San Mateo City Council
September 19, 2022

CITY OF SAN MATEO
City Council Special Meeting
September 19, 2022
5:30 PM
Council Chambers
Entrance is on O’Farrell Street

COUNCIL MEMBERS
Rick Bonilla, Mayor
Diane Papan, Deputy Mayor
Joe Goethals
Amourence Lee
Eric Rodriguez
AGENDA
THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO THE GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS WHICH SUSPEND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE BROWN ACT.

THIS MEETING CAN BE ATTENDED IN PERSON OR REMOTE BY JOINING ZOOM – SEE CODES BELOW.

PUBLIC COMMENTS WILL BE ACCEPTED BOTH IN PERSON AND REMOTEL Y.

SEE END OF AGENDA FOR OPTIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING.

To join via Zoom – click here:

September 19, 2022 Zoom Meeting
To join via telephone: (408) 638-0968
Webinar ID: 854 2482 8416 Passcode: 320908

CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call

STUDY SESSION
The public will have an opportunity to comment during the consideration of these items.

1. Sustainability-Related Amendments to the 2022 Building Code Provide feedback on potential amendments to the 2022 Building Code for new construction and existing buildings related to building electrification and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

ADJOURNMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AGENDAS:

Agendas and material are posted on the City’s website on the Friday preceding each Council Meeting and can be viewed on the City's website at
www.cityofsanmateo.org
. Any supplemental material distributed to the Council after the posting of the agenda will be made part of the official record.

WATCHING A MEETING ON TV:

City Council meetings are broadcast live on Comcast/channel 27, Wave/channel 26, or AT&T/channel 99.

For transmission problems during the broadcast, please call (650) 522-7099. For all other broadcast comments, call (650) 522-7040, Monday-Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.

WATCHING A MEETING ON A COMPUTER:

There are three ways to stream.
1) Public Meeting Portal
www.cityofsanmateo.org/publicmeetings
2) City YouTube channel and stream it on YouTube:
http://youtube.com/CityofSanMateo
3) Watch TV live stream:
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/193/Channel-San-Mateo-Live-Stream

PUBLIC COMMENTS/REQUEST TO SPEAK
Prior to the Meeting
Send comments to:
[email protected]
until 4 p.m. the day of the meeting.

During the meeting
By Zoom:

Click the link at the top of the agenda and you’ll be added to the meeting. All attendees are muted by default. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select the “Raise Your Hand” icon and you will be called on at the appropriate time.

1 of 187

By telephone:

Call (408) 638-0968 and enter the conference ID found at the top of the meeting agenda. When the item of interest is open for consideration, select *9 to raise your hand. When called upon, press *6 to unmute, state your name and provide your comments.

In Person:

At the meeting complete a “Request to Speak” form, submit a request at the speaker kiosk or scan the QR code.

ACCESSIBILITY:

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those with disabilities requiring special accommodations to participate in this meeting may contact the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 522-7040 or [email protected]
. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

2 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6

CITY OF SAN MATEO
Agenda Report
City Hall
330 W. 20th Avenue
San Mateo CA 94403
www.cityofsanmateo.org
Agenda Number: 1 Section Name: STUDY SESSION Account Number: 10-1311 File ID: 22-6618 TO: City Council
FROM: Drew Corbett, City Manager
PREPARED BY: City Manager's Office
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022
SUBJECT:

Sustainability-Related Amendments to the 2022 Building Code RECOMMENDATION:

Provide feedback on potential amendments to the 2022 Building Code for new construction and existing buildings related to building electrification and electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

BACKGROUND:

Transportation accounts for 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo, followed by electricity and fossil gas (also known as natural gas) use in buildings that accounts for 34% of emissions. The City’s Climate Action Plan identifies encouraging adoption of electric vehicles (EV) and electrification of new and existing buildings as key focus areas to meet greenhouse gas emission reduction goals. Furthermore, the City Council directed staff to establish policies to decarbonize and electrify existing buildings and eliminate fossil gas use by 2030.

The California Building Standards Code (Building Code) contains regulations that govern the structural safety and sustainability of buildings in California. Local governments can adopt amendments to the Building Code to require more sustainable development and address emissions from the transportation and building sectors. Reach codes, which can be included as part of a local building code adoption cycle, are local building energy and green building codes that “reach” beyond minimum State requirements for building design and construction. Reach codes are typically evaluated every three years in line with the State’s triennial building code cycle. The last Building Code was adopted in 2019 and went into effect on January 1, 2020. The 2022 Building Code will be adopted this fall and be effective January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025.

Peninsula Clean Energy (PCE) is a joint powers agency established in 2016 to provide clean electricity in San Mateo County.

In the previous code cycle, PCE supported jurisdictions in the adoption of reach codes to advance renewable energy, building electrification and EV readiness. PCE provided cost-effectiveness studies, model ordinances and technical support to city staff. This year, PCE is leading the newly formed Bay Area Reach Codes group that includes East Bay Clean Energy (EBCE) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and providing this same type of support to local governments. The Bay Area Reach Codes team developed model codes for building electrification and EV readiness for new construction and existing buildings. It is important to note that reach codes for solar and battery storage are not a focus since the 2022 State Energy Code now requires solar and battery storage for all types of new construction.

Staff presented reach code options for new construction and existing buildings at the Sustainability Infrastructure Commission (SIC) meetings on April 13, 2022 and July 13, 2022. Staff hosted a virtual community meeting on the proposed reach code options for existing buildings on August 30, 2022 and launched an online survey on August 31, 2022. This report provides an overview of the importance of building electrification and EV infrastructure, summarizes the City’s

3 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6
current reach codes, and introduces options for new reach codes addressing building electrification and EV readiness in new construction for the 2022 Building Code. This report also introduces reach code options to address building electrification in existing buildings for the 2022 Building Code and includes discussion of other policy approaches to decarbonize the existing building stock. SIC and community feedback is also summarized in this report.

BUILDING ELECTRIFICATION AND EV READINESS BACKGROUND
Building electrification refers to the transition from gas equipment to electric equipment for space and water heating, clothes drying, cooking and more. PCE provides electricity that is 50% renewable and virtually 100% carbon free and PCE is committed to delivering 100% renewable and carbon free electricity by 2025. While electricity has become cleaner, fossil gas is a fossil fuel producing significant emissions. The primary component of fossil gas is methane, which contributes emissions with a very high global warming potential. Leakage from fossil gas infrastructure adds to emissions as gas leakage occurs during production, transmission, and even at the building level. There are also health and safety concerns associated with the transmission and use of fossil gas in homes.

Bolstering EV charging infrastructure is an important priority in the Climate Action Plan and critical to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector. The State established ambitious goals around electrifying vehicles and by 2035, the sale of all new passenger cars and trucks will be zero-emission. The sale of electric vehicles in San Mateo County has grown rapidly over the past ten years, and last year 20% of new vehicle sales were electric. To meet the State’s aggressive climate goals, millions of more charging ports will need to be installed throughout the state. The availability of home charging is specifically important because the lack of at-home charging is considered the primary barrier to EV adoption.

The California Energy Commission estimates that 70% of people need access to at-home charging to enable an all-electric fleet.

NEW CONSTRUCTION – ALL-ELECTRIC REACH CODE
Currently, the City of San Mateo’s building electrification reach code requires the new construction of all residential buildings and office buildings be all-electric. The Bay Area Reach Code team building electrification model ordinance for new construction requires that new construction of all building types be all-electric. The model ordinance allows for commercial kitchens and hotels/motels laundry machines to use fossil gas and includes pre-wiring requirements if combustion equipment is installed to enable future electrification. These specific end uses are allowed to use fossil gas because of the potential increase in utility bills compared to gas equipment and challenges with electric industrial laundry technology.

At the July 13, 2022 SIC meeting, all Commissioners supported the Bay Area Reach Code model ordinance requiring all new construction to be all-electric with exceptions for commercial kitchens and hotels/motels laundry machines. Some Commissioners also supported adding an exemption for space conditioning for buildings with biotechnology use.

Additional discussion is included in Attachment 1.

Staff recommends adoption of the Bay Area Reach Codes model ordinance requiring all new construction be all-electric and adding an exemption for space conditioning for buildings with biotechnology use.

NEW CONSTRUCTION – ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
Currently, the City of San Mateo’s reach code requires enhanced EV charging infrastructure for single family and two- family townhomes, multifamily and nonresidential buildings. The Bay Area Reach Codes model ordinance for EV infrastructure for new construction is summarized in Table 1.

4 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6
Table 1: Proposed Reach Codes for New Construction EV Charging Impacted buildings Proposed reach code requirement
Single Family Homes
and Two-Family
Townhomes
One Level 2 EV Ready per dwelling unit;
One Level 1 EV Ready space if second space provided
Multifamily
Buildings

OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Affordable Housing
15% Level 2 EVCS
25% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Non Residential Office Use
20% Level 2 EVCS
30% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 50% of spaces
All Other Uses
10% Level 2 EVCS
10% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 20% of spaces
At the April 13, 2022 SIC meeting, all commissioners supported the Bay Area Reach Code model ordinance requiring enhanced requirements for EV infrastructure. Commissioners emphasized the importance of using the model code for consistency across the region. Some commissioners expressed concerns about relying on Level 1 charging in multifamily and recommended requiring Level 2 charging because of the charging speed.

In July 2022, the Bay Area Reach Code model ordinance was updated to include an alternate option (Option B in Table 1) for multifamily buildings requiring Level 2 (low-power) instead of Level 1 charging. PCE staff drafted this alternate reach code after receiving feedback from different cities expressing preference for Level 2 charging over Level 1. The SIC did not have the opportunity to provide feedback on Option B. Attachment 1 includes a comparison of the City’s current EV reach codes and additional supportive analysis for staff’s recommendation aligning with the Bay Area Reach Codes model ordinance for EV infrastructure.

Staff recommends the adoption of the Bay Area Reach Codes model ordinance requiring enhanced EV charging infrastructure for single family and two-family townhomes and nonresidential buildings. Staff does not have a recommendation between the reach code options for multifamily buildings and seeks City Council feedback and direction.

EXISTING BUILDINGS
The City of San Mateo has a strong history of applying reach codes to new construction, but new construction represents a small fraction of the built environment in San Mateo. Developing reach codes to decarbonize existing buildings is very challenging but key to reaching the City’s ambitious climate goals. When developing reach codes for existing buildings, the City must consider a variety of factors.

Staff considered the greenhouse gas emission impact for each of the proposed reach code options. A typical San Mateo residence has the following breakdown of fossil gas usage per appliance: 55% for water heating, 36% for space heating, 6% for cooking, and 3% for clothes drying. The proposed reach codes focus on the highest fossil gas use in a home: water heating and space conditioning. Reach code options also focus on electric-readiness where requiring electric equipment replacement is not yet cost-effective compared to the gas option. Staff also reviewed best practices in other cities.

5 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6
Requiring electrification through reach codes is a relatively new approach and only a few California cities have reach code requirements for electrification in home renovations.

It is also important to consider potential challenges with enforcement. The proposed reach code options are enforced when a permit is issued from the City and the City relies on the building permit and inspection processes to ensure gas and electric equipment are installed safely to protect the health and safety of the community. If reach codes impose restrictions that community members or contractors find too challenging or costly to comply with, this might result in improvements being done without permits.

Finally, staff also evaluated the costs to the property owner and the equity impacts of the policy. Requiring electric equipment may increase upfront project costs and may also have a long-term impact on operational/utility costs. Upfront costs to convert to new technology and electric equipment are often the primary barrier for electrification in underserved communities. Someone who faces energy insecurity (the inability to pay for energy bills without a significant trade-off) is not able to prioritize electrification. The City will need to be thoughtful about reach code requirements to prevent negative impacts to underserved communities. Additionally, there is a very high cost of living in San Mateo and homeowners of varying income levels are challenged with housing costs and lack the discretionary income for increased costs of equipment replacement and ongoing increases on monthly utility bills.

Proposed Reach Code Options
Currently, the City does not have any reach codes in place for existing buildings. In February 2022, staff began collaborating with PCE to explore reach code options for existing buildings that would be effective during the upcoming building code cycle January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025. PCE provided technical support to City staff in the drafting and development of the proposed reach code options.

The proposed reach code options would be enforced at the time of permit application and issuance, in other words, they are triggered when someone is coming to the City to get a permit for a project. The proposed reach code options focus on reducing the use of fossil gas and encouraging building electrification in single family homes, duplexes, and residential buildings. Table 2 summarizes the proposed reach code options for Council consideration and Attachment 2 includes more detailed analysis and discussion. City Council could recommend the adoption of all five reach code options or a subset of the options. When evaluating Reach Code Options 4A and 4B, City Council should select one of the two reach code options.

6 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6
Table 2: Proposed Reach Codes for Existing Buildings
Reach code option Impacted
buildings
Proposed reach code requirement
1) Electric-readiness:
panel capacity
Residential
buildings
Requires panel replacement and panel upgrade projects to include panel capacity/breaker space for future
electrification
2) Electric-readiness:
outlets installed
Single family
homes and
duplexes
Requires all residential kitchen and laundry renovations include installation of an outlet to allow for the use of electric appliances in the future
3) Heat pump air
conditioning
Single family
homes and
duplexes
Requires installation of heat pump air conditioning when new air conditioning is installed or replaced, in conjunction with furnace replacement
4) Pools and outdoor
equipment
Residential
buildings
4A) Requires new pools to use electric or solar pool heating at residences
4B) Prohibits the extension of fuel gas infrastructure into the backyard for uses such as fire pits, grills, and pools
5) Heat pump water
heaters
Single family
homes and
duplexes
Requires heat pump water heater installation during
addition and alteration projects that include water heater replacement
At the July 13, 2022 SIC meeting, all commissioners supported adoption of Reach Code Options 1, 2, and both 4A and 4B.

Commissioners also supported adoption of Reach Code Option 3 with some commissioners emphasizing the importance of providing rebates for heat pumps. Commissioners provided mixed feedback on Reach Code Option 5. While two commissioners voiced support for Reach Code Option 5, two commissioners expressed concerns about requiring heat pump water heaters and the increased costs of the equipment.

Staff recommends adoption of Reach Code Options 1, 2, 3, 4B and 5. Supportive analysis for staff’s recommendation is provided in Attachment 2.

Bay Area Reach Codes: Existing Building Decarbonization Ordinance In July 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes team published the Existing Building Decarbonization Ordinance (Decarbonization Ordinance), included as Attachment 3. The Decarbonization Ordinance is not a building amendment and is not tied to the Building Code. It instead relies on the police powers of a city. The Decarbonization Ordinance contains four main elements:
1) establishes a date to require electric appliances upon appliance replacement; 2) requires electric-readiness during appliance replacements; 3) requires fossil fuel disclosure during sale of property; and 4) establishes a date for termination of fuel gas infrastructure.

Unlike the new construction reach codes, PCE has stated that the Decarbonization Ordinance is meant to serve as a menu of regulatory options for jurisdictions to consider. PCE is not recommending that jurisdictions adopt every element.

Furthermore, the template contains blanks spots for cities to specify the effective date of requiring electric appliance replacements for each type of gas equipment (i.e., water heaters, furnaces, stoves, and clothes dryers).

To select an appropriate effective date, PCE recommends that cities analyze the gas equipment replacement costs and ongoing/utility costs across building types and likely select nuanced dates depending on the equipment and building type; similar to the analysis that was presented for the proposed reach codes. PCE has not completed this analysis on behalf of

7 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6
cities. PCE recommends that each jurisdiction will need to carefully consider its unique circumstances, demographics, resources, and capabilities before adopting the Decarbonization Ordinance. In addition, PCE recommends that jurisdictions should consider the costs of complying with requirements and the availability of resources to achieve code compliance and ensure that their code produces equitable and just outcomes. Staff has not yet completed this recommended analysis and requires the assistance of technical experts. To date, no other cities have adopted the Decarbonization Ordinance.

The advocacy group San Mateo Climate Action Team has petitioned for the immediate adoption of the Decarbonization Ordinance. In their public comment to the SIC, the group recommended January 1, 2026 as the effective date for all appliance replacements to be electric and recommended January 1, 2030 as the effective date for the termination of gas in the City of San Mateo. In a recent email to City Council, the group updated their proposal to require all appliance replacements be electric beginning January 1, 2025. As discussed above, careful evaluation is needed to consider the impact of such a policy on all building types, electric technology, contractor readiness, and costs to the property owner to determine a meaningful and feasible effective start date for the policy. Staff does not have a recommendation for or against the advocacy group’s proposal, but staff does recommend that technical analysis be completed before Council consideration of adoption. In addition, staff recommends doing both community and contractor engagement on these proposed policies.

In the immediate term, staff has focused on working with PCE on reach codes to leverage the building code cycle and implement measures that would go into effect January 1, 2023. The Decarbonization Ordinance requires further evaluation and will be included as part of the City’s decarbonization strategy. In line with the City Council priority to decarbonize existing buildings, staff will develop a strategic roadmap to decarbonize our community and evaluate and establish an “End of Flow” target date for the termination of fuel gas infrastructure. Work on this effort is scheduled to begin later this fiscal year after staff completes work on the adoption of the proposed reach codes. Staff plans to contract with a technical consultant to evaluate the City’s building stock and analyze other building decarbonization approaches.

These approaches include financing and rebates for electrification, home energy assessment requirements, commercial energy building performance standards, carbon neutrality policies and electric appliance upgrade requirements (e.g., Decarbonization Ordinance). Additionally, staff will pursue partnerships with agencies such as PCE to implement programs that focus on funding electrification in low-income households.

The proposed decarbonization strategy will evaluate the proposed approach recommended by the advocacy group San Mateo Climate Action Team. Since this approach is not tied to the building code, there is no concern about the triennial code cycle update and this approach could be adopted at any time. The Decarbonization Ordinance will be evaluated and vetted with the community and stakeholders later this fiscal year, and can be potentially enacted with the group’s proposed time frames.

Community Feedback
On August 30, 2022, staff hosted a virtual Community Meeting on the Proposed Reach Code options, 35 people attended the meeting. Staff and PCE presented background information on climate action and building electrification and an overview of the proposed reach code options for home renovations. Staff responded to questions from meeting attendees and used the Zoom poll feature to collect feedback at the end of the meeting (see Attachment 4 for poll results). Overall, most poll respondents expressed strong support for adoption of all 5 of the reach code options. Most poll respondents (60%) thought reach code options do not go far enough, while 25% of poll respondents thought the reach code options help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 15% of poll respondents thought reach codes options go too far. Many attendees provided verbal comment to express support for adoption of the Decarbonization Ordinance using the dates recommended by the San Mateo Climate Action Team advocacy group.

Staff encouraged those who could not attend the August 30 community meeting to email staff directly; emailed comments are included with the public comment as Attachment 6. Most of the emailed comments express support for the Decarbonization Ordinance using the dates selected by the advocacy group.

Additionally, staff launched an online survey to allow community members to provide feedback on the proposed reach codes at their convenience. The survey was open August 31 through September 13 and results are included as Attachment

8 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6

5. Even though it is not a statistically significant survey, it is an important tool to engage the community and those who have an interest in this topic or are unable to attend public meetings. Analysis on the survey results was not possible before the publishing of the agenda, however, staff will verbally present the survey results at the City Council meeting.

REGIONAL, STATE AND FEDERAL DECARBONIZATION EFFORTS
Decarbonization is a priority at the regional and state levels. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is investigating the role that ultra-low or zero-NOx (nitrogen oxides) appliance standards can play in helping them achieve Clean Air Act requirements. BAAQMD regulates gas furnaces and water heaters and has developed draft rules that would reduce emissions from nitrogen oxides from residential and commercial furnaces and water heaters in buildings in the Bay Area. In summary the rules would:
•Prohibit the sale and installation of residential gas water heaters after January 1, 2027, •Prohibit the sale and installation of residential/commercial gas furnaces after January 1, 2029, and •Prohibit the sale and installation of commercial gas water heaters/boilers after January 1, 2031.

The draft rules were slated to be considered for adoption this year but the BAAQMD rulemaking was delayed due to additional CEQA analysis. The draft rules will be considered for adoption in January 2023.

California has established greenhouse gas reduction goals and several state agencies are working on building decarbonization. For example, the California Energy Commission (CEC) has been working to incorporate building decarbonization goals into development of the California Building and Appliance Efficiency Standards. The California Public Utilities Commission is considering gas and electric rate structures as well as various programs through its Building Decarbonization Proceeding such as the implementation of the TECH and BUILD programs. The California Air Resources Board included a recommendation in the Climate Change Scoping Plan for 2022 that 100% of appliance sales be electric by 2035.

In August 2022, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) into law providing direct financial support for electrification. The IRA includes two important building electrification incentives. Firstly, the IRA established a tax credit for up to 30% of the installed cost of heat pump space heaters or heat pump water heaters, maximum $2,000 per household per year. This tax credit is immediately available under the “Energy Efficient Home Improvement credit.” To take advantage of this tax credit, you would not be able to use the standard deduction.

Secondly, the IRA includes a rebate program offering up to $14,000 per household that will be administered at the state- level. It will take time for the State to develop and administer this new rebate program so funding will not immediately be available to constituents. The timeline for funding availability has not been made public. The credit should pay for 100% of upgrades to low-income (<80% AMI [Area Median Income]) households and up to 50% of upgrades for moderate-income (80-150% AMI) households. Staff anticipates this funding source to be highly competitive and that there will be more interest for the rebates than there is funding available. The ability to access the rebate funding will therefore be subject to funding availability.

Peninsula Clean Energy has announced new incentives for heat pumps including $3,500 for heat pump space heaters and $3,000 for heat pump water heaters. The aim of these incentives is to cover the incremental cost of electrification at the time of replacement or installation. These incentives will be available before January 1, 2023.

Rebate and incentive funding will help make electrification more cost-effective for San Mateo property owners. These regional, state and federal actions provide helpful context as the City evaluates reach codes and decarbonization policies in the future.

NEXT STEPS
It is critical that new construction reach codes be adopted by the end of the year in conjunction with the new Building Code to prevent a lapse in the City’s current new construction reach code requirements. Reach codes can be adopted at any time, however, it is optimal for a reach code to be adopted at the beginning of the Building Code cycle to maximize the amount of time the policy is in place. Addressing electrification in existing buildings is new for San Mateo and developing

9 of 187

CITY OF SAN MATEO
3 6
6 6
thoughtful policies for existing buildings is complex. Reach codes for existing buildings could be adopted separately from the new construction reach codes if more time is needed for analysis and public input. Since the City does not currently have a reach code impacting existing buildings, there is no concern about a lapse in requirements.

Staff will incorporate City Council feedback before returning to City Council for reach code ordinance introduction and adoption in October or November. Proposed reach codes would go into effect with the 2022 Building Code on January 1, 2023.

BUDGET IMPACT:

There is no budget impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

This informational report is not a project subject to CEQA, because it can be seen with certainty that it will not cause a physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code Section 21065.)

NOTICE PROVIDED
All meeting noticing requirements were met.

ATTACHMENTS
Att 1 – Proposed Reach Codes for New Construction
Att 2 – Proposed Reach Codes for Existing Buildings
Att 3 – Decarbonization Ordinance
Att 4 – Community Meeting Poll Results
Att 5 – Online Survey Results
Att 6 – Public Comments

STAFF CONTACT
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst
[email protected]
(650) 522-7007

10 of 187

ATTACHMENT 1
Page | 1
7 1
9 8
Proposed Reach Codes for New Construction
2022 Building Code Cycle (January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025) All-electric new construction
Current reach code
(expires December 31, 2022)
Proposed reach code requirement
(January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025)
Requires all residential buildings and
buildings with office use to be all-electric
Requires all new construction to be all-electric.

Commercial kitchens and hotel/motel laundry
services would be exempt from this requirement.

Staff recommend adding exception language for
space conditioning for buildings with biotech
laboratories use.

Discussion
Currently, the City of San Mateo’s building electrification reach code requires the new construction of all residential buildings and office buildings be all-electric. The reach code established an infeasibility exemption process that allows an applicant to apply for an exemption from this reach code if there are circumstances that makes it infeasible to build all-electric. To date, this infeasibility exemption has not been used. The City’s building electrification reach codes resulted in the issuance of permits for 449 all- electric dwelling units.

The Bay Area Reach Code model ordinance for new construction requires that new construction of all building types be all-electric. The model ordinance allows for commercial kitchens and hotels/motels laundry machines to use fossil gas and includes pre-wiring requirements if combustion equipment is installed to enable future electrification. These specific end uses are allowed to use fossil gas because of the potential increase in utility bills compared to gas equipment and challenges with electric industrial laundry technology.

In addition, if a project applicant finds they are not able to achieve the Energy Code performance standards and build all-electric, project applicants can apply for an exception, regardless of the building type or use. Staff anticipate that it would be a rare occurrence that project applicants would not be able to comply with the all-electric requirement and need to apply for an exception because of the availability of electric technology and the cost-effectiveness of all-electric new construction.

PCE engaged with representatives from various biotechnology companies to understand the challenges of new all-electric construction of buildings with biotech use. PCE concluded that it is feasible to require all-electric new construction of nonresidential buildings with biotech use, thus there is no exception language for biotech in the model ordinance. Staff recommend revising the model ordinance to include language similar the City of San Carlos’s reach code that allows fossil gas for space conditioning in laboratory areas if there is a third-party verification to demonstrate infeasibility or lack of cost- effectiveness.

11 of 187

ATTACHMENT 1
Page | 2
7 1
9 8
Enhanced electric vehicle (EV) requirements for new construction Impacted buildings Current reach code
(expires December 31, 2022)
Proposed reach code requirement
(January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025)
Single Family Homes
and Two-Family
Townhomes
One Level 2 EV Ready space per
dwelling unit
One Level 2 EV Ready per dwelling unit;
One Level 1 EV Ready space if second space provided
Multifamily Buildings 15% Level 2 EV Capable OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Affordable Housing
15% Level 2 EVCS
25% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Non Residential 5% Level 2 EVCS
10% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 15% of spaces
Office Use
20% Level 2 EVCS
30% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 50% of spaces
All Other Uses
10% Level 2 EVCS
10% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 20% of spaces

Definitions:
•Level 1 EV Ready - Includes full 110/120 V 20-amp circuit with a receptacle or outlet •Level 2 EV Capable - Includes panel capacity for 208/240 V 40-amp circuit and conduit or raceways •Level 2 EV Ready (low-power) - Includes full 208/240 V 20-amp circuit with a receptacle or outlet •Level 2 EV Ready - Includes full 208/240 V 40-amp circuit with a receptacle or outlet •Level 2 EV Charging Space (EVCS) - Includes full charging capability with EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) installed

12 of 187

ATTACHMENT 1
Page | 3
7 1
9 8
Discussion:

Installing EV infrastructure in new construction is significantly cost saving compared to retrofitting existing buildings. PCE authorized a study to compare new construction and retrofit costs and modeled two different sized multifamily buildings and an office building. In each scenario, retrofitting existing buildings to install EV infrastructure costs three to four times more than the installation of EV infrastructure at the time of new construction. Retrofitting for EV infrastructure can require costly trenching, wiring, and electrical work. Installing EV infrastructure as part of new construction will save the building owner significant costs compared to retrofitting in the future.

For single family homes and two-family townhomes, currently the City’s reach code requires one Level 2 EV Ready space per dwelling unit. The Bay Area Reach Codes Model Code that requires one Level 2 EV Ready space per dwelling unit; in addition, one Level 1 EV Ready space would be required if the development includes more than one parking space to ensure sufficient charging access.

For multifamily buildings, the City’s current reach code requires 15% Level 2 EV Capable spaces. The Bay Area Reach Codes group focuses on ensuring every residential unit has access to EV charging, this is a substantial increase above the City’s current reach code requirements. However, at-home charging is critical to encourage EV adoption.

