Reminder: Per our bylaws, Leadership Group meetings are confidential

Working Council

April 5, 2018

LinkedIn, 700 E Middlefield Rd. Mountain View, CA - Building 4

DRAFT AGENDA

7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation

8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder

Welcome New Member Company Representatives

8:05 a.m. President's Report

• Regional Economic Forum – April 13

• Workplace Wellness Symposium – April 20

• 2018 Sacramento Advocacy Trip – May 1-2

• Silicon Valley Energy & Sustainability Summit – May 24

8:10 Consent Item

• Approval of March Working Council Minutes

8:12 a.m. Discussion / Legislative Action Items

• Second Harvest Food Bank of Santa Clara & San Mateo Counties Presentation

• CA Privacy Initiative Presentation

• CA Prop 72: Rainwater Capture Systems New Property Tax Exemption – Environment & Tax

Committees Recommend “upport

• SB 1072 (Leyva): Regional Climate Collaborative Program – Environment Committee Recommends

“upport

• Electric Vehicle Ready Parking Standards for New Developments – Energy Committee Recommends

“upport

• SB 1399 (Wiener): Offsite Renewable Generation – Energy Committee Reco e ds “upport

• AB 3232 (Friedman): Zero Emission Buildings – Energy Committee Reco e ds “upport if A e ded

• AB 3001 (Bonta): Electrification of Buildings – E ergy Co ittee Reco e ds “upport if A e ded

• SB 1088 (Dodd): Exclusive IOU Performance of Distribution work– Energy Committee Recommends

Oppose if A e ded

• Stanford GUP Update

9:00 a.m. Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors – District 4 Candidate Forum

• Dominic Caserta

• Don Rocha

• Jason Baker

• Pierluigi Oliverio

• Susan Ellenberg

2018 Home Run Goal Update - oral report if time permits.

Education Energy

Environment Government Relations

Health Housing & Community Development

Tax Policy Tech & Innovation Policy

Transportation Foundation

10:15 a.m. Adjournment

Next Meeting: Thursday, May 3rd @ Nokia, 200 S Mathilda Ave, Sunnyvale, CA 94086

2018 Working Council Meeting Schedule

January 11

February 1

March 1

April 5

May 3

June 7

July 12

August 2

September 6

October (Strategy Conference)

November 8

December 6

Working Council

Thursday, March 1, 2018

7:30 am – 10:30am

Texas Instruments – 2900 Semiconductor Drive, Building E

Santa Clara, CA 95051

Members Present:

Jason Lundgaard, Apple, Chair

Kyra Whitten, Lam Research, Vice Chair

Carl Guardino, Silicon Valley Leadership Group

Diane Matulich, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

Rod Diridon, Apple, Inc.

Tamara Anthony, Avaya

Michael Turpin, Bay Area News Group

Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences

Kathy Duong, Canyon Snow on behalf of Lam Research

Amanda Myers, ChargePoint, Inc.

Alan Jepsen, City National Bank

Timothy Karas, College of Alameda

Lennies Gutierrez, Comcast

Leah Toeniskoetter, Deloitte

Mona Tierney-Lloyd, EnerNOC, Inc.

Katie Excoffier, Genentech

Hadiyah Mujhid, HBCU.vc

Alison Jenkin, Huawei

Daniel Landeluce, Huawei

Ron Jew, IDT

Steve Joesten, Infinera

Brent Davidson, Intuitive Surgical

Nancy Noe, Johnson & Johnson

Hanh Nguyen, Kaiser Permanente

Rick Beatty, Lehigh Hanson

Jennifer Paedon, Lockheed Martin

Diana Bautista, Lu ile Pa ka d Child e ’s Hospital “ta fo d

Rose Grymes, NASA Ames

Ron Gonzales, Presencia, LLC

Wendy Dawson, Plantronics

Michael Wallace, Santa Clara University

Erika Bustamante, Stanford University

Debra LaTourette, SYNNEX Corporation

John Hogan, TeenForce

Victoria Tung, Texas Instruments

Hector Cuevas, UC Merced

Eileen McGarry, UC Merced

Sunil Pandya, Wells Fargo

David Chase, Western Digital

Jim Davis, xOverTime, Inc.

Via Call-in option

Allie Detrio, ENGIE Services

Reymundo Espinoza, Gardner Family Health Network, Inc.

Kent Leacock, Proterra

Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank

Staff Present:

Margaret Daoud-Gray Michael Lomio Ch is O’Co o Kendra Schultz

Alexandria Felton Annika McClure David Palter Heidi Sickler

Nathan Ho Mike Mielke Matthew Quevedo Don Tran

Connie Vieaux

Megan White

AGENDA

Chair Jason Lundgaard called the meeting to order at 8:00am and reminded the group participants of

meeting discussion confidentiality so that people could speak candidly. Self-introductions followed.

President’s Report The P eside t’s Repo t as gi e Carl Guardino.

Lam Research Heart & Soles Race

March 24th – 6k and 10k run/walk

- Kids Fun Run (ages 2-7)

Location: Santa Clara University through Avaya Stadium

“uppo t Lo al Child e ’s Health a d E e ise P og a s

All participants receive a jersey themed tech shirt, finisher medal and chip timing

Visit heartandsolesrusv.com to register today!

Working Council Host Volunteers

If you are able to Host Working Council please contact Megan White, Office Manager at

mwhite@svlg.org

Executive Advisory Board Changes

Ca l Gua di o p ese ted the la ha ge of d oppi g Ad iso f o the E e uti e Ad iso Boa d name. This group would now be the Executive Board.

A motion was made by Ron Gonzales of Presencia LLC. to app o e the a e ha ge f o E e uti e Advisory Boa d to E e uti e Boa d . The otio as se o ded Aliso Je ki of Hua ei.

The motion passed by voice vote, 0 no, 0 abstentions.

Change of Title from LR to Deputy

Ca l Gua di o p ese ted the title ha ge of Liaiso Rep ese tati e to Deput .

A motion was made by Leah Toeniskoetter of Deloitte to suppo t the a e ha ge of Liaiso Rep ese tati e LR to Deput . The otio as se o ded Da id Chase of Weste Digital.

The motion passed by voice vote, 0 no, 0 abstentions.

