Loading...
Exhibit CC 05-03-2011 Item No. 25 Green Building Ordinance 5/3/201193 MCA-2010-04 MCA-2010-04 -,, --• ,,,\,- CUPERTINO GREEN L15 1: i .. oil . r - - -mi. _----..- - - . ' , •°- ' : ' , ,i ,..1 r . 4,,Cic:' ' ,- - V r,(11- B ackground CUPERTINO GREEN February 1, 2011 - City Council reviewed the draft Green Building Ordinance and directed staff to: 1 5/3/2011 Key Components & Changes , : II \ \ - CUPERTINO GREEN Tepe of Phase D Planning Corr l ion liesi d Drag Green Building Project Recommendntionx Recommended Draft Green Requirement per the 2(1/11 Building Ordinance City Council Discussion Residential - Single-Family (SFR) & All Single - Family and MnIN- Single Family & NUM- Neu (MFR) Family: 1• t ?� alnily• - homes: Muitl- Famih' < ,a + =i?s .1c?;i`,. Construction 9 homes: (Single MBnitnum: GPR min. m }Minimum: GFR 010..`1) j// or It >r i - Family' & GPR Rated (50ptsnwt.) LEED Certified sv:' Fo nual LEER Certified u'Tiwd Party Mulct- or LEED Certified Verification. Certification Family) Alternate Reference Standard: Tlard Patty Certification SFR & MFR ? 9 homes: SFR & MFR 9 home GPR Rated (50 p: min.) Minimum: GPR nun. S0 y.s 01 or LEED Silver LEED She s .Third Party Certification (Option: GPR which is equivalent to LEED .Sih•erl Alternate Reference Standard: Third Party Certification Key Components & Changes �� ` 1 1 1v \ CUPERTINO GREEN Type of Phase D PlanNug Commixsien Resised Drag Green &illding Project Rermmoendanonx Recommended Drag Green Requh etnent per the L V 11 Building Ordinance Cllr Conucll Dixrmsion Residential - SFR-5100K permit Single - Famlh 2 50!4 total I Single Family (renovation): Renoratio& valnatlon; or <588 sq. h. rslsdng Boor area: Addition addition: or FAR (Single- Increase <50%: Minimum: Cal Geeu Family & Slurdarorr (f men' potions Multi- BIG Elements checklist oily) %%datnoal Vnjficanon Famllr) a' LEED checklist SF 5100K -0200K permit volnatien; or 500 -1.000 sq. D. add'n: BIG Elements 25 pn. m' LEED Certified SFR 0200X♦ permit valnanon: or 1.000 sq. h. add' u; or FAR immense of 500.: GPR Rated (nun. 50 pts.) m LEED Certified Small Muiuple- Faruily Nluldple- Famllr (minor Multiple - Family (minor Renovation(TBD): renovauon): renorotlon): GPR checklist or Minimum: Col Green Lxo.opt applicable LEED Mnotnor 0Iofomrnl checklist 4'onficatiou. 2 5/3/2011 Key Components & Changes t /nib CUPERTINO GREEN Type of Phase i Planning Commission Revised Draft Green Building Protect Recotmnendatlons Recommended Draft Green Requirement per toe 2 /1/11 Building Ordiname City Connell Discussion Large MFR (TBD): Mtult- Family (major Multiple - Family (major ovation) - Reni nations reoosatlon) - Renovations GPR 50 pts . or applicable and'or additions that conhpnse at nnd+a additions with a Flora LEED Certified least 10.000 square feet. and Alta 001:0 ,FAR, incraa.st replace or alter the -)VAC `0^a and at lust 10.000 system and at least wo of the equate feet, and replace or alter following: buik40g envelope. the HVAC .system and at least hot nester system at 11 lighting two of the following: building 5)140115 envelope. hot water system and lighting system MIolwuml C:PR rtiht. 75 pus or Minimum: CFR 1110. 5 0 p.s a LEED Certified w.7nformal LEED Certified (applicable Verification o, LEED EBOM only to the a of Certified w Formal Verification. hovation'odditims) w City Resiew LEED EBOM 10 Thud Petry Cniiteation. Alternate Reference Standard: Third Pary ('enrticenon Non- Small. 6.000 sq. ft.: Small, 1 10.100 115 1.: Small 010.000 sq. B.: Residential - New LEED checklist Minimum: Cal Green Minimum: Cal Green C'oustrncliou MLndatesy wLSaws1 M . (ity Revlon Verification. Alleraate Reference Standard: Third Party Cettificatial Key Components &Changes - ' 1 )\ \ ` CUPERTINO GREEN Type of Phase D Planning Commis, on Revised Draft Green Bdldlug Project Recommendations Recommended Dr. ft Green Requirement per the 2/1 %11 Building Ordinaoc a City Council Discussion Mid -Jze, 5.000 - 25.000 Mid -size. > 10,000 - 25,000 sq. Mid -size. 11,001 sq. B. - al. f1.: R: :0.000 sq. R.: LEED Certified Minimum: LEED ('ntified Minimum: LEED Cemfied w /hda»hal Venficauou w City Renew A1leraate Reference Standard: Thud Party Cestificatioih Large, 025.000 sq. ft.: Large. 