The URL can be used to link to this page

SC 06-18-20CITY OF CUPERTINO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION AGENDA This will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location. Thursday, June 18, 2020 4:00 PM Teleconference Meeting TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION TO HELP STOP THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 In accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order No-29-20, this will be a teleconference meeting without a physical location to help stop the spread of COVID-19. Members of the public wishing comment on an item on the agenda may do so in the following ways: 1) E-mail comments by 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18 to the Commission at sustainabilitycommission@cupertino.org. These e-mail comments will be received by the commission members before the meeting and posted to the City’s website after the meeting. 2) E-mail comments during the times for public comment during the meeting to the Commission at sustainabilitycommission@cupertino.org. The staff liaison will read the emails into the record, and display any attachments on the screen, for up to 3 minutes (subject to the Chair’s discretion to shorten time for public comments). Members of the public that wish to share a document must email sustainabilitycommission@cupertino.org prior to speaking. 3) Teleconferencing Instructions Members of the public may observe the teleconference meeting or provide oral public comments as follows: Oral public comments will be accepted during the teleconference meeting. Comments may be made during “oral communications” for matters not on the agenda, and during the public comment period for each agenda item. To address the Committee, click on the link below to register in advance and access the Page 1 06/18/20 1 of 92 Sustainability Commission Agenda June 18, 2020 meeting: Online Register in advance for this webinar: https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_eGBbNitcRaiFvGVXm34WvA Phone Dial 888 788 0099 and enter Webinar ID: 949 2318 5401 (Type *9 to raise hand to speak) Unregistered participants will be called on by the last four digits of their phone number. Or an H.323/SIP room system: H.323: 162.255.37.11 (US West) 162.255.36.11 (US East) Meeting ID: 949 2318 5401 SIP: 94923185401@zoomcrc.com After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Please read the following instructions carefully: 1. You can directly download the teleconference software or connect to the meeting in your internet browser. If you are using your browser, make sure you are using a current and up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer. 2. You will be asked to enter an email address and a name, followed by an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. If you wish to make an oral public comment but do not wish to provide your name, you may enter “Cupertino Resident” or similar designation. 3. When the Chair calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. 4. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted and the specific agenda topic. ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Subject: Minutes from May 21, 2020 meeting Recommended Action: Approve minutes from May 21, 2020 meeting Page 2 06/18/20 2 of 92 Sustainability Commission Agenda June 18, 2020 A - Draft Minutes POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the agenda. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 2.Subject: Subcommittee report and staff presentation on study of Green Building Codes and consideration of CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 options Recommended Action: Discuss policy options and recommend that City Council maintain existing Cupertino Green Building Ordinance Staff Report 3.Subject: Staff update on planning for resilient energy systems for critical Cupertino facilities Recommended Action: Receive update and give any feedback A - SVCE Programs Flyer 4.Subject: Discuss methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions inventories Recommended Action: Discuss and provide any feedback A - Sustainability Commission Minutes and Presentations B - 2018 Climate Action Plan Report 5.Subject: Proactive legislative advocacy on climate and sustainability issues in line with Council adopted legislative priorities Recommended Action: Discuss and decide if any follow up action is needed by the Commission to complete this FY 19-20 Work Program item. 6.Subject: Staff update on Buy Clean California Act policy development and Bay Area low carbon concrete codes initiatives Recommended Action: Receive update and provide any feedback A - December 2019 Sustainability Commission Staff Report Page 3 06/18/20 3 of 92 Sustainability Commission Agenda June 18, 2020 7.Subject: Staff update on single use plastics outreach and FY 2020-21 City Work Program item on single use plastics policy Recommended Action: Receive update and provide any feedback STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS FUTURE AGENDA SETTING ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this teleconference meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for assistance. In addition, upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at 10300 Torre Avenue during normal business hours. IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council, Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to the City. Members of the public are entitled to address the members concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the members on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so during the public comment. Page 4 06/18/20 4 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Minutes from May 21, 2020 meeting Approve minutes from May 21, 2020 meeting File #:20-7704,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 5 of 92 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION Teleconference meeting without a physical location. Thursday, May 21, 2020 4:00 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES At 4:02 p.m. Chair Latshaw called the meeting to order. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair Gary Latshaw, Vice Chair Vignesh Swaminathan, and Commissioners Ram Mohan, Meera Ramanathan, Anna Weber. Absent: None. Staff: André Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager; Roger Lee, Director of Public Works; Ursula Syrova, Environmental Programs Manager; Gilee Corral, Climate and Utilities Analyst. Guests: John Zirelli, General Manager, Recology; members of the public. Chair Latshaw read a statement regarding provisions of the Brown Act and a recent Executive Order issued by the Governor to facilitate teleconferencing to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission at public meetings. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chair Latshaw asked if any comments on the January 16, 2020 and February 20, 2020 meetings. Commissioner Weber requested an amendment of the February 20, 2020 minutes to reflect her as “absent” in the vote for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Vice Chair Swaminathan moved and Commissioner Ramanathan seconded to approve the minutes from January 16, 2020. The motion carried unanimously. Vice Chair Swaminathan moved and Commissioner Mohan seconded to approve the minutes from February 20, 2020 as amended. The motion carried: Ayes: Latshaw, Swaminathan, Mohan, Ramanathan; Noes: None; Abstentions: Weber; Absent: None. Chair Latshaw noted that Public Works Director Roger Lee wished to attend the Recology item and would be arriving later. Commissioner Ramanathan moved and Commissioner Mohan seconded to reorder the agenda to move the Recology item toward the end of the agenda. The motion carried unanimously. POSTPONEMENTS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Chair Latshaw opened public comment and the following individual spoke: André Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager (City of Cupertino) thanked the Commission for hosting the meeting remotely and expressed appreciation for their flexibility, welcomed Commissioner Mohan to the Commission. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None. NEW BUSINESS 3. Subject: Sustainability Grants for Students program request to extend deadline of March 31, 2020 06/18/20 6 of 92 2 Gilee Corral gave a brief overview of the situation with school closures and a summary of student requests to extend the deadline for the program and adjustment of project scope; $165 has currently been paid to recipients total for the projects to date. She answered clarifying questions from the Commission: if updates have been received from the students; specifics of the students’ requests; review of the project requests. Chair Latshaw opened public comment and the following individual spoke: Anna on behalf of a grant recipient, Eve, talked about the school closure delaying a decision by the Montclaire gardening club on what to purchase, and spoke in favor of extending the deadline preferably through the fall, but at least a week. She answered clarifying questions from Chair Latshaw. Chair Latshaw closed public comment and asked the Commission to consider extending the deadline to the end of December. The Commission discussed the options, including: - Extend deadline for all recipients, keep it simple (Mohan). - Specific requests from each recipient, documentation of requests (Weber). - Concern if school will be open for on-site instruction in the fall, may need to revisit if not (Ramanathan, Swaminathan). - Possibility of combining with FY21 program to enable flexibility (Swaminathan). Staff noted that funding is available through the end of June 2020; if the deadline was extended, staff would request carrying over the funds through June 2021. Commissioner Ramanathan moved and Commissioner Mohan seconded to extend the deadline for receipts and reports for the Sustainability Grants for Students program to December 31, 2020. The motion carried unanimously. OLD BUSINESS 2. Subject: Update from Public Works Environmental Programs Division staff on progress negotiating a new franchise agreement with Recology Public Works Director Roger Lee introduced the topic and gave a brief overview of the public process relating to the Recology agreement. He noted issues under consideration include a sensitivity to rate increases, desire to preserve and expand services, and new state regulations. Environmental Programs Manager Ursula Syrova updated the Commission on the April Council meeting and next steps: - City authorized to negotiate a new 10-year agreement with Recology. - Next steps and estimated timeline: Proposal from Recology expected in August, Council Study Session in September, followed by period of negotiations and adoption in November / December. - Outreach will occur in summer / fall. Requested Commission feedback on topics to address in a residential survey. - Discussions and planning with Recology on compliance with SB 1383. - Update Commission on progress at future meeting, i.e. July. 06/18/20 7 of 92 3 Staff answered clarifying questions from Commissioners: Sunnyvale’s food waste diversion program and how it differs from Cupertino’s; survey will be randomized and sent to 400 residents and may also be available online. Chair Latshaw opened public comment and the following individual spoke: John Zirelli (Recology) noted other staff also attending the call, commented that Sunnyvale’s program only diverts food waste and not soiled paper, waxy cardboard, paper towels, etc. Chair Latshaw opened discussion. Staff asked Commissioners to think about ideas and feedback to bring back to the discussion at the July meeting. NEW BUSINESS (continued) 4. Subject: Review submitted nominations for 2020 CREST Awards Sustainability Champion of the Year Chair Latshaw recused himself from discussion and voting on this item and asked Vice Chair Swaminathan to lead discussion on Item 4. Corral introduced the topic briefly and described the CREST Awards program. The City received two nominations for the Sustainability Champion of the Year Award. The CREST Awards ceremony was canceled due to COVID-19. Vice Chair Swaminathan opened public comment (no comment received) and opened the item for discussion. Corral reviewed each nominee’s application on the screen: Cupertino Youth Climate Action Team (CYCAT) and Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). General agreement from the Commission that both nominees were worthy and strong candidates. Topics and comments from Commissioners included: - Leaning toward SVCE because of their contributions to Cupertino’s clean energy future, especially this year (Weber). - CYCAT attractive because it’s youth-focused and Cupertino-focused, want to send message for youth to lead (Mohan). - Purpose of CREST Award is impact in Cupertino, SVCE has changed Cupertino, whereas CYCAT has not yet made a significant impact (Ramanathan). - Like to encourage youth to continue to be involved and work toward solutions and policy. Recommends SVCE as it continues to surprise us on growth, funding, and impact in Cupertino (Swaminathan). Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Ramanathan seconded to award the Sustainability Champion of the Year CREST Award to Silicon Valley Clean Energy. The motion passed: Ayes: Mohan, Ramanathan, Weber, Swaminathan; Noes: None; Abstentions: Latshaw; Absent: None. 5. Subject: Review outstanding items on Sustainability Commission FY 2019-20 Work Program Corral briefly introduced the item and reviewed the status of the FY 2019-20 Work Program projects. She noted the disruption of projects caused by the cancellation of Commission meetings due to COVID-19 and requested the Commission to prioritize items to complete by June 30. She answered clarifying questions: 06/18/20 8 of 92 4 - (Weber / Latshaw) Question re 2020-21 Work Program process: Commission proposals were considered as part of the City 2020-21 Work Program adoption process; Council will adopt its Work Program in early June. The Commission Work Programs will be based on items from the City Work Program. - (Mohan) Question re status of items in 2019-20 Work Program: Commission decides which items are complete; staff recommended closing out the following items: proactive legislative advocacy, youth engagement, community outreach. Items are not automatically carried over to the next year. - Chair Latshaw left the meeting for a few minutes. Vice-Chair Swaminathan opened public comment. Chair Latshaw returned to the meeting and the following individual spoke: André Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager (City of Cupertino) requested the Commission add the Green Building Ordinance item to the June 18 meeting for discussion to address Council’s request on this item. Chair Latshaw closed public comment and opened discussion. Topics raised included: - Clarify difference between Envision Standards and LEED (Latshaw), answered by Swaminathan. Suggest removing this item from the list (Swaminathan). - Keep Buy Clean update on list (Swaminathan). - GHG inventory frequency: suggest removing this item and continue 3-year inventory timeframe (Swaminathan, Latshaw, Ramanathan). Staff noted that the CAP Update will include a GHG inventory update. - Concerns over GHG methodology accuracy, i.e. direct access energy, inclusion of error bars in future inventories (Latshaw). Staff can present this item at the next meeting. - Interest in disruption of COVID-19 and impact on GHG data (Swaminathan). Direct access energy usage affected by COVID-19 this year, likely to reflect lower emissions (Ramanathan). The Chair reviewed each item and via consensus the Commission determined the following items as “closed / complete” or “ongoing for discussion / keep”: - Proactive legislation: ongoing / keep - Green Building Ordinance: ongoing / keep - Buy Clean Update: ongoing / keep - Youth engagement: closed / complete - CAP methodology: closed / complete - Speaker Series: closed / complete - Envision Standards: closed / complete Chair Latshaw noted an upcoming Zoom Climate Speaker Series by youth, the first event is May 30, including an interview with Girish Balachandran, CEO of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS Staff updates: - Green Building Ordinance Subcommittee met; request Commission address the Green Building Ordinance at its June meeting. 06/18/20 9 of 92 5 - SVCE created an est. $10 million COVID-19 relief package for workforce development, customer bill credit, resiliency infrastructure for member cities. Staff to review with Commission at June meeting. - Webinar on waste sorting hosted by Environmental Programs Division on May 27 at 1:00 pm. - Sustainability Division newsletter went to email listserv today. - Virtual Earth Day site – over 200 views on Earth Day. FUTURE AGENDA SETTING The Commission agreed to the items on the screen, wording reflected below: June 18 • Recology update • Accuracy of GHG methodology • Green building ordinance – update and vote • Proactive legislation • FY21 Work program • Buy Clean update Future: • Grant opportunities discussion – for resiliency / CAP projects Commissioner Ramanathan moved to add the items as listed on the screen on the June 18 meeting. After a brief discussion and clarification to also include the “future” item on grant opportunities discussion to the June 18 meeting, Vice Chair Swaminathan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Commissioner Weber and seconded by Commissioner Ramanathan. The motion carried unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. 06/18/20 10 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Subcommittee report and staff presentation on study of Green Building Codes and consideration of CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 options Discuss policy options and recommend that City Council maintain existing Cupertino Green Building Ordinance File #:20-7705,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 11 of 92 1 SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: June 18, 2020 Subject Subcommittee report and staff presentation on study of Green Building Codes and consideration of CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 options. Recommended Action Discuss policy options and recommend that City Council maintain existing Cupertino Green Building Ordinance. Background In 2015, the City Council adopted the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP)1 to put Cupertino on the path to achieve a 15% reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2020, 49% reduction by 2035, and 83% by 2050. The first goals of the CAP are to increase energy efficiency in homes and buildings, and to increase the use of carbon-free energy communitywide. Related Climate Action Plan measures include: • C-E-1 building energy usage. • C-E-5 solar development. • C-T-7 EV infrastructure. • C-W-1 water conservation. • C-SW-3 construction & demolition diversion. • C-G-1 urban forest and cool roofs. California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) Since the mid 2000s, numerous local governments in California have implemented green building ordinances. In 2007, the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) began developing a statewide green building code to meet the goals of California’s AB32 initiative, which established a comprehensive program of cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). The result is the first-in-the-nation Green Building Standards Code contained in Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code. This code section is often referred to as CALGreen. The goals of CALGreen are (1) reducing GHG 1 https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/environment-sustainability/climate-action 06/18/20 12 of 92 2 from buildings; (2) promoting environmentally responsible, cost-effective, healthier places to live and work; (3) reducing energy and water consumption; and (4) responding to the environmental directives of the California Governor’s Office. The first edition of CALGreen contained only voluntary measures and was effective statewide beginning in 2009. Mandatory measures were then required beginning in 2011. As is common with other sections of the California Building Standards Code, CALGreen is updated on a three-year code cycle to adopt emerging and established construction best practices. Later editions of CALGreen also include additional measures that are voluntary state- wide but provided for local agencies to consider adopting as might benefit their local conditions. These voluntary measures are known as CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2, indicating their relative aggressiveness compared to the mandatory measures. These voluntary tiers are the subject of the study requested by the Sustainability Commission and City Council. Cupertino’s Green Building Ordinance – History and Features Cupertino’s local green building ordinance went into effect in 2013. The ordinance provides rules for mixed-use developments, non-residential renovations, new non- residential construction, major multi-family residential renovations greater than 35,000 square feet, and single-family residential construction of more than nine homes. The ordinance guides the design, construction, retrofit, operation and demolition of properties in Cupertino, and was intended to go above and beyond the statewide CALGreen mandatory measures. This was accomplished by aligning the standards to third-party rating systems developed and maintained by the US Green Building Council and Build It Green, otherwise known as the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and GreenPoint Rated (GPR) rating systems. A summary of Cupertino’s green building ordinance is below. 06/18/20 13 of 92 3 06/18/20 14 of 92 4 Even though there have been different versions throughout the years, the basis of LEED is a point system where building projects are required to fulfill all prerequisites and minimum program requirements, while additional measures are combined across sustainability categories to earn points. These categories are similar to the CALGreen categories of Planning and Design, Energy Efficiency, Water Efficiency and Conservation, Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency, and Environmental Quality. There are four different certification levels: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. When a project applicant proves it meets the prerequisites in each category, and a certain number of points, the USGBC will issue a LEED certificate for the achieved level of environmental performance. In Cupertino, a mid-sized new development must earn a minimum of 40 points for Certified, and a larger project must earn 50 points for Silver. A project must receive third-party verification and the certificate within 18 months of project completion to be compliant with Cupertino’s ordinance. No major changes have been made to Cupertino’s green building ordinance since its adoption. However, by aligning with the LEED and GPR rating systems, the measures have been updated on average every 3 years, with the intent to both reflect advances in the construction industry and to promote emerging commercially available technology and practices. A developer or property owner planning a project must show compliance with the Cupertino Green Building Ordinance, in addition to the CALGreen mandatory measures. This is described in the Cupertino Municipal Code, Title 16, section 58.250 (Verification) and requires that the project is registered with a third-party rating system and obtains official certification. Consideration of CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 Measures In August of 2019, the Sustainability Commission, Sustainability Division, and Building Division were tasked to study updates to the Green Building Ordinance and to consider a decarbonization building code that takes advantage of the carbon-free electricity source from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). The Commission suggested that staff consider building electrification and additional infrastructure for electric vehicle (EV) charging. Commissioners expressed preference for more aggressive all electric measures, but with consideration of the implications for home renovation and housing affordability. The Commission also provided feedback to staff to consider adopting CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2, or some combination of both. Staff studied the CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 voluntary measures for further environmental performance beyond the existing standards. A discussion of that study follows. It was found that the existing Cupertino green building ordinance, which requires third- party green building certification (LEED or GreenPoint Rated) for new construction is already quite robust. The Sustainability Commission affirmed that the existing green building code was stronger than CALGreen and met the goals of the CAP, without 06/18/20 15 of 92 5 requiring any changes. While this was expressed at the November 19, 2019 Council study session, on December 17, 2019 Council requested that the green building code be revisited with a comparison to other cities. Discussion To demonstrate how the current Green Building Ordinance compares to the CALGreen Tiers, the following table shows a comparison between a recently completed project in Cupertino with the current standards. The subject of the study is the 148-room, 5-story Hyatt House Hotel adjacent to the intersection of North Wolfe Road and Interstate 280. This project was awarded LEED gold certification in February 2020. The finding is that the project met most of the measures of CALGreen voluntary tiers, and in some categories went beyond CALGreen. This ability for a developer to be recognized for going beyond the mandatory measures is unique to third-party rating systems. In this regard, the LEED rating system rewarded additional environmental measures where the CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2 prescriptive measures would not. The project’s complete LEED certificate and scorecard can be viewed at the USGBC website 2. 