Consent Items

Approval of February Working Council Minutes

A motion to approve the February Minutes was made by Jim Davis of xOverTime and was seconded by

Steve Joesten of Infinera.

The motion passed by voice vote, 0 no, 0 abstentions.

Discussion / Legislative Action Items

Proposed San Jose Prevailing Wage and Local Initiative – Housing & Community Development

Committee Recommends Oppose

Action:

Housing and Community Development Committee recommends OPPOSING the San Jose

Prevailing Wage and Local Hire Initiative.

Background:

Requires prevailing wage and construction workforce requirements (local hire) on SJ major

construction projects that receive City Assistance or Authorization.

Analysis:

- Major projects: defined as 100 units or 100,000 sq ft

- Cit Assista e o Autho izatio effe ti el o e s all ajo p oje ts

- Will increase construction costs conservatively between 25%-35%

- Affordable housing projects affected by Local Hire

- Qualified construction workforce difficult to hire and contract for current jobs

A motion was made by the Housing & Community Development Committees to recommend oppose.

The motion passed by hand vote: 33 yes, 0 no, 4 abstentions.

Carl Guardino of the Leadership Group proposed a second motion for him to continue conversations

with the proponents of the initiative.

A otio to app o e Ca l Gua di o’s e uest to o ti ue these o e satio s as ade Rose Grymes of NASA Ames and was seconded by Rick Beatty of Lehigh Hanson.

The motion passed by voice vote, 0 no, 1 abstention.

San Jose Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative – Housing & Community Development Committee

Re o e ds Oppose

Action:

Housing and Community Development Committee recommends OPPOSING Evergreen Initiative.

Background:

The Evergreen Initiative approves a specific Evergreen project and creates a Senior Housing Overlay that

allo s fo the o e sio of u de utilized e plo e t la d fo the de elop e t of se io housi g.

Analysis:

- Circumvents and amends San Jose 2040 General Plan and years-long public process via ballot

initiative

- Senior Housing Overlay can be applied to any vacant employment land throughout the city.

U de utilized u defi ed a d a iguous. - Exempts the project from development capacities, traffic impact fees, and design guidelines of

Evergreen East Hills Policy

- Exempts the project and Senior Housing Overlay developments from certain affordable housing

A motion was made by the Housing & Community Development Committees to recommend oppose.

The motion passed by hand vote: 30 yes, 0 no, 4 abstentions.

California Air Resources Board Zero-Emissions Bus Rule – Energy & Environment Committees

Re o e d su itti g a lette of suppo t to CARB a d the Go e o ’s Offi e

Issue: Should the California Air Resources Board (CARB) require transit agencies to begin phasing-in zero-

emission buses (ZEBs) when new bus purchases are made?

Environment Cmte Rec: SUBMIT LETTER OF SUPPORT

Energy Cmte Rec: SUBMIT LETTER OF SUPPORT

CARB is proposing to implement a ZEB purchase requirement for transit agencies when bus purchases

are made starting in 2020 transitioning to a 100% ZEB fleet by January 1, 2029.

The full implementation schedule is as follows:

Implementation

Date

% of Bus Purchases that need to

be ZEBs

Fleet Size

1/1/2020 25% 100+ buses (large agencies)

1/1/2023 50% 30+ buses (medium & large agencies)

1/1/2026 75% All fleets (small, medium, large)

1/1/2029 100% All fleets (small, medium, large)

2018-2019 Incentives for ZEBs

The Go e o ’s 8-2019 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Expenditure Plan includes:

- $160 million for CARB to provide incentives for zero-emission trucks, transit buses, school buses,

and zero-emission freight equipment in the early stages of commercialization

- $100 million for CARB to provide equity-focused investments that increase access to clean

transportation for low-income households and Disadvantaged Communities.

Support: Proterra, City of San José, City of Berkeley, City of Long Beach, City of Los Angeles, City of

Oakland, City of Sacramento, City of Santa Barbara, City of Stockton, City of Ventura, City of Burlingame,

City of Lancaster, City of Imperial Beach, City of Huron, City of Encinitas, City of Chula Vista, City of

Lemon Grove.

Opposed: The natural gas industry and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System are opposed to the

rulemaking because San Diego Transit is in the process of moving its minibus fleet to propane gas.

A motion was made by the Energy & Environment Committees to recommend submitting a letter of

support to CARB and the Gover o ’s Offi e. The motion passed by hand vote: 32 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention.

Prop 68 – Clean Water & Safe Parks Act – E i o e t Co ittee Re o e ds “uppo t

Issue: Prop 68 is a $4.1 billion bond slated for the June ballot that supports clean drinking water and

helps preserve parks and natural resources

Investment Priorities:

• Advance clean drinking water

• Protect communities from floods

• Protect natural resources

• Safe parks for every child

• Improve climate change resilience

• Promote conservation and recreation jobs

Recommendation: Environment Committee recommends Support

Context: Volatile weather, drought, and climate change increasingly strain state water & natural

resources

Funding details:

• 70 percent to parks and natural resources, 30 percent to water conservation and infrastructure

• Pa k g a ts allo ated o a pa ks-poo fo ula

• $1 billion in competitive grants that Silicon Valley is eligible for

• $61 million to Bay Area projects, including:

• $3 million to Los Gatos Creek and Guadalupe Watershed

• $3 million to the Russian River

• $12 million Sac-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy

• $20 million to SF Bay wetlands restoration

Fiscal Impact:

• $4 billion in new bond spending, $100 million in reallocated unissued bonds

• CA’s de t se i e atio D“R has flu tuated et een 3-6 percent since 1995. Legislative

A al st’s Offi e sa s D“R ill sta elo 5 pe e t o e e t se e al ea s. This is elo the historical average

Support (partial list):

• Gov. Brown, Lt. Gov. Newsom, Mayor Villaraigosa, Senator de León, Senator Atkins, Speaker

Rendon

• Bay Area Caucus

• CA Chamber of Commerce, League of CA Cities, Environmental Defense Fund, Nature

Co se a , League of Wo e ’s Vote s

• City of San Jose, City and County of San Francisco

• Association of CA Water Agencies

Opposition:

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

A motion was made by the Environment Committee to recommend support. The motion passed by hand

vote: 31 yes, 0 no, 1 abstention.

