May 29, 2024 Council Sustainability Committee

Video

Transcript

[00:00:02] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, well, I'm missing a gavel, but I'm going to call the meeting to order. We're on item number one. Um, This, which is the cold order. This meeting's being conducted with a virtual component. So anyone who wants to address the committee virtually. You can join the meeting on Zoom. Um, using the link or phone number and webinar, ID shown on the screen. When the chair announces the item you want to speak on, click the raised hand feature in Zoom or dial star 9 on your phone. Um, and when the chair calls your name to provide comment. If you're participating by phone, please press star 6 to unmute yourself. For in-person attendees, please fill out a speaker card. I see if some already. Um, you can find them on the sign in table to the left of the door. Recently, regional and local elected and appointed bodies have been subject to disruptive racist verbal attacks by anonymous callers during virtual public comments. The city of Mountain View is fully committed to racial, religious, and cultural equity and justice as we strive to create a welcoming, safe, and inclusive community for all. This committee welcome was respectful and non-threatening public comments. Regarding matters over which the committee has jurisdiction. Comments deemed otherwise, pursuant to the council code of conduct and the government code, may be grounds for immediately terminating a speaker's comment period. So now we're on item number 2 roll call. Ms. Lee, can you take role, please?

[00:01:46] Ms. Lee: Chair Hicks,

[00:01:47] Member Alison Hicks: here.

[00:01:48] Ms. Lee: Member of a folk up

[00:01:49] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: here.

[00:01:50] Ms. Lee: Member show one

[00:01:50] Member Pat Showalter: here.

[00:01:52] Member Alison Hicks: We are now on item number three, which is minutes approval. We're looking at the council sustainability committee meeting minutes from October 3rd of 2023. Um, does that? Is it? Oh, yeah, I think that's wrong. I think it was another one. I forgot what date is it? April 16th. April 16th. April 16th. Okay, we're looking at the minutes from April 16th. Of 2024. Uh, does anyone have comments or questions about that me? Minutes. Okay. Seeing. No, um. 3. So this one says there's a common Bryant. Brian Schmidt, you want to, uh, comment on 3.one the minutes?

[00:03:01] Brian Schmidt: I'm sorry, I wrote the wrong agenda item. It's the business item. Actually, an item tonight. Okay. Sorry.

[00:03:07] Member Alison Hicks: That's less surprising. Okay. Although you're welcome to comment on the minutes.

[00:03:14] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I'll pass. Thank you. Okay. Uh,

[00:03:17] Member Alison Hicks: so does anyone have comments or questions? Seeing no one. Do we have a motion to approve? Rube, one second? Okay, all those in favor? Okay, passes unanimously. Um, We are now on item number four, which is oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for people wishing to address the committee on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to 3 minutes during this section. State law prohibits the CSC from acting on non-agendize items. Um, so any members of the public who want to provide comments. Um, put the raise hand button in Zoom or, and in person. Uh, fill out a speaker card if you have not already. And we have 1st in person, Bruce Kearney.

[00:04:17] Bruce Kearney: Thank you very much, ladies and more ladies. On Friday morning, I went to the SVCE executive committee meeting, um, and learned that SVCE's carbon emissions will be much higher this year than they have ever been before, and will be high again in 2025. Um, The concern, of course, is that these emissions would make it impossible for any city that's part of SVCE to see reductions in its greenhouse gas emissions, so at least 2026, even the rapid adoption of EVs won't be enough to offset the increased carbon content of electricity. I advocated at that meeting that, um, SVCE look harder and be willing to spend more to acquire, uh, 100% carbon free resources. Up until now, they always have. They do have carbon emissions in their power content label due to carbon dioxide that comes up from the geothermal project that they get power from in the memo that I've, that your places. This is the memo that I asked the, um, word secretary to send to the 6 members, the executive committee. So that that shows that the emissions went from 0 in 2017 and 2018 to £72 Excuse me, per megawatt hour, in the most recent year for which official data is available, and it will probably be higher in 2023. Definitely higher in 2024. Yet again, higher in 2025. I asked them to consider the social cost of carbon as they did their math. Um, the staff guesstimated that it would have cost them $20000000 to go to go back to fully carbon free. But the social cost of the carbon that they'll be emitting is 37, sorry, 33.7 million dollars. Using the number that the Biden administration has recently said, is should be used in all federal agencies, which is $190 per metric ton of CO2 equivalent. So, you know, we're in this challenging position where an organization that was created for the very purpose of helping cities improve their GHG emissions, is now going to be doing the opposite. An organization whose name talks about clean energy is going to be providing non-clean energy. Uh, I note that, um, PG&E and PCE, have both been cleaner than SVCE's most recent data. Now, I know many of the reasons why they've gotten into this box. Some of them are not of their own making. But rather than go down that path, I'll just stop and ask that the city of Mountain View's representative to the SVCE board will not support the move to go from clean to formerly clean. Thank you.

[00:07:21] Member Alison Hicks: So, Mr. Schmidt, I assume you're going to speak on the next item. Okay. And are there any virtual speakers? No, and any people who have not held out current yet? Okay. And they will move on to item number five, which is a new business. Uh, and the business is building reach code updates. This item will be presented by community development department staff, um, Ms. Hagen will commence the presentation.

