Exhibit CC 02-01-2011 No. 18 Green Building Ordinance 1oD "Y
\ Co(recied paw
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CC/ a _
CITY HALL
�st• 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014 -3255 *9 0
TELEPHONE: (408) 777.3308 www.cupertino.org
CUPERTINO
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: February 1, 2011 ExHIBIT
Subject
Green Building Ordinance (continued from January 18)
Recommended Action
Conduct first reading of Ordinance No. 11 -2074 and draft Resolution
Description
Application: MCA - 2010 -04
Applicant: City of Cupertino
Location: Citywide
Application Summary: Municipal Code Amendment to adopt a Green Building Ordinance (See
Attachment A, Ordinance No. 11 -2074) and related fees and deposits (See Attachment B, Model
Resolution).
BACKGROUND
Council Authorization on the Green Building Ordinance Process
On January 19, 2010, the City Council authorized staff (See Attachment R, January 19, 2010
City Council report) to proceed with developing a draft Green Building Ordinance, per the Phase
II recommendations by the Santa Clara County Cities Association in partnership with the Silicon
Valley Leadership Group (See Attachment C, Phase II recommendations). The Council
authorized a budget of $25,000 to complete the process (including one city -wide postcard
notice).
The Phase II recommendations are criteria and. thresholds for development, including new
construction and renovation/remodeling projects, that aim to support the use of healthy building
•
materials and construction methods, and promote energy, water and resource efficiency and
conservation by adherence to rating systems called LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) and GPR (Green Point Rated) that were developed by the U.S. Green
Building Council (USGBC) and Build It Green (BIG) respectively.
Key Community Outreach Efforts
May 2010: City -wide notices were sent out inviting residents, businesses and members of the
development community interested in participating in the Green Building Ordinance Focus
2- SLR
YMtto
Groups. A non - profit environmental consulting group, Global Green, was retained to assist the
City through facilitation of the focus group meetings and to develop a draft ordinance.
June 7, 2010: The City held its first Green Building Ordinance Focus Group meeting at De
Anza College's LEED Platinum Kirsch Center. The meeting was attended by over 60
participants, and included a tour of the Kirsch Center, a presentation on the purpose and concepts
of green building and the Phase II recommendations, and small group discussion sessions to
encourage participants to provide input on elements of the green building ordinance.
July 13, 2010: In response to the focus group participants' comments, the Planning Commission
held an educational workshop in order to better understand the green rating systems under
consideration. The workshop included a presentation by Shiloh Ballard of Silicon Valley
Leadership Group who provided an overview of the Phase II recommendations. Additionally,
David Kaneda, Cupertino Planning Commissioner, provided an overview of the Cal Green
building codes, the state's new green building code requirements for new construction that
became effective on January 1, 2011.
July 29, 2010: The City held its second and final Green Building Focus Group meeting, at
which time a draft Green Building Ordinance was presented to participants and the core elements
of the draft ordinance were discussed.
Staff and Global Green received many comments and suggestions at both of the focus group
meetings (See Attachments D and E - focus group comments) from participants that represented
the residential, business and development community in Cupertino. Attachment F provides
additional comments received on the Draft Green Building Ordinance.
City staff also provided outreach of the ordinance process by hosting a booth at the City's 2010
Earth Day event, meeting with key stakeholders (e.g. businesses and commercial property
owners, including Apple), addressing participants at the Mayor's Community Congress and at a
Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Committee meeting, and posting information in the
Cupertino Courier, Cupertino Scene, and via online through the City's green building webpage,
Facebook and Twitter.
DISCUSSION
Planning Commission
On October 12, 2010, October 26, 2010 and November 9, 2010, the Planning Commission
reviewed the draft Green Building Ordinance (See Attachments G, H & I, October 12, October
26, and November 9 Planning Commission staff reports, respectively). The draft ordinance was
refined to incorporate the comments and suggestions the City received from the focus group
meetings and from meetings with key stakeholders in the community.
The Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance on a 3 -2 vote (Chair Brophy and
Commissioner Miller voted no). A detailed discussion of the Planning Commission's
recommendation is provided later in this report.
Chair Brophy and Commissioner Miller did not support the draft green building ordinance,
noting that the City should focus on reducing energy consumption/utility use on existing
Z0
cc Iii)(
Sil icon Valle ) CDA-y
ki. v r Association of REALTORS
February 1, 2011
Honorable Gilbert Wong
Mayor
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Mayor Wong and Council Members,
The Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS® (SILVAR) is a trade association representing
over 4,000 real estate professionals in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties and was the first
REALTOR® Association in California to be a Green Certified Business. Our Association has
historically been an advocate for property owners and fair public policy. In specific regard to
Cupertino, we are a business and a commercial property owner in the City. We would like to
comment in opposition to the draft mandatory green building ordinance as proposed by the
Planning Commission.
SILVAR and our members participated in the two focus group meetings and do not recall the
draft ordinance (or anything similar) before the Council for consideration being discussed at
those meetings. Because of the amount of amendments necessary to fix this ordinance we
respectfully request the City hold another round of :bens groups and stakeholder meetings, to
specifically get feedback from parties that will be directly impacted by these mandates; property
owners, contractors and businesses. The ordinance ;s incomplete and will lead to many
unintended consequences if not vetted further.