2 https://www.usgbc.org/projects/hyatt-house-cupertino 06/18/20 16 of 92 6 Recently Completed LEED Project in Cupertino and Comparisons to CALGreen Tiers Green highlights indicate where the Tier 1 or Tier 2 measure was achieved with a comparable LEED point. CALGreen Category Environmental Performance Goal Tier 1 Tier 2 Planning and Design Designated Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles 10% of total spaces * Cupertino's recently enacted reach code would have required at least 10% of total parking spaces. 12% of total spaces Electric Vehicle Charging 8% of total spaces 10% of total spaces* * Cupertino's recently enacted electric building reach code requires Tier-2 level of electric vehicle charging stations. Cool Roof Solar Reflective Index of 75/16 Solar Reflective Index of 82/27 1 additional elective 3 additional electives Energy Efficiency Energy Performance Outdoor Lighting 90% Outdoor Lighting 90% Solar water-heating system if applicable Solar water-heating system if applicable Day lighting Day lighting Energy budget of 95%/90% Energy budget of 90% or 85% Indoor Water Use 12% savings 20% savings Water Efficiency and Conservation 1 additional elective 3 additional electives Construction Waste Reduction At least 65% reduction At least 80% reduction Material Conservation and Resource Efficiency Recycled Content 10% recycled content 15% recycled content 1 additional elective 3 additional electives Low-VOC Resilient Flooring 90% 100% Environmental Quality Low-VOC Thermal Insulation Comply with VOC limits Install no-added formaldehyde insulation 1 additional elective 3 additional electives 1 additional elective from any category 3 additional electives from any category 06/18/20 17 of 92 7 Electric Vehicle Requirements and CALGreen Amendments Residents are showing a significant interest in electric vehicles. For example, the number of registered plug-in vehicles in Santa Clara County increased by 31% in 2018. By comparison, registrations for vehicles powered by fossil fuels shrank in 2018. Since 2016, the number of electric vehicles registered in Cupertino more than doubled. As of October 2018, Cupertino’s electric vehicle ownership rate of 6% is higher than the County’s overall rate of 4%. Given this data and support from City Council, Cupertino adopted an increased level of electric vehicle charging infrastructure for all newly constructed buildings as part of the all-electric reach code. These levels correspond to those required by Tier 2 of CALGreen. Comparison to Other Cities As part of public outreach and study, Cupertino’s consultant prepared a comparison table of the existing green building ordinance with other agencies in California that have a comparable local green building ordinance. The study compared local green building ordinances in terms of both stringency and applicability which is summarized in the following tables. For example, Palo Alto requires new construction to be built to CALGreen Tier 2 standards, which is very comprehensive but only requires energy efficiency, not electrification. On the other hand, Menlo Park requires all-electric and solar, which is stringent but not comprehensive in terms of the sustainability measures or level of verification. Local Green Building Ordinances Comparison 06/18/20 18 of 92 8 Local Green Building Ordinances in California with Features Comparable to Cupertino Type All-Electric Electric- Preferred Third Party Certification Solar EV San Mateo CALGreen Minimum All-electric or more energy efficiency measures Palo Alto CALGreen Tier 2 for all new construction Starting April 2020 Marin County CALGreen 2019 Tier 1 for all new construction All-electric or CALGreen Tier 1 X Santa Monica CALGreen Minimum All-electric or CALGreen Tier 1 X San Jose CALGreen Minimum SFR ADU All-electric or more energy efficiency features X Menlo Park CALGreen Minimum NonRes, MFR, SFR for space, water heating, clothes drying X Morgan Hill CALGreen Minimum NonRes, MFR, and SFR new construction LEED or GreenPoint Rated certificate Cupertino CALGreen Minimum NonRes, MFR, and SFR/ADU new construction LEED Silver or GreenPoint Rated certificate X Mountain View CALGreen Minimum NonRes, MFR, and SFR new construction LEED “intent” but no certificate required X X Berkeley CALGreen Minimum Natural gas infrastructure ban All-electric or more energy efficiency features X X Los Gatos CALGreen Minimum Abbreviations key SFR: Single family residential; ADU: Accessory dwelling unit; NonRes: non-residential building; Solar: Local ordinance requires higher level of solar energy than State minimum; EV: Local ordinance requires more electric vehicle charging ports than State minimum 06/18/20 19 of 92 9 The finding from the policy comparisons is that the existing Cupertino green building ordinance, which requires third-party green building certification (LEED or GreenPoint Rated) for new construction is already generating environmental performance outcomes comparable to CALGreen Tier 2. The findings from the comparison to other cities are that the only neighboring agency to have green building requirements similar in terms of comprehensiveness and stringency is Mountain View which requires LEED Gold compared to Cupertino’s LEED Silver. However, it is worth noting that the City of Mountain View does not require third-party certification but rather depends on City staff to review a checklist. By studying a recently completed project, it was found that similar or better environmental measures were put into place compared to the CALGreen Tier 1 or Tier 2. Another finding is that the developer in this case was motivated to seek higher levels of environmental performance, and thus the recognition of a Gold or Platinum certification.3 This market-based recognition is one significant benefit of aligning with a third-party system such as LEED, as the prescriptive nature of CALGreen does not allow for this type of motivation. Staff also found that the public comments received during the public outreach period focused largely on the benefits of all-electric reach code, which was adopted by Council and began enforcement for new developments seeking permits after January 2020. The all-electric reach code achieves a major reduction in GHG from new development in Cupertino. Cupertino’s Green Building Ordinance is designed to automatically evolve with the third- party rating system updates. LEED standards are updated by the US Green Building Council, currently on version 4.1. This alignment ensures the green building ordinance is updated to industry-standard green construction practices while avoiding the need to study and adopt a new ordinance each code cycle. By contrast, cities that adopt the CALGreen voluntary Tiers must consider and adopt these measures every three years. The avoided costs for Cupertino’s current practice are estimated at $50,000 - $60,000 each code cycle. These savings are the result of avoiding consultant and legal costs associated with studying and implementing green building measures specifically for Cupertino. Embedded Carbon The Sustainability Commission Green Building Sub-Committee expressed interest in exploring the impact of greenhouse gasses that are contained within building materials and the supply chains that provide those materials, commonly referred to as embedded carbon or embodied carbon. The major sources of embodied carbon are in the building structural systems, enclosures, products and materials. The current version of the LEED rating system addresses embodied carbon in credits (not requirements) that reward the following building practices: 3 Communication from the project’s LEED consultant to the Cupertino Planning Division 06/18/20 20 of 92 10 • Building reuse • Whole-building life cycle assessment and environmental product declarations • Material ingredient reporting • Responsible sourcing of raw materials • Waste reduction and management These practices are incentivized in the current version of LEED and therefore in Cupertino’s green building ordinance. However, the Subcommittee has identified at least two agencies that have taken action to require some level of embodied carbon management in two different ways: Palo Alto’s deconstruction ordinance (effective July 1, 2020) requires “deconstruction” rather than demolition of entire structures. Marin County’s embedded carbon ordinance requires environmental product declarations for low-carbon concrete and steel. Conclusion After considering the Tier 1 and Tier 2 green building standards, as well as the all-electric reach code, the Sustainability Commission Green Building Ordinance Subcommittee input and public comments, staff recommends the current green building ordinance remain as is, aligned to third-party rating systems. The current ordinance is stronger than the voluntary CALGreen Tiers in terms of breadth and stringency of measures, third-party verification, and market-based recognition. The LEED rating system requires (as mandatory) some measures across each of the CALGreen categories of environmental performance. The third-party verification is required and mandates that projects include a green building professional from design to final project close-out. The market-based recognition of LEED has an advantage over the prescriptive CALGreen Tiers – specifically, developers are motivated to achieve higher levels of performance under the existing Cupertino Green Building ordinance compared to the prescriptive checklist adopted by some other cities. Based on the analysis of options available, cost/benefit to the City, and contribution to the Climate Action Plan, it is recommended that the Sustainability Commission recommend that Council make no changes to the City’s green building ordinance at this time. Staff will monitor Marin County’s implementation of its low carbon concrete code and continue to participate in dialog with other cities exploring embedded carbon policy options. Next Steps: 1. Green Building Ordinance Subcommittee presents report to the Commission at its June 18, 2020 meeting. 2. Commission makes a recommendation to Council on the City’s Green Building Ordinance. 