By Donna Beth Weilenman
Staff Reporter

If a Benicia homeowner decides to add 600 square feet to a house or remodel it in a project valued at more than $20,000, he or she will be “encouraged” — not required — to spend 2 percent of the project’s cost in making additional improvements to cut down on energy or water use in the home.

The City Council, in a vote last week on final approval of an amendment to its municipal code, kept the proposed conservation improvements optional, not mandatory.

That was a key point of dispute July 19 when the panel took its first step in making the change. The proposed amendment, which would have required the additional conservation measures, appeared to be heading to a 2-2 tie, which would have dropped it from consideration. Councilmember Mark Hughes was absent that night.

The intent of the original amendment, endorsed by the Community Sustainability Commission, was to strengthen language in California’s Green Building Code.

Revising the amendment to make the improvements voluntary won Councilmember Tom Campbell’s vote.

Vice Mayor Alan Schwartzman cast a “no” vote July 19, saying the amendment would add more requirements at a time contractors are suffering from the poor economy. He cast the sole “no” vote Tuesday.

The amendment passed 3-1. Councilmember Mike Ioakimedes was absent for family reasons.

Charlie Knox, director of Public Works and Community Development, told the Council that even if the new work were the building of a garage that normally has less energy-efficient construction than a house’s living quarters, or the addition of a photovoltaic system designed to produce energy, the thresholds would remain in effect.

“The idea is to go into the home and spend 2 percent of the project on energy efficiency,” he said.

For a $20,000 project, the 2 percent would be an additional $400, Knox pointed out, which could be spent on additional insulation, substituting more efficient light bulbs or shower heads, increasing weather stripping, sealing furnace ducts, or replacing single-paned windows with double-paned ones.

Hughes got his first opportunity Tuesday night to weigh in on the matter, and said he was concerned that the Council later might make the additional improvements mandatory. “I would support this if it’s encouraged only, but not if it would lead to a mandate.”

He also wondered about the minimum limit set for those improvements. “If it’s voluntary, couldn’t it be 1 percent? I don’t know why that language is in there,” he said.

Constance Beutel, vice chair of the Community Sustainability Commission and a regular Benicia Herald contributor, said she hoped residents would retrofit their homes to conserve energy, lower greenhouse gas emissions and, ultimately, save money.

She urged the panel to review the amendment’s effects in nine months to see if the changes helped the city meet its Climate Action Plan goals.

Grant Cooke, owner of Sustainable Energy Associates and another Herald contributor, said the recommended expenditure on conservation efforts “is a modest amount. It’s nowhere near what business science recommends. It’s a modest step in the right direction.”

If someone makes the changes that reach the threshold amounts but has trouble affording them, that person could apply for Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee Settlement Agreement funds, said Marilyn Bardet, an ex-officio member of the Sustainability Commission and member of the steering committee.

That account was established for city and Benicia Unified School District use through the Valero-Good Neighbor Steering Committee Settlement Agreement.

All parties have agreed to the settlement, which is like a contract for the money’s disbursement. It can only be used for specific projects or expenditures.

In 2008, the refinery and the steering committee agreed that of the $14 million settlement account, $200,000 should be spent on air quality monitoring; $50,000 for hybrid cars; $700,000 for trees; $1 million each for a refinery buffer and watershed acquisition; $400,000 for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by Benicia Unified School District; $10 million for water conservation; and $600,000 for Climate Action Plan projects.

In 2010, the pact was modified to allow $2.85 million to be spent on the Benicia Community Center, $1 million for BUSD and Liberty Campus Community Center, and $1.4 million for the Valero Condensate Recovery Phase 1 to save 23 million gallons of water a year.

In lieu of attorney fees, $150,000 also was earmarked for community gardens, a renewable energy manager, energy conservation, a school horticultural program and bicycle racks.

Schwartzman, in explaining his “no” vote, said numerous residents had told him of their reservations. “They want to be educated,” he said.

“There’s a lot of this I agree with,” he said, adding that he would have preferred the matter had been handled by resolution.

But Campbell said, “I still like it as an ordinance, not a resolution, because it’s on the books. Resolutions disappear.”

Mayor Elizabeth Patterson told the Council, “It’s a business case for business,” reminding the panel that many of the upgrade items can be purchased locally.

“It’s good for the community,” she said.