Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOC Minutes 2021-03-10 1 TOWN OF ITHACA CODES AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE (COC) Meeting of March 10, 2021 – 5:34pm – Via Zoom Video Conference Final Approved Minutes Digitally Present: Bill Goodman, Chair; Pat Leary, Eric Levine, Eva Hoffmann, Bill King, Yvonne Fogarty; Marty Moseley, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Nick Goldsmith, Sustainability Planner; Susan Brock, Counsel. Guest: Ian Shapiro 1. Member comments/concerns. None. 2. Minutes from February 10, 2021 COC Meeting. The committee approved the minutes with some minor changes. Yvonne moved and Eric seconded. Unanimous. 3. Continued Discussion of Ithaca Energy Code Supplement (IECS). Discussion of Public Comments and Response to Public Comments. Nick introduced Ian Shapiro to the group and stated that Ian could answer the technical questions that the group might have. Nick then summarized events that occurred since the last COC meeting. He reported that the City of Ithaca Planning & Economic Development Committee (PEDC) held a public hearing and discussed the public comments that were received. The PEDC had a lengthy discussion about the timeline of adoption for the IECS. Nick mentioned that the city felt the same way as the COC, in that they would like to advance the required time frame for complying with the IECS. He then reported that the “Renewable Energy” chapter update was now complete. The revisions didn’t change the requirements in the section, but the chapter was updated to comply with the latest International Code, ASHRAE 189.1 standards for high performing buildings. Nick included all the IECS public comments in the COC packet, along with some of his responses to the comments. He noted that he’s still working on the remaining responses to comments, along with other minor updates to the IECS based on the city and COC feedback. The committee then continued their review of the IECS draft where they left off at the last meeting (January 28th version). Beginning with Chapter 5, Residential Building Provisions (page 37 of hard copy), the committee had the following comments: [Note: all page references below correspond to the hard copy]  Page 37, R501.1 Scope– the committee expressed confusion with the scope of the chapter being related to residential buildings, when later in the chapter there is language associated with commercial buildings e.g., hotels. Staff will wordsmith the purpose to accommodate commercial- like buildings as well (see R502.3 discussion below).  Page 37, R502.2 Efficient Electrification -  R502.2.1 EE1 Heat Pumps for Space Heating (R502.2.1.1 and R502.2.1.3)– Ian and Bill K. had a short discussion about hydronic heat pumps and variable speed compressors. Staff will wordsmith language in -2.1.3. 2  R502.2.3 EE3 Commercial Cooking Electrification- Eva asked if hotels or motels that contain restaurants would be able to receive points in this category. Nick responded “No, this section only deals with food service establishments themselves. Not hotels or motels.” This led to a larger discussion about the confusion between residential and commercial establishments, as the chapter does offer points in the “Affordability Improvements” section for buildings with smaller rooms (like hotels or motels).  R502.2.4 EE4 Residential Cooking and Clothes Drying Electrification (R502.2.4.2)– Pat asked how ventless heat pump clothes dryers improved efficiency or conserved energy. Ian responded that it encouraged fossil fuel-free buildings. With no gas pipes to the building at all, it wouldn’t use any fossil fuels, and would eliminate any possibility for gas leaks. Ventless dyers are significantly more efficient than a vented dryer.  Page 39, R502.3 Affordability Improvements -  R502.3.1 AI1 Smaller building/room size (R5203.3.1.3)- There was a short discussion about the size of hotel rooms and how they are regulated in the IECS. Susan Brock referenced the Scope at the beginning of the chapter, which talks about residential buildings. She asked if a hotel or motel was considered a residential building, since the whole section was governed by the Scope, which only mentions residential buildings. Marty referred the committee to the definitions in Chapter 3, which includes “R2, R3, and R4” designations in the NYS Building Code. These designations correspond to apartment buildings, boarding houses, and the like, but not hotels or motels (which would be R1 category). Since the definition does not include hotels or motels, then they are not considered residential structures. Nick explained that if a mixed use building was more than half residential, then it would be classified as residential in the IECS. The conversation looped back to the beginning of the review, with the question about commercial kitchens in residential buildings. Since there is so much confusion between what’s considered commercial and what’s considered residential, staff will wordsmith the language at the beginning of Chapter 5 to clarify.  (Page 40) R502.3.2 AI2 Heating System in Heated Space- Bill K. wondered about heating basements. If a person goes for the point, it seems as though they would be forced to heat a basement that they wouldn’t otherwise want to heat. Nick and Ian mentioned that the intent of the point was to save energy. Ian explained that the current language in the IECS is a compromise. He noted that basements are in the thermal envelope of the house, and that there’s typically a huge heat loss through a basement (10-20% loss). The original language in the section stated that if the basement was occupied and heated, then one could get the point. But after talking to codes staff at the town and city, they came up with the current language, which was an attempt to try to minimize the heat loss in basements.  (Page 41) R502.3.3 AI3 Efficient Building Shape– Susan Brock asked about R502.3.3.3 related to additions. If the owner is choosing to look at the addition only to get the point, then the section should be written so it is clear that they can choose the whole house to comply or just the addition to comply. Nick will wordsmith this.  (Page 42) R502.3.4 AI5 Modest Window-to-Wall Ratio– There was a short discussion about heat loss associated with the window-to-wall ratios listed in the table; and allowing for a larger ratio of windows on buildings or not limiting the ratio to the percentages in the table. Ian explained that there were many ways to get credit for any of the high performing building elements by following the “Whole Building Path” process in the IECS, but that it’d be unfair to single out windows and give more credit in this section for windows and not, say insulation as 3 well (or any other high performance item). He reiterated that this section focused on affordability and ease of compliance as the “Easy Path” and that the Whole Building Path methods are much more expensive. The committee ultimately decided to keep the numbers in the table as is but requested to include picture examples in the law to show what “window- to-wall” ratios look like on various residential buildings, so people reading the document could visualize the concept.  