.01 Green Building Ordinance scope and processCITY OF
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
C O P E RT I N O (408) 777-3251
FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
CONSENT
Agenda Item No. ~ Agenda Date: November 24, 2009
SUBJECT
Recommendation on the Green Building Ordinance scope and process.
BACKGROUND
On November 5, 2009, the Planning Commission discussed the outline of the draft
process for the Green Building Ordinance, and requested staff to bring back the revised
outline as a consent item for their approval. The following is the revised process based
on the Commission's recommendations:
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, operation 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 green building.
e) Provide and analyze the costs 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 for each alternative.
d) Identify which green building measures/ordinance alternatives are the
"low-hanging fruit" that can provide the greatest gain from investment.
1-1
Green Building Scope November 24, 2009
e) Draft a green building ordinance.
f) Consider incentives and related funding 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 include the following components:
a) Task Force -Structured to include stakeholders and corrununity experts.
Staff recommends 9 -13 members to make it manageable.
b) Stakeholders -residents, experts, developers, architects, designers, engineers,
Chamber of Commerce, etc. (see Attaclunent 1 for a current list)
c) Community resources -experts and organizations in the green building field,
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 for t11e 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 Plaruzing Commission
g) Public hearing/workshop to review draft ordinance
h) Public hearings at the Planning Commission and Council
4) Timeline and Schedule:
• November/ December 2009 -Planning Commission finalizes Scope of Work
• December 2009 -Council review of Proposed Scope and authorization for
funding
• January/February 2010 -Selection of Consultant (depending on the final
scope and budget)
• March/ Apri12010 -Prepare outreach material, website and conduct meetings
with stakeholders; Define alternative concepts for presentation in outreach
material, website and at meetings
t
• May 2010 - Conduct an Educational Workshop with t11e Planning
Commission and stakeholders -the presentation will consist of an overview
of concepts in green building and programs in other cities
• May 2010 -Planning Commission meeting -Overview of LEED and BIG
2
1-2
Green Building Scope November 24, 2009
requirements, Phase II recommendations and how it fits into the City's
development review process
• June 2010 -Review of alternative concepts with pros and cons and possible
incentives
• July 2010 -Planning Commission reviews Draft Green Building Ordinance
and additional Community workshop if necessary
• August 2010 -Planning Commission public hearing on Draft Green Building
Ordinance
• September 2010 -City Council public hearing on Draft Green Building
Ordinance
See attached Green Building Ordinance Draft Flow Diagram (see Attachrrient 3)
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 aconsultant/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 needs of the City. Staff estimates the cost of
the consultant to be about $45,000-$50,000.
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 building consultant could cost about
$25,000.
The Planning Commission supports the staff recommendation to hire a
consultant with technical expertise in preparing a green building ordinance, as
well as expertise in conducting educational workshops and facilitating outreach
meetings. -
Regulatory Context
The Plaruzing Commission directed staff to provide the following:
• Include a description of AB 1103 (energy benchmarking and energy disclosure
requirements for non-residential buildings)
• Have staff research if there is a residential counterpart to AB 1103
3
1-3
Green Building Scope November 24, 2009
AB 1103
In November of 2007, California passed Assembly Bill 1103, mandating energy
benchmarking and energy disclosure for non-residential buildings. It requires non-
residential business owners to input energy consumption and other building data into
the Environmental Protection Agency's ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager system,
which generates an energy efficiency rating for the building. Ratings are from 1 to
100, with 100 being the most energy efficient. If a building reaches a score of 75 or
higher, owners can apply for an ENERGY STAR plaque. Any building applying for
the ENERGY STAR label must have their data certified by a licensed professional
engineer.
AB 1103 mandated disclosure of a building's energy data and rating of the previous
year to prospective buyers and lessees of the entire building or lenders financing the
entire building. The original disclosure date was January 1, 2010, but due to various
issues concerning the feasibility of that date the legislature passed AB 531 in October
2009, deleting the January 2010 deadline. The new Uill delegates the task of devising a
disclosure schedule to the California Energy Commission (CEC). At the moment, the
CEC is in the process of drafting a new compliance schedule.
Residential component to AB1103
Currently, there is not an equivalent Assembly Bill in the works that applies to
residential buildings or projects.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Green Building Scope and Process incorporating the Commission's changes
from the November 5, 2009 meeting.
Prepared by: Aki Honda Snelling, Senior Plaiuzer, AICP
Submitted by:
~, ~~~~
G ry ao Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner Director of Community Development
Attachments
Attachment 1: Stakeholder and Resource Lists
Attaclunent 2: Revised Community Outreach Methods
Attachment 3: Green Building Ordinance Draft Flow Diagram
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Report of November 5, 2009 w/attachments
Attachment 5: Summary of the Planning Commission recommendations
4
1-4
Attachment 1
Public Outreach Plan
Task Force
a) Consisting of stakeholders & community experts
b) Limited to 9-13 persons
Stakeholder List
A list of potential stakeholders is outlined as follows:
a) Residential Stakeholders (all home owners including those that have built green homes,
developers and local architects/engineers)
b) Commercial Stakeholders (all building owners including those that have constructed green
buildings, developers and local architects/ engineers)
c) City-sponsored Programs Participants (Neighborhood Block Leaders, Community
Emergency Response Team, Neighborhood Watch)
d) Various Home Owner Associations
e) Chamber of Commerce -Legislative Action Committee
~ School Districts (Cupertino Union School District/Fremont Union High School District)
g) De Anza College -Kirsch Center for Environmental Studies
Resource List
a) Adjacent Community Green Building Representatives (having recently
completed green building policies)
i. San Jose
ii. Sunnyvale
iii. Morgan Hill
b) Green Building Organizations
i. US Green Building Council (USGBC)
ii. Build It Green (BIG)
iii. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
iv. Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) -Bay Area Climate Collaborative
v. Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV) -Sustainable Buildings Working Group
vi. Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) -Green Building Collaborative USE AS
RESOURCES
c) Environmental Organizations
i. Sierra Club Cool Cities
ii. Audubon Society
iii. Acterra
iv. Committee for Green Foothills
1-5
Attachment 2
Community Outreach Methods
Public outreach and noticing shall include the following:
a) Mail
b) Outreach to Chamber of Commerce, Legislative Action Conunittee and
other larger corporations/developers
c) Newsletters
i. School district
ii. Chamber of Commerce
iii. USGBC Northern California/Monterey Bay Chapter
d) Ads in the Courier, the Scene, local newspapers, City AM radio station, City
TV station
e) Informational materials (brochure) and web page with options for
interested parties to sign-up for electronic notifications (E-lists)
~ Flyers/posters for educational workshops and focus group sessions at city
facilities, library, local businesses
g) Outreach through facebook, twitter, churches, PTA meetings, and weekly
school homework packets
Convene Educational Workshops and Focus Group Sessions
a) Host Educational/Focus Group Sessions welcoming all stakeholders to:
i. Review the Phase II proposal and comparison study on what other
Cities are doing
ii. Gather and provide comments
1-6
Attachment 4
CITY OF
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
(408) 777-3251
C U P S RT I N O FAX (408) 777-3333
Community Development Department
SUMMARY
Agenda Item No. 2
SUBJECT
Review Green Building Ordinance process framework.