The Bay Area Reach Codes team developed two reach code options for multifamily. The first draft of the Bay Area Reach Code model ordinance recommended 40% Level 2 EVCS and 60% Level 1 EV Ready for new multifamily buildings. In July 2022, the Bay Area Reach Code model ordinance was updated to include an alternate option for multifamily requiring Level 2 (low-power) instead of Level 1 charging. PCE staff drafted this reach code option after receiving feedback from different cities expressing preference for Level 2 charging over Level 1 due to the charging speed.

Staff reached out to other cities and found varied proposed requirements for new multifamily construction for the 2022 code cycle. Both reach code options ensure 100% of residences have access to EV charging, however the reach code option with Level 2 (low-power) allows for a faster charge compared to Level 1. Level 1 outlets are the typical standard outlet that you see inside your home.

According to a California Air Resources Board study, 50% of EV drivers use Level 1 charging. PCE assessed EV charging needs for multifamily properties and found that in residential settings, cars are typically parked for more than twelve hours. Given the average commute for a Bay Area resident is approximately 25 – 35 miles per day, charging needs can often be satisfied with a Level 1 charger, avoiding additional costs for faster charging infrastructure.

PCE analyzed a 100-dwelling multifamily building and found that the Option A with 60% of Level 1 charging costs $195,000 compared to Option B with 85% of Level 2 (low-power) charging costs $225,000. Note that EV infrastructure costs account for 0.3% - 0.5% of total construction costs.

For nonresidential buildings, the City’s current reach code requires 5% Level 2 EVCS and 10% Level 2 EV Capable. The Bay Area Reach Codes option provides a recommendation for office use and a recommendation for all other uses. The option for office use requires a higher percentage of EV readiness than the option for all other uses.

13 of 187

ATTACHMENT 2
Page | 1
7 2
0 1
Proposed Reach Codes for Existing Buildings
2022 Building Code Cycle (January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025) Reach code option Impacted buildings Proposed reach code requirement 1) Electric-readiness:
panel capacity
Residential buildings Requires panel replacement and panel upgrade projects to include panel capacity/breaker space for future electrification 2) Electric-readiness:
outlets installed
Single family homes
and duplexes
Requires all residential kitchen and laundry renovations include installation of an outlet to allow for the use of electric appliances in the future
3) Heat pump air
conditioning
Single family homes
and duplexes
Requires installation of heat pump air conditioning when new air conditioning is installed or replaced, in conjunction with furnace replacement
4) Pools and outdoor
equipment
Residential buildings 4A) Requires new pools to use electric or solar pool heating at residences
4B) Prohibits the extension of fuel gas infrastructure into the backyard for uses such as fire pits, grills, and pools
5) Heat pump water
heaters
Single family homes
and duplexes
Requires heat pump water heater installation during addition and alteration projects that include water heater replacement Discussion
Currently, the City does not have any reach codes in place for existing buildings. In February 2022, staff began collaborating with PCE to explore reach code options for existing buildings that would be effective during the upcoming building code cycle January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2025. PCE provided technical support to City staff in the drafting and development of the proposed reach code options detailed below:
1) Electric-readiness (panel capacity) at time of electrical panel upgrade – Residential This measure requires the reservation of breaker space in the existing or new electrical panel to accommodate anticipated future electrification of the buildings’ electrical load at the time of electrical panel upgrade or replacement. The measure would require dedicated breaker spaces for future electric appliances, including a heat pump water heater, heat pump space heater, EV charger and other end uses. Electrical capacity is key to future electrification of a building’s systems. By requiring the reservation of breaker space when a building owner is already making changes their electrical panel, gas equipment can more easily be converted to electric at the end of equipment life.

The City of Piedmont adopted this measure and their reach code went into effect on June 1, 2021.

Piedmont staff noted that project applicants are typically able to reserve breaker space without upgrading the panel beyond their project scope. Staff estimates that reservation of breaker space for additional electrification would not add to the project cost given Piedmont’s implementation

14 of 187

ATTACHMENT 2
Page | 2
7 2
0 1
experience. This requirement would not directly result in emissions reductions but prepares the property owner for future electrification of systems that would result in emissions reductions.

Over the past five years, there was an average of 192 permits per year for electrical panel upgrades.

Electrical service upgrades can occur in combination with solar panel installation, electric vehicle charger installation and major renovation or as a standalone permit. 2) Electric-readiness (outlets installed) at time of kitchen or laundry room renovations – Single Family Homes and Duplexes
This measure requires the installation of electrical outlets at the time of kitchen or laundry room renovation if a gas appliance is installed. This means at least one outlet capable of serving electric equipment is located within six feet of the kitchen stove during a kitchen renovation and clothes dryer during a laundry room renovation. This requirement enables electric equipment to be easily installed at a later date.

The City of Piedmont adopted this measure and their reach code went into effect on June 1, 2021.

This measure aligns with the 2022 State Code update that will require pre-wiring in new construction when gas appliances are installed. PCE estimates that installation of an outlet for future electrification would add $500 - $2000 to the project cost. The costs are highly varied depending on the location of the panel relative to the location of the renovation in the home. Cost estimates are highly sensitive to material availability and inflation. This requirement would not directly result in emissions reductions but prepares the property owner for future electrification of systems that would result in emissions reductions.

Over the past five years, there was an average of 98 permits for kitchen renovations and 49 permits for laundry room renovations per year.
3) Heat pump air conditioning – Single Family Homes and Duplexes This measure requires the installation of a heat pump air conditioning (AC) unit at the time of installation of a new AC system or replacement of an existing AC unit at single family homes and duplexes. AC condensing units are electric but the requirement to install of heat pump technology would electrify both the home’s space heating and cooling.

PCE estimates that the installation of an AC condenser unit would cost $17,500 and the installation of a heat pump unit would cost $19,000. TECH Clean California incentives provide a $3,000 rebate for residential heat pump units, making the heat pump option slightly less expensive when the rebate is layered in. Currently TECH Clean California incentives have all been reserved and incentive funding is anticipated to be fully funded by late 2022. Without incentives, the heat pump unit would cost $1,500 more than the AC condenser unit.

If the homeowner is adding a new AC unit, their electricity costs would increase regardless of the equipment type (heat pump versus condenser unit). When examining the utility bill impacts of a gas furnace and AC condenser unit compared to heat pump HVAC, staff found varied results. One study

15 of 187

ATTACHMENT 2
Page | 3
7 2
0 1
estimated that homeowners would save $10 per month1 while another study estimated homeowners would pay $11 more per month2 with a heat pump unit.

Over the past five years, there was an average of 299 permits for new and replacement AC units at single family homes and duplexes per year. Staff does not have specific data regarding the type of HVAC equipment (gas versus electric) installed in San Mateo. Generally, staff observed the majority of HVAC projects include the installation of gas furnaces and AC condenser units. Staff have observed an increase in the installation of ductless heat pump mini split systems in Accessory Dwelling Units.

Space heating accounts for 36% of fossil gas use in a typical household in San Mateo’s climate zone, representing a significant greenhouse gas emissions savings opportunity. If adopted, the City of San Mateo would be the first city in California to adopt a requirement for heat pump air conditioning.

The City of Vancouver (British Columbia) has a such a requirement that is slated to go into effect January 1, 2023.
4) Pools and outdoor equipment – Residential
A) Electric/solar pool heating - Residential
This measure would require installation of electric or solar pool heating equipment when a new heated pool is installed at an existing residential building. If a pool is installed as part of the construction of a new residential building, the pool is already required to use electric equipment according to the City’s current building electrification reach code.

In 2019, the City of Santa Monica commissioned a cost-effectiveness study3 to analyze electric pool heating for Santa Monica’s climate zone. The study found the heat pump pool heater option could cost $800 - $1,300 more than the traditional gas pool heater at the time of installation. Over 10 years, the estimated annual utility savings of the electric option would be greater than the upfront cost of the initial investment in electric equipment. Since the lifecycle utility savings exceeded the upfront costs, the report concludes that there is a cost-effective option for solar and electric pool heating equipment. It should be noted that the analysis assumes an avoided cost of $200 per gas appliance. Since pool heaters are located outside and sometimes further away from the house, running a gas line extension to the backyard could be more costly than this conservative estimate, resulting in additional cost savings for the property owner with the electric option. The City of Santa Monica’s electric and solar pool heating reach code has been in effect since January 1, 2020.

If adopted, this measure would apply to a small number of projects each year. Over the past five years, there was an average of five permits per year for the installation of new pools at existing residences. However, this measure has a significant greenhouse gas emissions reduction opportunity. Electric pool heating would avoid 83% of emissions compared to the gas pool heating option. Though heat pump pool heaters are not a new technology, they represent a 1 https://www.ethree.com/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/E3_Residential_Building_Electrification_in_California_April_2019.pdf 2 https://frontierenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019-Cost-Effectiveness-Study-Existing-Single-Family- Residential-Building-Upgrades-report.pdf
3 https://localenergycodes.com/download/481/file_path/fieldList/2019%20Electric%20Pool%20Heat- Santa%20Monica.pdf

16 of 187

ATTACHMENT 2
Page | 4
7 2
0 1
small market share in California. Currently, most pools use natural gas pool heaters. Heat pump pool heaters are more popular in other markets, including Florida.

The cost-effectiveness study for Santa Monica’s climate zone indicates that this measure could be potentially adopted in San Mateo. A cost-effectiveness study is underway and estimated to be completed August 2022.

B) Prohibition of fuel gas infrastructure in backyard - Residential This measure would prohibit the extension of existing fuel gas infrastructure in the backyard of an existing residence. Fossil gas infrastructure could not be used for pools, grills, and fire pits. In effect, this measure would require the use of electric or solar equipment for pool heating and would allow property owners to use other fuels for grills and fire pits such as propane or electricity. This requirement would prevent investment in the extension fossil gas infrastructure, a costly project compared to propane and electric options for grills and fire pits. It could also potentially save property owners money as explained in the previous section regarding pools.

Over the past five years, there was an average of 10 permits per year for new gas fire pits or grills at residential buildings.
5) Heat pump water heating – Single Family Homes and Duplexes This measure would require the installation of a heat pump water heater if a water heater was replaced as part of a major renovation in a single family home. The intent would be to impact projects that are not replacing the equipment at time of failure, allowing for the project applicant to have more time to plan for electrification. Staff estimates this requirement would impact less than 134 projects per year in San Mateo based on the number of permits issued for water heater replacement.

PCE estimates a gas water heater costs $2,500, an instantaneous gas water heater costs $5,500, and a heat pump water heater costs $7,000. There are rebates available for $2,000 for a heat pump unit.

Even with incentives, a heat pump water heater would cost $2,500 more than the gas unit. Ongoing operational/utility costs are estimated to be the same as the gas water heater option or even save you money depending on the efficiency of the heat pump equipment installed. PCE estimates that the heat pump option could save $1/month in utility savings compared to the gas water heater. The City of Palo Alto is also considering this reach code option.

The City of San Mateo does not track whether a water heater permit is for a gas or electric equipment; anecdotally, staff observed that most projects include the installation of gas water heaters and heat pumps are not a common choice. Over the past five years, there was an average of 134 permits per year for water heater replacement. This includes permits for remodels or alterations that include the replacement of a water heater. Requiring the installation of heat pump water heaters represents an important opportunity to reduce carbon emissions as water heating accounts for the majority of natural gas use (55%) in a typical household in San Mateo’s climate zone. However, because of the increased costs and challenges summarized above, staff does not recommend moving forward with a reach code requirement that requires all water heaters be replaced with heat pump water heaters at time of replacement.

17 of 187

Existing Building Decarbonization Ordinance
In recognition of the significant contribution that methane gas use in buildings makes to climate change, Peninsula Clean Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy, and East Bay Community Energy encourage all member jurisdictions to consider adopting a combination of codes, incentives, and programs to decarbonize existing buildings.

The following model code serves as a menu of regulatory options for jurisdictions to consider when customizing a code through stakeholder discussions. While the Model Code is intended to be broad and comprehensive, it is not intended to be a recommendation toward all jurisdictions to adopt every element. Each jurisdiction will need to carefully consider its unique circumstances, demographics, resources, and capabilities before adopting a code. In addition, all jurisdictions should consider the costs of complying with codes and the availability of complementary resources at its disposal, to achieve code compliance and ensure that their code produces equitable and just outcomes.

While the climate crisis is undeniably a serious threat, it was created over the course of multiple generations and will not likely be reversed in a single year with a single ordinance. It is essential that jurisdictions take steps that they realistically can successfully implement, in order to build a momentum throughout the Bay Area that can proliferate throughout the state, nation, and beyond.

Enumeration is generic and intended to serve as structural guidance when integrating with the municipal code, and comments provide explanatory notes.

Version Date Summary of Updates
June 22, 2022 1st public draft
August 12, 2022 Included preamble from Peninsula Clean
Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy and East
Bay Community Energy
CHAPTER 10.100 – EXISTING BUILDING DECARBONIZATION

10.100.010 Applicability
A. The requirements of this Chapter shall apply to building permits, sale of property, appliance upgrades, and fuel gas infrastructure located in whole or in part within the City.

B. The prohibition of fuel gas infrastructure shall apply to permit applications on or after the effective date of this Chapter, and in perpetuity. Any new appliances installed falling under the scope of this Chapter shall be powered by electricity only.

C. The requirements of this Chapter shall not apply to the use of portable propane appliances for outdoor cooking or heating.

D. This chapter shall in no way be construed as amending California Energy Code requirements under California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, nor as requiring the use or installation of any specific appliance or system.

18 of 187

10.100.020 Definitions
A. “Appliance upgrade” shall be defined as any appliance installation, relocation, or replacement.

B. “Commercial food heat-processing equipment” shall be defined as equipment used in a food establishment for heat-processing food or utensils and that produces grease vapors, steam, fumes, smoke, or odors that are required to be removed through a local exhaust ventilation system, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.

C. “Fuel Gas” shall be defined as natural, manufactured, liquefied petroleum, or a mixture of these, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.

D. “Fuel gas infrastructure” shall be defined as piping, other than service pipe, in or in connection with a building, structure or within the property lines of premises, extending from the point of delivery at the gas meter, service meter assembly, outlet of the service regulator, service shutoff valve, or final pressure regulator, whichever is applicable, as defined in the California Mechanical Code.

E. “Repair” shall be defined as the reconstruction, replacement, or renewal of any part of an existing building for the purpose of its maintenance or to correct damage, as defined in the California Existing Building Code.

10.100.030 Electric Appliances Required in Appliance Upgrades A. Space cooling appliance upgrades shall also use electricity for space heating, unconnected to fuel gas infrastructure. Any other space heating system serving the space shall be removed or configured to provide supplemental heat.

EXCEPTION: Where the scope of the appliance upgrade includes replacing or relocating an existing space cooling appliance with capacity of greater than 360,000 Btu/h.

B. No later than January 1, 20XX, water heaters, as defined in the California Mechanical Code, including for use in pools and spas, shall be all-electric, unconnected to fuel gas infrastructure, and meet the requirements of the California Energy Code during appliance upgrades.

EXCEPTION 1: Where the existing water heater is served by fuel gas infrastructure, is instantaneous, serves an area greater than 500 square feet, and the existing water heater is in a location that is smaller than 2.5 feet by 2.5 feet wide and 7 feet tall including required setbacks.

EXCEPTION 2: Appliances installed that have a demand of over 500 gallons/day of hot water usage.

EXCEPTION 3: Where the appliance upgrade is serving an existing pool.

EXCEPTION 4: Water heating systems served by an existing solar hot water system.

C. No later than January 1, 20XX, cooking appliance upgrades shall not be connected to fuel gas infrastructure.

EXCEPTION: Commercial food heat-processing equipment.

D. No later than January 1, 20XX, clothes drying appliance upgrades shall not be connected to fuel gas infrastructure.

E. No later than January 1, 20XX, space heating appliance upgrades shall not be connected to fuel gas infrastructure.

F. Alterations or additions that involve or require an increase to the capacity of electrical panels or transformers as part of the scope, the electrical panel shall include reserved physical space for

19 of 187

overcurrent protection devices, and transformers shall include reserved electrical capacity, as calculated per California Electric Code Section 220 for the following current or proposed appliances, as applicable to the project site, that will not be connected to fuel gas infrastructure:

1. Electric water heaters meeting the requirements of the California Energy Code.

2. Electric space heater and air-conditioner meeting the requirements of the California Energy Code.

3. Electric pool and/or spa water heater.

4. Electric clothes dryer.

5. Electric cooking equipment.

6. Electric vehicle charger
EXCEPTION 1: Buss bar electrical capacity shall not be required to exceed the proposed utility electrical service to the building. Capacity and overcurrent protection spaces shall be reserved in the priority listed above to the extent allowable under the proposed buss bar capacity.

EXCEPTION 2: Reserved electric vehicle charger panel capacity may be shared with one of the following: water heater, clothes dryer, or cooking equipment.

G. Existing fuel gas infrastructure shall not be extended to any system or device within the building or building property. Inactive fuel gas infrastructure shall not be activated or otherwise operated.

ALTERNATIVE: 10.100.030 Electric-Ready Required in Appliance Upgrades A. Water heaters, as defined in the California Mechanical Code, including for use in pools and spas, shall have a 240 volt, 30 ampere circuit and receptacle installed within 6 feet of appliance location.

B. Cooking appliance upgrades shall have a 240 volt, 50 ampere circuit and receptacle installed within 6 feet of appliance location.

EXCEPTION: Commercial food heat-processing equipment.

C. Clothes drying appliance upgrades shall have a 240v, 30 ampere circuit and receptacle installed within 6 feet of appliance location.

10.100.040. Exemptions
The following are exempt from the provisions of Article 10.100.030.

A. Where meeting the provisions of this Article would necessitate an increase in capacity for an electrical panel, feeders, transformer, or electrical service that is not part of the appliance upgrade scope, in order to meet the requirements of the California Electrical Code. To qualify for this exception, applicant must provide a calculation conforming to the California Electrical Code.

B. Subsidized Housing

1. Dwelling Units, regardless of ownership, for which the Rents are subsidized or regulated by federal law or by regulatory agreements between a Landlord and (a) the City, (b) the Housing Authority, or (c) any agency of the State of California or the Federal Government. If a Dwelling Unit no longer qualifies for the full or partial exemption under this Section, for

20 of 187

example, the Landlord withdraws from a subsidy program or a regulatory agreement expires and/or is not renewed, the Dwelling Unit will immediately be subject to all provisions of this Article.

2. Dwelling Units owned by the Housing Authority.

3. Rooms in a building or Dwelling Unit that provides a structured living environment that has the primary purpose of helping formerly homeless persons obtain the skills necessary for independent living in permanent housing and where occupancy is limited to a specific period of time and where the occupant has been informed in writing of the temporary nature of the arrangement at the inception of the occupancy.

4. Houseboats.

C. Economic hardship exemptions shall be provided if the replacement cost for an all-electric system, including all incentives, is greater than 110 percent of a like-for-like fuel gas system replacement, including the future costs of electrification retrofits. The building official shall consult with the [Community and Economic Development Director] in deciding whether to approve an economic hardship exemption.

D. Projects submitting fees in-lieu of electric appliance installation, that amount to the future costs of electrification retrofits.

10.100.050 Fossil Fuel Disclosure During Sale of Property A. Required Information. Each person who sells or transfers an interest in real property located in the [City] must provide the following information to a prospective buyer:

1. A property records search provided by the Planning & Building Department for a nominal fee established by the City Council. This report shall show the building permit history for the property, including which improvements have been approved.

2. A completed Fuel Gas Equipment Disclosure Form
B. Timing of Disclosure. For any sale, transfer, or other transaction of a residential property that is subject to a disclosure requirement under Civil Code section 1102, et seq., the additional information required to be provided to the purchaser by this section shall be provided at the time such disclosures are made, and for all transactions not subject to a disclosure requirement under Civil Code section 1102, et seq., such additional information shall be provided not less than 10 days before close of escrow.

EXCEPTION: The requirements specified in this section shall not apply to those sales or transfers listed in Civil Code section 1102.2, subdivisions (a) through (j), and subdivision (l).

10.100.060 Infeasibility Waiver
A. Waiver. If an Applicant for an appliance upgrade believes that circumstances exist that make it technically or physically infeasible to meet the requirements of this Chapter, the applicant may request an infeasibility waiver as set forth below. Financial considerations alone shall not be a sufficient basis for technical or physical infeasibility. In applying for an exemption, the burden is on the Applicant to show infeasibility.

B. Application Process. An Applicant may apply for an infeasibility waiver by submitting a written letter of justification for an infeasibility waiver as early as practicable. The Applicant shall

21 of 187

indicate in their letter of justification the maximum threshold of compliance he or she believes is feasible for the project and the circumstances that make it infeasible to fully comply with this Chapter. Circumstances that constitute infeasibility include, but are not limited to the following:

1. There is conflict with another City regulation, such as those requiring historic preservation;

2. There is a lack of commercially available materials, appliances, and/or technologies to comply with the requirements of this Chapter;

3. Applying the requirements of this Chapter would effectuate an unconstitutional interference;

4. Applying the requirements of this Chapter would create a health hazard or uninhabitable conditions, such as lack of heat from any source in an inhabited space for more than 48 hours causing unsafe indoor air temperature, or prolonged lack of access to hot water.

C. Review of Exemption. Where the City Manager or his/her designee determines that it is infeasible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter based on the information provided, the City Manager or his/her designee shall determine the maximum feasible threshold of compliance reasonably achievable for the project and condition the approval accordingly. The decision of the City Manager or his/her designee shall be provided to the applicant in writing. If an exemption is granted but the City Manager or his/her designee determines that the applicant can still achieve a certain threshold of compliance, the applicant shall be required to comply with this Chapter in all other respects and shall be required to achieve, in accordance with this Chapter, the threshold of compliance determined to be achievable by the City Manager or his/her designee.

D. Final Determination. If the City Manager or his/her designee determines that it is reasonably possible for the applicant to fully meet the requirements of this Chapter, the request for an exemption shall be denied and the City Manager or his/her designee shall so notify the applicant in writing.

E. Expiration. The City Manager or his/her designee shall not grant infeasibility waivers on or after January 1, 2030. All Infeasibility Waivers granted previously shall expire on January 1, 2030.

10.100.070 Termination of Fuel Gas Usage
No later than January 1, 20XX, all buildings within [Municipality] shall not be served by fuel gas infrastructure.

No later than January 1, 2035, all buildings owned and operated by [Municipality] shall not be served by fuel gas infrastructure.

10.100.080 Periodic Review of Ordinance
The City shall review the requirements of this ordinance every 18 months for consistency with the California Energy Code and the Energy Commission’s mid-cycle amendments and triennial code adoption cycle as applicable.

10.100.090 Severability
If any word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion of this Chapter, or any application thereof to any person or circumstance is declared void, unconstitutional, or invalid for any reason, then such word, phrase, sentence, part, section, subsection, or other portion,

22 of 187

or the prescribed application thereof, shall be severable, and the remaining provisions of this Chapter, and all applications thereof, not having been declared void, unconstitutional or invalid, shall remain in full force and effect.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this title, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase of this Chapter, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases is declared invalid or unconstitutional.

10.100.100 Effective Date
The provisions of this chapter shall become effective on June 1, 2023.

23 of 187

ATTACHMENT 4
Page | 1
August 30, 2022
Community Meeting on Proposed Green Building Reach Codes Poll Results
Poll 1 – 25 Respondents
1) Which of the following describes your connection to the City of San Mateo? 2) What is your age group?
3) Which best describes your current housing situation? 4) How concerned are you about climate change?
5) How much have you heard, seen, or read recently about the City of San Mateo’s Green Building Reach Codes? 1 3
4 3
14 I am not connected to San Mateo
Visit San Mateo to shop, dine or for recreation
Live and work in San Mateo
Work in San Mateo
Live in San Mateo
8 9
6 2
65+ years
41-64 years
25-40 years
Under 18 years
1 20
4 Other
Own my home
Pay rent for my home
1 3
21 Somewhat concerned
Neutral
Very concerned
16 9
A great deal
A little

24 of 187

ATTACHMENT 4
Page | 2
Poll 2 – 27 Respondents
1) Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 1 that requires panel capacity for future electrification of gas appliances at time of electrical panel upgrade in residential buildings? 2) Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 2 that requires the installation of outlets at time of kitchen or laundry room renovations in single family homes if a gas stove or gas dryer is installed? 3) Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 3 that requires heat pump air conditioning installation at time of AC installation and gas furnace replacement in single family homes and duplexes? 4) Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 4A that requires new pools use electric or solar water heating at existing residential buildings?
2 1
1 23
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
2 2
1 22
Strongly oppose
Neutral
Somewhat support
Strongly support
2 1
2 22
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
2 1
24 Strongly oppose
Neutral
Strongly support

25 of 187

ATTACHMENT 4
Page | 3
5) Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 4B that would prohibit the extension of fuel gas infrastructure in the backyard of existing residential buildings, thus, prohibiting fossil gas use for fire pits, grills, and water heating for pools?
6) Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 5 that requires the installation of a heat pump water heater as part of an addition or alteration projects that include a water heater replacement in single family homes?
7) How concerned are you by the potential cost increase for homeowners as result of adopting these proposed green building reach codes?
8) Do you think these green building reach code options:
2 1
1 23
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Neutral
Strongly support
2 1
3 21
Strongly oppose
Somewhat oppose
Somewhat support
Strongly support
7 9
4 7
Not concerned
Neutral
Somewhat concerned
Very concerned
16 7
4 Do not go far enough
Help reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Go too far

26 of 187

Summary Of Responses
As of September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM, this forum
had:

Topic Start Topic End
Attendees: 161 August 30, 2022, 2:31 PM September 13, 2022, 11:59 PM Responses: 98
Hours of Public Comment: 4.9
QUESTION 1
How concerned are you about climate change?
% Count
Very concerned

68.4% 67
Somewhat concerned

14.3% 14
Neutral

12.2% 12
Not very concerned

3.1% 3
Not at all concerned

2.0% 2
QUESTION 2
Did you attend the August 30th Community Meeting on Proposed Green Building Reach Codes held on Zoom? % Count
Yes

13.3% 13
No

86.7% 85
QUESTION 3
2 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

27 of 187

How much have you heard, seen, or read recently about the City of San Mateo’s Green Building Reach Codes? % Count
A great deal

40.8% 40
A little

46.9% 46
Nothing at all

12.2% 12
QUESTION 4
Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 1 that requires panel capacity for future electrification of gas appliances at time of electrical panel upgrade in residential buildings? % Count
Strongly support

51.6% 49
Somewhat support

17.9% 17
Neutral

6.3% 6
Somewhat oppose

9.5% 9
Strongly oppose

14.7% 14
QUESTION 5
Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 1? Answered 32
Skipped 66
QUESTION 6
Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 2 that requires the installation of outlets at time of kitchen or laundry room renovations in single family homes if a gas stove or gas dryer is installed? 3 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

SEE PAGE 9 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 5
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

28 of 187

% Count
Strongly support

48.4% 46
Somewhat support

12.6% 12
Neutral

5.3% 5
Somewhat oppose

11.6% 11
Strongly oppose

22.1% 21
QUESTION 7
Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 2? Answered 31
Skipped 67
QUESTION 8
Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 3 that requires heat pump air conditioning installation at time of AC installation and gas furnace replacement in single family homes and duplexes? % Count
Strongly support

41.1% 39
Somewhat support

15.8% 15
Neutral

7.4% 7
Somewhat oppose

13.7% 13
Strongly oppose

22.1% 21
QUESTION 9
4 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

SEE PAGE 10 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 7
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

29 of 187

Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 3? Answered 36
Skipped 62
QUESTION 10
Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 4A that requires new pools use electric or solar water heating at existing residential buildings?
% Count
Strongly support