3. Staff submits the analysis of the policy and results of the Commission’s and staff’s recommendations on the Green Building Ordinance to the City Council in a memo. 06/18/20 21 of 92 11 Sustainability Impact As described above, the adopted all-electric buildings reach code makes a significant contribution to achieving the goals it set out in its Climate Action Plan. By virtue of the third-party rating systems, the green building ordinance continues to incorporate the best practices in green construction. Fiscal Impact Maintaining the existing Green Building Ordinance is not anticipated to result in additional costs to the City. Building officials are already transitioning to enforcement of the new California Building Standards as occurs normally on a three-year cycle. The new CALGreen code, effective January 2020, has mandatory requirements that continue to push all types of construction projects towards sustainability. Adopting Tier 1 or Tier 2 of CALGreen would require that Cupertino study and adopt these Tiers again every three years, presenting an estimated cost to the city of $50,000 to $60,000 for the required public outreach, consulting, and legal compliance. _____________________________________ Prepared by Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager Reviewed by Katy Nomura, Assistant to the City Manager 06/18/20 22 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Staff update on planning for resilient energy systems for critical Cupertino facilities Receive update and give any feedback File #:20-7706,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 23 of 92 Customer Relief - $3.5 Million SVCE will provide immediate relief to qualifying residents and businesses ﬁnancially impacted by COVID. Income-qualiﬁed CARE and FERA* customers will automatically receive a $100 bill credit and qualifying small businesses will receive a letter in the mail indicating how to apply for a $250 bill credit. Contractor Workforce Relief $1.5 Million In addition, SVCE is developing an online contractor training program to provide tools and resources that expand all-electric technology knowledge among the contractor community. Local contractors, apprentices, and journeymen will be eligible to receive a $500 ﬁnancial relief stipend upon completion of the train- ing program. Community Resilience - $5 Million SVCE will provide funding for regional energy resilience planning and deployment to prepare for anticipated involuntary power supply shutos. This program will support local clean energy job creation, community resilience, and local air quality improvements. *Electricity Discount Programs for Qualied Customers In light of COVID, access to CARE and FERA monthly electricity discounts of 18% or more have been expanded. SVCE encourages customers who have been affected by the pandemic to learn more at thePG&E CARE and FERA website. Local COVID-19 Relief Programs From Your Community-Choice Energy Provider For more information please visit: www.SVCleanEnergy.org/covid-19 06/18/20 24 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Discuss methodology for calculating greenhouse gas emissions inventories Discuss and provide any feedback File #:20-7711,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 25 of 92 Sustainability Commission Climate Action Plan Report Metrics Gilee Corral, Acting Sustainability Manager June 20, 2019 06/18/20 26 of 92 •Metrics: •Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions •Energy •Water •Waste •Green infrastructure •Parameters: •Baseline year 2010 •Target year 2020 •Community and municipal What we measure 06/18/20 27 of 92 Greenhouse gas emissions •Goal: 15% ↓ by 2020 •2015 data:13% ↓ •Global Covenant of Mayors Compliant 06/18/20 28 of 92 Energy •No natural gas target •PG&E Green Communities •2017 data: 9% ↓ 06/18/20 29 of 92 Energy •Target: kWh / year savings; program participation •PG&E Green Communities + SVCE •Significant data gaps 06/18/20 30 of 92 Energy •Target: kWh / therms % reduction •PG&E + ABAG Power 06/18/20 31 of 92 Water •Municipal Target: 20% ↓ (2008 baseline) •Community Target: 20% ↓ per capita (2010 baseline) •CA Water Service + San Jose Water 06/18/20 32 of 92 Waste •Target: divert 75% of waste •City reports tonnage, CalRecycle creates calculations 06/18/20 33 of 92 Waste •Target: based on household & businesses % diversion of compostable waste 06/18/20 34 of 92 Green infrastructure •New net trees target met! 06/18/20 35 of 92 Other metrics…City Vehicle Fleet …etc. 06/18/20 36 of 92 sustainability@cupertino.org Sustainability Division 06/18/20 37 of 92 2018 Draft Greenhouse Gas Inventory Results Community-wide and Municipal Operations Greenhouse Gas Inventories 06/18/20 38 of 92 Draft Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions •Total emissions decreased 24% since 2010 •Electricity emissions decreased 95% since 2010 •Natural gas and transportation growing as percentage of total emissions Transportation Transportation Transportation Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Electricity Electricity Electricity Off-Road Off-Road Off-Road Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater Solid Waste Solid Waste Solid Waste 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 2010 2015 2018Emissions (MT CO2e)2020 Emissions Reduction Target: 287,870 MT CO2e 06/18/20 39 of 92 Draft Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions •Total emissions decreased 65% since 2010 •Electricity emissions decreased 99.98% since 2010 •Natural gas and vehicle fleet growing as percentage of total emissions Electricity Electricity Electricity Vehicle Fleet Vehicle Fleet Vehicle Fleet Natural Gas Natural Gas Natural Gas Solid Waste Solid Waste Solid Waste Other Other Other 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2010 2015 2018Emissions (MT CO2e)06/18/20 40 of 92 Draft Community Emissions Forecast •As of 2018, emissions are 24% below 2010 levels and the 2020 target (15%) has been achieved •Emissions with State policies are projected to be 32% / 26% below 2010 by 2035/2050 •Additional emissions reductions will be needed to achieve Cupertino’s 2035 and 2050 targets (49% / 83% below 2010) 309,488 355,791 231,787 249,812258,659 172,723 57,574 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Total Emissions (MT CO2e)Additional emissions reduction needed to achieve target 06/18/20 41 of 92 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION Environmental Education Center 22221 McClellan Road Thursday June 20, 2019 4:00 p.m. MINUTES PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 4:05 p.m. Chair Weber called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Anna Weber, Gary Latshaw, Angela Chen, Meera Ramanathan (arrived @ 4:11 p.m.). Absent: Vignesh Swaminathan Staff: Gilee Corral, Acting Sustainability Manager; Holly Kimura-Carlin, Climate Corps Fellow Guests: Bruce Karney; Kunal; Gwyn Azar; Cupertino High School (CHS) Environmental Club members: Sanat Singhal, Emily Fan, Lawrence Fan, Alice, Mukta, Calvin Anderson, Shiv Shah 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft minutes of May 16, 2019 meeting were reviewed. Commissioner Chen moved and Commissioner Latshaw seconded to approve the minutes. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Swaminathan absent. POSTPONEMENTS - None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Karney passed out a handout about a planned event for Commissioners in the area. Kunal spoke on behalf of a student, Nicole, to support the City adopting a fossil fuel divestment resolution and a resolution to amend the City’s climate emergency declaration. Shiv Shah on behalf of CHS Environmental Club spoke to support the City adopting a Climate Crisis Package and a fossil fuel divestment resolution. Calvin Anderson on behalf of CHS Environmental Club spoke to support the City adopting a Climate Crisis Package and a fossil fuel divestment resolution. Emily Fan on behalf of CHS Environmental Club spoke to support the City adopting a Climate Crisis Package, a resolution to amend the City’s climate emergency declaration, and a fossil fuel divestment resolution. Sanat Singhal on behalf of CHS Environmental Club spoke to support the City adopting a fossil fuel divestment resolution and a resolution to amend the City’s climate emergency declaration. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 2. SC 6-20-19 Written Communications 06/18/20 42 of 92 2 Chair Weber noted the written communications attached to the agenda. Chair Weber reordered the agenized items as follows: Item #3 moved to the end of the meeting. NEW BUSINESS 4. Subject: Discuss Green New Deal legislative efforts on the federal and state level and consider making a recommendation to the City Council to sign a resolution in support of H.R. 109 (Representative Ocasio-Cortez) and S. Res. 59 (Senator Markey) and AB 1276 (Assemblymember Bonta) Chair Weber opened Public Comment and the following individuals spoke: Kanal spoke to support the CHS Environmental Club’s version of a Green New Deal (GND) resolution. Sanat Singhal spoke to support the CHS Environmental Club’s version of a GND resolution. Emily Fan spoke to support the CHS Environmental Club’s version of a GND resolution and of her desire for the government to invest in sustainable technologies. Gwyn Azar spoke in support of the GND resolution, noting a petition that was started in support and other cities that have launched their own version of a GND or supported GND efforts. Calvin Anderson spoke in support of a GND resolution that satisfies the criteria in the CHS Environmental Club’s version of the resolution. Chair Weber closed Public Comment and the Commission discussed the GND resolution issue: • Commissioner Latshaw asked for clarification from the students on what they were proposing and Emily Fan clarified their request. • The Commissioners discussed the possibilities, including supporting the federal and state GND efforts while encouraging more aggressive GND efforts. • Commissioners expressed concerns: having enough time to review the resolutions before recommending support to City Council, risks of taking an aggressive stance and not following through, ensuring this legislative advocacy is in sync with the City Council’s legislative priorities. Discussion to be continued to the July meeting. Each Commissioner will research the related state and federal bills in preparation for the discussion. 5. Subject: Staff overview of Climate Action Plan metrics Chair Weber opened Public Comment and the following individual spoke: Bruce Karney spoke in favor of conducing annual greenhouse gas emissions inventories and switching the City’s emissions reduction target from an absolute target to a per capita basis, including the resident population plus daytime worker population in the per capita metric. He noted that $7.5 million was added to the budget for sustainability activities in Mountain View. Chair Weber closed Public Comment and Commissioners asked Karney clarifying questions. Staff presented an overview of the Sustainability Division’s Climate Action Plan metrics and answered Commissioners’s questions related to the presentation. 06/18/20 43 of 92 3 6. Subject: Sustainability Speaker Series planning Chair Weber opened Public Comment and the following individual spoke: Sanat Singhal talked about gearing a speaker event to the youth and advertising more effectively. Chair Weber closed Public Comment and the Commissioners asked Singhal clarifying questions. Commissioners discussed Singhal’s suggestions and how to better target a speaker event to a younger audience. Commissioner Latshaw suggested inviting climate activist Greta Thunberg to speak and the Commissioners discussed this option. The Commissioners agreed to invite Bea Johnson to speak for the first event in early fall. Discussion to be continued to the July meeting. 7. Subject: Discuss and select agenda topics for upcoming Sustainability Commission meetings The Commissioners discussed the possibility of moving the August meeting date; staff will contact Commissioner Swaminathan to confirm his attendance for the August meeting. Discussion to be continued to the July meeting. OLD BUSINESS 3. Subject: Update on Buy Clean and Consider Resolution Language Chair Weber moved and Commissioner Ramanathan seconded to move the Buy Clean update to the July 18th Commission meeting. The motion carried unanimously with Commissioner Swaminathan absent. Commissioner Chen left at 6:01 p.m. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS Commission updates: None. Staff updates: - Gilee Corral will be out of town for the August Commission meeting. - Fall Festival – September 14th - Silicon Valley Clean Energy is launching a heat pump water heater rebate program soon. - Electric vehicle solar project was not included in the adopted budget and will be discussed separately at a future Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT- 6:05 p.m. 06/18/20 44 of 92 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION Environmental Education Center, 22221 McClellan Road Thursday, August 29, 2019 4:00 p.m. MINUTES PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE At 4:05 p.m. Chair Weber called the meeting to order and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Anna Weber, Gary Latshaw, Vignesh Swaminathan, Angela Chen, Meera Ramanathan (arrived @ 4:09 p.m.). Absent: None. Staff: Andre Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager; Sean Hatch, Permit Center Manager; Gian Martire, Senior Planner; Gilee Corral, Sustainability Program Coordinator. Guests: Ben Butterworth, DNV GL (via conference call); John Supp, Silicon Valley Clean Energy; Walker Wells, Raimi & Associates; Blake Herrschaft, DNV GL; members of the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft minutes of August 15, 2019 meeting were reviewed. Commissioner Chen moved and Commissioner Swaminathan seconded to approve the minutes. Ayes: Weber, Swaminathan, Chen. Noes: None. Abstain: Latshaw. Absent: Ramanathan. POSTPONEMENTS None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Sophia Wang talked about concern over plastic waste and her desire for Cupertino to ban distribution of certain types of plastics in restaurants. Jennifer Zhao talked about policy to ban fossil fuels investment. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Gilee Corral distributed Late Written Communications to the Commission. Chair Weber noted that the Late Written Communications could be discussed during the reach codes discussion. OLD BUSINESS - None. NEW BUSINESS 2. Presentation on draft 2018 greenhouse gas emissions inventory with consultant DNV GL and staff update on Climate Action Plan report 06/18/20 45 of 92 2 The DNV GL consultant, Ben Butterworth, gave a presentation on the City’s draft greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) inventory via conference call. 2018 emissions have reduced approximately 23% for community and the City has met its 2020 emissions reduction target ahead of schedule. Corral provided an update on the Climate Action Plan (CAP) report; the report will be included in an Items of Interest newsletter to City Council but will not be formally presented to Council. Staff will schedule a presentation on the report for the Commission once it is complete. Chair Weber opened and closed public comment (no comments). Butterworth answered questions from the Commissioners. Issues raised: Ramanathan requested per capita metric; this will be included in the final report. Latshaw asked about measuring leakage effects from natural gas pipelines; he would like to know how to address the increase in nonresidential gas usage. 3. Subject: Receive presentation by Silicon Valley Clean Energy on model building reach codes and provide any input to staff John Supp with Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) gave a presentation on SVCE’s proposed electrification reach codes and the process for local adoption. Chair Weber opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: James Tuleya talked about the County of Santa Clara looking into reach codes and declaring a climate emergency. John Supp answered questions from members of the public: A member of the public asked why mandatory solar is not part of the proposed reach code. A member of the public asked for clarification on the difference between “mostly electric” and dual energy home. A member of the public asked if the cost was lower to maintain a home with an electric heat pump and furnace. Chair Weber closed public comment. The Commission discussed the presentation and Supp and consultant Blake Herrschaft answered their questions. Issues raised: if rebates are included in increase cost estimates for dual fuel homes; the GHG impact of new construction units; impact of new electric load on SVCE’s capacity; levels of electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure; what other cities are considering; how to mitigate issues with heat pump water heaters, etc. 4. Subject: Discuss CALGreen Tier 1 and Tier 2 options with Building and Sustainability staff and consultant Raimi & Associates and provide any input to staff Walker Wells, Raimi & Assoc. consultant, gave a presentation on CALGreen Tiers 1 and 2 and how the options fit into the SVCE model code approach. Chair Weber opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: 06/18/20 46 of 92 3 Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident) asked questions about projects being modeled, i.e. Vallco, and the timing of the codes going into effect; she talked about concerns about sufficient electrical capacity on City streets to accommodate charging Tesla EVs. Wells answered her questions. James Tuleya talked about the City of Mountain View’s reach code adoption process, relationship of the code to cities’s CAP goals, and new construction code paving the way for market development. Joan Chin (Cupertino resident) asked if CALGreen addressed health and issues related to proximity to the freeway. Walker answered her question. Bruce Karney supports Cupertino adopting all electric codes and talked about hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle adoption considerations in planning for EV reach code. Chair Weber closed public comment and the Commission discussed the presentation and asked questions: - Vice-Chair Latshaw asked about the Commission’s role in the code adoption process. Corral answered that staff requests process recommendations and general impressions currently, and later, the Commission will make a recommendation to Council on the codes at a future meeting. - Chair Weber asked about the process of adopting CALGreen Tier 1 or 2 and Andre Duurvoort answered it would be part of the whole code adoption process if the timing works out; Tier 1 or 2 could also be adopted at any time after the other codes go into effect. - Commissioner Chen asked if training would be needed if the Tiers were adopted; Wells answered that the subject matter is familiar to plan checkers, but some training may be needed. - Staff and consultants answered questions on how remodels would be treated. - Gian Martire gave examples of large mixed-use projects in the pipeline or approved: DeAnza Hotel, Westport development, some mid-sized 10-15 unit projects. - Commissioner Swaminathan asked if other items could be considered for adoption, i.e. impervious pavement. Wells answered that this is generally covered under Low Impact Development requirements. This started a brief discussion on storm water management. Other issues raised included: level of stringency in CALGreen Tiers and maintenance of the reach codes after the code cycle ends, coordination with neighboring cities’s model codes, etc. 5. Subject: Discuss model reach building codes and CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 options, reach code adoption process planning, and provide recommendations to staff on next steps Chair Weber opened public comment and the following individuals spoke: Dashiell Leeds on behalf of Sierra Club Loma Prieta talked about concerns about safety risks related to natural gas infrastructure, City of Menlo Park electrification reach code, and support of the Commission adopting an all electric building code. Commissioner Chen left the room at 6:25 pm. James Tuleya representing Carbon Free Silicon Valley supports all electric code but if moving forward is difficult, supports SVCE mixed fuel model code for a year and later pursuing all electric code. 06/18/20 47 of 92 4 A student representing the Cupertino Action Team supports all electric code and spoke about their desire for the Sustainability Commission to recommend to City Council to add a natural gas ban to the City Council’s Work Program. Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident) asked if the presentation slides would be publicly available. Staff explained files are posted to the Commission meeting website after meetings. Chair Weber closed public comment. Commissioner Chen returned to the room at 6:32 pm. Commissioners Weber and Swaminathan gave an update from the Reach Codes Subcommittee’s discussions. The Subcommittee prefers new construction to be all electric and for the Commission to consider Tiers 1 and 2. The Commission discussed how this might affect remodels and staff and consultants answered technical questions. Commissioner Chen expressed her preference for all electric code but would like to understand how it would affect residents before giving specific recommendations. She left at 6:40 p.m. The Commission discussed stakeholder involvement. Commissioner Swaminathan asked if the Planning Commission was involved and staff responded that the proposed reach codes affect the building code and therefore are outside the Planning Commission’s purview; if staff proposed changes that touched the planning side, involving the Planning Commission may become necessary. Other items discussed included water conservation, natural gas cooking, looking forward to the 2022 code cycle, etc. Vice-Chair Latshaw noted that eliminating natural gas would reduce 25% of atmospheric warming from GHG emissions and supports fast and aggressive reach code adoption. The Commissioners expressed a desire to push toward more aggressive all electric measures, but to consider the implications for renovation. Next steps: - Wells will look into implications and risks for the CALGreen Tier 1 and 2 options. - The Reach Codes Subcommittee will meet with staff to begin plans for the public meeting. - Commissioners to email Corral with suggestions of stakeholders for outreach. STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS Commission updates: - None. Staff updates: - Zero Waste Home – Bea Johnson Speaker Series event scheduled for Sep. 23 at 6:30 pm. - City of Cupertino is officially supporting AB 1080 (Gonzalez) and SB 54 (Allen) – California Circular Economy and Plastic Pollution Reduction Act ADJOURNMENT- 7:05 p.m. 06/18/20 48 of 92 2018 Progress Report CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 06/18/20 49 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 1 Climate Action Plan 2018 Progress Report The City of Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan defines Cupertino’s path toward creating a healthy, livable, and vibrant place for its current and future residents to live, learn, work, and play. The CAP’s primary goal is to create a roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Cupertino. This 2018 Progress Report is an overview of how Cupertino is meeting its 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals through City-led action as well as regional and state policies. Cupertino Among the First Bay Area Cities to Declare Climate Emergency City of Cupertino passed Resolution No. 18-094 on September 18, 2018, declaring a climate emergency and calling on the State of California, the United States, and all governments worldwide to initiate an emergency mobilization effort to mitigate climate change, stop rising greenhouse gas emissions, and immediately initiate an effort to safely draw down carbon from the atmosphere. Climate Action Commitments and Resolutions •Diesel Free by 2033 (August 2018) •Climate Emergency Declaration (September 2018) •U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement •Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy •Bay Area Climate Collaborative / Bay Area Climate Compact CAP Overview •Goal areas: energy,transportation, water,waste, green infrastructure •Over 225 municipal andcommunity-wide measures •Target emissions reductionyears: 2020, 2035, and 2050 •2010 baselineemissions inventory I am really glad that we are declaring a climate emergency…this is extremely critically important for not just our community but for the planet and it is something that I’m very glad to be able to bring forward to the community… -Councilmember Darcy Paul (Commenting as Mayor in 2018at time of resolution adoption) 06/18/20 50 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 2 Emissions Target for 2020 Achieved 2018 Emissions 24% Below 2010 Levels Cupertino completed its first greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory for the year 2010. Cupertino’s target is to reduce community emissions by 15% below 2010 levels by 2020, with further reductions in 2035 and 2050. Community-wide emissions in 2018 were estimated at 24% below 2010 levels, achieving our 2020 goal ahead of schedule. Goal Goal Goal 2010 2015 2018 12-year goal: 288,000 MT CO2e (15% reduction) By 2015, already 13% reduction Currently, already 24% reduction 339,000*294,000*259,000* *emissions rounded to nearest 1,000 metric tons CO2 emission per year Goal Surpassed Despite More People and Jobs Of all the 200+ measures in our CAP, the most significant action the City has taken to reduce emissions was the launch of Silicon Valley Clean Energy, our clean electricity provider (see ➊below). The switch to carbon-free electricity for our community opens opportunities for deeper emissions reduction as residents, businesses, and City operations switch to electric vehicles and electric appliances. Community emissions are driven by both residential and commercial activity occurring within Cupertino, and some changes in our community increased emissions: since 2010, Cupertino has experienced an estimated 6% increase in population, 18% increase in jobs, and a 10% increase in service population. Natural gas usage increased by 14% since 2010 (see ➋ below). However, due to City’s climate actions as well as other systemic changes, we saw an overall 24% decrease in emissions. Transportation showed a 10% decrease in emissions (2018 vs. 2010), despite an 8% increase in vehicle miles traveled (see ➌ below). 