RECOMMENDATION
Agenda Date: November 5, 2009
Recorrunend a scope and process for the development of the Green Building
Ordinance.
BACKGROUND
On October 13, 2009, the Planning Commission discussed the Green Building
Ordinance process and directed staff to bring back a refined process framework for
review and consideration.
The main components discussed by the Planning Corrunission were:
1. Establishing Policy Objectives/Goals
2. Providing Regulatory Background Information
3. Establishing Policy Scope
4. Defining Public Outreach Plan
5. Outlining Process Schedule
This report provides information and recommendations relating to the Green
Building Ordinance review process based on discussions of the Planning
Commission.
Phase II Background
Since 2007, the City of Cupertino has been an active participant u1 the countywide
Green Building Collaborative (GBC), formed and operated under the direction of
the Santa Clara County Cities Association. In partnership with the Silicon Valley
Leadership Group (SVLG), the goal of the GBC was to help meet climate change
goals, set by the State of CA, by:
• Developing green buildung policies that are easy to navigate are consistent
1-8
across jurisdictions in the County and
• Assist the public and private sector to adopt green building practices
quickly.
The Phase II policy recommendations (shov~Tn in the table below), were adopted by
the Santa Clara County Cities Association's Board of Directors in June 2009. These
were designed by the GBC to integrate permit valuation, square feet and floor area
ratio as thresholds within Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) or Build It Green (BIG) rating systems. The GBC is no~v encouraging each
city to adopt these green buildu1g policy recommendations to achieve regional
consistency.
GBC Plzase II Recomme~idation
New Residential Construction
Single-family, multifamily < 9 homes GPR Rated or LEED Certified
Multifamily >_ 9 homes GRP Rated or LEED Silver
Residential Remodels
Single-family $100,000 permit valuation, BIG's Elements Checklist or LEED
or <500 sq.ft. addition or FAR increase Checklist
<50%.
Single-family ~v/ $100,000-200,000 BIG's Elements 25-49 or LEED Certified
permit valuation, or 500-1,000 sq.ft.
addition
Single-family w/ $200,000+ permit GPR Rated or LEED Certified
valuation, or 1,000+ addition, or FAR
increase of 50%
Small multi-famil ro'ects (TBD) A licable GPR or LEED Checklist
Large multi-family projects (TBD) Applicable GPR 50 or Applicable LEED
certified
Nonresidential, New Construction
Small, < 5,000 s .ft. LEED checklist
Mid-size, 5,000-25,000 s .ft. LEED certified
Lar e, >25,000 s .ft. LEED silver
Nonresidential, Remodel /Tenant Improvements
Small ro'ect LEED Checklist
Large w/o HVAC: 2 of four systems are LEED Certified w/o prerequisites
touched + >10,000 sq.ft. + >$1 million
ermit evaluation
Large w/ HVAC: 2 of four systems are LEED Certified
touched, one being HVAC + >10,000
s .ft. + >$1 million ermit evaluation
1-9
The Council work program for FY 2009-10 includes reviewing the Phase II
recommendations of the GBC to create a green building ordinance for Cupertino
including possible incentives for building green.
DISCUSSION
1) Policy Objectives/Goals:
a) Provide the community and the Council with a green building policy that
meets the needs of all stakeholders.
b) Enhance public health and welfare of the City through the design,
construction, maintenance, operation and deconstruction of buildings
and/or other site development.
c) Demonstrate the City's commitment to enviroiunental, economic, and social
stewardship, yield cost savings to the city taxpayers through reduced
operating costs and provide healthy work and living environments for its
residents, workers and visitors.
d) Implement a green building ordinance to achieve increased energy
efficiency, water and resource conservation and reduced waste generation.
2) Regulatory Context:
Please refer to Attachment 1 for an overview of the Green Building concept,
short excerpts on the various State green assembly bills and a synopsis of green
building efforts in neighboring communities.
3) 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 coirununity needs and 'input
including acost/benefit analysis for each alternative
d) Draft a green building ordinance
e) Consider incentives and related funding needs
f) Create guidebooks and other educational material for the public regarding
the new ordinance
4) Public Oufreach 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 include the following components:
a) Identify list of stakeholders -residents, experts, developers, architects,
designers, engineers, Chamber of Commerce, etc. (see Attachment 2 for a
1-10
complete list)
b) Identify community resources -experts and organizations in the green
building field, City staff involved with the development review process,
staff from adjacent cities involved with green building ordinances,
environmental groups, school districts, etc. (See Attachment 2 for a
complete list)
c) Methods of public outreach will include an initial mailer with the
opportunity to sign up on an email notification list for the City ~vebsite
updates, newspaper notices, television and radio advertisements, flyers and
notices in the Cupertino Scene (see Attachment 3 for a list of public outreach
methods)
d) Outreach meetings with stakeholders to gather input
e) Educational workshops/study sessions with the Planning Commission
f) Public hearing/~nTorkshop to review draft ordinance
g) Public hearings at the Planning Commission and Council
5) Timeline and Schedule:
• November/December 2009 -Planning Commission finalizes Scope of Work
• January 2010 -Council review of Proposed Scope and authorization for
funding
• February 2010 -Selection of Consultant (depending on the filial scope)
• March/April 2010 - Prepare outreach material, ~vebsite and conduct
meetings with stakeholders
• May 2010 - Conduct an Educational Workshop with the Planning
Commission and stakeholders -the presentation will consist of an overview
of concepts in green building and programs in other cities
• May 2010 -Planning Commission meeting -Overview of LEED and BIG
requirements, Phase II recommendations and ho~v it fits into the City's
development review process
• June 2010 -Review of alternative concepts with pros and cons and possible
incentives
• July 2010 -Planning Commission reviews Draft Green Building Ordinance
and additional Community workshop if necessary
• August 2010 -Planning Commission public hearing on Draft Green
Building Ordinance
• September 2010 -City Council public hearing on Draft Green Building
Ordinance
See attached Green Building Ordinance Draft Flow Diagram (see Attachment
4).
6) Fundin~•
Funding will depend on the fu1a1 scope of work, which could potentially
include the following components:
a) Consultant -Staff recommends hiring aconsultant/firm with experience uz
1-11
preparing green building ordinances. A consultant would have the
expertise to conduct educational jvorkshops, facilitate outreach meetings
analyze alternatives and help create an ordinance customized to the needs
of the City. Staff estimates the cost of the consultant to be about $45,000-
$50,000. Alternatively, a lower cost project could have a snore limited
process scope related to the educational workshop and discussion on
alternatives and their costs and benefits. This would include limited
consultant help for facilitation for about $10,000.
b) Public mailuigs 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 building consultant could cost about $25,000.
Prepared by: Gary Chao
Submitted by:
Gar~Chao
City P1aruler
/~
~ ~^~
1 ~
~'
~'~ ~~'~%/J ,
Aarti Shrivastava
Director of Commu~uty Development
Attaclunents
Attachment 1: Regulatory Background & Context
Attachment 2: Stakeholder and Resource list
Attachment 3: Outreach methods
Attachment 4: Green Building Ordinance DRAFT Flow Diagram
1-12
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground
CUPERTINO GREEN
I. Background
Attachment 1
A. what is Green Building?
Green building is the practice of creating structures and using processes that are
environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a building's life-cycle
from site to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation and
deconstruction. Tl1is practice expands and complements the classical building design
concerns of economy, utility, durability, and comfort. Green building is also known as a
sustainable or high performance building.