[00:07:57] Ms. Hagen: Good evening, uh committee members. Um, so tonight, um, myself and Danielle are here seeking input and a recommendation from the committee on upcoming building um, reach code updates over the next year and a half . Um, if you could slide. Um, the reach codes, we are referring to, of course, those that are in our local building code, um, that as a city, we choose to basically go beyond the state code minimum to achieve our environmental and sustainability goals. The reach codes are typically, um, adopted or updated as part of the state triannual building code update. So once every 3 years, the next cycle is coming out next year. Um, we also partner with Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Um, and they will be helping us in drafting um, any of our proposed reach code updates. They will also be helping us with the 2025 reach code updates that might get tied to the new state code update. Um, Since, you know, we were here about a month and a half ago, um, I won't sort of go over the whole history of what got us here, but, um, I will say that really tonight we're looking for direction on proposed electric readiness, um, alternatives to what we had on the books. Um, as a way to respond to the outcome of the lawsuit from the Berkeley um, case. Um, so I would say if we only had one major takeaway from the lawsuit, it's really that, um, a city can encourage going electric, but we can't prohibit natural gas appliances. Um, and so a lot of our focus tonight is talking about these alternatives as well as, um, really our staff recommendation is focused on an approach that, um, is consistent with this court ruling. So slide. So if you guys, if you, uh, the community members recall, um, our last meeting, we had presented this slide with, um, the permit information, uh, for, um, permits that we've issued since our 2019 reach code, which was our 1st reach code. What we've, uh, gone ahead and done is update, um, along with it, the number of residential units that were impacted. So as you can see, in total, um, we're almost close to 1800 units that have essentially gone electric, um, with our code. So I think 1st of all, we should commend ourselves and the success that we've really had with our beach codes. And I want to just emphasize that really the alternatives we're talking about today will continue us on this path as trajectory. Um, If you could go to the next slide. So, um, looking at the alternatives that we mentioned last time and that uh, we'll be discussing today are really 3 options. Option one is looking at an expanded electric prewiring requirement. Option 2 is looking at an air quality approach or 0 knocks. Um, And then option 3 is really looking at this energy performance approach or single margin approach. So, um, if you could transition the next slide, we'll talk about, um, in particular, um, each of these. So starting with option one, the expanded pre-wiring requirement, um, this is really looking at requiring the installation from the service panel all the way to the natural gas appliance. Uh, the electrical wire, the outlet, labeling the voltage for future use, um, providing the space on the service panel for that electrical line, and then in some cases providing the actual space for the electric appliance itself in the future. Um, so essentially, this requirement is really having the applicant install all the electrical infrastructure that's required, um, to go electric, making it that much easier. If somebody were to pursue a natural gas appliance. It's also an option that applies to all, you can apply it to all development types. Um, and you do frequently see this combined with the energy performance approach um, or the option 2 or 3 basically. Um, this approach does, uh, amend the Calgary section of the state code or part 11, um, the benefit to this approach is really, um, I think one, we do anticipate some pre-wiring requirements to expand in the in the upcoming 2025 state code. So really transitioning and adopting this now would really help transition applicants for the upcoming code changes. Um, additionally, uh, as mentioned in the staff memo, um, It's, there's not a huge cost factor here because a lot of the projects that are impacted or would be required to do this, are already doing a lot of this electrical work. Um, and then lastly, I'll just, uh, note too, that this does still support, um, Bachmet's policy on requiring the 0 knocks, is you're, again, really putting in the electrical infrastructure that we're all going to need by 2027, um, to meet that deadline. So, um, going to the next slide, uh, looking at a little bit more detail, what exactly we would be looking at, um, potentially expanding on? The column on the left is representative of what's in the code today, the base requirement for new construction, for single family and multifamily. It covers a fair number of appliances. What you see on the right-hand side are all of the additional appliances or equipment that we are going to be looking into if this option's selected. Um, And really, it's more focused on capturing sort of outdoor equipment, fireplaces, fire pits, um, and some heat pumps and other things. So, um, the idea behind uh, this expanded approach is, um, we could use our existing new construction and major renovation thresholds that we have in place today. And just to jog everyone's memory, major renovations. I'm really referring to existing buildings, where renovations, um, that impact more than 50%, the structural components trigger basically the same rules as new construction. considered a major investment at that point. On the other piece of this approach is really looking at maybe evaluating a lower threshold, of which we would trigger, uh, pre-wire requirements. So we could also look at, for example, maybe a kitchen remodel where it's a pretty clear scope of work of what's happening and requiring pre-wiring at that phase. Or as we mentioned last time, uh, a touch it, pre-wire it approach. Um, and so that kind of covers some of the the options that we can pursue under this approach. Um, moving on to the next um, option 2 is the air quality approach. Um, and so this really looks at, um, regulating air quality emissions from equipment or appliances in the local building code. Um, the key example we have seen here, heard about is really the 0 um, nitrogen oxide or 0 knocks, a footment requirement. Um, and this particular approach is looking at amending part 11 or Calgary of state code. The benefit of this approach is that it most closely aligns with what we sort of had on the books, um, before the lawsuit took took effect or the outcome of lawsuit. Um, I would say some of the challenges with this approach is really, um, that there isn't 0 Knox equipment available on the market. And so there is this, uh, potential for being in conflict with the ruling of the court, um, and not allowing options for the public. Um, additionally, I think, you know, one of the challenges here is that we've really only seen the application for single family residential and not the other development types that, um, were typically interested in pursuing. Um, looking at the last option. Go to the next slide. Um, is the energy performance approach, and this approach is really regulating the energy performance from equipment. Um, that's sort of a set percentage above the state code. Um, and this is referred to typically as a single margin approach, and it can be applied to pretty much all development types. Um, This option would be one that requires amending the energy. And so it does require the cost effectiveness study and approval from the California, you know, energy commission. Um, the benefit to this approach is that it is utilizing an existing permit requirement submitted requirement um, for this energy report. Um, and, uh, it's also one that we've been talking to local jurisdictions. Um, it does seem to be that for the ones, you know, for the cities that have come forward with what they plan to do next, such as the city of Palo Alto. It is the option that they're leading towards. Um, as our kids' neighbor. Um, If you can move on to the next slide. So looking at a little bit more detail of what the energy performance approach sort of looks like, um, If you pretend that this is a new single family home that's being constructed, The image on the left represents a single family home that's built under the current state code. And so as part of this option, they are required to install solar. Um, they could have a gas furnace, they would install certain building envelope improvements, so things like, um, certain insulation and certain windows, um, to meet energy efficiency requirements, LED lighting, things like that. And in this case, they had a heat pump water heater. Um, with the energy performance approach, it's essentially a two-pronged piece to how this is actually implemented. The easiest option is to go electric. And with that option, which is often referred to as a prescriptive option. Uh, essentially, in this case, the, the homeowner, whoever's building this home would have to just install a, um, heat pump HVAC system instead of a gas furnace. And then they would meet the energy performance. Um, if somebody wanted to maintain a gas furnace, for example, in this case, um, what would be required for them to do is a lot more work on figuring out what other components of the project, they could implement that would still allow them to meet the energy performance. So they have to make up for it in some other way. In this particular sort of simplified example, um, they have a gas furnace that they've kept, um, and instead they've installed this battery storage, uh, system. So effectively, they could run, uh, you know, lessen their electric demand, uh, in theory. Um, so this is sort of just a very simple picture of how this ends up being implemented overall. Um, so, kind of considering all these, uh, options, um, has proposed the sort of 2 pronged approach, this 2 phased approach. Phase one is something that we could complete this calendar year, um, and it's really looking at expanding the pre-wiring requirements. So looking at option one. Um, and Stops proposing to, um, retain the existing city thresholds we have in place for new construction and major renovations and essentially adding the pre-wiring requirements. One thing I will mention is, um, you know, folks are familiar with pre-wiring requirements, not only because it's already in the state code, but also we previously had it implemented as part of any project that did install a gas appliance. They were previously required to install pre-wiring. So for us, it's a very similar practice here. Um, and this, uh, ordinance that we would bring forward, we would target to bring forward a council and Q4 of this year, uh, for consideration of adoption. Again, the target effective date would be January 1st of 2025. And so the goal would have, would be to have that in place for at least the whole, uh, year of 2025. Uh, pivoting to kind of our phase 2 ordinance approach, um, which we would sort of accomplish next year would be, um, really being strategic about doing the update as part of the 2025 triangual state building code update. We would incorporate an energy performance approach as part of that. It's also something to keep in mind, there may be other reach code updates that will come as part of the new state code. And so the idea is to really wrap this all into one ordinance that we would bring forward. Additionally, um, we, at that point, would also be looking at additional pre-wiring we could look at in terms of having the lower threshold. Like the kitchen renovations or other things, we could incorporate into this phase 2 ordinance. Um, and so the target for that uh, would be the Q4 of 2025 to bring that forward to council for uh, consideration of adoption. And then, um, again, the target being uh, effective date being January of 2026. Um, and so I think, you know, in staff's approach to, um, developing our recommendation, we really tried to kind of balance all the different factors that are at play here. I think one is, you know, we still want to be mindful of what our ultimate goals are here in terms of, um, going electric, uh, wanting to support Mahmed's efforts and preparing folks for going electric. Um, and so, uh, you know, uh, encouraging that infrastructure to be put in place, um, now is important. Um, the other part of this is also looking at, um, an option that, uh, we think has the greatest chance of being successful, really meaning, um, and successful in the coming years. Uh, so ones that, you know, don't have a lot of major risk legally. Um, and I think the, the other important part that we considered is really being mindful, the fact that we're at kind of a pivotal point in the fact that we're about to hit a new code cycle. Um, and so really being mindful of the transition into the 2025 code cycle for for everyone and trying to be efficient and effective in how we manage that timeline. So, um, I provided, we provided this in this timeline in the memo. I won't go over it and painstaking detail right now, but I will say the red box kind of represents where we're at today. Um, I think an important part to highlight as part of this is we really tried to be mindful of our efforts and how it correlates, um, both with work that Silicon Valley clean energy's doing. Also with the state and the state code. So, um, we're really trying to balance a lot of, uh, different timelines that are sort of overlapping and impactful. Um, and and picking a path that makes the most sense and can be most effective in how we adopt and implement this, um, these codes. Um, and so with that, Uh, one of the other major factors that we wanted to kind of touch base on was the community education and engagement. That was discussed at the last CSC meeting. Um, and so really for phase one, we're looking at putting content on our website, um, once we get direction from Council in June. And for phase 2, um, since it is a much larger update, um, it's going to be a more comprehensive kind of community engagement process there with our website, newsletters. We do typically have community meetings when it comes to reach code updates and adoption. And then, um, as also previously discussed at the last meeting is really ongoing education. and developing that content. Both in print and online. Um, and so next steps, um, following input from the CSC tonight, uh, we will forward and bring that input to council, um, for, uh, sort of final direction from council on the path forward. And we are anticipating to go to council on June 25th. Via that meeting. Um, and then once we get uh, direction from the council on June 25th. We will immediately kind of begin work on phase one. Um, and by the time we're sort of done with phase one at the end of the year, we're pretty much pivoting into preparing for the phase two. coordinating on that. Um, and so with that, that concludes Steph's presentation. Okay,