Starting with Exhibit A, in chapter 19.78.010, it clearly lays out the inconsistent nature of this
current draft:
"This Chapter is intended to support a "whole system" approach to the design
construction, location, and operation of buildings and structures to help mitigate the
environmental, economic, and social impacts of construction, demolition, and
renovations of buildings and structures."
The CalGreen building standards were written and promulgated for new constructions with the
"whole system" approach in mind (Section 101.3, California Green Building Standard Code,
2010), and yet this proposal aims to mandate CalGreen standards to very small renovations.
Regarding "renovations," the draft ordinance provides no definition, either on the scope or if the
"renovations" covered under the green requirements go beyond what currently requires a City
permit. Not having this definition makes it extremely difficult to interpret and estimate the true
impact these rules will have on multi -unit and commercial renovations. As an example, kitchen
and bathroom renovations only require a permit when "altering any electrical, plumbing or
mechanical system or altering any existing walls" and not when changing the countertops,
cabinets, flooring or paint which are restricted under the CalGreen standards.
19400 Stevens Creek Blvd., Suite 00 • Cupertino, CA 95014
Phone: 408.200.0100 • Fax: 408.200.0101 • www.silvar.org
Please consider the following comments Regarding Chapter 19.78.060:
• 19.78.060 A.a.i.: We recommend the proposed requirement of 85 green point rated
points or LEED certification for new single family and multi - family home construction
be reduced significantly. These mandates would be the highest requirements in the area,
with no justification provided. This will be a deterrent to the development of new
housing opportunities, especially in the current housing and financial market.
• 19.78.060 A.b.ii and iii: By requiring LEED certification the City is far exceeding the
state green building code with no justification provided. This will be a new barrier to
entry for larger businesses looking to locate in Cupertino, which neighboring cities do
not require.
• 19.78.060 (note): This language states than the green mandates for "renovations and
additions" only apply to the portions of the building that are subject to the renovation or
addition" which is much more broad then the language included in the staff report, "for
new portions only." For instance if an electrical permit is pulled for a multi -unit
property, the language could lead to any part of the building involving the electrical
system would now require renovations in compliance with the CalGreen code; whereas
the staff report language would involve only the electrical system. This section should be
re- written to exempt any part of an existing building that is not modified as part of the
application.
• 19.78.060 B.a.i: We recommend this section be removed entirely. It is inconsistent with
the CalGreen standards and the phase II recommendations. The types of permits covered
under this section may include ministerial permits, and yet the City is proposing
exemplary standards which if pursued result in incentives as discretionary acts. It is not
included in the incentives portion of the ordinance, but in the staff report under the
incentive section C.ii, staff is proposing a disincentive to downzone property unless
they meet the exemplary standards. If enacted this disincentive will be connecting
building performance to entitlements for both existing and new structures, which
will have a devastating impact on property rights and values. Although exemplary
standards in an optional .incentive, they will become mandatory in practice if this
disincentive is put in place.
• 19.78.060 B.a.ii and b.i.: We recommended these sections be removed entirely. Again
this section is inconsistent with the CalGreen standards, and the phase II
recommendations. There is also no bottom threshold for what types of renovations would
now require compliance with the CalGreen standards. As written this section could lead
to minor repairs between tenancy requiring significant upgrades to be in compliance with
this ordinance.
• 19.78.061 B.a.iii and b.ii.: We recommend the removal of certification and point
requirements in these sections. This will be a new barrier for property owners to make
routine upgrades to property that would otherwise enhance the livability and value of the
property.
Our Association generally disagrees with the tenor and direction of section 19.78.070 (Required
Verification). Under the draft, the formal verification requirement for some projects gives too
much authority to parties outside the control of the city. The city should be the only party with
this authority, and should not give authority to individuals outside of its control or without state
licenses (active contractor licenses are not required for raters). If formal verification is necessary
then city staff should become certified through Build it Green and LEED, and the mandate
should be phased in once there are enough certified staff members to process applications. It is
also inappropriate to call the well- established and legal process of approving permits "informal."
The proposed deposits associated with the formal verification process may also not be in
compliance with Proposition 26 as currently drafted. The informal verification deposits are to
pay for staff time to make the informal verification. but the formal verification deposit's only
purpose is to fund a special program (to enhance the green building ordinance) if the developer
or property does not provide proof of formal verification 18 months after occupancy. There is no
justification provided that this fee is conforming to state law, citing that it is required outside of
the permit review and approval process and its collection (as a penalty) or refund will be
determined by a non - government entity. There is no nexus study provided to justify the fees, or
explanation of their determination in the staff report. The proposed fees are also excessive for
multi -unit and non residential development and will discourage development. It is odd that a
single family home would have a $2,000 maximum fee but a duplex would have a $40,000
minimum fee. We strongly encourage the Council to reexamine this approach.
The potential incentives and disincentives discussed in the staff report have not been fully
developed or incorporated into this draft ordinance. There needs to be more discussion regarding
these incentives before this incomplete draft is approved. For instance, the proposal of good
merit to increase the FAR for exemplary projects has not being included in draft, as well as other
proposals discussed at the focus group. Also, as discussed above, the one proposed disincentive
to lower the buildable area on a lot unless a project is built to the maximum green standards
should be removed from any further consideration regardless of the passage or rejection of this
ordinance.