61.1% 58
Somewhat support

15.8% 15
Neutral

9.5% 9
Somewhat oppose

7.4% 7
Strongly oppose

6.3% 6
QUESTION 11
Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 4A? Answered 18
Skipped 80
QUESTION 12
Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 4B that would prohibit the extension of fuel gas infrastructure in the backyard of existing residential buildings, thus, prohibiting fossil gas use for fire pits, grills, and water heating for pools?
% Count
Strongly support

41.9% 39
5 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

SEE PAGE 11 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 9
SEE PAGE 12 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 11
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

30 of 187

% Count
Somewhat support

8.6% 8
Neutral

7.5% 7
Somewhat oppose

10.8% 10
Strongly oppose

31.2% 29
QUESTION 13
Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 4B? Answered 30
Skipped 68
QUESTION 14
Do you support or oppose proposed Reach Code Option 5 that requires the installation of a heat pump water heater as part of an addition or alteration projects that include a water heater replacement in single family homes?
% Count
Strongly support

30.9% 29
Somewhat support

19.1% 18
Neutral

8.5% 8
Somewhat oppose

10.6% 10
Strongly oppose

30.9% 29
QUESTION 15
Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 5? 6 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

SEE PAGE 13 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 13
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

31 of 187

Answered 34
Skipped 64
QUESTION 16
How concerned are you by the potential cost increase for homeowners as result of adopting these proposed green building reach codes?
% Count
Very concerned

60.4% 58
Somewhat concerned

28.1% 27
Not concerned

10.4% 10
Not sure

1.0% 1
QUESTION 17
Do you think these green building reach code options:
% Count
help reduce greenhouse gas emissions

32.0% 31
do not go far enough

23.7% 23
go too far

35.1% 34
not sure

9.3% 9
QUESTION 18
Is there anything else you would like to share about these green building reach code options? Answered 52
7 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

SEE PAGE 14 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 15
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

32 of 187

QUESTION 19
Which of the following describes your connection to the City of San Mateo? % Count
Live in San Mateo

69.4% 68
Work in San Mateo

3.1% 3
Live and work in San Mateo

21.4% 21
Visit San Mateo to shop, dine or for recreation

6.1% 6
QUESTION 20
What is your age group?
% Count
18-24 years

1.0% 1
25-40 years

14.3% 14
41-64 years

55.1% 54
65+ years

29.6% 29
QUESTION 21
Which best describes your current housing situation?
% Count
Own my home

90.8% 89
8 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

Skipped 46
SEE PAGE 15 FOR RESPONSES TO QUESTION 18
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

33 of 187

% Count
Pay rent for my home

8.2% 8
Other

1.0% 1
9 | www.opentownhall.com/12175 Created with OpenGov | September 14, 2022, 8:43 AM Proposed Green Building Reach Codes
How can we make home remodels more sustainable? Survey on green building reach codes.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

34 of 187

Question 5: Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 1? • Be more specific. How many reserved breaker(s) space and amps? stove, oven, water heat, furnace, EV? • This is a practical measure that helps residents plan and prepare for the transition. • Really great way to ease the transmission at an opportune time. • This will be very cost prohibitive for homeowners.
• This is a "no brainer" except for some potentially unique situations which a process is needed for dealing with. • How will low-income residents be assisted with the cost? Can you bring the big wealthy local companies on board to donate? Especially those that will benefit from electrification? • Making decisions without any idea of their negative consequences is dangerous...how is the electric generated on a necessary scale and can the grid even work unless new power generation are developed • How much extra capacity?
• You don't know when the other appliances go out and need replacement, so change out only as needed for upgrading to electrical panel.
• We should be requiring all remodels to be permitted--- make it easier. AND also make home inspection reports PUBLIC and available to EVERYONE!!! There is NO reason why new homeowners should have to guess at the renovations done to their home or the actual condition it is in. Please keep these records public. Every house should have history like a car. Except houses are more expensive! We need a lemon law for homes. • I am concerned about the cost to homeowners. Panel upgrades are expensive - what is the cost to homeowners?
• As a community, as we makes plan for transition to all electric, may be be mindful of our citizens who may not have the financial resources to make the necessary changes? • Gas fireplaces should be exempt. Electrical fireplaces are improving but aren’t there yet. Lack of flame fireplaces reduces home value and quality of life.
• hopefully low-income homeowners will receive some fin. assistance to meet this requirement • I don’t think all electric is the way to go anytime soon. Natural gas is less expensive and still clean. What will people do in power outages or heat waves? This just makes it more expensive for everyone! • Complete horse shit. Over 1500 scientists have said there is nothing extraordinary about the climate. Just a way for politicians to tax and spend more of our money
• This is a weak measure as it will not have a significant or near-term impact on reducing GHGs. It should be implemented, but due to the urgency of the climate crisis, far stronger measures are needed. • added expense that may not be affordable to all house owners • Verify that PG&E will run additional capacity to older buildings up to the Meter no cost. • Isn't it already expensive enough to do home remodeling, but now you will require me to get a new panel? • A cost-share programs needs to be developed for low income residents. Replacing a panel can be very expensive.
• I strongly support this. However, it should be pointed out that a majority of homes can be fully electrified without increasing the panel size. As noted at https://redwoodenergy.net/watt-diet-calculator/, "Most people think electrical upgrades are needed if they add electric appliances, but this can be avoided with thoughtful selection of efficient products or by using load sharing devices." • Upgrading the panel for electrification capacity make sense at the time of panel upgrade. Less costly. • How will this be defined? How much future expansion capacity will be needed? In some cases there will be costs to use a larger panel, so upfront cost is not necessarily $0 as indicated in the table above. • How it will work in existing houses may be difficult and very expensive for homeowner • Facilitate easy access to grants; check with PG&E whether related upgrades can be expedited • This is not Reach it is Over-Reach. We are presently in a electric energy crisis already. • Could be okay if truly limited to panel replacement or upgrade. Not convinced it is no cost item.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

35 of 187

• In an existing home if an upgrade is needed for safety reasons I don't think this additional work should be required
• Replacing gas with electric at residences will not offer any meaurable impact on greenhouse gas levels.

Recommend the city focus on transportation inprovements. • unless its new construction, existing residents should have option to keep their gas connections if they have it. • This is the bare minimum that we should do!
Question 7: Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 2? • Contractors will do only the minimum. Be more specific how many outlets and amps. • While it is best to inform residents of superior options available today, if they do choose gas then it should not hamper future residents or themselves when the time comes to choose electric appliances. • Again, this is adding arguably unnecessary costs to the project. • I think that forcing someone to cook with electricity goes beyond what a city should regulate • This makes a lot of sense, but there needs to be a process for exceptions (e.g., wiring challenges, etc.) • same as above
• This seems like a stupid question on it's surface.
• Most of the houses in San Mateo have 60 amp fuse panels and knob and tube wiring with no grounds. The fuse panels are usually in a closet and many houses have no 220V service. Be real about the costs, Starting price will be more like 5000 and could be much more.
• Again, too premature advance preparation and cost for homeowner. Replace as needed. • Why should a homeowner be forced to pay for something they may never use? When codes change to force new appliances to be electric is the time when these outlets should be installed. • As a community, as we makes plan for transition to all electric, may be be mindful of our citizens who may not have the financial resources to make the necessary changes? Seniors on fixed incomes, etc. • Housing costs are already through the roof in SM, this will hurt our poorest residents who are already struggling. • Cost is much higher because this usually includes upgrades to electrical panel for 220 v. • hopefully low-income homeowners will receive some fin. assistance to meet this requirement • Just don’t get the push for this. It makes NO sense.
• Just more horse shit regulations by bought and paid for politicians to make our lives harder • This is a weak measure as it will not have a significant or near-term impact on reducing GHGs. It should be implemented, but due to the urgency of the climate crisis, far stronger measures are needed. • added expense that may not be affordable to all house owners • Hard for low income population to handle
• Unnecessary and burdensome added cost when installing gas appliances which do a better job • Need a cost-share program.
• Totally makes sense. Much cheaper to do electric readiness at time of renovation. • Electrical service is unfortunately not entirely reliable, so gas should remain an option for those who choose to use it.
• forcing people to switch fuels and the extra costs to be incurred seems hard to ask, will be especially hard for elderly on fixed income
• This is highly under estimated. Many of the homes in San Mateo will need complete rewiring and higher capacity service.
• Current building codes are adequate for electrical outlet requirements • The initial description about what is required and when is not the same as your question above. Renovations might not have anything to do with outlets. Government overkill.. • Replacing gas with electric at residences will not offer any meaurable impact on greenhouse gas levels.

Recommend the city focus on transportation inprovements • I believe that a kitchen remodel should require all electric appliances at time of remodel Att 5 - Online Survey Results

36 of 187

• Residents should be able to keep their existing gas appliances if they want them. • You should require that only electric stoves or dryers be installed during renovations now.

Question 9: Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 3? • Only support if the $3k TECH rebates is available. Other incentives include eliminate the $500-$1000 permit fee.

Expidite the permitting process at no charge. These cover the installation costs. To reduce operating costs the city provides an annual refund that would equalize operating costs between the heat pump vs the AC/gas furance. This would be in place fo 10 yrs from the date of installation.The money to fund would come from Sacramento.This year under Sentor Becker Menlo Park with a third of our population recieved $3.4M. For the city's population this would be$13.5M. All used to help ease higher operating costs • Be more specific. Would a window air conditioner be allowed? Or any combination of a small room electric resistance heater and a window air conditioner?
• With the Inflation Reduction Act combined with local incentives from PCE, Bay-Ren and PG&E low and medium income families may be able to avoid any cost differential. • Leading with AC is a smart move for introducing HVAC heat pumps. • Cost prohibitive.
• I feel that it should be up to the homeowner to choose their fuel source. • This makes a lot of sense, but there needs to be a process for potential exceptions/unique situations. • same as above
• Cost/benefit should include the real cost at scale of electric generation for these proposed changes. Where are they?
• For new installations it is ok but for replacement it is a stupid idea, it will not save any money as gas is cheaper than electricity and California can't even supply enough electricity now • My HVAC guy told me this already.
• Why not push solar?!? It’s much healthier!
• Are the additional costs accurately estimated? Heat pumps are tricky to install correctly and are generally very expensive. Some homeowners may not be able to afford this option. • As a community, as we makes plan for transition to all electric, may be be mindful of our citizens who may not have the financial resources to make the necessary changes? • Electric heat pump technology has been in use around the world for a long time and is efficient proven technology.
• The code should do more than address A/C. It should require all gas HVAC equipment to be replaced with electric appliance at the end of the gas appliance's useful life. • As a family deeply concerned about climate change, we did a variety of upgrades in the past 5+ years, after having solar panels installed. In stages we put in an EV charger (which required a panel upgrade), replaced our gas dryer with an electric one, and most recently switched to a heat-pump based heating/AC system housewide as well as a heat-pump-based water heater (coupled with a recirculating pump that moves hot water throughout the house, reducing water waste). These changes were expensive. However, we were aware of rebates available through BayRen, etc. and that helped convince us that those investments were worthwhile.

Now we only have one gas item in the house -- the stove. Having gone virtually all electric, we are looking to expand our solar panel array to further offset our energy costs. We strongly hope that the city and county, state, etc. can continue to come up with rebates and other incentives to encourage our fellow Californians to make the investment in cleaner choices.
• Fine for AC units because they should be discouraged as they contribute to warming and they are generally for comfort and there are other alternatives such as insulation, blinds/curtains, trees, etc. Look at what Europe requires before they allow an AC unit! Heat is a necessity so I do not agree • hopefully low-income homeowners will receive some fin. assistance to meet this requirement • The State can't keep the lights on now. So where is all that NEW electrical power coming from? Att 5 - Online Survey Results

37 of 187

• Hikes up the price for the middle class just like the rest of these elitist horse shit proposals • added expense that may not be affordable to all house owners • Heat pumps are great - but noisy; and provide cooling now just heat - now our nice outdoor environment will hum with thousands of air conditioners
• If this means I can’t install an efficient gas furnace, if I want to replace my current one (with or without a/c), I’m opposed. Gas forced air heating is better than electrical heating. Heat pumps are noisy- buzzing and clanking, enough to also bother neighbors ( and now in late fall/winter/spring too?!). They're also outside exposed to the elements, requiring regular maintenance. Modern gas furnaces are protected inside, requiring little maintenance, are quiet, efficient, and economical to operate. Heat Pumps deliver relatively cooler air to heat with and also lose efficiency dramatically (and need to be supplemented with even more electrical) when outside air temps approach 40 deg F or less. And why would we use heat pumps for heating too, risking stressing PG&E's electrical grid to shutdown in winter too, when people really need it? • I support the installation of electric air conditioning. However, mini-spits might be a better solution in some applications, especially when a whole home does not require air conditioning. It would be better if the code could allow for any electrified option.
• Makes sense, especially with current heat conditions. Like getting air conditioning for almost no cost. • This requirement does not take into account individual site factors such as where a heat pump exhaust might be placed. A better option would be to provide rebates for heat pump purchases. • having just researched this the upfront cost id way more Than $2000 and if use heat pump, when need top up electrical heat PG&E will be gouging with there probes
• Again, these estimates are highly under-estimated.
• Heat pump units have drawbacks, require more space, take more time than efficient gas units to recharge, location of units is more problematic, cost and space requirements are significant • $1500 up front is not insignificant and the monthly bill impact is confusing because it seems to say it will both save money and cost more simultaneously. Doubt the $1500 figure will remain static or decrease. • I don't think in the case of replacement something different should be required • I believe this should include single family and multi family dwelling units adding new air conditioning. Exclusions might apply to repairs or replacement of damaged gas units • Such an amazing technology, and especially a no-brainer in our mild climate. • Think upfront cost significantly underestimated
• You should require heat pump installation whenever furnaces are replaced now.

Question 11: Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 4A? • Only support if PCE rebates are in place. Again the city can eliminate permit fees. Expidite the permit without charge. CIty can provide annual rebate to compensate for higher operating costs using the money Senator Becker provided ie $13.5 ML
• Pools are a luxury item and I am not concerned about equity impacts for this measure. • This takes too long and will negatively impact our power grid. • Solar heat pumps for pool water heating is much less efficient than gas. I would support the measure if the technology was more efficient.
• Neutral = while this is a very good idea, the total GHG reduction for this is minimal (i.e., few new pools?) • If you can afford a pool, you can afford to heat it.
• Solar can handle low temperature applications like a swimming pool. Electrical again the scale and source of electrical generation is still unknown from what I understand. • Pools should be banned due to future droughts (scientists have confirmed) water shortage. We have to do with less amenities in the future
• No-brained. Easier doesn’t mean cheaper or healthier.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

38 of 187

• Given the environmental impact of pools and the lack of water in California I would propose a ban on new pool construction in San Mateo.
• Pool solar heating has been in use successfully for decades. • Pools are luxury not necessities
• As little new pools allowed as possible - our water crisis is NOT going to improve • Most inefficient way possible to heat a pool.
• Does not take into account existing infrastructure, might be much more difficult to install the required electrical lines. Also the bill impact is probably higher cost rather than savings as listed here due to the price of electricity. • Should be banning personal pools California can no longer afford these as water crises deepens • Add incentives for this, not mandates. If this option is a money saver, people will take the option. • How many solar panels required to heat average pool and where will they be located? Not enough info.

Skeptical of cost figures. Not enough detail.

Question 13: Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 4B? • Only support PCE rebates available. Other incentives include eliminate the permit fee. Expidite the permitting process at no charge. These cover the installation costs. • This is unfair. I new build that is more energy efficient than a renovated SFR should be able to have a grill and firepit. The fix in other cities people are using us actually less energy efficient. They are undergrounding propane storage tanks that are filled by trucks driving around. This is worse. • Using a grill a few times a month (probably no more than 20 times a year) is not a material source of emissions.

Plus people will bbq using LPG/propane. Which has more lifecycle emissions. • People should be able to use outdoor appliances and amenities on their property. If we do not allow for natural gas, they will use propane tanks that have an even larger carbon footprint. • People should be able to do whatever they want to their own backyards. • I feel that it is much safer to have natural gas than to have tanks of propane which is an option. • Neutral = this is a good idea, but the total GHG reduction for this is minimal(?) & folks will avoid permits • Yay! These are so dumb anyway!!
• I do not believe that it will save any money. On cool nights we use our fire pit for heat. Do you expect me to use an electric space heater?
• Propane tanks release more propane when being installed/removed and fire pits use a lot of them over their lifetime. Better to feed them directly
• But you'll use dirty energy to supply the electric grid for electricity at this scale and countries like China an India to flaunt the rules.
• For pools it's ok but fire pits and BBQ s you are really out of touch with the real world. That tiny bit of carbon isn't even measurable and people will just use propane. You should call it an overreach code as people will just ignore it. Why don't you require more greenery with all the new construction that will actually reduce CO2, this is all just a bunch of feel good language that will do nothing. • You, the city, are telling us that gas will be prohibited in the future. So we have to agree with you • We don’t need fossil fuels!!!
• For pools yes. What is the estimated impact of fire pits and grills? If someone can't hard-line a grill they will continue to use bottled gas so no change there. Without the option of a gas fire pit, will residents just burn wood?
• Homes with existing gas meters should be allowed to continue to use plumbed gas for indoor and outdoor fireplaces and grills.
• Pools okay but grills and fire pits are such minor contributors. • As little new pools allowed as possible - our water crisis is NOT going to improve • WHAT, YOU want to take away my enjoyment of an outdoor barbecue? That’s the last straw • Grills will have either gas or charcoal which is best? Att 5 - Online Survey Results

39 of 187

• My gas barbeque isn't contributing, nor is anyone else's, to green house gas buildup. So now you are micromanging how I cook for friends and family?
• There is no electrical replacement for firepits; and wood fire is worse for the environment • The issue of heating pools is already addressed in Option 4A. People will grill and use firepits. If the gas isn't piped in they will resort to propane. Although there area many environmental advantages to burning propane vs natural gas, there are many issues in the materials used to store and transport propane. There are the needed metal containers which require mining, refining and manufacture. Trucks and trains to transport them.

What is their environmental impact? There is the waste they produce, or the energy needed and the cost to recycle the canisters. Are our recycle centers prepared to handle the additional wasted or recycled metal containers? There is no clear-cut answer here.
• How do fire pits and grills work without gas? This just means that those would have to use propane tanks, so has negative environmental effect.
• Should be banning personal pools California can no longer afford these as water crises deepens • Better than 4A
• Alternative food preparation cooking is necessary when electricity is not available. • Ridiculous. This is a minimal use of gas and yet another impact to personal enjoyment of our homes. • Similar to 4A on absence of comprehensive details.
• Any new construction should be Converted to electric
Question 15: Do you have any other comments about Reach Code Option 5? • Need to manage the operating noise of heat pump water heater which will increase price. Many water heaters are in living spaces such as a home, JADU. Need PCE rebates available. Other incentives include eliminate the permit fee. Expidite the permitting process at no charge. These cover the installation costs. Based on our hi gas efficeny water heater it is the lowest of our few gas appliances in terms of gas usage • Older small homes sometimes have the gas water heater in an interior closet. There is not enough physical space or air flow for a physically larger heat pump water heater. Is an all electric resistance heater ok? It would not be as energy efficient, but would get rid of the natural gas. • I strongly approve. Is anyone actually installing new pools these days? Solar heating is a great option in most cases.
• The market is not yet at a place where gas to electric conversions are simple replacements. This could result in people being without hot water for extended periods and has troubling cost implications for low income households.
• More thought needs to be put in place of how we switch from gas to electricity. Most heating devices use a large amount of electricity and must be offset with solar panels. That load on the grid could cause blackouts and the grid must be outfitted to handle that load before passing these codes. We also must reconcile eliminating gas for outdoor amenities. People are accustom to being able to cook with gas and use fire pits for family gatherings. Large propane tanks will replace natural gas if it is eliminated and filling tanks has a much bigger carbon footprint than natural gas for this use.
• This makes a lot of sense, but there needs to be a process for potential exceptions/unique situations. • I challenge your premise that any electrical appliance replacing a gas appliance will save money. • With these types of regulations we will soon be like Europe is going to be this winter. Prices that will severely impact the majority of Americans Where is the alternative energy coming from? • I'm not spending 5000 dollars for a water heater, I will just install another gas one, another stupid rule that people will ignore.
• Why are you targeting only SFR; not condos or other residential facilities, nursing homes, etc? • Force people to consider the future
• Are these more efficient than tankless heaters? Can there be allowances for installation of electric tankless heaters?
Att 5 - Online Survey Results

40 of 187

• As a community, as we makes plan for transition to all electric, may be be mindful of our citizens who may not have the financial resources to make the necessary changes? • Not sure how long heat pump water heaters have been in use. • Heat pump water heaters should be required whenever a gas water heater is replaced. • I support moving to electrification if there are rebates or discounts given because some of these costs are prohibitive...
• make it as affordable as possible for low-income homeowners • Stupidest idea I’ve ever heard of. Water heater replacement already costs $2000, now you want to triple that! • Tankless electric water heaters should perhaps be a second option. • added expense that may not be affordable to all house owners • What about convection heaters for hot water
• It is very easy for you to spend someone else's money, but replacing a water heater is already not cheap, and you are going to force us to now add on heat pumps?
• Heat Pump water heaters are very, very noisy - and can impact the livability of the home based on where they are placed.
• Burdensome, heavy, and unnecessary upfront and ongoing costs. • I support the change to electric, but feel that restricing the options to heat pumps is not the right solution.

Inline water heaters might be better solutions in some applications. These can also help save water in our drought stricken area. More than one electrical option would be better. Solar hot water heaters should also be permitted.
• There are incentives to cut the cost of this.
• In most cases this will work, but again, these requirements have no exceptions for site conditions. Better to have rebate program to support heat pump purcahses.
• Massive cost impact (once mandated extra cost will easily more than double) • Facilitate more contractors to pick up on this work
• Our electric grid is already over-taxed and this will just add to the cost of purchase and operation of living and working in
• See comments for heat pump AC units
• Considerable upfront cost potential here. What happens when a water heater just dies, which occurs with some frequency? Is City going to beat homeowners up for simply needing to replace existing water heater? That would be outrageous!
• Heat pump water heating is quite noisy. Not all homes have adequate sound barriers. I believe this appliance would be disruptive to the tranquility of one’s home
• High upfront cost. Need more information re available financial aid or incentive Question 18: Is there anything else you would like to share about these green building reach code options?
• "May need to include a hi efficiency gas option for #5. However make the incentives for heat pump water heater so convincing.
• Overall the proposed codes when coupled with installation and operating costs rebates are a good first step orientating the city for an electric future. If too financially burdensome for all residents then residents will install without permits, delay installation, or decide not to install and instead purchase space heaters and coolers for each room. Need to avoid this for all residents"
• Given the catastrophic impacts of climate change, and timelines for implementation, and observed benefits, I believe the proposed reach codes do not go far enough.
• These codes should apply to offices, businesses also and multifamily dwellings.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

41 of 187

• For most households, the greenhouse gas reduction benefits of these measures outweighs concerns about costs.

However, for core energy services like water heating, we need to have policies and programs in place that protect low income customers from upfront cost barriers and utility bill impacts. • There are very few new build SFR. If it is a new development some of these would make sense. For new builds with existing gas lines this does not make sense. There are very few of these and not allowing any gas adversely impacts those few homeowners that buy a teardown and want to improve our neighborhoods. This is unfair if they are otherwise improving the energy efficiency in other ways. • Replacing systems used on a daily basis with electricity makes sense (dryers, heating, water heating, pools). That is the source of nearly all household emissions. Making people only install an electric BBQ pushes it too far - and has almost no impact on emissions.
• I believe you should make incentives for people to be “green”, but to make all these things mandatory seems cost prohibitive and extreme. We don’t want to deter people from bettering their home by adding too many requirements. I fee this might increase the amount of unpermitted work being done as well. • "I think that these requirements are fine for commercial and institutional buildings but I think that they go to far for the individual homeowner. I think that if you can provide solar panels on your home, these are great choices but some homes are too shaded, or do not have the proper orientation for solar and so these electrical requirements become a burden. The current electrical grid will be overloaded and become a larger problem than the emmission from a gas cooktop.
• "
• I think the City of San Mateo is leading in a reasonable way on these Reach Codes. Part of why we live in the City of San Mateo is a certain pragmatism/realistic approach to things even when being a leader. For example, even if everything became all electric in the City, the net effect on GHG world wide would basically be zero given how small our GHG is versus the world. This DOES NOT mean don't make progress and work to reduce GHG. Just at some point funds would be better spent helping "others" that are bigger producers of GHG versus spending those same funds here. There are other environmental costs to forcing change outs earlier than end of life (e.g., landfill, environmental damage from the production of new appliances/etc.). We have this view in CA to be "perfect" environmentally while exporting our environmental damage to other places in the world where the laws/regs are poor. There is a balance on being "aggressive but reasonable" at the same time given all the considerations. And, the thought some how all this "free money" from the State or US Gov't is going to solve this problem is a misplaced. The funds come from somewhere (e.g., taxes, utility bills, fees, etc.). We do not have unlimited funds ourselves.
• I support these green building reach codes and hope the city passes them so we can be a leader to other jurisdictions in the state considering similar measures. The City of San Mateo might be small but the impact of influencing/encouraging others to do the same would be huge. • Please take as much time as necessary to educate the public about the need for all this. Amazingly, there are still people who don't see any crisis regarding fossil fuel consumption, methane, energy use, etc. Many people will only look at cost. So poll the wealthy big local companies (especially those that will benefit from electrification) for financial donations.
• My problem is that electricity is much more expensive than gas. Last winter I used 43 therms of gas to heat my house, water, cook and dry my clothes. One therm of energy is equal to about 30 KWH. My 43 therms of energy is about 1,290 KWH. At my current rate of $1.97 a therm those 43 therms cost me $87.71. If that energy came from electricity those 1,290 KWH would cost me about $470.85 at my current average rate of $0.365. Please explain to me how I'm saving money, Thanks, • Moving forward without any clear viable alternative for this approach and closing our nuclear plants is the definition of stupidity.
• Concern that people will not be supportive because of the cost. Concerned that housing in general will be more expensive sure to added costs.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

42 of 187

• The amount of the world's CO2 that San Mateo puts out is not even measurable and will make no difference, let the people who want to do it but leave the rest of us alone as we will not comply with these big brother regulations.
• If the city is requiring green, the City needs to offer tax incentives to do these to help fray the costs for the homeowner, such as property tax credit.
• We should be requiring all remodels to be permitted… make it easier. AND also make home inspection reports PUBLIC and available to EVERYONE!!! There is NO reason why new homeowners should have to guess at the renovations done to their home or the actual condition it is in. Please keep these records public. Every house should have history like a car. Except houses are more expensive! We need a lemon law for homes. Why don’t we have wind turbines all along the bay where the electrical towers are? We get so much wind and sun we should be completely fossil fuel free by now!!!
• I’m afraid all this is too late. We have too many people on the planet. • The larger question here is whether we have the infrastructure to support an all-electric system. PGE have proven they can not sustain existing infrastructure and with the increase of electric vehicles our system is being strained. We risk an increase in brown- and black- outs and an unreliable system. I would like to see a move more to city-wide solar and local storage systems subsidized by the City. • "We are on a fixed income and been in our home for 49 years. We cannot afford any of these options. When we die, our house will be demolished and rebuilt. Until then, we cannot afford any of this. Our house has the original gas wall heater. We pray that it will keep
• working!"
• It's commendable that as a city, San Mateo is focusing on what it's residents should do to reduce greenhouse emmisions. As a community, let's not forget that for many of our residents these changes may be cost- prohibitive, so let's work together to make sure that if/when these changes are enacted, they are feasable for all. This could be by allowing for grants, rebates, or some other form of finacial support if needed. • Our electric grid is barely functioning; adding to load seems unwise. • In discussing reach codes, the City appears to be concerned only about the cost to building owners in making a transition to all electric buildings. The City never includes a discussion about the cost to the general public from greenhouse gas emissions. These are not abstract costs. They are quantified as "the social cost of carbon" which the federal government currently estimates to be $51/tonne of CO2e. Leaving these costs out of the equation distorts the cost/benefit analysis and prejudices the discussion in favor of destructive gas appliances. • Again, any incentives and/or rebates you can provide to property owners will help encourage people to adopt these greener technologies. We as a family 100% support our city's efforts to make buildings as green as possible. For many property owners, cost will undoubtedly be the major hurdle to adoption. • I think every new construction in San Mateo should have grey water, solar panels, and all be Gold or LEED Platinum Certified buildings. Most homeowners are trying to get electric cars, plant drought tolerant gardens, etc. and are doing their part for climate change. But it seems like all the office and residential construction backed by investors are not being asked to do their part for climate change. For every 200 unit residential unit built there should be an equal amount of trees and green space created for the residents and their mental and physical and emotional health.
• Show people the long term savings. Consider low interest loans for installation if cost is too much. • Right now the building dept doesn’t even require an unpermitted AC unit using to be replaced with an energy efficient model. Start with the holes in our current code that are more egregious. Concentrate on essential vs necessary uses in determining code changes. Don’t saddle homeowners with major costs otherwise they will bypass the permit process. Homeowners have limits.
• Stop allowing home demolition, which is incredibly wasteful--- especially for pre-1940 homes • not at this time
• This is crazy. PG&E use natural ga to generate electricity what’s the difference. • So you want to upend my entire life, destroy my remodeling plans by tripling the cost but you’re concerned I’m using profanity in this survey.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

43 of 187

• The reach code options should all be adopted, but they simply do not go far enough given the urgency of the climate crisis. The City should be adopting the Bay Area Reach Codes Group's full model code for existing buildings, with an implementation date of 1/1/25 for all measures not included in Staff's proposal. Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, California's new budget targets, and PCE's new on-billing financing program (among other funding and financing options), the funding/financing is in place to adopt the full model code for existing buildings with a delayed implementation date of 1/1/25. • This is a decent start; however, time is not on our side, and the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s plan would be more effective than the plan proposed here. It would also be great if the city incorporated funding assistance for the installation of solar panels in order to make the transition to all electric homes a long-term financial win for residents (while somewhat alleviating short term cost concerns). • I strongly support the San Mateo Climate Action Team's position: “The measures proposed by Staff do not go far enough, and the City should adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s* full model code for existing buildings, with a delayed implementation date of 1/1/25 to allow the City ample time to line up all sources of funding/financing, and other support programs.”
• Nothing in here about requiring restaurants to use low-flow water toilets -- toilets in these locations have many more uses per day than a toilet in a house/apartment; and water usage has an impact on the climate and his a major issue in California
• I know that gas economically and comfortably heats a home’s air space and water. It also does a superior job in temperature control and burn safety to cook with versus electric stoves. Please don’t force these additional costs on people to put in inferior systems. This will also only add to the electrical supply and demand imbalance.