[00:23:27] Member Alison Hicks: thank you very much. Now it's time for any questions. We might have our little committee numbers. Okay, now just have questions. I had a question, uh, a couple, which is

[00:23:42] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: on the plane, uh, with the number of, um, Units, sort of. I, I, I, are those all, um, Renovations or are these new buildings as well mixed in?

[00:23:59] Ms. Hagen: So, um, this would include a combination of new units that existing. It's really just meant to be the units touched, I guess, are impacted by the reach code. Okay. And

[00:24:10] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: then, um, with the, the 2 phases, the 2nd phase, is the timing really to the, um, match the, the triennial building code update. I guess that question is, is, Does it make sense too, or can we do it sooner, um, Is it that, yeah, is it that, are you recommending me because of, you'd have to do the update anyway? Yeah,

[00:24:43] Ms. Hagen: I think our, uh, the challenge with trying to do it sooner is you're going to be basing it on our current, the current state code and the energy factors in other pieces are going to be potentially updated in the 2025. Yeah. So I think we're trying to balance sort of what's changing at the base level for us to then build the reach code on. And so it makes a lot of sense for us to be doing that based on the 20. 2025. And there's no, like, preview,

[00:25:08] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: they, they don't give us any, um, you know, preview or of

[00:25:12] Ms. Hagen: when's coming or do they at all? So I think to answer a question, the preview of what we really get is what we see play out or transpire, um, in the different uh, groups that work through. The way the sort of state building codes updated. It's broken up into different groups that kind of manage different updates to different sections. Um, and so really you just see the conversations they have in public meetings or you hear about. And so that's more of what you're seeing play out. Um, And so that is information that is available now and will be continued to be available to the end of the year while they're going through sort of all their hearing processes. Um, so really that's kind of the main information that's available. The problem with it is it's not the final language. And it's not the final version that we then as a city have to build off of when we come to adopt. So we, having the actual code available, um, is really important for us to then build it off of. But a lot, there is pre-work that happens. In terms of like what Silicon Valley, energy can help with and developing. Um, But it's, it's doesn't really start until about, well, until next year. Yeah, until they're at the party next year.

[00:26:31] Member Pat Showalter: Yeah, I was just generally wondering about the additional reduction in GHG emissions between phase one and phase two. How much more? Um, reduction do we get? It phase two. You

[00:26:48] Danielle: know that? We had some conversation with Silicon Valley Queen energy about this, asking this very question. We don't have a very good way to predict them at all. They were sort of like, you have to, Implement and then retroactively look at the impact of the code and because we're all in the process of switching to these different forms because of the reach codes, having been challenged in the course, we don't know. Okay.

[00:27:19] Member Pat Showalter: Because I think that's a legitimate question too, is we might, we might do phase one and, and see what is in the code next year and decide that it's adequate. And then again, we might not. You know, but it's, that's, that's a possibility. The other thing I was a little interested. I wanted to hear you talk a little bit more about is it's cost effectiveness study. Um, because that's one of the precursors, right, for the, the, um, the, the Knox version, right? Uh,

[00:27:50] Ms. Hagen: it's a requirement for the energy for the energy.

[00:27:54] Member Pat Showalter: Okay, for this one. All right. So, um, you know, I, is that gonna be a, sort of a general one that everybody can use? I mean, you talked a little bit about.

[00:28:05] Ms. Hagen: Did you talk about that a little bit more for us? Yeah. Um, so it's a great question. I think, um, I guess 1st off, uh, to kind of understand what the cost effectiveness study really is, it's really looking at the cost and investment up front to do the requirement. and how you save money over time with its energy efficiency or whatever. Um, and so in terms of a benefit, in in this case, in our approach, is us waiting and sort of doing it as part of the 2025 building code update, is part of, uh, the work that Silicon Valley clean energy does, is they look at sort of what cities, you know, are proposing and thinking about and sort of helping us frame, um, our reach codes. And they will help us do studies at that time that a lot of us can use the same study. But a big factor of that is, you know, making sure that our approach aligns with what that study is covering. Um, and so I think that's where, yeah, having that regional consistency is really helpful in that manner, um, because it does allow us to use like the same studies and, um, over the years. My understanding is the California Energy Commission has been okay with us sort of multiple cities using the same study as long as it's covering the same complaint.