Lastly in examining the impact other mandatory green building ordinances put in place in
neighboring jurisdictions over the last three years it is important to note that development
activity has been at record low levels. It is important for the Council to put this ordinance into
the context of the current economy and how it may unknowingly impact a local recovery.
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment regarding this item, and we look forward
to answering any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Adana Montg9
Government Affairs Director
Silicon Valley Association of REALTORS®
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance
MCA- 2010 -04
CUPERTINO GREEN
Proposed Municipal Code Amendment for the adoption of a Green
Building Ordinance as Chapter 19.78, a new chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance, and a Model Resolution for related fees and deposits, that:
■ Aims to promote green practices
CB WATER SOLID
TMISSIGRS USE WASTE
• Through the design, construction , and maintenance of new buildinfs
and existing buildings undergoing 3„, 3av 40h
renovations
• Including homes and commercia]. 70 %"
& industrial buildings Green Buildings Can Reduce...
Provided by USGBC
Green Building Ordinance Vii` ; re
_N �i�
B ackground CUPERTINO GREEN
Council Authorization on the Process
• January 19, 2010 — This process was initiated by the City Council, when the
Council granted authorization with a maximum $25,000 budget to develop a
draft ordinance per the Santa Clara County Cities' Association's Phase II
recommendations and to initiate the public input /outreach process (including
one city-wide notice).
Key Community Outreach Efforts
• May 2010 - Community outreach was initiated. City began seeking interested
parties to participate in focus groups.
• June 7 - City held its first focus group meeting at the Kirsch Center. Over 65
participants attended. Green building consultant Global Green facilitated the
meeting and preparation of the draft ordinance.
• July 13 - Planning Commission held a green building educational workshop.
• July 29 - Second & final focus group meetings were held in Community Hall.
Global Green facilitated the meetings. K.ey components of a Draft Green
Building Ordinance were discussed.
1
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance J ' ,'
Background
CUPERTINO GREEN
Planning Commission Meetings
• Planning Commission held public hearings and reviewed the draft ordinance on
October 12 and 26 .
• October 26 - Commission recommended approval of the draft ordinance (3 -2
vote, Chair Brophy and Commissioner Miller voted no). The draft ordinance was
refined from the Phase II recommendations based on comments and suggestions
the City received from focus group meetings, meetings with key stakeholders,
staff and the City's green building consultant.
• Commissioners who voted no explained they felt the City should focus more on
reducing energy consumption and utility use on existing buildings and on
transportation, rather than new construction and renovations.
• Concern was also expressed that increases in construction costs from the
regulations could make the project financially infeasible, negatively impacting
local jobs.
• November 9 - Commission reviewed the cleaned up version of the draft
ordinance (Reso 6615) and recommended approval (4 -1 vote).
Green Building Ordinance 4...
Draft Ordinance Components
CUPERTINO GREEN
Key Components of the Draft Green Building Ordinance as Recommended by the
Planning Commission:
Effective Date of Ordinance (Section 19.78.040)
• Planning Commission recommends an effective
"start date" six (6) months from the ordinance
adoption date to allow for a 6 -month grace
period.
Alternate Reference Standards (Section 19.78.050) .441.0
• To allow for flexibility, alternate reference
standards to LEED & GPR may be allowed by the 3 is
project decision maker if they are at least
k �
equivalent to the minimum or exemplary
standards , and meet required findings such as:
• Is comprehensive and is as stringent as GPR
& LEED
• Formalized certification process w /3rd party
certification
2
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance r` i
Standards for New Construction, Renovation & in
Additions (Section 19./ „060) CUPERTINO GREEN
• This section lays out the thresholds, minimum and exemplary standards, and
verification requirements for new construction, renovations and additions.
Type of Phase 1[ li..ommenwt(ons Cupertino Draft Green Building Other Options Considered by the
• The following table Frojed Ordinance Minimum Planning cnmmia,iot
Requirements
assists in comparing
Residential - Single-Family (ER) ar Multi- All Single - Family and'.) 11 F:mtily: n g e- Famuy<
changes between the New Family (MFRi < Notes: ,
Construction I Minimum: GPR min. 8.5 pts x OR
Phase II (Single GPR Rated (50 pis nand or I LEED Certified iv/Formal 5ingl - Fan,5) 02.5IX1.5:
Family di LEED Cartlried. • Verification.
Recommendations Multi- 1 GPR min. 75 pis nr dl'-ED
Family) I Exemplary: GPR min. 12 ph in. Codified w /Formal Veritiuniot.
and the Draft y }7 t 1r MFR e 9 Maus•• i LEED Gold w) Formal Verification Single - Family z5 homes:
Ordinance and OR GPR Rated or LEED sB,er
provide options as
Single-Family °
well: ( Certified min. on pi, Certified w JF'urmal Vvnfx'atwx,. In
M "lti-Fami ly <5 homon:
• For clarification OR
purposes, Multi-
Sloth-Fannie zS kl sr ponesire):
GPR min. 75 ph or LEED
Family Residential Certified vs/Formal Verification.
is anything not Multi-Family z 5 homes:
oR
considered Single- i Multi- Family > BOO sf(nnil sire).
Family Residential 1 GPR mum 100 ph or LEED Silver
Formal Certification
Typo of Please 111Gxomnteru adorn' Cupertino IN - 1 ,e'en Building 'f er pt utss um c err by t e
Project Ordinance:s4inimum Planning Commission
Reyuirnmerts
'Residential ..... SFR:'SIMK permit valuation, 15ingl Fa ply e - 50% ttaf e,isting _.. .................
