3 years or less, an important factor in timing and identifying where it was most practical and cost effective to align early electrification efforts with replacement cycles. A list of fully electric City facilities was shown, including the recently completed Public Safety Building and the upcoming Fire Station 4. Engineer Jarero outlined the criteria for identifying the strongest candidates for the pilot. Buildings maintained by City Facilities staff that contained equipment nearing natural replacement were prioritized. Facilities with mechanical and water-heating systems relying on gas-burning equipment presented the most common and immediate opportunity for electrification. The goals of the pilot were to understand the logistical challenges, cost and feasibility, gather lessons learned and establish best practices prior to moving on to larger, more complex facilities. After meeting with City facility staff to confirm that units approaching the end of useful life (EUL) had not been scheduled for replacement and ensuring alignment with operational needs, the following 5 small buildings were selected for the pilot and had manageable projects that would provide quick turnaround results: Golf Course Pro Shop, College Terrace Library, Downtown Library, Art Center and the Ventura Community Center. Based on a report from Utilities 2024 calendar year data, a total of 21,000 therms was consumed, which equated to about 110 metric tons of CO2 emissions. The design for the RFP was in its final draft and anticipated to be released early next year, beginning the next phase of design and detailed analysis of the City’s electrification efforts. The RFP would request a detailed assessment of gas-burning units at each site, verification of infrastructure needs, potential electrical upgrades and cost analysis as well as a thorough evaluation of opportunities to electrify non-EUL units for efficiency, potential cost savings and operational value. Questions that arose during staff’s presentation to the Sustainability Working Group on Wednesday were the rationale for hiring an outside consultant and if there were internal capabilities to perform the work. Engineer Jarero said the City had in-house capabilities for simple replacement; however, assistance was needed for more complex design, analyzing panel capacity and general facility upgrades. City staff would work closely with the consultant to learn in the hopes of providing our own support for minor retrofits in the future; however, the City would most likely utilize a design consultant for larger facilities such as the MSC that included larger units with more complex systems. The RFP was for design consulting, not for programming or project management. Vice Mayor Veenker acknowledged Councilmember Burt was in attendance. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 Item 1 Public Comment: Stephen Rosenblum commended the Committee and staff for their proactive approach and thought it was a good start to reduce the City’s gas service. For the pilot program, Mr. Rosenblum suggested the City consider units that could be monitored and controlled remotely by the City’s network to turn off appliances when the city was reaching peak demand. Mr. Rosenblum encouraged the City to promote water heating, space heating and cooling appliances that could contribute to reducing demand during peak times and result in getting extra resource adequacy out of the grid. Vice Mayor Veenker invited staff to respond to the suggestions raised by the public commenter. Brad Eggleston, Director of Public Works, replied that residential or small-scale water heaters were not controlled remotely but the City had larger equipment in building management systems that allowed remote control. In the past, the City participated in the Utilities Department’s program for demand reduction. Councilmember Lu voiced the following questions: Will any of the sites be fully electrified following the projects or only the EUL units? How many years of RUL did those units have, and was there any concern of updating equipment too soon or not being as efficient as possible? Would the kitchen at the Ventura Community Center involve a different set of electrification projects? How often was the Ventura Community Center kitchen used and by who, and will there be disruption to services? Maybe the Ventura Community Center kitchen could be decommissioned if it was not being used or downscaled to a more modest kitchen such as the one at Lucie Stern rather than electrifying a full commercial cafeteria kitchen. Councilmember Lu hoped more of this work could be done internally to start tackling bigger projects and sites. Engineer Jarero reiterated the first priority was near-EUL units as outlined in the S/CAP work plan but the RFP would include an evaluation and overall cost analysis to determine if it was more efficient to replace the units while in the facility when considering the logistics and construction schedule. Engineer Jarero referred to the list of units and confirmed the 5 sites in the pilot would be fully electrified. Director Eggleston noted that staff tried to select facilities that could become fully electric once the replacements were made. Director Eggleston