[00:29:23] Member Pat Showalter: Well, I just ask that because in my experience, cost benefit analysis have been an excuse for um, for people to narrow their view about some things. And in other cases, people have used them, you know, very expansively to, you know, to look at many factors and it, and it really depends on how it's done. And, um, so I'm a little, you know, I've had some real experience. Particularly with a corps of engineers, that has been very damaging, their their methodology. Another thing I wondered about is, and I think you said it, is that this cost benefit analysis would really be about the benefit for that person who's making the investment in their house. Um, it would be, it's not, um, it would be in terms of electrical, because there are other cost savings. For instance, I, we quantify the health costs. I mean, health benefits associated with a reduction in um, air quality. You know, I mean, an improvement in air quality are real. Um, they might not happen to any individual, you know, at any particular time, but from a societal basis, they're very real. So, um, and I, I'm, I always am, you know, I think sometimes making these things, you know, you want to make them work, you want to have them simplistic enough to work, but you don't, you don't want to have them to be so simplistic that they don't really represent it. What is the value for our society? And, you know, the value of this is obviously, it's a value for these individuals. Um, if they save money, I get that as a value. But as a society, I see this collected improvement in our health as much more than just an individual thing. It's a, you know, it's a, it's a societal value. So I just wanted to ask you, is there any inkling about talking about health costs? It's

[00:31:22] Ms. Hagen: a great question. I think, um, I think a different way I might sort of refrain, reframe that is the cost effectiveness studies really looking at the quantitative. I think what you're getting at is also qualitative, right? You're looking at sort of the other, um, benefits or impacts that this action has. And I think part of that is really, um, the city can frame that. That, um, you know, the benefits to it. But I think in terms of what this cost effect and studies actually looking at, it really is more of the quantitative numbers. of cost and savings. Well,

[00:31:58] Member Pat Showalter: you could apply quantitative numbers for the health benefits. But that's much more difficult to do. And it's something that, as a society, we haven't done very much. Um, um, okay. Well, anyway, I just wanted to bring that up. because I think that, you know, as leaders in our community. The health benefits associated with this are very important, and we shouldn't be forgetting that. You got

[00:32:21] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: some of that at... Oh, good. It's a ban. There was quite a bit of research done. And yeah, it was because of the public health effects that being decided to ban that bounce and ships and appliances. Good. Well, there's more and more, and I heard that the air district, there's more and more of a connection with public health. We have, um, physicians,

[00:32:52] Member Pat Showalter: we, we have, but. So maybe we would have some information that we could be used with, this process is one. Okay, well, I just wanted to bring that. Any

[00:33:02] Member Alison Hicks: other questions? No. I guess I'll go and comment on it too. I mean, there are other public benefits, which is fighting the climate crisis and being able to ensure... Of course, we're very on a bit of a political fight here, and I don't think that will come into the calculation. So, um, my questions are, 1st what, um, The table that member, Abikoga, Put up, do you, do you just have an overall sense, how many are remodels and how many are new buildings? I know it's not. I apologize. I don't

[00:33:40] Ms. Hagen: even have like a feel for it. Um, I could tell you we, um, generally have about 50 to 75, for example, um, new single family homes built a year. So I could tell you of those numbers, that's roughly what we typically see.

[00:33:58] Ms. Hagen: Um, So a fair number of these are going to be new builds, but and not all renovations trigger this. So that's the other piece of it. Um, So this would just be major renovations. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's a number quite a bit of new builds and then, yeah. Oh, right. And then like the 990 stood out to me when I when I was pulling this data together. Um, it's really because of COVID, uh, a lot of the major multifamily projects we had under construction took a number of years, but in that one year alone, we had, um, 4 major projects come on. I get final. Thank you. Yeah. More detail. And then

[00:34:43] Member Alison Hicks: we talked about it. I'm not gonna ask this question at length because we talked about it in the last meeting, just similar to this one. Um, but what do you have more clarity on? The, whether or not the, all electric appliances and so forth are required, how you'll, how you'll speak to customers or, you know, people coming in, uh, particularly, people doing single family homes. I know that when we did it, um, even though it wasn't a requirement in any way, we really would have appreciated being told about heat pumps, um, which we did not end up getting because this was, you know, 15 years ago or 12 years ago, but we really would have been, uh, been appreciated, we really would have appreciated being told where it was, you know, what's a good direction to go in for the future and we wouldn't have found it intrusive at all. So I'm wondering if you found, you know, language for that or brochures for that or we talked about it a little before, but what your thoughts are. Yeah,

[00:35:45] Ms. Hagen: I think what, um, what our 2 departments have really started talking about is how we can, um, I guess, create more of a hub of information. So, when you're coming, for example, on our website, for information about, say, a permit to replace an appliance, combining the information that's available to not only be about a permit process, but also, what rebates are out there or what sort of, um, to your point, what other factors should I consider, what to go electric as part of this is one of the options. So, um, I think that is something that, uh, as we go through this process over the next year and a half we'll be developing more of that. Um, but I think to answer your question about specific brochures, I'm not particularly aware of anything, but, um, but I think there's also other folks that we can reach out to and that are sort of, uh, you know, Silicon Valley Queen Energy has a bunch. There's also other groups. So I think a lot of it is just, um, pulling a lot of that information together, it kind of, making it easy process.

[00:36:46] Unknown Speaker: I might add, um, there is work at the state level, um, in this regard, the switches on as a statewide campaign to promote electrification. So, They've done a lot of research just how to, to talk about it, um, in a way that people will be receptive to. And then at the local level, we've received a grant from Silicon Valley clean energy to, um, talk with, um, subsets of our community, maybe more linguistically isolated members of the community or just, you know, other, um, disadvantaged community members to talk up to, to understand how to talk about decarbonization, if, culturally and linguistically appropriate ways. So, you know, the state level, how do we talk about it to a broad audience and then even more locally? How do we speak to our full community about it? So we'll be conducting some of that research this year? Um, and we'll be incorporating all of those findings into the average materials that we develop.