15,709 2018 19,635 25,967 4,515 98,846 93,987 18,219 2015 17,405 25,165 54,318 73,948 105,225 15,185 2010 22,591 24,496 85,451 86,837 104,112 –24% Electricity MT CO2e Solid WasteWastewater Natural Gas Off-road Sources Transportation 2015 20182010 +14% Natural Gas ➋ –95% Electricity ➊ Off-road Sources +6% Transportation ➌–10% Solid Waste +3% Wastewater –13% 06/18/20 51 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 3 Energy Eff iciency and Clean Electricity Natural Gas Natural gas usage increased by 34% from 2015 to 2018 and is now the largest source of emissions in Cupertino. Natural gas furnaces, stoves, and water heaters create pollution inside homes and businesses. Gas pipelines leak methane, a potent greenhouse gas and fire risk. Residents and businesses can reduce emissions from natural gas by choosing electric appliances and increasing the energy efficiency in homes and buildings. Usage 2015 2018 +34% Clean Electricity –92% Emissions 2015 2018 96.6% of residential and commercial electricity accounts in Cupertino used Silicon Valley Clean Energy’s clean electricity in 2018 $946,000 in on-bill savings for SVCE customers in Cupertino $12,491 in cash payments to customers for generating extra solar energy 22,609 households and businesses served 100% renewable energy for all municipal facilities Green Businesses Since 2010, our award-winning GreenBiz program has helped 60 businesses achieve California Green Business certification, saving over 7,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide and diverting over 22 million pounds of waste cumulatively. Solar Energy 755 kW of solar capacity installed in homes & businesses (not including Apple Park) in 2018 (est.) 4 MW installed since 2015 (est.), exceeding CAP goal of 1.5 MW by 2020 (goal does not include Apple Park) 17 MW of solar capacity installed at Apple Park 06/18/20 52 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 4 Energy Eff iciency and Clean Electricity Community 2010 15,805,499 therms 2018 18,043,356 therms Natural Gas Usage +14.2% Non-residential natural gas usage increased 69% since 2010 and was the primary driver of the community’s increase in natural gas usage overall. Community 2010 15,805,499 therms 2018 18,043,356 therms Natural Gas Usage +14% Non-residential natural gas usage increased 54% since 2010 and was the primary driver of the community’s increase in natural gas usage overall. –95% 2010 2018 85,451 MT CO2e 4,515 MT CO2e 2010 409,319,124 kWh 2018 419,554,868 kWh 2.5% increase in usage from 2010 to 2018 (but a 95% decrease in electricity emissions) +3%Electricity Usage Electricity Emissions Reduction –95% 2010 2018 85,451 MT CO2e 4,515 MT CO2e 2010 409,319,124 kWh 2018 419,554,868 kWh 3% increase in usage from 2010 to 2018 (but a 95% decrease in electricity emissions) +2.5%Electricity Usage Electricity Emissions Reduction Natural Gas Usage 2010 48,232 therms 2018 41,632 therms –13.7% Municipal Natural Gas Usage 2010 48,232 therms 2018 41,632 therms –14% Municipal Electricity Usage 2010 4,856,057 kWh 2018 3,113,738 kWh 23.12dots 14.83dots –36% –99.9% 2010 2018 988 MT CO2e 0.2 MT CO2e 36% decrease in usage from 2010 to 2018 (and a 99.9% decrease in electricity emissions) Electricity Emissions Reduction Electricity Usage 2010 4,856,057 kWh 2018 3,113,738 kWh 23.12dots 14.83dots –36% –99.9% 2010 2018 989 MT CO2e 0.2 MT CO2e 36% decrease in usage from 2010 to 2018 (and a 99.9% decrease in electricity emissions) Electricity Emissions Reduction 2018 Energy Efficiency Project Spotlight: Municipal LED Light Upgrade 47,673 kWh saved $10,500 less cost 47,673 kWh saved per year and $10,500 in avoided electricity costs from LED light upgrade project at Memorial Park Tennis Courts. 06/18/20 53 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 5 Alternative Transportation Transportation is the second largest source of emissions in Cupertino as heavy traffic congestion from cars and trucks—powered by dirty fuels (gasoline and diesel)—create pollution in our community. The City encourages alternative ways to travel around Cupertino that reduce pollution: walking, biking, taking public transportation, and switching to clean vehicles (electric and fuel cell vehicles). 2018 Highlights Vehicle Miles TravelledTransportation Emissions –10% 2010 2018 +8% 2010 2018 COMMUNITY Vehicle Miles TravelledTransportation Emissions –9% 2010 2018 +7% 2010 2018MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 7% increase in miles traveled to work by municipal employees, but a 9% decrease in emissions compared to 2010. This is a result of municipal employees driving more fuel-efficient vehicles. Bicycle Transportation Plan Safer, “Class 4” bike lanes are being installed on McClellan Road from Byrne to Torre (expected to be complete by 2021). Separated bike lanes encourage more bicycling by providing protection from traffic. Renewable Diesel in City Fleet Two key actions led to a 32% decrease in City fleet emissions since 2010: Public Works staff added electric vehicles and hybrids to the fleet and switched to renewable diesel for all diesel fleet vehicles. Renewable diesel is made from waste and residues, such as animal fats from food industry waste and used cooking oil. Compared to 2010 3%decrease in gallons of fuel used 32% decrease in City fleet emissions Cupertino’s 95014 zip code has the second highest number of electric vehicles in the Bay Area. 6,624 EV/hybrid/fuel cell vehicles registered in Cupertino 40,216 gasoline/diesel/other vehicles registered in Cupertino 14% of vehicles registered in Cupertino are EV/hybrid/fuel cell 9% of vehicles registered in Santa Clara County are EV/hybrid/fuel cell Councilmember Rod Sinks joins Cupertino City staff for Bike to Work Day. 06/18/20 54 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 6 Water Conservation 2018 Highlights COMMUNITY 2010 2018 –17% 17% reduction in per capita water usage in the community (compared to 2010). MUNICIPALITY 2008 2018 –22% ACHIEVED Bay Area Climate Compact’s 2018 Goal for municipal water savings: City reduced municipal water usage by 22% since 2008. City Hall Demonstration Garden On August 22, the City of Cupertino held a ribbon cutting ceremony and guided tour of the City Hall Demonstration Garden. Switching to drought- tolerant plants is saving the City over 400,000 gallons of water annually. The Demonstration Garden is a place for residents to learn about Bay Area native and drought-tolerant plants. The City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) team created an interactive virtual demo garden as a learning tool for drought tolerant plants: Cupertino.org/demogarden. Left to right: Sustainability Commission Chair Anna Weber, Councilmember Darcy Paul, Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice-Mayor Liang Chao, Santa Clara Valley Water Board Vice-Chair Nai Hsueh 06/18/20 55 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 7 Reduce Solid Waste The Cupertino City Council adopted a Zero Waste Policy in 2017. The City’s Environmental Services team tracks how much Cupertino waste goes to the landfill versus recycling and composting. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is released when food scraps, paper, and other organic materials rot in a landfill. The City offers organics collection service to divert food, food soiled paper, and yard waste from the landfill and reduce emissions. In 2018, Environmental Services conducted a single-family waste characterization study and found that nearly 80% food waste was not being diverted. The City is using the results of this study to adjust its programming and outreach efforts. Current Community Diversion Rates 75%Goal 2018 73%Diversion City’s goal is to divert 75% of community-wide solid waste from the landfill. Current diversion rate is 73%. 65%Goal 52%Diversion City’s goal is 65% of construction and demolition (C&D) waste diverted from the landfill. Current C&D diversion rate is 52% (2018). Focus on Composting 57% of commercial and multifamily accounts with organics collection service (2018). Conducted pilot “lid flip” visual audits and targeted outreach regarding food scraps collection to 393 households in 2018. Households divert 21% of food scraps and compostable paper. Households divert 100% of yard waste. 06/18/20 56 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 8 Natural Resources 2018 Highlights 186 Trees Planted Tree Plotter App Residents can now visit the new Tree Plotter application to view the benefits of individual City trees or the entire City-wide canopy. The app includes a tree’s overall monetary benefit, property value, runoff prevention, energy savings, heat prevention, and air quality benefits among other factors. Residents can also check when a tree was planted, when it was last pruned, and its maintenance history: cupertino.org/trees. Tree Canopy Assessment An assessment was conducted to determine the distribution of existing and potential urban tree canopy throughout Cupertino. Cupertino contains 23% urban tree canopy and 48% impervious surface. Inspiration Heights neighborhood had the highest canopy coverage at 39% and comprised 18% of the city’s total existing canopy. Total Study Area 7,231 Acres Tree Canopy 2009: 1,718 Acres (23.8%) 2018: 1,684 Acres (23.3%) Plantable Space 1,983 Acres (27%) Note: Urban tree canopy percentages are based on land area only. Urban Tree Canopy Potential Urban Tree Canopy 23% Possible Planting Area 27% Area Unsuitable for Planting 49% 9% Tree canopy overhangs an impervious surface. 06/18/20 57 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO | CLIMATE ACTION PLAN | 2018 PROGRESS REPORT 9 Active and Upcoming Projects •Sustainability Commission and City Council considering “reach codes” for Cupertino to require higher standards locally for green building and electrification of newly constructed buildings (expected to be adopted in 2020) •CAP 2.0 with Adaptation Plan (in planning stage) •Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan adopted by City Council September 2019 •Launch of Via-Cupertino shuttle November 2019: cupertino.org/shuttle Mayor Scharf accepts Beacon Award at League of Cities Conference, October 2019 Via Cupertino Shuttle Launch – left to right, Assistant City Manager Dianne Thompson; City Manager Deb Feng; Councilmember Jon Willey; Mayor Steven Scharf; Chris Corrao, Senior Transit & Transportation Planner; Roger Lee, Director of Public Works 06/18/20 58 of 92 The Challenge Ahead While Cupertino and other cities have met their 2020 emissions targets, future carbon emissions targets are at risk. It is clear that the path ahead contains some of the most difficult to achieve emissions and air quality improvements – namely fossil fuel combustion in buildings and by cars. A 2018 report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute* indicates that sustainable, affordable, transit-oriented housing near job centers offers great potential. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates** that transit-oriented housing will reduce vehicle miles traveled by 20–40% and emissions from transportation by 9–15% by 2050. As our electricity becomes cleaner, decarbonizing buildings - switching from natural gas to electric appliances - is also an effective and economically compelling path. Achieving this goal will require market transformation, consumer engagement, and public policy changes in the short term. The other great challenge for Cupertino is to address the increasing climate risks to our infrastructure and health. Resilience is demonstrated by the ability of the individuals, institutions, businesses, and systems within the community to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what chronic stress or acute shock it experiences. Because a changing climate affects every sector of our economy and every community in our state, we have the opportunity to prepare for the future together. We are looking forward to working with our community on these challenges in the coming years. *Bay Area Council Economic Institute, "Continuing Growth and Unparalleled Innovation: Bay Area Economic Profile," July 2018, http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/report/continuing-growth-and-unparalleled-innovation/ (Accessed 11/13/2019) **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Smart Growth and Climate Change," last modified January 2017, https://www. epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-growth-and-climate-change CONTACT Sustainability Division cupertino.org/green sustainability@cupertino.org 06/18/20 59 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Proactive legislative advocacy on climate and sustainability issues in line with Council adopted legislative priorities Discuss and decide if any follow up action is needed by the Commission to complete this FY 19-20 Work Program item. File #:20-7712,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 60 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Staff update on Buy Clean California Act policy development and Bay Area low carbon concrete codes initiatives Receive update and provide any feedback File #:20-7713,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 61 of 92 SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting: December 19, 2019 Subject Staff update on Buy Clean California Act policy development and Bay Area low carbon concrete codes initiatives. Recommended Action Receive update and provide any feedback. Background The Buy Clean California Act (AB 262) requires the California Department of General Services (DGS) to establish maximum acceptable Global Warming Potential (GWP) limits for “covered materials” used in state public works projects. AB 262 targets embedded carbon emissions of structural steel, carbon steel rebar, flat glass, and mineral wool board insulation. Monitoring the state’s Buy Clean policy is part of the Sustainability Commission’s FY 2020 Work Program and supports CC Resolution No. 19-040 Supporting State Implementation of the Buy Clean California Act of 2017. The cities of Berkeley and Richmond have adopted similar resolutions. Discussion Buy Clean California update: AB 1817 modified Buy Clean CA to push implementation to July 2021, giving the DGS a two-year phase-in period to collect EPDs. AB 1817 allowed the DGS to exclude the fabrication stage from the GWP calculation. State agencies can also develop a list of exemptions to Buy Clean, such as health and safety, emergency-related projects. In October, the DGS hosted an External Stakeholder Event on the status of Buy Clean CA as modified by AB 1817. The webinar provided technical information on the methodology being considered by the DGS to establish the GWP limit and clarification on acceptable Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) (presentation attached). 06/18/20 62 of 92 Current timeline of Buy Clean policy implementation (from DGS’s Buy Clean website 1): January 1, 2019 – Awarding authorities will request submission of Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs). Awarding authority means: • A state agency for a contract for a public works project that is subject to the State Contract Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 10100) of Part 2). • The Regents of the University of California for a contract for a public works project that is subject to Chapter 2.1 (commencing with Section 10500) of Part 2. • The Trustees of the California State University for a contract for a public works project that is subject to the California State University Contract Law (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 10700) of Part 2). January 1, 2020 – Awarding authorities will require submission of EPDs. January 1, 2021 – DGS will publish the maximum acceptable GWP for eligible materials. July 1, 2021 – Awarding authorities will gauge GWP compliance of eligible materials with EPDs. Bay Area low carbon concrete codes update: Last year, the County of Marin received a grant from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)'s Climate Protection Grant Program to explore local model policy to address embodied carbon in concrete. Partners of this effort include StopWaste (Alameda County), Bruce King, Arup, and the Carbon Leadership Forum and is supported by the City and County of San Francisco, County of Alameda, City of Berkeley, and Bay Area building industry companies and organizations. The County of Marin maintains a website 2 to track the Bay Area Low-Carbon Concrete Codes Project and provide model resources that are updated as the project develops. On November 19, the County of Marin Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a local modification of the County’s Building Code to establish embodied emissions limits in concrete for projects with new poured concrete. The codes are effective January 1, 2020. The County of Marin Community Development Agency, Planning Division’s staff report (attached) notes novel elements of the new code: • Establishes a sliding scale for the maximum amount of cement for different strength of concrete mixes. • Includes “an alternate pathway for compliance using limits on embodied emissions within concrete mixes, which provides flexibility for SCMs and innovations in cement alternatives.” SCMs are “supplementary cementitious materials” and include fly ash, slag, glass pozzolans, and other materials. • Sets emissions limits for “conventional, Portland cement based concrete mixes, something that has not previously been done in a local building code.” 1 https://www.dgs.ca.gov/PD/Resources/Page-Content/Procurement-Division-Resources-List-Folder/Buy- Clean-California-Act 2 https://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/sustainability/low-carbon-concrete-project 06/18/20 63 of 92 The standards were developed with support from a technical consultant and a review process with a regional stakeholder group established through the BAAQMD grant. Technical recommendations and feedback were also received via multiple meetings with expert stakeholders. The project was featured in the Marin Independent Journal and Engineering News-Record, the latter of which dubbed it the “first low-carbon concrete code in the US.” Cupertino Green Building Ordinance: Cupertino City Council will be holding a public hearing on December 17 on the subject of electrification and green building local ordinances. Staff is recommending that Council re-adopt the existing Green Building Ordinance with no changes (Cupertino Municipal Code chapter 16.58). The Green Building Ordinance has been in effect in Cupertino since June 2013. Cupertino’s local Green Building Ordinance requires all large developments to build and certify their projects to the LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) rating system, or otherwise demonstrate their designs meet the LEED certified standard or better. One advantage of the existing Cupertino Green Building Ordinance is that the LEED rating system is continually updated to drive progress in the construction and design industry. The current LEED rating system (version 4.1) encourages but does not require any GWP limits in product selection. The Building Product Disclosure and Optimization– Environmental Product Declarations Credit 3 rewards the selection of building products with reductions in global warming potential and embodied carbon, as demonstrated in a product EPD or verified life cycle assessment. Next Steps Staff will continue to monitor the development of the County of Marin’s model code and the implementation of Buy Clean CA. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Gilee Corral, Sustainability Program Coordinator and Staff Liaison Reviewed by: André Duurvoort, Sustainability Manager Attachments: A – Buy Clean California Act External Stakeholder Presentation-10.31.2019 B – Marin County Board of Supervisors Merit Hearing Staff Report and Ordinance- 11.19.2019 3 https://www.usgbc.org/articles/how-leed-v41-addresses-embodied-carbon 06/18/20 64 of 92 Procurement Division, Engineering Branch AB 262 Implementation Team Buy Clean California Act External Outreach Event October 31, 2019 Attachment A 06/18/20 65 of 92 Agenda Buy Clean California Act -Update Maximum Acceptable Global Warming Potential (GWP) Limit Methodology Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) Allowed for Compliance Agency Compliance Model DGS Request to Industry Questions & Answers 2 Attachment A 06/18/20 66 of 92 Buy Clean California Act –Update (1 of 2) Assembly Bill 1817 modified Buy Clean California Act (AB 262): Extended implementation date by two years, 7/1/2021. Introduced a two year “phase-in” period to collect facility-specific EPDs. Management Memo Allowed DGS to exclude fabrication stage for GWP calculation. Allowed Awarding Agencies to develop list of AB 262 exemptions. 3 Attachment A 06/18/20 67 of 92 Buy Clean California Act –Update (2 of 2) AB 262 Team responded to stakeholder comments and posted responses on the Buy Clean California Act webpage. Met with awarding agencies to discuss progress. DGS reached out to stakeholders to continue discussion on implementation. Flat Glass Update. 4 Attachment A 06/18/20 68 of 92 Maximum Acceptable GWP Limit Methodology (1 of 3) DGS has revised its approach to determine the maximum acceptable GWP limit after further discussions with stakeholders and subject matter experts. AB 1817 allows the exclusion of emissions that occur during the fabrication stages. Producer GWP impacts are typically much larger than a fabricator for the current materials. Flat glass and steel Product Category Rules (PCRs) expire on 3/31/20 and 5/5/20, respectively. DGS expects that the revised PCRs will align with ISO 21930:2017 which may affect GWP impact results. 5 Attachment A 06/18/20 69 of 92 Maximum Acceptable GWP Limit Methodology (2 of 3) Current legislation requires a maximum acceptable GWP to be set at the industry average of facility specific GWP for each material. A producer facility-specific EPD identifies the GWP impact to manufacture a product at a particular facility. The reported GWP impact from industry-wide production weighted* EPDs can be influenced by market share rather than technology improvements. DGS believes that a GWP limit should be determined by calculating an average using producer facility-specific EPDs. However, an industry-wide EPD may be a solution to set the limit due to the timing of the PCR revisions. * Market share production weighting among different suppliers 6 Attachment A 06/18/20 70 of 92 Maximum Acceptable GWP Limit Methodology (3 of 3) Therefore, at this time DGS is considering two options to establish the GWP limit: Use an industry-wide EPD* for an eligible material. Calculate an average using producer facility-specific EPDs*. * EPDs should be developed according latest mineral wool PCR and 2020 flat glass and steel PCRs. A tolerance is still expected to be added accounting for uncertainty in the life cycle assessment process. EPDs will be obtained from awarding agencies as well as those found on publically available databases. 7 Attachment A 06/18/20 71 of 92 Facility-specific EPDs PCC §3503.(a) “An awarding authority shall require the successful bidder… to submit a current facility-specific Environmental Product Declaration…” Facility-specific Environmental Product Declaration – Product-specific EPD: the environmental impacts are attributed to a single manufacturing facility. Evaluate the environmental performance of a product manufactured from a single facility. Averaging masks the environmental impacts between different facilities. 