did not have information on the use of the Ventura Community Center kitchen but when planning, staff would take into consideration if any work would be disrupted. Based on the FCA, Engineer Jarero noted the 5 facilities had an average range of between 1 and 4 years RUL and it was not in the facility’s current budget to make an equal replacement. Councilmember Burt made the following comments and inquiries: What is the estimated cost for the consultant project implementation? Councilmember Burt assumed the City had in-house capability to analyze panel capacity and general utility upgrade. Why was a consultant needed to select appliances, determine panel capacity, general utility upgrade or put in a tankless water heater for the pilot? If electrification of the City’s buildings was scaled going forward, the City should invest in increasing internal capacity rather than relying on consultants. College Terrace Library was a small facility needing a tankless water heater, which was not complicated. The Art Center needed a water heater. The Downtown Library needed a tankless water heater and presumably a large roof pack unit. Things within the core competency of an organization should be done in house. Was it cost efficient to use a consultant versus having in-house capacity? Councilmember Burt was interested in pursuing a hybrid model with in-house work supplemented by consultants. How much of the work was specialized? SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 Councilmember Burt was concerned that saving money in the budget by reducing or not increasing staff positions would be more than offset by the use of consultants. How will expenditures be allocated to different departments? Can any of the projects qualify for the City’s electric efficiency program or other incentives? Councilmember Burt requested an update on the legal understanding of the boundaries and availability of funds in the City’s electric efficiency program. Engineer Jarero said the base services estimated budget was $200,000. Director Eggleston stated none of the work in the RFP was done in house during his time working for the City. The City’s electricians could do electrical work but have not created design drawings or performed Title 24 energy efficiency analysis. Director Eggleston did not think that structural analysis for rooftop equipment, electrical capacity and acoustical studies have been done in house. The facilities and equipment would be identified for the consultant who will help with the design and development of projects. Director Eggleston agreed some of the projects were simple. The contract would have additional funding beyond the 5 buildings in the pilot, so staff could do task orders for additional projects afterward. Council direction and policy could bring this expertise in house; however, Director Eggleston pointed out that reductions have been made in those groups and were facing losing more staff resources because of the budget. It may be more cost effective to do the work in house if a sequence of work was constant for multiple years and had the funding to perform the construction work, which was currently not guaranteed. An established Capital Improvement Program project for electrification of City facilities would fund this contract and the initial electrification projects. Director Eggleston would need to consult Utility staff to answer Councilmember Burt’s question about electric efficiency programs. At 445 Bryant, the Downtown Community Center’s rooftop gas pack units were replaced with heat pump units using Utility dollars through the pilot program for advanced rooftop HVAC projects. Jonathan Abendschein, Assistant Director of Sustainability and Climate Action, added that the Downtown Community Center at 445 Bryant was part of the advanced pilot program for rooftop HVAC projects from Public Benefits. Depending on the equipment and analysis, it made sense to Assistant Director Abendschein that projects with an energy efficiency component, for example, reduced cooling expenses, would come from the Public Benefits and Energy Efficiency budget. Studies were being conducted statewide for publicly owned utilities but investor-owned utilities have performed studies on the ways in which electrification was a form of energy efficiency. From the May discussion of Utility special funding sources, a draft outline of guidelines was created for the use of special revenue sources but had not been formally adopted. Staff needed to analyze how much of the revenue sources could be used and for what type of equipment but did not have a timeline for looking at the budgets for those revenue sources over the next several years. Vice Mayor Veenker emphasized the importance of staff being thoughtful about the use of consultants. Vice Mayor Veenker asked for an estimated timeline to complete the 5 buildings in the pilot. Vice Mayor Veenker questioned if the process to electrify the next several buildings could begin after the design and permitting were done for the pilot or whether staff needed to see some of the construction before going on to the next set of projects. In reference to the City’s 80 x ’30 goal, Vice Mayor Veenker wanted to know how and when emissions