Local reach codes won’t solve the larger challenge and only introduce heavy costs and problems for San Mateo residents. Remember, most San Mateans aren’t tuned into this initiative, but would suffer the consequences from it if it were adopted, while receiving no noticeable benefit from an improved climate. Addressing climate change meaningfully requires broader participation (Paris Global Accord etc.). • Ban new indoor fireplaces that aren't electric. We need additional codes regarding water use, gray water reuse, and rainwater capture and discharge into landscape. Imagine the energy savings if we don't have to use electricity to clean and transport water that is safe to use in the landscape, and using rainwater to hydrate our soils instead of cleaning and pumping water for irrigation. Separate water meters for landscape and household use water would be helpful to monitor useage. Enforce MWELO for all properties, not just new installations. It will reduce the city's energy usage since we will clean and pump less water. Requiring the installation of electric appliance, not just installing outlets, seems better. I'm concerned about the amount of electricity that we are able to pull into our homes off the poles. Transformers on poles will need to be upgraded to allow for increased electrical useage in homes without charging the customers directly for this upgrade. For a church improvement project that I am working on, we are unable to upgrade to all electric appliances because we can't pull enough energy off the pole without paying for a very expensive upgrade of current coming into our buildings off the pole. The city should also incourage solar panels and back-up batteries. This will help reduce infrastructure use on the larger electrical system. Time to localize electrical generation by putting it on our homes and businesses when applicable. Require a solar energy study on new construction and installation of solar panels. I am EXTREMELY concerned about the cost of these upgrades for low income homeowners. There need to be cost sharing programs. For public buildings, consider requireing green roof installations. There are many environmental gains for green roofs in addition to energy savings. • While the above measures are helpful, they do not go far enough. I would encourage San Mateo, and all local cities, to adopt this Fall the Bay Area Reach Codes Group's full model code for existing buildings, with an implementation date of 1/1/25.
• The Inflation Reduction Act and current State legislation awaiting the governor's signatures provide/will provide incentives to make electrification affordable. We are feeling extreme heat right now. In my 35 years of living in the Bay Area I have not needed air conditioning, but I could have used it in today's 107 degree heat. A heat pump heater would have provided me air conditioning.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

44 of 187

• Depending on the power source for electrical service, these code changes can have a negligable or negative impact on carbon emissions. Unfortunately electrical service is not completely reliable, and as we are seeing in the current heat wave, additional electrical power for peak periods is generated using combustion sources rather than clean sources, or there are brownouts and blackouts. • Incentivize reuse of materials. Promote/subsidize building or landscaping options that reduce the need for air conditioning/heating.
• Should also lead city into work to educate contractors, home appliance stores, and other relevant people about the incentives that are out there, including the new IRA funds coming soon. Focus on making it simple for the average person, and prioritize fiscal resources on the most neediest. • We are in an electrical shortage period in California already. This overreach of state codes is going to increase the problem. Just look at what has happened in Europe with policies like this, they are returning to coal use to produce energy! A large amount of natural gas is already necessary to produce the electricity we presently use.

Changes in natural gas usage at the local level will not stop gas use to produce electricty. Wait for the State to change the codes. Stop the over-reach.
• "Requiring electrical replacement of gas appliances in existing locations is not cost effective nor is it feasible.

Existing electric infrastructure cannot handle additional loads. China has boosted their coal usage 18-24%. The marginal carbon benefits of making property owners convert to all-electric using products that have not yet proved reliable and durable is foolish.
• New construction codes need to be different from code requirements for retrofitting." • To have a positive impact on climate change, eliminate ALL gas blower use NOW. Gas blower use is out of control; it goes on all day, everyday. It has been shown to cause more pollution than cars. This is low hanging fruit, for which there are viable options. Do it.
• "When it comes to existing homes, changes to electric or solar should be OPTIONAL, not mandated. I needed a new roof a few years ago and looked into solar and found it cost prohibitive. Also, there seems to be a near- blind rush to eliminate gas while the electric grid is insufficient (as illustrated this past week). Alternatives are needed and gas should not be eliminated until there is a track record of ample electric and solar. The stats in the survey demonstrate very little GHG reductions will be accomplished with such mandates compared to the distress new rules will cause homeowners. Not necessary to ""reach"" so far. • Also, seems calculated to not hear from majority of potentially impacted public when hearings are held in late August/early September. Questionable transparency. Plus, entire approach is not facilitating input from those who can't stay up late for meetings or use technology. " • When building a new home, it’s good to install what could be needed to provide energy and power. However, these should be optional and not overpriced.
• For brand new construction building as green as possible is great. For current homes and replacement projects it seems to go too far. I think it will discourage necessary upgrades due to cost and functionality. • Replacing gas with electric at residences will not offer any measurable impact on greenhouse gas levels.

Recommend the city focus on transportation improvements • I believe more study is needed to compare existing PG&E fossil fuel based electricity production versus the burning of fossil gas in one’s home. There are also negative health impacts with the use of solar, and wind electric production and battery Storage. ie disposal of and recycling of the hazardous materials within these units.
• There is some up-front cost to these measures, but electrification should be much more stable in price and save money over the longer term, even if you ignore the costs of pollution and catastrophic climate change. • Where cost is an issue, subsidies for low income residents may be appropriate.

Att 5 - Online Survey Results

45 of 187

46 of 187

47 of 187

48 of 187

From: Gary Trott 2 < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 7:27 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: 'Gary Trott 2' < >
Subject: 19-September SMC Council meeting written input - Reach Codes Dear San Mateo City council members,
I am a climate concerned San Mateo Citizen.

Flood waters, excessive heat waves, sea level rise, and wildfires are no joke.

Collectively, according to this year’s IPCC experts,
we are just beginning to see the impacts of
human induced climate changes. Plus, the effects will get worse with the future. The timeline is already baked in from the existing installed fossil gas using equipment.

For more than 20 years climate activism has failed to change the upward path of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. We all, collectively, created the problem when Henry Ford stepped on the generic gas pedal for both residential and business energy needs. So the solution required is, everyone, collectively needs to act to take positive steps to benefit the climate and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

I myself am planning to replace my existing furnace, water heater and dryer as soon as possible over the next year. My EV is scheduled to be delivered by end of the year.

Please act upon implementing the most comprehensive Reach Codes possible. So everyone can make near future best plans to eliminate fossil gas usage. It is a transition that will some years of time to replace all fossil gas equipment in buildings. Hence, the need to take bold action now to initiate the process.

Our collective future depends on your decisions.

Warm Regards
Dr. Gary Trott

49 of 187

From: Todd Weber
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:55 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Cc: Todd A. Weber
Subject: Request that the San Mateo City Council place on the agenda for the September 19, 2022 Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of San Mateo City Council, On behalf of ECA (Elders Climate Action) NorCal Chapter members, we request that the San Mateo City Council place on the agenda for the September 19, 2022 City Council study session on Reach Codes, a complete discussion of the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model reach code for existing buildings.

Specifically, ECA NorCal and its San Mateo members request a discussion including but not limited to these items:

1. Requiring new construction to be fully electrified,
effective January 1, 2023;

2. Requiring that all replacements of gas equipment in
homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. Ending the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Containing appropriate exemptions for economic
hardship and technical feasibility.

Failure to discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will be a lost opportunity to have a direct positive impact on the climate crisis. ECA NorCal Chapter includes highly active elder members across the northern expanse of California. We are elders, including grandparents, great aunts and great uncles who care about the future for all children. As Elders Climate Action members, we are determined to do all we can to leave a sustainable planet for future generations.
50 of 187

We are looking towards San Mateo to show leadership. Because of so much

recent

state

legislation,

your

discussion

about

reach

codes

for
existing

buildings

will

make

San

Mateo

residents

and

businesses

even
more

aware

of

the

critical

climate

impact

of

existing

buildings,

and
allow

them

to

take

advantage

of

significant

new

funding

for
electrification:
·

The

Inflation

Reduction

Act’s

significant

funding

for
fixed,

low,

middle

income

residents,

and

just

about

everyone.
·

SB1112,

Senator

Becker’s

Tariffed

on

Bill

financing,

now
on

its

way

to

the

governor.
·

PCE’s

home

upgrade

funding,

and

extensive

rebates.
·

Extensive

rebates

from

BayREN,

TECH

Clean

and

so
many

more

sources.

On

behalf

of

all

of

our

members,

especially

those

who

live

in

San
Mateo,

we

look

forward

to

the

City

Council

having

the

ability

to
discuss

and

evaluate
the full model reach code for existing buildings
at

the

September

19 study

session

on

Reach

Codes,

and

we

are
extremely

grateful

for

anything

you

can

do

to

make

that

a

reality.

For

reference,

please

also

see

the

San

Mateo

Climate

Action

Team
(SMCAT)

letter

previously

submitted

by

Robert

Whitehair

and
Michelle

Hudson

attached

below.

Respectfully,
Todd

Weber
Volunteer,

Co-Leader
Elders

Climate

Action

(ECA)

Northern

California

(NorCal)

Chapter
San

Jose/Willow

Glen,

CA

95125

USA
Tamien

and

Muwekma

Ohlone

lands
For and with our children, grandchildren, and all life! What have you done

today

for

our

next

seven

generations?

51 of 187

From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Study Session full discussion of model reach code for existing buildings Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 8:11:26 PM

From:

Joy

Ma

Sent:

Tuesday,

September

6,

2022

5:42

PM
To:

City

Council

(San

Mateo)

<[email protected]>
Cc:

Vida

Hayashigatani

;

Marty

Jordan

;
Kathleen

Goforth

Subject:

Study

Session

full

discussion

of

model

reach

code

for

existing

buildings

Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of City Council,

On

behalf

of

the

members

of
Climate Reality Bay Area's San Mateo County Policy Action Squad, we formally and respectfully request that each member of the San Mateo City Council ask

staff

to

place

on

the

agenda

of

the

September

19,

2022

City

Council

study

session

on
Reach

Codes

a

complete

discussion

of
the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model reach
code for existing buildings.

We

make

this

request

because

it

is

our

understanding

that

staff
intends

to

present

the

City

Council

with

only

a

limited

number

of

very

minor

changes

to

the
California

Green

Building

Code.

Specifically,

San

Mateo

Policy

Action

Squad

members

request

a

discussion

of

these

items

in
the

full

model

reach

code:

1. Require

new

construction

to

be

fully

electrified,

effective

January

1,
2023;

2. Require

that

all

replacements

of

gas

equipment

in

homes

and
businesses
be

electric

or

zero

emissions

models,

effective

January

1,

2025;

3. End

the

flow

of

gas

in

San

Mateo,

effective

January

1,

2030;

and

4. Contain

appropriate

exemptions

for

economic

hardship

and

technical
feasibility.

To combat the climate crisis and meet state and local greenhouse gas reduction targets, we must make a swift transition to all-electric buildings. Voluntary action is not enough to get us

there.

We

need

a

strong

electrification

ordinance

that

will

decarbonize

our

City’s

entire
building

stock

through

a

funded

mandate.

The

passage

of

the

Inflation

Reduction

Act

has

just
made

this

much

easier,

and

many

other

sources

of

funding

and

financing

are

available

as

well.

A

summary

of

some

of

these

funding

sources

can

be

found

here:
https://www.smclimateaction.org/savings.

52 of 187

It is clear that public support for fighting climate change -- with the undeniable evidence of climate disasters all around us -- has never been higher. With the substantial financial assistance the IRA provides for homeowners to electrify their homes and incentives currently available locally, the time to make the transition easy for residents is now.  For example, Peninsula Clean Energy will be launching a zero-percent financing program for home electrification in a few months, which will enable San Mateo homeowners to pay for electrification measures such as the replacement of a furnace with a heat pump over time through their monthly electric bills, with no interest. Squad co-founder Kathleen Goforth, who is a member of the PCE Citizens' Advisory Committee, beta tested PCE’s online application process and found it to be very easy to use.

We respectfully urge the City Council to act on the political will of the community, and take advantage of the unprecedented level of electrification funding available to cities, by asking your staff to present the Council with the full model code for existing buildings at the September 19 study session on Reach Codes.

Sincerely,
Joy Ma, San Mateo resident, San Mateo Policy Action Squad Co-founder Kathleen Goforth, San Mateo Policy Action Squad Co-founder Vida Hayashigatani, San Mateo resident
Marty Jordan, San Mateo resident

53 of 187

From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Erin Fellers; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Upcoming San Mateo Council vote on reach codes Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 6:52:27 AM

From:

Mark

Hoffberg

Sent:

Sunday,

September

11,

2022

11:07

AM
To:

City

Council

(San

Mateo)

<[email protected]>
Subject:

Upcoming

San

Mateo

Council

vote

on

reach

codes

Dear

San

Mateo

Council

members,

Thank

you

for

the

opportunity

to

speak

to

you

about

your

upcoming

votes

on

reach

codes.

The

number

of

cities

supporting

reach

codes

has

grown

on

the

peninsula.

It

is

a

major

tool
that

is

addressing

the

existential

issue

of

climate

change.

The

California

Energy

Commission

looks

to

local

jurisdictions

to

be

at

the

forefront

of

the

movement
and

has

set

up

mechanisms

to

enable

this

movement.

The

City

of

San

Mateo

is

committed

to

being

a
climate

leader

and

reducing

greenhouse

gas

emissions

in

our

community.

See,

for

example,
https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4638/Proposed-Green-Building-Reach-Codes

The

upcoming

Council

meeting

is

a

way

to

show

that

leadership.

Please

vote

to

pass

the

reach
codes

proposed

for

the

upcoming

City

Council

meeting.

Thanks

for

your

support.

Sincerely,
Mark

Hoffberg
Retired

physicist,

peninsula

resident

54 of 187

From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Martin McTaggart; Erin Fellers
Subject: FW: Your vote in support of REACH codes in the upcoming council meeting.

Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 6:52:47 AM

From:

Bruce

Naegel

Sent:

Sunday,

September

11,

2022

10:10

AM
To:

City

Council

(San

Mateo)

<[email protected]>
Subject:

Your

vote

in

support

of

REACH

codes

in

the

upcoming

council

meeting.

Dear

San

Mateo

Council

Members
[email protected]
(Bob Bonilla Mayor, Diane Papan Deputy Mayor, Joe Goethals Council Member, Amourence

Lee council member and Eric Rodriguez Council Member).

Thank

you

for

the

opportunity

to

speak

to

you

about

your

upcoming

votes

on

REACH

codes.

I

have

been

lucky

enough

to

work

on

REACH

codes

as

they

have

progressed,

participating

in

the

city
council.

meetings

in

various

cities.

The

number

of

cities

supporting

REACH

codes

ng

has

grown.

It

is
satisfying

to

work

on

a

program

that

is

addressing

the

key

issue

of

climate

change.

It

has

been

a
collective

journey

with

rewards

for

all

members.

The

CEC

looks

to

the

local

jurisdictions

to

be

at

the

forefront

of

the

movement

and

has

set

up
mechanisms

to

enable

this

movement.

The
City of San Mateo is committed to being a climate
leader and reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our community. (See reference below The upcoming Council meeting is a way to show that leadership. Please vote to pass

the
REACH codes proposed for the upcoming City Council meeting.

Thanks

for

your

support.

Bruce

Naegel
Carbon

Free

Silicon

Valley,

Fossil

Free

Buildings

https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/4638/Proposed-Green-Building-Reach-Codes

55 of 187

From: Patrice Olds
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: FW: Youth want stronger reach codes
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 10:22:29 AM

From:

Anjuli

Mishra

Sent:

Friday,

September

9,

2022

12:42

PM
To:

City

Council

(San

Mateo)

<[email protected]>
Subject:

Youth

want

stronger

reach

codes

Dear Council Members,

We are a youth advocacy group for San Mateo County in association with the organization Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action. I am the founder and leader of San Mateo Youth Climate Action, and on the behalf of the team I am following up on our comments made at the Community Feedback Meeting on August 30th.

In case you were not able to attend, the feedback made at this meeting in the form of poll responses and public comments showed strong concern for the weakness of the proposed measures by staff. Some notable poll results from meeting attendees were that approximately 85% are incredibly concerned about climate change, and approzimately 60% do not think that Staff’s proposal for existing buildings go far enough. Two of our members, both high school students, gave emotional and moving comments on their fears of climate change. While the majority of people that attended the meeting were older than 40, it is our generation, the youth right now, that will have to live with the catastrophic consequences of climate change. As youth, we are terrified with what our future looks like, and we have put our trust in staff, committee, and council members to help us, so please help.

Two weeks ago, I volunteered with the San Mateo Climate Action Team to do door-to- door canvassing for their petition. This was an incredibly empowering experience for myself because it proved to me what I have suspected: advocates are not the only ones concerned about climate change, but your constituents of San Mateo are also concerned. Having conversations with some of our constituents, we learned that they are extremely supportive of passing strong electrification measures. Since then the petition has collected over 350 signatures.

The largest challenge against electrification is cost, but there have been recent developments of legislation in this area that could mitigate this. Senator Becker’s Tariff-on-Bill, which is currently on its way to be sent for governor signature, which will provide a financing mechanism for electrification that will benefit homeowners and renters alike. Additionally, the federal Inflation Reduction Act will give cost savings to residents that electrify their homes.

All of the pieces are lined up, making this the perfect time to pass a strong reach

56 of 187

code. I urge council to make a roadmap to reaching these goals:

1. Required new construction to be fully electrified by January 1, 2023.

2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions effective December 31, 2025.

3. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030

4. Contain appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

Lastly, I attended the city council meeting on September 6th, and I just want to reiterate what I said there: please add discussion of the Full Model Reach Code for existing buildings to the agenda for the September 19th meeting.

Listen to the youth. Save our future.

Thank you,
Anjuli Mishra, on Behalf of the San Mateo Youth Climate Action Team
57 of 187

From: Diane Bailey
To: Clerk
Cc: Andrea Chow; Kathy Kleinbaum
Subject: Support for a Comprehensive Reach Code to phase out gas from both New and Existing Buildings Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 1:52:44 PM
Attachments: image001.png
FFBSV Support Letter to the City of San Mateo for a Strong Existing Building Reach Code.pdf Dear Mayor Bonilla and Council Members,
Please accepts these comments attached on behalf of the Campaign for Fossil Free Buildings in Silicon Valley (FFBSV), our 39 member organizations, and many others signed onto the letter. We urge you to fully consider a comprehensive Reach Code for new and existing buildings based on the model code provided by the Bay Area Reach Codes team (the “Time of Permit – Electric-Required,” available here). It is essential that the city consider all reasonable measures to prevent new uses of gas and facilitate the necessary transition from fossil gas at the speed and scale called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as to address the air quality, health, and safety impacts of current fossil gas use in our homes and other buildings.

We appreciate the efforts of city staff and Commissioners so far to discuss reach codes.

However, the proposal under current consideration includes only a limited number of minor changes compared to the current reach code in place. Specifically, we request a discussion at your Council Meeting on September 19th, including these items for consideration in the next reach code to be finalized by the end of the year:

1. Require new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Include appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

With at least 350 people signing a petition calling for the above listed items and significant support throughout San Mateo communities, as well as strong consensus from scientists the world over calling for urgent action to phase out fossil fuels, we implore you to fully consider and discuss these options.

Sincerely,
Diane Bailey

Diane Bailey (she/her), Climate Change Professional (CC-P) | Executive Director MENLO

SPARK
Visit us:
www.MenloSpark.org & www.FossilFreeBuildings.org
Find us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Climate Neutral for a Healthy, Prosperous Menlo Park
EV, PV & Fossil Free: Guides for Electric Cars, solar & Fossil Free Homes at:
http://menlospark.org/what-we-do/

58 of 187

“Half of humanity is in the danger zone from floods, droughts, extreme storms and wildfires." António Guterres, UN Secretary General July 18, 2022

59 of 187

The Campaign for Fossil Free Buildings in Silicon Valley 350 Silicon Valley, Acterra, Bay Area for Clean Environment, Carbon Free Silicon Valley, Carbon Free Palo Alto, Carbon Free Mountain View, Cinnamon Energy Systems, Citizens’ Climate Lobby San Mateo County, Citizens Environmental Council of Burlingame, Clean Coalition, Climate Reality Project: Santa Clara County, Coltura, Cool Block, Drawdown Bay Area, Earthy B, Electrify Now, emeraldECO, Fossil Free Mid-Peninsula, GreenTown Los Altos, Indivisible Ross Valley, Kitchens of Life, Menlo Spark, Menlo Together, Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley, npc Solar, Pacifica Climate Committee, Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action, Project Green Home, Redwood Energy, SIDCO Homes, San Carlos Green, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Mateo Climate Action Team, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, Sustainable San Mateo County, Sustainable Silicon Valley, Sunnyvale Cool, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, and Silicon Valley Youth Climate Strike September 14, 2022 City of San Mateo 330 West 20th Avenue San Mateo, CA 94403 Via email: [email protected] RE: Support for a Comprehensive Reach Code to phase out gas from both New and Existing Buildings Dear Mayor Bonilla and Council Members, We, the undersigned, on behalf of the Campaign for Fossil Free Buildings in Silicon Valley (FFBSV), urge you to fully consider a comprehensive Reach Code for new and existing buildings based on the model code provided by the Bay Area Reach Codes team (the “Time of Permit – Electric-Required,” available here). It is essential that the city consider all reasonable measures to prevent new uses of gas and facilitate the necessary transition from fossil gas at the speed and scale called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as to address the air quality, health, and safety impacts of current fossil gas use in our homes and other buildings. We appreciate the efforts of city staff and Commissioners so far to discuss reach codes. However, the proposal under current consideration includes only a limited number of minor changes compared to the current reach code in place. Specifically, we request a discussion of these items for consideration in the next reach code to be finalized by the end of the year: 1. Require new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023; 2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025; 3. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and 4. Include appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility. FFBSV includes the 39 organizations listed above, working together to support an accelerated phase out of fossil fuels in homes and buildings. A rapid transition away from fossil fuel use is critical to avoid the very worst and irreversible impacts of climate change. Preventing the continued use of fossil fuels, including “natural gas” (which is comprised of methane), creates more affordable, cleaner, healthier, and more resilient housing and buildings for communities throughout San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.

