.02 update on Environmental GrantsCITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, (408) 777-3308
To: Planning Commission
From: Gary Chao, City Planner GG~
Date: October 13, 2009
Subject: Update on the Environmental Grants and the Green Building Policy
In Apri12009, the City Council directed the P1aruling Commission to explore
mandatory and other incentivized techniques for a Green Building Program as part of
its 2009/2010 work program. On August 4, 2009, the Council also authorized the
Planning Commission's work program which also included the Land Use Sustainability
Plan. In August 2009, the Planning Commission received updates from staff regarding
the various grant opportunities and the Phase II Green Building Policy
recommendation from the Santa Clara County Cities Association adopted in June 2009
(enclosed). At the time, the Planning Commission 11e1d off detailed discussions on the
Phase II recommendations pending t11e results of grant opportunities that the City
applied for that could help fund the Environmental Sustainability Task Force, Land Use
Sustainability Plan and the Green Building Program. These grant opportunities
include the Climate Showcase Communities Grant Program (Environmental Protection
Agency -EPA - $500,000) and the Community Grant Program (Bay Area Air Quality
Management District -BAAQMD - $100,000).
In both cases, the City was not selected as an award recipient. Over 450 cities applied
for the EPA's Climate Showcase Communities Grant Program (there was about a 4%
success rate). Tl1e BAAQMD only awarded the Community Grant Program to non-
profit organizations with community outreach and public education projects.
Staff is exploring options for the Environmental Sustainability Task Force and the Land
Use Sustainability Plan. However, staff believes that the Green Building Program is a
more defined and discrete project that could be moved ahead of the longer term
projects mentioned above. Staff therefore recommends that the P1aruling Commission
discuss and provide direction on the Green Building Program with respect to the
following:
1) Scope/Objectives
2) Process
3) Public Outreach
4) Schedule
Staff will review funding requirements based on the Planning Commission
recommendations. Next steps will include an update to the City Council with options
for moving forward with the three projects and a request for additional funding if
necessary.
Enclosed:
Green Building Collaborative, Santa Clara County Cities Association, Phase II Green Building Policy Recommendations
2-1
Green Building Collaborative
Santa Clara County Cities Association
Phase II Recommendations
Green Building Collaborative Members:
Lisa Geifer Cupertino Planning Commission
Kristin Heinen Palo Alto Planner
Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Don Bray
rv Yoriko Kishimoto
~ Ann Waltonsmith
N
Tim Haley
Reena Matthew
Jennifer Seguin
Linda LeZotte
Jamie McLeod
Joanne Benjamin
Sharon Refvem
Ragan Henninger
Rebecca Fotu
Steve Attinger
Ryan Kuchenig
David Kaneda
Ronit Bryant
Jill Boone
Val Alexeef
Erin Cooke
Puja Vohra
Karen Morvay
Silicon Valley Leadership Group
Palo Alto Mayor
Saratoga Vice Mayor (former)
Campbell Community Development
San Jose Green Building Program
San Jose Green Building Program
Former San Jose Councilmember
Santa Clara City Council
Santa Clara County Cities Association
US Green Building Council, Northern California
Office of Councilmember Sam Liccardo
City of Morgan Hill
City of Mountain View
City of Sunnyvale
IDeAs & Cupertino Planning Commission
City of Mountain View
County of Santa Clara
Build It Green
City of Cupertino
Davis Langdon
Santa Clara County Water District
S\_v~v
CA
Why we are here!
Review status of Phase II Green Building policy recommendations.
Seek feedback and conceptual approval of direction going forward.
• Background on the Green Building Collaborative
- Green Building tops list in June 2007 SCCAA meeting, cities want leveraged effort
- GBC formed to:
• Jump-start the process
N Identify near-term `common denominator' recommendations
w Work towards next phase (Phase II)
- Council members & city staff from interested jurisdictions, SVLG, USGBC met
monthly
- Phase I Near Term Recommendations approved by SCCCA Board in November
• Brief review of Near-term Recommendations
- Easy, baby steps approach
- Success! Recommendations adopted, in some form, by all cities
& County
• Overview of Phase II Recommendations
- Feedback, questions and discussion
2
Context for Green Building
Opportunity
• Building energy usage responsible for 48%
of US GHG emissions
• 30% of material usage and waste stream
• Green Building has positive ROI
• Pull through for Silicon Valley clean-tech industry
~. ~
a~:~~~. ~;1-
~ ~~! '
'..1-:t w ~ ~ x
i++ '~i
~ ~ ,;,
t,~; ~.
k
'~:~~ ~
t„ .
[~~~ :;~ "
n, c~ &.,
N
1
Green Building Definition
• "Whole-Systems" approach for designing
and constructing buildings
Adobe Systems Headquarters, San Jose
Industry Adoption
• `Competitive Advantage' of~green buildings
• Significant support from local developers and
design/construction industry
$1.4M in efficiency investments
$1.2M In annual savings
"Platinum" Rating by USGBC
• Many local examples
Sources: US Ener Information Administration USGBC Architecture 2032
9Y
Established Green Building Standards
N
I
LEED Rating System
U.S. Green Building Council
'. , .
