Loading...
22. Green building ord. process & frameworkCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408 ~ 777-3333 CUPERTIND SUMN[ARY Agenda Item No. ~ a. Meeting Date: Tanuar~9,~„ 2010 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Review and adopt the Green Building Ordin~3nce process framework and budget. - RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Green Building Ordinance process framework based on Planning Commission recommendations on November 24, 2009 {See Attachment A}. Staff is additionally recommending amending the process to include separate focus group meetings for commercial and residential stakeholders instead of the task force recommended by the Planning Commission. A discussion on this issue is provided later in this report. BACKGROUND: In June 2009, the Santa Clara County Cities Association's Board of Directors adopted Phase II policy recommendations pxepared by the Green Building Collaborative that provide Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED} and Build It Green (BIG} thresholds for development projects. The recommendations were formed to encourage each city to adopt these green building policy recommendations to aid in meeting the regioxi s climate change goals. On October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission discussed goals and objectives for a Green Building Ordinance, and provided direction to staff to propose a defined process framework for the preparation of a Green Budding Ordinance. On November 5, 2009, staff provided the Pl~.nning Commission with a defined Green Building Ordinance process framework. The Commission requested staff to refine and clarify particular sections of the draft process framework involving the 22-1 Green Building Ordinance Process January 19, 2009 objectives/goals, green building policy scope, regulatory context, public outreach plan, timeline/schedule and funding. On November 24, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised draft process framework as a consent calendar report item. The report incorporated the Commission's comments from the November 5th meeting by updating the various sections of the framework. No discussion took place other than the motion to approve the item and forward the Commission's recommendation to the City Council on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Kaneda was absent). DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission emphasized the following key points that were incorporated into sections of the revised process framework: • Include policies/goals that explore incentives to encourage green building measures • Provide for measurability to meet AB 32 requirements • Explore the economic costs and environmental benefits of alternatives to meet green building ordinance requirements • Identify green building measures/ordinance alternatives that are the "low- hanging fruit" providing the greatest gain from investment • Include adding public outreach methods such as Facebook, Twitter, and outreach at churches, PTA meetings, and weekly school homework packets • Include a description of AB 1103 {energy benchmarking and energy disclosure requirements for non-residential buildings) in the regulatory context description • Update the timeline/schedule for the Green Building Ordinance • Present alternative concepts to the public early in the process • Provide funding for a consultant experienced in the technical aspects of green building and public outreach • Form a task force to aid in the process of preparing the Green Building Ordinance Please refer to Attachment A for Planning Commission's recommendation on the process framework. Focus Groups The Planning Cammission recommended that a task force be formed to participate in the process of preparing the Green Building Ordinance to promote greater attendance and consistent feedback in meetings. The Commission also indicated limiting the size to about 20 members and that a method would have to be determined to choose task force members. 22a z Green Building Ordinance Process January 19, 2009 Staff comments: Staff recommends using two focus groups -residential and commercial -rather than a task force. The residential focus group would include residents and residential developers. The commercial focus group tiTould include commercial developers and business owners. Staff believes that the focus group approach would work better for the following reasons: 1. The requirements for commercial (L,EED) and residential buildings (Build It Green} are different. 2. Given the likely difference in level~~ of expertise in green building between commercial and residential stakeholders, focus group discussions will allow the process to be tailored better toward each group and their needs. 3. Targeting the commercial and residential groups separately will allow a more efficient allocation of time and resources. As a means to kick-off and garner community interest in the Green Building Ordinance, staff is suggesting a citywide noticed "Green Building Expo' open to the community as an initial public outreach method. Staff envisions that the expo would have representations from agencies such as PG&:E, Santa Clara Valley Water District, solar companies, and Silicon Valley Leadership Group with green building resource information, contact information, and repre~;entatives available to provide information and answer questions. Additionally, the expo could have guest speakers, such as developers who could speak about their Experiences in developing certified green buildings in the City, and experts in tb.e field who could provide educational information on various green building topics. Staff believes this would provide a good opportunity to find interested members for the two focus groups and other community members who would be interested in attending meetings and providing input during the process. Tn terms of a timeline, staff