B. why Green Building?
In California's residential sector there are currently over 13 million homes and
apartments and .approximately 9 million of these homes were built prior to the
implementation of the first set of energy efficiency standards (see section D below). This
means that three quarters of homes in the state have never had to comply with any
energy efficiency requirements.
Buildings in the United States account for a greater amount of heat trapping greenhouse
gas emissions than transportation, manufacturing or any other sector. T11 fact 70% of all
electricity consumption and 40% of all greenhouse gas enssions nationally can be
directly attributed to our nation`s buildings. Furthermore, buildings account for
one-sixth of the world's fresh water withdrawals, one-quarter of its wood harvest, and
two-fifths of its material and energy flows.l
Retrofitting and weatherizing an existing building can significantly lower utility
consumption and costs for residents. Lower energy consumption reduces associated
greei~llouse gas emissions and lessens stress on the power grid, reducing the
vulnerability to the rolling blackouts Californians experienced in 2000.
According to the California Energy Commission's (CEC) 2005 report "Energy Efficiency
in Existing Buildings" CEC projected that electricity can be reduced 9% and natural gas
6% through cost effective measures which translates to $4.5 billion dollars in consumer
savings. Implementing the CEC's recommended cost effective measures is the
equivalent of removilzg over 3 million cars from the road for one yeai•.2
Retrofitting and building "green" provides an opportunity to use increasingly finite
resources more efficiently while creating healthier buildings that improve human health,
build a better enviroiunent, and provide cost savings. Green buildings may cost more
up front, an average premium is slightly less than 2% or $3-5/ft2, but will save the
property owner a11d/or tenant by lowering operating costs over the life of the building.3
1 Accessed on 1012?/09 at~ ~~tu~f:'t~-~~-j~~.ci~~-m~~.ca.~c~1~, G~•C`C~~ilClin_-~a~if~~.r1t~~R.:~~~d~an
Accessed on I01211Q9 at~ l~~t.r~: ;~-c~~~: ;u;iG'.n.^''n~l~L~u.`~rC'".i.~.t is 1 ~11:' .c=~,~~ r_~~t;~..d~;~~}G~-,i~.~1~;c-.~.
3 Accessed on 10122109 at~ ~~i~~ ~~~~~'«~.~~a~:~'~.~:L,~ cS'~~~~~,IT~I"~~ ~i~~'~,-~?~F~~-:`1.~~~i
1
1-13
~~ f~-
~~i.
1 I '
(~ [ ~ ~ ~
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009 ~ ~`
Green Building Polio Regulator Back Ground ~
b Y ~ Y ~_____!
CUPERTINO GREEN
On average, green buildings use 30% less energy than
conventional buildings - a reduction, fora 100,000 ft2office building, worth $60,000 per
year, with a 20-year present value of expected energy savings a 5% real discount rate
worth about three quarters of a million dollars. ~
A green building is designed as an integrated system through an approach that applies
a project life cycle cost analysis for determining the appropriate up-front
expenditure. This analytical method calculates costs over the useful life of the asset.
Other benefits of green buildings, not so easy to quantify, include improved occupant
health, comfort, productivity and the reduction of pollution and landfill waste over the
life of the facility or home.
C. Regulatory Requirements
The design, construction and renovation of green building will provide a means for
communities to achieve the following burgeoning regulatory requirements:
1. .-~13;
In 2006, the Legislature passed and Governor Schwarzenegger si~7ned .fi ~?, the
Global UVarming Solutions Act of 2006, which set the 2020 greenhouse gas emissions
reduction goal into law. It directed the California Air Resources Board (_-~RB er
Beard) to begin developing discrete earl~~ acti~~n_~ to reduce greenhouse gases while
also preparing a ~c~~pllzc elan to identify how best to reach the 2020 limit. The
r~duct~c~1~~ rlracure~~ to meet the 2020 target are to be adopted by the start of
2011.VIIithin this legislation, green buildings and homes will play a significant and
important role to achieve these established greei~llouse gas emissions' benchmarks.
2. AB ;~ ~8
Signed into law on October 12~~ 2009 AB 758 requires the California Energy
Commission (CEC) to develop an energy efficiency program for existing residential
and commercial buildings. AB 758 requires the California Energy Conunission to
establish a regulatory proceeding, by March 1, 2010, to develop a comprehensive
program to achieve energy savings in the existing residential and commercial
building stock that falls significantly below current buildlllg standards. For the first
time the CEC will be given the authority to implement such a program.
The bill would also require the California Public Utilities Commission (PUG), by
January 1, 2011, to authorize each electrical corporation to provide a targeted number
of low- or no-cost energy efficiency audits each calendar year.
3. AB X11
AB 811 authorizes alI cities and counties in California to designate areas within
which willing property owners could enter into contractual assessments to finance
~ Accessed on 10h2/~9 at~ ~--~ ;_.-;-,-~,~.c~~~-:.c~m ~~,r ~~~„ .,°~- ::.~r~,'Ci~9F~~~1 ~~~`
1-14
~~
1
~~
~ ~ ~ I
Planning Commission -November 5 2009
b ~'~ i
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground ~~
C~lPERTINO GREEN
the installation of distributed renewable generation, as well as
energy of ficiency improvements, that are permanently fixed to the property owner's
residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property. These financing
arrangements allow property owners to finall~e renewable generation and energy
efficiency improvements through low-interest loans that would be repaid as an item
on the property owner's property tax bill. This bill provides a means to help
overcome financial barriers to achieving green building goals illcludllZg the
installation of energy efficiency a11d renewable energy improvements to homes and
businesses in California by making it easier for homeowners and businesses to
finance these types of improvements.
However, the eligibility criteria to participate in existing, and likely future,
city/county program is evolving to require property owners to first conduct an
energy and water audit, likely using a HERS Rater paid for by acity/grant funding.
Furthermore, the allocation of funds will follow the utility's loading order of
"efficiency first," emphasizing the importance of green building/resource
conservation actions to enable property owners ~ti~ho would like to use the funding
to implement a renewable energy project.
-i. _zB 1~~1-Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance AB1881 was approved by the Office of
Administrative Law on September 10, 2009. This ordinance updates those model
water efficient landscape ordinances established in 1990 (AB 325) and 2004 (AB
2717). The updated model ordinance is designed to be consistent with 2008 Green
Building Standards Code (see below}. At a recent conference, a Morgan Hill
representative noted that compliance with its existing 1a11dscape ordinance, which
includes similar criteria to AB 1881, enables homeowners/developers to achieve 20
BIG points. As such, Morgan Hill adjusted its BIG threshold for certification to 70
points.
5. EXECUrive order ~-2Q-~
Requires all state buildings to be built to the requirements of the US Green Building
Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design BLEED) silver rating.
b. Execu~i~-e ~~:~ ~~ ~1~-~
The Executive Order, signed October 5, 2009, requires Federal agencies to seta 2020
greenhouse gas emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency;
reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable
communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote
.
environmentally-responsible products and teclulologies. It further requires that 95% of
federal buildings must comply with "sustainabilinf rcquiremer:~s." This federal
Executive Order does not specify a green building rating system be achieved, which has
become today's green building policy standard, but rather elects to define its own green
3
1-15
_.._.._~
~~~
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009 ~ ~ ~ r
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground ~~
CUPERTfNO GREEN
federal contracting requirements. The absence of a specific
standard in this EO has lead industry and agency stakeholders to question if this signals
a move a~~~ay from green rating certificatiol~s for more than just federal buildings.