25,001 or more sq. ft.: 1.414)10. ?0.001 or mole kip 0.: LEED Silver Minimum: LEED Silver w: Minimum: LEED Silvio w Formal Voi,hoat.. Tlsud Pam' Certification Alternate Reference Standard: Thud Party Cn+ifieatum Mon- Small projects. Minor R110111o0,Addi1001 %fluor uovatonvAdditous: Resldentlal- Renovations' LEED Checklist Additions Minimum: Cal Ciro. Minimum: Cal Came Mandates). wLdor nal ML ndatays 41 City Review Ve ifisa1ohl. (applicable only to the scope of oak of the renovation addition,. Alternate Reference Standard: Thud Patty Cenificanon 3 5/3/2011 Key Components & Changes g#s CUPERTINO GREEN Type of Phase R Planning Commission Revised Draft Gres Building Project Recommendations Recommended Draft Green Requirement per the 2 /1 /11 Building Ordlnawe City Connell Dhemnon Large We RVAC:: of d Major Renovation - Major Renovation systems are touched 4 . Renovations amtor additions Renovations andtu additions 10.000 sq. 11. v :. piing that coning.e at least 10.000 that cou11111 a al least 10.000 valuation of . S 1 million square fen. and replace or alter uinare feet, and replace a' alt permit valuation the HVAC system and at lean the HVAC system ad at least two of the following: budding two of the following: building LEED Certified u o envelope, hot water system and envelope. hot water system and prerequisites lildithip iysteny lighting system. Large n/HVAC''. 2 of t systems are trashed. one Minimum: 10.000- 25.00001. ?Mantuan: .0 i1Ci- car 00 uq. being HVAC - -- 10,000 It LEED Certified w' -- LEEDCettilied ..51 million Informal Vaificotinn or LEED (applicable only to the area of m.mmt rab„tiaa EBOM w /Formal verification. the renoratioxaddinor0 with City Review or LEER LBO? LEED Certified w?IUd Party Certification hangman: 23,001 sq.11. a Mlutmonr: 50.0i .q ft or max -LEED Certified - -1 ern Gaulle w/Fomol Vetileatiou or LEER (applicable only to the area of EBOM w /Formal V'etifia00,, the renon oinnbddinon) willing Party Certification or LEED EBOM ,./Turd Petty Certification Alternate Reference Standard: Third Petty CatJcaaon g " 4 , 3 1 a . _� 9k 11' Key Components & Changes 1 = � �'— CUPERTINO GREEN Type of Phase D Planning Commission Revised Draft Green Building Protect Recommendations Recommended Draft Green Requirement per the 2/1/11 Building Ordinance City Council Discussion 'Wined Use Not Addressed For ejects with both residential For new and Protects and tsou- residential compatems, renovatimraddition projects each use shall comply with the with residential and rioo- requirenients stated residential components, each above. twe shall congsly with the aadatory roeaamxs n this code by die City of Cupertino, and with the reggrentenls applicable to each use. and with the requirements applicable to the ...Ion comgaius die vajonty of the !...j'et's Note: • CnlGeen Mandatory r l' rmFr0tl sgrate !oolong ry equirelnents shall only be applied to elements included in the scope ofa project. 4 5/3/2011 Key Components & Changes • • CUPERTINO GREEN Green Building Refundable Deposits/Fee Schedule Project Type Planning Commission Revised Deposits per 2/1/11 Recommendation Council discussion Single-Family $2/sq. ft., max. 12,000 $2/sq. ft., max $ 1,000 Multi-Family $2/sq. ft, min. $40,000/ $2/sq. ft., min. $ 20,000/ Residential max. $75,000 max. $40,000 Non-Residential $2/sq. ft., min. 170,000/ $2/sq. ft., min. 135.000/ max. $150,000 max. 175,000 Key Components & Changes CUPERTINO GREEN Green Building Refundable Deposits/Fee Schedule Project Type Planning Commission Revised Deposits per 2/1/11 Recommendation Council discussion Single-Family 12/sq. ft.. max. 12,000 $2/sq. ft.. max $ 1.000 Multi-Family S2/sq. ft., min. 140.000/ $2/sq. ft.. min. $ 2,000/max. Residential max. 175.000 $40,000 Non-Residential $2/sq. ft.. min. 170.000/ 12/sq. ft.. min 135,000/ max. $150,000 max. 175.000 5 5/3/2011 Key Components & Changes % r CUPERTINO GREEN • Removes Section since "Exemplary Standards" section has been removed. Option to Consider • Add Incentives and Exemplary Standards back in if: • Council wants to further discuss & consider allowing increased FAR of up to 10% over Municipal Code allowance. • Expedited building permit processing and /or awarding plaques /recognition as other incentives. • Allows for additional unforeseen exemptions, in addition to historical and atypical energy- related projects • Allows the Building Official to grant the exemptions, consistent with other cities _ ; Recommendation ,;,\' CUPERTINO GREEN 6 CC DE c 3 - \ *, 95 Linda Lagergren From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford @MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 7:21 AM To: Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or Subject: Just When You Think It Can't Get Worse It Does AB 32 SB 375 and Cupertino Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code We remain adamantly opposed to the implementations the ordinance proposed it impose fees and requirements in excess of the Cal Green Building code as proposed in your agenda 5 -3 -11 item 24. BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Banalq