reduction factored in to the prioritization analysis for electrifying the remaining buildings. Director Eggleston did not think that staff had the full timeline yet but the RFP was set to go out early next year, a contract will come to City Council in spring for adoption, the design work on the projects for SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 the 5 buildings in the pilot would likely occur through the end of 2026, construction for the bigger projects was estimated by early 2027 but the simple projects could happen more quickly. Director Eggleston wanted the construction to be done before proceeding with the design and permitting of the next set of projects. Emissions reduction was an important factor. The 5 buildings were partly chosen because of the range of experience in different types of facilities. Holly Boyd, Assistant Director of Public Works, believed this would be a phased approach. For example, the College Terrace Library and Art Center needed 1 equipment replacement; therefore, construction could start once permitting finished and before the other designs were completed. If there was sufficient funding, Assistant Director Boyd was confident the construction would finish by the end of June 2027. Moving forward, it would be a constant conversation between Assistant Director Boyd’s group and Engineer Jarero about looking at the RUL and identifying the next projects to use the on-call portion of the consultant contract, if needed, so there would always be something to work on in the queue. Engineer Jarero started in May. Other CIPs were in design to address larger electrification projects at MSC and Lucie Stern. 2. Update on the City of Palo Alto’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Planning Efforts and Participation in the Santa Clara County Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan SB1 Grant. CEQA Status – Not a Project Julie Weiss, Watershed Protection Program Manager with Public Works, announced that next month a project was starting with Santa Clara County to develop a sea level rise adaptation plan for the Santa Clara County shoreline. Watershed Protection was housed within Public Works-Environmental Services and worked with businesses, industries and City operations to keep pollution out of creeks and San Francisco Bay. Several years ago, the Council directed staff to start planning for future conditions around sea level rise. Sea level rise adaptation was captured throughout the Comprehensive Plan, S/CAP and was a Council priority objective. As part of the sea level rise adaptation policy, a vulnerability assessment of hazards from sea level rise and changing conditions to the shallow groundwater table was completed a few years and was used to create a plan for preserving and expanding habitat as well as protecting City assets and private property. Slides were shown of Palo Alto during a typical high tide and the anticipated change in elevation of the bay by 2080. Different scenarios of shallow groundwater were depicted on the screen in orange and red. As the bay rises, shallow groundwater would be saltier and move closer to the surface and further inland. The City needed a plan for underground utilities, flood control, buildings with foundations closer to shallow groundwater, natural resources such as the forest where trees might be in saltier conditions, transportation and emergency response. A downstream project was completed about 6 years ago to restore habitat at the mouth of San Francisquito Creek and erect a floodwall for protection of 3 feet of sea level rise and to accommodate the highest tide of the year known as the king tide. Sea level rise would be considered in the Regional Water Quality Control Plant’s long-range facility plan update; the report would come to Council in 2027. This wastewater treatment facility was a critical asset servicing Palo Alto and 5 other communities. To adapt to sea level rise, wastewater treatment facility upgrades included raising and waterproofing equipment. A traditional levee had a big cement wall with riprap at the bottom and offered no habitat value or protection. Construction on the horizontal levee project was underway, which was a nature- based alternative with engineered slopes reaching out into the bay, planted with native species to slow wave action and absorb water, irrigated with treated wastewater from the plant and provided an additional polishing treatment of the treated wastewater before discharging it to the bay. Palo Alto would have the first fully hydrologically connected horizontal levee to San Francisco Bay. Last week, SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 there was a lot of media attention with articles and news stories about the horizontal levee. Samantha Engelage was the City’s Senior Engineer for this effort. Palo Alto’s project was important to the greater Bay Area in informing how other horizontal levees around the bay edge would be permitted, designed, constructed, maintained and operated. Managers Weiss and Sbarbori worked on a project to develop tools for engineers and project planners to design projects appropriately for future conditions. Engineers, project planners, Public Works, Engineering, Utilities and