D. Green Building Standards and Codes
1. Calif ornia Green Building Standards Code
In 2008, the Go~~ernor announced the adoption of the country's first statewide Green Building
Standards Code by the California Building Standards Commission. The adc;~ ted =U~1~ C~}QE
(California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11). is currently a voluntary standard and will
become mandatory in the 2010 code. The a ~ oration ~cilcdule for the 2010 CA Building
Standards Code indicates an effective date of January 1, 2011.
2. T1lternational Cade
The International Code Council has annow~ced it is developing a new code for
commercial buildings entitled the International Green Construction Code, and will
use the current California Green Building Standards Code as a key reference
document. Acommittee oftwenty-nine experts, il~cluding Dave Walls, the Executive
Director of the California Building Standards Commission, will meet throughout
2009 to draft the International Green Construction Code which «~ill be presented for
public comment in the Spring of 2010 with publication for adoption in 2012.
3. Nat~c~nal Green Buildin~~ Sral~dar~
In 2007 the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) and the International
Code Council (ICC) partnered to form to establish amuck-needed and
nationally-recognizable standard definition of what is meant by "Green Building,"
A consensus committee was formed to develop this standard i11 compliance with the
requirements of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The resulting
ANSI approved ICC-700-2008 National Green Building Standard defhles green
building for single and multifamily homes, residential remodeling projects and site
development projects while still allowing far the flexibility required for
regionally-appropriate best green practices
4. ASHRAE Standard 1~9P and l~u.l
This American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE) standard was developed in partnership with trp Illumi11at111g
Engineering Society of North America (IESNA} and the United States Green
Building Council (USGBC). The Standard 189P accreditation (Standard for the
Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings} provides a baseline for sustainable design, construction, and operations
i11 order to drive green building into mail~stream building practices. It applies to
new commercial buildings and major renovation projects, and addresses key areas
of performance hlcludillg energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissiol~s, sustainable
site selection, water usage, materials and resources, and indoor envit~onmental
4
1-16
-~-,
~~~~ ~
~~ . ~,
~'~ ~~`
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009 ~,
Green Building Policy Revelatory Back Ground ~ ~
CUPERTlND GREEN
quality.
Currently open for public review, Proposed Standard 189.1, Standard for the Design
of High Performance, Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, is
being developed by ASHIZAE in conjunction with Illuminating Engineering Society
and U.S. Green Building Council and is expected to be published in early 2010.
Standard provides total building sustainability package, addressing everything from
design and commissioning to plans for high-performance operation.
5. ASHRAE 90.1
Developed jointly by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE} and the Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA), Standard 90.1, Energy-Efficient Design of New Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings was first published in 1975 and was
subsequently updated un 1980,1989,1999, 2001 and 2004. After 2001, the intention is
to update the Standard every three years. In January 2008, ASHRAE published
90.1-2007, enabling states to adopt it or an amended version of it as their energy code.
Though not specifically a green building standard, most energy codes in the United
States are based on ASHIZAE 90.1 or the Ilnternational Energy Conservation Code.
State and Local goverlunents adopt connmercial energy codes to establish minimum
energy efficiency standards for the design alnd construction of buildings.
6. California Health and Safety Code Section 1838 and 1795$
Provide that the California Building Standards Code establishes building standards for all
occupancies throughout the State. Section 179.58.5 provides that a city may establish more
restrictive building standards if they are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological or
topographic conditions. Cities including Palo Alto and Morgan Hill have citied that certain
modifications and additions to the Califoriua Building Standards Code established ~vithin these
cities green building ordinances are reasonably and necessarily based upon these conditions.
7. California Resource Code Section 25402.1(h)(2)
Authorizes a city to adopt and enforce increased energy efficiency standards,
provided that a determination is made that the Local standards are cost effective alnd
are approved by the California Energy Commission. Morgan Hill adopted the
findings of an energy study prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Gabel Associates,
LLC that demonstrated the cost effectiveness of local amendments to the 2005
California Energy Code, which were successtull`~ submitted and a~Gro~~ed by the
California Energy Commission. Morgan Hill was able to adopt the 1 alo .=~Ito s ~ ad~~
fi i~I'1QC ilto its ~~~ti'I1 sustauzable bui~dul, ordi~lQi~ce because it exists within the same
geographic alnd climatic zone as Palo Alto.
E. Green Building Certification Programs and Rating Systems
There are a variety of private and non-profit green building certification programs in
the marketplace. In particular, two major green building rating systems are widely used
r
1-17
~ ~ i
~~ ~.~
~ ! I 1 j
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009 ;;~
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground ~
CUPERTINO GREEN
throughout California includinb (1) Build It Green's (BIG) Green
Point Rated (GPR) and (2) U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in
Ener and Environmental Design (LEED®}. Both BIG and USGBC are not-for- rofit
gY b P
organizations.
LEED is a national rating system that focuses on all building types, established as a
national consensus standard to enhance the sustainability and efficiency of all the new
construction projects across the nation. II1 contrast, BIG is a California grown and
COI11I11uI11ty-based program that specifically rates 1lomes performing above standard
practices lI1 the state. In addition, BIG also rates both newly constructed and remodeled
homes, and offer a more accessible point of entry and greater flexibility for builders.
Botl1 rating systems are based on a series of prerequisites, and points obtained through
green building features or strategies. Both systems require performance across different
categories, as verified by a third-party rati.Ilg process.
Together, these two programs strengthen one another by encouraging increasing levels
of builder participation and greater adoption of green building practices; BIG provides
a credible, yet accessible, point for all the home builders, on the other hand, LEED offers
a national brand targeting at the top 25% of green builders.
According to the research conducted by the city's Green Building Intern, all the adopted
green building policies i11 the cities in Santa Clara County and City of San Francisco are
based on LEED and BIG. No other existing voluntary standards have been adopted or
integrated into public agency policies. The reason for this is that both LEED and BIG
programs are widely recognized programs, both providing credibility because of the
well-established third-party certification process. In addition both standards require a
process of continuous improvement to allow new technologies to be incorporated.
Figure 1. BIG vs. LEED1. BIG vs. LEED _
USGBC
BIG
GPR New Home
Construction
GPR Home remodeling
Rating System
LEED for Ne~~ Construction
LEED for Core and Shell
LEED for Schools
LEED for Healthcare
LEED for Retail
LEED for Commercial
Interiors
LEED for Retail Interiors
Reference Guide
Green Building Design
~ Constr~~ction (2009)
Green Interior Design &~
Construction (2009)
GPR Multifamily
LEED for Existing Buildings
Green Buildings
. .~
LEED for Existing Schools er•ations &
b Maintenance (2009)
G
1-18
.~ .~~:
,~
~~ I; ~ ;
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009 ;~ ~ r
7 M
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground
________
CUPER~'{NO GREEN
E. Other Green Building Programs
Figure 2 illustrates the many other green building standards and rating systems that
exist in the United States. However, these standards/rating systems have not yet been
adopted as green building ordinances at city level. Some of the reasons are that the
standards:
Are already based on LEED or GPR certification system
Do not offer a clear evaluation tool
Are not widely recognized
Thus, two complimentary standards, LEED Rating System by USBGC and Green Point
Rated System by BIG, have emerged as leaders because they are widely recognized and
consensus-based, they have consistent and quantifiable rating criteria, alnd require
independent 3rd party verification to ensure the standard of performance.