SB 1014 (Skinner) Electrify California Rideshare – E e g Co ittee Re o e ds Oppose as itte

Issue: Should the CPUC and CARB mandate and incentivize the transition of Transportation Network

Companies to 100% zero-emission vehicle miles by 2028?

Energy Cmte Recommendation: OPPOSE AS WRITTEN

● Reserves $30 million annually in cap-and-trade dollars to fund rebates (yet to be defined) for

zero-emission vehicles used by individual TNC drivers (e.g Lyft, Uber)

● Establishes a California Clean Miles Standard (yet to be defined)

● Establishes a CPUC verification process for TNC drivers

● Requires the ZEV to replace an ICE used for TNC services.

● Mandates the following ZEV miles targets for TNCs:

○ 20% ZEV miles by December 31, 2020

○ 50% ZEV miles by December 31, 2023

○ 100% ZEV miles by December 31, 2028

Timeline

Introduced: February 6

SVLG Transportation Committee: March 7

First Day to Amend Bill: March 9

SVLG Environment Committee: March 14

SVLG Autonomous Vehicle Working Group: March 16

SVLG Energy Committee: March 22

Deadline for Submitting Letters and Amendments: March 28

Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Cmte Hearing (tentative): April 3

Senate Environmental Quality Committee Hearing (tentative): April 18

Senate Transportation & Housing Committee Hearing (tentative): April 27

A motion was made by the Energy Committee to oppose as written. The motion passed by hand vote: 31

yes, 0 no, 3 abstentions.

Guest speaker: Vice Mayor of Cupertino & President of the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Rod

Sinks

Rod Sinks spoke about the Cities Association and their priorities. The Cities Association was created in

1990 – there are 15 cities collaborating that work to drive regional issues.

The g oup’s p io ities a e: - Housing/homelessness

- Transportation & funding

- Sustainability

- Smart cities

- Age friendly implementation

- Aircraft noise

- EMS options

Vice Mayor Sinks spoke about the various traffic stresses that affect his constituents as well as teacher

housing.

2018 Home Run Goal Update

- Education: August 17 – Ed Summit, Contact Margaret Daoud-Gray at mgray@svlg.org with topic

ideas/speaker suggestions

- Energy – May 24 – Energy & Sustainability Summit, submit case studies – contact Kendra Schultz

at kschultz@svlg.org

- Environment – Wetlands is top priority – meeting in April to discuss funding

- Govt. Relations – Washington DC trip this week was a large success; next is Sacramento May 1-2

- Health – Health Care Reform is top priority; April 20 is Workplace Wellness Summit from

8:30am-12:00pm

- Housing – Housing Summit occurred – working toward ballot initiative

- Tax – Defend against onerous tax bills

- Tech – N/A

- Transportation – RM 3

- Foundation - Heart & Soles – May 24

Time of adjournment: 10:00am

Next Working Council Meeting: April 5 at LinkedIn

1

Date: April 5, 2018

To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council

From: Kendra Schultz, Associate, Energy & Environment

RE: Support Proposition 72, Property tax: new construction exclusion: rain water capture system

Issue California is experiencing prolonged periods of drought punctuated by intense storms. This reality is well-documented by the historic five-year drought, flooding, wildfires, and mudslides experienced across the state in the past few years. Trends of warmer winter temperatures mean that precipitation will increasingly fall as rain instead of snow. This will have devastating effects on the Sierra Nevada watershed, which provides 60 percent of the State’s water supply. Given this, it is crucial to prioritize water conservation. Proposition 72, slated for the June 5th ballot, would incentivize rainwater capture and reuse by amending the California Constitution to exclude rainwater capture systems from being assessed as new property under existing tax code. Recommendation Leadership Group Environment Committee and Tax Committee recommend a support position on Proposition 72 (Prop 72). Summary Existing law states that all property is taxable unless it is explicitly exempted by the California Constitution or federal law. Taxes on real property are determined by the county assessor when purchased, newly constructed, or a change in ownership has occurred. Under current tax law, a business or individual who invests in a rainwater capture system on her or his property is subject to reassessment. Prop 72 would exclude rainwater capture systems from the definition of “newly constructed,” adding a tax incentive to invest in this water savings and efficiency infrastructure. Prop 72 includes a sunset clause of January 1, 2029. After that date, the Legislature would need to pass a new bill, but not a constitutional amendment, to keep the tax exclusion in place. Background In 2012, California enacted the Rainwater Capture Act (RCA), which allowed landowners to install rainwater capture systems without applying for a permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. RCA received unanimous votes in both chambers of the State Legislature. California has a history of exempting construction that provides significant public benefit from the tax designation of “newly constructed.” This includes the addition of solar energy systems, fire sprinkler systems and related fire-safety measures, seismic retrofitting, and the addition or removal of disability-assessible construction. Proponents of this measure contend that the importance and public benefit of rainwater capture systems is commensurate with the existing exemptions. Rainwater capture systems range between a few hundred dollars to thousands of dollars depending on the capacity, size of home, and system chosen. On average, a homeowner that receives 12 inches of rain annually can collect up to 10,000 gallons of water from a 1,500 ft2 roof with a rainwater capture system. While rainwater is not typically used for drinking, it can be recycled for irrigation use, indoor non-potable use, or stored for emergencies. Analysis Prop 72 appeared in the State Legislature as SCA 9 (Glazer D-7) and SB 558 (Glazer D-7). Both SCA 9 and SB 558 passed the Legislature with unanimous support, passing the Assembly 76-0-1, and passing the Senate 39-0-1. California is entering another drought. Despite the historically wet year in 2017, research from the U.S. Drought Monitor says 44 percent of the state is already experiencing moderate drought. Capturing rainwater during wet years for use during dry years is one vehicle by which the State can encourage water conservation and efficiency. This tax incentive encourages individuals to plan ahead for future water shortages.

2

Rainwater capture systems can collect, store, and recycle rainwater for a variety of purposes by an individual property owner, but the benefits are not limited to the individual or business that implements the system. When a business or individual use captured rainwater for non-potable purposes, it frees up water from conventional sources for consumption by others. Fiscal Impact The State Board of Equalization (BOE) states that revenue impact from this tax incentive is difficult to quantify, as costs associated with rainwater capture systems can vary widely and there is little available data. Assuming cost equates to market value, every $1 million in cost of rainwater capture system equates to $10,000 in local revenue lost. Support American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association; Amigos de los Rios; California Building Industry Association; California Trout; City of San Luis Obispo; City of Santa Monica; Emerald Necklace; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; Trout Unlimited; League of California Cities; Heal the Bay; Kiss The Ground; Los Angeles Waterkeeper; The River Project; TreePeople; Surfrider Foundation Oppose None on file.

