Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 332-09TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: AUGUST 3,2009 REPORT: REPORT OF OFFICIALS DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CMR: 332:09 SUBJECT: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Green Building Standards for Compliance, Tables A & B for Non-Residential and Residential Projects, and Review of Report on Implementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides a summary of inlplementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance, (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.44). Over the past year, the program covered 264 permits and influenced $8,306,638 in valuation and 98,275 square feet of construction to incorporate strategies that are environmentally and socially responsible, and improve occupant health. Staff recommends that Council adopt, by Resolution, amendments to the tables adopted by Council in June 2008 in conjunction with its adoption of the Green Building Ordinance. The revised tables set forth green building compliance thresholds, rating systems, and compliance verification for private development by project type. The amendments increase requirements for existing buildings with a particular focus on increasing building owner knowledge of the building's energy efficiency, and adjust the covered project definitions based on lessons learned from the first year of program implementation. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Architectural Review Board recommend that the City Council review this report describing the past year's implementation of the City's Green Building Ordinance, and adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment A) referencing proposed amendments to Tables A & B (Resolution Exhibits 1 and 2). BACKGROUND In June of 2008, the City of Palo Alto adopted a mandatory Green Building Ordinance (P AMC Chapter 18.44) requiring specific project types to meet minimum standards for compliance and verification using the appropriate U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) or Build It Green (BIG) Green Point Rated (GPR) green building rating systems. The goal of the Palo Alto Green Building Program is to design, build and operate a new generation of efficient, environmentally responsible, and healthy buildings in the City of Palo Alto. Building green can have a significant impact on reducing energy, water and natural CMR: 332:09 Page 1 of 11 resource consumption, and can improve Palo Alto citizens' well being through improved indoor air quality and comfort. Green building is the practice of taking an integrated approach to building construction, building systems, and building sites to provide more environmentally responsive, healthy, productive, economical places to work, learn and live. Green building also goes beyond the physical buildings to consider how the site and buildings interact with the community and transportation infrastructure. The associated Resolution, adopted in conjunction with the ordinance, referred to the standards for green building compliance, and includes: • Table A; City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development, Nonresidential Construction and Renovation, and • Table B, City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development, Residential Construction and Renovation. P AMC Section 18.44.040 requires that any amendments to the standards for green building compliance be considered and recommended by the Architectural Review Board. There is also a need to update the Historic Resources Board and Planning and Transportation Commission on the progress made implementing the ordinance during the first year of the Palo Alto Green Building Program. This report covers the first year of ordinance implementation and performance of the Palo Alto Green Building Program, and describes proposed amendments to the green building requirements (Tables A and B). PROGRAM REPORT The Green Building Ordinance requires staff to return to Council one year after the effective date to report on program implementation. Therefore, this report covers program performance from July 1, 2008 -June 30, 2009. Staff anticipates that future program reports will be provided during the annual Earth Day report in April of each year, covering the previous year performance from January 1 -December 31. Over the past year, the Palo Alto Green Building Program was created both to implement the Green Building Ordinance, and to address implementation of and interaction with the City's Energy Efficiency Ordinance and Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion (C&D) Ordinance. Staff has implemented several key measures establishing staff and community building activities and program performance over the last year, and has gained insight into areas where the program could be better optimized, as described in the "Discussion on Amendments" section of this report. Green Building Implementation Activities The following are staff and community building activities that were undertaken and completed during the past fiscal year to implement the Green Building Ordinance: • Hiring of Experienced Staff and Training of Existing Staff -In early October 2008, the City filled the vacant C&D position (funded by Public Works Operations budget) with a qualified CMR: 332:09 Page 2 of 11 staff member who is a LEED Accredited Professional, with BIG's Green Point Rater (GPR) Training, and experience in green building policy, standard development, education and project review. Staff initiated the program, with assistance from a City of San Jose employee through the Management Talent Exchange Program, and from interns from Stanford and California State University San Luis Obispo (Cal-Poly), which allowed the C&D program to continue to run while the green building program was established. Additional staff merrlbers in the Planning and Community Environment, Public Works, and Utilities Departments have undergone training and/or have become accredited/certified under the USGBC LEEDIBIG GPR programs, respectively. • Developing the Palo Alto Green Building Program Guide (Guide) -The Guide was developed as a tool to assist the community in understanding the City's program and to provide infonnation on why green building is important. The Guide describes the City's project requirements and submittal and review processes, as well as presents financial incentives and helpful outside resources to assist with compliance. • Developing a New Green Building Website The Planning and Community Environment Department website added a new green building section that allows applicants to view successful green projects in the City, the goals and purpose of the green building program, links to financial' incentives for building green, and outside resources. From the site, users can download the Palo Alto Green Building Guide to find specific infonnation regarding the proj ect type the user is undertaking, at http://www.cityofpaloalto.orgldepts/plnlgreen building/default.asp. • Streamlining the C&D and Energy Ordinance Compliance Reviews -C&D and building energy efficiency are a subset of the broader practice of green building; therefore the requirements for both were merged into' one program and the application process was combined for ease of implementation by the City and community. The C&D Debris Diversion Ordinance requires covered projects to achieve a 75% diversion rate and requires applicants to bring all debris to an approved facility. The Energy Efficiency Ordinance requires covered projects to achieve energy savings 15% beyond the California State Energy Code. • Integrating Green Building into the Permit and Inspection Process -Staff established new review and enforcement protocol through the planning and building application processes, including updating existing forms, proj ect checklists, and the Accela building permit tracking systen1 to account for green building review and inspection. • Achieving Greater Cost Recovery -Staff assessed the fiscal and staffing needs to run the green building program to ensure greater cost recovery. The FY 2010 budget passed in June 2009 includes new fees ranging from approximately $100 -$800 for projects covered under the Green Building Ordinance to cover staff time to review projects and enforce the requirements. Project fees were determined by the size of the project, and whether the City was providing verification in house, or through the Build It Green or the Green Building Certification Institute. CMR: 332:09 Page 3 of11 • Adding New Enforcement Options -The Ordinance requires compliance as its primary enforcement mechanism. Final building inspections are delayed until the proj ect can