8 Attachment A 06/18/20 72 of 92 Differentiating Producers vs. Fabricators Producer Facility that produces the base material before it is sent for fabrication Steel mill Rebar mill Mineral wool board insulation plant Flat glass plant Fabricator Facility that conducts additional processing to base materials Bending, tempering, cutting, etc. May obtain base material from multiple manufacturers 9 Attachment A 06/18/20 73 of 92 EPDs Allowed for Compliance Acceptable Facility-specific producer/manufacturer EPDs Not-Acceptable Fabricator EPDs Industry-wide/industry- average EPDs Multiple facility, production- weighted EPDs from a single producer or fabricator 10 Attachment A 06/18/20 74 of 92 EPD System Boundaries for Materials Structural Steel and Carbon Steel Rebar Evaluate A1-A3 (product stage) A1 will be evaluated for producer EPDs if A2 and A3 represent average fabrication data Mineral Wool Board Insulation (light and heavy Density) Evaluate A1-A3 (product stage) Flat glass Evaluate material acquisition & pre-processing, production, and packaging / storage (cradle-to-gate) 11 Attachment A 06/18/20 75 of 92 Agency Compliance Model DGS has been holding workshop meetings with agencies to develop a compliance framework. This framework consists of: Determination which projects are subject to AB 262. Communicate new policies to support AB 262. Develop specific guidelines for staff to determine compliance. 12 Attachment A 06/18/20 76 of 92 Where can I find more information? Information can be found on both DGS’ and awarding agencies’ websites. DGS will host answers to general Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). https://www.dgs.ca.gov/PD/Resources/Page-Content/Procurement- Division-Resources-List-Folder/Buy-Clean-California-Act Awarding agencies will host FAQs specific to their department. 13 Attachment A 06/18/20 77 of 92 DGS Request to Industry Develop facility-specific producer EPDs during the 2019- 2020 phase-in period to allow establishment of a maximum acceptable GWP limit for each eligible material, and prepare stakeholders for compliance. The required Product Category Rules can be found on the Buy Clean California Act webpage. However, it is recommended that the 2020 PCRs are used to develop EPDs for flat glass and steel. For those facility-specific EPDs not slated for California public works projects during the 2019-2020 phase-in period, publish them in recognized databases for EPDs or Program Operator’s websites. 14 Attachment A 06/18/20 78 of 92 Questions? 15 Attachment A 06/18/20 79 of 92 November 19, 2019 Marin County Board of Supervisors 3501 Civic Center Drive San Rafael, CA 94903 SUBJECT: Proposed ordinance to add a new subchapter to Marin County Code Title 19 (Building Code) and adopt standards for low embodied emissions in concrete. Dear Supervisors, RECOMMENDATION: Initiate an amendment to the Building Code by taking the following actions: 1.Conduct public hearing 2.Consider adopting proposed ordinance with an effective date of January 1, 2020 SUMMARY: On November 5, 2019, your Board conducted a first reading of the attached ordinance and scheduled a public hearing for November 19, 2019 at 10:30AM. The County of Marin has long been a leader in local green building policies, most recently demonstrated in the October 2019 adoption of the updated green building ordinance. To date, these programs have focused on reducing operational energy use through increased energy efficiency requirements and emphasis on low-emission fuel sources. These policies are critical to achieving local greenhouse gas reduction targets. However, standards to date have focused little on reducing the embodied carbon emissions generated by the processes associated with the production of a building, including material extraction, transportation and manufacturing. For older, less energy efficient buildings, the lifetime carbon emissions from electricity, gas, and other operational energy use exceeds the embodied carbon emissions generated during construction. This paradigm is shifting, as new construction and upgraded buildings grow closer to zero net operating energy emissions through increased energy efficiency and renewable power. With low annual energy use, embodied carbon emissions from construction represent most of the lifetime emissions of a building. Because the emissions from material extraction, transportation, manufacturing, and building construction are already emitted by the time the building is occupied, there is little potential to mitigate those impacts later in the building’s life, as is possible with energy efficiency retrofits for operational emissions. The importance of addressing embodied carbon emissions is heightened by the pressing need to reduce emissions in the near term to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world and is responsible for an estimated six to ten percent of global carbon dioxide emissions from human activity. Most of these emissions come from Portland cement, the “glue” that binds aggregate like sand and gravel into concrete, creating artificial rock. The emissions Attachment B 06/18/20 80 of 92 PG. 2 OF 3 associated with concrete can be reduced by minimizing cement use to the extent possible while still achieving necessary strength, or by using cement alternatives, called “supplementary cementitious materials,” or SCMs. SCMs can include but are not limited to fly ash, slag, and glass pozzolans. The proposed ordinance introduces innovative yet practical measures to begin addressing embodied emissions in concrete through modifications to the Building Code. Based on conversations with local ready-mix suppliers, staff understands these cement alternatives to be locally available and have cost parity with cement. In cases where the amount of cement can be minimized without the need for supplements, there may be cost savings. For projects that need strength quickly, accelerators can be used to speed curing time without substantial increases in emissions, but these additions may add cost. As with all the County’s green building policies, hardship and infeasibility exemptions are written into the code for circumstances where applicants cannot comply or where it is cost-prohibitive to do so, and specific allowances are made in the ordinance for projects that need high early strength. The Countywide Plan includes multiple recommendations for implementing programs around low-carbon materials in construction, including Program EN-3.d Encourage Fly Ash in Concrete which directs the County to “consider regulations requiring new building projects that use a substantial amount of concrete to incorporate at least 25% fly ash to offset some of the energy use and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the manufacturing of cement”. To advance this program, staff sought to develop policies that were current, locally responsive, and regionally replicable. In 2018, the County partnered with StopWaste, the Embodied Carbon Network, Arup, and Bruce King of the Ecological Builders Network and was awarded funding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Climate Protection Grant Program. These funds supported the development of this proposed ordinance through technical consultants and coordination and convening of stakeholders. The funds have also supported County staff time for the policy adoption process, technical assistance for pilot projects, and outreach and dissemination to promote replication. The standards were developed with substantial review and feedback by the regional stakeholder group convened through the grant. Seven meetings with a group of expert stakeholders, who represented diverse perspectives across academia, the building trades, the concrete industry, and local government staff provided framing for the standards and review of technical recommendations. The proposed standards were developed by the project’s technical consultant but were largely influenced and shaped through rigorous analysis and debate over the course of a year of project development. Local stakeholders including ready-mix concrete suppliers, local structural engineers, and building officials from multiple Marin County jurisdictions were engaged throughout the process participated in a meeting about the proposed standards and local barriers in mid-2019.This feedback was used to inform development of the ordinance. The proposed standards modify the Building Code to establish a sliding scale of requirements for the maximum amount of cement used for different strength concrete mixes. The standards also include an alternate pathway for compliance using limits on embodied emissions within concrete mixes, which provides flexibility for SCMs and innovations in cement alternatives. These standards are innovative by setting limits on the high emissions potential in conventional, Portland cement based concrete mixes, something that has not previously been done in a local building code. As demonstrated in national and regional surveys (detailed in Attachment 4), the recommended limits Attachment B 06/18/20 81 of 92 PG. 3 OF 3 do not change the allowable mix designs but sets a ceiling on potential emissions and provides opportunities for increased education around the impacts of and alternatives to cement use. The proposed standards apply to projects that include new poured concrete. Enforcement of the standards via the building code may not capture projects that pour concrete but do not require a building permit, which can include patios, walkways, and driveways. Ongoing education of the public, building industry, and ready-mix suppliers will be important to promote the use of low-carbon concretes regardless of local permit requirements. The proposed standards would also apply to public projects developed by the County of Marin. Sustainability team staff will work closely with capital projects staff to apply the appropriate requirements and to gather data about opportunities and barriers that arise during the implementation of the proposed standards. Lessons learned during implementation will be used to improve program administration and be shared with other jurisdictions that are interested in adopting similar policies. The proposed ordinance is an important step towards more holistically addressing emissions from building activity in Marin County. The importance of considering the climate impacts of the entire building process highlights the need to educate the building community and the general public about the life cycle of climate impacts of construction. In addition to the these proposed standards, the stakeholder group developed a draft pathway to zero emission concrete by 2050. Achieving this would require ratcheting down concrete emissions on an aggressive schedule that both anticipates and prompts advancements in cements and carbon-storing technologies, and depends upon zero carbon technologies that do not presently exist. Staff recommends monitoring the implementation of the proposed standards, if adopted, in Marin County as well as regionally, as is the goal of the Air District grant. Implementation of these novel proposed policies will aid staff in developing recommendations for the 2022 code cycle that continue to lead on innovative climate solutions while supporting fair and achievable growth within the building community. FISCAL/STAFFING IMPACT: This action does not impact the General Fund. REVIEWED BY: [ ] Department of Finance [ X ] N/A [ X ] County Counsel [ ] N/A [ ] Human Resources [ X ] N/A SIGNATURE: Approved by: Alice Zanmiller Brian C. Crawford William Kelley Planner Director Deputy Director Attachments: 1. Ordinance Adopting Amendments to Marin County Code Title 19 (Building Code) 2. Sample Residential Specification 3. Sample Nonresidential Specification 4. Study of Limits for Cement and Embodied Carbon of Concrete 5. Low Carbon Concrete Compliance Form (Cement) 6. Low Carbon Concrete Compliance Form (Embodied Carbon) Attachment B 06/18/20 82 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 83 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 84 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 85 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 86 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 87 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 88 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 89 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 90 of 92 Attachment B06/18/20 91 of 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Text Subject: Staff update on single use plastics outreach and FY 2020-21 City Work Program item on single use plastics policy Receive update and provide any feedback File #:20-7714,Version:1 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 10/16/2020Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™ 06/18/20 92 of 92