believes that this could occur in early March or April. Fiscal Impact Recommended Process Staff estimates that the cost of preparing the Green Building Ordinance based upon the recommended process framework, and including a green building consultant with both technical and public outreach experience, and public outreach mailings and materials, would cost a total of about $55,000-$65,000. The cost of the consultant is estimated at $45,000 with the cost of ancillary public mailings {one city-wide mailing), outreach and workshop materials estimated at $15,000 - $20,000. To #und the project, staff recommends using the existing mid- to long-term planning Green Building Certification fund to reimburse applicants for green building 22 33 Green Building Ordinance Process January 19, 2009 certification. The fund which had an original amount of $50,000 has been used to reimburse applicants for two projects. The current balance in the budget is about $46,000. The proposed process would require an additional allocation of $19,000 as part of the Fiscal Yeax 2009-2010 mid-year budget adjustment. The process is expected to be completed by October 2010. Alternative Process -Staff proposed a limited process as an alternative to the Planning Commission during its discussions. However, the Planning Commission did not recommend it. The alternative process would include: • Review Phase II recommendations as a basis for the ordinance • Limited outreach including two focus group meetings and two public hearings for a maximum of four meetings • Providing a list of resources and informational material to help achieve ordinance requirements The alternative process would include a consultant to facilitate two focus group meetings. The limited process could be implemented for about $25,000 {including a city-wide mailed notice) but would not include an expo. The timeline for this process would be about five months (potentially begin in February/March 2010 and end in July/August 2010). Next Steps Based on Council direction, staff will move forward on the next steps including Request for Proposals for consultants. Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, AICP, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Gary Chao, City Planner Submitted by: G/.Gr.~ 1 r Aarti Shrivastava Director of Community Development Approved by: David W. Knapp City Manager Attachments: Attachment A: November 24, 2009 Planning Commission recommendation on the Green Building Ordinance framework process consent calendar item Attachment B: Updated Green Building Ordinance Draft Flow Diagram H: Groups/Planning/PDREPORT/CC/2009/GreenBldgCC 4 22 - 4 Attachment A Green Building Ordinance Framework Process Planning Commission Recommendation of November 24, 2009 1) Policy Objectives/Goals a) Create a green building policy that: considers the needs of all stakeholders, and enhances public health and welfare of the City through the design, construction, maintenance, operati~~n and deconstruction of buildings/sites. b) Provide cost savings to businesses and residents through reduced operating costs and create healthy work and living environments for residents, workers and visitors. c) Provide measurability related to meeting the requirements of AB 32. d) Explore incentives to encourage gr~ren building. e) Provide and analyze the casts and benefits of alternatives in the consideration of the green building ordinance requirements. 2) Green Building Policy Scope: The Green Building Policy review scope will include the following: a} Evaluate the Phase II policy recommendations from the Green Building Collaborative (GBC). b) Analyze green building policies and programs from other comparable cities. c) Consider ordinance alternatives based on community needs and input including acost/benefit analysis far each alternative. d) Identify which green building measures/ordinance alternatives are the "low- hanging fruit" that can provide the greatest gain from investment. e) Draft a green building ordinance. f) Consider incentives and related fur;ding needs. g) Create guidebooks and other educational material for the public regarding the new ordinance. 3} Public Outreach Plan: The adoption of a comprehensive green building ordinance will affect the community at various levels. Therefore, appropriate public outreach as well as establishing an open dialogue with community stakeholders is essential to a successful ordinance amendment process. The public outreach plan should inclu~~.e the following components: a) Task Force -Structured to include stakeholders and community experts. Staff recommends 9 -13 members to make it manageable. b) Stakeholders -residents, experts, developers, architects, designers, engineers, Chamber of Commerce, etc. (see A~:tachment 3 for a current list} c) Community resources -experts acid organizations in the green building field, 22-5 City staff involved with the development review process, staff from adjacent cities involved with green building ordinances, environmental groups, school districts, etc. (See Attachment 1 for a complete list} d) Methods of public outreach will include an initial mailer with the opportunity to sign up on an email notification list #or the City website updates, newspaper notices, television and radio advertisements, flyers, notices in the Cupertino Scene {see Attachment 2 for a list of public outreach methods), facebook, twitter, and outreach at churches, PTA meetings, and weekly school homework packets e} Outreach meetings with stakeholders to gather input f) Educational workshops/study sessions with the Planning Commission g) Public hearing/workshop to review draft ordinance h) Public hearings at the Planning Commission and Council 4) Timeline and Schedule: This timeline and schedule reflects updated information based upon the November 24, 2009 Planning Commission meeting and discussions in the staff report. November 24, 2009 -Planning