show an adequate level of compliance. In order to expand compliance options, in July 2009, the administrative penalty schedule was updated to allow fines for non-compliant green building projects at $500 per day of non-compliance. There are currently no incentives for complying since all projects must comply, however rebates are offered for building green through the Utilities and Public Works Departments. • Creating a Performance Database -Staff established performance indicators for determining the effectiveness of the program including, but not limited to, number of projects by type, number of occupants in green buildings, square footage, points achieved, water reduction, energy savings, waste diverted, greenhouse gas emission reductions, and dollars spent on environmentally preferable materials. In addition, the system tracks review time to ensure green building review and inspection are not responsible for prolonging the building process. • Participating in City, Regional and National Events and Efforts -City staff participates in city, regional and national green building related events and efforts. City staff presented a session regarding the Green Building Ordinance and program implementation at the AIA (American Institute for Architects) International Conference and at the Bay Area City Attorney's Association, participated on the Energy and Climate Taskforce to develop green building indicators for cities nationally through ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability), participated in the Build It Green Public Agency Council and in the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative to develop policy recommendations for use throughout the county (Attachment E). In addition, the City's ordinance was recognized as a model ordinance by the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Looking Forward In the coming year and beyond, staff anticipates preparing for when green building is just the way all building occurs in Palo Alto. The following are some of the activities pialmed for the comIng years: • Building Greater Staff Capacity Staff intends to work toward reducing reliance on certifying bodies such as the Green Building Certification Institute and Build It Green by increasing capacity for staff reviews and on-site inspections of covered green building projects. Limited staff are currently providing this service for a small percentage of projects. Integrating these functions into the department could reduce costs and time for applicants and can prepare the department for future code requirements for green building at the state level. In particular, staff proposes to increase training and certification in energy efficiency plan review and on-site compliance inspections. It will be necessary, however, to assure that City review, inspection and costs are not duplicative of those done by outside bodies. • Developing a Recognition Program Staff proposes to establish a recognition program to acknowledge all covered projects that have achieved compliance with mandatory green building requirements via certificate, plaque or window decal to honor this achievement. This is particularly valuable for projects that are verified by the City rather than by an outside agency (such as the Green Building Certification Institute or Build It Green), since all CMR: 332:09 Page 4 of 11 projects must undergo a similarly stringent compliance review. This program would be in addition to the Architectural Review Board awards for exceptional buildings, which happen every five years. The 2010 awards will likely include awards for Green Buildings. • Focusing Efforts on Existing Buildings -Staff expects to focus greater efforts on understanding the current performance of the existing building stock, where the greatest environmental and performance improvements can be made~ These efforts are further outlined in the discussion on the proposed Ordinance anlendments. • Continuing to Track Rating Systems. Code and Policy Development and Their Relationship and Integration into the Green Building Program -It is important for staff to stay current on green building rating system changes, technology and strategy innovations, and green building codes and policies at both regional and national levels. These include, but are not limited to: LEED, BIG, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 189, and the California Green Building Code. Staff is particularly interested in finding innovative ways to incorporate the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) program into large projects and broad City planning strategies as well as on implementation scenarios for new requirements being proposed for the CA Green Building Code changes. Program Performance Over the past year, there have been 264 permits issued for projects covered under the green building compliance standards. Some findings related to the distribution are as follows: • Residential vs Nonresidential Permits -100 permits, or 38%, were nonresidential and 164- permits, or 62%, were residential; • Mandatory Requirements vs Good Faith Efforts (Voluntary) -72 permits, or 27%, had mandatory green building requirements and 192, or 63% only had construction and demolition debris diversion and/or good faith effort requirements such as checklist submittal only; • Mandatory Requirement Permits by Project Type -22 permits, or close to 30% of those with mandatory green building requirements were for nonresidential existing buildings, and 50 permits or close to 70% were for new construction; • Good Faith Effort Permits by Project Type -114 permits, or 43%, of the total number of permits were for residential renovations or small additions. The mandatory requirements influenced $80,412,694 of construction funding toward green building and over 666,500 square feet of space. Within Palo Alto, there are at least nine (9) LEED registered proj ects in process to be certified by the Green Building Certification Institute, about 30 in process to be certified by Build It Green, and at least 15 proj ects being verified by the City. CMR: 332:09 Page 5 of 11 Only five (5) of the 72 pennits with mandatory green building requirements have successfully completed the green building program. It is important to note that projects with mandatory green building requirements are also typically those that have a longer construction period; therefore, many projects that were covered under the requirements when the program started, on July 1, 2008, have not yet completed construction. In addition, while only five proj ects have successfully completed the green building progranl, there are nlany other projects that predate the mandatory requirements and are voluntarily meeting the City's requirements. All completed projects achieved the exact number of points, or slightly exceeded the minimum number of green building points required for the project; however, more recently, staff is seeing (on average) applicants striving for point targets 30-40% higher than the City minimum points. The five projects that successfully completed the green building program: • totaled project valuations of$8,306,638 and 98,275 square feet of construction; • include 750 employees in Palo Alto; • achieved on average 24% energy efficiency savings; • reduced ind()or water use by 69,500 gallons per year; • reduced outdoor water use by 50,000 gallons per year; • expended $635,174 on environmentally preferable building materials; • diverted 704.98 tons of waste from landfill; and • reduced CO2 emissions by over 200 tons; At least half of the completed projects installed low-emitting materials, had access to public transportation, perfonned commissioning, and increased pervious surfaces on site. In addition, all of the projects achieved at least a 75% debris diversion rate from the landfill. PROPOSED GREEN BUILDING AMENDMENTS Staff took the opportunity of reporting on program implementation outcomes to amend the compliance standards. Each of the goals is discussed further below. The amendments are proposed for Table A and Table B (both attachments are annotated to indicate proposed changes), which were original attachnlents to the Green Building Ordinance passed a year ago and outline green building requirements by proj ect type. The amendments will go into effect concurrently with the final adoption of the 2008 California Energy Code and local amendments, expected in January 2010, to ensure compliance with the newest version of the California State Energy Code. The changes were driven by a number of goals to increase the effectiveness of the program, including: • Adding an energy efficiency and existing building emphasis; • Incorporating lessons learned on covered proj ect types; and • Clarifying definitions and language for consistency with referenced Green Building rating systems, codes and programs. The changes will require covered existing buildings to understand their current energy perfonnance and how it can be improved, and will allow the City to more effectively require green building requirements based on project scope rather than valuation. CMR: 332:09 Page 6 of11 Adding an Energy Efficiency and Existing Building Emphasis It is important to note that the City already has a separate Energy Efficiency Ordinance that functions compatibly with the Green Building Ordinance. Because the point thresholds in the Green Building Ordinance require achievement of some energy-related points, in 2008, Council adopted the California Energy Code and an Energy Efficiency Ordinance making local energy efficiency amendnlents. The Energy Efficiency Ordinance, approved by the California Energy Commission, provides the legal authority for the energy efficiency requirements that are already part of the Green Building Ordinance. The City currently has no mandatory green building requirements for a majority of nonresidential existing building projects, and no requirements for existing residences. However, existing buildings dominate the built environment and hold the greatest potential for major carbon reductions through energy and water savings. The existing building stock is where action must be taken to achieve energy efficiency measures in support of the City climate action plan, and state and national goals. In the current economy, new construction is playing a smaller role than it has in the past. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission's Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, supporting the state carbon reduction mandate of AB32, set a goal of 40 percent energy savings in aU homes within 12 years and 80 percent by 2050. To meet these necessary environmental targets would require Palo Alto's existing buildings, as well as buildings in other cities, to be renovated at a rate many times the current level of improvements. Addressing the existing building stock is both necessary and an opportunity for the City to be a leader and move in a direction that will prepare the greater community for an uncertain energy future that will also protect its environment; few cities in the State have set mandatory, aggressive policies or programs for existing buildings. The revisions follow two priorities for energy efficiency and existing buildings. Requiring a Performance Approach In the nonresidential sector (Table A), all new construction over 500 square feet is currently required to meet an established level in the LEED rating system. However, in the LEED rating system, there is a prerequisite (a nlandatory requirement that must be met prior to points being claimed) that allows two paths for ensuring minimum energy efficiency measures are met. There is a performance path through demonstrating a 10% improvement over the California State Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) or ASHRAE 90.1, a national energy code, or a prescriptive path under ASHRAE 90.1 that requires specified energy strategies. The proposed amendments would require proj ects in the City to choose the performance path. Increasing the Energy "10" of the Owner Lack of owner awareness remains one of the biggest challenges to improving efficiency of existing buildings. Amendments to both the nonresidential and residential sector would require existing buildings undergoing substantial renovations to understand their energy use, their performance compared to other sinli1ar buildings, and to identify strategies for inlprovement using two well recognized systems. Rather than emphasizing individual retrofit measures, the program would focus on a "whole building" approach to understanding energy, which can deliver much greater energy savings, health and comfort benefits, and much higher owner satisfaction. CMR: 332:09 Page 70fll The nonresidential sector table (Table A) would require applicants, for projects involving covered existing buildings, to submit a Building Energy Performance Rating using the Energy STAR Portfolio Manager software tool. The Energy STAR Portfolio Manager is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Portfolio Manager is a free, interactive energy management tool that allows building owners to track and assess energy and water consumption of a given project. The project would receive an energy performance rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide. The residential sector table (Table B) would require applicants, for projects involving covered existing buildings, to perform a HERS IT Rating starting January 2011. HERS stands for the California Home Energy Rating System, a statewide program administered by the California Energy Conlffiission under statutory requirenlents. Phase I of the HERS Progranl provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase IT expands the program to include whole-house home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes. The definition of a covered project for this level was amended from projects having a valuation greater than $75,000, to projects having a valuation greater than $100,000 and more than 250 square feet of floor area to ensure that the owner undertakes a significant enough improvement to benefit from the rating and to incur the time and cost of undertaking it. In addition, the requirements for residential applicants will not be effective until 2011 to ensure there is enough time for the commlmity to familiarize themselves with the new requirement and pro gram. Requiring use of the Energy STAR Portfolio Manager and HERS IT program would not mandate design or require improvements to a proj ect. However: (l)Applicants using the programs would only be required to learn and begin to understand their project's energy performance; the City does not require that they make improvements to their score. The City's goal would be for owners to use the knowledge, particularly if the project is a low performer, to make informed decisions on home improvements that can save the owner money and energy; (2)Requiring applicants applying for projects involving existing buildings to understand the building'S energy performance will move the City further toward requiring a specified level of performance in the future; and (3)Since applicants will be required to submit their energy performance rating to the City, staff will be able to create a database to better track and understand the performance of the existing building stock, to learn how the City compar~s to other cities, and to know where to target efforts to improve efficiency and reach Climate Action Plan targets. hlco[porating Lessons Learned on Covered Pro; ect Types Staff has gained a better understanding of how different project types fit into the different green building requirement levels and the issues facing verification. Staff found that the non-residential requirements for large projects (over 5,000 square feet of floor area, over $500,000 valuation and CMR: 332:09 Page 8 of 11 over 50% of building square footage) are capturing projects for which it is impractical to apply comprehensive green building practices, and are not capturing projects where green building requirements should be applied. For example, a project may have fallen into the requirements listed above, but the scope of the project only included major equipment installation throughout the building which caused high valuation, with the majority of the building and systems being untouched. Another example is a $3 million renovation over 5,000 square feet with a scope that touched every system and surface, but did not qualify to comply with the ordinance because it did not cover over 50% of the entire existing buildings square footage because the building was so large. The proposed amendments would change the existing standards for large non-residential projects so that the standards would be based on square footage and scope of a project, rather than project valuation and percentage of the whole building being renovated. The revised requirements would apply to a project over 5,000 square feet and with substantial renovations to at least two systems (HVAC, lighting, plumbing or interior surfaces/partitions). In general, staff found that valuation was not as good an indicator (for whether green building was practical) as square footage or scope would be; therefore an effort was made to delete valuation as an indicator. Starf also found that projects that were "rebuilds" of existing buildings, essentially new construction, did not have any mandatory green building requirements. The proposed