Page 42-44, R502.4 Renewable Energy (RE)– Nick reported that although he revised the language in this section and the committee had the previous version in hand, the intent of the section was the same. The section intends to allow both onsite and offsite renewable energy systems. It requires documentation showing ownership and procurement of renewable energy and associated credits allocating the energy from, for example, a solar farm to the building it serves. The renewable energy credits may be traded.  (Page 44) R502.4.1.10 - Susan asked Nick why Table 5 “On-site Renewable Energy Systems” lists Commercial space. Nick replied he had removed Table 5 in the revised renewable energy provisions and replaced it with an equation, because the tables do not work for mixed-use buildings.  (Page 45-46) R502.4.2 RE2 Biomass Space Heating– Bill K. expressed his opposition to biomass heating but appreciated Nick’s responses to the topic in the public comments. The committee engaged in a discussion about which biomass systems were included in the law. Nick clarified that the IECS referenced NYSERDA’s Renewable Heat Program, which specifically included small and large biomass boilers and residential pellet stoves, but not wood stoves or fireplaces. Nick and Ian educated the committee about the biomass process and the combustion process involved in burning wood, along with the reason and hope behind including the process in the IECS. Ian acknowledged the concerns expressed by the public in the comments.  Page 46-53, R502.5 Other Points (OP)-  Page 47, R502.5.2 OP2 Walkability- Yvonne noted that a lot of the public comments talked about deleting the walkability section. Bill G. stated that this section would only apply to the Town of Ithaca and not the City of Ithaca. Sue added that this would be considered in areas identified for traditional neighborhood development (TND) densities in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the existing East Hill Plaza area in the town. The committee agreed to keep this section in for the town.  Page 48, R502.5.3 OP3 Electric Vehicle Parking Spaces– Regarding the points for Level 1 charging stations in single and two-family dwellings and Level 2 charging stations for all other buildings (bottom of page 50 R502.5.3.6), Bill K. wondered if the town should encourage the Level 1 charger, as he didn’t think there were any permanent Level 1 chargers in existence. There are portable ones, but not permanent ones, and if a person wanted a point for having a charger, it makes more sense that it should be a permanent install into the house, not a portable one. Nick explained that the intent was to allow flexibility for people. After some discussion, the committee decided to remove the allowance for Level 1 chargers. Bill G. noted that this was a substantive enough change that the City of Ithaca should be notified of the change.  Page 52, R502.5.6 OP6 Custom Energy Improvement- Bill G. reiterated that the committee previously talked about triple-glazed windows and insulation that would cost more but people 4 could get extra points for such improvements in this section. Nick summarized that the intent of the section was to allow people to use the Easy Path but to also get points for additional energy improvements.  Page 55, Section R503– PERFORMANCE-BASED COMPLIANCE PATH/WHOLE BUILDING PATH-  Page 56, R503.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance– Susan Brock found the Process Loads section (R503.5.2) confusing, specifically as to the rationale for adding in the energy used for process loads only to subtract out the same after the baseline and proposed models are run. Ian explained that process loads were exempt from the Energy Code, and that they aren’t regulating industrial energy uses. But those energy uses typically interact with heating, so they must be part of the energy model because they impact heating. Ian provided the example of a lab at Cornell that utilizes Bunsen burners. The use of the Bunsen burners themselves aren’t required to save energy, but the air conditioning in the room in which the burners exist does need to save energy. Since the model is looking for the savings for the energy use, the process itself doesn’t require energy savings, just anything in the process that impacts heating and cooling in a building.  Page 58, R503.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculation-based Compliance for Additions- Susan Brock asked about the Documentation section (R503.6.3). She specifically wanted to know who prepared the documentation and who signs the item listed in #4? The report that is signed in #3 is stamped and signed by an accredited energy professional, so should #4 also include a signature by the energy professional as well? After a brief discussion, the committee decided to add language to #4 like #3, with a signature by the accredited energy professional. Same for R503.5.7 on page 57. Nick will make the changes.  Page 59, Section R504– FUTURE REQUIREMENTS- Nick shared his screen and showed the committee the 2025 Summary Table noted in the IECS draft on page 61.  Bill G. reiterated the points required in the law now (6 points), in 2025 (12 points), and the net-zero GHG emission requirement for all buildings by 2030. He reminded the committee that most of the comments received by the public asked the city and town to move up the timelines for compliance to something sooner than years 2025 and 2030. The committee added their thoughts on the timeframe, with the majority of members in agreement that the timeline should be moved up to something sooner than 2025 and 2030. No specific years were agreed upon. The COC left off on page 64, Chapter 6 – COMPLIANCE, ENFORCEMENT, AND APPEALS. The committee will pick up here at the next meeting and will delve further into the public comments and responses. They will also review the updated Renewable Energy section and discuss any outcomes of the City of Ithaca Common Council process. Finally, the COC will zero in on specific changes to the timeline for compliance with the law. 4. Continued Discussion of Telecommunications Law items outlined in memo by Susan Brock, dated February 4, 2021. The committee did not get to this item. It may be discussed at the next COC meeting if there is time. 5. Other Business.  Next meeting: April 14, 2021. 5  Agenda: Finish IECS review and discussion, and possibly discuss telecommunications and stream setback law if there is time. Meeting was adjourned at 7:40pm.