60 of 187

Building Electrification is an Urgent Climate Action Although the devastating increase in catastrophic wildfires throughout California has raised public awareness of climate change, the depth of the climate crisis is even worse than is commonly understood and demands urgent action. A recent report from California’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office detailed how we are already experiencing the impacts of Climate Change.1 In 2021, California experienced its hottest average summer temperatures, its second largest wildfire, and its third driest year (based on precipitation) on record, and we can expect extreme weather to intensify as the climate continues to change. The LAO report estimates that $8 to $10 billion of existing property in California is likely to be underwater by 2050; extreme heat is projected to cause more deaths per year than from car accidents; and at least 13,000 existing housing units in the Bay Area alone, “will no longer be usable” because of sea rise over the next 40 to 100 years.2 Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 420 parts per million (ppm) last month, which is well above the 280-350 ppm scientists say is ideal for human life.3 This measurement has been certified as the highest level ever recorded, and it’s estimated to be the highest in the last 4.5 million years. A sobering series of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released from August 2021 through April 2022 have found that humans have had an “unequivocal” influence on climate change and warn that this decade is humanity’s last chance to limit warming.4 While the IPCC report revealed that sadly, a 1.5°C rise in planetary temperature is now unavoidable, the potential to limit warming to below 2°C—and avoid even more catastrophic climate impacts—is still possible if the world can achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.5 That means we need to begin phasing out fossil fuels right away, including methane gas used to heat and cook with. The Bay Area Reach Codes has provided carefully vetted policies, reviewed by top legal and energy experts to help cities throughout our region meet their climate plan goals and demonstrate much needed progress in phasing out fossil fuel use. They provide additional resources and staffing support to ensure that cities have successful outcomes when adopting these policies. Additional electrification resources that support bold action at this time include: • The new federal climate bill (Inflation Reduction Act) contains significant funding (up to $14,000 in direct rebates for each qualifying household) for fixed, low, and middle income residents, and tax credits for everyone. • Peninsula Clean Energy is launching a zero interest on-bill financing program, along with extensive rebates and home upgrade funding. Phasing out gas use provides many benefits to community health, safety, and a stable climate future. Extending these benefits to existing homes and buildings is now urgently needed. ● All-Electric homes and buildings are more efficient. According to the California Energy Commission, a modern high-efficiency heat pump electric water heater (available at all major retailers) costs roughly one-third less on utility bills to operate than the most efficient gas water heater.6 In addition, electric heat pump heating also provides air-conditioning, resulting in less equipment, reduced maintenance costs, and greater climate resilience. ● Public Safety: Methane gas is highly flammable. In the past 10 years, 9,000 gas explosions in the U.S have killed more than 500 people, and gas leaks have displaced and sickened thousands of people.7 Methane gas also caused half the fires after two major California earthquakes.8 ● Health: Gas stoves release smog-forming compounds such as nitrogen dioxide, unburnt hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide pollution that doubles risks for heart and lung disease and triples the use of asthma medications.9 In fact, studies have shown that children living in homes using gas for cooking have a more than 40% higher risk of having asthma.10 Further,

61 of 187

improperly vented gas appliances lead to carbon monoxide poisoning that results in thousands of emergency room visits and several hundred deaths every year.11 ● Climate: All-electric buildings are a highly visible and practical step forward to address the climate crisis, by breaking the cycle of fossil fuel dependency in buildings. This is the single biggest step that cities can take to address climate this year. ● Resilience: Switching from gas to electric at the time of remodel or replacement helps avoid a complex, costly and likely inevitable switch to all-electric heating and appliances in the future, since gas prices are expected to rise sharply, and California is planning to eventually end gas distribution. The California Public Utilities Commission estimates that natural gas rates will increase at twice the rate of electricity through the next 10 years.12 Converting to all-electric now will help future-proof our cities and counties. We applaud City Council for establishing a new goal this year to reduce emissions and phase out natural gas in buildings by 2030 to limit carbon emissions, and prioritizing greenhouse gas emission reductions. In keeping with these goals and the latest science, we must actively begin a swift transition from polluting and unhealthy fossil fuels like methane gas. That means preventing new fossil fuel devices from committing to decades more use and aiming to end large scale distribution of fossil fuels by 2030. While it will be very difficult to end methane gas use by 2030, doing so is absolutely possible, if we work together on a pathway to success. The rest of California, and the world, is looking to cities like San Mateo for leadership. We must rise to that challenge and apply our valuable resources of money and time to avoid the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Current and future generations deserve and depend on our best and boldest collaborative efforts. Thank you for considering our comments. We would be pleased to provide additional information or respond to any questions that might arise. Sincerely, Robert M. Gould, MD, President, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility Kristel Wickham, Chair, Sunnyvale Sustainability Commission Janet Cox, Climate Action California, (formerly 350 Silicon Valley Legislation/Policy) Jeff Schmidt, Chief Executive Officer, Ignited Hoi Y. Poon, Co-Founder & Advisor, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Nicole Kemeny, Former President, 350 Silicon Valley Robert Whitehair, Co Leader, San Mateo Climate Action Team, 350 Bay Area Action, and Elder Activist Bret Andersen, Board Member, Carbon Free Palo Alto Debbie Mytels, Chair, Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action & Board Member, Elders Action Network Diane Bailey, Executive Director, Menlo Spark Ole Agesen, Menlo Park Linh Dan Do, Menlo Park Cc: Andrea Chow, Sustainability Manager Kathy Kleinbaum, Assistant City Manager

62 of 187

1 https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Series/1
2 https://calmatters.org/environment/2022/04/california-climate-change-report-legislature/ 3 https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/04/april-sets-record-highest-co2-levels 4 https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-08-09/ipcc-report-human-caused-climate-change-unequivocal 5 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/09/climate/climate-change-report-ipcc-un.html?te=1&nl=climate- fwd:&emc=edit_clim_20210812
6 Rider, Ken, Email correspondence, [email protected]. March 2020. 7 Joseph, George. “30 Years of Oil and Gas Pipeline Accidents, Mapped.” Citylab. November 30, 2016 Sellers, F., Weintraub, K. and Wootson, C. (2018). “Thousands of residents still out of their homes after gas explosions trigger deadly chaos in Massachusetts.” Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/thousands-of-residents-still- out-of-their-homes-after-gas-explosions-trigger-deadly-chaos-in-massachusetts/2018/09/14/802ff690-b830-11e8-94eb- 3bd52dfe917b story.html
8 Los Angeles in 1994 and San Francisco in 1989, according to the California Seismic Safety Commission. (2002). “Improving Natural Gas Safety in Earthquakes.” SSC-02-03
Taylor, Ann. “The Northridge Earthquake: 20 Years Ago Today.” The Atlantic. January 17, 2014. 9 Jarvis et al. (1996) “Evaluation of asthma prescription measures and health system performance based on emergency department utilization.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8618483 10 Lin, W., Brunekreef, B. & Gehring, U. Meta-analysis of the effects of indoor nitrogen dioxide and gas cooking on asthma and wheeze in children. Int. J. Epidemiol. 42, 1724–1737 (2013). 11 USDN, Methane Math, https://sfenvironment.org/sites/default/files/fliers/files/methane-math natural-gas-report final.pdf 12 “California’s Gas System in Transition | Equitable, Affordable, Decarbonized and Smaller.” Gridworks, September 29, 2019. https://gridworks.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/GW_Calif-Gas-System-report-1.pdf.

CPUC Rate Analysis: https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/divisions/energy-division/documents/en-banc/feb-2021- utility-costs-and-affordability-of-the-grid-of-the-future.pdf

63 of 187

From:

To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Additional comments on the proposed green stretch Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:08:43 PM
Please see my additional comments below:

I would like to add a comment regarding the mandating of installing Level-2 car chargers.

This is a little bit short-sited for two reasons.

The first reason is that with hydrogen cars
starting to come on line,
many people may prefer to have this solution and the expense of $500 for a Clipper Creek charger and the $1000 to install it
would be a total was of money.

Secondly, the technology of having a UL1741 compliant
device that could back feed the grid
might make a basic Level-2 charger unneeded.

An example of this would be a vehicle that
could allow its battery pack to
double-purpose as battery for the house to optimize on/off peak usage.

This vehicle would
have to be UL1741 compliant meaning that it would
need to detect if the grid ever went down and self-disconnect.

If reach codes don't allow for
superior solutions like this as an
example, then simply installing a level-2 charger would again be a waste of money.

What is the minimum dollar value of a renovation that would trigger these forced renovations?

Would a homeowner have to comply
with all of these upgrades if they were only doing a $10000 remodel? The upfront cost of increasing the panel estimation of $500-$2000 is not realistic for many houses.

There needs to be a manner to waive this
if the price can be shown being above an agreed upon level of cost.

($2000 ??).

Why does your slide assume that an upfront cost for a heatpump of $1500?

This is off by an
order of magnitude when you factor in the labor and equipment.

Again, there should be a waiver for this requirment if no solution can be found for less than ... $10000?
Pool heating:

What size solar system is only going to cost $1300 when you factor in the solar panels/inverters/labor?
Again, there should be a wavier for this requirement if no solution can be found for less than ... $3000?

64 of 187

Heat pump water heaters: Does this assume the presence of a re-circulation pump to accompany the heat pump water heater or a tankless heater or is this tanked? If tankless requiring recirculation, there is a tremendous amount of labor required for re- circulation piping and drywall repair.

Bottom line: I'm not certain where the city got these low-ball estimates for costs, but they are not realistic. But, even with
the values estimated by the city, this is just a crazy high hurdle to throw at the homeowners as a prerequisite for doing renovations.

Ultimately, this is just going to result in people doing work without permits. There needs to be a dollar cap on how much can be mandated
of a prospective home renovator lest we discourage people from doing safe remodels.

Thanks,
Shawn Fahrenbruch

65 of 187

From: Anjuli Mishra
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Adopt a strong building electrification ordinance Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:29:03 PM
Hi my name’s Anjuli and I’m a high school student in San Mateo. I want to thank the council for taking the time to be mindful about how San Mateo should address electrifying current and existing buildings. As a young person, myself and my generation will have to live with the consequences of climate change, and with the date of 2030–when climate change will be irreversible–is nearing quickly, it is of the utmost importance that we act swiftly. We can not waste time which means we can only pass efficient and impactful resolutions.

I support the measures for new construction outlined in this resolution, but I am concerned that what is being done for existing buildings is not enough. The panel capacity strategy outlined in the electric readiness for homes measure, won’t have an immediate impact because it will only require residents to prepare for installing electric appliances.

Additionally, I fear that the scale is not large enough. For example, for the electric- readiness of kitchens, the staff report said that only 98 permits on average have been filed for kitchen renovations per year. Which means only 98 homes will actually be making an effort towards electrification and in addition with the fact that it isn’t an immediate change, it makes me question if these reach codes will actually have an impact.

I would urge the council to adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes full model code for existing buildings. A significant part of this model is the exemptions for low-income folks, especially since the staff report on this resolution expresses concern for increasing costs of going electric. The model ordinance also calls for replacing appliances that will be electric at the time they die out, not just preparing for an electric appliance in the future (as the ordinances currently do). This means the entire city would be electric in the coming years not coming decades and has a farther reach beyond new construction and renovations. The council has already passed an objective to decarbonize all buildings and eliminate methane gas use by 2030, so passing the model code would be a significant step to accomplishing this.

I ask the council to create a roadmap to adopt these ordinances:

1. Require new construction to be fully electrified by 2023

2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in home and business be electric or zero emissions by 2026

3. End the complete flow of gas by 2030
Thank you.

Anjuli Mishra

66 of 187

From: Emily Morris
To: Andrea Chow
Cc:

Subject: Adopt Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:17:29 AM
Dear Andrea Chow,
I'm reaching out as a San Mateo resident to ask that

in the City adopt, in October 2022, the
Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings.

I also ask that the city couple the adoption of an ordinance with the San Mateo Climate Action Team's roadmap for successful implementation. This issue is of critical importance to me as a resident.

Additional supporting

information:

There are significant revenue sources to make electrification a reality in every San Mateo home and business.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that Earth has about 7 more years, until 2030, beyond which, damage to the planet will be irreversible.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), is exciting new legislation that makes 100% electrification of San Mateo a real possibility. The IRA provides two types of savings for lower and middle class families: upfront appliance and equipment discounts, and tax credits
The climate crisis is deeply concerning to me. Devastating California fires in recent years have brought this issue home for me, and we have a very limited time to act. We must act now, courageously and swiftly. Thank you for taking up this issue and working to fight the climate crisis in San Mateo.

Appreciate your time,
Emily

67 of 187

From: Bob Whitehair
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Michelle Hudson
Subject: August 30, 2022 Webinar comments
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 2:29:20 PM
Good afternoon Andrea,
The San Mateo Climate Action Team is looking forward to tomorrow's webinar on Reach Codes. We are submitting these written comments in advance of the webinar, as not all members of the San Mateo Climate Action Team are able to personally attend.

We wanted you to know that over the weekend, 20 volunteers for the San Mateo Climate Action Team went door to door on Saturday and Sunday, in precincts 26050 and 26049, in Council District 1, in the area between El Camino Real and Alameda de las Pulgas, bounded by Hobart Avenue and Borel Avenue.

We also set up a table at Rediscover San Mateo.

On Saturday and Sunday, we reached out to numerous residents.

We had hundreds of meaningful conversations about the climate.

We gathered over 200 signatures on our Petition to the City Council that asks for strong Reach Codes for existing buildings. We are just beginning.

One thing stood out to us loud and clear: San Mateo residents wish to electrify their existing homes in response to the climate crisis. We found that to be true of both renters and owners. And most were very clear too: "voluntary" action will not be effective because we all need a push.

The City of San Mateo has so far proposed five electrification measures, which are unfortunately quite weak; however, San Mateans are looking for much stronger action today, not down the road.

To restate our position, the San Mateo Climate Action Team asks the City of San Mateo to adopt, in October 2022, an ordinance that:

1. Requires new construction to be fully electrified effective July 1, 2023

2. Requires all permitted replacement of gas equipment in homes and businesses to be electric or zero emission models, effective January 1, 2026

3. Ends the flow of gas in San Mateo effective January 1, 2030, and

4. Contains appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

We further ask that the City couple an electrification ordinance with support programs that include securing financing/funding sources for electrification (just made much easier by the Inflation Reduction Act) so that electrification is affordable for all, and provides education, technical assistance and workforce training.

We will continue to gather signatures on our Petition that asks for the above.

68 of 187

In Partnership,
Robert Whitehair, on behalf of the entire San Mateo Climate Action Team

69 of 187

From: Michelle Mandel
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Michelle Hudson
Subject: Community Feedback Meeting Aug 30 - Reach Codes Date: Friday, August 26, 2022 10:24:06 AM
Dear Ms. Chow,
I am a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Group. I have lived in San Mateo for 15 years. I am a mom, elementary school teacher and a former attorney. I am very thankful San Mateo is addressing climate change and looking to cut carbon emissions by electrifying commercial and residential businesses.

Strong reach codes are important to me as a mom and elementary school teacher. I want my children and students to inherit an earth where they can continue to enjoy all the beautiful things our planet has to offer.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that the Earth has about 7 more years, until 2030, beyond which, damage to the planet will be irreversible. I am asking San Mateo to adopt, in October 2022, the Bay Area Reach Code Group's full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings. In addition, it is critical that San Mateo create a roadmap for successful implementation of the electrification goals which would include funding and financing options. The recent enactment of The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will provide funding and financial incentives that will make electrification in San Mateo possible.

Thank you so much for your time.

Michelle Mandel

70 of 187

From: James Higbie
To: Andrea Chow
Cc:

Subject: electric buildings
Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 1:58:37 PM
Dear Ms. Chow,
Since I moved to California in 1998, I have witnessed a profound change in the way drought and wildfire have affected our state. Many of the beautiful places that first sparked my love of California have been reduced to dead and blackened moonscapes, some having burned so intensely that they cannot regrow, while many of our once-thriving rivers have been reduced stray stagnant pools where fish struggle, and often fail, to survive. Even in the cosseted leafy suburbs of San Mateo, we and especially our children, who suffer most, cannot escape the deadly wildfire smoke that is now all too common for much of the year. Unfortunately, the scientific consensus makes it clear that these changes are merely a small foretaste of what is to come if we do not act rapidly to curtail carbon and methane emissions.

Consequently, I am writing to ask that the city of San Mateo adopt (in October 2022) the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full
model code for existing buildings, with starting in 2023 for new construction and 2026 for existing buildings. I further wish to urge that in support of this building code the city follow the San Mateo Climate Action Team's roadmap for successful implementation.

As I'm sure you know, the landmark climate bill recently passed by the Federal government includes highly significant sources of funding for electrification, with particularly focused funding for low- and middle-income households. Most of the work of turning this funding into real, on-the-ground changes in dirty fuel consumption falls to cities and local communities, and San Mateo ought to be in a position to hit the ground running, taking full advantage of the additional federal money with these sensible and hugely beneficial building codes.

Thank you for your consideration,
--James

71 of 187

From:

To: Andrea Chow
Cc:

Subject: Feedback on Proposed Green Building Reach Codes Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:31:47 PM
Hello Andrea Chow,

The city website mentioned feedback should be given to you for the San Mateo proposed green reach codes.

I have some deep concerns with this.

For starters, I already have 26 solar panels and an electric car with a home-based level 2 charger.

I am in the process of installing an electric AC/Heat pump.

So, please don't think I
am against going green.

But, I do have several concern.

Mostly, my complaints boil down to
having a further dependence on unpredictable rules from the Public Utility Commission and a hostile dependance on PG&E (even with solar panels).

1.)

Panel Capacity upgrades.

This mandatory upgrade to be married to any remodel is not reasonable.

I contacted PG&E 3-4 years ago to consider adding additional service capability for my electric car.

The response from PG&E was staggering.

They wanted $thousands of
dollars (If I recall, it was actually almost $10000) just to open their records and determine the feasibility of doing the expansion and this did not even include any actual construction.

Further, the timeline for completion would have been on the order of 6 months.

For someone
trying to navigate a remodel, the requirement to upgrade electrical regardless of need will be very problematic.

2-5.)

Electric-Readiness/Heat pump air conditioning/outdoor equipment/Heat pump water heater.

San Mateo is not yet ready for this.

I am not stating that we do not want to be green
or save planet.

But, there seems to be an assumption somewhere that all we have to do is put solar panels on every home and the added operating cost of electricity will somehow cancel this out.

We are not talking about a few hundred dollars per year in operating cost.

We are
talking thousands.

Case in point, I have 26 solar panels on my roof and am covered under "Net Metering 2" with a "true-up" that is now on an annual basis.

As anyone in San Mateo can
tell you, solar panels have to over-produce in the months of April through September to take the edge off the high-tier PG&E electrical pricing and carry us through the low-yield solar production of October through March.

The utility companies keep trying to push the "true-
up" to a MONTHLY basis as opposed to a ANNUAL basis with any over-production month-to- month forfeited.

As it is, my annual true-up for solar electrical production is about $2000.

If a
monthly true-up were to become law (and they keep trying), my electricity cost would increase by approximately $2000-$3000 per year.

Our utility company is also trying to alter
state law to tax solar production.

The point is that our solar panels cannot be guaranteed to save us from getting overly charged from our utility company. Until, we have a stable

72 of 187

situation with the utility companies and the Public Utilities Commission shows a commitment to a long-term stable pricing strategy, we cannot afford to be tied into pure electric dependence that is influenced in an outsized manner by PG&E. At a minimum, all of the reach codes proposed should have an immediate cancellation clause if the Public Utilities Commission ever grants the Utilities a Monthly True Up period for residential solar production. One more point, why force everyone to get a level-2 charger if hydrogen fuel is just around the corner?
One more note: The city website makes the assertion that the lack of EV adoption is primarily due to the lack of chargers at home. This statement is simply not true. While I do have an electric car (since 2017) and a level 2 charger, I will always keep a gasoline car. It is simply not feasible to rely on electric chargers for long-haul driving.

If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, perhaps a better reach-goal for the city would be to start looking installing hydrogen fill-up stations around the city. Further, perhaps we could start looking into hydrogen storage in residential settings for fuel to accompany the to-be mandated heat/ac pumps. If I had a hydrogen vehicle that I felt I could re-fuel in a few minutes, I wouldn't stress about losing my gasoline car. And then I would not need a level-2 charger in my house.
kind regards,
Shawn Fahrenbruch
San Mateo Resident

73 of 187

From: Cheryl Weiden
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 12:15 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: 350 Silicon Valley supports the Full Model Reach Code Honorable Mayor, and Members of the City Council
350 Silicon Valley formally and respectfully requests that each member of the San Mateo City Council asks staff to place on the agenda of the September 19, 2022 City Council study session on Reach Codes, a complete discussion of the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model reach code for existing buildings.

We make this request because it is our understanding that staff intends to present the City Council with only
a limited number of very minor changes to the California Green Building Code.

Specifically, we request a discussion of these items in the full model reach code that:

1. Requires new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Requires that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businessesbe electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. Ends the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Contains appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

We make this request because 350 Silicon Valley is extremely enthusiastic about the full model reach code for existing buildings.

Failure to even discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will be disappointing to the hundreds of people who signed a Petition for strong Reach Codes for existing buildings.

Failure to even discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will be disappointing to those who attended the August 30, 2022 feedback meeting, where approximately 85% of attendees expressed that they are extremely concerned about climate change, and approximately 60% stated that staff’s Green Building Code proposals do not go far enough.

Failure to even discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will make it even more difficult for community residents and business owners to take advantage of significant new funding for electrification:
· The Inflation Reduction Act’s significant funding for fixed, low, middle income residents, and just about everyone.
· SB1112, Senator Becker’s Tariffed on Bill financing, on its way to the governor · PCE’s home upgrade funding, and extensive rebates

74 of 187

· Extensive rebates from BayREN, TECH Clean and so many more sources.

See our summary of some of these funding sources here: https://www.smclimateaction.org/savings.

In addition to our request for including the full reach code discussion on the agenda, we propose working together with the City to:

1. Permanently secure financial assistance for electrification (just made so much easier by the Inflation Reduction Act, among other sources);

2. Provide a “One Stop Shop” that helps residents and businesses on all aspects of building electrification.

3. Educate and reach out to residents and businesses on the benefits and technical aspects of building electrification.

4. Develop a sufficient workforce and supply chain for building electrification;

and

5. Streamline and expedite the permitting process to go electric. 350 Silicon Valley looks forward to the City Council having the ability to discuss and evaluate the full model reach code for existing buildings at the September 19 study session on Reach Codes, and we are extremely grateful for anything you can do to make that a reality.

Respectfully,

Cheryl Weiden
350 Silicon Valley Steering Committee Member
--

75 of 187

From: Elaine Salinger
Sent: Friday, September 2, 2022 6:42 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Citizen Climate Lobby members support the Full Model Reach Code Dear Mayor Bonilla and Members of City Council,
On behalf of roughly 200 City of San Mateo Citizens Climate Lobby members, I formally and respectfully request that each member of the San Mateo City Council ask staff to place on the agenda of the September 19, 2022 City Council study session on Reach Codes, a complete discussion of the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model reach code for existing buildings.  I make this request because it is my understanding that staff intends to present the City Council with only a limited number of minor changes to the California Green Building Code. (It is perplexing and frustrating that Staff is acting as gate keepers in this matter. I thought their role is to support the City Council, Boards, and Commissions.) Specifically, Citizens Climate Lobby San Mateo members request a discussion of these items in the full model reach code:

1. Require new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Contain appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

A price on carbon is the most effective tool for eliminating the use of fossil fuels. Without this now, however, we must make a swift transition to all electric buildings in our community to combat the climate crisis. Voluntary action is not enough to get us there. We need a strong electrification ordinance that will decarbonize our City’s entire building stock through a funded mandate. The passage of the Inflation Reduction Act has just made this much easier, and many other sources of funding and financing are available as well. It is also clear that public support for fighting climate change - with the undeniable evidence of climate disasters all around us - has never been higher.

76 of 187

As the effects of climate change worsen, I know that our government will pass laws placing a price on carbon. It is just a matter of time. When there is a price on carbon, lower income people and renters who are not in control of building and equipment maintenance, will be disproportionally impacted by the higher prices of methane. Out of concern for social equity, I urge you to help make the transition away from methane. Out of concern for our health and the health of our planet, and out of respect to the overwhelming support seen in the community meeting on Tuesday August 30, I respectfully urge the City Council to act on the political will of the community, and take advantage of the unprecedented level of electrification funding available to Cities, by asking Staff to present the Council with the full model code for existing buildings at the September 19 study session on Reach Codes.

Sincerely with gratitude and respect,
Elaine Salinger, Group Co-Leader
San Mateo County Chapter
650-

77 of 187

-----Original Message-----
From: HOLLY HEWITT < >
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 11:31 AM
Cc: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Stricter electric codes
Dear council;
It might be more informative if it mentioned how many people were voting. 80% or 89% of how many? Just sounds like steamrolling.

Such a selective voting group.

Conversion costs will be huge for anyone on a fixed income, like me.

Regards,
Holly Hewitt
Sent from my iPad

78 of 187

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesus Nazereth < >
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 12:25 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Stupid reach goals
These “reach goals “ are the stupidest idea of many stupid ideas that San Mateo city council has had.

Don’t make my life harder and more expensive. You are supposed to be working for me, not sticking a knife in my back.  I like my fireplace, and my gas appliances.  I don’t want an electric car. Quit me Adam Loraine. Do what you’re supposed to do and make my life easier not harder. Alfred Wolfgramm

79 of 187

From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 5:56:09 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Cc: Michelle Hudson
Subject: Study Session full discussion of model reach code for existing buildings Honorable Mayor, and Members of the City Council
The San Mateo Climate Action Team (SMCAT) formally and respectfully requests that each member of the San Mateo City Council ask staff to place on the agenda of the September 19, 2022 City Council study session on Reach Codes, a complete discussion of the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model reach code for existing buildings.

We make this request because it is our understanding that staff intends to present the City Council with only a limited number of very minor changes to the California Green Building Code.

Specifically, we request a discussion of these items in the full model reach code that:

1. Requires new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Requires that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses
be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. Ends the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Contains appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

We make this request because the 150 members of SMCAT (whose numbers keep growing) and the entire San Mateo Community are extremely enthusiastic about the
full model reach code for existing buildings.

Failure to even discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will be disappointing to the hundreds of people from whom the San Mateo Climate Action Team have gathered signatures on a Petition for strong Reach Codes for existing buildings, and the many more we met over the weekend, as our volunteers walked door to door and staffed a table at the “Rediscover San Mateo” event.

80 of 187

Failure to even discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will be disappointing to those who attended the August 30, 2022 feedback meeting, where approximately 85% of attendees expressed that they are extremely concerned about climate change, and approximately 60% stated that staff’s Green Building Code proposals do not go far enough.

Failure to even discuss the full model reach code for existing buildings will make it even more difficult for community residents and business owners to take advantage of significant new funding for electrification:
·
The Inflation Reduction Act’s significant funding for fixed, low, middle income residents, and just about everyone.
·
SB1112, Senator Becker’s Tariffed on Bill financing, on its way to the governor
·
PCE’s home upgrade funding, and extensive rebates
· Extensive rebates from BayREN, TECH Clean and so many more sources.

See our summary of some of these funding sources here:
https://www.smclimateaction.org/savings
.

In addition to our request for including the full reach code discussion on the agenda, we propose working together with the City to:

1. Permanently secure financial assistance for electrification (just made so much easier by the Inflation Reduction Act, among other sources);

2. Provide a “One Stop Shop” that helps residents and businesses on all aspects of building electrification.

3. Educate and reach out to residents and businesses on the benefits and technical aspects of building electrification.

4. Develop a sufficient workforce and supply chain for building electrification;

and

5. Streamline and expedite the permitting process to go electric.

On behalf of all San Mateo community members, we look forward to the City Council having the ability to discuss and evaluate the full model reach code for existing buildings at the September 19 study session on Reach Codes, and we are extremely grateful for anything you can do to make that a reality.

Respectfully,
Robert Whitehair and Michelle Hudson on behalf of the entire San Mateo Climate Action Team

81 of 187

From: Laurie Meisenheimer
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Green codes
Date: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:19:46 AM
I understand we all need to do our share to reduce fossil fuel use. Extreme weather events make it obvious. But electric power does go out sometimes, and it is helpful to have some gas backup.a gas backyard grill can provide other looking options.

Having a gas fireplace or small heater can give some heat during a power outage.

Otherwise it makes sense, as long as folks don’t feel like they have to have propane or gasoline powered generators, that wouldn’t help much!!!!
Laurie Meisenheimer
San Mateo
Sent with a smile

82 of 187

83 of 187

From: Bruce Naegel
To: Andrea Chow
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:12:23 PM
To: Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst for San Mateo
[email protected].

Cc:

Please adopt in October 2022 the Bay Area Model Code for existing Buildings in October 2022 with an effective date of January 1, 2023 for new buildings and Jan 1 2026 for existing buldings. .

San Mateo has been a leader in sustainability. The next frontier after the initial REACH codes for new buildings is to address REACH codes for existing buildings. Existing buildings represent the largest portion of our total building fleet. We need to address existing buildings if we will have a chance to meet our sustainability goals.

To ensure successful implementation. please couple this to the Climate Action team plan.

One of the challenges for any project is where to get the

money for it.

With the passage of the IRA, we have an opportunity to use money allocated to address climate change. This level of opportunity is rare and we must take advantage of it now.

The IRA provides full
electrification for low and middle income households.

Thank you for your consideration of this key opportunity.

84 of 187

1 Andrea Chow
From: Lara McDowell
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 7:12 PM
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Support for Strong Building Electrification Ordinance My name is Lara McDowell, a San Mateo high schooler and member of San Mateo Youth Climate Action.

From a young age, I noticed how easy it was for leaders in loca l, state, and federal governments to dismiss the threat of climate change. As I got older, this became incredibl y distressing. The risk of passing the threshold o f

1.5º C is nearing, and our window for plausible and impactful climate action is shortening. This reality should not have to shock us into changing our laws and habits, because our generation—and generations moving forward— will have to struggle with these preventable impacts.

I want to thank the City of San Mateo for taking the steps to consider these building reach codes. Almost half of all greenhouse gas emissions in San Mateo come from buildings, and requiring the electrification of appliances that need to be replaced within buildings will greatly reduce t hese numbers. And as we know, gas appliances do not only contribute to climate change by emitting greenhouse gasses into our environment, but natural gas burning home appliances negatively also impact our respiratory health as well.