Drive Cupertino, CA 95014-2188 Ph (408) 725 -0700 1- ax (408) -25 -1626 mcra wford (ibmission west. cony 3/5/11 Barry Chang - Councilmember City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408- 777 -3308 3251 Fax 408 -777 -3333 bchanggcupertino.org cityclerk @cupertino.org; manager @cupertino.org: plannino @cupertino.org; building @cupertino.org; citycouncil @cupertino.org Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.331) or akis@cupertino.org. Dear Council Member, Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Subject: Just When You Think It Can't Get Worse It Does Objection To Imposition Of Municipal Mandatory Green Building Standards In Excess Of The California Green Building Standards Code and Objections To Provisions in the ICal Green Building Code Objections To City Council Agenda 2 -1 -11 Item18 Ord 11 -2074 9 Just when you think it cannot get worse it sloes. Are you aware of the new CEQA requirements resulting from AB32 and SB375 limitations on GHG and Particulate matter. If you are aware of these bills and the consequences then you should have been rudely awakened and if you have not been aware of these bills then strap yourself into a bolted down chair and HANG ON. If the Cupertino planning staff attended the BAAQMD workshop in Mountain View on March 3 2011 then they can give you an update. Here is what I learned: a. The Santa Clara County parks department had to have a new park approved with a "statement of overriding consid'.erations ". Yes you heard right a new recreational park failed the emissions screening because people had to drive to the park. They had no way to mitigate and had to use a "statement of overriding considerations" to approve the project. b. The City of Fremont stated that they had two project proponents drop out recently because of the uncertainty of not being approved and faced with the prospect having to shell out upwards of $60,000 to $80,000 for air modeling and consultant fees without any assurance that once the studies were done that they would obtain approval. The two projects were a 60 unit affordable housing project and a fast food restaurant located near a freeway. c. The BAAQMD stated: 1. That when you are doing site grading you may be faced with having to have all new equipment on the job so as to not add to the ambient particulate levels. 2. You might have to use electric powered grading equipment for grading next to the property lines. When is the last time you saw a Cat dozer, loader or scraper that was powered by electrified motive power. 3. You might have to retrofit the equipment with new particulate filters, were you aware that the cost of retrofits on large diesel driven equipment could easily run from $30,000 to $300,000. 4. If you proposed to build a 100,000 :;f industrial building that is in a remote or semi remote location without good effective public transportation your project is going to have a lot of problems getting approved. You will have to initiate shuttle buses, mandate car pools, spend high five or six figure amounts for extra high efficiency equipment or solar. Solar as you know yourself is not cost effective as it has to be subsidized. You might have to mitigate another existing projects emissions. It would still be speculative that the project could obtain approval. Do you know that we had a college girl working for us living near Bascom and I 880 commuting here by city bus and it took her 1 1/2 hours to get to work. That amount of commuting time is not acceptable for your regular employees. So even a project that is not remote will have issues as well. We appreciate the fact that you take an interest in the business community's viewpoints and concerns but if you and your council members add on additional 10 requirements on top of the Cal Green Building Code requirements or include existing buildings in your proposed "Green Building Ordinance" in view of this information just presented here, then there will be no words that we can write here that would be publicly acceptable to describe your actions. Why does the City of Cupertino staff and council feel the need to meddle with the Cal Green Building Code and increase the requirements when a professional industry code committee declined to do so? Does the staff now feel that since they blew so much money on Leeds consultants they have to add more requirements to the code? Does the council have an urge to outdo another City so they can pound on their chests and brag that they out did the other cities? The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any TI in an existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any