amendments require both nonresidential tenant improvements, renovations or alterations as set forth in Table A, Section "C", and residential "rebuilds" to achieve some green building requirements, or at minimum, to meet a certain level of energy performance starting in 2011. The amendments also codify the availability of in-house (City staff) verification as an option at all compliance levels. The City was already providing this option for some project types, and the increasing level of green building experience and knowledge of City staff now make this more practical. This proposed amendment would impact both nonresidential and residential projects. If the City is chosen for verification, staff reviewers will still rely on the submittals of extensive work by certified and/or experienced green building professionals such as LEED Accredited Professionals and Green Point Raters. Clarifying Definitions and Language for Consistency with Referenced Green Building Rating Systems, Codes and Programs Reference in the table to the U.S. Green Building Council is proposed to be replaced with the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI). In early 2009, GBCl assumed responsibility for overseeing all LEED proj ect certification. GBCI proposes to improve processing time, ensure credibility and integrity in the certification process, and separate the body that develops the standard from the certifying body. Reference to a specific derivation of a rating system (LEED for New Construction or LEED for Commercial Interiors) is proposed to be replaced with the overarching rating systenl to give greater flexibility to the applicant based on the project type. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS On July 16,2009, staff presented the proposed amendments to the standards in a public hearing to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for recommendation to City Council. The ARB CMR: 332:09 Page 9 of 11 recommended, on a 5-0-0-0 vote, that Council approve the Resolution adopting the revised tables. The table changes were also informally reviewed by community stakeholders on July 1 7 and commented on by California Energy Commission Buildings Standards Implementation staff. Neither recommended any changes to the proposed amendments. In addition, two public study sessions were conducted with the Historic Review Board (July 15, 2009) and Planning and Transportation Commission (July 29, 2009) allowing staff to present a summary of the first year implementation of the Green Building Program and to describe the proposed table changes. The HRB recommended that to be explicit, a row should be added to the compliance tables showing that all proj ects that do not fit into any of the proj ect categories do not have any green building requirements. Staffplans to add this to the implementation guide. Staffwill sumnlarize the P&TC con1ments during the presentation to Council and verbatim minutes from the July 29 study session will be provided at places for Council's consideration. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommendations set forth are consistent with and further a number of existing City policies. For the past three years, the City Council has ranked environmental protection among its top three annual goals. The amendments to Tables A and B, which outline the green building compliance requirements, are consistent with the Green Building Ordinance adopted in June of 2008, which added Chapter 18.44 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The amendments are also consistent with the Energy Efficiency Ordinance, which added chapter 16.18 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code establishing local energy efficiency standards based on the 2005 California Energy Code. The Green Building Program also promotes the City's Climate Protection Plan (CPP) and Zero Waste goals. In 2007, the City Council approved the Climate Protection Plan (CPP) that provided direction to reduce green house gas emissions associated with buildings as one method to reduce Palo Alto's impact on climate change. The plan proposed implementing specific requirements for green building and adopting the 2005 California Energy Code to achieve emission reduction goals. Finally, the amendnlents support the City's Comprehensive Plan and Sustainability Plan, which note several green building strategies as key categories of sustainability focus throughout. RESOURCE IMPACT If the proposed amendments are adopted, relevant resource impacts could include staff time and owner expenses. The amendments are unlikely to cause an increase in the applications submitted under the green building progranl, but are likely to increase the time necessary to review an individual application. The review time depends greatly upon whether a project with mandatory requirements chooses to use the City for verification instead of using GBCI or BIG. Applicants' motivation to choose one verification method over another may include recognition, time, cost and convenience. Staff is confident, based on the past year, that a manageable number of non- residential project applicants will choose City verification and the nlajority of residential projects will choose BIG verification, without increased permit fees. However, the City will need to adjust its permit fees to allow the option of an increased fee in the event that residential projects choose City verification to ensure cost recovery. CMR: 332:09 Page 10 of 11 The only additional owner expenses that are introduced with these amendments would be costs associated ·with the energy performance rating requirements for existing buildings for both non- residential and residential projects. For non-residential projects, the Energy STAR Portfolio Manager program is free; however, time would be needed to input the necessary building performance information to obtain a rating. If the owner has easy access to the building's energy and water bills, as well as building characteristics, the time needed would be minimal, typically under four hours. For residential projects, the owner would be required to hire a HERS II Rater to audit the home and provide a rating and recommendations. The cost of a rater is estimated at $300-$600 for an audit and would only be required for projects with valuations over $100,000. The audit cost is minimal considering the benefit to the owner of understanding their building's energy performance, and being able to identify strategies that can significantly save money, reduce environmental impacts and can also improve resale value. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The adoption of the proposed amendments is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Section 15308 of CEQA Guidelines. PREPARED BY: KRtSTIN'HEtNEN Associate Planner DEP AR'fMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: JAM:EfS'REENE ( /. City ~;~riager LJ ATTACHMENTS A. Resolution B. Table A. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development Nonresidential Construction and Renovation (Not Redlined / Redlined) C. Table B. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development Residential Construction and Renovation (Not Redlined / Redlined) D. Letter from Silicon Valley Leadership Group dated June 16, 2009 E. Responses to Questions from Commissioner Keller for July 29,2009 PTC CMR: 332:09 Page 11 of 11 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. ---RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING REVISED GREEN BlTILDING STANDARDS (' FOR COMPLIANCE FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, on May 12, 2008, the City Council considered regulations for the incorporation of green building teclmiques and materials in private residential and nonresidential development projects and adopted Ordinance No. 5006; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5006 specifies that green building standards for compliance shall be set forth by resolution of the City Council after recommendation from the Director of Planning and Community Enviro~nt and the Architectural Review B~ard. Such st~n?ards f?r compliance shall inc~u~~he t~pes of projects s~bj ect to regulation, green buildIng rating systems to be appheg'to varIOUS types of proJects, minimum thresholds for compliance and timing and methods of verification of compliance with green building regulations; and WHEREAS, on May 12, 2008 the City Council adopted green building standards for compliance for private development projects set forth in two tables that were attached to Resolution No. 8825; and WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 5006 also specifies that not later than one year after its effective date, a report shall be prepared for presentation to the Architectural Review Board, Historic Resources Board, Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council regarding the results of implementation of the Ordinance. WHEREAS, on August 3, 2009, the City Council received the report regarding the initial year of the Green Building program and considered revisions to the green building standards for compliance associated with Ordinance No. 5006; and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the Architectural Review Board do hereby recommend that the City Council approve the proposed revisions to the green building standards for compliance for private development projects set forth in Table A and Table B and attached to this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The Council hereby approves the revised green building standards for compliance for private development projects as set forth in Table A and Table B attached to this resolution. 