[00:37:44] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. Well, that sounds good. I just encourage you also to find some way to just not just talk about rebates, but to say, This is the future. This is the direction things are going in, so you might want to think about it. Okay, so now we're at a point. We're at the point where we take comments from the public. Um, I have, um, So if you have not submitted a speaker card yet, please do so. And start off with, I have Bran Schmidt, and then loads first. Uh,

[00:38:24] Brian Schmidt: uh, good evening, Brian Schmidt. I'm a former Mountain View resident and moved some years ago to San Mateo County, and I'm the executive director of Menel Spark, which works in the city of Menel Park on climate change issues and in the broader, broader region. If I can briefly mention Rebecca, you and I didn't overlap in memo park, but I heard great things about the work you used to do. Um, so I wanted to say that, uh, looking at what, what, uh, City Mountain View is talking about and seeing this in a bunch of different places as well. I want to say we, I think the idea of supporting expanded pre-wiring is an excellent idea, and it should move forward as staff is, as stated. And the energy performance approach is also far better than doing nothing at all, which is what Sam Rafael is doing right now. They recently rescinded their reach codes, and as far as I know, they have no plans to do anything in response. I think they're more could be done. That's what I wanted to bring up to you today, particularly looking at the 0 Knox approach. I do want to agree with staff, there are potential legal issues with that approach. It is not clear at all, though, that it is illegal. It is an area that hasn't been discussed. The court itself says that the preemption provision in the federal law is broad, but it is not unlimited. It hasn't been defined whether it would affect something like this, which is not a facial ban on gas, big gas equipment. Um, so what we would like to recommend you consider is what the city of Menlo Park is considering. Their environmental quality commission suggested a dual approach, enacting both a 0 knocks, standard, and 0 knocks ordinance, and an energy performance approach. With the idea being that if that the 0 Nox approach would control. I think it's fairly simple to just say, this part of our code controls as long as it's legal. Um, and if it ever gets thrown out, then the energy performance approach is in place. Uh, one of the advantages of that would be that you could do that, the fact of the 0 knocks. Effectively, you can do it now. You do 2 readings and it's in. It's just what you had before. It's relatively simple. City of Los Altos Hills did it. Um, in addition to the city, Mental Park, considering at the city, uh, Berkeley is considering it as well. It went to the May City Council meeting and got referred, referred to the environmental committee of the city. So a lot of places are looking at this. Um, and, uh, if there is some hesitation to doing that, one alternative approach would be to do exactly what the city of Los Altos Hills has done, and have a 0 knocks for residential development approach, uh, taken. So, applies to an ox residential. If you're concerned about how it might have an effect on non-residential properties. I don't think you need to do that, but that might be one way to compromise on that issue. Um. And uh, the advantages of having a quick action on 0 knocks, you had a, you know, most of the time that there's, there were 1800 buildings that were affected by the previous ruling. You'll have a 19 month delay. If you wait for the energy performance approach, there's a chance to do something now. Thank you. Thank you. I may have to answer any questions. Nice to see you.

[00:41:42] Member Alison Hicks: Okay, now we have Palo Achelon.

[00:41:48] Hal Shawani: Good evening, everyone. My name is Hal Shawani. Just a couple of quick comments and they may have been addressed to the previous meeting, which, uh, I'm sorry, I missed that. Um, I'm not sure if the city's planning to, to do any, uh, additional monetary incentives rebates to Silicon Valley Clean Energy and, you know, the other existing one because I think that's always a great incentive for, for folks to, um, You know, like I said, mentioned that before, any uh, financial incentives are usually they speak loud and people get excited about that. And the other thing is, um, the previous, um, Brian, thank you, Brian. Uh, sort of have mentioned I had asked 2 meetings ago. If the staff has looked at other cities and what they have done, I know some cities actually stood their ground. They are, were allowing the gas, uh, ranges, but they are gonna keep the, the reach code, the, the, the remainder of the reach code in effect. And I just wondered if the city has looked at that. San Francisco is one city, and then I was going to bring up the, the Knox, uh, um, approach where several cities have, have approach, but I think uh, Brian has done a good job with that, so. Thank you.

[00:43:08] Member Alison Hicks: So this last call for speak- in-person speaker, are there any online speakers here at 3 speakers starting with Robert Mayo? Robert, are you there?

[00:43:24] Robert Mayo: Hi, my name is Robert Mayo. Um, living on West Dana Street. Um, I would like to mention some points from the email that I sent this afternoon. Um, as you know, the climate crisis is urgent. Just this week, we saw news of record heat in India and Mexico City running out of water. When Mountain View and other cities drop strong climate policies, it helps not only local residents, but helps to enable state level policies. I commend the city for what has been done so far. However, the proposal presented seems weaker than the suspended code by avoiding the air pollution approach, and by deferring increased energy performance requirements until the 2025 code cycle. I asked the city to start immediate work on developing all 3 of the proposed options with the intention of adopting all of them as soon as possible as a multi-layered approach. One, rules to require extensive pre-wiring, 2 rules for the air quality approach, so the ordinance is the strongest and one before. And please explore whether this works better as an ordinance unrelated to building codes, using a different authority. And three, rules following the energy performance approach to be put into effect as soon as possible, not waiting until the Xcode cycle. Furthermore, I hope you consider building code carrots for extensive all electric renovations. For example, perhaps you could allow larger floor areas or relaxation to certain code or planning requirements as a benefit. Thank you.

[00:45:04] Hal Shawani: Thank you Gohendra? Make DeHendra, are you there?

[00:45:15] Kehandra: Uh, yeah, thank you very much. I'm here. Can hear me?

[00:45:19] Unknown Speaker: We can.

[00:45:20] Kehandra: Okay, yeah, thank you. I am Kehandra. Very new to Mountain View, and I recently joined CCL Silicon Valley North. I have just one question. I appreciate the plan prepared by the staff. I think the face-wise plan. looks very good. But looking at the plan. I just wanted to know whether you have also, you know, assessed any risks. while you implement your phase one or phase two, there could be definitely some risks we have to anticipate. So what sort of, you know, hindering forces can be here. I think that staff have also definitely looked assessed into those risks. So I just wanted to know whether that has been, you know, carried out any risk assessment for this phase one and phase 2 as well. Thank you.

[00:46:17] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. We don't, we don't really do uh, during public comment, uh, question an answer session, but maybe it will come up during council comments. Is there another public speaker? Mary DayTL? Okay, Mary?

[00:46:32] Mary DayTL: Oh, good evening. and um, congratulations. Um, I'm the numbers of uh, all electric units over the past several years is uh, Pretty exciting to see. So congratulations to council and staff. Um, that's great. I'm hoping we can get back to that. Um, I'm hoping that, um, you pursue as aggressive, um, uh, remediation, remedial coding or whatever it is we have to do to try to get back to where we were. Um, uh, because we really, we can't afford to backslide at all. Um, also, I think, um, You know, I think we can't rely on the state to be as aggressive as we would like and the more local um, organizations that move forward and aggressive manner, I think, puts some pressure on the state to move forward, um, more aggressively too. So I think to keep that in mind. Um, Then, uh, education, um, I just wanted to mention, um, we're talking about somebody comes in for gas. Hey, suggest electric. I'd like to add to that if somebody comes in to get a permit for AC, which maybe they don't usually bother to do, but if they do, um, instead of AC, if our education could suggest to people they install the heat pump instead. And then the 4th thing that I wanted to mention about the pre-wiring, um, I thought I saw in one slide mention made of not just pre-wiring, but also allowing space. And I think that can be critical, especially maybe in the case of heat pump. So somebody installs, um, instant, uh, a tankless, uh, gas water heater, and then, um, puts the wiring in, but doesn't allow floor space and venting for an electric hot water heater, a heat pump, and later on, um, they're still gonna be facing some barriers. It's going to be a little bit difficult. So I don't know if that's can be something that is included, um, uh, somewhere along the way, maybe in phase two, but just, um, maybe give some thought to what makes sense there. I guess the final, I don't think, I don't know. Um, it's gonna be hard to be perfect, but if our pre-wiring causes everybody to have to install 300 amp panels for exist instance, which is crazy over estimate, but just, you know, just for the sake of argument, um, then that's gonna be way expensive. And so I think the pre-wiring needs to stay on top of like whatever the latest developments are, for example, now we have 120 volt, um, heat pump water heaters. Maybe pre-wiring 120 volts is sufficient. Um, so we don't want to cause people to have to over, uh, size their panels because that's expensive, not just for the person, but for society overall. Thank you.