I strongly encourage the committee to adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes model for existi ng buildings. It is a healthy and responsible step forward towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our community. In addition, adopting this model will pave the way for other local governments to adopt a similar model to reduce the impacts of climate change.

Thank you.

85 of 187

From: Michelle Hudson
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Please adopt a strong building electrification ordinance for existing buildings Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:47:03 PM
Dear Andrea,
I submit this comment on behalf of myself and the other members of my household, not all of whom are able to attend the City’s webinar on proposed reach codes for existing buildings this evening.

I am a long time resident of San Mateo. I am also a lifelong Californian who has never lived anywhere else. I have watched California change dramatically from my youth to what it is now: a state that is ground zero for the worst impacts of climate change: persistent drought, heatwaves, frequent wildfires, terrible air quality from wildfire smoke, and sea level rise. I love where I live, and I want my children to be able to call this wonderful City in this wonderful State home for years to come. That is why I am advocating tirelessly for policies that fight climate change at the local level. I want to see San Mateo lead on science-based, bold climate policy so that other cities in the State will follow (just as it happened with Reach Codes for new construction in 2019), and then our State will follow, and then other States will follow, and so on.

Thank you for evaluating Reach Codes for existing buildings. As you know, this is an incredibly powerful tool for fighting climate change at the local level. Fortunately, the Inflation Reduction Act has just made it much easier for San Mateo to implement a strong Reach Code for existing buildings. Other great funding and financing sources are also available to complement the benefits of the IRA. The latest breaking news on this is that SB 1122 (Tariff on Bill financing) appears poised to hit the Governor’s desk shortly. Please pursue
all funding and financing sources for building electrification that are available so that San Mateans can benefit, and so that our City can lead on building electrification.

My family and I ask that the City adopt, in October 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings. We also ask that the city couple the adoption of an ordinance with a roadmap for successful implementation that includes, among other things, finding funding and financing for electrification (especially for low, fixed and middle income households), along with education for residents and businesses, one-stop-shop assistance with electrification, workforce development, and streamlining the electrification permitting process.

Thank you,
Michelle Hudson, Joel Scott, Vivienne Scott & Zachary Scott , San Mateo

86 of 187

From: Claire Shintani
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Please adopt the Bay Area Reach Code Group"s full model code Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:20:45 AM
Hello Ms. Chow,
I hope you are well. My name is Claire Shintani and I am eighteen years old. As of two weeks ago, I am a freshman at the University of California, Berkeley, but I was born and raised in San Mateo. I am writing to you at 11:32pm on a Monday, prior to my first large exam of the school year, to stress the importance of building reach codes and the electrification of existing buildings for me and my generation.

To begin, I'd like to thank the City of San Mateo for taking up this essential issue. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that we have seven more years to act before damage to the Earth becomes irreversible. In seven years, I will be twenty-five years old. Maybe I'll be enrolled in graduate school, pursuing a career in environmental policy; or perhaps, I'll be thinking of starting a family. The state of the planet influences these decisions, especially the latter, as I consider the environmental burden that my future children will have to bear. Therefore, I appreciate the consideration the City is giving to important solutions, namely strong reach codes for existing buildings, that allow us to mitigate the effects of the ongoing environmental crisis.

To combat the horrific impacts of climate change, many of us will have to make sacrifices.

Fortunately, these sacrifices are minimized by reach codes for existing buildings. To start, there are revenue sources that make electrification for San Mateo homes and businesses a reality. We can look to Menlo Park as a model of the funding that will be offered to us. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act provides tax credits and upfront appliance and equipment discounts for lower and middle class families. The Act also offers funding mechanisms for every family, regardless of socioeconomic background. All in all, funding will become available to us, allowing us to uphold our value of equity while also caring for the planet.

With these points in mind, I ask that the City of San Mateo adopt, in October 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes Group's full model code for existing buildings with an effective date of January 1, 2023 for new construction and January 1, 2026 for existing buildings. I also request that the City provide a roadmap for successful implementation that includes funding and financing options for low, fixed, and middle income households to electrify their homes, alongside the adoption of an ordinance.

Once again, on behalf of the younger generation, I urge that San Mateo adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes Group's full model code before it is too late. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Best regards,
Claire Shintani

87 of 187

From: Megan Strain
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Please consider adopting full model reach codes Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 6:22:40 PM
Dear Ms. Chow,
I am so grateful to live in San Mateo, a great city leader in climate action in California and in our nation. I am writing to ask you today to continue San Mateo's leadership by adopting the Bay Area Reach Codes Group's full model reach code. Since I cannot attend the SIC meeting today, I am sending this email to show my support.

As a young woman considering having children, it is hard to turn away from the reality that my generation and my children's generation will suffer some of the worst of climate change if emissions are not drastically curbed by 2030. We can already see the effects around us, with a prolonged drought and worsening fires and "smoke seasons" each year. At the same time, we see some hope and opportunity, as technology and funding sources become more available, especially with the Inflation Reduction Act! It is up to us to use that technology and funding to ensure a better future.

I request that in October 2022, San Mateo adopt the Bay Area Codes Group's full model code for electrification, with an effective date of January 1, 2023 for new construction and an effective date of January 1, 2026 for existing buildings. By taking advantage of available funding, educating residents, and strengthening the workforce, we can make this happen.

Thank you for all you do,
Megan Strain
Resident of San Mateo

88 of 187

From:

To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Proposed Reach Codes in San Mateo
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:56:24 PM
Dear City of San Mateo Sustainability Department,

Thank you for your leadership and ongoing commitment to protecting our climate. Your deliberations on comprehensive building electrification codes and adoption of science based GHG reduction goals are squarely addressing the root causes of our worsening climate crisis.

I urge you to implement the full set of Bay Area Reach Code model rules including the future existing building requirement to install electric-only appliances from 2026. This timeline for existing buildings is required to stay below 2 degrees warming according to the IPCC. Your city can immediately assist its building owners as they switch to electric appliances by creating an implementation plan to 2026 starting by inventorying and promoting the raft of available incentives and funds now available at the national level with the IRA, from the CPUC and state level and local utilities. Integration and promotion of these resources in your programs will accelerate our local Bay Area market which is already introducing a wave of new retrofit solutions this year.

Palo Alto has also adopted an aggressive GHG reduction goal (80% GHG reduction by 2030) and our city / municipal utility is developing targeted full service electric retrofit programs (starting with Heat Pump Water Heaters) for introduction this year. We value and appreciate the contribution of the San Mateo community to setting high standards for emissions reductions and helping residents go electric faster as well. All area communities will benefit from your example and this important investment in climate protection.

Bret Andersen, Carbon Free Palo Alto

89 of 187

From: Erin Chumas
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Robert Whitehair; Michelle Hudson
Subject: Re: Sustainability Related Amendments to the 2022 Building Code Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 7:04:46 AM
Dear Ms. Chow,
My name is Erin Lautsch Chumas. I grew up in the Parrott Park neighborhood of San Mateo, and after several years of living in New York and Los Angeles, I returned home to raise my kids in my beloved city. My family now calls the Aragon neighborhood “home” and nothing makes me happier than to see my children grow up here.

I want to thank you and the city for taking up the important issue of sustainability and the potential to amend our current building codes and to adopt electrification.

I am a realtor at Coldwell Banker. My opinion that we need to act aggressively now to adopt electrification is sometimes misunderstood amongst my colleagues. It is considered to be very expensive to make the switch from gas to electric, but most people do not know that there are significant revenue sources to make electrification a possibility in every San Mateo home and building. When I speak to homeowners in San Mateo, they are almost always on board with my opinion, especially after hearing that there are ways to reduce the cost of converting their homes.

People care about the future of our beautiful city. They want to preserve our way of life for our children and grandchildren. It is important to pay attention to the climate scientists that say we have 7 more years to act, until 2030, beyond which the damage to our planet will be irreversible. In talking with my clients and homeowners, I know how proud San Mateans would feel to be the first city to formally consider the electrification of existing buildings! President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act includes legislation that makes 100% electrification of San Mateo a real possibility. Upfront discounts, tax credits and funding mechanisms make this very doable for every family.

I am asking the city to adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of January 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of January 1, 2026 for existing buildings. Please adopt an ordinance with a roadmap for effective implementation that includes finding funding, and financing information for homeowners (especially for fixed and low income households). I ask that you please encourage the city to adopt this in October 2022.

Thank you again, Ms. Chow for your important role in helping San Mateo become a shining example of what cities around the nation can achieve when they act to combat climate change through electrification. We can accomplish this and keep San Mateo a beautiful and healthy city for all future generations.

Best,

90 of 187

91 of 187

From: Wendy Chou
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: reach codes request prior to 8/30 public meeting Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 12:13:18 PM
Dear Ms. Chow,
I have written to you before on this subject but I find it extremely important — so much so that I am writing again.

As a concerned resident, I respectfully urge the City of San Mateo to adopt, in October 2022, a full reach code for electrification of existing buildings as well as new construction. The code that I believe the City should support is the one that is recommended by the experts on the Bay Area Reach Codes group, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings.

As a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team (SMCAT), an all-volunteer group, I further recommend that the city adopt an ordinance reflecting the SMCAT's roadmap for successful implementation.

I recognize these are not easy decisions. it isn't easy to deviate from the comfortable zone we already know (i.e., electric reach codes for new construction) and try for a more challenging goal. But the alternative, which is to only choose the lowest-hanging fruit for decarbonization, leaves too many emissions ignored and contributing to climate instability. In fact, electrifying our existing building

stock is needed if we want to be serious about climate change mitigation. Thankfully, with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, our federal government has clearly signaled that the U.S. is serious about investing in clean energy infrastructure and making the cost burden easier for all through tax credits and incentives.

Now let's lead the way with San Mateo's strong local commitment to replacing each and every gas appliance with a cleaner, more efficient, and more cost-effective fossil-free appliance (except in issues of particular hardship, for which exemptions might be granted).

As a renter
, I have found it nigh impossible to budge my landlord on making any clean energy improvements. They are simply not interested, and we lack the power to change the situation. This frustrating block could be averted by passing and implementing strong reach codes that compel building owners to take action and retrofit structures to replace gas devices with fossil-free options.

Thank you for soliciting the public's opinion on this critical issue for our health and future well-being. I am looking forward to tomorrow's public meeting and I appreciate all your work in supporting the City.

Sincerely,
Wendy Chou
, San Mateo CA

92 of 187

From: Mary Rose LeBaron
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Michelle Hudson; Robert Whitehair
Subject: Resident feedback for full electrification of existing buildings Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 12:35:56 PM
Hi Andrea,
I hope this reaches you well. I am a resident of and I work in San Mateo.

You get the benefit
of someone who is fully invested in this community. :) I plan on attending the community feedback session tonight and I wanted to reach out ahead of time to ask that the City of San Mateo and city staff adopt, in October 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings. Please do this and couple the adoption of an ordinance with the San Mateo Climate Action Team's roadmap for successful implementation.

It is incredibly exciting that there are significant funding sources for electrification now available from local agencies, and from the Inflation Reduction Act!

The new legislation is an
answer to our prayers as far as providing funding for full electrification for low and middle income families.

You already know the urgency of responding to climate change with the boldest measures possible right?

I mean no one is confused about the absolute mess we are in in terms of the climate chaos that is coming our way.

I just want to get your agreement that we must do
everything that we can NOW before the environmental chaos gets worse and hurts millions more than it has already.

Thank you for your attention

to this.

I really hope you will act to make San Mateo a leader in building decarbonization and recommend adopting the model codes immediately and without further delay.

All the best,
Mary Rose LeBaron

93 of 187

From: Gary Trott 2
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: "Gary Trott 2"
Subject: San Mateo City Reach Codes input - G. Trott
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:20:12 PM
Dear Ms Chow,

Thank you for hosting a public meeting to gather input on the new climate friendly Reach codes.

I would like to demonstrate my strong support for the City of San Mateo to implement the Bay Area Reach Codes Group full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings.

With the CA govener proposing to eliminate all gasoline cars by 2035 and the new infrastructure bill H.R.3684 from congress there is new momentum to increase the intensity of San Mateo city efforts to eliminate natural gas in every area of the building infrastructure.

The carbon cycle in the atmosphere has a feedback loop of decades(natural gas) to many decades(CO2). So every little bit gas that is add now will add exponentially to compound the climate change effects in the future. Consequently, we must start now, not in the fuzzy future, to eliminate sources of carbon and natural gas or suffer the long term consequences.

Please recommend the strongest possible Reach Codes to the San Mateo City council.

Warm Regards
Gary Trott

94 of 187

From: Tom Kabat
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Michelle Hudson
Subject: Strong Support for Science-Based Climate Action Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 12:09:49 AM
Dear Andrea,
I’m writing to express my strong support for San Mateo council to adopt, in October 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings.

I hope that the city will also adopt an ordinance with the San Mateo Climate Action Team's roadmap for successful implementation.

San Mateos’s swift action will take maximum advantage of the new federal IRA that provides big tax incentives and upfront discounts to developers builders and homeowners and even renters for implementing building electrification. But the incentives are only available until the end of 2032. So San Mateo’s prompt adoption of these electrification policies will assure maximum benefits to your stakeholders.

San Mateo has a good history of being an early adopter of climate preservation policies and it helps other cities see the path forward and come alongside to support the changes we all need to implement.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance in this progress.

Best regards,
-Tom Kabat

95 of 187

From: Diane Bailey
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: City Council (San Mateo)
Subject: Support for A Strong Building Electrification Ordinance, Including Existing Buildings to Help Everyone Benefit From the Generous New Federal Incentives
Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:09:57 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for beginning community outreach on the proposed Green Building Reach Code for San Mateo, and for taking up this important issue!

As you know, we are already feeling the impacts of climate change here in San Mateo and everywhere around the world. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that these impacts are slated to worsen without dramatic action to reduce fossil fuel use. Cities like San Mateo can make a big difference helping everyone transition off of fossil fuel us, especially in our homes and buildings, where gas and other dirty fuels directly impact our health.

The new federal climate bill - the Inflation Reduction Act – just made it much easier for everyone to take action replacing fossil fuels with zero emissions products, with an investment of $369 billion in climate solutions and environmental justice. The investments, which start now and last ten years, will help people electrify their homes and vehicles (among many other important things) through tax credits and generous rebates:
30% tax credits for installing residential solar panels and batteries for energy storage; Up to $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle & $4,000 for Used EVs; Up to $14,000 for home energy efficiency and electric upgrades, including up to $8,000 to install a heat pump; and
Making these changes could help families save $1,800 per year on energy bills and make their costs more stable and predictable compared with volatile fossil fuel prices. (Please note that this figure is a national average.)

This new funding source essentially helps local home and building owners save money by switching from gas to electric, erasing any difference in cost between new electric vs. gas heating or appliances. This makes it that much easier for San Mateo to implement its roadmap to phase out gas use through electrification.

The new climate bill funding also has a strong equity focus, with direct rebates aimed at low- and moderate-income households. Households making between 80% and 150% of the area median income can get back half of the cost of specific energy upgrades, while those making less than 80% of the median income can be fully rebated (up to a certain cap).

With this significant financial support for households to switch from gas to electric, I urge you to move ahead with the strong Bay Area Reach Codes model code that includes Existing Buildings, requiring all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero

96 of 187

emissions models. Fortunately, the Bay Area Reach Codes Team has provided an excellent model ordinance on Building Electrification and supporting documentation for cities like San Mateo to use.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,
Diane Bailey

Sources for electrification funding from the IRA:

Earthjustice overview & benefits, Rewiring America Calculator, https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/high- efficiency-electric-home-rebate-act

Diane Bailey (she/her), Climate Change Professional (CC-P) | Executive Director MENLO

SPARK
Visit us:
www.MenloSpark.org & www.FossilFreeBuildings.org
Find us on
Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Climate Neutral for a Healthy, Prosperous Menlo Park

EV, PV & Fossil Free: Guides for Electric Cars, solar & Fossil Free Homes at: http://menlospark.org/what-we-do/

“Every day that we delay our response to climate change, the situation gets more critical.” - Marina Romanello, research director and lead author on The Lancet report

97 of 187

From: Kevin Ma
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Support for Existing Building Electrification
Date: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 5:50:24 PM
Dear Sustainability Analyst Chow,
As a Bay Area homeowner, I support strong efforts to push for building electrification. We are on the eve of yet another heat wave, amid news of Pakistan being 1/3rd underwater, Europe having high inflation due to their reliance on natural gas, and the western US continuing in a long drought. The effects of climate change are upon us and getting worse by the year. Every area must do their part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially for such a resource rich area as ours.

I trust our CCAs to do good work to come up with their research and model ordinances on new and existing construction, of which my city of Mountain View will review as we shift our carbon neutral target earlier. And state and federal governments will work to provide funding, such as those in the IRA, to address those of limited means. But cities will need to do their part by implementing frameworks to get themselves carbon neutral as soon as possible, even if there exists some opposition.

As such, I look forward to a strong reach code to begin January 1 of next year and the full CCA model code for existing buildings by 2026 to provide enough time and signal for people to prepare, assisted by groups like SMCAT.

Sincerely,
Kevin Ma

98 of 187

From: Jared Johnson
To: Andrea Chow
Cc: Robert Whitehair
Subject: Sustainability Related Amendments to the 2022 Building Code Public Comment Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 2:47:07 PM
Dear Andrea Chow,
I’m a Bay-Area resident and Sr. Policy Manager for Acterra and on behalf of my organization I first want to thank you for taking up reach codes and including on existing buildings. However, we urge this commission to recommend that the council adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full
model code for existing
buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings.

It is important to recognize that fossil gas is a fuel of the past, and new appliances must be electric if we are to fully decarbonize. And Science tells us that we need to fully decarbonize in order to protect ourselves from catastrophic climate change.

Additionally, forcing residents to live in gas-power units exposes them to higher levels of indoor air pollution, during emergencies it takes longer to get power back on to gas homes as opposed to electric homes, and most importantly as the price of renewable energy drops in the future fossil fuels will become more expensive as less as people are paying to maintain the current oversized fossil fuel infrastructure. Modern electric appliances are much more energy efficient than gas appliances, and can help people save money on their utility bills and reduce energy burden in San Mateo, if utilities or government finances the upfront cost.

To that end, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) is exciting new legislation that makes 100% electrification of San Mateo a real possibility. So, the adoption of an ordinance can and should be paired with a roadmap for finding funding and financing for electrification & decarbonization projects.

So Acterra urges the commission to present the council with a plan that can achieve your strategic objection of decarbonization and recommend the council to adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full
model code for new & existing
buildings.

Best regards,
JJ
Jared Johnson (he/him/his)
Senior Manager of Policy & External Relations
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet

99 of 187

acterra.org | Subscribe
Acterra staff use self-identified pronouns to support workplace inclusion for everyone.

I respectfully acknowledge that my work takes place on the ancestral and unceded land of the Ramaytush Ohlone. Whose land are you on?

100 of 187

From: Kelly Petersen
To: Andrea Chow
Subject: Sustainability Related Amendments to the 2022 Building Code Date: Monday, August 29, 2022 7:23:29 PM
Dear Andrea,
I would like to thank the City of San Mateo for taking up this very important issue. There are significant revenue sources to make electrification a reality in every San Mateo home and business. San Mateo could be a great example for other Bay Area counties and the state of CA!

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has determined that Earth has about 7 more years, until 2030, beyond which, damage to the planet will be irreversible.

Our state and communities are beginning to see the very challenging impacts of climate change and I am concerned for our future and our children's future. I am trying to be a part of the effort to make important changes asap, and new reach codes for existing buildings in San Mateo and a broader goal for electrification is one of the key means to make a positive change for our climate - right here in our own community!

The IRA bill that President Biden recently signed, is exciting new legislation that makes 100% electrification of San Mateo a real possibility.

1. The IRA provides two types of savings for lower and middle class families: upfront appliance and equipment discounts, and tax credits

2. There are significant funding mechanisms for every family

As a 37 year resident I would like to ask that the City adopt, in October 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings, with an effective date of Jan 1, 2023 for new construction, and an effective date of Jan 1, 2026 for existing buildings. Ask that the city couple the adoption of an ordinance with a roadmap for successful implementation that includes, among other things, finding funding and financing for electrification (especially for low, fixed and middle income households).

Thank you again for being a strong voice for our future and our San Mateo community! Kelly Petersen

101 of 187

102 of 187

103 of 187

104 of 187

Robert Whitehair

105 of 187

From: L. Eberhart
To: Clerk
Cc: Michelle Hudson; Robert Whitehair
Subject: ATTENTION: City Council, for the Sept 19, 2022 meeting Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 9:37:25 AM
Dear City Council of San Mateo members:

Thank you so much for taking up the important issue of full model reach codes for existing buildings. As an Architect I cannot tell you how much I think this is necessary to move the dial in the right direction for climate change. Too often building equipment gets installed in existing buildings at the last minute due to break down and emergency fix-it situations. Most contractors responding are used to doing things in an expedited and familiar manner, so heat and water appliances get installed that rely on fossil fuels.

This could so easily be avoided if
policy were in place to make it the norm rather than the occasional selection for a cleaner option.

I have been in meetings recently where the contractor could not explain why he thought that a heat pump heater (which also supplied AC) was a bad idea, but still he was opposed.

There is no longer an argument regarding electric being less efficient or the supply of gas being more efficient than electric. Peninsula Clean Energy is supplying San Mateo with renewable and efficient electrical energy with their plans for resilience only getting better every year.

We need to go forward, not languish in the past. Let's be the City to step forward into a cleaner future.

Thank you so much for considering this important measure.

Leane Eberhart,
Architect and San Mateo resident

106 of 187

From: Noelle Gross
To: Clerk
Subject: Attention: City Council, Subject: Discuss and Adopt Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings, September 19, 2022 meeting
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 10:27:03 AM
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council on this very important issue.

I live in Foster City and I am a member of San Mateo Climate Action Team.

I am deeply concerned that the City Council of the City of San Mateo may not be taking full advantage of an exciting opportunity unless it considers and adopts, the full model reach code for existing buildings.

Because of new state and federal laws (the IRA) there will be significant financing through the Inflation Reduction Act. Coupled with a full model Reach Codes For Existing Buildings, our residents and businesses will be able take immediate personal action on behalf of the climate.

I believe that the Council also has an opportunity to show regional leadership.

By adopting a full model reach code for existing buildings (in addition to a reach code for new construction) San Mateo can:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

This issue is personal for me. As a nurse and resident of San Mateo county, I am concerned for the health of our community members and wellness of our environment.

Please fully discuss and adopt, the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

On behalf of all the residents and businesses in San Mateo, I thank you

Noelle Gross

107 of 187

From: Dylan Ackerman
To: Clerk
Subject: Discuss and Adopt Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 5:13:06 PM
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,
First of all, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council on this very important issue. As a San Mateo resident, I have been proud to live in a city at the forefront of climate action and I am hopeful our city will continue to show regional leadership on climate. One exciting opportunity to do so will be to consider and adopt the full model reach code for existing buildings.

In order to continue as a leading city on the most important issue of our lives, San Mateo should adopt the full model reach code for existing buildings in addition to reach codes for existing buildings, specifically:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

Because of new state and federal laws there will be significant financing through the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act). Coupled with a full model Reach Codes For Existing Buildings, our residents and businesses will be able take immediate personal climate action.

Please fully discuss and adopt the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

On behalf of current and future residents of San Mateo, including my children, thank you Dylan Ackerman

108 of 187

From: Mary Rose LeBaron
To: Clerk
Subject: Discuss and Adopt Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings, September 19, 2022 meeting Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 3:54:37 PM
Attention: City Council
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council

Thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council on this very important issue.

I live in San Mateo and I am a member of the San Mateo Climate Action Team. I also am an active member of 350.org Bay Area and an active facilitator of a faith based group focused on the environment, climate change and ecosystem regeneration.

I am deeply concerned that the City Council of the City of San Mateo may not be taking full advantage of an exciting opportunity unless it considers and adopts the full model reach code for existing buildings.

Because of new state and federal laws (the IRA) there will be significant financing through the Inflation Reduction Act. Coupled with a full model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings, our residents and businesses will be able take immediate personal action on behalf of the climate.

I believe that the Council also has an opportunity to show regional leadership. By adopting a full model reach code for existing buildings (in addition to a reach code for new construction) San Mateo can:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

This issue is personal for me because of my background in geography, and my passion for following climate
news, I know that every degree matters. Our town's actions can make a difference. This difference of reducing methane gas and CO2 will matter to all of our children and grandchildren's lives (I have 2 children and 2 grandchildren).

Please fully discuss and adopt the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

On behalf of all the residents and businesses in San Mateo, I thank you

Mary Rose LeBaron

109 of 187

From: Emily Morris
To: Clerk
Subject: Discuss and Adopt Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings, September 19, 2022 meeting Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 8:31:08 AM
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,

I live in San Mateo, and I'm writing to echo and uplift comments from other members of San Mateo Climate Action Team.

I urge the City Council of the City of San Mateo to consider and adopt the full model reach code for existing buildings.

Because of new state and federal laws (the IRA) there will be significant financing through the Inflation Reduction Act. Coupled with a full model Reach Codes For Existing Buildings, our residents and businesses will be able take immediate personal action on behalf of the climate.

I believe that the Council also has an opportunity to show regional leadership.

By adopting a full model reach code for existing buildings (in addition to a reach code for new construction) San Mateo can:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

This issue is of great personal importance to me as a resident of San Mateo. The climate crisis is deeply concerning to me. Devastating California
fires in recent years have brought this issue
home for me, and we have a very limited time to act. We must act now, courageously and swiftly. Thank you for taking up this issue and working to fight the climate crisis in San Mateo.

Please fully discuss and adopt, the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

Thank you for your time,
Emily

110 of 187

From: Linh Dan
To: Clerk
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 9:56:16 AM
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council on this urgent issue.

I live in Menlo Park, and I am a member of the Menlo Park Climate Team.

I am writing to encourage the City Council of the City of San Mateo to consider and adopt the full model reach code for existing buildings.

Our family is deeply committed to the environment - we have switched our gas car for an EV, and we are lucky to live in a location that allows us to walk and bike to almost all of our daily needs. However, as renters, we find it more challenging to take the next step of removing natural gas from our home.

A full model reach code for existing buildings, that among other things would require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025 - coupled with new state and federal laws that provide funding and assistance - would support and enable homeowners, landlords, and renters to fully electrify their homes.

As a resident of a nearby city, it is exciting to see the City of San Mateo take regional leadership that has the potential to inspire ambitious climate action in other cities throughout the region.

Please fully discuss and adopt the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

Thank you,
Linh Dan Do

111 of 187

From: John McKenna
To: Clerk
Cc: Michelle Hudson; Robert Whitehair
Subject: Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 1:10:36 PM
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to address the City Council on this very important issue.

I live in Menlo Park and co-lead the Menlo Park Climate Team. I am also a member of a few other organizations that are committed to inspiring action to address the climate crisis.

The climate crisis is here now and, unless we collectively take bold and immediate action to eliminate the burning of fossil fuels as quickly as is humanly possible, it will get much worse.

There are many tentacles to the climate problem and, accordingly, many solutions. One powerful solution at the local level is to decarbonize our buildings. For a typical city in the Bay Area, buildings account for roughly 30-40% of its greenhouse gas emissions. So, this is an area where cities can really make an impact. Requiring that all new buildings are all- electric is a small step in the right direction, but we will not adequately address this issue unless we electrify all existing buildings as well. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has told us that we only have a few years left to take the actions necessary to stay below a "safe" level of warming and to preserve a livable planet. If anything, the impacts of warming and the associated climate change (more intense, longer, and more frequent extreme weather events, drought, etc.) are happening even sooner than scientists have predicted. The time to act is now, now, now.

Now is the time for the City Council of the City of San Mateo to take full advantage of an exciting opportunity to consider, and adopt, the full model reach code for existing buildings, as developed by the Bay Area Reach Codes organization.

