HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-10-2017 - SchmidtREC
COUNCIL MEETING:
ITEM NO.: � Lm, , , „I JAN 0 9 2017
I i., r_, i=r%'
From: Richard Schmidt [
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 11:07 AM
To: E-mail Council Website <emailcouncil0slocitv.ore>
Subject: Agenda: Goal Setting Suggestions '
Dear Council Members,
Please see attached for ideas.
Richard
Dear Mayor Harmon and Council Members,
As part of the goal -setting process this year I'd like to urge the city to recommit to
making our city's lagging environmental commitments and policies what they should
and could be.
While that's a broad and on-going agenda, here are 3 specific items where I'd urge
action during goal setting.
1. Get moving on implementing net zero building construction rather than
minimally code -compliant construction.
"Net zero" (or "zero net") refers to buildings that over the course of a year "generate" or
"capture" as much energy as they use in a year's time — thus "net" zero even if at times
they still rely on external energy sources.
You may not be aware of it, but by 2020, less than 3 years from today, most new
residential construction in California is to be net zero, and by 2030 commercial
construction as well. We in the architectural community know how to do this, so I have
marveled at the low quality stuff being processed and approved even as we approach
the 2020 deadline and clearly know how to design better performing buildings. (Please
note that contrary to misinformation in some of our city's planning documents, buildings,
not transportation, are the largest sector of energy consumers. In fact, buildings
consume about half the nation's energy budget. So it's smart, if one seriously wants to
reduce GHG emissions, to go after the largest source.)
The state's public utilities and energy commissions are jointly charged with helping local
agencies roll out 2020's residential net zero, and they strongly recommend that local
jurisdictions phase in the change gradually so there's a learning curve and not a huge
unfamiliar hurdle in January 2020.
Here is a graphic showing what the state recommends cities do. 2020 is in the center of
the chart, and you can see there is encouragement for "ramping up" before 2020.
Meeting California's
ZNE Goals
75%
3
34% X34%21
6xeVn9 geaJin9s _ 50%
2.5% 16%
2010 2030
�,Wr� zany Ea Ma msL i ole Ma oN r
�dnote:s 'ty I Y I Y ;y7a*'=
--J �„ie,n acs. ��, a,ne: meidnais�
r a
MI.—aa c is ma— — ea: 'caA I,, zve ccr,rncaicauo^s Tao,.d, dciy zoi 013 3'
The reasons for ramping up are obvious: the change sounds scary, or at least it's
unfamiliar; staff and builders alike are unfamiliar with it and may be uncertain just how
one does this; and the public doesn't know yet enough to ask energy questions that
merit asking when purchasing a new home — like "Why should I buy this energy -
consuming house if in 3 years I can buy one that's net zero?" — consumer questions that
would help drive the market to produce better stuff today. If there's a gradual ramp -up
rather than an abrupt hurdle, everyone gets to know more about implementation prior to
the deadline. If there are real examples on the ground, staff and builders alike benefit
from seeing how problems are solved, and occupants can become familiar with a more
environmentally -sustainable type of housing.
Yet our city is doing little to nothing to prepare. In fact, I found out recently that upper-
level staff aren't even thinking about ramping up. The assumption seems to be
everything will magically fall into place on Jan. 1, 2020. (That will not happen; you'll see
much flimflam and failure, and there will be chaos that gives GHG reduction a bad
name.) It's clear from new homes along Prado Road that line planning staff don't
understand the basics of site energy capture ("passive design"), which in most cases is
an essential part of getting to net zero with reasonable cost, so they would benefit both
from competent training on siting and building configuration and getting some early
practice using that training. (Please note: one doesn't get to net zero by building the
same old house we're used to but just plastering it with PVs.)
So, here is my suggestion:
At your next regular meeting agendize a plan to get moving to net zero
demonstrations immediately. Staff will tell you it will take them 3 to 6 months to do a
staff report. Ignore them. You don't need a staff report. Andy Pease can probably tell
you more than any staff report could tell you, and others in the community can
contribute as needed. The point is to get moving on this. Now.