[00:49:39] Member Alison Hicks: Thank you. Do we have any more virtual comment? Okay. Um, so, now we're at the point where the committee, uh, discusses what we've heard and may make a motion or should make some kind of motion. Uh, to recommend the city council, uh, direct staff to further electrification readiness. Um, So, are there comments by, or comments or motions by committee members? Or questions,

[00:50:22] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: additional questions? So, um, it has to do with the, um, adoption to the 0 knocks. Um, approach, and I guess I'm trying to understand how that would work with the, my role. So the buffet really well that starts in 2027. So if we were to take that approach, ours would just be earlier, is that, basically?

[00:50:48] Ms. Hagen: Ah, yes. The back mid approach, uh, correct. So it's it's a phased in requirement. So it starts in 2027. Um, I will say a big sort of difference, um, the, if we were to adopt something in phase two, let's pretend, um, that would become effective starting 2026. So it would be ahead of the curve in that respect. Um, I will say, our local building code, you know, obviously, we're looking at what permits come in and triggering requirements, um, I think back myths, policy approach, um, and how they're sort of ultimately going to implement it, a lot has to do with a point of sale, which is a sort of a totally different ball game. It has a big impact to helping cities achieve this.

[00:51:39] Unknown Speaker: I just add, um, all of the proposals, options one, 2, and 3 are all compatible with Bachman's activity. So, their van will be supportive of any of the options.

[00:51:49] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: Yeah, and that's what I was trying to understand from a legal perspective. Like, we understand challenged on our, on the air district, uh, rule, not, so not. So, It seems like it's,

[00:52:04] Ms. Hagen: you know, okay, and then,

[00:52:06] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: and I guess that was my question is, can, the air districts rule, potentially, like, protect us or, but, you know, support us up. If we were to do a 0 dogs.

[00:52:21] Ms. Hagen: Um, I mean, I don't think we can respond from a legal perspective since, um, none of us are attorneys in this room, but I will say, um, you know, They really are structured in different ways. So ours would be adopted in our local code. BackMitz is acting at a jurisdictional level, which obviously impacts many counties. Um, and so really the level of governance and the requirements are sort of different. Um, they very much align and help us achieve something together. Um, I think back myths, sort of policy decision, um, is really gonna be impactful because once you start shifting the supply. You're really going to be impacting the demand and effectively make it a lot easier to have all electric. So, um, it's a really key important point in terms of how we kind of meet all of our environmental goals, but, um, I will say just this, yeah, the structure of how they're set up is very different. So it's hard to say one really protects the other because either could get challenged. Um, I would just add,

[00:53:24] Danielle: um, city attorney logus on the call via Zoom, but, um, you know, just wanted to mention that, that she has joined us as well.

[00:53:36] City Attorney Logus: Would you like me to try to address the question? Uh, council member Abakoga about whether or not Bakmed's adoption would potentially protect us. Yes, that would be great. Okay. So, unfortunately, I don't think their adoption of the policy would protect us. It is, it is possible that we could adopt, say, for instance, a 0 Knox ordinance and we could be sued and Bakmed could not be part of that lawsuit. And as a result of our lawsuit, either our ordinance is upheld and supports what Bachmed has done or ours is stricken, and that would impact Bachmed. So unfortunately, we kind of just all ride along together and it depends on who is the subject of the legal action that informs, you know, the action taken by all of all of their entities, even at the county and state level, um, particularly if it's, you know, a federal court's ruling. So we couldn't really rely on them for protection. Um, maybe, uh, they would be challenged before we would, and would take on the fight, um, and and that fight would benefit us. But, um, it just kind of depends on how the legal action comes if it comes. But, let's

[00:55:03] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: say we were sued and 26, but the air district will come then to play in 27. Does that eliminate the legal challenge in any way or no? So

[00:55:16] City Attorney Logus: if we, so let's say we adopted, um, and we were challenged in 26 prior to theirs going into effect. And a court found that 0 Knox regulations were unenforceable. Now again, it would depend on the scope of the determination. Um, what Bakmet has done is a little different than I think what we would be doing. Again, you know, they're addressing point of sale. We would be our ordinance would be impacting, um, the usage in, um, in a building or a home. Um, and so depending on how the challenge came. If a court found that 0 Knox was unenforceable and the decision was broad enough, it could, it could effectively, um, make it impossible for Vakmed to enforce. Even before 2027. So it would just undermine it. That's assuming a bad ruling, right? Um, and one that was broad enough to encompass Bachmed's, um, uh, uh, regulations that they have adopted that would go into effect in future. So yes, it could have a future impact. So,

[00:56:33] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: um, I remember with the air district rule, you know, we weren't, again, we weren't banning it, but basically requiring 0 knocks appliances, it just happens to be that there are none that are natural gas, but it doesn't prevent anyone from, you know, building a natural gas, right?

[00:56:56] Ms. Hagen: So I think that was our way of being

[00:56:58] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: able to uphold this. Um, and that's what, um, yeah, like, I guess I'm trying to see if there's some way that are. We could argue that. Yeah, I think. Sorry, going.

[00:57:16] City Attorney Logus: I think the struggle that we're having, and Lindsay and I talked about this, um, a couple of times at length, um, trying to figure out if there was a way around it. But the language and then ninth circuit decision that, that I'm really struggling with on, on how we can get around it is, You know, the court said that by, by enacting the EPCA, Congress ensured that states and localities could not prevent consumers from using covered products in their homes, kitchens, and businesses. And so, It does not, you're right, adopting the ordinance now does not prevent people from developing these appliances and hopefully it would have the effect of incentivizing the development of these impliances, right? Because people need to buy them now. So, I mean, that would be the goal, but until those appliances become available. We would be doing what the ninth circuit has said, enactment of the EPSA, APCA was designed to accomplish, which was to not prevent consumers from using these covered products. And so they wouldn't be able to do it until the product until the products were developed. So that's, it's, it's, Might be tough to get around that statement in the, in the opinion. And that's where we're struggling. And there's a risk for the city. And

[00:58:46] Ms. Hagen: I think I'll just add part of, um, what you do often see with, and what BackMed has done in their approach is they have a long lead time. It's basically announcing to the world to the marketplace. Get ready. In 2 or 3 years, we're hitting you with this new requirement. And that lead time effectively is giving the market, supply, the ability and sort of the producers of products to sort of make the shift. And so it's really key and how that stuff gets implemented successfully. Um, and so I think the challenge here with the reach code is we're looking to adopt something in the next year and a half , you know, over the next year and a half , these different metrics that, um, and methods for us to achieve what we're trying to achieve. So, um, It's a bit of a different approach.