Because of new state and federal
laws (the IRA), there will be significant financing through the Inflation Reduction Act. There are local incentives and rebates available, as well. Coupled with a full model Reach Codes For Existing Buildings, residents and businesses of San Mateo will be able to take immediate personal, and meaningful, action on behalf of the climate.

I believe that cities in the Bay Area, like San Mateo (and Menlo Park) have an opportunity to show regional leadership, which will spur further action by other local cities and the state. All of which can have positive far-reaching national and global impacts.

By adopting a full model reach code for existing buildings (in addition to a reach code for new construction) San Mateo can:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

I am writing this letter to you because I am truly concerned about the future for my eight-year- old daughter. I am equally concerned for future generations, and all living things on this beautiful planet. I will close with two quotes:

112 of 187

"We have inherited a garden: we must not leave a desert to our children. Future generations will never forgive us if we miss the opportunity to protect our common home." - a joint appeal signed by Pope Francis, scientists, & religious leaders in 2021 "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein
We can, and must, solve this problem.

Please fully discuss and adopt the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

On behalf of my daughter and the youth of the world, thank you.

John McKenna, Co-Leader, Menlo Park Climate Team
Sincerely,
John McKenna
Menlo Park, CA

113 of 187

From: Sean Armstrong
To: Clerk
Cc: CA Building Decarbonization
Subject: Home electrification solves grid constraints, lowers costs, saves GHGs Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:48:29 PM
Honorable San Mateo Councilmembers,
Please consider at your Sept 19th meeting an the essential measure for solving climate change- -a planned framework for shutting down gas distribution to San Mateo's homes and businesses. As an author of booklets on home electrification, I've learned that Zurich, Switzerland adopted an electrification retrofit policy in 2011, and versions have passed in dozens of European cities since, followed by entire nations like Britain, Germany and Norway--you are simply walking down a well-worn, sensible policy path.

Why? Because:

1. Home electrification solves summer grid stress. Currently the ACs installed throughout California are SEER 14, while reversible ACs (aka "heat pumps") that are used for winter Heating are also incredibly efficient for AC, starting at SEER 19 and going up to SEER 42 (!) (Carrier's ductless minisplits). It may sound ironic, but it's true--if we electrify space heating, we cut summer AC energy use by up to 2/3rds (SEER 14 to SEER 42) and can finally solve the issue of AC-induced black-outs.

2. Building electrification lowers bills. The Legislature mandated in 2022 that the CPUC adopt energy rates that guarantees lower costs for all-electric homes by 2024. You are helping San Mateo citizens lower their bills by adopting a policy that shifts housing to all-electric.

With the addition of solar panels, all-electric homes in California today are much lower cost to operate than gas burning homes.

3. We are out of time. The news this summer than we have guaranteed a foot of sea level rise in the coming 20 years from Greenland alone, and that a key glacial "plug" is slipping loose in Antarctica that can release land-based glaciers into the ocean, is an existential threat to San Mateo--1 to 6 feet of unstoppable sea level in our own lifetimes, and it can get much worse if we don't act. Did you know there are 217 feet of sea level rise possible?

The nation looks to California cities to lead on climate change policy. Please take reasonable, proven policy steps. Doing so will guide your citizens towards a lower cost lifestyle, and
preserve San Mateo's Bay coastline closer to its current location.

Sincerely,
Sean Armstrong
Sean Armstrong
(he/him for business, but occasionally she/her)
Managing Principal, Redwood Energy

114 of 187

115 of 187

From: Michelle Hudson
To: Clerk
Cc: Robert Whitehair; Michelle Hudson
Subject: Petition for San Mateo Climate Action (Reach Codes for Existing Buildings) Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:06:34 PM
Dear Mayor Bonilla and San Mateo City Council Members,
Below is a Petition for San Mateo Climate Action, signed by over 350 San Mateo residents, business owners and students, and other local residents. The Petition calls for adoption, this fall, of the Bay Area Reach Codes Group's full model code for existing buildings and new construction, with a delayed implementation timeline and support programs for existing buildings.

Sincerely,
Robert Whitehair and Michelle Hudson
On behalf of the San Mateo Climate Action Team
* * * * *

PETITION FOR SAN MATEO CLIMATE ACTION
THE UNDERSIGNED DECLARE:

The climate crisis is real and here now. Clear evidence of the climate crisis is seen

daily: prolonged droughts, devastating wildfires, scorching heat waves, severe floods and other extreme weather events, and the widespread extinction of species.

The burning of fossil fuels is responsible. The climate crisis is the direct result of the burning of fossil fuels. At the local level, the burning of methane gas (aka “natural gas”) in

buildings is responsible for as much as 42% of San Mateo’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Methane gas also contains the carcinogenic chemical benzene, and 20 other chemicals known to be hazardous to human health.

The situation is rapidly getting worse.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) has determined through a scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed analysis that the world will warm by a dangerous 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2030 unless immediate steps are taken to reduce fossil fuel use.

There are powerful local solutions that are available to fight climate change. The Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for new and existing buildings is a powerful,

local solution to the climate crisis. If adopted in full, the model code would put San Mateo on the path to eliminating up to 42% of the City’s total (and most dangerous) greenhouse gases.

THEREFORE, THE UNDERSIGNED REQUEST that the San Mateo City Council adopt in

Fall 2022, the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for new construction and existing buildings, that:

116 of 187

1. Requires new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Requires that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or

zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2026;

3. Ends the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Contains appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

THE UNDERSIGNED ALSO CALL UPON
the San Mateo City Council to adopt a roadmap
for a successful ordinance that includes:

1. Securing financial assistance for electrification, especially for underserved communities;

2. A “One Stop Shop” that provides assistance with electrification;

3. Education and outreach to residents and businesses on the benefits and steps of

electrification;

4. Development of a sufficient workforce and supply chain for electrification; and

5. Streamlining and expediting the permitting process to go electric.

Signed by:

Michelle Hudson, Co-Leader San Mateo Climate Action Team, San Mateo Resident Claire Shintani, Junior Mentor of Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, San Mateo County Team, San Mateo Resident
Caitlin Kaliski, San Mateo Resident
Kristel Wickham, Sunnyvale Sustainability Commission Chair, Local Resident Dale Shintani, San Mateo Resident
Nancy Tierney, Local Resident
Zongyun Deng, Local Resident
Cheryl Weiden, Local Resident
Anjuli Mishra, Student Leader and Founder of San Mateo County Team of SVYCA, San Mateo Student
Grace Xia, San Mateo Resident
Joel Scott, San Mateo Resident
Zach Scott, San Mateo Resident
Vivienne Scott, San Mateo Resident
Alexandra Agosta-Lyon
Logan Xu, San Mateo Student
Amy Mishra, Local Resident
Jasmyn M, Local Resident
Emmy Lee, San Mateo Resident
Melia Kramer, San Mateo Resident
Ann Charleston, San Mateo Resident
Leo Stol, San Mateo Student

117 of 187

Claire Nguyen, San Mateo Resident
Laura Wood, San Mateo Resident
Devika Mathur, San Mateo Student
Sophia Heath, San Mateo Resident
Lena Chow, San Mateo Student
Sam Pasternak, San Mateo Student
Katherine Borgeson, Local Resident
Cecilia Lunaparra, Local Resident
Ines Pajot, San Mateo Student
Ella Beebe, San Mateo Resident
Charlotte Rosario, San Mateo Student
Emma Zwaanstra, Local Resident
Megan Strain, San Mateo Resident
virginia fitzgerald, San Mateo Resident
Gary Trott, Local Resident
Daniel Contreras, Local Resident
Gita Dev, Local Resident
Josephine Gaillard, Local Resident
Felix Mbuga, Local Resident
John McKenna, Local Resident
Christian Frank, Local Resident
Bruce Naegel, Local Resident
Ines Koch, Local Resident
Jared Johnson, San Mateo Buisness
Cheryl Schaff, Local Resident
Peri Caylor, Local Resident
Mark Hoffberg, Local Resident
Patricia Lang, Local Resident
Diane Bailey, Local Resident
Kevin Ma, Local Resident
Leane Eberhart, Architect, San Mateo Resident
Matt Passell, 350 Palo Alto Volunteer, Local Resident
Mel Kronick, Local Resident
Arnab Mishra, San Mateo Resident
Craig Wiesner, San Mateo Business
Wendy Chou, San Mateo Resident
Mary Rose LeBaron, San Mateo Resident
Mark Shintani, San Mateo Resident
Sue Blockstein, San Mateo Resident
Michelle Mandell, San Mateo Resident
Nancy Schneider, San Mateo Resident
Rebecca Young, Local Resident
Diya Kandhra, Local Resident
Elaine Salinger, SMC Citizens Climate Lobby Chapter Leader, Local Resident Elsa Schafer, Local Resident

118 of 187

Alan Mattlage, San Mateo Resident
Henry McDaniels, San Mateo Student
Jacob Reed, San Mateo Resident
Marty Jordan, San Mateo Resident
Sara Miskovich, San Mateo Resident
Debbie Denton, Local Resident
B Zimmerman, Unincorporated San Mateo County Resident
Jay Kershner, Local Resident
David Brittain, Local Resident
Belinda Chlouber, San Mateo Resident
Roisin McElarney, Citizens Climate Lobby Chapter Leader, San Mateo Resident Elijah Lurie, San Mateo Resident
John Kershner, San Mateo Resident
Kevin Hearle, PH.D., San Mateo Resident
JoAn Vaughan, San Mateo Resident
Stephanie Marsico, San Mateo Resident
Kelly Petersen, San Mateo Resident
Linh Dan Do, Menlo Park City Team Local Resident
Jake Kim, Local Resident
Lin He, San Mateo Resident
Sarah Hubbard, San Mateo Resident
Ginny Fleming, San Mateo Resident
Catherine Levey, Local Resident
Emily Morris, San Mateo Resident
Laura Porter, San Mateo Resident
David Prager, San Mateo Resident
Jaela Marquez, Former San Mateo Resident
Dylan Ackerman, San Mateo Resident
Mary Phillips, San Mateo Resident
Joseph Spieler, San Mateo Resident
Mina Bressler, San Mateo Resident
Sarah Blake, San Mateo Resident
George Lee, San Mateo Resident
Karen Irwin, Local Resident
Ted McKinnon, San Mateo Resident
Maggie Bobbin, San Mateo Resident
Mary Klipp, San Mateo Resident
Dr. Gary Trott, Unincorporated San Mateo County Resident Robert Whitehair, Co-Leader San Mateo Climate Action Team, San Mateo Resident Ricki McGlashan, San Mateo Resident
Teri Whitehair, San Mateo Resident
Peter Paffrath, San Mateo Resident
Dough McGlashan, San Mateo Resident
Libby Traubman, Board member of Elders Action Network, San Mateo Resident Lynda Paffrath, San Mateo Resident

119 of 187

Mike Sokolsky, San Mateo Resident
Mady Sokolsky, San Mateo Resident
Debbie Mytels, Local Resident
Winnie Quach, Local Resident
Leah Simmons, San Mateo Resident
Noelle Gross, Local Resident
Sarah Kaprielian, San Mateo Resident
Crystal Hernandez, San Mateo Resident
Aran O’Sullivan, San Mateo Resident
Nick Ketcham, San Mateo Resident
Fred Ho, San Mateo Resident
Britney Garcia, San Mateo Resident
Ethan Haywood, San Mateo Resident
Garret Scafani, San Mateo Resident
Elizabeth Scafani, San Mateo Resident
Yun Qi Zhuo, San Mateo Resident
Aditya Vemula, Local Resident
Heather Arters, Local Resident
Cary Kletter, San Mateo Resident and Business Owner
Henry Yao, Local Resident
Yenting Lin, Local Resident
Krittika Iyengar SVYCA, Local Resident
Rohan Rawat (Co-Lead, State Advocacy, SVYCA), Local Resident Jamie Nguyen, Local Resident
Ciara Begley, Local Resident
Purva Marfatia, Local Resident
Neelam Shukla, Local Resident
Maurice Yarrow, Local Resident
Anthony Lee, Local Resident
Simi Mundkur, Local Resident
Justin Sell, San Mateo Resident
Misty Blue Foster, San Mateo Resident
Allie Zhang, San Mateo Resident
Emma Broyles, San Mateo Resident
Maame Alara Kome-Mensah, San Mateo Resident
Rebecca Reisman, San Mateo Resident
Sean Spencer, San Mateo Resident
Chloe Kwon, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action, Local Resident Alina Galata, Local Resident
Anna Lieb, San Mateo Resident
Jordan Brooks, San Mateo Resident
Pragya Natarajan, Local Resident
Nia Huang, San Mateo Resident
Nirvana Petlick, San Mateo Resident
Natalia Esparza SVYCA Sunnyvale Co-Lead, Local Resident

120 of 187

Lara Heisler, San Mateo Resident
Ed Chung, San Mateo Resident
Mayumi Chung, San Mateo Resident
Sophie Park, Local Resident
Sherry Kung, San Mateo Resident
Soumily Maji, Local Resident
Kathlene Urbano, Local Resident
Dan Penalosa, Organizer at the Coalition for Social Justice in ESUHSD and FUHSD, Local Resident
Tarini Maram, Local Resident
Joey Baek, Local Resident
jenny huang, Local Resident
Theresa Vu, Local Resident
Brad Bao, San Mateo Resident
Nancy Drake, San Mateo Resident
Ray Yoro, San Mateo Resident
Robert Brundage, San Mateo Resident
Bob Dillard, San Mateo Resident
Aleesa Haro, San Mateo Resident
Vaishali Ravikumar, Local Resident
Adrienne Abrams, San Mateo Resident
Elena Lucas, Local Resident
Aayushi Shukla, Local Resident
Jeremy Sonpar, San Mateo Resident
Gabriel Marvin Sy, Local Resident
Ashley Sailor, Local Resident
Kehaulani Likio, San Mateo Resident
Thomas Fung, Local Resident
T. Tassone, San Mateo Resident
Bret Andersen, Carbon Free Palo Alto, Local Resident
James Higbie, San Mateo Resident
Alex Wagonfeld, San Mateo Resident
Jeffrey Perrone, Local Resident
Shruti Boddu, San Mateo Resident
Sophia Tseng, San Mateo Resident
Robert M. Gould, MD, President, San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility, representing hundreds of physicians and other health professionals throughout the Bay Area, including many in San Mateo County
Praniti Sinha, Local Resident
Shivansh Shukla, Local Resident
Jared Johnson, Local Resident
Sonny Kumar, San Mateo Resident
Nancy Mailing, San Mateo Resident
Ray Zuniga, Local Resident
Laura Ild, San Mateo Resident

121 of 187

Ben LeRoy, San Mateo Resident
Jordan Grimes, San Mateo Resident
Thomas Morgan, San Mateo Resident
Asel Orumbaeva, San Mateo Resident
AnnaMarie Hoos, San Mateo Resident
Beixian Xiong, San Mateo Resident
Yiyi Yin, San Mateo Resident
Dean Jost, San Mateo Resident
Ellie Qassenzadeh, San Mateo Resident
Pam Rittelmeyer, San Mateo Resident
Kenny Jiang, San Mateo Resident
Miguel Orellana, San Mateo Resident
Edith Escobedo, San Mateo Resident
Andrea Young, San Mateo Resident
Neha Ramachandran, San Mateo Resident
Clifton Funakura, San Mateo Resident
Nane Funakura, San Mateo Resident
Jennifer Alfaro, San Mateo Resident
Jenny Banjee, San Mateo Resident
Joshua Marron, San Mateo Resident
Melita Foster, San Mateo Resident
Julie Schmittdiel, San Mateo Resident
John Schwarzkopf, San Mateo Resident
Adam Harris, San Mateo Resident
Hao Hua, San Mateo Resident
Chris Cooper, San Mateo Resident
Michelle Mickey, San Mateo Resident
Elizabeth Montabana, San Mateo Resident
NyAsia Ward, San Mateo Resident
Diana Tsuania, San Mateo Resident
Paige Christini, San Mateo Resident
Elvin Padilla, San Mateo Resident
Kathy Revelo, San Mateo Resident
Robyn Fusciandi, San Mateo Resident
Bruce Fowler, San Mateo Resident
Inger Olson, San Mateo Resident
Ed Cheng, San Mateo Resident
Justin Cheng, San Mateo Resident
Walter Hsiao, San Mateo Resident
Aaron Rowley, San Mateo Resident
Albert Candia, San Mateo Resident
Iam Clarke, San Mateo Resident
Michael Liu, San Mateo Resident
Jean Yates, San Mateo Resident
Michael Murphy, San Mateo Resident

122 of 187

Gene Stern, San Mateo Resident
Aldina Mendoza, San Mateo Resident
Pedro Cortes, San Mateo Resident
Victoriano Lopez, San Mateo Resident
Violeta Guerrero, San Mateo Resident
Chloe Medina, San Mateo Student
Eleanor Arron, San Mateo Student
Jackson Bohren, San Mateo Resident
Mia Garcia, San Mateo Student
Thomas Rimer, San Mateo Student
Justin Chou-Belden, San Mateo Student
Archie Boyer, San Mateo Student
Char Perry, San Mateo Student
Margot Salles, Local Resident
Annli Zhu, San Mateo Resident
Gabriel Hawkins, San Mateo Student
Cami Yen, San Mateo Student
Sasha Gordon, San Mateo Resident
Jason Chen, San Mateo Student
Grace Chan, San Mateo Student
Davis Dietzen, San Mateo Student
Anand Velaga, San Mateo Student
Stephanie Liu, San Mateo Student
Luki Deitchman, San Mateo Resident
Mira Hitz, San Mateo Student
Ashwin Rengarajan, San Mateo Resident
Robert J Fleming, San Mateo Resident
Gigi Silver, Local Resident
Albert Huang, San Mateo Student
Matthew Oakland, Local Resident
Gabriel Bernstein, San Mateo Student
Kevin Hwong, San Mateo Resident
Wendy Espinoza, San Mateo Student
Kira Fanelli, San Mateo Student
Liza Percer, Local Resident
Peter Choi, San Mateo Student
Xander Yang, San Mateo Student
Christine Zhao, San Mateo Resident
Jonathan Hwang, San Mateo Student
Pearl Yeh-Lee, Local Resident
Aura Mukherjee, San Mateo Student
Isabelle Ho, San Mateo Resident
Janis Kelly, San Mateo Resident
Thomas Penderquist, San Mateo Resident
Audrey Hudson, San Mateo Resident

123 of 187

Adriane Lonzarich, San Mateo Resident
Ben Selcow, San Mateo Resident
Mario E. Quehl, San Mateo Resident
Andrea Anderson, San Mateo Resident
Kyle Hudson, San Mateo Resident
Dheeban Sen, San Mateo Resident
Thomas McEnery, San Mateo Resident
Katherin Kong, San Mateo Resident
Kat Ackerman, San Mateo Resident
Peter Bostrom, San Mateo Resident
Gabrielle Lundquist, San Mateo Resident
Greg Baker, San Mateo Resident
Michael Cavanaugh, San Mateo Resident
Jessica Mulreany, San Mateo Resident
Kelly Dodge, San Mateo Resident
Erik Dodge, San Mateo Resident
Payal Shah, San Mateo Resident
Thomas O'Connell, San Mateo Resident
Kendra Ceccato, San Mateo Resident
Mariano Ceccato, San Mateo Resident
Frederick Ho, San Mateo Resident
Steve Vaderlyn, San Mateo Resident
Peter Stiles, San Mateo Resident
Guillermo Cockrum, San Mateo Resident
Raghuram Ganti, San Mateo Resident
Jennifer Soto, San Mateo Resident
XiaoXing Xu, San Mateo Resident
Yumi Tomita, San Mateo Resident
Serena Devito, San Mateo Resident
Kate Maloney, San Mateo Resident
Claire Buckley, San Mateo Resident
Ben Meyers, San Mateo Resident
Roy Yeh, San Mateo Resident
Nicole Hui, San Mateo Resident
Jennifer Lee, San Mateo Resident
Andrew McLaughlin, San Mateo Resident
Maya Perkash, Local Resident
Arielle Percer, San Mateo Student
Molly Schuster, San Mateo Resident
Corey Fish, San Mateo Resident
Cameron Gilbert, San Mateo Resident
David Meng, San Mateo Resident
Sarah Arron, Unincorporated San Mateo Highlands Resident Ellie Kearns, San Mateo Student
Joseph Arron, Local Resident

124 of 187

Vida Hayashigatani, San Mateo Resident
Mike Caggiano, San Mateo Resident
Kathleen Goforth, Citizens’ Climate Lobby, Volunteer, Local Resident Bruce Karney, Founder of Carbon Free Silicon Valley, Local Resident Katrina Castillo, San Mateo Resident
Samara Bainton, San Mateo Student
Wayne westerman, Local Resident
Abhineet Gupta, Local Resident
Elisa Nayeli Altamirano, San Mateo Resident
Laura Brash, San Mateo Resident
Karen Irwin, Local Resident
Grace F-O, San Mateo Student
Linda Ann Rarden, San Mateo Resident
Carolyne Bosque, Local Resident
Kayte Chan, San Mateo Student
Angie Xu, San Mateo Resident
Dimitri Gavallos, San Mateo Student
Jared Johnson, Sr. Manager of Policy & External Relations, Acterra, Local Resident Peter Heller, San Mateo Resident
Zach Heller, San Mateo Resident
Bridget Bertrand, San Mateo Business Owner
Matt Paulson, San Mateo Resident
Bellamy Cramer, Local Resident
Terese Piazza Fuss, San Mateo Resident

125 of 187

From: Steve Schmidt
To: Clerk
Subject: Please support urgent action to decarbonize our homes Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 1:06:35 PM
Respected Neighbors --
Thank you for all you are doing to address our common climate crisis.

Our biggest challenge is migrating existing buildings off fossil fuels. The needed technologies already exist, but the scale of the effort is daunting and we have no time to lose -- each new
natural gas appliance installed in homes today locks in many years of future emissions. Best efforts by motivated individuals is wonderful, but clearly will take too long to get to scale.

We need government help.

Momentum for aggressive action is building at the state and federal level. You have an opportunity to demonstrate clear leadership here in
the Bay Area, and many local governments
will follow your lead.

Please vote to require the replacement of natural gas appliances with electric heat pumps as soon as possible!
Steve Schmidt
Commissioner, Los Altos Hills Environmental Committee
Member, Carbon Free Silicon Valley
Past Director, SVCE

126 of 187

From: Ann Edminster
To: Clerk
Subject: Re: Model Reach Codes, Attn: City Council
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 9:44:57 AM
Subject: Discuss and Adopt Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings, September 19, 2022 meeting

Esteemed Mayor and City Council members,

Protecting the climate is both my day job and a passion. I have been working towards transformation of building energy performance for the better part of three decades -- for most of that time as a San Mateo County resident. I was raised in Pacifica and participated in developing the first green building standards for both the County and the City of Pacifica.

I am writing to urge you to adopt the
full model reach code for existing buildings that is
before you for review and approval. New State budget allocations and the Inflation Reduction Act will soon make significant financing available for building electrification. This confluence represents an unprecedented opportunity for the City to show both regional and national leadership, and for San Mateo residents to take significant, meaningful, and affordable action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

With adoption of the full model reach code for existing buildings alongside the reach code for new
construction (with appropriate exemptions), San Mateo will accomplish a tremendously powerful thing: ensure that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero
emissions models, effective January 1, 2025, and end the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030. This needs to happen everywhere, and it won't happen unless one city has the courage to lead. Please take this opportunity to be that leader. Your city and people all over the world will thank you.

Sincerely,
Ann V. Edminster, M.Arch. (she/her)
Design AVEnues LLC www.annedminster.com

127 of 187

From: Diane Bailey
To: Clerk
Cc: Andrea Chow; Kathy Kleinbaum
Subject: Support for a Comprehensive Reach Code to phase out gas from both New and Existing Buildings Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 1:52:44 PM
Attachments: image001.png
FFBSV Support Letter to the City of San Mateo for a Strong Existing Building Reach Code.pdf Dear Mayor Bonilla and Council Members,
Please accepts these comments attached on behalf of the Campaign for Fossil Free Buildings in Silicon Valley (FFBSV), our 39 member organizations, and many others signed onto the letter. We urge you to fully consider a comprehensive Reach Code for new and existing buildings based on the model code provided by the Bay Area Reach Codes team (the “Time of Permit – Electric-Required,” available here). It is essential that the city consider all reasonable measures to prevent new uses of gas and facilitate the necessary transition from fossil gas at the speed and scale called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as to address the air quality, health, and safety impacts of current fossil gas use in our homes and other buildings.

We appreciate the efforts of city staff and Commissioners so far to discuss reach codes.

However, the proposal under current consideration includes only a limited number of minor changes compared to the current reach code in place. Specifically, we request a discussion at your Council Meeting on September 19th, including these items for consideration in the next reach code to be finalized by the end of the year:

1. Require new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Include appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

With at least 350 people signing a petition calling for the above listed items and significant support throughout San Mateo communities, as well as strong consensus from scientists the world over calling for urgent action to phase out fossil fuels, we implore you to fully consider and discuss these options.

Sincerely,
Diane Bailey

Diane Bailey (she/her), Climate Change Professional (CC-P) | Executive Director

MENLO S
PARK
[email protected] | 650-281-7073
Visit us: www.MenloSpark.org & www.FossilFreeBuildings.org Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Climate Neutral for a Healthy, Prosperous Menlo Park
EV, PV & Fossil Free: Guides for Electric Cars, solar & Fossil Free Homes at: http://menlospark.org/what-we-do/

128 of 187

“Half of humanity is in the danger zone from floods, droughts, extreme storms and wildfires." António Guterres, UN Secretary General July 18, 2022

129 of 187

From: Michelle Hudson
To: Clerk
Subject: Support for Full Model Reach Code for Existing Buildings Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 2:49:42 PM
Dear Mayor Bonilla and San Mateo City Council Members,
My name is Michelle Hudson, and I’m a long time resident of San Mateo, mother of two kids, and a Co-Leader of the San Mateo Climate Action Team.

Thank you for your continued climate leadership in San Mateo. I am writing to you once again regarding the critically important topic of electrification of existing buildings.

You are aware that the Inflation Reduction Act has just made electrification of existing buildings so much easier and cost effective. In addition, local rebates, coupled with PCE's on-bill financing and recent legislation by our State Senator, Josh Becker, will provide further funding and financing to electrify our residences and businesses.

The recent increases in funding and financing sources for electrification means that the stars have aligned for your passage of the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model code for existing buildings. While this once seemed too costly for a number of San Mateans, it is now a golden opportunity for San Mateo to yet again demonstrate true climate leadership. However, I am deeply concerned that the City Council of the City of San Mateo will not be taking full advantage of such a golden opportunity, given that Staff has focused on a handful of relatively minor measures from the full model code to date. I, and the climate concerned members of this community, ask that you go much further than these minor measures.

Specifically, I urge this City Council to adopt the Bay Area Reach Codes Group’s full model reach code for existing buildings this fall. By adopting a full model reach code for existing buildings (in addition to a reach code for new construction), San Mateo can:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be

electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

This issue is personal to me. In recent years, the climate crisis has risen to the top of

my concerns as a mother because we now have a serious air pollution problem as a result of the increase in the number and severity of wildfires, and this has been very detrimental to my kids’ health, as both my kids have asthma. I never knew what to do about this increasingly worsening problem until I learned that our homes and buildings are responsible for a significant percentage of our City’s greenhouse gas emissions. And on top of that, the methane gas that we are using is a super pollutant that is also harming our health, especially that of our children. I want to see our great City, and others like ours, be the heroes of this climate story, and take bold action to

130 of 187

get methane gas out of our homes and buildings.