Renovatio ✓ or 05(k) sf Mon: or FAR 1 floor drew
Addition increase .050%:
(Single- M[Nmum: :Al Green Mandatary
Family Sr BIG Elements checklist or (for new pro-lions only( w /Informal
Multi- LEEDcheckliel Verification
Family) SE51011K -931X1K permit
valuation: or $011.1.IX91 st Exemplar), G['R min. 135 ph or
add'n: . TEED Gold w /Formal Verlf¢'auon
I
MG Elements 35-49 ph. or I
LEED Certified
5FR 9310K0 permit valuation;
or 1.000 sr add'n: or FAR
increase of SOX:
GPR Rand (min. SO pta) or
LEED Corlilied
•
Smell MER ( IDDi: Multiple - Family (minor renovation):
GPR checklist or applicable Minimum: $ol Gvwm .Mandahxy
LEED checklist so/Informal Verification.
•
Exemplary: 0PR min. 100 pis or
LEED Silver .0 /Formal Vetii u mint
large MFR 5)0))): 1 'dulti- Pamlfy Matter 0000.ouirtn) - .
•
Renovation dud /or additions Mai
0'e'R 5,1 ptv en applicable 1 comprise at least 10,000 square 1.Mt,
LEED Certified 5 and replace or alter the }fVAC
•
,l.nn
v and at leael hvn of the
following; building son mlo[w•, hot
1 water .yslnn aril liy)uing system. '
Minimum: C242 tifecl n 73 Jh ph
LEED e;erl 'ie wdomvl
•
Verification LEED 000M -
Certified om
f :, 'l oI Verification.
1 Exemplary: GPR inn. 13 pl or •
•
. i MAID Gold sr/Formal Veriricalion
•
3
2/1/2011
•
Type of Phase 11 Recommendations Cupertino [haft Groan Building (Aber Options Considered by the
Project Ordinance Minimum Planning Commission
Requirements
•
Non- -..._... Siall, .C5,01) af: ....... t 10,000 h __.... ..... , h Rrq .. ip oilV :'rifira!on for
Residential ..... projects over 50.0004.
New ( LEED clx 'klist Minimum: Cal Gee Mandatory
Construction i w /Informal Verification.
r emplaga I.EE() Golan w/Rxnml
Veriti anion •
atidsint. 4,010) - 25,000 sk > 10,(001 - 14,011 se
LEED Certified Minimum: LEED Certified
is/Informal Verification
Exemplary: LEE[1 Gold w/ Fkmai
Verification
large, 025A5101.1: 25.0011 or looted':
LEEDSfhvr Minimum: LEER Silver w/ Formal
Vennvdnn.
Exemplary: LETiD Gold w /Fonnol i
Verifkation
Type of Phase 11 Rk+ummondations I Cupertino Draft Green Building Other Options Considered by the
Project Ordinance Minimum planning Commission
Requirements
Non- Small projects: Minor Renovations /Additions:
Residential -
Renovations/ LEED Checklist Minimum: Cal Green Mandatory
• Addition w/ Informal Verification.
Exemplary: LEED Gold w /Formsd
I Verification
Large w/o FiVAC: 2 of A I Major Renovation - Renovations
systems touched +> 10,110 and /or additions, that compels( at
s( • > p e r m i t eaivalkm of 51 Ieast 10,101 square fe t. awl replace
million permit valuation: or alter the biVAC system and at
lease two nt the following: Iwildhlg
LEED Certified w/o envelope, hot water system and
prerequisites lighting system.
Large w/ I IVAC. 2 of 4
systems are touched, one being, Minimum: 10,111) - 25,100 xi --
liVAC +> 10,000.( +> 51 1EED Certified w/ hdonnal
million permit valuation: Verification or LEEU EROM
w /Formal Verification.
LEED Certified
Minimum:25,001 sf or more - 1..EED
Certified w /Ponnal Venfic Lion or
LEEL7 E110k1 w /Formal
Verification.
1 Esemplarv: 1,0E12 Gold w/ Form;d
Vo( 0+0iiml
1 I
Mixed Use Not Addressed I For projects with both nskleelial
Projects I and n 1 i residential component.
each use shall comply with the
,nrnhnnnl requirements stated
.i above .... .. ..._ ...... . ............ ._._.._.....
4
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance 1; ±,�'
Options in Column 3
CUPERTINO GREEN
Option for Residential New Construction, Single- Family and Multi- Family
• Option (1) in Column 3 involves alternate thresholds for Residential New
Construction:
• Threshold based on Number of Units - Option differs from the Phase II
Recommendation delineating between 5 units, rather than 9 units, to
distinguish between single - family and minor lot subdivisions (parcel map
with less than 5 lots) and larger subdivisions (tract map).
• Threshold based on Unit Size - Option is based on the Commission's
discussion to encourage smaller units, using less energy and materials.
Threshold differentiating between small and large is 2,500 sf for a single -
family home and 800 sf (2 BR) multi- family apartment unit.