[00:59:33] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I guess it's just a question of, you know, how much risk are you willing to take? And then, yeah, because we're really talking about a couple of years. I guess I'm kind of inclined to say, well, why don't we just do all three? Um, but yeah, leave that opinion to, yeah, my colleagues here, I'd like to hear about how you feel about it. Well,

[00:59:57] Member Pat Showalter: I'm just really interested in the difference in, uh, GHG emission reduction that we get from one of these methodologies versus the next. Like, I mean, have you, um, now that we have rescinded this reach called, are, are, are we seeing a run of people who are putting in gas stoves?

[01:00:20] Ms. Hagen: Um, so, We've had a handful of projects that were under construction who have asked to retain a gas appliance. Um, and by a handful, I need fiber less. So, um, that's just at the stages they're at. Um, in terms

[01:00:38] Member Alison Hicks: of, um, I ask a show-up question. Are those all gas stoves? Because I've heard that among all the appliances, those are the ones that we really should worry about the least. Yes. Okay. That's not huge.

[01:00:50] Ms. Hagen: Um, and then, um, in terms of, you know, we've gotten definitely a lot of inquiries about folks who are in the process or have issued gotten permit issued our new construction asking us questions. Um, as of right now, we haven't had anyone. It's only been a month or so. If you haven't anyone, had anyone submit revisions to their plans? Um, but they have asked this question, so to us, that's potentially leading to people, um, to coming in and revising their projects, but, um, we have not actually had a provision submitted yet. Well,

[01:01:26] Member Pat Showalter: well, I just, you know, what we really care about is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I always think that the least amount of regulation to get the required action is the best. Um, because people, There's always somebody who takes umbrage. at additional regulations. So, That's what I really want to know is what's, you know, what, what, what's the amount of regulation that we need in order to, um, have this desire outcome. And it just seems logical to me, although everything is illogical, that, you know, particularly for new construction. You know, it's just less expensive. If it's just all electric. And it's been happening for 3 or 4 years and there's a little bit of track record. So, it just seems very unlikely that new construction are going to want to put in. Um, yes, but they might. So, I, um... Yeah. So that's, so I, oh, sorry. So, so, so that's one thing, I'm interested. And the other thing, I, I, I'm interested in the, that it, is that I think we should, we should be working on identifying and, and we should probably do this with, uh, in concert with, uh, Fulcan Valley, Clean Energy, is one of the provisions that are needed for the federal energy policy and conservation. I think that's also something we should be. And, um, We shouldn't do it by ourselves, mind you. What? But clearly, this is very old law. It's like a 50 year old law, and uh, things need to be updated. It needs to be updated. What is it about it, then needs to be changed? So this isn't a problem any longer. Yeah, that's one of the reasons we do things like belong to NLC. And that's like I said, so in the California, you know, so we can do that. So I think that's another track. I'd like to see us work on, uh, related to this. Sorry. No that's fine. Um, yeah, so, my,

[01:03:30] Member Alison Hicks: my take on, your question about which of these, you know, the pre-wiring or, which of the 3 would be most effective or would the pre-wiring alone be enough is that, is that it's guests. We haven't, you're asking how people will react to them. And I, I don't think, I mean, tell me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that you're gonna, we're gonna know how people will react. It's kind of, I don't know, like a stand up comic. You don't know how people react to your jokes until you tell them sometimes. So I, I think that, So I, I, I don't think they're going to be able to give you a question. I think that we're taking our best guess at what will be effective. And then in terms of should we do the staff recommendation or add the Knox, I think we're taking our best guess on with legal advice on what the risk is. So, um, So, that's where I think we're at. Um, And I would do, at a minimum, the staff recommendation, I don't think the pre-wiring alone. With, for me, that's my best guess, that that, that. Well, that's just the 1st step. Yes, yes, yes. Great, let's stop the staff recommendation. And then I was not, um, I don't completely know what you're talking about the last thing you said. Maybe you can tell me. What is it that you want us to do in addition to this? Oh,

[01:04:52] Member Pat Showalter: I mean, the whole, the law that, um, the, the ninth circuit, um, said, brought up as, as, as, as the, as the basis for, you know, saying that, you're saying we should be

[01:05:05] Member Alison Hicks: fighting now. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'm down with that. Probably not in an ordinance.

[01:05:12] Member Pat Showalter: No, no, no, not tonight, no. Not even what it's tonight. It's just that it's kind of a related, you know, I mean, it's related to the fight. It's not. um

[01:05:23] Member Alison Hicks: Okay. So as for the discussion, I would say, for me, at a minimum, although you guys usually make a motion, because I'm here, at a minimum, the staff recommendation, and then we see how much extra risk they want, I'd love to get to, from y'all. Say it once again. I guess this is just recommendation to the accounts. Oh, so we can be risky of that you shoot us down. down. We can blame it on that.

[01:06:00] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: I definitely, you know, the stuff I expectation. Oh, that seems to be on that. That's a big joke for. Yeah.

[01:06:11] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah. And you feel, I think I, you know, share now, I feel. Well, I was gonna go with the staff recommendation. I was convinced by the report, but you know what? I'm like so close any one of you can push me over and I love that bring it to council and blame it on them if they should. Jerry

[01:06:37] Member Pat Showalter: Hicks. Yeah. Thank you. Um, If you do choose to add to lead a stat recommendation. We need to do a workload assessment on what this needs. This, what was brought for you to tonight with this toothpaste approach, including the fact the 2nd phase was going to be built into the triangle building code update. Was in recognition that the staff in planning is and building is carrying us very, very heavy workload. You have a lot of priorities. So city has a lot of priorities and deadlines that they have to meet. And, you know, I'm gonna refresh everybody's memories because I think it's good that we keep this in mind because when you actually look at the number of people in the department that can deliver this. It's, it's small. It's tiny and they're doing all the housing elements and we have a lot of items do by the end of 2024, some more in 2025. 2 precise plans, they are 3 zoning district. Uh, we're dealing with 5 builder remedy projects. We have a gatekeeper process, application open right now that they have to, uh, we don't know how many we're going to get 410 They have to do all that analysis over the summer, to be ready for the hearing in September. Um, Dark Skies ordinance. We want to get started on that. And then, of course, we have vacancies. So, you know, I would have to consult more with staff, about if additional gets added on, and then with the timing, what that would be. Would it wait for the triennial building code? That definitely makes a difference versus asking to do something or earlier or sooner, was 0 knocks. Um, and it would be something we would have to look at and be prepared to discuss with counsel in terms of, you know, resources and trade-offs. And