Thank you,
Michelle Hudson
San Matean, and Co-Leader of the San Mateo Climate Action Team

131 of 187

From: Tom Kabat
To: Clerk
Cc: Robert Whitehair; Michelle Hudson
Subject: Supporting Electrification Reach Codes
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 12:12:30 AM
Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council

I’m an energy engineer working on a pro-bono project helping San Mateo County explore electrification o
f existing buildings.

One of our first client homes is right here in San Mateo where the owners have put in heat pump water heating and are planning out the other installs to take advantage of the new incentives from the feds, state, BayREN and PCE.

The world is changing around us very quickly as governments begin to look for ways to preserve a more viable climate.

The recently enacted Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and signifiant other state, regional, and Peninsula Clean Energy incentives have made electrification of each device as it burns out, a much better choice than replacing it with another similar gas fired furnace or water heater etc.

Our county study is also finding ways to electrify most homes with more efficient-right sized furnaces, water heaters and car chargers so the home panel does not need to be upsized and so less stress is placed on the grid. The other thing that is changing is that gas rates are headed up as state-wide customers start leaving the gas utility. You have the chance to help you residents and businesses avoid stranding new gas devices that will become too expensive to run.

You have a chance to take full advantage of this exciting opportunity by adopting, the full model reach code for existing buildings.

I’ve crunched the numbers and found that incentives make electrification economic, but long

lasting inertia has kept more than 98% of device replacement being just another new dirty gas machine to replace the old one.

With the incentives making electrification economic, the prudent path is to adopt the full electric Reach Code so the customers and the trades can pivot away from inertia and move towards climate safety.

I think many cities will be able to follow San Mateo again in adopting strong Reach Codes on the peninsula.

132 of 187

Cities are just looking for a first bold mover so they can shed their inertia as well and they can build on your progress.

By adopting a full model reach code for existing buildings (in addition to a reach code for new construction) San Mateo can:

1. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero

emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

2. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

3. Provide appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical infeasibility.

Please fully discuss and adopt, the Full Model Reach Codes for Existing Buildings at your September 19, 2022 meeting.

Thank you,
Tom Kabat
Energy Engineer
Menlo Park resident

133 of 187

Fwd: Reach Codes
Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Mon 9/19/2022 12:35 PM
To:Andrea Chow <[email protected]>;Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>;Erin Fellers <[email protected]> Get Outlook for iOS
From: Gary Latshaw
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:10:48 PM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Reach Codes

I have a more complete letter, with an attachment, attached to this email. My comments are:

I urge the City to adopt a Reach Code that severely restricts or eliminates the use of natural gas in new construcon. I was on the Cuperno City Sustainability Commission when this subject was considered a few years ago. We unanimously recommend the reach codes to the City Council, which rafied our recommendaon. I was surprised, as a commissioner, to receive the leer (aached) from PG&E supporng this decision.

Since these codes have gone into effect, the City of Cuperno has approved the fully electric designs for a major mixed-use development involving below- market-rate housing, normal housing, retail, and office space. Many other single-family dwellings have been constructed in compliance with the reach codes. The construcon is currently on-going on Stevens Creek Blvd across from De Anza College.

There are savings associated with all-electric construcon since there is no need for the ulity hookups and piping of natural gas. The use of natural gas is now seen as the most dangerous climate pollutant because of the exceponally strong global warming potenal associated with the inevitable leaks of natural gas, which is primarily methane. If mankind stops eming methane into the atmosphere, the gas will quickly (10 years) decline in concentraon.

A recent Study done by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, has found that, apart from the impact on climate, the use of natural gas has serious impact to indoor and outdoor air quality. Two key findings:

· INDOOR: Gas appliances emit a wide range of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx,including nitrogen dioxide (NO2)), parculate maer (PM), and formaldehyde, which have been linked to various acute and chronic health effects, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and premature death.
·
OURDOOR: If all residenal gas appliances were immediately replaced with clean electric alternaves, the reducon of outdoor NOX and PM2.5 would result in 354 fewer deaths, as well as 596 fewer cases of acute bronchis and 304 fewer cases of chronic bronchis annually in California (Table 3-1). This is equivalent to approximately $3.5 billion in monezed health benefits over the course of one year.

Thank you for your consideraon of this analysis,
Text, leer Descripon automacally genera ted

Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.

Former Cuperno Commissioner on the Sustainability Commission, and Staff Scienst at Securethefuture2100.org --
Fight for Renewable Energies! Save the global ecology; create jobs; eliminate dependence on foreign oil; reduce military requirements Gary Latshaw Ph.D.

134 of 187

To: San Mateo City Council and Staff
From: Gary Latshaw, Staff Scientist with Securethefuture2100 Subject: Supporting Reach Codes restricting or eliminating natural gas in new San Mateo Construction
Date: September 19,2022

I urge the City to adopt a Reach Code that severely restricts or eliminates the use of natural gas in new construction. I was on the Cupertino City Sustainability Commission when this subject was considered a few years ago. We unanimously recommend the reach codes to the City Council, which ratified our recommendation. I was surprised, as a commissioner, to receive the letter (attached) from PG&E supporting this decision.

Since these codes have gone into effect, the City of Cupertino has approved the fully electric designs for a major mixed-use development involving below-market-rate housing, normal housing, retail, and office space. Many other single-family dwellings have been constructed in compliance with the reach codes. The construction is currently on-going on Stevens Creek Blvd across from De Anza College.

There are savings associated with all-electric construction since there is no need for the utility hookups and piping of natural gas. The use of natural gas is now seen as the most dangerous climate pollutant because of the exceptionally strong global warming potential associated with the inevitable leaks of natural gas, which is primarily methane. If mankind stops emitting methane into the atmosphere, the gas will quickly (10 years) decline in concentration.

A recent Study done by the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, has found that, apart from the impact on climate, the use of natural gas has serious impact to indoor and outdoor air quality. Two key findings:

• INDOOR: Gas appliances emit a wide range of air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx,including nitrogen dioxide (NO2)), particulate matter (PM), and formaldehyde, which have been linked to various acute and chronic health effects, including respiratory illness, cardiovascular disease, and premature death. • OURDOOR: If all residential gas appliances were immediately replaced with clean electric alternatives, the reduction of outdoor NOX and PM2.5 would result in 354 fewer deaths, as well as 596 fewer cases of acute bronchitis and 304 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis annually in California (Table 3-1). This is equivalent to approximately $3.5 billion in monetized health benefits over the course of one year.

Thank you for your consideration of this analysis,

Gary Latshaw, Ph.D.

Former Cupertino Commissioner on the Sustainability Commission, and Staff Scientist at Securethefuture2100 org

135 of 187

136 of 187

October 22, 2019 Page 2 of 2

Thank you, and have a safe day
.

Sincerely,

Robert S. Kenney
Vice President

cc: Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager [[email protected]] Albert Salvador, Building Official [[email protected]] Aimee Bailey, Ph.D., Director of Decarbonization and Grid Innovation, Silicon Valley Clean Energy [[email protected]] Anna Brooks, Sr. Manager, Public Affairs, PG&E [[email protected]] Darin Cline, Sr. Manager, Government Relations, PG&E [[email protected]]

137 of 187

FW: Reach Code Study Session
Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Mon 9/19/2022 12:10 PM
To:City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]>;Martin McTaggart <[email protected]>;Erin Fellers <[email protected]>

From: Alan R. Malage
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 11:33 AM
To: Patrice Olds <[email protected]>
Subject: Reach Code Study Session

Patrice,

Please forward my comments below this to the Council.

Thanks so much,
Alan
"It is a magnificent thing to be alive in a moment that maers so much." -- Ayana Elizabeth Johnson

Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I have spent the last decade (nearly full-me) reading about climate change, including peer-reviewed literature in climate science, climate law, and environmental economics. In addion, I have closely followed public policies regarding the climate at all levels of government. Sadly, none of the policies that have gained any polical tracon are remotely adequate to address the unfolding crises. In light of this, I strongly urge you to adopt the most ambious reach codes you can devise.

It is a cold, hard fact, that if we are to leave our children with a stable and prosperous society, we must use the power and authority we have to take the most aggressive acon possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As councilmembers, your power and authority is significant, and your responsibility must be to protect the wellbeing of the people of San Mateo through the whole of our lives, not simply to promote the current desires of one segment of our present populaon. As trustees of our City who make policies for the future, you must be the ones to take a comprehensive, long view regarding what is good for San Mateo.

I won’t bore you with the pros and cons of the reach code policies before you today. You know them as well as I. I will note, however, that the single argument I have heard in favor of a “go slow” approach to eliminang methane gas from our buildings is that it might involve a marginal cost to some building owners beyond electrifying their buildings. This argument is weak in two ways.

First, a growing package of rebates is now reducing and somemes eliminang the marginal costs of electrificaon. Furthermore, addional rebates and rising methane gas prices can be expected to make electrificaon generally more affordable than fossil fuel appliances in the not-so-distant future.

Second, reports commonly used to assess the comparave costs of fossil fuel appliances versus clean, renewable electric appliances do not include the social cost of carbon. When we do not include the social cost in our calculaons, we ignore the harms that the climate crisis is producing and will connue to produce. We make a mockery of our purported concerns about those harms. Our pious rhetoric of concern becomes, in the words of the Swedish climate acvist Greta Thunberg, “blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.”
It is long past me we abandon half-measures toward eliminang greenhouse gas emissions. I hope you will, out of love for our children and their future, adopt the strongest reach code that you can devise.

Sincerely,
Alan Malage, Ph.D.

138 of 187

139 of 187

140 of 187

141 of 187

September 19, 2022
Dear Mayor Bonilla and Council Members,
My name is Dr. Robert M. Gould. After working as a Pathologist at San Jose Kaiser for over 30 years, since 2012, I’ve been an Associate Adjunct Professor at UCSF School of Medicine, working in our Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment. Since 1989 I’ve also been President of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), for which I’m speaking today, representing many hundreds of health professionals throughout our region, who speak for the health of our patients and communities, who are increasingly impacted by the unfolding public and environmental health impacts of global warming, and clearly connected issues of air pollution.

The most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is unequivocal in its call for urgent action to ensure an energy efficient and fossil free future. In the SF Bay Area, we’ve witnessed the intersecting impacts of our pandemic and climate crisis, having suffered through our recent wildfire seasons, where resultant smoke harming our overall health has increased the toll of COVID, especially among already increasingly over-burdened communities who are poor and of color.

Promoting Building Electrification, and reducing toward elimination our current reliance on gas appliances is health protective, not only in the climate benefits of moving away from fossil fuel extraction and use, but also because gas stoves and other appliances can be a large source of toxic pollution in homes, reaching levels of pollution that would be illegal in outdoor settings. Children, especially those of color, are particularly at risk of respiratory illnesses, such as asthma, associated with gas appliance pollution, and lower income households may be at higher risk of exposure.

As such, we urge you to fully consider a comprehensive Reach Code for new and existing buildings based on the model code provided by the Bay Area Reach Codes team (the “Time of Permit – Electric- Required,” available here). It is essential that the City of San Mateo consider all reasonable measures to prevent new uses of gas and facilitate the necessary transition from fossil gas at the speed and scale called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as to address the air quality, health, and safety impacts of current fossil gas use in our homes and other buildings.

While applauding the diligent efforts of city staff and Commissioners to date in considering health- protective reach codes, we join coalition partners in requesting your strong consideration of these items in the next Reach Code to be finalized by the end of the year:

1. Require new construction to be fully electrified, effective January 1, 2023;

2. Require that all replacements of gas equipment in homes and businesses be electric or zero emissions models, effective January 1, 2025;

3. End the flow of gas in San Mateo, effective January 1, 2030; and

4. Include appropriate exemptions for economic hardship and technical feasibility.

142 of 187

In conclusion, we at SF Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility hope you will implement these measures, and thus strongly demonstrate the City of San Mateo’s leadership and commitment to rapidly develop the more economical, pollution-free buildings we need now for the optimal public, environmental and climate health we and future generations so deserve.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Gould, MD
President
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility

143 of 187

From: Laurie Hietter
To: City Council (San Mateo); Diane Papan; Rick Bonilla; Eric Rodriguez; Amourence Lee; Joe Goethals; Patrice Olds Subject: Reach Codes and SB 9
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 4:00:22 PM
Dear Mayor Bonilla and Council Members,
I urge the City to be cautious in approving Reach Codes. We do not have enough electricity or infrastructure to mandate electrification. Very little new generation is proposed, and the desert is locked up so little to no wind or solar will be constructed there due to the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan. Power plants require 5-10 years for permitting and environmental review. Even fast-track projects can barely be permitted in one year. Rooftop solar is not enough. Very few transmission upgrades are currently proposed, according to the California Public Utilities Commission website. The push for electric cars alone will vastly expand the need for electricity. Each electric car requires 4 MW per year. We should not be relying only on one source of power until we have a plan for additional power supply and transmission.

The City is doing a lot by requiring new homes to be electric. Don't push this on small remodeling projects. Please do not approve any more reach codes.

SB 9 Ordinance
The public routinely has expressed opposition to excessive growth in San Mateo. I agree with the staff's approach to generally not increase allowances under SB 9 beyond state requirements, and disagree with the Planning Commission recommendation to allow 3-4 units on each split lot.

Historic Definitions
I agree with and support Keith Weber's comments on the historic language. The City should not be arbitrarily defining what is and is not historic. We have state and federal laws that have definitions. The City would be in violation of state historic preservation law and CEQA if an applicant is allowed to demolish up to 50% of an eligible property without preparing a Historic Resource Evaluation for structures more than 45 years old. At a minimum, that demolition should not be in front of a building that may be historic or in a historic district, of which we have many in San Mateo.

The new language in the ordinance seems to indicate that only the existing identified historic buildings qualify as historic. The language does not adequately address historic districts. The State Historic Preservation Office indicates historic surveys have a shelf life. The Downtown Historic District was designated over 30 years ago and should be revisited.

The following statement in the ordinance inappropriately limits contributors to only those buildings previously identified, and only in the Downtown District:
"Contributor building" shall mean those buildings identified as such and located within the Downtown Historic District as adopted by resolution of the City Council and identified in the City of San Mateo General Plan.

Case law shows the courts err on the side of the preservation of historic resources. Why is the City inviting litigation by trying to narrow the definition of historic resources and ignore all the historic districts in our City?

144 of 187

Public Notice
I support the public notice requirement and request that the distance for noticing be increased to 1,200 ft or the entire neighborhood.

Access
I support the staff's recommendation to maintain the 10-foot access corridor on newly created lots to minimize safety issues, especially in our most vulnerable neighborhoods where streets are very narrow.

Interim Objective Design Standards
I agree the City needs objective design standards, especially in historic neighborhoods that have not been evaluated. San Mateo is known for its charming neighborhoods. Let's work to maintain that charm through specific design standards. The standards should be defined by architects and historians working together with the City planners.

I support the list of prohibited exterior finishes in the ordinance. The prohibition of some exterior finishes such as plywood and vinyl outlined in the interim objective design standards is to ensure development consists of high-quality and durable materials. A prohibited exterior material SHOULD NOT be allowed through the discretionary review process where staff would review to ensure that the material would still result in a durable and high-quality structure.

Front setbacks of 20 feet are not adequate in some neighborhoods, such as Baywood, Aragon, and San Mateo Park. Structures at 20 feet from the street are out of place when most homes in the neighborhood are 30-35 feet from the street (it varies.

Windows are critically important elements in architecture. Replacement windows should be of the same as the other windows on the house and of the same character as the majority of homes in the area.

Discretionary Review
The staff report seems to indicate that if units are subject to discretionary review then all rules and standards are up for negotiation (e.g., exterior finishes). The purpose of having standards is to ensure the rules are followed.

Public Comments and Outreach
This is a good opportunity to present my concerns about summarizing public comments. Every City meeting I have attended in the last year or so has last-minute commenters who call in to support growth and more housing with no restrictions. The callers often do not live in San Mateo or appear to be paid activists (YIMBY Law and others). The City has had an unprecedented number of high-rise development applications, along with the General Plan update meetings, reach codes, and meetings about SB 9 and 10. It is difficult to devote enough time to review all materials (this packet is 712 pages) and present informed comments. The City should resume the practice of asking for the address or at least the neighborhood where commenters reside.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Laurie

145 of 187

--
Laurie

146 of 187

Proposed Reach Codes
for the 2022 Building
Code Cycle
September 19, 2022
Andrea Chow, Sustainability Analyst

147 of 187

Agenda
1) Background
2) New Construction: Proposed Reach Codes
3) Existing Buildings: Proposed Reach Codes

148 of 187

Background

149 of 187

Commercial Built
Environment
16%
Residential Built
Environment
18%
Off Road Equipment
8%
Solid
Waste
3%
Point
Sources
3%
Landfill
1%
Rail
1%
Water and
Wastewater
0%
Transportation
50%
2017 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory

150 of 187

What are Reach Codes?
• Local amendments to the Building Code
that reach above the state requirements
• The building code is updated on a three-
year code cycle
• Current code cycle:
• January 1, 2020- December 31, 2022
• Upcoming code cycle:
• January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025

151 of 187

6 • Peninsula Clean Energy is San Mateo County’s
not for profit locally-led electricity provider
• Mission: To reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by expanding access to sustainable
and affordable energy solutions
• Leading the Bay Area Reach Codes team
Reach codes reduce
greenhouse gas emissions

152 of 187

Building Electrification
Water
heating
55%
Cooking
6%
Clothes
drying
3%
Space
heating
36%

AVERAGE FOSSIL GAS
USE
Space
heating
Clothes drying
Water heating
Cooking
EV charging

153 of 187

Electrification and Resilience
Heat Pump Water
Heating
Heat Pump
Space Heating
Induction
Cooking
Electric Clothes
Drying
Gas furnaces require
electric fans, but
fireplaces still work.

Gas water heaters
require electronic
ignition or pumps
Gas dryers use
electric motors to
run tumbler
Gas stoves will work
without electricity,
but it’s unsafe

154 of 187

EV Charging
• 50% of community emissions are
related to transportation
• State will require all new passenger cars
be zero-emission in 2035
• At-home charging is specifically
important

155 of 187

New Construction:

Proposed Reach Codes

156 of 187

Current Reach Codes for New Construction
January 1, 2020 – December 31, 2022
Solar Electric Vehicle
Readiness
Building
Electrification

157 of 187

Proposed Reach Codes for New Construction
January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025
Electric Vehicle
Readiness
Building
Electrification

158 of 187

All-Electric New Construction
Current reach code
(expires December 31, 2022)
Proposed reach code requirement
(January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025)
Requires all residential buildings and
buildings with office use to be all-
electric
Requires all new construction to be all-
electric. Commercial kitchens and
hotel/motel laundry services would be
exempt from this requirement. Staff
recommend adding exception language for
space conditioning for buildings with
biotech laboratories use.

159 of 187

EV Infrastructure Terminology
Image Credit: https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/solar-and-vehicles/options/clean-vehicles/electric/charger- options/electric-vehicles-charging-pge.page Level 2
Main Street Garage

160 of 187

EV Infrastructure Terminology
Image credit: https://cleanenergy.org/blog/ev-readiness-and-why-we-need-it-now/ EV Capable EV Ready EV Charging Space
EVSE Installed

161 of 187

Enhanced EV Requirements for New Construction
Impacted buildings Current reach code
(expires December 31, 2022)
Proposed reach code requirement
(January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025)
Single family homes
and two-family
townhomes
One Level 2 EV Ready space per
dwelling unit
One Level 2 EV Ready per dwelling unit;
One Level 1 EV Ready space if second space provided
Multifamily buildings 15% Level 2 EV Capable OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Affordable Housing
15% Level 2 EVCS
25% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Non Residential
buildings
5% Level 2 EVCS
10% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 15% of spaces
Office Use
20% Level 2 EVCS
30% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 50% of spaces
All Other Uses
10% Level 2 EVCS
10% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 20% of spaces

162 of 187

Multifamily EV Reach Code Options

OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units
with spaces

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready (low-
power)
Total: 100% of dwelling units
with spaces

163 of 187

Existing Buildings:

Proposed Reach Codes

164 of 187

Reach Codes for Existing Buildings
• Developed in collaboration with PCE
• Would be effective January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025 • Enforced at time of permit
• Focus on building electrification

165 of 187

Proposed
Green
Building
Reach
Codes
GHG emission
reduction
Best practices in
other cities
Enforcement
Equity impacts
Upfront and utility
costs
Policy Considerations

166 of 187

Reach Code Option 1
Panel capacity for future electrification
Impacted buildings Residential buildings
Trigger Electric panel replacement or
upgrade
Reach code requirement Panel capacity and reservation of breaker space for future
electrification
GHG impact Electric-readiness
Upfront Cost Add $0

167 of 187

Reach Code Option 2
Outlets installed during kitchen or laundry room
renovations
Impacted buildings Single family homes and duplexes
Trigger Kitchen or laundry room
renovations
Reach code requirement Installation of outlet for the use of future electric appliances
GHG impact Electric-readiness
Upfront Cost Add $500-$2,000

168 of 187

Reach Code Option 3
Heat pump air conditioning
Impacted buildings Single family homes and duplexes
Trigger New installation or replacement of
existing air conditioner and gas furnace
Reach code requirement Installation of a heat pump space conditioning
% of household fossil gas use Space heating = 36%
Upfront cost Add $1,500
Monthly utility bill impact Save $10 – add $11

169 of 187

Reach Code Options 4A
Electric/solar water heating for pools
Impacted buildings Residential buildings
Trigger Installation of new pools
Reach code requirement Installation of electric or solar pool heating
% of household fossil gas use Pool water heating = 4%
Upfront cost Add $800-$1,300
Monthly utility bill impact Save $8.75

170 of 187

Reach Code Options 4B
Pool and outdoor equipment
Impacted buildings Residential buildings
Trigger New pools and/or new fuel gas
infrastructure for outdoor fire pits/ kitchens
Reach code requirement Prohibition of fuel gas infrastructure into the backyard for uses such as fire pits, grills
and pools
% of household fossil gas use Pool water heating = 4%
Upfront cost Add $800-$1,300
Monthly utility bill impact Save $8.75

171 of 187

Reach Code Option 5
Heat pump water heater
Impacted buildings Single family homes and duplexes
Trigger Addition or alteration project that
includes water heater replacement
Reach code requirement Installation of a heat pump water heater % of household fossil gas use Water heating = 55%
Upfront cost Add $1,500 - $4,500
Monthly utility bill impact Savings or no impact

172 of 187

Existing Buildings: Reach Code Options
1) Electric-readiness: panel capacity
2) Electric-readiness: outlets installed
3) Heat pump air conditioning
4) Pools and outdoor equipment
A. Requires electric or solar heated pools
B. Prohibit extension of gas infrastructure for pools, fire pits, grills, etc.
5) Heat pump water heaters

173 of 187

Existing Building Decarbonization Ordinance
Four main elements:
1) Establishes a date to require electric appliances upon appliance replacement,
2) Requires electric-readiness during appliance replacements, 3) Requires fossil fuel disclosure during sale of property, and 4) Establishes a date for termination of fuel gas infrastructure.

174 of 187

Decarbonization Strategy
• City intends to develop a strategic roadmap to decarbonize our community and evaluate/establish an “End of Flow”
target date
• Possible approaches for implementation:
• Existing Building Decarbonization Ordinance
• Partnerships focused on electrification in low-income households • Financing and rebates for electrification
• Home energy assessments
• Commercial building performance standards
• Carbon neutrality policy

175 of 187

August 30, 2022 Virtual Community Meeting
• 35 people attended
• Overall, most poll respondents expressed strong support for adoption of all of the reach code options for existing buildings • Most attendees thought reach code options for existing buildings do not go far enough
• Most comments expressed support for the San Mateo Climate Action Team advocacy group’s approach

176 of 187

39 46
49 15
12 17
7 5
6 13
11 9
21 21
14 3) Heat Pump AC
2) Outlets installed
1) Panel capacity
Strongly support Somewhat support Neutral Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose Online Survey Results

177 of 187

Online Survey Results (continued)
29 39
58 18
8 15
8 7
9 10
10 7
29 29
6 5) Heat Pump
Water Heaters
4B) Pools and
Outdoor Equipment
4A) Pools
Strongly support Somewhat support Neutral Somewhat oppose Strongly oppose

178 of 187

Online Survey Results (continued)
• Most respondents are somewhat
concerned or very concerned
about climate change (83%)
• Most respondents live in San
Mateo (69%) or live and work in
San Mateo (21%)
• Most own their own home (91%)
• Do you think these green
building reach code options…
o Do not go far enough (24%)
o Help reduce GHGs (32%)
o Go too far (35%)
o Not sure (8%)

179 of 187

Regional, State and Federal Decarbonization Efforts
Gas appliance
restrictions -
BAAQMD
• Res gas water
heaters after January
1, 2027
• Res/commercial gas
furnaces after
January 1, 2029
• Commercial gas
water
heaters/boilers after
January 1, 2031
Gas appliance
restrictions - CARB
• 100% of appliance
sales be electric by
2035
Rebates/incentives -
IRA
• Tax credits: up to
$2000 for heat
pumps
• $4.5B for up to
$14,000 in rebates
for electric
appliances
Rebates/incentives –
PCE/BayREN
• Heat pump space
heaters $3,500
• Heat pump water
heaters $3,000
• Electric dryer $300
• Induction cooktop
$750

180 of 187

Apr + Jul
2022
Sustainability and
Infrastructure
Commission
Meetings
Aug 2022
Community
Meeting and
Online Survey
Sept 2022
City Council
Study Session
Oct 2022
City Council
Ordinance
Introduction
and Adoption
Nov/Dec
2022
File reach codes
with Building
Standards
Commission
January
1, 2023
Target
Effective
Date
Process and Next Steps

181 of 187

Feedback and direction

NEW CONSTRUCTION EXISTING BUILDINGS
• All-electric buildings
• EV charging infrastructure
• Multifamily Option A vs. Option B
• Reach Code Options
1) Electric-readiness: panel capacity
2) Electric-readiness: outlets installed
3) Heat pump air conditioning
4) Pools and outdoor equipment
A. Requires electric or solar heated pools
B. Prohibit extension of gas infrastructure
for pools, fire pits, grills, etc.
5) Heat pump water heaters
• Decarbonization Strategy

OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready
(low-power)

182 of 187

Thank You
Andrea Chow
Sustainability Analyst, City Manager’s Office
[email protected]

183 of 187

Proposed Reach Code
All-electric New Construction
Proposed reach code requirement
(January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025)
Requires all new construction to be all-electric. Commercial kitchens and hotel/motel laundry services would be exempt from this requirement. Staff recommend adding exception language for space conditioning for buildings with biotech laboratories use.

184 of 187

Proposed Reach Code: EV Charging New Construction
Impacted buildings Proposed reach code requirement (January 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025) Single Family and Two-
Family Townhomes
One Level 2 EV Ready per dwelling unit;
One Level 1 EV Ready space if second space provided
Multifamily OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with spaces

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
Total: 100% of dwelling units with spaces
Affordable Housing
15% Level 2 EVCS
25% Level 2 Ready (low-power)
60% Level 1 EV Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units with
spaces
Non Residential Office Use
20% Level 2 EVCS
30% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 50% of spaces
All Other Uses
10% Level 2 EVCS
10% Level 2 EV Capable
Total: 20% of spaces

185 of 187

Multifamily EV Reach Code Options

OPTION A
40% Level 2 EVCS
60% Level 1 Ready
Total: 100% of dwelling units
with spaces

OPTION B
15% Level 2 EVCS
85% Level 2 Ready (low-
power)
Total: 100% of dwelling units
with spaces

186 of 187

Existing Buildings: Reach Code Options
1) Electric-readiness: panel capacity
2) Electric-readiness: outlets installed
3) Heat pump air conditioning
4) Pools and outdoor equipment
A. Requires electric or solar heated pools
B. Prohibit extension of gas infrastructure for pools, fire pits, grills, etc.
5) Heat pump water heaters

187 of 187