1

Date: April 5, 2018

To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council

From: Kendra Schultz, Energy and Environment Associate; Mike Mielke, SVP Environment and Energy

RE: SB 1072 (Leyva (D-20))– Regional Climate Collaborative Program: technical assistance

Issue SB 1072 would establish Regional Climate Collaboratives to help build capacity in under -resourced communities to access state climate resources, and direct agencies that provide targeted funding for under-resourced communities to provide the technical assistance necessary for those communities to compete for climate resources. Action Environment Committee recommends a support position on SB 1072. Background SB 1072 would assist under-resourced communities in accessing statewide public grant monies for equitable multi-benefit climate resilience projects. The bill takes a three-pronged approach to help disadvantaged communities utilize existing climate resources: (1) establish Regional Climate Collaboratives that leverage local leaders to provide capacity-building activities1 (2) direct state agencies2 that have funding mechanisms targeted towards under-resourced communities to provide technical assistance to those communities to apply for the funding, and (3) coordinate and align investment policies and processes to remove barriers for application. In 2012, SB 535 (de León) directed 25 percent of the proceeds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to projects that provide a benefit to disadvantaged communities. In 2016, AB 1550 (Gomez) clarified that 25 percent of the proceeds must be spent on projects located in disadvantaged communities. The Regional Climate Collaborative Program, administered by the Strategic Growth Council (Council), would be funded by GGRF monies, and supports climate mitigation and resilience projects in disadvantaged communities. Analysis Multiple state agencies administer programs that allocate targeted funding to under -resourced communities, but many communities lack the knowledge that these funding opportunities exist, and the capacity and expertise to submit competitive grant proposals. Through a Climate Collaborative model, SB 1072 leverages existing local leaders and organizations to help build capacity and awareness of available opportunities that lead to local climate transformations. Furthermore, many philanthropies have expressed interest in investing money in under-resourced communities, but do not know which communities those dollars would best serve. This bill will help direct philanthropic dollars to communities that have the capacity and wherewithal to implement those funds. Targeting dollars to under-served communities does not ensure they can access and effectively implement those resources. SB 1072 directs agencies to provide technical assistance to the hardest-to-reach communities so that they can implement existing resources. Agencies would also be directed to coordinate and align processes and guidelines for investment opportunities to remove barriers to application and maximize climate adaptation benefits for every dollar requested. The state recognizes that under-resourced communities have a great potential to contribute to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals, and reap economic development opportunities through renewable energy, energy efficiency and other resilient infrastructure investments. This bill supports climate change mitigation while valuing social and environmental equity.

1 Applicants eligible for a collaborative include but are not limited to: community-based organizations, nonprofits, small businesses, local government agencies, joint powers authorities, tribal governments. 2 Applicable state agencies and departments include but are not limited to: Strategic Growth Council, Natural Resources Agency, Dept. of Conservation, Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, Dept. of Transportation, State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, State Air Resources Board, Dept. of Water Resources, State Water Resources Control Board

2

Funding SB 1072 directs the Council to annually award up to $5 million in competitive grants, funded through GGRF funds, to Regional Climate Collaboratives with a sunset after six years. The bill sponsor estimates that each collaborative will cost $250,000- $800,000 to fund staff time, convening space, and to carry out education and marketing activities in communities. Agencies that provide technical assistance would be directed to allocate 3 percent of the agency’s annual budget, up to $250,000, to targeted technical assistance efforts. Bill sponsors continue to work with the agencies to ensure this is an appropriate allocation that balances the capacity to provide technical assistance without detracting too much from the programs they are working to implement. Status Ordered to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality and Natural Resources and Water. Hearing date is 4/04/2018. Support Greenlining Institute (Sponsor); Trust for Public Land (Sponsor); Union of Concerned Scientists; Policy Link; The Nature Conservancy; San Francisco Conservation Corps; Los Angeles Conservation Corps; American Lung Association; Asian Pacific Environmental Network; Environmental Defense Fund; Safe Routes to Schools; Environment California; Fresno Local Conservation Corps; Conservation Corps of Long Beach; Sequoia Community Corps; California League of Conservation Voters; Coalition for Clean Air; Public Advocates; Center for Environmental Health; Friends of the Los Angeles River; Central Coast Energy Services Opposition None on file.

Date: March 23, 2018

To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council

From: Heidi Sickler, Senior Associate, Energy and Environment

RE: California Green Building Code Electric Vehicle (EV) Infrastructure Measures

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Issue: To alig ith Califo ia’s ze o-emissions vehicle goals, the Energy Committee recommends submitting a

statement encouraging the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to strengthen EV-

ead pa ki g sta da ds i the Califo ia Buildi g “ta da ds Co issio ’s t ie ial ode adoptio le.

Energy Committee Recommendation: Submit a letter of support to HCD to strengthen EV-ready parking standards in

the Califo ia Buildi g “ta da ds Co issio ’s t ie ial ode adoptio le.

Background: The deployment of ZEVs -- including light, medium and heavy-duty vehicles – is pa t of the Go e o ’s 2016 ZEV Action Plan and 2018 ZEV Executive Order in order to curb the 39 percent in carbon emissions generated by

CA’s t a spo tatio se to – the largest of any sector in California. On January 26, 2018, Governor Brown announced

his continued commitment to advancing the deployment of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) and charging infrastructure by

establishing new targets for both, and proposing to invest $200 million annually in ZEV rebates, and $900 million

through 2025 in EV charging infrastructure. Since March 2010, the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) has issued

Califo ia s o e $ illio i e ates fo o e tha , eligi le ZEVs. A o di g to CalT a s’ Califo ia Transportation Plan 2050, ZEV sales are increasing across the country, especially in California. In Q1 of 2017, ZEV sales

rose to 2.7 percent of all vehicle sales, the largest share to date. California is the largest ZEV regional market in the

country, with 337,483 ZEVs registered as of October 20171, or over 50 percent of the 600,000 ZEVs registered

nationwide. According to the California Center for Sustainable Energy, there are over 32,733 ZEVs in Santa Clara County.