Urban Forest could refer to an interactive map to see the anticipated future shallow groundwater based on information from the vulnerability assessment. Staff has worked with Grassroots Ecology to create curricula for Grades K-5 about sea level rise in alignment with Next Generation science standards and was available free for any teacher to download. Staff had been doing outreach about nature-based solutions. This month’s utility bill insert discussed king tides and future conditions of sea level rise. Levee improvements have to be addressed within the next 30 years. The City in partnership with Valley Water and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers conducted a several-year feasibility study to identify necessary improvements to our levee system. Palo Alto’s shoreline was shown on the screen outlined in blue. About 1½ years ago, the Army Corps completed the feasibility study and determined there was not a sufficient cost-benefit to warrant funding for levee improvements at this time; however, the cost- benefit model did not factor in the value of local assets such as the airport, multibillion-dollar Regional Water Quality Control Plant and utilities. Valley Water tried to change the Army Corps’ decision and a congressional letter was sent but the Army Corps’ determination remained in place. Since then, a new cost-benefit analysis approach was applied to the Sunnyvale levee study. When the Sunnyvale study has concluded, Manager Weiss anticipated Palo Alto’s feasibility study could be reopened with the new cost- benefit model applied, thus making the cost-benefit much more attractive for potential federal funding. Other opportunities could be explored for partnerships and funding. A partnership with Santa Clara County would be starting next month. Elise Sbarbori, Watershed Protection Policy and Public Education Manager with Public Works, continued the presentation. In 2023, California passed Senate Bill 272 (the Laird bill) requiring local governments along the coast to develop and implement sea level rise adaptation plans by 2034. The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) would oversee and certify planning for San Francisco Bay. The Coastal Commission would oversee planning for Pacific coastal communities. With the City of Palo Alto’s input along with other stakeholders, the BCDC developed the Regional Shoreline Adaptation Plan (RSAP) containing 100 pages of guidance with a One Bay Vision for sea level rise planning, minimum standards to ensure local plans were in alignment, and identified regional planning priorities such as healthy community, healthy ecosystems and critical services, and safe and reliable transportation. Within BCDC’s jurisdiction, the local governments of Santa Clara County, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose and Sunnyvale were required under SB 272 to develop subregional shoreline adaptation plans to address sea level rise. The RSAP’s Subregional Plan Elements were labeled A-G, each with a detailed set of guidelines and submittal checklist: (A) Planning Process, (B) Existing Conditions, (C) Vulnerability Assessment, (D) Adaptation Strategies and Pathways, (E) Land Use and Policy Plan, (F) Project Implementation and Funding, and (G) Project List. Milpitas and Santa Clara were not required to develop a plan but faced early flooding and would be involved in the planning effort to a lesser degree. Valley Water and Valley Transportation Authority were not required to create a plan but would participate in the County-led planning process. Santa Clara County’s Office of Sustainability was awarded $2.6 million in Ocean Protection Council (OPC) grant SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 funding to lead the shoreline adaptation planning for the County and its local jurisdiction. Palo Alto signed on with a letter of support. Participation in this effort included the benefits of collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions, potential alignment on future projects, and the County grant encompassed everything needed to satisfy the RSAP Elements A-G, CEQA determination, community engagement and economic impact assessment. The Subregional Plan 2026-2029 timeline and process highlights were shown. In 2029, the plan will be shared with partnering City Councils for local adoption. There will be a minimum of 3 community meetings, 1 for each main phase of the effort. Manager Sbarbori outlined staff’s 2026-2027 goals: Begin work with Santa Clara County on the Subregional Shoreline Adaptation Plan, complete construction of the horizontal levee in spring of next year, postconstruction monitoring and studying of the levee, provide staff education on sea level rise adaptation requirements, and determine if updates were needed to the City’s Sea Level Rise Adaptation Policy. Manager Sbarbori stated the Committee would receive updates as the work progressed. Staff shared the Climate Action Working Group’s feedback on this presentation, which included support for the efforts to date, excitement about the horizontal levee, a request for staff to communicate more to the public with an emphasis on impacts and solutions, and questions regarding what the City could do about