1 090727 syn 6050919 NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 2. This resolution shall take effect on January 1, 2010, or upon the date that ·the 2008 edition of the California Energy Code becomes effective, whichever is later; provided that the City's Ordinance establishing local energy efficiency standards for certain buildings and improvements covered by the 2008 California Energy Code has been approved by the City Council and the California Energy Commission. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Deputy City Attorney Director of Planning and Community 2 090727 syn 6050919 Attachment B Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGES ACCEPTED --EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010 Table A. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development Nonresidential Construction and Renovation .' -'... J • -, -• ~ --.... "Fype of Project ; -~,-.~ < ' -_, ' : ~ I Rlltia&System, '-r·~,1. -,'. -; ~ . ~ %, -;. -," ~--V rift ti -. ~ "', c-, ;'. _ •• ..... ' ----0'. -_ . Cod' P -'. -' u o· / .-! ~ .r~.--. ". '?' '0", e caOD ,1 -_ ~ I .. 1 _ f r eor .rocram M ....... mTbnsJaold .. ;'.~ .c-~ _ . -'-~, ~'. ..' ,Il '._::1 0 t,. ..........-; __ " r .... _ ~I _' ... _ -_~-::l'" _ ~ A. New construction ~ 5,000 sf USGBC LEED LEED Silver GBCI or CPA (including additions to existing buildings) The Project Must Choose the LEED Energy Performance Approach. B. New construction ~ 500 sf and < 5,000 sf USGBC LEED Prerequisites + 5 points (round up) required for every 500 sf GBCI or CPA (including additions to existing buildings) The Project Must Choose the LEED Energy Performance Approach. C. Tenant improvements, renovations, or alteratiop.s ~ 5,000 sf USGBC LEED LEED Certified GBCI or CPA of floor area that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, plumbing systems, lighting systems, and/or interior finishes/partitions. D. Renovations and alterations 2:.500 sf that don't fall under USGBC LEED LEED Checklist CPA Project Types C. Energy STAR Building Energy Performance Rating Portfolio Manager I Sf*iaICoDSjderatiou&Qe6nitio~ -_ -,"<'-,'~.r L,:~~'~~",<I< , _o"-t~:-'" _~ .~~ ~ : --. ~ . '_-::-.~'. 'o-_,: ... ~-~:~~-?:':~".·';'-.~' "-.~\~~ =::C'~~i{"~<·-:~\ M' U D Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. To be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A lXed se evelopments will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions of the development. H' . S Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to Section 18.44.070 of the ordinance. The Compliance Official may allow the use of alternative checklists for historic buildings or Istonc tructures for buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure. Multi Year Cumulative Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period shall be considered as a single project, subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless Construction exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. U I P , Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to Palo nusua rOJects Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. USGBC LEED stands for the U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Projects must comply with the applicable, and current, LEED® rating system , USGBC LEED including but not limited to LEED-NC (New Construction), LEED-CS (Core & Shell), LEED-CI (Commercial Interiors), or LEED-EB (Existing Buildings). An alternative, equivalent rating system or program may be substituted as approved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the applicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). GBCI The Green Building Certification Institute provides 3rd party verification services for the LEED rating system . . CPA The City of Palo Alto staff with expertise in green building will provide in-house review similar in structure and stringency to that of the GBCI. E STAR P rtti r The Energy STAR Portfolio Manager is managed by the US. Environmental Protection Agency, Portfolio Manager is an interactive energy management tool that allows you to track and assess Mnergy 0 010 energy and water consumption of your project. The project will receive an energy performance rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide. The project is not required to anager change its rating, but this tool will help applicants understand a projects rating and how it compares to others. Building Envelope The building envelope is the ensemble of exterior and demising partitions of a building that enclose conditioned space. (Defined by California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6) P , 't Prerequisites are green building strategies required by the LEED rating system before points may be claimed for any project type. They are mandatory measures, not options as determined by rerequisl es LEED. Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGED - -EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010 Table A. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development Nonresidential Construction and Renovation , Type of Project Ne&.-.sideatial C9IIRAleti9D And Reu8\'atien'" ~New construction_ 2: 2.5,000 sf (including additions to existing buildings) New cORstnlOtiOR2:: 5,999 sfane < 25,9(:)9 sf ~New construction 2: 500 sf and < 5,000 sf (including additions to existing buildings) C. Tenant improvements. rR:enovation~ or alterations> 5,000 sf of floor area that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building envelope, plumbing systems, lighting systems, and/or interior finishes/partitions. oo§; 2:: 59% ofproject sf aRd :::: ~{> Hal11AtiAR~ D. Renovations and alterations> 500 sf that don't fall under Project Types C. Other reRo,.,ati9R:::: $19Q,QQge va-luatioR New e9RstI1:lGtion < 5QQ sfane reRoYation < $lgg,QQQe of val Hat ion CheeWi8t ReqtejFM Rating System, Code or PnJ2ram -;;r BWliI:fIiB¥-llBprevemellt5 Minimum Threshold ~-::I ... USGBC LEEDLEED NC I LEED Silver en RAiRt~) Chesklist T .f.:FO }JG. G.l:!@Gkli~t USGBC LEEDLEED }IC Checklist The Project l\1ust Choose the LEED Energy Perfonnance Approach. LEED Silver (33 poiRts) LEED Pro ratee POiRts Prerequisites + 5 points (round up) required for everY 500 sf -Pro rated formula (Rew cORstructioR sf/5,99Q) x. 33poiRts, bHt Rot less thaR 17 pefflts The Project IVlust Choose the LEED Energv Perfonnance Approach. USGBC LEEDLEED }IC I LEED Certified ("t) RAiRt,,) Checklist USGBCLEED Energy STAR Portfolio Manager LEED CI Checklist No reEfuireFflent LEED Checklist Buildim! Enemv Performance Rating Submit eheeklist; melHae OR bH.ilaiRg plaRs --;- VeriJh:ation LEED/U~GBC GBCI or CPA Threshold yerification b3' LEED AP Threshole veriHcatiOl~ by LEED APGBCI or CPA ThreshoIa veriHcatioR by LEED APGBCI or CPA CPA ~ P' I f "p'ri fi (.'; ::4tl AI~ ---"_.