existing nonresidential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any nonresidential building other than new nonresidential buildings constructed after January 1, 2011. You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You can contact the state representative listed below regarding nonresidential 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.rodriguezndgs.ca.gov You have an opportunity to do good here, just don't do anything, just accept the new Cal Green code with no changes and do not extend it to existing buildings. You should just do the job you were elected to do, manage the City's resources wisely, maintain and improve the City streets and infrastructure, provide adequate public safety, don't rewrite codes, leave that to the professionals. Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford 11 �C 0 -03 - Linda Lagergren From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford @MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 7:20 AM To: Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or Subject: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code We remain adamantly opposed to the implementations the ordinance proposed it impose fees and requirements in excess of the Cal Green Buildin code as proposed in your agenda 5 -3 -11 item 24. BERG & BERG DE V 'ELOPERS, INC. 10050 13andlerr Drive Cupertino, C4 95014 -2188 Ph (408) 725 -0700 Fax (408) 725 -1626 mcrawford(imissionwest.co n 2/18/11 Barry Chang - Councilmember City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408 -777 -3308 3251 Fax 408 - 777 -3333 bchang@cupertino.org cityclerk @cupertino.org; manager @cupertino.org; plannin4L @cupertino.org: building @cupertino.org; citycouncil @cupertino.org Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or akis@cupertino.org. Dear Council Member, Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Municipal 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 We appreciate the fact that you take an interest in the business community's viewpoints and concerns. 13 One of the problems is we are being put on the defensive for us to produce cost figure to show we are being damaged. One of the staffs outside consultant stood up in the meeting and clearly stated that the Leeds compliance would cost $400,000 on a 100.000 sf building and that you could make the cost back. Maybe maybe not. What does that $400,000 buy you, nothing but paper and a consultant's time and the greenhouse gases he produces directly and indirectly? If you had that $400,000 you could put that into more efficient equipment or building amenities or perhaps cheaper rents that benefit the tenant, the City's tax base and result in lower cost product or consumer products and potentially more jobs. He didn't get in to all of the other cost that are difficult to put a cost on other than a guess such as: a. Additional approval time b. Additional bureaucracy c. Additional administrative time d. Deposits- cost of money, administrative time on both the City and property owners to process e. Initial cost We could go on and on on the cost issue but ask yourself this, why doesn't every city have their own vehicle emission standards. They don't because if they did the price of automobiles would skyrocket or you couldn't get them at all and your citizens would have to leave the city if they needed a car to get to work in another city. Unfortunately we can't pick up our buildings and move them out of the City to avoid your disastrous planned Green Building Ordinance. Did you ever wonder why the price of gasoline is much higher in California than in the rest of the lower 48 states? It's because California; instead of following the federal guidelines California mandated their own standards which is more expensive to produce and also creates artificial supply shortages. We could be out of gasoline in California and Nevada could have an oversupply, but that oversupply could not be used. In addition the California blend is less efficient so it takes more California gasoline to travel the same distance then if you were to use Nevada gasoline. Just another example of mis- guided meddling bureaucrats. What happens when a building is improved ifor a tenant that will be in the building 3 to 5 years but the building and site will be redeveloped at the end of term. Your ordinance will have required an inordinate unnecessary extra expense on a building that will be torn down and redeveloped. Code development is a process that has been handled by the California Building Standards Commission. The State Housing Law Program within