However, charging infrastructure remains a barrier to widespread ZEV adoption.

Gove o B o ’s E e uti e O de alls fo the o st u tio a d i stallatio of , EV ha ge s, i ludi g 10,000 direct current chargers by 2025. To date, only 14,999 public Level 2 charging connectors, and 1,500 direct

current fast charging connectors have been installed in California – representing 30 percent of the all existing charging

connectors (47,149) in the United States.2 The most cost effective way to support the expansion of EV charging

i f ast u tu e is i stalli g the ake- ead electrical infrastructure (conduit/wiring, electrical panel capacity) to each

parking space to enable future installation of EV chargers in new commercial and residential multi-unit dwelling (MUD)

developments. According to a 2016 Energy Solutions report on EV infrastructure cost effectiveness, including electrical

infrastructure for ZEV charging in new construction can reduce costs by 75 percent.3 Currently, the California Green

Building Standards Code requires six percent of parking spaces for new commercial development, and three percent of

parking spaces for new multi-family housing, to be EV-ready. In the Bay Area alone, at least eight cities and counties

have voluntarily exceeded the minimum requirements for parking spaces pre-wired for EV charging for new commercial

and housing developments, including some that have adopted the Tier 2 standard of 10 percent for commercial and five

percent for MUDs. These Bay Area cities and counties currently include San Francisco, Oakland, Cupertino, Sunnyvale,

Fremo t, Mou tai Vie , Palo Alto, “a Mateo, a d Co t a Costa Cou t . To suppo t Califo ia’s t a sitio to fi e million ZEVs by 2030, and meet its climate leadership and electrification goals, new buildings constructed today that will

exist for the next fifty plus years, must provide higher than existing levels of EV make-ready infrastructure.

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure

AB 1092 (Marc Levine, North Bay), signed into law on September 28, 2013, requires the California Building Standards

Commission to adopt, approve, codify and publish mandatory building standards for EV readiness for parking spaces in

multifamily housing and commercial developments. To date, 14,999 public Level 2 charging connectors, and 1,500

direct current fast charging connectors have been installed in California – representing 30 percent of the all existing

charging connectors (47,149) in the United States.4 In January 2018, PG&E launched the EV Charge Network program –

1 Next 10, The Road Ahead for Zero-Emission Vehicles in California, Market Trends & Policy Analysis (January 2018) 2 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center. 3

Energy Solutions, Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Cost-Effectiveness Report for San Francisco (2016). 4 U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative Fuels Data Center.

a $130 million initiative to support PG&E, charging-installers and operators to install 7,500 Level 2 charging stations at

multi-family dwelling units and workplaces between now and 2020. PG&E may own and maintain up to 35 percent of

the charging stations – some 2,625 charging stations.

Analysis: EV readiness is alig ed ith the E e g a d E i o e t Co ittees Wo k Pla s’ goal of ad a i g the deplo e t of ZEVs i Califo ia, suppo ti g EV Readi ess, a d eeti g “B ’s g ee house gas e issio s edu tio s targets of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Installing a complete electric circuit for EV charging during new

construction provides major cost savings (up 75 percent less) compared to the cost of retrofitting EV charging

equipment. To eet Califo ia’s t a spo tatio ele t ifi atio a d li ate goals, new buildings must include higher

levels of EV charging infrastructure. In fact, CARB recommends increasing EV-ready parking requirements for new

residential developments from the existing three percent requirement to ten percent to help curb the 39 percent in

a o e issio s ge e ated Califo ia’s t a spo tatio se to – the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

A o di g to CARB’s latest ost a al sis, p e-wiring parking spaces for EV charging infrastructure could result in $264 to

$374 million in avoided retrofit costs between 2020-2025.

A o di g to the Go e o ’s Offi e, Califo ia has the lo est atio of a ajo EV a ket i the o ld ith ZEVs fo every public charger. In comparison, Norway has 15 ZEVs per public charger, and the Netherlands has 5 ZEVs per public

charger. The Go e o ’s goal is fo Califo ia to ha e ZEVs pe ha ge . The CEC’s Ma h gap a al sis sho ed that , additio al ha ge s a e eeded to eet the Go e o ’s goal of ha ing 1.5 million ZEVs on the road

by 2025. The Governor has budgeted $900 million over 8 years to leverage $1.6 billion in private investment to install

150,000 new chargers by 2025.

Public Health and Air Quality: Providing higher than existing levels of EV make-ready infrastructure is also expected to

ha e a positi e i pa t o ai ualit . Redu i g GHG e issio s is alig ed ith the E i o e t Co ittee’s goal of supporting policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while enhancing business growth and leadership, especially in

the transportation space. The American Lung Association estimates that ZEV adoption has the potential to save

Californians $13 billion in annual health care savings in 2030.5 This is especially important in California, which has the

worst air quality in the nation. Three California counties – Los Angeles-Long Beach, Bakersfield and Fresno-Madera –

have the worst smog levels in the entire country, and more than 90% of California residents live in counties with

unhealthy air.6 Additio all , CARB’s Cli ate Cha ge “ opi g Pla update p oje ts that the effe ts of Mo ile Sources, Clean Fuels, Technology and Freight, are estimated to account for a -10% (-64 MMTCO2e) reduction in GHG

reductions out of a total of -621 MMTCO2e GHG emissions reductions required to achieve the 2030 emission limit of

260 MMTCO2e.7

Stakeholder Engagement: States and cities are key stakeholders in increasing EV readiness. One of the best ways for

states and cities to improve their EV readiness is to partner with housing advocates, the development community, local

city managers through the International City Managers Association, and public administrators through the local chapter

of the American Society for Public Administrators. Many of these technical decisions are made by high level

administrators of local cities. Engaging the housing and development community early in the stakeholder process could

help identify the best EV charging practices in the streamlining permitting processes, revising codes, developing

incentives, and educating the public based on the experiences of existing EV readiness projects throughout Santa Clara

County.

Status: The 45-day public comment period for the 2018 Triennial Code Adoption Cycle will commence in September

2018 and conclude in November 2018, with the 2019 California Building Standards Code taking effect in January 2020.