Figure 2.Other Green Building Standards List
Name Authorizing Body Description
Ene= ~~' Ste" Environmental This voluntary/non-regulatory energy efficiency
~~~ yes `'11o Protection Agency, US program targets commercial buildings through a
Portfa>i° De artment of Ener four-stage implementation program. Portfolio
'~ t~.~:~~e- ~ p ~ Manager is an interactive ever mono ement tool
by g
that allows tracking and assessment of energy and
S~vater consumption across multiple buildings in a
secure online environment.
The Collaborative for This standard focuses on design, construction, and
P~r~ c~rr~ance Hi~-1n Performance operation of school buildings.
~ch~~~~l b
Schools
V i ~'~!~ ~'! 0b?5 Green Building A green management tool that includes all
Initiative assessment protocol and a rating system and guide
for integrating environmentally friendly design into
both new and existing commercial buildings.
L ~ Berl:ele~~ UC Berkeley This baseline is an assessment of our campus
Green ~uildir~~ practices with respect to LEED (version 2.1 at that
~a~elin~ time) a1~d benchmarks where our basic practices nlet
the LEED requirements.
~~.aterial California Integrated Guidelines for product selection criteria, recycling
5electson, waste Management construction materials including: zsphalt, carpet,
ec~•clin~ a ~ Board (CI~'UMG) drywall, lumber, and roofing, development of space
cons~~ction allocation ordinances.
~: L~~ , ar1U
i-
re~-~~~.: i~ : ~ a ce
.,
ali C!Ca t ~~. ~ Wit::: Q.
Sustnina~e Cj~,~1MG Tlnis task force worked to implement the Executive
B uii di1 ~ Order S-20-0~
Iaskforce _«>t
ac~i~~e ~~~~n-~~re,
7
1-19
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground
Green buiIdinQ State of California
.'~`t?on i'Ian
Ad~-a-need
1=ner ~~ Desi ~n
V.~I.iC
Passive
Buildings and
Passivhaus
Zero '~ et
Erg and
High
Performance
Green
Buildings
,. Lts~:..~. .~..iC
D~~: ~. ~ ~ ~ .~ d
ASHRAE, the American
Institute of Architects,
the Illuminating
Engineering Society of
North America, and
USGBC, and DOE
P~sivhau.s-insd~ut
Cost Efficiant Pass:, e
Houses as European
Standards (CEPHES)
'lZI'~ ERGIE-P
LS Department Qf I/ner~~
iDOE) BuiIdina :erica
Program
The Research Center on
?:t; Emiss~o:' Bui~di:~~s
(Norway)
Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANE)
1~,~ . ~, I
International
Organization for
Standardization
-.~_,,
~~~~~f
.~
is (i
ts,~
r~
~~
CURERTINQ GREEN
This plan describes the actions that support the
Executive Order S-20-04 including
recommendations for any additional actions,
mandates or Iegislatio~ that may be ~ti~arranted to
reduce grid-based energy purchases.
A series of publications designed to provide
recommendations f or achieving energy savings over
the minimum code requirements of
ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999.
Refers to the rigorous, voluntary, Passivhaus
standard for energy efficiency in buildings. It results
ll1 ~ ~1~ ~r -: ~:,.r~ ~:-:;::~~ .T ~: ~~ ~u3 ~~ that require little
energy for space heating or cooling.=~ A similar
standard, `~'.j~ ~nL ~-j--, is used in ``ti,'iLCr±dllu.
A building with zero net energy consumption and
zero carbon ennissions annually. Zero energy
buildings are autonomous fiom the energy grid
supply -energy is produced on-site. This design
principle is gaining considerable interest as
rene~tiTable energy is a means to cut ^ ~ eer~tl~~~:~~ ~a5
er~ssc~l s.
It provide a prescriptive path to achieve 30% energy
savings for small offices and retail buildings,
warehouses, and K-12 schools over the minimum
code requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999
This code intends to aid the planning of indoor
pollution monitoring.
F. other City Approaches
The County of Santa Clara Department of Plaruning and Development conducted this
summary of green building ordinances and policies. In addition, the city conducted
research focusing on other cities within the County of Santa Clara to see the general
green building ordinance structure surrounding Cupertino.
Figure 3. Green Building Standards in Neighbor Cities for Non-residential
Cif Non-residential Requirements for New Construction Additions & Remodels
Sang CIGrG Anticipated to be completed in Spring 2009 (per Board
Caunt~i of Supervisor Agenda dated 12.2008) but it could not
be located.
Campbell Green b~i1~: ~Q
Ln:~}~S i
~.~~~~ ~_.1~~ - l~% over Title 2~Part 6, tlvrd-party verification Provide ~rerification
r
V
1-20
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground
r--,~°,------
I~g~
%~~ i
~~~
.!
CUPERTINO GREEN
-Historic exemption available
LQS ~ltr~s Not addressed in policy
15 % o~~er Part 6 of Title
24
Not addressed in
2~~i1 ~itas - 500 < 25,000 sq, ft., not applicable Not addressed in
- 25,000 < 50,000 sq. ft., LEED certified Policy
- >_50,000 sq. ft., LEED Silver
.~~ante Serena Development applications > 500 sq. ft., LEED Checklist All applications,
(for Site and Architecture Commission) additions not excluded
'~,or~~.n ~ iiI (inc. additions) Renovations/TI
>1,000 sq. ft 16 LEED pts. (internal verif.) >$350k 10 LEED Points
>5,000 sq. ft. LEED Silver (internal verif.) (internal verif.)
>$500k LEED Certified
(internal ver)
>$1.5M LEED Silver
{internal verif.)
PaloAlto - 500 < 5,000 sq. ft., (sq. ft. /5,000) x 33 points, but not Renovation >_ 5,000 sq.
less than 17 LEED points, self-verification by project ft. and >_ 50% of
architect, designer or qualified green building building sq. ft. and >_
professional $500,000 valuation,
- 5,000 < 25,000 sq. ft., LEED AP Sil~Ter equivalent LEED Certified
(sign-off by project LEED AP and city staff LEED AP) Other renovation >
- > 25,000 sq. ft., LEED Silver certification (liSGBC) $100,000 valuation,
- Historic and hardship exemptions available self-verification
San Francisco - 5,000 < 25,000 sq. ft., submit checklist & meet specific LEED requirement
LEED credits for comnussioning, ~tirater efficient includes renovations/
landscaping, water use reduction, storm ~ti~ater tenant improvements >
mgnlt, construction debris mgmt, and rene~~~able 25,000 sq. ft.
energy I`2ust include LEED
- 25,000 sq. f t., LEED Sil~~er (2009-2011), LEED Gold credits f or use of lo~v
(starting 2012) & required credits enutting materials
- Verification/docunlentationprovided byGreen
Building -Compliance Official of Record
-Credit for retaining historical architectural features
- Alternati~Te standards allo`~Jed ~~~ith director
approval
Santa Clara Checklist required, no point requirement Not addressed in
Policy
SaratT 15% more energy efficient than Part 6 of Title 24 Not addressed in
using CA adopted performal~ce method as approved policy
by the CEC. Prior to issuance of a fugal occupai~~cy
inspection, applicant submit verification by project
architect or engineer
Sunn~-~-ale - >_ 500 sq. ft., LEED Checklist >_ 10,000 sq. ft., LEED
- > 5,000 sq. ft., LEED equivalent, LEED AP verifies checklist
required green building components prior to final ? 50,000 sq. ft., LEED
inspection Certified equivalent
- >_ 50,000 sq. ft., LEED Silver equivalent
- Historic and hardship exemptions available
-Density bonus of 5% FAR for LEED Certification
9
1-21
i~
~ , ~ ,,~.