the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCI)), along with the other state agencies, is charged with developing new building standards which are then submitted to the California Building Standards Commission Triennial Code Adoption Cycle. The State Housing Law Program develops statewide building standards for new construction of hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartments, dwellings and buildings accessory thereto. The State Housing Law Program also develops building standards necessary to provide accessibility in the design and construction of all housing other than publicly funded or transient housing. The building standards are published in 14 the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, known as the California Building Standards Code. Stakeholder input and participation is necessary to assist HCD in developing building standards, which will continue to assure the availability of affordable housing and uniform statewide code enforcement; to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and occupants of housing and buildings accessory thereto. The Codes are reviewed by OSPOD and the State Architect, changes are then made and then passed onto the State Building Commissioners board. The board consists of a public member,industry member, an architect, a fire and building official that review the codes and then pass them on to be approved by Secretary of State. The Building Standards Commissioners try to reach a minimum code for all jurisdictions. The do not and did not require more in the Green Building Code because their objective is uniformity, consistency and economics while maintaining safety. Keep in mind that the Building Standards Commissioners are professionals that studied neighboring states codes, Canadian codes, Build it Green and LEEDs. They didn't put more requirements in the code because they did not feel it would have been justified. Why does the City of Cupertino staff and council feel the need to meddle with the code and increase the requiirements when a professional industry code committee declined to do so? Does the staff now feel that since they blew so much money on Leeds consultants they have to add more requirements to the code? Does the council have an urge to outdo another City so they can pound on their chests and brag that they out did the other cities? The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any TI in an existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any existing nonresidential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any nonresidential building other than new nonresidential buildings constructed after January 1, 2011. You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You can contact the state representative listed below regarding nonresidential 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 en rique.rodriguez(cLdgs.ca.gov The market makes the best decision not bureaucrats. Why did the Russians have to stand in line for hours to get a loaf of bread or a pound of beef? Why did the Russian factories over produce or under produce heavy equipment that did not meet the industries needs when the Caterpillar or Deere companies met both the market 15 requirements and competing products. Its simple the Russian bureaucrats made all the wrong decisions because they had no expertise in marketing or design. You have an opportunity to do good here, just don't do anything, just accept the new Cal Green code with no changes. You should just do the job you were elected to do, manage the City's resources wisely, maintain and improve the City streets and infrastructure, provide adequate public safety, don't rewrite codes, leave that to the professionals. Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford 16 C C OS' - o3 - ti e ms ;‘- 9-5 Linda Lagergren From: Myron Crawford [Mcrawford ©MISSIONWEST.com] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 7:41 AM To: Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or Subject: Just When You Think It Can't Get \Norse It Does AB 32 SB 375 and Cupertino Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code From: Myron Crawford Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 7:21 AM To: 'bchang @cupertino.org' Cc: 'cityclerk @cupertino.org'; 'manager@cupertino.org'; 'planning @cupertino.org'; 'building @cupertino.org'; 'citycouncil @cupertino.org'; 'Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.331.3 or Subject: Just When You Think It Can't Get Worse It Does AB 32 SB 375 and Cupertino Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code We remain adamantly opposed to the ordinance proposed in your agenda 5 -3 -11 item 