groundwater and what were other Cities doing. Staff provided the following answers: This planning effort would study and evaluate groundwater as well as determine solutions such as waterproofing, dewatering, or land use. Other Cities within the County have signed on with support for the County’s sea level rise planning efforts. The RSAP was designed to address stretches of shoreline, not jurisdictional borders, so Santa Clara County’s sea level rise planning efforts need to be coordinated with San Mateo and Alameda Counties. Item 2 Public Comment: Stephen Rosenblum expressed concern that the estimate in Slide 6 on inundation with 36 inches of sea level rise may be optimistic. Early planning had assumed 1½ degrees of global warming but now 2 degrees of global warming was unlikely to be achieved. Mr. Rosenblum wondered how many degrees of global warming was the 36 inches based on. Vice Mayor Veenker invited staff to respond to the question raised by the member of the public. Manager Weiss answered 36 inches of sea level rise was considered a reasonable number based on the most recent 2024 projections of greenhouse gas emissions. The projections were updated every 5 years. There were different amounts of anticipated sea level rise and by when based on various greenhouse gas emission scenarios. The Ocean Protection Council had an extensive table that Manager Weiss offered to provide after the meeting. Cities around the San Francisco Bay Area were following the OPC guidance. Vice Mayor Veenker asked why the maps were different on Slides 6 and 11 with the groundwater going further into the city on the latter, and what was represented by the yellow and blue shades. Manager Weiss replied that the colors showed the depth of groundwater with the darker color depicting groundwater closer to the surface. The first slide showed groundwater within 6 feet of the surface and the subsequent slide showed deeper shallow groundwater. Manager Sbarbori explained that the first map showed daily high tide with 36 inches of sea level rise. The map had 2 layers on top of one another with the blue shades showing future sea level rise and shallow groundwater conditions but Manager Sbarbori was unsure if the scenario was 36 inches or 48 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 inches of sea level rise. The yellow colors on the map represented a depth to shallow groundwater in the wet season of ≥ 12 feet; the purple colors represented 0-4 feet. Councilmember Lu wanted to clarify the next steps on the County’s plans and what was new for Palo Alto. Manager Weiss said the County’s spending strategy and economic assessment of impacts to the City were new. For staff to do an economic assessment would cost tens of thousands of dollars, well outside the budget. Manager Weiss thought the most important thing the County effort would provide was a regional discussion about proposed solutions, alternatives and recommendations. The CEQA determination was very expensive but would be covered by the County’s grant. Manager Sbarbori pointed out that the RSAP’s requirements may be more detailed than the City’s vulnerability assessment and staff would have to identify the data gaps that need to be filled. The County plan included stakeholder outreach and engagement. Councilmember Burt recalled a regional meeting for Santa Clara County entities held late last year for BCDC to address concerns that local bodies had with the first draft. Councilmember Burt inquired if BCDC was receptive to the requests to simplify some requirements and give greater local latitude. Councilmember Burt wanted to know the anticipated timeframe for resubmitting under the new cost- benefit analysis to allow consideration of local assets. Councilmember Burt remembered a study was done on groundwater pumping about 10 years ago. Councilmember Burt wondered if sustainable groundwater pumping had been evaluated as a viable mitigation measure or would it accelerate sea water intrusion. Councilmember Burt asked if the shallow and deep aquifers converged as we approach the bay. Councilmember Burt did not think it was necessary to coordinate with San Mateo County. The Creek JPA was the lead agency for San Mateo County’s shoreline 1 or 2 years ago but Councilmember Burt did not know the current status. The county had a riverine boundary and Councilmember Burt believed Palo Alto’s project was anticipated to provide 100-year protection with sea level rise. Councilmember Burt never heard if there was an advantage or reason for the City of Palo Alto owning the Faber Tract in San Mateo County’s vulnerable shoreline. Councilmember Burt encouraged staff to think about deeding the Faber Tract as goodwill to East Palo Alto, especially as we need to contend with sea level rise in that area as it becomes a threatened shoreline. Manager Weiss saw BCDC make some requested changes. Manager Weiss appreciated that BCDC made it a clear requirement to check in with them along the way to ensure alignment and there was opportunity to ask questions about meeting the requirements or to seek clarification. Manager Weiss anticipated the Sunnyvale feasibility study would take about 8 years. Alternatively, Palo Alto could partner with Santa Clara County