Option for Non - Residential New Construction
• Option (2) would require Formal Verification only for non - residential new
construction projects over 50,000 sf, as opposed to those over 25,000 sf. This
was proposed in response to stakeholder concerns about certification
requirements on projects over 25,000 sf,
Green Building Ordinance ire
% ,�,.�
Opti ons In Column 3 CUPERTINO GREEN
Option for Non - Residential, Major Renovations and Additions
• Council may also consider a new option for non - residential, major renovations
that would require Formal Verification only for non - residential, major renovation
projects over 50,000 sf, as opposed to those over 25,000 sf. Essentially, this would
be consistent with threshold level for new construction, if Council also wanted to
consider the 50,000 sf threshold for new construction.
5
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance 401 ,►,
Formal &I�n Verification �ysis� �r „��.
S ection 19./ 8.0 7 0 CUPERTINO GREEN
Formal Verification requires:
• Green building checklist cross - referencing how requirements are met in
construction documents.
• Certification at the required level by an approved rating standard (LEED, GPR or
alternate standard approved by the City).
• Green building deposit as surety the project follows through with the certification
& not make forfeiting the deposit attractive.
• Certification within 18 months of final occupancy; otherwise, deposit is forfeited
to the City.
Informal Verification requires:
• Green building checklist cross - referencing how requirements are met in
construction documents.
• Deposit to cover the cost of a green building consultant to verify the building is
designed to the applicable requirement.
• Return of deposit balances back to the applicant that have not been used.
Green Building Ordinance
; (II
Recommended Deposits !i „t```
CUPERTINO GREEN
Planning Commission recommends the following deposits for Formal & Informal
Verification.
A Resolution to adopt these recommended deposit fees is attached to this report.
TABLE 2 - Verification Fees and Deposits Recommended by the Planning Commission
Recommended Deposit for Recommended Deposit for
Project Type Formal Verification Informal Verification
$2 /sq.ft.
Single Family $2,000 $900
$2 /sq.ft.
Multi- Family min. $40,000 /rax. $75,000 $1,500
$2 /sq.ft.
Non - residential min. $70,000 /max. $150,000 $1,500
Note: hlfonnal Verification for CnICreen will not require any deposits and will be done in- house._
Note: The Commission recommended a Formal Certification deposit for single -
family residential that is lower than the estimated fee.
6
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance \ i -ti`'
Typical Certification Costs %��` 'z
CUPERTINO GREEN
TABLE 3 - Typical Green Building Certification Costs
Project Type Green Point Rated LEED for Homes LEED BD &C
Single Family $3,800 $5,000
Multi - Family $40,380 $54,701.1
Office (20,000 sq. ft.) $71,650
Office (50,000 sq. ft.) $97,650
Projects Requiring Typical costs for consultant review range from $900 for
Informal Consultant single - family and small projects to about 51,500 for larger
Verification projects
Note: Typical certification costs based on data from BIG, USGBC, David Energy,
StopWaste.org and Global Green.
For reference: San Jose's deposit is $0.30 /sf, up to a maximum of $30,000. This is
less than the cost of certification in all cases and does not encourage applicants to
follow through.
•
Green Building Ordinance , fi r►
Voluntary Requirements to Obtain , S ,, yr >
Incentives (Section 19.78.080) CUPERTINO GREEN
• Incentives are considered in the Draft Ordinance for projects that voluntarily
meet or exceed the exemplary standards
• Two different types of incentives are recommended - Automatic or
Discretionary
• Automatic Incentives - Recommend building permit fee reductions
(Council to determine the amount o:^ percentage), based upon annual
Council review, adoption of the fee :schedule and available City funds.
• Discretionary Incentives
• 10% reduction in required off - street parking
• Commission did not recommend the additional option for consideration - 10%
increase in floor area ratio (FAR).
• Commission recommends that Council consider the following additional
incentives:
• Expedited plan check process
• Disincentives for projects that are not exemplary (reduced FARs )
• Look at reducing BMR units /fees, grading bonds and removing story pole
requirements for R -1 projects.
7
2/1/2011
Green Building Ordinance , ,, IF
Exemptions for Historic or Atypical
Projects (Section 19. / ] 8.090) CUPERTINO GREEN
• Projects proposed to be exempt from the ordinance include:
• Properties that have demonstrated to the City and meet the standards
that they are historic in nature.
• Projects that include atypical energy- related design requirements
and /or patterns of use.
• The Commission decided not to exempt projects that had already obtained
planning approvals /entitlements because such projects are not exempt
from the new Cal Green building codes.
Green Building Ordinance
Planning Commission i -` ,
R ecommendation CUPERTINO GREEN
Planning Commission recommends that the City Council conduct the
first reading of Ordinance No. 11 -2074 and adopt the Model Resolution
on related deposits.
Commission also recommends that the Council consider the following
additional ideas:
• Six (6) month grace period & effective date of the ordinance
• Not to exempt planning approvals /entitlements
• Reduce building permit fees (to amount determined by Council) if
Council determines there is available funding
• Consider alternative incentives including expedited plan check
process for exemplary projects, disincentives for reduced FARs not
exemplary, and reducing BMR units /fees, grading bonds and story
pole requirements for R -1 (single - family) projects.
• Maximum $2,000 refundable deposit for single - family residential.
8
EAr1IDII
I0
Grace Schmidt
From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford @MISSIONWEST.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 5:41 AM
To: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City
Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or
Subject: Sternuous Objection to Agenda Itme 18 To Requirements In Excess Of Cal Green
BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC.