Commission finalizes Scope of Work January 19, 2010 -Council review of Proposed Scope and authorization for funding January/February 2010 -Send out Request For Proposals (RFPs) to green building consultants; plan and send out city-wide notices to notify community of a kick-off Green Building Expo; Prepare initial outreach materials and set up website for the Green Building Ordinance process and Green Building Expo; Define and include alternative concepts for presentation in outreach materials and on the website February/March 2010 -Selection of Consultant (depending on the final scope and budget) ' End of March/April 2010 -Conduct the Green Building Expo April/May 2010 . -- Appointment of members to the targeted residential and commercial focus groups May/June 2010 -Conduct initial focus group stakeholders meetings June 2010 -Planning Commission meeting -Overview of LEED and BIG requirements, Phase II recommendations and how it fits into the City's development review process June/july 2010 -Conduct follow-up focus group stakeholders meetings to review Planning Commission comments; Review of alternative concepts with pros and cons and possible incentives July/August 2010 -Preparation of a Draft Green Building Ordinance August/September 2010 -Planning Commission public hearing to review Draft Green Building Ordinance September/October2010 -City Council public hearing on Draft Green Building Ordinance See attached Green Building Ordinance Draft Flow Diagram in Attachment B 22-s 5} Funding: Funding will depend on the final scope of work, which could potentially include the following components: a) Consultant -The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation of hiring a consultant/firm with experience in preparing green building ordinances. A consultant would have the expertise to conduct educational workshops, facilitate outreach meetings analyze alternatives and help create an ordinance customized to the need:; of the City. Staff estimates the cost of the consultant to be about $45,000-$50,1)00. The Planning Commission did not recommend the lower cost project with a more limited process scope which would review Phase II recommendations by the Green Building Collaborative and limited consultant help for facilitation of two meetings for about $10,000. b) Public mailings and outreach and workshop materials -Staff estimates a cost of about $10,000-15,000. Based on the scope, staff estimates thE~ cost of the project between $55,000-65,000. A Lower cost project without a green b~xilding consultant could cost about $25,000. The Planning Commission supports tl-~e staff recommendation to hire a consultant with technical expertise in preparin;~ a green building ordinance, as well as expertise in conductiztg educational workshops and facilitating outreach meetings. 22-7 Green Building Ordinance DRAFT Flow Diagram N N ~~, t 4~`~ ` ~; ~~;~~. FINAL ,. r- ~~;. a DRAFT 3 e~ EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Kimberly Smith From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford@MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 201 O 7:10 AAA To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager':> Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council Subject: January 19th Agenda Item 22 Mandatory Green Building Standards Attachments: CBC Green Bld Code eff Jan 2011.i~df I neglected to add the CBC Green Bld Code description attached as a pdf. From: Myron Crawford Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:59 AM To: 'cityclerk@cupertino.org'; 'manager@cupertino.org'; 'planning@cupertino.org'; 'building@cupertino.org'; 'citycouncil@cuperti no.org' Subject: January 19th Agenda Item 22 Mandatory Green Building Standards BERG c4c BERG DE L'ELOPERS, INC. 10050 Surd!<y Orive C'rrpertis:o, C',q 9 50 7 4-2 188 P/r (408) 72.5-0700 I'nx (408) 725-Ifi26 aura wford(u'mirs Tarn well. c•om 1/16/10 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408-777-3308 3251 Fax 408-777-3333 citvclerkG~cuoertino.or~; manaaerCa'cuoertino.ora; planning ~cupertino.org; buildinQC~cupertino.or$; citycouncilG~cupertino.org Dear Mayor 8c Council Members, Reference: January 19Th Agenda Item 22 Mandatory Green Building Standards Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Mandatory Green Building Standards We do not need another layer of cost added to construction by the City of Cupertino who has neither the staff or knowledge base to set building standards. The State of California and ICC have already developed a new green building code. If the City Coun~eil wants to show its interest in green building, endorse the new California Building Code, don't add nnore staff and bureaucracy to the already bloated City Staff. We don't need another layer of fees and corisultants. We are opposed to mandatory green building standards proposed by the City of Cupertino for the following reasons: 1) California has adopted a new green building code that will apply to all new construction--the first code of its land in the country. The code will be voluntary at first, and will become mandatory within a few years. That being said there is no reason; other than political grandstanding, for the City of Cupertino to require mandatory standards. 2) Adherence to the California Green Building Standards Code; which takes effect in 180 days, will be voluntary until 2010, when its provisions are expected to become mandatory. The voluntary period gives builders, local governments and communities' time to adapt to the new rules. Time to adapt is critical, American building codes have been in the past developed by industry leaders with thorough engineering and building or fabrication experience, not by political agencies. The American codes have been modeled, followed and adopted by industry around the world because the codes were relatively free of political influence. Unfortunately the California Green Building Standards Code is now subject to political influence but at least they are phasing in the requirements over time so that the code committees can consider problem areas, economic consideration, practicality and produce a beneficial code. 3) The California Green Building Standards Code ;sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills and use of environmentally ,sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. Here we have a professional organization that will provide a code that can be implemented and enforced just the way codes are today, without adding unnecessary administration and operational costs that Cupertino is proposing. 