24, it impose fees and requirements in excess of the Cal Green Building code as proposed. You should not pass this ordinance. The best thing you can do is to do nothing. Implement the Cal Green building code and leave it at that. You should do no harm and not adopt the proposed ordinance. BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Bundle) Drive Cupertino, C,=1 95014 -2188 Ph (408) 725 -0700 Fax (408) 725 -1626 mcrawford(&missionwest. com 3/5/11 Barry Chang - Councilmember City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408- 777 -3308 3251 Fax 408 -777 -3333 bchangAcupertino.org cityclerk@cupertino.org; manaQer®cupertino.org; planning_ cupertino.org; buildinQ@cupertino.org: citycouncil@cupertino.org 5 ,ski Honda Snelling at 408 777 3313 or akis®cupertino.ora Dear Council Member, Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Subject: Just When You Think It Can't Get Worse It Does Objection To Imposition Of Municipal 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 Just when you think it cannot get worse it does. Are you aware of the new CEQA requirements resulting from AB32 and SB375 limitations on GHG and Particulate matter. If you are aware of these bills and the consequences then you should have been rudely awakened and if you have not been aware of these bills then strap yourself into a bolted down chair and HANG ON. If the Cupertino planning staff attended the BAAQMD workshop in Mountain View on March 3rd, 2011 then they can give you an update. Here is what I learned: a. The Santa Clara County parks department had to have a new park approved with a "statement of overriding considerations ". Yes you heard right a new recreational park failed the emissions screening because people had to drive to the park. They had no way to mitigate and had to use a "statement of overriding considerations" to approve the project. b. The City of Fremont stated that they had two project proponents drop out recently because of the uncertainty of not being approved and faced with the prospect having to shell out upwards of $60,000 to $80,000 for air modeling and consultant fees without any assurance that once the studies were done that they would obtain approval. The two projects were a 60 unit affordable housing project and a fast food restaurant located near a freeway. c. The BAAQMD stated: 1. That when you are doing site grading you may be faced with having to have all new equipment on the job so as to not add to the ambient particulate levels. 2. You might have to use electric powered grading equipment for grading next to the property lines. When is the last time you saw a Cat dozer, loader or scraper that was powered by electrified motive power. 3. You might have to retrofit the equipment with new particulate filters, were you aware that the cost of retrofits on large diesel driven equipment could easily run from $30,000 to $300,000. 4. If you proposed to build a 100,000 sf industrial building that is in a remote or semi remote location without good effective public transportation your project is going to have a lot of problems getting approved. You will have to initiate shuttle buses, mandate car pools, spend high five or six figure 6 amounts for extra high efficiency equipment or solar. Solar as you know yourself is not cost effective as it has to be subsidized. You might have to mitigate another existing projects emissions. It would still be speculative that the project could obtain approval. Do you know that we had a college girl working for us living near Bascom and I 880 commuting here by city bus and it took her 1 % hours to get to work. That amount of commuting time is not acceptable for your regular employees. So even a project that is not remote will have issues as well. We appreciate the fact that you take an interest in the business community's viewpoints and concerns but if you and your council members add on additional requirements on top of the Cal Green Building Code requirements or include existing buildings in your proposed "Green Building Ordinance" in view of this information just presented here, then there will be no words that we can write here that would be publicly acceptable to describe your actions. Why does the City of Cupertino staff and council feel the need to meddle with the Cal Green Building Code and increase the requirements when a professional industry code committee declined to do so? Does the staff now feel that since they blew so much money on Leeds consultants they have to add more requirements to the code? Does the council have an urge to outdo another City so they can pound on their chests and brag that they out did