Dear City Council Members -
Having viewed the Climate Action Plan 1 CC meeting tape, I realized the challenge of a Zoom CC meeting, with Council Members having to think about a complex issue while listening to another perspective at once, but not seeing the speaker directly, not making eye contact, and so on.
Given that, Vice Mayor Betsy Nash misunderstood Council Member Ray Mueller's CAP 1 friendly amendment. Ray was saying, in place of a June 2022 ordinance goal, to allow for a range possible policy options, including ordinance, city vote ('measure'), incentive programs, outreach and such. Betsy took Ray to mean voting as a/the policy choice because he mentioned that as his expectation. Ray repeated that he did not mean that, that he would like a range of options and, as of now, April 2021, no ordinance date.
Assistant City Manager Nick Pegueros also warned of the dangers of setting a near date for a complex and novel policy ordinance ahead of a better understanding of electrification options and public involvement. Council Member Drew Combs agreed that early commitment to a city electrification ordinance could backfire.
I agree with them. For example, we do not know how apartment building owners, commercial property owners or others with large real estate holdings will respond to the expectation of as yet undefined electrification ordinance. Restaurants are yet to embrace electric technology in place of gas stoves. They are to be engaged as motivated stakeholders, not potential antagonists.
Betsy said we should not dictate our policy tools in advance of an electrification knowledge base -- and everyone agrees with that. But rejecting Ray's friendly amendment, she maintained the target for an ordinance in June 2022 as a specific goal.
That is itself a policy choice made in advance. Namely, that there should be an ordinance with a June 2022 target enactment date. That's inconsistent with the idea that we should first understand electrification options, costs and benefits first, and work out policy options serving electrification goals through analysis of options and public dialogue. Any real or perceived 'scare' of an ordinance will hinder those efforts.
The CAP 1 vote therefore proceeded with miscommunication and inconsistency.
To make matters worse, there is now no CC consensus on launching the electrification policy dialogue. That CC division will be a confusing diversion from electrification policy goals.
I would like to see a CC consensus on this important decision.
Given that, the consent item (staff report page 2.12) says:
"June 2022: City Council considers adopting ordinances/programs based on public engagement and final EQC recommendations. Finalize implementation and administration plan that may include building permit process changes.".
In the context of the April 6 CC discussion, the text meaning is ambiguous.
One meaning is to have an electrification ordinance enacted in June 2022. That was, I assume, Ray's and Drew's interpretation, leading to their 'No' votes on the motion. That was my interpretation as a resident listening to the discussion.
The second meaning is that ordinances, voting measures, financial incentives, bond measures, outreach and such are all possible policy tools. Urgency can be expressed without implying a June 2022 ordinance enactment. No preference is yet being made yet for the kind(s) of policy options to be selected.
I request that the CC reconsider their CAP 1 vote to clarify this text. The language should reflect policy flexibility, with urgency expressed some other way than a planned June 2022 ordinance enactment. Council consensus can then be achieved for this important decision, providing a clear and strong platform for all to pursue Menlo Park's electrification objectives.
Sincerely,
John Kadvany / College Avenue