10050 Bandlev Drive
Cupertino, C,9 95014 -2188
Ph (408) 725 -0700 Fax (408) 725 -1626
Fncrnwford(rimissionwest com
1/29/11
Mayor & Council Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Ph 408- 777 -3308 3251 Fax 408- 777 -3333
cityclerk @cupertino.org; manager @cupertino.org; planning @cupertino.org; building @cupertino.org;
citycouncit®cupertino.org
Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or akin @cupertino.org.
Dear Mayor & Council Members,
Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code
Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Muncipal Mandatory Green Building Standards
In Excess Of The California Green Building Standards Code and
Objections To Provisions in the Cal Green Building Code
Objections To City Council Agenda 2 -1 -11 Item18 Ord
11 -2074
Aki Snelling & Council Members,
We remain even more opposed to this proposed ordinance after reading the staff
report. Not only are you saddling us with the administration Leeds compliance cost
you impose a $2 /sf deposit on non residential buildings. Are you aware that the
LEEDS consulting compliance fees are equal or greater than the architectural fees, in
addition to that are the jobsite and administration costs, you are imposing an
unnecessary cost burden just so you can beat your chest and claim you "out greened"
the adjacent cities. This is a terrible and unjust ordinance.
WE OBJECT STRENUOUSLY TO ANY AND ALL REQUIREMENTS IN EXCESS OF THE
CAL GREEN BUILDING CODE AND TO SOME PROVISIONS IN THE CAL GREEN CODE.
The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new
green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing non residential building,
1
would not apply to any TI in an existing non residential building, would not apply to
any existing non residential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or
alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any non
residential building other than new non residential buildings constructed after
January 1, 2011. You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You
can contact the state representative listed below regarding non residential buildings:
Enrique Rodriguez
Associate Construction Analyst
State of California
Building Standards Commission
2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 130
Sacramento, CA 95833 -2936
Ph (916) 236 -0845 Fax (916) 263 -0959
enrique.rodriguez(a,dgs.ca.gov
Other objections we have to the Cal Green Building Code are:
A number of Cal Green requirements amount to political pandering adding
unnecessary additional costs. We have never seen a memo from the city that
recommends reducing cost and expenses for citizens, why doesn't the city set up a
council approved bonus plan for employee suggestions that when implemented
reduce cost for the citizens. The city council and employees of the city just don't get
it, if you are going to save jobs, you need to quit raising costs with everything you do.
You should create an Economic Ombudsman and committee that reviews proposed
polices and ordinances for economic practicality before they move forward.
1) Bicycle Parking
We have definite objections to required bicycle parking.
a. I was by the City of Santa Clara the other day and looked around at their main
City Hall office complex. They had 4 or 5 bicycle racks and everyone of them
was empty. They have 16 covered bike stalls that may have been occupied or
half empty. They have roughtly 538 stalls including 87 on the streets which
their visitors use extensively as the streets are vehicle friendly so at the very
most they had 3% of their parking used by bicycles. They probably have several
hundred employees working there. They don't have any significant demand for
bicycle parking in the heart of a city with a stable employee base. It is totally
baseless then to require the percentages of bicycle parking being mandated in
the proposed code. If a City Hall complex doesn't generate any significant
bicycle demand there certainly isn't going to be any significant demand in an
industrial park in south San Jose or anywhere else where any significant
residential is miles away.
b. If the employers have a demand for bike racks from employees they'll get put
in but no more than one temporary bike rake should be required. If bicycle
parking demand arises then you could require that bicycle parking be provided
by converting required vehicle parking stalls as necessary.
c. Where is it written that you have to provide covered parking for a $200, $500
or a even $1500 bicycle but not a $20,000 $30,000 or $40,000 automobile or a
2
$20,000 Harley Davidson. Covered parking should not be required for bicycles
this is a totally ridiculous requirement.
d. Providing covered bicycle parking creates more impervious surface areas which
runs counter to stated public policy of minimizing impervious surfaces.
e. We don't oppose those that ride bicycles but, be reasonable and rational.
2) Parking & Clean Air Vehicles - Marking Spaces For "Clean Air Vehicles ". This is
ludicrous for several reasons
a. All electric vehicles are not clean air vehicles or zero emission. Most likely 70
to 80% or more of the electricity used for a vehicle recharge comes from a coal
or hydrocarbon fueled power plants. All you have done using an electric vehicle
is just transfer the point of origin of the fossil fuel pollution. Hybrid vehicles
will be moving more towards plug in's which again merely transfers the point at
which pollution occurs.
b. The true zero emissions vehicle is one powered by pure hydrogen in a fuel cell,
but there are currently only two economical ways to obtain hydrogen, steam
reforming from hydrocarbons and that has CO2 as a byproduct and electrolysis.
Electrolysis is only economical when you have excess electrical power from
nuclear power plants that can produce hydrogen in off hours as they do in
France. The nuclear fuel cost is free for off hours electrical generation as
nuclear fuel rods decay at the same rate regardless of whether they are being
used or not. There is wear and tear on the mechanical equipment but that is
true in all electrical generation.