4) The standards cover commercial and residential construction in the public and private sectors as well as schools of all levels, hospitals and other public institutions. The green thresholds include a 50 percent increase in landscape water conservation and a 15 percent reduction in energy use compared to current standards. All the measures if acted upon would at least be comparable to the requirements of a "silver rating" under the I[.eadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), commission. With these requirements why does Cupertino need to impose a mandatory program and the answer is they don't. If the City of Cupertino wants to impose mandatory standards on municipal buildings that's their business, if they want to impose additional unnecessary cost burdens on their citizens that's their business. If you want to impose mandatory standards on private industry, that's our business and we object. 5) The decision to build green should be up to the I~roperty owners, developers and tenants. It is an economic decision in which consumers and suppliers achieve balance by each party making decisions based on their interest. The Russians used to stand in line hours or days for a pound of meat or a loaf of bread because the government made all the decisions and the market system was not allowed to work. Government factories turned out consumer and industrial products that no one wanted and in numbers that were either below or above demand, while Caterpiller and other similar manufacturers successfully grew by producing what met industries needs and demands. Code development is not the business of local political councils it is the business of code professionals and industry. 6) The price of energy will automatically drive ma~iufacturers and builders and consumers the proper balance point. 7) One of our architectural consultants recanted their experience on a Silver Leeds project: a. Leeds consultant fees equaled or exceeded the architectural fees b. Material costs were 5 to 10% higher c. Field costs were up 15% due to the material compliance and documentation costs. 8) Another architect said "Much of what we already build with is in compliance with the Leeds standards so it is not beneficial to have a mandatory City program. a. Many of the materials we already use are in the point system. e.g. Concrete mix with 20% or more recycled crushed concrete for aggregate or usin~~ fly ash in the concrete. As I understand it -this is easily done by asking the concrete co. to mix with some recycled content. Ditto paving materials. b. Other examples are engineered wood joists - e.g. TrusJoist &c PSL's c. Steel studs -most of which are made from recycled automobile steel. d. Energy star rated equipment e. Many points appear to be given to materials and systems which we already use to balance/achieve first costs and reductions in cost of long term maintenance. 9) Steel is one of the most recycled materials and yct Leeds requires certificates that metals suppliers provide materials with recycled content. Some miom and pop operations will not want to provide documentation and as a result you may have to travel and ship further distances just to obtain the same material with documentation thus wasting energy to quench the thirst of a paper hungry bureaucrat. Leeds promotes buying locally. Given that buildings are still predominately constructed with domestic materials when you buy a product that is cheaper it is usually the result of a particular manufacturer running a more competitive business in all respect, management, logistics and energy that make their product moire economical. The process is an economic survival of the fittest and it all happens automatiically until it is interfered with and interrupted by programs such as the City of Cupertino is about to embark on. 10) The Planning Department tries to sell the mand~itory program by saying that "well you are already doing some of these things so you just document it". If that's the case then why do you need to document it in the first place, it's a waste of time and money and an unnecessary burden to industry and the ultimate consumer that has to pay for it. Please leave code development and building requireme~its in the hands of professionals and concentrate on what Cities should do and that is provide for municipal service, infrastructure, police protection and land planning. Thank you, Myron Crawford ' : .~..