the other cities? The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any TI in an existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any existing nonresidential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any nonresidential building other than new nonresidential buildings constructed after January 1, 2011. You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You can contact the state representative listed below regarding nonresidential 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 en rique.rodri; uez You have an opportunity to do good here, just don't do anything, just accept the new Cal Green code with no changes and do not extend it to existing buildings. You should just do the job you were elected to do, manage the City's resources wisely, maintain and improve the City streets and infrastructure, provide adequate public safety, don't rewrite codes, leave that to the professionals. oc - O3 - wai - 1 ', J Kirsten Squarcia From: Aki Honda Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 8:54 AM To: City Clerk Cc: Aarti Shrivastava; Gary Chao; Traci Caton; Beth Ebben Subject: FW: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Hi Kim and Grace, Could you include this as a desk item for tomorrow night's CC meeting? Thanks, Aki From: Myron Crawford [ mailto :Mcrawford ©MISSIONWEST.corn] Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2011 7:42 AM To: Barry Chang Cc: City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager's Office; City of Cupertino Planning Dept.; Building; City Council; Aki Honda Snelling at 408.777.3313 or Subject: RE: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code We remain adamantly opposed to the ordinance proposed in your agenda 5 -3 -11 item 24, it impose fees and requirements in excess of the C:aI Green Building code as proposed. You should not pass this ordinance. The best thing you can do is to do nothing. Implement the Cal Green building code and leave it at that. You should do no harm and not adopt the proposed ordinance. BERG & BERG DEVELOPERS, INC. 10050 Band;ei' Drive Cupertino, C4 X5014 -2188 Ph (408) 725 -0700 Fox x (408) 725 -1626 rncra w ford(&mission west. com 2/18/11 Barry Chang - Councilmember City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 Ph 408 - 777 -3308 3251 Fax 408 - 777 -3333 1 bchang c@r,cupertino. org cityclerk®cupertino.org: manager ®cupertino.org; planninc@�cupertino.org; building®cupertino.orq; citycouncil@cupertino.org A i Hcnda SneLin? at 408.777.3313 or akis@cupertino.org. Dear Council Member, Reference: Proposed Green Building Ordinance & Cal Green Building Code Subject: Objection To Imposition Of Municipal 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 We appreciate the fact that you take an interest in the business community's viewpoints and concerns. One of the problems is we are being put on the defensive for us to produce cost figure to show we are being damaged. One of the staffs outside consultant stood up in the meeting and clearly stated that the Leeds compliance would cost $400,000 on a 100.000 sf building and that you could make the cost back. Maybe maybe not. What does that $400,000 buy you, nothing but paper and a consultant's time and the greenhouse gases he produces directly and indirectly? If you had that $400,000 you could put that into more efficient equipment or building amenities or perhaps cheaper rents that benefit the tenant, the City's tax base and result in lower cost product or consumer products and potentially more jobs. He didn't get in to all of the other cost that are difficult to put a cost on other than a guess such as: a. Additional approval time b. Additional bureaucracy c. Additional administrative time d. Deposits- cost of money, administrative time on both the City and property owners to process e. Initial cost We could go on and on on the cost issue but ask yourself this, why doesn't every city have their own vehicle emission standards. They don't because if they did the price of automobiles would skyrocket or you couldn't get them at all and your citizens would have to leave the city if they needed a car to get to work in another city. Unfortunately we can't pick up our buildings and move them out of the City to avoid your disastrous planned Green Building Ordinance. Did you ever wonder why the price of gasoline is much higher in California than in the rest of the lower 48 states? It's because California; instead of following the federal guidelines California mandated their own standards which is more expensive to produce and also creates artificial supply shortages. We could be out of gasoline in California and Nevada could have an oversupply, but that oversupply could not be used. In addition the California blend is less efficient so it takes more California gasoline to travel the same distance then if you were to use Nevada gasoline. Just another example of mis- guided meddling bureaucrats. 