[01:08:39] Ms. Hagen: if I could just, um, piggyback off, just sort of circling back as to why staff didn't recommend doing all of them. So part of doing, uh, having all those layers of regulations, you know, putting aside how challenging that might be for just the public to understand what's in effect if it's all in our code. Um, this idea of kind of having, um, a switch or some kind of mechanism when one sort of regulation would be in place over another, um, effectively, if we were to have options, the the air quality approach and the energy performance approach, it would have to be more or less a one or the other. Um, that would be an effect. So, It's a scenario for us, it would be really challenging to implement. And I think, really what we've found in the last, you know, since 2019. The reason we can be so effective is because our rules and regulations we've put in place, our very, to, um, Committee member Shal Walters point. They're very clear, they're very direct. It's very understandable about what the threshold is that triggers it. And that's what makes it an effective process to implement and it's made us successful. I think once you start sort of layering these requirements. I think one of the concerns, um, that really we would have and implementing it is sort of what's in place, an active. When does it switch over to the other? Um, like what legal action makes that decision? Who makes that decision? And how does it impact all the permits that are in the process? I think to provide a little context, you know, Mountain View is unique in that, um, the volume of building permits that we process is typical of a city uh, that's one. 5 to 2 times our size. And so at any given time in a calendar year, we're looking at 7 to 8000 building permits that are active, meaning, you know, they're under construction, they're in uh, permit review or they've been issued and they're waiting for construction. And so if we were to change rules at a moment's notice, um, because one is litigated against and we're trying to sort of flip the switch to another set of regs, we then have to keep in mind, how is this impacting, you know, 1000s of permits that are at play. And so it's, it gets very challenging as from an implementation standpoint for how do we kind of manage? Who doesn't apply to, who doesn't, who's exempt from it? Um, and so really, I appreciate the discussion around having, um, as many sort of layers as possible and trying to capture, um, uh, as much as we can, with these regs, but it it, it can be very challenging to implement. And I think that is a missing piece of the conversation sometimes is about really the success in this is really how we can do it. Well,

[01:11:33] Member Alison Hicks: I'm being convinced with the workload and the difficulty of implementing, but the chair is not usually the person who makes the motion I can. Okay,

[01:11:42] Member Pat Showalter: I, I, I would like to make the motion for it and, um, the set of recommendation with one, um, thing that I would like to discuss. And that was, you mentioned, changing the threshold of when, um, the, uh, you know, the pre-wiring, the triggered. And, um, so, it seems like most of that is gonna be in kitchens, right? Whereas, that's just one idea, just one idea of, uh, professional, we could consider. Well, what does that do to the um, uh, to the implementation issue? I know that it's the standard is for many things, or triggered by, the 50% role. So, changing something that, that, There was a little bit of function, but, um, how. Is that something that comes in at phase 2 or can we do it as Facebook? Oh, where would that fit? Yeah,

[01:12:39] Ms. Hagen: it's a great question. I think, what, um, the building industry, what, um, cities are used to is the triangual update. So every 3 years, we're very much custom to having to change the rules. and having to prepare people for change rules. And so that's, again, part of the reason and rationale or, or wanting to package the, the, the more major to change that we're doing with an energy performance and what we're recommending, win the 2025 building code update, is because we're already doing that outrage engaging with people and what the changes are. And so at that point, we would also be discussing whatever threshold changes we're applying. And can you put month in 2025 is then? Um, so typically, we have our outreach. It has to be after July when they release the state code and we've started to draft some of the changes. So typically it's happening, um, within a month or 2 generally of kind of going to council. So you're looking at kind of August, September is typical. So, a level of age area. Sorry. Okay, so, I

[01:13:42] Member Pat Showalter: think with that in mind, it sounds like we can, we can, um, we can rent that into the triannual update. So I would just, um, move a step. We have a recommendation.

[01:13:53] Unknown Speaker: Do we have a second?

[01:13:55] Member Alison Hicks: A 2nd. Okay, any further discussion? Oh,

[01:14:01] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: um, I I was thinking, I forget who brought it up and and I guess this would probably have to be a separate item, but, um, I do like the idea of incentives. So if we can, um, you know, incentivize folks to go electric. Um, I think that is, you know, the next step that we should look at doing, and that's probably something we could do right away, and maybe we can talk to clean energy about that, see if there's some, um, funding, you know, resources that could be a program funding, and if that's something that they would consider. Um, implementing, um, yes, so, that would be the other approach too. So

[01:14:42] Member Alison Hicks: yeah, I think that's a great thing to add. Yeah, I would add that, and I would also add, um, that it has to be, uh, formalized in any way, but just information, in addition to incentives, information. Um, you know, my sister just redid her in Philadelphia, just redid her kitchen, didn't even think of anything besides a gas range. Nobody ever mentioned it to her and now she's sorry. So, you know, just telling people, and some people, believe it or not, some people have never heard of heat pumps. So just telling people that, you know, we're not going with horse and buggy. more black typewriters, you know, things move on, just telling people, what the future's going to be. I think is important. And not always. I mean, give people incentives, but just the basic information, which I know we all know about, but not everyone does.

[01:15:37] Member Margaret Abe-Koga: But just saying, you know, this is going to be banned, but this is not going to be sold in 2017. Right? 3 years, so they, they, should be insensitive for, like, because it takes a long time to, right, to remodel, right? And, yeah, we'll spend that amount of time. Right, planning for it. So, I, and why not, like, hooks know that.

[01:16:03] Member Alison Hicks: I probably said this last time. When I was in a plant, when I was a planner in San Jose, we had for single family homes, design guidelines, some of the things that we, I was supposed to tell people to do, there was no love involved that they had to do it. The neighborhoods just wanted them to do it. Others were, there was should and shall. And my, um, my boss trained me. She said, Just tell them everything we want them to do. If they ask which things they actually have to do, tell them. But, you know, just start out by saying, get an electric stove that, you know, they say, do I really have to? You can tell them, well, no. But. So, I, you know, I would just start out with that. Anyway, with that said, were you wanting what, what you said, written into the, the, yes. Okay. Would you accept that?

[01:16:56] Member Alison Hicks: Oh, definitely. Okay. So with that all those in favor? I, I, okay, passes unanimously. And we are now at, um, We are now at item 6, which is committee staff comments, questions, and committee reports. Um, and no action will be taken on any of these reports this time. Do any CSC members or staff have comments, questions, or reports? Oh,

[01:17:29] Member Pat Showalter: I just want to share that, um, I'm going to be going to the National Link of Cities summer meeting, um, on the, uh, for the energy environment and natural resources policy committee, and so, um, uh, we look at the resolutions that, um, uh, the NLC will be advocating for, you know, and if anybody's interested talking to about that. It's going to be in the middle of next month, but I think it's June third, June third. But I just want to share that, and, um, uh, And I want to thank everybody for, you know, sending staff for getting up up with this so quickly.

[01:18:09] Member Alison Hicks: Yeah, for sure. Yeah. Any other reports, statements? Okay, is that on item 7 adjournment? This meeting is adjourned at, can't see the clock approximately 8, 18. Very good.

• ← Previous
• Next →