~~ 2010 California Green Building '.standards Code: Nation's First Mandatos-y Statewide Standards Code to Gs-een Consts-uction and Fight Climate Change Continuing to lead the way in the fight against climate change and protecting the environment, California adopted mandatory building regulations for all new construction in the state that will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use. The CALGREEN Code is the nation's first statewide green building standards code and will take effect January 1, 2011. In 2007, Governor SchwarZenegger directed the CaliforniG~ Building Standards Commission to work with specified state agencies on the adoption of green building ~~tandards for residential, commercial, and public building construction for the 2010 code adoption process. The 2010 Green Building Standards Code will require: - 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use., with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35 and 40 percent reductions; - Separate water meters for nonresidential buildings' indoor and outdoor water use, with a requirement for moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects; - Requiring diversion of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 75 percent for new homes and 80 percent for commercial projects; - Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies; - Requiring low-pollutant emitting interior finish mat=erials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring and particle board. The CALGREEN Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, hospital and school buildings, ensuring that evec•y new building in California is built using environmentally advanced construction practices. California's property owners can simply build according to the state's CALGREEN Code, at no cost for certification. Having a mandatory code will allow California's buildt~rs to build to a certifiable green standard without having to pay costly fees for third-party programs. In addition to the mandatory regulations the CALGREEN Code also includes more stringent additional provisions that will help every builder, owner or local government to go even further. While the mandatory regulations will now be the law, local communities can take additional action to green their buildings that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and conserve our natural resources. The CALGREEN Code will be incorporated into the lo~zg-standing, established infrastructure to enforce its health, safety, fire, energy, and structural building coders, making verification of the green code for local building inspectors a simple transition. Like Californi~i's existing building code provisions that regulate construction projects throughout the state, the mandatory CALGREEN code provisions will be inspected and verified by local and state building departments. Differences Between the California Green Building Standards Code and Point-Based Systems The CALGREEN Code is a moniker to distinguish the California Green Building Standards Code from California's many other Building Codes. Unlike point-based certification systems that can be purchased, the CALGREEN Code mandates required field inspections using a public, transparent infrastructure that is stringent, successful, and cost-effective. The California Building Standards Commission is providing the industry a comprehensive blueprint on how to significant)}~ reduce carbon output, maximize resources, and save property owners thousands of dollars in green certification fees. Issues California Green Building Point-Based Systems Standards Code Development process/Transparency Public, regulatory; tl-ie state code Guidelines have been developed by regulations have been developed private entities through with with a high degree oi° transparency membership driven commentary. and included California building Does not have ANSI consensus industry and environmental group process approval. in ut Participation in development Open public process that included Private committee members government officials, building industry, environmental leaders and the ublic. Collaboration State agencies; local governments: Private committee members cities, counties ands ecial districts Enforcement/Verification of Field inspections required and will Field inspections not required; Compliance be enforced by government paper audit used to award points. agencies to ensure that construction bein com leted to code. Post construction certification Certificate of occupancy; no Yes: required and cost of certification~l~ additional costs • LEED certification costs: as much as $30,000 to $50,000. Local adoption Mandatory, uniform statewide Regulated by private entities, local code, local jurisdictions may adoption varies widely amend by law for specified reasons Membership required No Yes Units of Measure Standards-the code contains Points-based guidelines on re ulations for buildin reen raduated im lementation of reen practices Authority Statutory Non-government, private organizations provide guidelines for fees Rationale To promote local jurisdictions' To promote green construction adoptions of the cods: to assist the practices and local adoption state in meeting its greenhouse gas through the purchase of a points- reduction goals; Ovate:r and energy based guidelines system conservation and rel~ited resource efficiencies. Codes/programs needed for One code for all occupancy types - Various point-rated systems; there housing, commercial, schools, residential, commercials, hospitals, is a different set of guidelines for hospitals schools each occupancy covered Additional books necessary for None Multiple and costs for each varies compliance Integrated with other California Yes No building codes and regulations Format of Instructional Materials The code language a~~d format Guideline language that may follow existing state building code; require builders and businesses to industry and local jw-isdictions purchase further LEED familiar with this existing consultation and materials during infrastructure construction [1] Timothy M. Smith, et al., "Green Building Rating Systems: A Comparison of the LEED and Green Globes Systems in the U.S.," September 2006 G~.