,~ ~{;
Planning Commission -November S, 2009 ~ " ~ r
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground
~~
CUPERTItVO GREEN
-Phase 2 and 3 approved by resolution will increase
requirements in 2011 and 2013
Figure 4. Green Building Standards in Neighbor Cities for Residential
City Residential Requirements for New For Additions &
Construction Remodels
Co~, ~nt-~- c~~ New residence and rebuild >500 sq. ft. -submit
~a:~ ~~ C;~.r~ 1,201<3,000 sq. ft. LEED for Homes Checklist checklist
>3,000 sq. ft. Single Family Green Point Checklist or
LEED for Homes Checklist AND 50 points + 1 pt.
per additional 100 sq. ft. beyond 3,000 sq. ft or
LEED Certification
Campbell Not addressed in Policy 5~.,:.brr~~ Lf: `he~.s _
Lc~s _~to~ 50 BIG pts Verify design
GreenPoint Rating of
50 points+
Lis •~itc~5 50 BIG pts or LEED for homes (45pts) Not addressed n
Hi1L~ Policy
L~,~ C~ait~ Hillside area: require sustainable designs if Not addressed n
over 6,000 sq. ft (encouraged if over 3,500 sq. Policy
ft), Non-hillside area: encourage green
building designs (based on BIG rating)
='~'~ less tha115 units: not applicable, more than and Nat addressed n
equal to 5 units: 50 BIG pts or equivalent in Policy
LEED
P:-~;o .=~±tc~ 70 BIG pts if over 1,250 sq. ft Not addressed n
Policy
~~ organ ;~:Li -less than 2,000 sq. f t. 70 BIG points or LEED Certified Additions
(internal verification) >250 sq. ft 25 BIG paints
-greater than 2,000 sq.ft. 70 BIG points + 1 point per (internal verif.)
additiona170 sf (150 pt. max) (internal verification) ~ >700 sq. ft 50 BIG points
(internal verif}
Renovations/Remodels
>~100k- 25 BIG points
(internal verif.}
>~250k 50 BIG points
(internal verif )
~;.1-, ~ ~~~= less than 10 units: Green Pou1t or LEED check Not addressed n
List, more than 10 units: 50 BIG pts or LEED Policy
certified, High Rise Residential (75' or Higher):
LEED certified
5a-~ tral=~-~ -Small: 25 BIG Pints Not addressed n
-Midsize: 25 BIG Points Policy
-High-rise: LEED Certified, LEED® a
10
1-22
Planning Commission -November 5, 2009
Green Building Policy Regulatory Back Ground
CUPERTEhf4 GREEN
minimum 50 percent reduction in use of
potable water for landscaping, achievement of
a minimum 20 percent reduction in the use of
potable water, diversion of at least 75 percent
of the project's construction debris
5ar~ 50 BIG points, verified by GPR Not addressed in
policy
~~'-~ ~~~~~ -Single-Family and Duplex -Single Family and
Less than 1,500 sq. ft GPR Checklist Duplex
Greater than 1,500 sq. ft GPR 70 points; if Greater than $100k
project achieves 100 points with GPR valuation GPR
verification, can increase lot coverage by 5% checklist
-Multi-family -Multifamily
More than three dwellings: 70 GPR points; Greater than $250k
achieve 140 points with GPR verification, GPR checklist
project can increase height by 5', lot coverage
by 5% or 5% density bonus
Figure 5. Green Building Standards in Neighbor Cities for Municipal Buildings
City Municipal Requirements
C~~L:nr~~ ~~t ~~~tc Clara LEED Silver if o~jer 5,000 Sq. ft.(official registration and
certification through USGBC required if over 25,000 sq.
ft)
Carne del; LEED Silver if over 5,000 sq. ft.
Loy ~ltc~~ LEED Certified if over 7,500 sq. ft.
Cupertino LEED Silver if over 5,000 sq. f t.
L~~~ Gata LEED Silver if nejv, LEED EB equivalent if remodeled
Los .=iltas ~~ LEED certified if aver 1,000 sq~ ft.
'ail i tas LEED Silver if over 5,000 sq. f t.
'~~iorte Sereno LEED Silver if over 5,000 sq. ft.
Palo :~ltc~ LEED Silver if over 5,000 sq. ft.
San Francisco LEED Silver if over 5,000 sq. ft.
San ; ose LEED Sil~Ter if over 10,000 sq. ft.
5;ann«-aie LEED Silver "design intent" over 5,000 sq. ft ne;~,~
construction; LEED certified "design intent" if greater than
25,000 sq. ft for major alterations
11
1-23
Attachment 2
Stakeholder List
A list of potential stakeholders is outlined as follo~~s:
a) Residential Stakeholders (all home owners including those that have built
green homes, developers and local architects/engineers)
U) Commercial Stakeholders (all building owners including those that have
constructed green buildings, developers and local architects/engineers)
c) City-sponsored Programs Participants (Neighborhood Block Leaders,
Community Emergency Response Team, Neighborhood Watch)
d) Various Hozne Owner Associations
e) Chamber of Commerce -Legislative Action Conunittee
~ School Districts (Cupertino Union School District/ Fremont Union High
School District)
g) De Anza College -Kirsch Center for Enviroiunental Studies
Resource List
R) Adjacent Connmunity Green Building Representatives (having recently
completed green building policies)
i. San Jose
ii. Sunnyvale
iii. Morgan Hill
U) Green Building Organizations
i. US Green Building Council (USGBC)
ii. Build It Green (BIG)
iii. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
iv. Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG) - Bay Area Climate
Collaborative
v. Joint Venture Silicon Valley (JVSV) -Sustainable Buildings Working
Group
vi. Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) -Green Building
Collaborative USE AS RESOURCES
c) Environmental Organizations
i. Sierra Club Cool Cities
ii. Audubon Society
iii. Acterra
iv. Committee for Green Footl-ulls
1-24
Attachment 3
Conznzuzzity Outreach Methods
Public outreach and noticing shall include the following:
n) Mail
b) Outreach to Chamber of Conunerce, Legislative Action Conunittee and
od~er larger corporations/developers
c) Ne~~sletters
i. School district
ii. Chamber of Conunerce
iii. USGBC Northern California/Monterey Bay Chapter
d) Ads in the Courier, the Scene, local newspapers, City AM radio station, City
TV station
e) Informational materials (brochure) and web page ~nTith options for
interested parties to sign-up for electronic notifications (E-lists)
~ Flyers/posters for educational workshops and focus group sessions at city
facilities, library, local businesses
Convene Educational Workslzo~s and Focus Grozc~ Sessions
n) Host Educational/Focus Group Sessions ~~elcoming all stakeholders to:
i. Review the Phase II proposal and comparison study on ~nThat other
Cities are doing
ii. Gather and provide comments
1-25
~ P~0
0 0 R P o$ 4
~ ~
G T ~~
ti ~
~, ,~
A Q
~~~L 1a`~
~Lr ' 6g~
FO
Addendum to
Attachment 1
~-~~,~~ t~ ~ 1~ ~~~
City Coancil Approves New Green Building
Requirements
October 2009
"The Council's action provides another important sfep Toward fhe City's goal to be environmentally
responsible and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Palo Alto aims fo be a leader through the
infroduction of new energy efficiency measures for existing buildings that will help the City and fhe
community betfer understand ifs energy consumption and how if can be reduced. The changes also
enhance fhe building community's implemenfafion of fhe ordinances by providing flexibility for
verification options, and specify green building criteria That more directly relate fo a project's energy
system impacts."