I'd suggest the following as a possible way to get moving on net zero, with a goal of
having at least 10 examples under construction by the end of this year.
A. Announce that the first 10 applications for net zero housing get special treatment
in return for being "pioneers." These will probably be single family homes, but if multi-
family applicants want to join in, great.
B. As an inducement, all such applications
• Go to the front of the approval line.
• Get turnaround of submittals ready for permit issuance within 30 days of submittal.
(i.e., they submit, city reviews plans and asks for changes, and applicant resubmits
with requested changes, and approval comes, all in 30 days. Applicant redesign time
is not part of the 30 days, only city time.)
• Get building permit fees refunded once the demonstration project is completed
according to approved plans.
C. There must be a public purpose for such inducements. So, in return for above,
applicants/designers/developers must pledge to share all information about how they
designed and built these dwellings, what strategies they found most cost effective
and easiest to implement, what building components and equipment they used, etc.
to achieve net zero. Real costs must be shared as part of this process so all can
understand whether net zero costs more, less, or the same as conventional
construction. Each project's data shall be documented in a notebook format that's
made accessible to the public — so staff, other developers and residents can all learn
what was learned from these early projects.
D. Annual and seasonal energy usage for each project must be documented and
made available to the public, as addenda to the notebook in #3, so all can see to
what extent energy design goals were realized. This shall be done for the first 4 years
of building occupancy. This is an essential part of building up community knowledge
and documenting actual, as contrasted with prospectively modeled, success or
failure.
After you have dealt with 10 applications, hopefully within coming months, it will be up to
you to decide how to continue ramping up next year.
It is really important to use a small carrot to get this larger essential enterprise moving
towards success.
Our current "planning" is a neoliberal mishmash of crony exchanges rather than actual
public planning in the public interest. This sort of small-scale public planning effort is an
excellent progressive way to start restoring the concept of "public interest" to the city's
decrepit approval process.
2. Establishment of a standing permanent Environmental Quality Commission.
Our city claims to be environmentally -sensitive. We have just elected three new
members of our council who profess to be environmentalists. Environmentalism is about
a broad range of conservation concerns, not just GHG emissions.
Scores of American cities with less "green" pretense than SLO have Environmental
Quality Commissions, or the equivalent with a different name. Why are we lagging?
We briefly had one — a temporary task force (Environmental Quality Task Force) — in the
early 1990s, and it did immeasurable good in its brief life and beyond. One of its
achievements was, because of member expertise, being able to work without staff
control or extensive guidance, without any staff reports or recommendations, reaching
independent conclusions, and drafting, entirely on its own, a Land Use Element for the
general plan, most of which was adopted by the Council. Clearly, current management
would feel threatened by such independence of thought and action, and you can
anticipate your present management will seek to stifle this idea, or if it can't do that, at
least to shape it to it's own liking. Don't go there with them. Give the commission
complete independence to go where the science of conservation leads it.
Typical duties of such a group might include things like: watch -dogging city practices
having to do both with running the city and approving private development; proposing
initiatives that improve environmental quality; educating the public about important
environmental issues; advising the Council on important matters; being included in the
review loop for changes in city practices and policies including ordinances; provide
guidance on natural resource conservation and pollution prevention; and so on.
San Luis Obispo would benefit greatly from having such a commission to offer
counterbalance to its growth -dominated management philosophy.
3. Elevate Natural Resources to department level.
At present the Natural Resources staff are part of Administration. It is clear to those of
us who care about Natural Resources activities that this arrangement is confining and
constraining, and diminishes the influence of Natural Resources staff.
Making Natural Resources a department would elevate the status of this operation. It
need not be done in such a way as to inflate staffing or expense. It can strictly be an
organizational change to boost the status of this important activity within city hall.
This change is long overdue.
Thank you for considering these ideas.
Richard Schmidt