~•
.
z, ..
lFAOEASHIP IN ENERGY A ENYIRpNMfNTA~ pESIGN '' '"~
~, }
• Points define four certification levels
• Focused on commercial new & retrofit
• 9000+ rated projects since 2000
Green Point Rated System
Build It Green
~~
,,r.
,~~~ r,. ,
,`
.: ~= :.
,,,,,...
~.:
-;
:~a
'~. .~~~~
ill ~~
~~~ \~~,
• ~.
~'~ ` ~'
f+'
A bc~if~~r c.~i~~iroi7n~~~n1 f~r7n~ th~~ m~,~clr: ~.;~i1.
• 50+ points define degree of `Green'
• Focused on single/multi family residential
• Goal of 10,000 units rated by end of 2008
:Many exist, yet two complementary standards have emerged as leaders:
- Widely recognized and consensus-based
- Consistent and quantifiable rating criteria, `menu' of options/choices
- Independent 3~d-party verification ensures standard of perFormance
4
a
N
I
What are the benefits and costs of Green Building?
Representafiive benefits:
8-9% decrease in operating costs
7.5% increase in building values
3.5% increase in occupancy
3.0% increase in rental income
6.6% improvement in ROI
~ (.'mi/G9F i(f All ilnlldln~.
S ^
Ae~f ~i •~ + +•i\T tFe,i 51 t\tl151 t•~r q( tNe
~~.~''1
~aa'., h
_ ~4
~i
::."==~-:sue
:.> r
,~*
-xJ A :xr
iii -•-a ~.: (
i.
+•a.A 4 AN,k. A
~~~~ V~u_C~ i
M +~..~
. ~~..
.1
.re' 4+~~.t sib 7.~t: rr,,p F p~-~rY:._~
.~..
..~;~:~
. ,.,,., .,.~xr=~,~.,..~~,...-.~~~+
.,
""~~ ~~
,~:~~
A~ 6~il~.. .:
.a .N ._.... ..r ..:. .'nom
USGBC LEED for Commercial Buildings Davis Langdon Survey of Cost for 45 LEED, 93 Non-LEED Buildings
• In general, future financial benefits of a green building offset incremental
upfront costs, and yield a positive return on investment
• Incremental upfront green building costs heavily dependent on design approach
5~ Compliance handled by owner, design/build team, and 3rd-party certifier
5
GBC Program and Next Steps
N
I
Phase I: Julv -Dec 2007
• Form Collaborative
• Information Exchange
• Initial GBC Policy Framework and
Recommendations
• Support Approval by SCCCA Board
• Feedback
~ r 1 i. ~ n E i t ~. :~
~{
Phase II: February 2008-April 2008
• Support Policy Adoption by Cities
• Additional Research on Leading
Practices
• Evaluation of Key Policy Questions
• Develop Phase 2 Recommendations
- Any questions about general direction?
- Is the Board okay with this general approach?
- What specific questions/concerns does the Board wish to have
answered/addressed?
'Your ideas on important considerations?
10
Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative
Phase II Policy Recommendations
Type of Project Green Standard~~*
Residential, New Construction
Single-family & GPR Rated~* or LEED Certified
Multi-family < 9 homes
Multi-family =/> 9 homes GPR Rated or LEED Silver
Residential, Remodels
Single-family <$100,000 permit BIG's Elements checklist or LEED
valuation or, <500 square foot Checklist
addition or FAR increase <50%.
This category also includes
maintenance items -that require a
permit
Single-family w/$100,000-200,000 BIG's Elements 25-49 or LEED
permit valuation, or 500-1,000 Certified
square foot addition
Single-family w/$200,000+ pernut GPR Rated or LEED Certified
valuation, or 1,000+ square foot
addition or FAR increase of SO%
Small Multi-family projects (TBD) Applicable GPR Checklist or applicable
LEED checklist
Large Multi-family projects (TBD) Applicable GPR 50 or applicable LEED
level of certified
2-1
e of Pro'ect __~ _ _ __ ___._ Gre
Nonresidential, New Construction
Small, <5,000 s ware feet LEED Checklist
Mid-size, 5,000-25,000 square feet LEED Certified
Large, >25,000 square feet LEED Silver
Nonresidential, Remodels/Tenant
Im rovements
Small projects (TBD) LEED Checklist
Large projects (TBD) LEED Certified
X'~It is understood that GPR Rated currently requires a minimum level of 50 points. It is
also understood that Build It Green will continue to adjust its checklist to reflect code
changes and that 50 points today may be equivalent to something different in the future.
However, the "Rated" term equates to BIG's nunimum green standard, which again, is
currently 50 points.
'`*~= The latest applicable version of the U.S Green Building Council's LEED®Rating
System -New Construction (which includes major remodels}; Commercial Interiors;
Existing Buildings; Core & Shell; etc.
2-13