Curtis Williams, Planning & Community Environment Deparfinenf Director
. ~ ~ ~.
1. Nonresidential new construction applicants must choose the energy January 1, 2010
performance path under LEED, and achieve performance 15% beyond the
California Ener Code, Title 24 Part 6.
2. Nonresidential renovations over 500 sf and over $100,000 in valuation are January 1, 2010
required to receive an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager, Building Energy
Performance Rating prior to building permit issuance.
h~~::~r.~~~-~~,.er,e~~vs~ar.oo~~Y~~mde~..c`m%~=e~~ai~at~ c~erfor~an~~.~u~ oorl;uiio;~ianac~r=~a:
3. Residential renovations over 250 sf and over $100,000 in valuation are January 1, 2011
required to receive an Home Energy Rating System (HERS II) rating prior to
building permit issuance.
hrt~~. ~~-~~ti~-a~.ener~~~,~.ca.o~c>>'HtRS;~inde,..r~tm
4. Applicant with mandatory green building requirements has the option to January 1, 2010
achieve verification by the City of Palo Alto OR the respective rating system
LEED, B(G GPR ,
5. Large commercial renovations have mandatory green building~requirements January 1, 2010
based on the sco e of the ro'ect, rather than valuation.
6. Residential additions and rebuilds greater than 1,250 sf have the option to January 1, 2011
achieve 50 point under the Build It Green, Green Point Rated System OR
achieve performance 15% beyond the California Energy Code, Title 24 Part 6
and et a HERS !I ratin .
F I his table should only be used as a summary. I he attached tables sho~~r the changes as approved in mare detail and as
enforceable.
Palo Alto Green Building
•IVbVlte. ~l'i/. i~111~~f lt.cil,'~ZVVi~.J Ia.~./1. ~/ Y Vv ~ /'i`` ~~~r~ ~ ~~'1 iI'~1 1 y' it j\F`.
G.S~iJ t u, Ct11'~i, ta. J c~i..,, i,~
..:~. -,T
C11af : ~r~~fi~U;lylil~l,~..'~„~~rv.C~IC3a~~J.LO^'~
Prone: 650.329.2189
1-27
On October 19, 2009 the Raio Aito Gity Council passed revisions to the 2008 Green
Buiiding Ordinance and Energy Efficiency Ordinance.
Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of rcquiremcnts iu Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations)
l
N
Table A. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Nnnresldential Construction and Renovation
Type of Project Rating System, Code or Minimum Threshold Required Requirement to Verification**
Program Exceed CA Title
24 Part 6 (15%)*
I . New construction > 5,000 sf USGBC LEED LEED Silver YES GBCI or CPA
(including additions to existing buildings)
2. New Construction > 500 sf and < 5,000 sf USGBC LEED LEED Prerequisites + 5 points YES GBCI or CPA
(including additions to existing buildings) (round up) required for every 500 sf
3. Tenant improvements, renovations, or alterations > USGBC LEED LEED Certified NO GBCI or CPA
5,000 sf that include replacement or alteration of at least
two of the following: I-IVAC system, building envelope,
hot water systeu), or lighting system.
4. Tenant improvements, renovations or alterations > USGBC LEED LEED Checklist NO CPA
500 sf and > $100,000 in valuation that don't fall under AND
Project Type 3, above.
Energy STAR Portfolio viauagcr Building Energy Perfonnancc Rating
* The reyuiremenl to exceed CA Title 24 Part G by I S"/" is also referenced (or these project types in the applicable grccn building rating system, and the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance.
"" I~or projccl types 1) and 2), if CPA is chosen for veriGcalion, pcrformancc I S"/, beyond California linergy Codc, Title 24, Pad G is an acceptable compliance equivalent to the LIiGD cncrgy prercyuisite. The project will not be
re aired In do additional modclin be and slate rc uiremcnts.
Special Considerations & Definitions
Mixed Use Uevelnpnunls Mixed use projects must comply with rho applicable project type rcquiremcnts based on the scope of the project Table applicability is to be determined by the Planning Director, generally
'
rho provisions of
fablc A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table U will apply to the residential portions of the development.
Historic Structures Cxet»ptions may be available for historic sltuctures, pursuant to 18.44.070 Palo Alto Municipal Codc.
Multi Yeur Cumulrlive Cumulative now construction or renovations over vry 2-year period s shall be considered as a single projccl, subject to the highest Icvcl of grccn building rcquiremcnts for that projccl, unless
Construction exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance.
Unusual 1'rojccls Projects with mt unusual scope of work or with uniyue circumstances may apply for an exemption to the grccn building rcyuiremcnts to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to
I alo Alto Municipal Codc 5cction 18.44.070.
USGIIC LLiGD sta»ds for the U.S. Grccn [)uildi»g Council Leadership i» cncrgy and L•nvironmental Design. Projects must comply with the applicable and current LGBD~ rating syslcm.
USGISC LEEU An ahem;rtive• equivalent rating syslcm or program may be substituted as approved by the Planning Uirectm•, after reconnnendation by the applicant or Architectural Review l3oard (if ARU
rcvicw is required).
C13C1 The Grccn t3uilding Certification Institute provides 3rd party verification services for the LLGD riling system.
CI'A City of Palo Aho :gaff with expertise in grccn building will provide in-house rcvicw similar in sh•ucturo and stringency to that of the GLiCI.
Energy STAR Portfolio Lncrgy Sl'AK Portfolio Manager (Portfolio Manager) shall mean the progrmi managed by the U.S. Lnvironmcntal Protection Agency that offers an cncrgy management tool that allows an
Manager applicant to track and assess cncrgy and water consumption of a building projccl. Tracked projects receive an cncrgy pcrformancc rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings
'
•
nationwidc.
I
he a licant is not re aired to achieve a set ralin ~.
Iluildiug Envelope 'I•he builJing envelope is the ensemble of exterior and demising partitions of a building that enclose conditioned space. (Defined by Califumia Energy Codc Title 24, Part G)
Prerequisites Prercyuisitcs arc grccn building strategics rcyuired by the LCGD rating system before points may be claimed for any projccl tylx. They arc mandatory measures, not option.