-~l-t9-1G it ~ ~ Kimberly Smith From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford@MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, January 16, 201 O 7:10 <~M To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's OfFce; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council Subject: January 19th Agenda Item 22 Mandatory Green Building Standards Attachments: CBC Green Bld Code eff Jan 2011.pdf 1 neglected to add the CBC Green Bid Code description attached as a pdf. From: Myron Crawford Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 6:59 AM To: 'cityclerk@cupertino.org'; 'manager@cupertino.org'; 'planr~ing@cupertino.org'; 'building@cupertino.org'; 'citycouncil@cuperti no.org' Subject: January 19th Agenda Item 22 Mandatory Green Buil<~ing Standards BERG &c BERG .DE VELOPERS. INC. 70050 Bazzdley Drive Cupertino, C A 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725-0700 Pitx (4(/8) 725-1126 mcra wford~ :mis rionwert. com 1/16/1 O City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408-777-3308 3251 Fax 408-777-3333 cityclerkC~cuoertino.orQ; manaaer~cuoertino.oru; plannin~;G~cupertino.org; buildinaG~cuoertino.orQ; citycouncil@cupertino.org Dear Mayor &c Council Members, Reference: January 19th Agenda Item 22 Mandatory Green Building Standards Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Mandatory Green Building Standards We do not need another layer of cost added to construction by the City of Cupertino who has neither the staff or knowledge base to set building standards_ The State of California and ICC have already developed a new green building code. If the City Council wants to show its interest in green building, endorse the new California Building Code, don't add znore staff and bureaucracy to the already bloated City Staff. We don't need another layer of fees and co~isultants. We are opposed to mandatory green building standards proposed by the City of Cupertino for the following reasons: 1) California has adopted a new green building code that will apply to all new construction--the first code of its kind in the country. The code will be voluntary at first, and will become mandatory within a few years. That being said there is no reason; other than political grandstanding, for the City of Cupertino to require mandatory standards. 2) Adherence to the California Green Building Standards Code; which takes effect in 180 days, will be voluntary until 2010, when its provisions are expected to become mandatory. The voluntary period gives builders, local governments and communities' time to adapt to the new rules_ Time to adapt is critical, American building codes have been in the past developed by industry leaders with thorough engineering and building or fabrication experience, not by political agencies. The American codes have been modeled, followed and adopted by industry around the world because the codes were relatively free of political influence. Unfortunately the California Green Building Standards Code is now subject to political influence but at least they are phasing in the requirements over time so that the code committees can consider problem areas, economic consideration, practicality and produce a beneficial code. 3) The California Green Building Standards Code sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. Here we have a professional organization that will provide a code that can be implemented and enforced just the way codes are today, without adding unnecessary administration and operational costs that Cupertino is proposing. 4) The standards cover commercial and residential construction in the public and private sectors as well as schools of all levels, hospitals and other public institutions. The green thresholds include a 50 percent increase in landscape water conservation and a 15 percent reduction in energy use compared to current standards. All the measures if acted upon would at least be comparable to the requirements of a "silver rating" under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), commission. With these requirements why does Cupertino need to impose a mandatory program and the answer is they don't. If the City of Cupertino wants to impose mandatory standards on municipal buildings that's their business, if they want to impose additional unnecessary cost burdens on their citizens that's their business. If you want to impose mandatory standards on private industry, that's our business and we object. 5) The decision to build green should be up to the property owners, developers and tenants. It is an economic decision in which consumers and suppliers achieve balance by each party making decisions based on their interest. The Russians used to stand in line hours or days for a pound of meat or a loaf of bread because the government made all the decisions and the market system was not allowed to work. Government factories turned out consumer and industrial products that no one wanted and in numbers that were either below or above demand, while Caterpiller and other similar manufacturers successfully grew by producing what met industries needs and demands. Code development is not the business of local political councils it is the business of code professionals and industry. 6) The price of energy will automatically drive manufacturers and builders and consumers the proper balance point. 7) One of our architectural consultants recanted their experience on a Silver Leeds project: a_ Leeds consultant fees equaled or exceeded the architectural fees b. Material costs were 5 to 10% higher c. Field costs were up 15% due to the material compliance and documentation costs. 8) Another architect said "Much of what we already build with is in compliance with the Leeds standards so it is not beneficial to have a mandatory City program. a. Many of the materials we already use are in the point system. e.g. Concrete mix with 20% or more recycled crushed concrete for aggregate or using fly ash in the concrete. As I understand it -this is easily done by asking the concrete co. to mix with some recycled content. Ditto paving materials. b. Other examples are engineered wood joists - e.g; TrusJoist 8c PSL's c. Steel studs -most of which are made from recycled automobile steel. d. Energy star rated equipment e. Many points appear to be given to materials and systems which we already use to balance/achieve first costs and reductions in cost of long term maintenance. 