5 American Lung Association, Clean Air Future Health and Climate Benefits of Zero Emission Vehicles (2016). 6

American Lung Association State of the Air 2017. http://www.lung.org/assets/documents/healthy-air/state-of-the-air/state-of-the-air-2017.pdf 7 CARB’s Cli ate Cha ge “ opi g Pla , page . https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf

Date: March 26, 2018 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Policy Committee From: Tim McRae, Energy VP RE: SB 1399 (Wiener) – Bill credits for offsite solar generation on impacted sites Issue: Should the legislature require the CPUC to develop a tariff that allows nonresidential electric customers get bill credits for solar facilities of up to 20 megawatts that they develop offsite on previously impacted areas as part of the 2019 Net Energy Metering proceeding? Position Recommendation: Energy Committee recommends support. Summary This bill addresses the ability of commercial, industrial, public sector, and nonprofit electric customers who are unable to install solar energy either because they lease their space or because they lack available rooftop or other space. The bill allows such nonresidential customers to receive bill credit for renewable electricity exported to the grid from facilities of up to 20 megawatts located behind the meter on government property, commercial property, landfills, ports, warehouses, parking lots, industrial zones, brownfield sites, disturbed agricultural land, school facilities, and locations in disadvantaged communities. The bill directs the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to establish a tariff for such bill credits as part of its update to the Net Energy Metering program, which the Commission will take up in 2019. The Commission is given a deadline of January 1, 2021 to establish the new tariff. Background In 2013, the legislature directed the CPUC to create the Green Tariff Shared Renewables program, which allows residential and small business customers of Investor-Owned Utilities to pay a premium to buy electricity from solar generation developed anywhere outside of that customer’s property. This program is different in that it focuses on nonresidential customers, only allows development on previously impacted sites, and does not impose the cost as a premium on the customers’ bill. SB 1399 builds on the pilot program of the Renewable Energy Self-Generation Bill Credit Transfer (RES-BCT), expanding its eligibility and broadening capacity limits. The RES-BCT program allows local governments and colleges to install one or more renewable energy generators on their premises and credit this generation to other accounts of the local government or college, with a maximum on the size of the generating system (5 MW) and on the program as a whole (250 MW). SB 1399 has eligibility for customers beyond local governments and colleges, allows generating systems up to 20 MW per site and does not have a cap on the program as a whole.

After AB 327 (Perea, 2013), the CPUC devised rules for Net Energy Metering (NEM 2.0) that apply to the way in which customers with on-site solar generation can be compensated for energy exported to the grid. This CPUC decision will be updated in its 2019 NEM 3.0 decision. SB 1399 directs the CPUC to create a tariff for this class of projects (energy generated for solar developed offsite on impacted areas for nonresidential customers) within the same proceeding as NEM 3.0 and will not require the CPUC to create a brand new proceeding. In this way, SB 1399 aligns with statewide net metering policy. Analysis The Leadership Group supported the CPUC’s decision to implement NEM 2.0 and the Energy Committee last year voted to support expansion of the RES-BCT program. These programs help numerous residential and nonresidential customers save money on their utility bills and meet environmental sustainability goals.

IOUs argue energy exported to the grid from distributed resources tax the grid without paying for a fair share of its use. They argue the distributed resource uses the grid without paying for the costs associated with updating and maintaining the grid, and that the use of the grid by distributed resources require the IOUs to make investments to upgrade the grid.

Distributed energy resource providers counter that these investments reduce the amount of energy demanded by end users, and thus reduce the need for transmission and distribution investments. They point to deferral of construction or upgrade of costly transmission lines as proof that distributed resources reduce costs for all ratepayers now. Additionally, they point out that the distributed energy resources initial investment is not made by the utility, as would be the case with the impacted-area solar facilities this bill would enable. Finally, distributed energy resource providers point to reduction in local pollution and improved health as a benefit of solar built locally.

NEM 2.0 also addressed the “cost-shift” argument by instituting a small non-bypassable charge the NEM customers have to pay and mandating that NEM customers be on Time of Use tariffs that pay customers less when daytime solar is generated and would charge them more when they are likely to be importing energy from the grid in the late afternoon and evening. SB 1399’s proponents point out that the CPUC would be able to extend this cost structure to the new class of customers created by this bill, addressing IOU cost-share arguments in the same fashion that the CPUC resolved the issue for NEM.

SB 1399 promotes nonresidential customers developing renewable energy on previously impacted land. This is in line with the promotion of “clean energy supply”, the Energy Committee’s number one priority. The bill would provide the ability for commercial, industrial, public and nonprofit customers to build renewable generating facilities and take advantage of declining costs of renewable energy systems and help the state meet its 40% reduction in greenhouse gas target set in 2016’s SB 32.

Status

Introduced February 2018 by Senator Wiener. Referred to Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee for an April hearing. Support (partial list): Engie (member company) Solar Energy Industries Association California Solar and Storage Association Borrego Solar Terra Verde Energy Oppose:

Date: March 26, 2018 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Policy Committee From: Tim McRae, Energy VP RE: AB 3232 (Friedman) – Decarbonizing California buildings Issue: Should the legislature set a goal of new residential and non-residential buildings built in 2030 forward as “zero emission buildings” in California? Should the state also set a strategy due in 2020 devising how to meet a goal of 50% reduction in greenhouse gases from buildings by 2030? Position Recommendation: Energy Committee recommends Support if Amended. Summary AB 3232 sets a goal for new residential and nonresidential buildings in California built in 2030 forward be “zero emission buildings”. Zero emission buildings are defined as a building with operational parameters that result in zero or negative emissions of greenhouse gases, as measured on an annual basis, when considering the hourly marginal emissions factors from both thermal fuels and electricity at the time when energy is used in the building. The bill also requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish a strategy, by January 1, 2020, to achieve a reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases by the state’s residential and nonresidential building stock of 50 percent below the 1990 levels by January 1, 2030. Background California has set many ambitious targets for climate and clean energy goals in recent years. In 2015, SB 350 set a goal of doubling energy efficiency in buildings in California by 2030. In 2016, SB 32 set a goal of reducing greenhouse gases 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Neither bill set a specific goal for reducing greenhouse gases from buildings. Gov. Schwarzenegger set in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005 that the state should meet a goal of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this goal, California will need to have significant reductions from all sectors, including the building sector, which is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state (behind transportation). Analysis Zero Emission Buildings have begun to be built in California. The section of the bill that sets standards for new construction gives 12 years to have their construction get up to scale. Anecdotal evidence suggests this may not be a significant reach for some building types.