-' ... -:-: -' I '~~ecial Q!Dslde~ations&. Definitions Mill. Use 8F odteF Del'JelepmeBI.GelBRlttFeial aM ~sieeati&baEih!Ffa as .pIi~a"le~ " ~ Miud Use DeveloRments Mixed use Qrojects must comQly with the aQQlicable Qroject tVQe reguirements based on the scoQe of the Qroject. To be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions of the development. Historic Structures Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to Section 18.44.070 of the ordinance, The Compliance Official may allow the use of alternative checklists for historic buildings or for buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure. Multi Year CumuJatiye Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period Fells',iHg aee13tieH sf these reEjl:lirsmsFlts shall be considered as a single project subject to the highest level of green Construction building reguirements for that Qroject, unless exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Unusual Proiects Projects with an unusual scoRe of work or with unigue circumstances mav aRQlv for an exemRtion to the green building reguirements to be determined bY the Planning Director. gursuant to Palo Alto MuniciQal Code Section 18.44.070. USGBe LEED stands for the U.S. Green Building Council LeadershiQ in Energv and Environmental Design. Projects must comQly with the aQQlicable and current bemj3liaFlee 'id'l etHef USGBCLEED LEED® rating svstem ~, including but not limited to LEED-NC (New Construction>. LEED-CS (Core & Shell), LEED-CI (Commercial Interiors), or LEED-EB (Existing Buildingst An alternative eguivalent rating system or program may be substituted far tRs e@sigRatee Fatlflg s~'st@m "'R@FS 9@@m@8 atJ}3Fe}3riat@ as aRProved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the aRQlicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). GBCI The Green Building Certification Institute Rrovides 3rJ Qartv verification services for the LEED rating system. CPA The Citv of Palo Alto statT with ex~ertise in green building will Qrovide in-house review similar in structure and stringencv to that of the GBCI. Energv STAR Portfolio The Energv STAR Portfolio Manager is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Portfolio Manager is all interactive energv management tool that allows YOU to track and assess energy and water consumgtion of your groject. The ~roiect wilI receive an energy Qerfornlal1ce rating on a scale of 1-100 relative to similar buildings nationwide, The Qroject is not required to Manage .. change its rating. but this tool will heiR armlicants understand a Qrojects rating alid how it comRares to others. BnildingEnvelol!e The building envelo~e is the ensemble of exterior and demisinl! Qartitions of a building that enclose conditioned sQace. (Defined by California Energv Code Title 24. Part 6} Prerequisites Prereguisites are green building strategies reguired bv the LEED rating system before Qoints may be claimed for anv Qroject tvQe. They are malldatorv measures not oQtions as determined bv LEED. I To be aajl%SteEi aflfll:iaU;r te ref1eet €flaHges to the City's vall:latien per sl'Jl:iare 'feet of He'>';" eeflstru€tiefl. Page 2 Attachment C Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHANGED -EFFECTIVE JANlJARY 2010 ---~ ----- - - ------- ---- - --- -- --------,... ~ -------------- ----.-------- --- --- -. --- ---. - - -.-------- ------ -------- ---------------- -----. ------ ~ Type of Project Raug System, Code or Program"" -." _ MiDimum "(bresbold Required Verifitation • c -.' ~.;; r Multi-Family Residential A. New construction of3 or more (attached) units BIG GPR Multifamily 70 points GreenPoint ::::..30 units complete the LEED-ND Rated and/or (Neighborhood Development) checklist. CPA B. Renovations or alterations covering:::: 50% of the BIG GPR Multifamily 50 points GreenPoint existing unit sf and that include replacement or alteration Rated and/or of at least two of the following: HV AC system, building CPA envelope, plumbing systems, lighting systems, and/or interior fmishes/partitions. C. Renovations, additions, and/or rebuilds to individual BIGGPR Checklist CPA units::::..250 sf and valuation:::: $100,000 in and single HERS II HERS Rating (requirement effective January unit 2011) Single-Family and Two-Family Residential A. New construction of:::: 1,250 sf BIG GPR Single-Family 70 points GreenPoint + 1 point per additional 70 sf over 2,550 (150 Rated and/or points maximum) CPA B. Existing home additions or rebuilds:::: 1,250 sf Chose one of the following two options: 50 points GreenPoint Option 1: BIG GPR Single Family or Existing Rated and/or Home CPA OR Option 2: CA Energy Code T-24 Part 6 and The whole house must demonstrate that the HERS II Rater HERS II TDV Energy of the building is at least 15% and CPA less than the TDV energy of the standard building and receive a HERS II rating. (requirement effective January 2011) C. Existing home renovations, rebuilds and/or additions BIG GPR Existing Home <=hecklist CPA totaling:::: 250 sf and < 1,250 sf and :::: $100,000 AND one of the following two options: valuation Option 1: CA Energy Code T-24 Part 6 The whole house must demonstrate that the CPA TDV Energy of the building is at least 15% less than the TDV energy of the standard building. (requirement effective January 2011) Option 2: HERS II HERS II Rating (requirement effective HERS II Rater January 2011) and CPA -oe- Speeial eouid ·ODS .-~--. ~ Mixed Use Developments Historic Structures Multi Year Cumulative Construction Unusual Projects DefiDitiODS .~ BIGGPR ,CPA HERS II Rating Rebuilds TDV Building Envelope Renovations -:u ~ -Jr:~l Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. To be determined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions of the development. Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to Section 18.44.070 of the ordinance. The Compliance Official may allow the use of alternative checklists for historic buildings or for buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure, and may reduce the minimum threshold (points) required as outlined in Section 18.44.050. Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period shall be considered as a single project and subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined by the Planning Director, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. ~ Lt~' .~Tl",,-, .". ,'~i BIG GPR stands for the Build It Green, Green Point Rated system Projects must comply with the applicable, and current, GPR rating system , including but not limited to Single Family, Multi Family and Existing Home. An alternative, equivalent rating system or program may be substituted as approved by the Planning Director, after recommendation by the applicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). The City of Palo Alto staff with expertise in green building will provide in house review similar in structure and at least as stringent to that of Build It Green. HERS stands for the California Home Energy Rating System, a statewide program that the California Energy Commission is statutory required to adopt for residential dwellings in California. Phase I of the HERS Program provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24, Part 6, of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. HERS Phase II expands the program to include whole-house home energy efficiency ratings for existing and newly constructed homes. The project is not required to change its HERS rating, only understand what its rating is, how it compares to others and how improvements can be best prioritized. Rebuild are structures that do not maintain 75% of the existing roof and exterior walls (PA Zoning Code 18.12.l20). Time-Dependent Valuation (TDV) accounts for the value of electricity differences depending on time-of-use (hourly, daily, seasonal), and the value of natural gas differs depending on season. TDV is based on the cost for utilities to provide the energy at different times. The building envelope is the ensemble of exterior and demising partitions of a building that enclose conditioned space. (Defined by California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6) Renovations are any work to an existing building needing a permit as defined by the California Building Code. Note: Applicants are advised to use this table only in conjunction with the entirety of requirements in Chapter 18.44 (Green Building Regulations) I TRACK CHA.I'lGED_-EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2010 Table B. City of Palo Alto Green Building Standards for Compliance for Private Development Residential Construction and Renovation Type cifl'P,rojed~ RIlildiR~ .l1IHH'9¥elReRM Multi-Family Residential A. New construction of3 or more (attached) units;! ~eel&jM ReElyjadRating Pro2ram Syst-em, Code or 1. ~ .. BIG GPR Multifamily }14Hltifamily GreeflPoint Checklist For any mHlti family residefltial project with > 30 or more nevI' units proposed, complete thea LEED-ND (Neighborhood Development) checklist shall also Be completed and sHBmitted with tl:i:e application, fer information. Oi'lly. MiDim~ .. Tbnsbold Required 70 points4- B. Renovations or alterations covering> 50% of the BIG GPRMultifamily 50 points existing unit sf and that include replacement or alteration of at least two of the following: HV AC system. building envelope, plumbing systems. lighting systems. and/or interior finishes/partitions. C. Renovations, A~dditions, and/or rebuilds to individual units ana/or renovations v.-ith pem'lit > 250 sf and valuation 2: $100,000 in and single unit§, Ada' . 