on a 3-year planning process and it might trigger a milestone for the Army Corps to consider restarting the study. The study was open or paused but had not been closed; therefore, the Army Corps could restart the study if there was a regional solution or enough regional energy. Manager Weiss thought groundwater pumping was an interesting question that could be considered as part of the County effort. Valley Water recently completed a groundwater study on the signature between the bay and our shallow groundwater. The City was looking to Valley Water for potential solutions. Networked groundwater pumping was done in the Netherlands. Kris May, a leading expert on shallow groundwater, has talked about pumping as a potential solution. Brad Eggleston, Director of Public Works, believed that Councilmember Burt was referring to the Northwest County study on the groundwater aquifer and its potential for potable water uses. Director SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 Eggleston’s recollection was that the study was about pumping from the deeper, confined aquifer, which was separated by aquitards from the unconfined aquifer higher up where there was concern about groundwater intrusion from sea level rise. Director Eggleston thought the areas further inland toward El Camino had the potential for percolation ponds at the surface that could recharge the deep aquifer. Director Eggleston was not aware of the reason for owning the Faber Tract. Manager Sbarbori said the San Francisco Estuary Institute identified Operational Landscape Units (stretches of shoreline sharing geological or habitat characteristics) with the intention of managing Operational Landscape Units as a whole for the purpose of sea level rise adaptation planning versus stopping at a city boundary. San Francisquito Creek Operational Landscape Unit included the geologic cone, not the creek boundary itself, so discussion and coordination with our neighbors would be necessary as the process unfolded. Vice Mayor Veenker thanked the staff for helping her prepare to speak about the horizontal levee to the ICLEE (an international climate action group). Vice Mayor Veenker queried how the cost of a horizontal levee compared to a traditional levee. Vice Mayor Veenker wondered if the cost of a traditional levee instead of a horizontal levee was used in the cost-benefit analysis and to bear that in mind if the study was restarted. Referring to the slide with the subregional plan timeline, Vice Mayor Veenker wondered if there would be enough data on the horizontal levee to know if the City wanted to propagate it and if the horizontal levee technique could be incorporated into the subregional plan if other Cities were interested in replicating it. Vice Mayor Veenker thought it was good news that Environmental Volunteers offered space to help the City communicate this story and they do a lot of work with schoolchildren. Vice Mayor Veenker hoped the City could work with Environmental Volunteers because one of the best ways of educating parents was to educate their kids who come home and share what they learned. Manager Weiss did not have the dollar amount but she heard and read several times that the upfront cost for a horizontal levee might be greater than a traditional levee but the horizontal levee’s overall long-term value of habitat and sea level rise protection exceeded that of a traditional levee. As a horizontal levee started to naturalize and degrade, sediment is built up and becomes part of the sea level rise solution, which was a free service after a certain point. Manager Weiss believed the cost- benefit analysis used the cost of a traditional levee. The Senior Project Engineer told staff that Cities were looking at our project as a model to help with their planning. Other horizontal levees were under design or construction, so the value of Palo Alto’s project was being realized in those areas. Manager Sbarbori mentioned that the intent of the pilot project was to inform designs at scale around the Bay Area. The horizontal levee would be studied during a 5-year postconstruction monitoring period. Very soon after construction there should be some good data points on cost, technical lessons learned, permitting and building a structure next to the Baylands. The data would inform the project’s success and whether it could be repeated. Future Meetings and Agendas Vice Mayor Veenker reminded everyone of tomorrow’s Climate Action Workshop. Brad Eggleston, Director of Public Works, announced the Committee’s last meeting was scheduled for Friday, January 9, at the regular time. Items for consideration would include the Committee’s SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 10 Climate Action & Sustainability Committee Regular Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/12/2025 recommendation to City Council for approval of the upcoming 2-year work plan for the S/CAP and an update on the status of grid modernization. Councilmember Burt had a scheduling conflict with his MTC meeting. Staff and the Committee agreed to a 2:00 p.m. start time for January’s meeting. Director Eggleston would allow 2½ hours for the meeting, from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:18 p.m.