Note: Applicants arc advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green building Regulations)
I
N
co
Table B. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Residential Construction and Renovation
Requirement to
Type of Project Rating System, Code or Program Minimum Threshold Required Exceed CA Title VeriTication
24 Part 6 (15%)*
Multi-Family Residential
I . New constntction of 3 or more attached units BIG GPR Multifamily 70 points YES GreenPoint
> 30 units complete the LEED-ND Rated and/or
(Neighborhood Development) checklist CPA
2. Renovations or alterations > 50% of the BIG GPR Multifamily 50 points follow the BIG GreenPoint
existing unit sf and that include replacement or GPR minimum Rated and/or
alteration of at least two of the following: I-IVAC energy CPA
system, building envelope, hot wafer system, or requirements.
lighting system
3. Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to BIG GPR Checklist NO CPA
individual units > 250 sf and valuation > 1-IERS I1 1-IERS Rating (requirement
$100,000 in a single unit effective January 2011)
Single-Family and Two-Family Residential
4. New construction of> 1,250 sf BIG GPR Single-Family 70 points YES GreenPoint
a- 1 point per additional 70 sf over Rated and/or
2,550 (150 points maximum) CPA
5. Existing home additions or rebuilds > 1,250 sf Chose one of the Following two options: YES GreenPoint
Option 1: BIG GPR Single C'amily or 50 points Usc of the Rated and/or
Existing 1-Iome "Existing CPA
OR
The whole house must demonstrate Alterations
performance
1-IERS 11 Rater
Option 2: CA Energy Code T-24 Part 6 that the TDV Energy of the
Approach as and CPA
and HERS II building is at least IS% less than outlined under CA
the TDV energy of the standard Title 24 Part 6 is
building based on the prototypical acceptable.
house of ifs vintage and receive a
1-IERS II rating. (requirement
cffcctivc January 2011)
G. Existing home renovations, rebuilds and/or BIG GPR Existing I-tome Checklist NO CPA
additions totaling > 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and > AND
$100,000 valuation
1-IERS fI 1-IERS II Rating (requirement 1-IERS II Rater
cffcctivc January 2011) and CPA
I
W
O
• The rcyuiremenl to exceed CA'fitle 24 Part G by 15% is referenced for these projccl types in the applicable grccn building rating syslcm, and the City's Cncrgy Cffieicncy Ordinance.
Special Considerations
Mixed Use Developments Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable projccl type rcyuircmcnls based on the scope of tltc projccl fable applicability is to be dclennincd by the
Planning Director, generally the provisions ofl'able A will apply to the commercial portion of the dcvclopuunl, and the provisions of•fablc B will apply to the
residential portions.
llisloric Structures Cxcmptions may be available for historic slructw•es, pursuant to 18.44.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Compliance Official may allow the use of
aheruative checklists fur historic buildings or fur buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure, and may t•educe the minimum threshold
(points) rcquircd as outlined in Section 18.44.050.
Multi 1'eur Cun»tlntive Constt•uclion Cumulative new constntction or renovations Duct nny 2-year period shall be considered as a single projccl and subject to the highest Icvcl of grccn building
• rcquii~enunts for that project, unless exempted by the Planning Director as inyn•actical 1'or compliance.
Unusual Projects Projects with an unusual scope of work or with uuiyuc cirountslauces may apply fur uu exemption to the grccn building requirements to be dctcnnincd by the
Plamiing Director, pursuant to Palo/Alto Municipal Codc Section 18.44.070.
Definitions
nIC CNR BIG GPR stands for the Build It Grccn, Grccn Point Rated syslcm. Projects must comply with the applicable, and curccnl GPR rating syslcm ,including, but not
limited to Single Family, Multi Family and L'•xisting Homo, An alternative, equivalent rating syslcm or program may be substituted as approved by the Planning
Director, after rccommcndatio» by the applicant or Archilcctutal Rcvicw Board (if ARB rcvicw is roquircd).
CI'A City of Palo Aho staff with expertise in grccn building will pmvidc in house rcvicw similar in structure and at (cast as sh•ingcnt to that of Build It Grccn.
FII+,RS 11 Raring 1-IGRS shall moan the California I tome L•ncrgy Baling System, a statewide program for residential dwellings administered by the California C•nelgy Commission and
defined in the 2008 California Building Cncrgy L'fficicncy Standards. 1-IGRS I'hasc t provides field verification and diagnostic testing Io show compliance with T•illc
24, fart G, of the 2008 California Building Cncrgy Cfficicucy Standards. 1ICRS Phase II includes whole-house home cncrgy efficiency ratings for existing anJ
newly consltvcled homes. The applicant is not rcquircd to achieve a set rating.
Rebuild Rebuild shall mean home improvcntents, or minor additions to an existing stucture that do not maintain 75"/0 of the existing roof and cxtcrior walls.
'I'DV 'l'ime-Dependent Valuation (fUV) accuw:ls for rho value of eleelrieily differences dcpcnding on time-of--use (hourly, daily, seasonal), and llte value of natural gas
differences dcpcnding on season.l'DV is based on the cost for utilities to provide the cncrgy at different limes. Refer to the Cily of Palo Allo Cncrgy Cfficicney
Ordinance or the California Cncrgy Gflicicucy Codc -I'itlc 24, Part G for more a more dclniled description.
Building Lnvelupe The building envelope is the ensemble of cxtcrior and demising partitions of a building that enclose conditioned space. (Defined by California Cncrgy Codc 'l'itre 24,
I art 6).
RCnUYAL10OS Rcuovatious arc any work to au existing buildiug needing a permit as defined by the Califomia Building Codc.
Attachment 5
Green Building Ordinance Scope and Process
Summary of Planning Commission Recommendations
The following is a summary of the Planning Commission's recommendations on the
Green Building Ordinance Scope and Process from the November 5, 2009 meeting that
have been incorporated into the report:
Policy Objectives/Goals
^ Combine Policy Objectives/Goals "a" and "b."
^ In Policy Objectives/Goals "a," change "meets" to "considers."
^ In Policy Objectives/Goals "d," take out "Demonstrate the City's commitment to
environmental, economic, and social stewardship."
^ Include a policy objective/goal of the City to provide efforts to quantify or
measure the success and achievement in meeting the requirements of AB 32.
^ Include goals that explore incentives to encourage owners to convert their
buildings to green buildings.
^ Add policy that states efforts should be made to analyze the costs and benefits of
alternatives in the green building ordinance requirements.
Regulatory Context
^ Include a description of AB 1103 (energy benchmarking and energy disclosure
requirements for non-residential buildings).
^ Have staff research if there is a residential counterpart to AB 1103.
Green Building Policy Scope:
^ Add language into the scope that states efforts should be made to identify what
green building measures are the "low-hanging fruit" that can provide the
greatest gain from investment.
Public Outreach
^ Include methods such as facebook, twitter, and outreach at churches, PTA
meetings, and weekly school homework packets.
Timeline and Schedule
^ Define alternative concepts and present them for review for public outreach in
the March/ April 2010 time frame.
Funding
^ Recommend that funding accounts for hiring of a consultant with both
experience in the technical part of preparing the ordinance, and in the public
outreach process to educate the public and stakeholders.
1-31