1 .. ItlOflS aflEl/or reno" f m' • $1 QQ J)QQ~ a IOns "ita pemut valHation /" Single-Family and Two-Family Residential ~New construction of> 1,250 sf2~55Q sf NevI' COllstrHetion 0 " . f> 1 2§Q sfans < 2,55Q sf B. Existing home additions or rebuilds> 1.250 sf BIG GPR :Multifamily GreenPoint Checklist HERS II No re€)HiremeHt BIG GPR Single-Family GreenPoiRt Cheekti!'it Single family GreenPoint Cheeklist Chose one of the following two options: Checklist SUBmit checklist; inch-lae on BHilding plans HERS Rating (requirement effective Januarv 2011) 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 sf over 2,550 (150 points maximumt 7Q poiHts4 Option 1: BIG GPR Single Familv or Existing Home 50 points Verification GreenPoint Rated verificationan d/ or CPA GreenPoint Rated and/or CPA CPA~ "srifiGfftioR GreenPoint Rated and/or CPAGreenPoint Rated verifieatisl1 GreenPolRt Rated yeritieation GreenPoint Rated and/or CPA OR Option 2: CA Energy Code T-24 Part 6 and The whole house must demonstrate HERS II Rater and HERS n that the TOV Energy of the building CP A is at least 15% less than the TOV enenry of the standard building and receive a HERS II rating. (requirement effective January 20 II ) C. Existing home renovations. rebuilds and/or Home Remodeling Green Building Clleeldist Checklist Sl:1bmit eheeldist; ineltide CP A.s.elf ~dditi?ns totaling> 250 sf and ~ 1 ~250 sf andfef BIG GPR Existing Home on building plans verifioation renOYatloflS > $1 OO+§.,OOO valuatIOn AND f h .c: II . t . ---. . one 0 . t e 10 owmg wo optIOns: Option 1: CA Energv Code T-24 Part 6 The whole house must demonstrate CPA that the TDV Energy of the building is at least 15% less than the mv energy of the standard building. (requirement effective Januarv 2011) Option 2: HERS II HERS 11 Rating (requirement HERS II Rater and effective January 2011) CPA AdditioHS aHdior renovatiofls of <$75,QQQ§. permit valuation No requirement ~ _ ',. _. _-.~ .... ---~ """' --'"-I '''. ~ .. -' ---;;:! r'~··~i, = .. ~~: ........ -........ t:~. ---'~ ~pecial ~oosiderations MB!II \lse OF QtlaeF'9erJel8p .. e~.C6mlBe'6i@I:8R8.MSi8eRfi&l eAiefUlas applisaIJle;J. .., -t, -~ '-' .' ," <' '.,': '. ~~. Mixed Use Developments Mixed use projects must comply with the applicable project type requirements based on the scope of the project. To be detennined by the Planning Director; generally the provisions of Table A will apply to the commercial portion of the development, and the provisions of Table B will apply to the residential portions of the development. Historic Structures Exemptions may be available for historic structures, pursuant to Section 18.44.070 of the ordinance. The Compliance Official may allow the use of alternative checklists for historic buildings or for buildings that retain or re-use substantial portions of the existing structure, and may reduce the minimum threshold (points) required as outlined in Section 18.44.050. Multi Year Cumulative Construction Cumulative new construction or renovations over any 2-year period fslle'Yiflg aElej3tisFl eftJ:lese r8EJ:l:lirSFll8flts shall be considered as a single project and subject to the highest level of green building requirements for that project, unless exempted by the Planning Director as impractical for compliance. Unusual Projects Projects with an unusual scope of work or with unique circumstances may apply for an exemption to the green building requirements to be determined bv the Planning DirectoL pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.44.070. ~finiti0l!~ ;:,~,..~~ _-. '1" <~ .:~ .... ~~~.'~~1~" ~,-. -, ~r_ :-~ _.. ~.. ~ ~ " _" .' ;, ~ • ~ •• ~.~ ~. _ -," r-. ,-.. -:-P ~-""',.-~~" ~r~,~ BIG GPR BIG GPR stands for the Build It Green, Green Point Rated system Projects must complv with the applicable and current (iPR rating system. including but not limited to Single Familv Multi Familv and Existing Home. An alternative equivalent rating system or program may be substituted as approved bv the Plmming Director. after recommendation bv the applicant or Architectural Review Board (if ARB review is required). CPA The City of Palo Alto staff with expertise in green building will provide in house review similar in structure and at least as stringent to that of Build It Green. HERS II Rating HERS stands for the California Home Energy Rating System. a statewide program that the California Energy Commission is statutory required to adopt for residential dwellings in California. Phase I of the HERS Program provides field verification and diagnostic testing to show compliance with Title 24. Part 6. of the Building Energv EtTiciencv Standards. HERS Phase 11 expands the program to include whole-house home energy efficiency ratines for existing and newly constructed homes. The project is not required to change its HERS rating. onlY understand ~~.Ul~ ra1i!lg is howjL~.9mpares to othe~s and how impr~y.§ments cal}JJe 12~st prioritized. Rebuilds Rebuild are structures that do not maintain 75% of the existing roof and exterior walls (PA Zonine Code 18.12.120). TDV Building Envelope Renovations Renovations are any work to an existing building needing a nennit as detlned bv the California Building Code. Te be aejustea afliulaJly to reflect el3anges te tlle Cit:"s "aluatiel'l rer s€lHare root ofne",. CO'RstructiaFl. Attachment E Responses for Questions from Commissioner Keller Kristin Heinen, Sustain ability / Associate Planner July 29, 2009 1. Please explain whether commissioning will be required for commercial buildings. Please outline staffs understanding the role building commissioning has in obtaining the benefits of the measures in the LEED checklists. Commissioning is required for commercial buildings, as it is a prerequisite in the LEED rating system. However, the Green Building Ordinance under section 18.44.030(w) says "documentation of construction consistent with building plans calculated to achieve energy compliance is sufficient verification in lieu of post construction commissioning". Therefore, for projects the City is verifying, we would consider alternative documentation, but in the end it is still essentially commissioning as defined in 18.44.030 (w). Note that 18.44.030(w) is a definition for 'Threshold Verification by LEED AP" that will no longer be relevant if the tables are adopted, as reference to Threshold Verification is being deleted. So the language in that definition is non- binding and reduced to irrelevance. Commissioning has numerous undeniable benefits which are best explained in the recently released Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report "Building Commissioning: A Golden Opportunity for Reducing Energy Costs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions." This report provides the world's largest database of commissioning case studies for new and existing buildings. In sum "Commissioning maximizes the quality and persistence of energy, cost, and emissions reductions. The process ensures that building owners get what they pay for when constructing or retrofitting buildings, provides risk-management and "insurance" for policymakers and program managers enabling their initiatives to actually meet targets, and detects and corrects problems that would eventually surface as far more costly maintenance or safety issues. The results demonstrate that commissioning is arguably the single-most cost- effective strategy for reducing energy, costs, and greenhouse-gas emissions in buildings today." Key findings of the report referenced include: Median commissioning costs: $0.30 and $1.16 per square foot for existing buildings and new construction, respectively (and 0.4% of total construction costs for new buildings) Median whole-building energy savings: 16% and 13% Median payback times: 1.1 and 4.2 years Median benefit-cost ratios: 4.5 and 1.1 Cash-on-cash returns: 91% and 23% Very considerable reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions were achieved, at a negative cost of - $110 and -$25/tonne C02-equivalent. High-tech buildings are particularly cost-effective, and saved large amounts of energy and emissions due to their energy-intensiveness. Projects employing a comprehensive approach to commissioning attained nearly twice the overall median level of savings, and five-times the savings of projects with a constrained approach. Non-energy benefits are extensive and often offset part or all of the commissioning cost. Limited multi-year post-commissioning data indicate that savings often persistent for a period of at least five years. Uniformly applying our median whole-building energy-savings value to the stock of U.S. non- residential buildings yields an energy-savings potential of $30 billion by the year 2030, and annual greenhouse gas emissions reductions of about 340 megatons of C02 each year. An industry equipped to deliver these benefits would have a sales volume of $4 billion per year and support approximately 24,000 jobs. This