Cost is a key consideration. Energy Committee recommends the bill direct the CEC to determine what the costs are for building zero emissions buildings, and then if they are significantly more costly to offer incentives to reduce the cost of building zero emissions buildings. Energy Committee suggests these incentives could start in 2030 tapering down as the market grows to an ending of the offering of incentives by 2050. Energy Committee also notes that meeting the 50% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030 goal will require significant retrofits of existing buildings. Energy Committee recommends that incentives be offered to meet the goal of 50% reduction by 2030. Multifamily dwellings and office high-rise buildings will be difficult to achieve zero emissions under the definition included in the bill at present. Energy Committee recommends that SVLG advocate for an amendment that clarifies that behind the meter energy generated offsite be eligible to credit for a building’s emissions footprint – otherwise multifamily dwellings and high rises will have a very difficult time achieving the standard set. Energy Committee notes that the legislation leaves up to the CEC determination of Zero Emissions criteria. The Committee recommends clarifying the eligibility of biogas’ eligibility to meet zero emissions if substituted for natural gas either as a primary fuel or as the fuel for something like an onset fuel cell. Status Introduced February 2018 by Assemblywoman Friedman. Referred to Assembly Natural Rules Committee. Support (partial list): Natural Resources Defense Council Oppose:

Date: March 26, 2018 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Policy Committee From: Tim McRae, Energy VP RE: AB 3001 (Bonta) – Electrification of buildings Issue: Should the legislature require buildings in California be “electric-ready” by 2022, have the CPUC make policy changes to support achievement of zero emission buildings, and have the CEC develop standards for reducing greenhouse gases in buildings cost-effectively? Position Recommendation: Energy Committee recommends Support if Amended. Summary AB 3001 takes several steps to update program rules at the CPUC and CEC to pave the way toward zero-emission buildings, including:

- Requiring new buildings after 2022 be built “electric-ready”, i.e. electric outlets, wires, and panel capacity that will allow occupants to switch to modern electrical heating equipment easily without undertaking expensive retrofits;

- Directing the CPUC to update its “three-prong test” rule for fuel substitution which currently favors natural gas use over electricity;

- Requiring investor-owned utilities to offer electric rates that encourage flexible electric loads to help integrate renewable energy;

- Allowing grid-connected electric water heaters and electric vehicles to count as eligible forms of energy storage.

The bill would additionally authorize advertising that encourages increased consumption of services and commodities if the increased consumption results in a net decrease in the emissions of greenhouse gases due to the displacement of energy use resulting from the increased consumption. Background California has set many ambitious targets for climate and clean energy goals in recent years. In 2015, SB 350 set a goal of doubling energy efficiency in buildings in California by 2030. In 2016, SB 32 set a goal of reducing greenhouse gases 40% by 2030 compared to 1990 levels. Neither bill set a specific goal for reducing greenhouse gases from buildings. Gov. Schwarzenegger set in Executive Order S-3-05 in 2005 that the state should meet a goal of 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 compared to 1990 levels. To achieve this goal, California will need to have significant reductions from all sectors, including the building sector, which is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state (behind transportation). Analysis Making all new buildings be electric-ready is significantly cheaper than getting buildings to retrofit to be electric-ready. The sponsor points to analysis that electric-ready only

buildings will be cheaper to build than electric- and-gas-ready buildings. Energy Committee recommends the bill could direct the CEC to determine costs of all-electric buildings compared to gas- and electric buildings (all buildings now must be gas-ready) and consider incentives for electric-ready buildings if the cost is significant. Energy Committee notes that the ability to increase electricity use could have significant impacts on the grid. Staff recommends the bill direct the CEC to incorporate grid stability considerations when authorizing solutions that increase electricity use. The bill has the CEC determine if proposed standards promulgated as a result of the bill result in unreasonable or unnecessary impacts on the ability of Californians to purchase or rent affordable housing. This determination is welcome and we recommend it apply to all determinations made in the bill. The bill changes the definition in statute regarding what is cost-effective, incorporating societal costs that include the life cycle emissions cost of greenhouse gases as a result of fossil fuel use. In staff communication with bill proponents we understand that this change will be taken out of the bill due to others’ objections. There was considerable discussion about whether to allow EV smart charging to be included as a form of energy storage. The Committee recommended the CPUC be able to consider that without requiring it; this may be an issue Working Council wishes to discuss one final time before the Leadership Group finalizes its position. Energy Committee notes the bill only applies to investor-owned utilities in the application of requirements to encourage electric-ready buildings. The Committee recommends these strictures apply to all load-serving entities, not just investor-owned utilities. Status Introduced February 2018 by Assemblyman Bonta. Referred to Assembly Natural Resources Committee for an April 9 hearing. Support: Natural Resources Defense Council Oppose:

Date: March 28, 2018 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Energy Policy Committee From: Tim McRae, Energy VP RE: SB 1088 (Dodd) – Exclusive IOU performance of distribution work Issue: Should the legislature prohibit the CPUC from allowing Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to transfer or contract out distribution safety or reliability work? Position Recommendation: Energy Committee recommends Oppose Unless Amended. Summary SB 1088 largely responds to the recent natural disasters that affect Investor Owned Utility delivery of safe, reliable services to customers. The bill requires IOUs to submit a safety, resiliency and reliability plan to the CPUC every two years, and lays out what should be in each plan. The CPUC is directed to have a proceeding to review compliance with each plan annually, and the bill authorizes the PUC to penalize IOUs for noncompliance with said plans. One section of the bill, seemingly unrelated to that described above, lays out a fairly broad sweep of prohibitions against non-IOUs participating in distribution activities. The bill prohibits IOUs from transferring or contracting out distribution safety or reliability obligations except in limited, enumerated instances. Distribution safety or reliability obligations are defined as owning, controlling, operating, managing, maintaining, planning, engineering, designing, investing in, and constructing the distribution system in its service territory, system reliability, emergency response and restoration, vegetation management, service connections, service turnons and turnoffs, and service inquiries relating to the operation of the distribution system. Background Senator Dodd represents Sonoma County, which experienced devastating wildfires in 2017. The state also experienced devastating floods last year, and California historically has experienced periodic earthquakes. While utilities already plan extensively for such events, making the planning process more accountable has appeal in the wake of recent events. The political backdrop of the prohibition on distribution safety or reliability work being done by someone other than an IOU is also recent. The labor unions that represent utility employees attempted to include onerous language pinning liability on third party distributed energy resource companies as part of the discussion of two bills last session – SB 100 (De Leon) AB 813 (Holden). Labor representatives threatened to kill each bill if such language was not included. That threat carried forward to discussions of these bills in 2018 (each is a two year bill) – and neither bill has moved yet this year. This language is the next move in this increasingly contentious discussion. Analysis