9) Steel is one of the most recycled materials and ~~et Leeds requires certificates that metals suppliers provide materials with recycled content. Some nom and pop operations will not want to provide documentation and as a result you may have to travel and ship further distances just to obtain the same material with documentation thus wastinl; energy to quench the thirst of a paper hungry bureaucrat. Leeds promotes buying locally. Gi~~en that buildings are still predominately constructed with domestic materials when you lbuy a product that is cheaper it is usually the result of a particular manufacturer running a more c~~mpetitive business in all respect, management, logistics and energy that make their product mere economical. The process is an economic survival of the fittest and it all happens automatically until it is interfered with and interrupted by programs such as the City of Cupertino is about to embark on. 10) The Planning Department tries to sell the mandatory program by saying that "well you are already doing some of these things so you just dlocument it". If that's the case then why do you need to document it in the first place, it's a waste of time and money and an unnecessary burden to industry and the ultimate consumer that has to pay for it. Please leave code development and building requirements in the hands of professionals and concentrate on what Cities should do and that is provide for municipal service, infrastructure, police protection and land planning. Thank you, Myron Crawford 2010 California Green Building Standards Code: Nation's First Mandatory Statewide Standards Code to Green Construction and Fight Climate Change Continuing to lead the way in the fight against climate change and protecting the environment, California adopted mandatory building regulations for all new construction in the state that will achieve major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water use. The CALGREEN Code is the nation's first statewide green building standards code and will take effect January I, 20II. In 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger directed the California Building Standards Commission to work with specified state agencies on the adoption of green building standards for residential, commercial, and public building construction for the 2010 code adoption process. The 2010 Green Building Standards Code will require: - 20 percent mandatory reduction in indoor water use, with voluntary goal standards for 30, 35 and 40 percent reductions; - Separate water meters for nonresidential buildings' indoor and outdoor water use, with a requirement for moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects; - Requiring diversion of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, increasing voluntarily to 65 and 75 percent for new homes and 80 percent for commercial projects; - Mandatory inspections of energy systems (i.e. heat furnace, air conditioner, mechanical equipment) for nonresidential buildings over 10,000 square feet to ensure that all are working at their maximum capacity according to their design efficiencies; - Requiring low-pollutant emitting interior finish materials such as paints, carpet, vinyl flooring and particle board. The CALGREEN Code is a comprehensive and uniform regulatory code for all residential, commercial, hospital and school buildings, ensuring that every new building in California is built using environmentally advanced construction practices. California's property owners can simply build according to the state's CALGREEN Code, at no cost for certification. Having a mandatory code will allow California's builders to build to a certifiable green standard without having to pay costly fees for third-party programs. In addition to the mandatory regulations the CALGREEN Code also includes more stringent additional provisions that will help every builder, owner or local government to go even further. While the mandatory regulations will now be the law, local communities can take additional action to green their buildings that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and conserve our natural resources. The CALGREEN Code will be incorporated into the long-standing, established infrastructure to enforce its health, safety, fire, energy, and structural building codes, making verification of the green code for local building inspectors a simple transition. Like California's existing building code provisions that regulate construction projects throughout the state, the mandatory CALGREEN code provisions will be inspected and verified by local and state building departments. Differences Between the California Green Building Standards Code and Point-Based Systems The CALGREEN Code is a moniker to distinguish the California Green Building Standards Code from California's many other Building Codes. Unlike point-based certification systems that can be purchased, the CALGREEN Code mandates required field inspections using a public, transparent infrastructure that is stringent, successful, and cost-effective. The California Building Standards Commission is providing the industry a comprehensive blueprint on how to significantly reduce carbon output, maximize resources, and save property owners thousands of dollars in green certification fees. Issues California Green Building Point-Based Systems Standard: Code Development process/Transparency Public, regulatory; the state code Guidelines have been developed by regulations have been developed private entities through with with a high degree of transpazency membership driven commentazy. and included California building Does not have ANSI consensus industry and enviro~Zmental group process approval. in ut Participation in development Open public proces:~ that included Private committee members government officials, building industry, environmental leaders and the ublic. Collaboration State agencies; local governments: Private committee members