2 What happens when a building is improved for a tenant that will be in the building 3 to 5 years but the building and site will be redeveloped at the end of term. Your ordinance will have required an inordinate unnecessary extra expense on a building that will be torn down and redeveloped. Code development is a process that has been handled by the California Building Standards Commission. The State Housing Law Program within the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), along with the other state agencies, is charged with developing new building standards which are then submitted to the California Building Standards Commission Triennial Code Adoption Cycle. The State Housing Law Program develops statewide building standards for new construction of hotels, motels, lodging houses, apartments, dwellings and buildings accessory thereto. The State Housing Law Program also develops building standards necessary to provide accessibility in the design and construction of all housing other than publicly funded or transient housing. The building standards are published in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, known as the California Building Standards Code. Stakeholder input and participation is necessary to assist HCD in developing building standards, which will continue to assure the availability of affordable housing and uniform statewide code enforcement; to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and occupants of housing and buildings accessory thereto. The Codes are reviewed by OSPOD and the State Architect, changes are then made and then passed onto the State Building Commissioners board. The board consists of a public member,industry member, an architect, a fire and building official that review the codes and then pass them on to be approved by Secretary of State. The Building Standards Commissioners try to reach a minimum code for all jurisdictions. The do not and did not require more in the Green Building Code because their objective is uniformity, consistency and economics while maintaining safety. Keep in mind that the Building Standards Commissioners are professionals that studied neighboring states codes, Canadian codes, Build it Green and LEEDs. They didn't put more requirements in the code because they did not feel it would have been justified. Why does the City of Cupertino staff and council feel the need to meddle with the code and increase the requirements when a professional industry code committee declined to do so? Does the staff now feel that since they blew so much money on Leeds consultants they have to add more requirements to the code? Does the council have an urge to outdo another City so they can pound on their chests and brag that they out did the other cities? The State of Californian Building Standards section explicitly stated that the new green building code WOULD NOT apply to any existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any TI in an existing nonresidential building, would not apply to any existing nonresidential shell building or to any initial or subsequent TI or alteration in that building. We object to the proposed ordinance applying to any nonresidential building other than new nonresidential buildings constructed after January 1, 2011. 3 You should not require anything beyond State requirements. You can contact the state representative listed below regarding nonresidential 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 ( dgs.ca.gov The market makes the best decision not bureaucrats. Why did the Russians have to stand in line for hours to get a loaf of bread , or a pound of beef? Why did the Russian factories over produce or under produce heavy equipment that did not meet the industries needs when the Caterpillar or Deere companies met both the market requirements and competing products. Its simple the Russian bureaucrats made all the wrong decisions because they had no expertise in marketing or design. You have an opportunity to do good here, just don't do anything, just accept the new Cal Green code with no changes. You should just do the job you were elected to do, manage the City's resources wisely, maintain and improve the City streets and infrastructure, provide adequate public safety, don't rewrite codes, leave that to the professionals. Thank you for your consideration, Myron Crawford 4