The requirement to have exclusive IOU performance of distribution work has nothing to

do with being prepared for major natural events. The IOU exclusive performance

requirement unnecessarily squelches competition in a wide range of activities –

including storage, demand response, electric vehicle charging, behind the meter

generation, to name but a few. Energy Committee noted that SVLG took a position in

favor of competition in distribution activities in the discussion around potential

amendments to SB 100 so there is precedent for this position.

Energy Committee recommended “Oppose Unless Amended” as the position we take as the language regarding competition is so sweeping. If this language was removed from

the bill, we could reconsider if we want to take a position on the planning aspects of the

bill, the merits of which Energy Committee did not discuss.

Status Introduced February 2018 by Senator Dodd. Awaiting referral from Senate Rules Committee. Support: Coalition of Utility Employees Oppose: California Solar and Storage Association

Santa Clara County Supervisor Candidate Don Rocha BA - San Diego State University Biography Highlights: A lifelong resident, former school board member and City Council member, Don Rocha has worked tirelessly to make the community the best it can be. Councilmember Don Rocha previously earned his seat representing the District 9 community on the San Jose City Council in the November 2010 election, and was re-elected to serve a second term in 2014. Prior to being elected to the San Jose City Council, Donald served as a Cambrian School District Board Member. Councilmember Rocha has a strong background in economic development from his long commitment to public service, working for various state and local agencies and for the San José Redevelopment

Agency (SJRA). Rocha has adopted, authored, and implemented new policies to improve affordable housing, approved a number of quality land development projects for health care facilities, education facilities, employment centers, and housing, and advocated for increased mental health and de-escalation training for peace officers and the San Jose Police Department.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Candidate Dominic Caserta BA - Santa Clara University; MA - San Francisco State University Biography Highlights: Dominic Caserta is currently the Vice Mayor for the city of Santa Clara where he was elected to his third term as a councilmember in November of 2014. As Vice Mayor, he has addressed affordability and housing needs, empowered the youth with safe recreation options and a citywide scholarship program, managed tax dollars by balancing budgets, and kept energy rates the lowest in the entire Bay Area. Since 1998, Dominic has taught

government, economics and history courses at Santa Clara High School, including four years as Department Chair, and in 2016 and 2017 Dominic was voted Teacher of the Year from students at Santa Clara High School.. Also, he has taught political science courses at San Jose State University, San Francisco State University, De Anza College, and Foothill College. Dominic was first elected to Santa Clara City Council in 2002 where he was an advocate for transparency, ethics and campaign finance reform. Now in his third term, he has increased the minimum wage, strengthened community safety and focused on our sustainability and better transportation. He has put people first and continues to fight for better opportunities for everyone in the South Bay.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Candidate Pierluigi Oliverio BA - San Jose State University Biography Highlights: Pierluigi has served on the San Jose City Council for ten years from 2006-2016. In addition to ten consecutive years of service on the San Jose City Council, Pierluigi has 22 years of private sector high-tech work experience, specifically in the semiconductor and software industries. As a professional in the high tech sector, Pierluigi Oliverio has worked with large and small organizations. He previously worked in the Software as a Service (SaaS) industry working with rapidly growing small and mid-size companies in Silicon Valley. His efforts allowed these "up and coming"

companies to introduce their products faster to the market while enabling them to be compliant with environmental and safety standards. He has been involved in our community through the Willow Glen Neighborhood Association, Next Door Solutions Battered Women's Shelter, San Jose Anti-Litter Program, San Jose Downtown Association, Joint Venture Silicon Valley Council on Tax & Fiscal Policy, Neighborhood Tree Planting, as well as numerous business related groups.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Candidate Susan Ellenberg BA - Barnard College; JD - Columbia University Biography Highlights: Susan is currently on the San Jose Unified School District Board of Trustees, where the district has set up protective guidelines for students with undocumented parents, secured $5 million in additional annual funding, approved the district’s first gender-neutral student restrooms and began providing free SAT tests to all juniors and $5 AP and IB exams for all students enrolled in those classes. In addition, Susan is an appointed member

of the Santa Clara County Commission on the Status of Women, where she works with other community leaders to advance opportunities for women and minimize inequities that disproportionately impact women, such as equal pay. In her role at The Silicon Valley Organization’s Foundation, Susan creates and facilitates programming designed to raise awareness of local social and economic challenges. She facilitates civic, service, philanthropic and political engagement through programs such as Leadership San Jose cohort, Women Engaged, Age Advantage and Leadership San Jose Academy. Susan is also a mentor for 5 high school students through Lincoln High School’s Future Visions Program.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Candidate Jason Baker BA - University of California, Davis; JD - Santa Clara University Biography Highlights: Jason Baker is the previous mayor for the City of Campbell, and is dedicated to protecting the community. As a lawyer, Baker spent close to a decade of hard work on litigation against polluters and companies who put profits over people. I worked to hold Exxon, Shell and half a dozen more oil companies accountable for their part in exposing workers to deadly chemicals. As a public official, he has managed to erase a structural budget deficit without laying off any employees. In Campbell, they were the first in the County to come to a

negotiated agreement with our police officers for a sensible two-tier solution to pension reform. As mayor, he has hired more police officers in Campbell and still kept the budget balanced. Baker has invested in parks and public art to help make Campbell the place people love to work live and play.Jason has worked to make the environment better, libraries more accessible, our first responders more respected and better prepared.