If cities, states and environmentalist were truly concerned with zero emissions,
curbing CO2 and fossil fuel use they would be promoting and supporting
nuclear power.
c. A good majority of the hybrid vehicles are imported which have knocked a
significant number of your citizens out of jobs, decreased your tax revenue,
caused you to lay off employees, caused needed infrastructure improvements or
maintenance to be deferred or totally canceled. While some foreign based
vehicle manufacturers assemble here, they import the high value components,
engines and transmissions. Assembly of a vehicle only requires 12 to 16 total
man hours.
d. A good number of the imported vehicles come in from countries that erect
barriers to US manufactured goods but benefit from easy US import policy again
eliminating job creation here.
e. Requiring striping and lettering for "clean air vehicles" is unjustified and adds
initial cost and requires ongoing extra maintenance costs.
If you want to do something for clean air and the economy start advocating and
put some effort to promoting nuclear fueled power production and removing
impediments to it. Be honest with yourself.
3) Water Meters
a. Requiring water meters for individual tenants is totally ridiculous. In 90% of
the cases you are dealing with individual office worker needs not process water.
Individuals need water, they are going to use water and just because the boss gets
to see a water meter in the tenant space that does not guarantee that the tenant
or employees will look at it or even pay that much attention to the water bill. The
3
demand for water is driven by personal needs not cost or consumption. Is the
employee not going to use the restroom because they just looked at the water
meter?
b. We had one of the plumbing designer /contractors that has done a lot of work
for the company take a look at what you are proposing based on a two story R&D
facility of 67,500 sf and looked at the water demand and costs for submetering.
b 1. The first floor of 33,750 sf would generate 169 employees using 2100
gallons per day for showers and roughly 3000 gallons per day for personal
needs. Roughly 56 people or 11,290 sf generate 1000 gallons per day exclusive
of shower use. The new code requires a meter for every tenant space with a
consumption of 100 gallons per day.
b 2. Each additional meter and piping would cost $1500 to $2000 per meter.
b 3. There would be additional maintenance cost.
b 4. There would be additional cost for meter reading and administration.
The requirement for separate water meters is simply not justified. If you want to
educate employees about conservation of water, then educate them not bludgeon
property owners with extra meter costs. Your code provisions won't accomplish
conservation because you have more water meters in a building, you are merely
heaping more unnecessary costs on building owners for no valid reason.
4) Material resuse and recycling requirements
Instead of going to the dumps and landfills and making them meet and provide
documentation and meet goals on diversion and recycling, the City or state makes
every permitee post deposits, generate a demo diversion plan, report, wait, follow up
and then finally get a deposit back, all of which consumes a significant amount of
administration and lost interest cost to the permitee. In addition the City expends a
significant amount of administration running the program. I would bet it cost the
City several hundred dollars to a thousand to write the refund check by the time you
add all the program administrative cost in. It would be more effective to administer
the landfills and leave the permittess alone. When you impose requirements on the
landfills they will in turn set their pricing in ways that will cause the permittee's to
comply with diversion and recycling without all of the unnecessary administrative
costs the City is now causing. Permittee's may or may not comply under the current
City program but if the landfills are required to comply, the permittee's will wind up
complying by proxy, and if the non permittee's dump down some canyon, well you
can't control that anyway.
Our field superintendents already respond to the landfill pricing in that it either
costs them more for non segregated material or incentivizes them for segregated
waste disposal or recycling credit.
Don't make hundreds of thousand permittee's and City employees have to
administrate and generate reports when you can accomplish the same thing by
regulating a handful of land fills and waste facilities.
5) Requiring documentation for ongoing systems maintenance is simply another case
of overkill.
6) There should not be any incentives; expedidited plan checks or FAR increase or
any other incentive of any kind for projects that exceed Cal Green nor
4
disincentives of for any project that just meets Cal Green. Any construction
methods or materials should be based strictly on market economics and at the
discretion of the developer or building owner. Any methods or materials that
require incentives; which amount to subsidies, are not economically viable and
should not be mandated nor incentivized.
Just look at the Solyndra snafu in Fremont, CA where the US Government spent
$535 million underwriting a failed solar manufacturing project. If something is
viable it does not need a subsidy.
7) Politicians and local bureaucratics talk about "you can't export green jobs" as if
that is something great. That's like saying we can keep everyone employed by
everyone taking turns selling each other hamburgers in fast food franchises owned
by the Chinese and Japanese that they bought with profits made from selling
Americans, automobiles, machinery and electronics and electronic parts. You as
government officials should start helping business by scrapping your green
building ordinance and start thinking about how you can reduce the cost of doing
business in the USA. The Cal Green Code should be scrapped as well as it is has
some very ridiculous requiements in it as well.
You need to do something that changes the tide so that the USA is providing
automobiles, machinery and electronics and electronic parts to the Chinese,
Japanese and other countries not the other way around.
As you can see the Cal Green Code is adding additional and unnecessary cost strictly
as a result of political reasons and pandering to environmental groups. Please do not
add additional mandatory requirements. Please do look at these Cal Green
requirements and start working on eliminating a number of these unwise code Cal
Green requirements.
Thank you for your consideration,
Myron Crawford
5
ExHIBIT
cc ali,„ 441
Linda Lagergren
From: Crisand Giles [cgiles @biabayarea.org]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:41 PM
To: City Clerk; City Council
Subject: Comment Letter - Proposed Green E3uilding Ordinance
Attachments: Cupertino Green Build Ord 01312011.pdf
Dear Mayor Wong and members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIA) we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the
City of Cupertino's Proposed Green Building Ordinance - Agenda Item #18, February 1, 2011. Attached is our comment
letter for your consideration. The BIA firmly believes in the use and implementation of green building and sustainability
practices, but in a state with the toughest environmental regulations in the nation additional green measures beyond
the newly adopted state code must be voluntary, effective, and above all cost - efficient.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Crisand Giles
Executive Director - South Bay
BIA Bay Area
408.961 -8133 - Direct
925.360.5101- Cell
cgiles @biabayarea.org
Please note our new name and update your records!