information was directly provided from staff at LBNL. The report and summary presentation can be downloaded at: http://cx.lbl.gov/2009-assessment.html 2. Please explain differences between having in-house building inspectors do verification of green building measures (e.g., the HV AC system is wired and installed correctly and appears to operate) and having third party verification according to LEED standards (e.g., the HV AC is tuned to provide the intended energy savings). Staff anticipates that in-house verification will be set up in two phases that will be implemented over several years. The first phase implemented in 2010 will offer in-house verification, but not at . the on-site inspection level. If the proposed amendments pass, the City will most likely still highly rely on the work of a green point rater or LEED AP to submit the necessary documentation to the City for a covered project. The City will verify their work in a similar fashion to that of the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI) or Build It Green (BIG). BIG and GBCI do not perform on-site inspections City staff, unlike BIG or GBCI, does have the convenience of being able to go on-site for some inspection, but does not anticipate this to be the primary form of verification in the first phase. In your example of ensuring that the HV AC system is installed and operating correctly to ensure energy savings, in the first phase this would be the role of the commissioning agent employed by the owner. Staff anticipates the second phase of implementation 2-4 years from now. This phase would include multiple qualified staff inspectors and plan reviewers (i.e. Green Point Raters) that could adequately handle the volume of reviews and on-site inspections necessary to verify all "green" aspects of the project. 3. Please explain the intent of developing an in-house Recognition Program and whether. such recognition would really have the same effect as LEED Certification by GBCI or Build It Green. The intent is not for the in-house recognition program to compete with the LEED or Building It Green recognition programs, or for it to have the same market effect. For the past year the City has been providing in-house verification for commercial projects, and if the proposed amendments pass, may provide it for residential projects. Although these applicants do not pay for review and certification by GBCI or BIG, they still submit the same level of documentation to the City, and the buildings are essentially performing the same. Staff feels that those projects deserve recognition for those efforts. The program will not in any way deem that a project is LEED Certified or Green Point Rated as these are registered trademarks. The City will most likely provide some form of recognition stating successful compliance with the City Green Building Program. Staff may use such language as the project achieved the LEED Certified level through City verification, but not that the building is LEED Certified. Recognition is really a form of differentiation. Since the City requires all of its new buildings and large renovations to be green, recognition and differentiation will be less important in future years, unless a proj ect is really doing something extraordinary. 4. If City building inspectors are to be GreenPoint Raters, should homeowners who use City inspectors be able to get the Build It Green certification as they could through third party GreenPoint Raters? Staff believes Build It Green does allow City building department staff who are Green Point Raters to provide rating services and certify projects through Build It Green., however there is not sufficient time to confirm this. 5. Please explain whether in-house inspection tracking duplicates or complements Build It Green's climate calculator. They are two different things. As described under question #2, in the first phase of implementation, the City in-house review will compliment Build It Green's current system, however the project will not receive recognition by them or necessarily receive use of their climate calculator. Remember, in-house review is merely and option. Projects still have the choice to go through Build It Green instead. If they choose the City, the City has a separate performance indicators form, similar to that of BIG's climate calculator that is used to track key environmental performance indicators. BIG's climate calculator is more robust, but staff feels the City's is adequate for assessing program performance. It is currently being used for non- residential projects that don't have access to BIG's climate calculator. The results of the environmental performance indicators are then converted to emission reductions for the City. BIG's climate calculator is very helpful to the City, and to providing projects a better understanding of their environmental performance. It is required to be submitted for all projects undergoing BIG certification. 6. Please address the comments from Build It Green regarding the requirements for Home Remodels and Retrofits, as well as their other comments. BIG Comment #1 BIG recommends the City only recognize projects that have achieved BIG certification. Staff is interested in a recognition program for reasons explained under question #3. The actual program set up will be open for discussion, however the City is looking at recognizing projects for their achievements at all levels. Staff believes that all measurable efforts toward environmental protection deserve recognition whether they are certified by BIG or GBCI, or not. The City can also serve as a credible third-party. As stated under question #3, the intent of the recognition program will not be to confuse the market place with another label, but to recognize measurable achievements by projects that are verified by the City. BIG Comment #2 BIG recommends higher permit fees for in-house verification. If the amendments pass, City staff will propose increased fees that are cost-based for projects that choose in-house verification for cost recovery purposes. BIG Comment #3 -For rebuilds or additions over 1,250 sqft to an existing home, BIG argues that ,our proposed requirement of 70 points is too high. This is really a question of how stringent the City would like to be. Staff agrees that it is more difficult for an existing home to achieve 70 points than a new home. BIG's minimum level for participation is 50 points, so staff assumed the City would be interested in a higher target as is set for new homes. However, staff supports requiring 50 points instead of 70 for this category to reflect the fact that achieving any point threshold is a new requirement compared to the original ordinance. But staff also believes that moving down to the Elements level is to low of a bar for projects of this size. Regarding BIG's cost concerns -the City must document the cost-effectiveness of any energy- efficiency-related,measures and provide that data to the CEC in order for the CEC to approve the City's Energy-Efficiency ordinance. Thus, energy-efficiency components of the Green Building ordinance will be thoroughly vetted by Staff, an energy efficiency consultant, and the CEC before either the Green Building Ordinance or Energy Efficiency Ordinance becomes effective. Staff intends to present the Energy Efficiency Ordinance to Council in the Fall. If any of the energy- related measures are not cost-effective, they will not be proposed. BIG Comment #4 BIG states that requiring existing homes to achieve an energy performance level equivalent to that of a new home is to stringent. The current requirement does not require the existing home to achieve its energy performance based on new home requirements. The existing home as stated in BIG's comments may choose the performance path for existing homes and achieve the energy savings based on the existing home, rather than for the new home as BIG noted. This should alleviate BIG's concern that the project would not be able to meet Title 24 standards. There may have been miscommunication regarding this during a conversation with BIG yesterday. Regarding BIG's cost concerns refer to above discussion as it applies here, too. BIG Comment #5 -The existing multi-family renovation requirement is not practical given the BIG existing multi-family requirements are not scheduled to be released until the end of2010. Staff supports requiring 50 points instead of 70 for this category to reflect the fact that achieving any point threshold is a new requirement compared to the original ordinance. Staff feels comfortable that a 50 point requirement will serve as a good interim measure while the City anticipates BIG's "Existing Home for Multi Family" requirements to be released.