cities, counties ands ecial districts Enforcement/Verification of Field inspections required and will Field inspections not required; Compliance be enforced by government paper audit used to awazd points. agencies to ensure that construction bein con leted to code. Post construction certification Certificate of occupancy; no Yes: required and cost of certification~l~ additional costs • LEED certification costs: as much as $30,000 to $50,000. Local adoption Mandatory, uniform statewide Regulated by private entities, local code, local jurisdictions may adoption varies widely amend by law for s~~ecified reasons Membership required No Yes Units of Measure Standards-the code contains Points-based guidelines on re ulations for buildin reen raduated im lementation of reen practices Authority Statutory Non-government, private organizations provide guidelines for fees Rationale Codes/programs needed for housing, commercial, schools, hospitals Additional books necessary for compliance Integrated with other California building codes and regulations Format of Instructional Materials To promote local jurisdictions' adoptions of the code to assist the state in meeting its greenhouse gas reduction goals; water and energy conservation and related resource efficiencies. To promote green construction practices and local adoption through the purchase of a points- based guidelines system One code for all occupancy types - Various point-rated systems; there residential, commercials, hospitals, is a different set of guidelines for schools each occupancy covered None Multiple and costs for each varies Yes The code language and format follow existing state building code; industry and local jurisdictions familiaz with this existing - infrastructure No Guideline language that may require builders and businesses to purchase further LEED consultation and materials during construction [1] Timothy M. Smith, et al., "Green Building Rating Systems: A Compazison of the LEED and Green Globes Systems in the U.S.," September 2006 GG~ t- L 9- lZ~ 1-~-~ z z S-t-~•o -f= 1~1 a-rt~a~t#- Nov. 24, 2009 -Planning Commission recommended a process framework to prepare a Green Building Ordinance: • Policy Objectives/Goals • Green Building Policy Scope • Public Outreach Plan • Timeline and ~~chedule • Funding June 11, 2009 -Santa Clara C~~unty Cities Association's Board of Directors adopted Phase II recommendation for LEED 8~ B]:G development thresholds. Oct. 13, 2009 -Planning Corrimission directed staff to prepare a framework for the green building ordinance process. Nov. 5, 2009 - Planning Commission reviewed the framework 8c requested refinements. 1. Policy Objectives/Goals Needs of stakeholders Cost savings to residents/businesses AB 32 -measurability Incentives Cost/Benefits of alternatives Green Building Policy Scope Evaluate Phase II recommendations Compare w/other cities Consider alternatives based on cost/benefit Identify "lowest hanging fruit" Draft ordinance Consider incentives Create educational materials (guidebooks, pamphlets, etc.) 3. Public Outreach Plan Focus groups Stakeholders -residents, experts, developers, architects, etc. Community Resources/Experts in green building City website, newspaper, tv, radio, Cupertino Scene, Facebook, Twitter, outreach at churches 8c PTA meetings, and weekly school homework packet Outreach meetings, educational workshops, study sessions Public hearings 2 4. Timeline and Schedule Jan 19 Council review of frame=work process scope 8c funding Jan/Feb Send out RFPs for con~:ultant 8e notices for Green Building Expo Feb/Mar Select green building consultant Mar/Apr Green Building Expo Apr/May Focus group formation May/June Focus group initial meetings June Planning Commission rneeting -overview 8c introduction of Phase II recommendations July/Aug Draft Green Building Ordinance prepared Aug/Sept Planning Commission F~ublic hearing Sept/Oct City council public hearing 5. Fundino Total project: $SSK - $65K ($45G< - $SOK for Green Building Consultant to prepare ordinanee~ 8~ conduct outreach meetings, $10K-$15K public mailing 8e outreach materials) Alternative: $25K for limited consultant assistance Planning Commission recommends a green building consultant w/experience to prepare the ordinance and provide public outreach Fiscal Imoact Staff recommends using City's Green Building Certification fund Current balance is $46K Additional $19K needed to fund total project w/full consultant use Staff recommends allocating $1~)K from FY 2009-2010 mid-year budget adjustment 3 G Green Building Ordinance DRAFT Flow Diagram O FINAL ... ~3 DRAFT C Focus Group Planning Commission recommends formation of a task force Staff suggests formation of 2 focus groups -residential 8L commercial Build it Green (BIG) -Residential focus LEED -Commercial/Business focus Different levels of expertise in green building Targeted focus groups -more efficient allocation of time 8c resources Green Building Exoo Kick-off/garner community interest in green building Introduce concept of green building Provide educational information Sc green building resources through guest speakers/booths Aid in finding interested members for focus groups 4 Alternative Process 8~ Cost ^ Limited process for about $25,000, including the city-wide mailing notice ^ Review of Phase II recommendations as basis for ordinance Limited outreach w/ two focus. group meetings & two public hearings m ^ Consultant limited to facilitate two focus group meetings ^ No Kick-Off Green Building ExF~o Limited process would take about _ ~` 5months (completion by August) CVPE RTiNO ~ That the City Council adopt the Green Building Ordinance framework process and budget as proposed by the Planning Commission with staff's recommf~ndations for: ^ Kick-off Green Building Expo ^ Two focus groups, in lieu of a task force ^ Use of the Green Building Certiification fund and additional budget allocation to fund the process