B IA BAY AREA
B U I L D I N G I N D U S T R Y A S S O C I A T I O N
1
BIA BAY AREA January 31, 2011
lb IDIN6 ■MUUSIFr , SSOCIAIION Honorable Mayor and Honorable City Council Members
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Via E -Mail: cityclerkPcupertino.org and citycouncil(Ecupertino.org
RE: Comment Letter - Proposed Green Building Ordinance,
Item #18, Council Agenda dated February 1, 2011
Dear Mayor Wong and members of the City Council:
On behalf of the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area (BIA) we appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the City of Cupertino's Proposed Green Building Ordinance. We
believe the City would benefit greatly by adopting a program consistent with CalGreen, and
would ask that the council return this item to the Focus Group for additional discussion prior to
considering its adoption.
CalGreen's implementation is the first time green building standards have ever been mandated
on a statewide basis. Developed by the Department of Housing and Community Development
and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission, the new standards cover energy
efficiency, water conservation, indoor air quality, site development, and construction waste
reduction, disposal and recycling. The BIA firmly believes in the use and implementation of -
green building and sustainability practices, but in a state with the toughest environmental
regulations in the nation, additional green measures beyond the new state code must be
voluntary, effective, and cost - efficient.
While we understand the city's desire to reach beyond the recently adopted State Code we
would caution that as an industry we have yet to learn how to comply with the new
requirements. The housing industry can't get projects financed now; the ramifications of
additional cost and delay from mandating beyond the CalGreen code requirements will further
constrain project financials and limit our ability to propose new projects in Cupertino.
Meanwhile our pent up demand for new housing continues to grow, only masked by record
levels of unemployment. We need to meter our green goals with our current market reality.
We can achieve more on a voluntary basis but it must be considered in the context of the
overall impact these policies will have on housing production.
Crisand Giles The Focus Group was not given substantive language to comment on prior to this council
Executive Director
agenda item — we believe the stakeholder process should continue and that the ordinance
should go back to the Focus Group prior to council deliberation. The BIA urges you to continue
til,il;ng \a�iriss'
the proposed Green Building Ordinance before you this evening to complete that important
15(1 Vlmad -n R1,d., #11)O
process.
Panto >c,(: \95111
Be t regards,
(4-oK1 961-813"
cynkara3
e0e/
biaUa arca.org
i1':i,' „ 'biabo\:area or1
Crisand Giles
Executive Director
cgiles(3biabayarea.org
•
Linda Lagergren E)(HIBI—Ficp____/_7(1t/q
From: shaul berger [dspmaster @yahoo.corn]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 11:20 PM
To: Colin Jung
Cc: City Council; City Attorney's Office; Aarti Shrivastava
Subject: Re: review of Berger calculations for Reconsideration Petition of DIR- 2010 -28 - T- Mobile /Bubb
Road
Hi Colin,
I do not think we have enough time to respond to T- Mobile response till tomorrow evening (since I did not do
the analysis myself).
The bottom line is that I asked for a review of our and their assumptions already in 11/29 meeting (see the
video of the session) but neither T- Mobile nor the city council never approached us on this matter.
I am very disappointed with these tactics which prevent the city and its citizens getting the facts right!
I provided all the information how we calculated our numbers. Maybe it is time for T- Mobile to do the same
instead of criticizing our analysis. We do not know what are the assumptions of T- Mobile analysis. We never
received clear data but only the end result. My feeling is that T- Mobile did not analyze for example the situation
if someone is using the attic.
Regarding their comments about the "error" of 15x (one hour before it was 20x), we do not have real
information how they modelled their system. Their own documents indicate how unreliable their analysis is!
Usually the antenna delivers a gain which compensates for loss in the path from the transmitter. This is why
we assumed transmitter power same as antenna power in the worst case. We would expect to get from T-
Mobile the whole analysis including their ERP (effective radiated power), TPO (transmitter power output), any
polarization losses, etc.
I have to state again what I said in 11/29 council meeting and proposed in my reconsideration petition - the
analysis results are not even near and instead of being constructive, T- Mobile in their behavior show how
unprofessional they are. One minute the factor is 20x. One hour later it is 15x. Clearly there is a need to review
these numbers!
Regards
Shaul Berger
From: Colin Jung <ColinJ @cupertino.org>
To: City Council <CityCouncil @cupertino.org >; City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney @cupertino.org >; Aarti Shrivastava
<AartiS @cupertino.org>
Cc: shaul berger <dspmaster @yahoo.com >; Dayna Aguirre <daguirre @sutroconsulting.com>
Sent: Mon, January 31, 2011 2:18:43 PM
Subject: FW: review of Berger calculations for Reconsideration Petition of DIR- 2010 -28 - T- Mobile /Bubb Road
Here is the applicant's response to Mr. Berger's (petitioner's) radio frequency energy analysis.
Colin Jung
Senior Planner
City of Cupertino
1