Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-25-2018 - Item 4 - Cooper (2)To: San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, Doug Davidson & Kyle Bell Re:White Paper: Implementing the Climate Action Plan in the Zoning Regulations From:Allan Cooper, San Luis Obispo Date:March 24, 2018 Honorable Chair Stevenson and Commissioners - This White Paper is seriously No doubt it is packed full of good intentions. But voluntary guidelines that would be “enforced” by discretionary review bodies and voluntary incentives limited by their application to only the PD overlay and C-D zones is “business as usual” in a world that is perilously close to (if not already past) the “tipping point” - in a world where an irreversible carbon feedback loop is looming nearer and nearer. We should be calling for mandatory, not voluntary, measures to address climate change. This is compounded by the fact that the bulk of the emphasis in this paper is being placed on transportation when nearly half of all CO2 emissions come from the building sector (compared to one third of all CO2 emissions being attributed to transportation). Instead of emphasizing a stronger commitment to inter-urban mass transit this paper focusses on ways to wean residents, commuters and tourists from using private automobiles. How? By eliminating parking spaces. However, the rapidly increasing demand for parking along with urban sprawl will be exacerbated - not mitigated - by the arrival of the autonomous vehicle and the electric car because both will make long commutes as well as vacation trips safer, more enjoyable and more affordable. Increasing building densities is not a sustainable solution. The argument is that doing so will prevent urban sprawl but both are currently happening. Increasing both downtown density and sprawl will overtax our infrastructure and our biome carrying capacity (California’s ecological footprint is 14 times its carrying capacity). Aggressive promotion of tourism, new hotel/motel construction and growth in jobs must be stemmed. The City averages 2,700 overnight visitors in motels and hotels plus 100’s more visitors in Airbnb’s. Add to this an unknown number of day visitors plus some 24,300 out-of-town workforce commuters and our daytime population hovers around 75,700+. Unlike the current cap on housing production, this daytime population is growing far in excess of 1% per year. Finally, there is no mention of water availability and conservation, no mention of wildlife and open space protection, no mention of prime agricultural lands, no mention of the role trees and landscaping play in carbon sequestration. These diminishing resources play a critical role in our adapting to, or surviving, climate change. Climate change is the most urgent issue confronting us today and we are falling far short of what we should be doing. Time is of the essence. We have reached 410 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere. Irreversible carbon-cycle feedbacks set in at 450 ppm. “Business as usual” means we will be reaching 450 ppm of CO2 within the next 10 years. The options for avoiding catastrophic climate and weather changes are almost too late.And, the effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has not only to be taken individually but also at our local levels of government. Therefore what should San Luis Obispo, at the urging of its Mayor and City Council, do - that it’s not now presently doing - to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60% over the next 10 years? SLO must require all future private and public development meet the 2020 “carbon neutral” challenge and attain or exceed nothing less than the Platinum Level for LEED Cambridge, Massachusetts has set up a Net Zero Task Force to explore the possibilities for Cambridge moving Received 03-26-2018 Item #4 towards becoming a net zero energy community. This task force was set up because a citizens group created a petition for all new construction in Cambridge to become net zero and the Planning Board and City Council meetings with advocates for net zero. The city’s response was to set up an independent task force that includes leaders in the of energy conservation and renewables, and then supported it with paid consultants. Moreover, the City, like many other California cities, should 1) require that developers install cool roofs and cool paving; 2) require developers to install photovoltaics on new roofs where appropriate; 3) provide rebates for planting drought tolerant trees that sequester high amounts of carbon and discourage the willy-nilly removal of existing trees and riparian habitat to make way for new development; 4) require the purchase of “green power”; 5) set up micro-grids powered by wind or concentrated solar thermal with storage. Even if we avoid two degrees of global warming, water in the Central Coast will become much more scarce. Therefore the City must also: 6) require all developers to install vegetated bioswales and retention basins to recharge our aquifers; 7) require developers to provide some form of rainwater harvesting (rooftop or surface); 8) reinstate SLO’s water demand offset program; 9) implement the expansion of rebate programs to include, but not be limited to, the following types of water demand reductions: hot water recirculation, point-of-use water heaters, toilet leak detection systems, dry toilets and grey water systems; 10) cap its population growth (including Cal Poly’s enrollment growth); and 11) cap or slow down its commercial growth. The building sector is responsible for nearly half (44.6%) of U.S. CO2 emissions. By comparison, transportation accounts for only 34.3% of CO2 emissions and industry just 21.1%. One key way to reduce and ultimately phase out the CO2 emissions produced by the building sector is by transforming the way buildings are designed, built, and operated. With regards to Goal BLD 2: New Construction Energy Conservation: Encourage and incentivize new development to exceed minimum CALGreen requirements: It is clearly not to incentives for exceeding Title 24 energy standards to only planned development overlay and C-D zones. And new development should be mandated - not incentivized - to install energy-appliances as well as cool roofs and cool paving surfaces. Similarly, renewable energy generation and/or solar power for certain residential projects should be mandated, not incentivized. The implementation of these goals should not fall under the Community Design Guidelines as guidelines can be easily ignored or overlooked. The City has adopted several development regulations that exceed CALGreen energy conservation requirements, such as requiring buildings taller than 50 feet in the C-D zone to meet minimum energy conservation requirements. The City has also established incentives in Development Regulations that allow higher maximum building heights for projects that exceed Title 24 energy requirements by at least 30 percent. However, tall buildings are inherently energy because proportionately more of their surface area is exposed to the sun and wind. Tall buildings use almost twice as much energy per square foot as low-rise structures. Tall buildings require more steel and concrete, therefore contain more embodied energy and are less sustainable than low rise buildings built largely of wood. Concrete is 10 times more GHG-intensive than wood. In low-rise buildings the rooftop supply available for solar energy is inevitably more in line with the energy demands of the building than it is for mid- or high-rises. Most buildings that generate their own energy do it with solar photovoltaics (PV). If we assume that a building has only its roof area available for mounting PV, then a single-story building is much more likely to achieve net-zero than a high-rise. Getting to net-zero is extremely for buildings of more than four stories. If the project includes energy-intensive data centers, labs, or other spaces, the challenge gets tougher. Thank you!