AgdaPkt 2020-01-13 Joint - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CLK-Pamela Aguilar From: ROLAND KURZ <roland422@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 3:24 PM To: GRP -City Council Subject: over reach code Good afternoon council members, unfortunately I will not be able to be at the meeting tonight. Based on the staff report that I read and the previous meetings that I have attended including the Building Board of Review meeting, the city council will be making the decision based on what they want for their own goals and not what works best for the entire city as whole. 1. Reach code does not have enough documentation to demonstrate that it is cost effective. Incentives from,PCE and PG&E to offset costs. Incentives are not a guarantee and should not be used as a cost offset or as part of a feasibility for a project. 2. If all electric is used it would violate energy code, since there is no complete feasibility study for all types of construction, building uses, etc.. 3. Concrete being used for construction. Concrete is necessary for many types of construction and should not be considered as part of an energy code. Redwood City is in a high seismic zone and construction materials and design are identified in the building code, not energy code. All building materials have pluses and minuses, and the manufacturing, transportation and installation of these product. 4. would it be more cost effective for Redwood City to see what the outcome of the litigation that is in court against other cities reach code, before The redwood city tax payers are forced to burden the costs of litigation from adopting an all electric reach code. 5. it is clear after attending the numerous council meetings, that there are certain council members that are not looking at the big picture and only at their own desires based on their affiliation with PCE. Their statements in regards to the age of people who oppose the reach code, and those peoples knowledge of new products, insinuating that at their age they do not know about innovations is inappropriate, insulting and greatly inaccurate. 6. The letter from PG&E is nothing more than an empty promise. They are looking forward to being able to charge customers for the increase to the utility bill, since they are now in bankruptcy and in debt to FEMA. As I have mentioned numerous times, the customer will be the one responsible for the cost to the infrastructure upgrade. I doubt anyone will be able to address and improve the extreme delays from PG&E in regards to getting a project through PG&E, including installation and energization by PG&E. Basic projects take 14 months though PG&E Engineering department and up to 4 months to energize the service, once the city has tagged the electrical equipment. There is innovation taking place in all types of products, not just electrical. All innovations should be taken into consideration. Why would we eliminate them.