Members of our City Council,
Please read the following and more importantly please read my suggestions at the end.
I read the staff report that included 2030 Climate Action Plan that is associated with this item and I am puzzled, or rather shocked by what appears to be the glaring bias and alarmist rhetoric in that document.
In any piece of legislation, I am used to seeing a “cost/benefit” analysis included in any study. In this case it seems to be a glaring omission. Relative to the natural gas conversion in heating to electricity of "95% of buildings,” I would expect to see an analysis that would include documenting the number of buildings in each category, single family homes, duplexes, apartments, commercial buildings, schools, etc. that make up this “95% of buildings”. Included should be a breakdown of estimated costs to make the change relative to each type of building and expected change, likely an increase, in monthly energy costs. This exercise should help our citizens and property owners understand the burden expected of them so that they can comment on the pending legislation.
My continued concern is the question… Does the City of Menlo Park and its City Council want to make it more difficult for a homeowner to live in Menlo Park? I think we deserve an answer or is alarmist rhetoric today’s guiding light?
Then comes the question of the 2070 prediction of sea level rise and the possible impact on the Belle Haven neighborhood. Please look at the photo in the staff report that suggests 2070 sea level. Notice that the Facebook campus east of Bayfront Expressway (the former Sun Microsystems campus) appears as an island. The reason is that there is a berm / levee surrounding the campus. How do I know… because I was the Sun project manager that was in charge of the design and construction of the million square foot campus. Relative to the cost of the campus, the berm / levee was a very, very minor cost. I think a continuation of that levee on the bay side of the entire length of Bayfront Expressway would be a prudent measure to protect the eastern portion of the city in the very speculative event of sea level rise.
So what are the chances of future sea level rise and the climate change measures suggested to prevent it? From a quote in the Daily Post on April 8th, “President Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, told a White House press briefing that even if the U.S. reduced its emissions to zero, it wouldn’t make much of a difference in the global climate change fight because 90% of the planet’s emissions come from foreign countries such as China. Kerry made his remarks Wednesday before President Biden signed a number of executive orders on climate.” In my opinion, whatever Menlo Park does, or for that matter what occurs relative to regulation in our surrounding cities, the Bay Area, and the State of California probably won’t have much impact on global climate change and sea level rise.
Finally, there is the question of the dangers of natural gas fumes on the health of people residing in buildings with gas heat. Again, I see biased information of selected studies used to support the writer’s interest. Where are the references to warnings from the EPA or the CDC if, in fact, there are any?
My recommendation…
1) Please strike the "phase out" of natural gas option, but rather offer incentives to make gas to electric conversions. For instance, many communities offer an incentive via rebates for homeowners to convert their old toilets to water saving toilets in order to reduce water use. The same could be offered for the conversion from natural gas to electric heating and cooking. It appears that the city already has the requirement that new buildings use only electricity as a heat source. There are too many elderly, retired or low income Menlo Park homeowners that would find the natural gas "phase out" to be a devastating hurdle. And time will tell if the conversion has any effect on sea level rise or health issues. The carrot is better than the stick!
2) Regarding sea level rise and the eastern areas of our city, the City should begin to develop a reserve fund or seek government grants for the construction of a levee along the eastern side of Bayfront Expressway so that in the event that there actually is a sea level rise 30 to 50 years from now, money will be available for its construction. That future levee could be connected to those constructed by our adjacent bayside cities. Consider that the Sun campus was built 30 years ago, has there been any evidence of sea level rise in those 30 years?
In conclusion… the City of Menlo Park and its staff need to do a lot better! Please delay your vote tonight until the information suggested above is provided and the citizens of this city are better informed.
Respectively, Michael Lambert
