Agenda Item A.1 CPMS PUBLIC WORKSHOP Meeting Date...

Agenda Item A.1 CPMS PUBLIC WORKSHOP Meeting Date: March 22, 2012 TO: Mayor, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners FROM: Steve Chase, Director of Planning & Environmental Services Cindy Moore, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Green Building Program RECOMMENDATION: Receive a report and presentation on staff’s preparation of a Green Building Program and provide feedback and guidance on next steps. BACKGROUND: Staff is well underway with the preparation of a Green Building Program. This public workshop is meant to be a check-in point with the City Council and Planning Commission as we approach the half way mark in the work program. The work program is funded by a grant from the Southern California Edison Company which, in turn, is implementing a portion of the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, under the auspices of the California Public Utility Commission. The work program is an outgrowth of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, as well as the Goleta Strategic Plan. More specifically, the Housing Element of the General Plan calls for establishing “Green Building Standards and Processes (Implementation Program IP-9C). Objective 6.15 of the Strategic Plan calls for us to: “Promote Green, Sustainable, Energy Efficient Practices at City Hall, Corp Yard and in the Community”. The staff efforts behind the preparation of this program began in early 2010, with the City Council supporting the submittal of a grant proposal for such, and after successfully competing for grant funding, authorizing a grant agreement and work program with Edison. The grant requires that the work program be completed by October 2012. DISCUSSION: The aim of this evening’s workshop is to familiarize the Council, Commission and interested parties with the Green Building Program, the progress made to date, as well as the choices that are at-hand in the shaping of the program.

Meeting Date: March 22, 2012

of 3

Several fundamental questions will be addressed at the outset of the workshop, most notably the following: What is a Green Building Program? What is the impetus for the program? How would the program fit in with other strategic efforts of the City? What does the work program entail and envision? Who is involved? Regarding involvement, Cindy Moore of the Current Planning Division serves as the program development manager, along with advisory services provided by Walker Wells of Global Green USA, who is under contract with the City for technical expertise and to conduct stakeholder meetings. Global Green previously assisted the cities of Pasadena, Santa Clarita, Irvine, Malibu, Long Beach, West Hollywood, Los Angeles, Cupertino, Mountain View and San Francisco, as well as the County of Los Angeles in developing their green building programs, policies and ordinances. Two stakeholder groups are also involved, including: (1) an external advisory group, called the Green Ribbon Committee, comprised of representatives from the development, design and building community, as well as representatives from the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, Community Environmental Council, UCSB and the Goleta Water District; and (2) the internal Green Team, comprised of staff members from throughout the City organization. Attachment 1 lists the participating members from each group. Three meetings each have been conducted with both of these groups, on October 12, 2011, November 9, 2011 and January 11, 2012. Meeting minutes from the Green Ribbon Committee are included as Attachment 2. As indicated in the minutes, the meetings are conducted in a fast paced, focus group format, with emphasis on models of implementation rather than devoting a significant amount of time to the policy objectives and need for the program. Of note, the Council’s Energy & Green Issues Standing Committee has received general briefings on the composition and progress of the stakeholder groups. Staff will work through that committee in the review of draft policies and ordinance language once the focus group work of the stakeholders has run its course. This evening, Councilmembers and Commissioners will hear from some of the stakeholders on why and wherefore the City should or should not engage in the preparation of a Green Building Program at this time. Staff has diligently listened and given consideration to this fundamental policy question, but we have a completely different perspective and starting point on the matter. Our work comes from a perspective that the policy choice to proceed was made in the preparation of the General Plan and the Strategic Plan, and that now is the time to focus on the nature and content of the implementation measures. Staff’s focus is on issues such as: whether the program should be elective, mandatory or have elements of both approaches, where the trigger points should be set; and, once triggered, what metrics should apply.

Meeting Date: March 22, 2012

of 3

To help guide your thinking on these particular points, Attachment 3 provides information that staff shared with the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce at an Issue & Policy Roundtable luncheon on March 14, 2012. Staff is not asking that you fully evaluate and take action on all of this material at this time; rather, it is asked that you review this material, receive the presentation, hear from the stakeholders and other interested parties, and then provide feedback on whether staff is generally on the right track in the formation of program implementation measures. After this evening, staff intends to move quickly into the construct of the implementation measures via the drafting of policies and ordinance language. Both the Green Ribbon Committee and Green Team will be engaged in a review of those polices and any ordinance language. That step will involve a selection of choices between elective and mandatory elements, triggers and metrics of the program. Therefore, your feedback and guidance is vitally important at this particular juncture in the work program. As a reminder, the grant dictates completion of the work program by October of this year. That timing includes the finishing touches by the Energy & Green Issues Standing Committee, a recommendation hearing by the Planning Commission, as well as an adoption hearing by the City Council. Legal Review By: Reviewed By: Approved By: ______________ ___________________ Tim W. Giles Michelle Greene Dan Singer City Attorney Administrative Services City Manager Director ATTACHMENTS:

1. List of Stakeholders

2. Minutes of Green Ribbon Committee Meetings

3. Presentation Slides to Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce

ATTACHMENT 1

Green Ribbon Committee Meeting Attendees

City of Goleta Staff Green Team Meeting Attendees

Green Ribbon Committee Meeting Attendees1 Built Green Santa Barbara Paul Poirier, AIA City of Goleta Mayor Margaret Connell (at time of 1st meeting) Steve Chase Jim Guerra Cindy Moore City of Goleta Design Review Board Carl Schneider, AIA Community Environmental Council Dave Davis Comstock Homes Pete Perea Tiffany Sukay County of Santa Barbara Sharon Friedrichsen, emPowerSBC Angie Hacker, emPowerSBC Betty Wong, emPowerSBC Susan Curtis, Planning & Development Dos Pueblos High School Lincoln Liechti Energy Upgrade CA Ashley Watkins (now with County of Santa Barbara, emPowerSBC) Global Green USA Walker Wells Hagu Solomon Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce Jim Knight Goleta Water District John McInnes Chris Rich David Matson

1 Attended one or more meetings held on October 12, 2011, November 9, 2011, and January 12, 2012

KBZ Architects, Inc. Joe Wilcox, AIA Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Carlos Jimenez Santa Barbara Association of Realtors Krista Pleiser Santa Barbara Contractors Association Karin Perissinotto Sares-Regis Group Russ Goodman SBCC Construction Technology Department Patrick Foster UCSB Chuck Haines, Capital Development Jordan Sager, Physical Facilities U.S. Green Building Council Central Coast Chapter Perrin Pellegrin Westar Associates Peter Koetting

City of Goleta Staff Green Team Members2

City Attorney’s Office Mo Hill City Manager’s Office Valerie Kushnerov Community Services Steve Wagner Marti Schultz Bob Morgenstern Bill Millar Everett King Global Green USA Walker Wells Hagu Solomon Neighborhood Services Claudia Dato Jaime Valdez Planning & Environmental Services, Advance Planning (now in Neighborhood Services) Anne Wells Dan Nemechek Planning & Environmental Services, Building Jim Guerra Planning & Environmental Services, Current Planning Steve Chase Patty Miller Cindy Moore Shine Ling Brian Hiefield

2 Attended one or more meetings held on October 12, 2011, November 9, 2011, and January 12, 2012

ATTACHMENT 2

Green Ribbon Committee Meeting Minutes

October 12, 2011

November 9, 2011

January 11, 2012

1

City of Goleta Green Building Program Development Green Ribbon Committee Meeting #1 Minutes 10/12/11 5:30-7:30pm Meeting Overview: Opening remarks and welcome from City of Goleta: Mayor of Goleta, Margaret Connell Director of Planning and Environmental Services, Steve Chase Senior Planner, Cindy Moore Global Green gave a brief overview of the agenda for the meeting including agenized time to gather input from the Committee. The presentation introduced Global Green and our perspective on green building and sustainability, our technical experience and our collaboration with cities throughout the state to develop green building programs. The timeline for the Green Building Program and its impetus was discussed by Cindy Moore. Within the short timeline (four stakeholder meetings), the City and Global Green will develop a Green Building Program framework with the input from this Green Ribbon Committee. After the third meeting, a draft framework will be discussed during a City Council and Planning Commission joint study session in February in order to gain input and direction. The fourth meeting will be utilized for further refinement of the Program resulting in a final framework for consideration at public meetings by the Planning Commission and City Council later next year. Global Green presented the rationale behind how a green building program advances sustainability as a whole in a direct and tangible way. Global Green also presented analysis completed as part of Southern California Edison’s grant submittal requirements, which covered the existing Goleta policies pertaining to sustainability, existing programs that help finance property upgrades that improve efficient use of energy, water, etc. and a comparison of Goleta peer municipalities (5) and their green building efforts. Additional analysis of other cities’ Green Building Ordinances throughout the state (8) was presented to identify the various components and options that make up those local policies. In the next meetings we will develop example green building programs to get further input on stakeholder preference and get additional direction. The following topics were discussed:

• Provide a handout that outlines the objectives per meeting, and the overall end product for this process.

• An ordinance/code language is the desired outcome of this process for City adoption. • Provide an overview/example of CALGreen and cities that have implemented various

programs; attendees could all be novices. • Public education is needed, incorporate into the school system, too; an ordinance is a

stick, need carrots as there is often resistance to more requirements. • Addressing new construction alone would not address job creation and monitory savings

of retrofits for entry level jobs. • Rebates are not always enough, additional carrots like permit fast tracking is needed.

2

• Current Reach Code requires 15% better than the existing Title 24 energy requirements for new residential and nonresidential buildings and additions of 500 sf or more.

• Projects currently receive extensive review through the City, which is trying its best to get high quality projects; green building is a good goal for community resiliency and protection against energy price spikes; the key is to encourage a high standard and need to make the entitlement process easier, as there is a breaking point at which project quality may decline due to costs.

• Should go beyond construction and incorporate operations and maintenance, include benchmarking and commissioning, training of operational staff and owners on how to be good stewards of the buildings.

• Operations and Maintenance goes beyond the purview of the City but there could be a training component for building owners.

• It is as important to look at obstacles and remove barriers, as it is to provide carrots. • Identify what the cost implications are of CALGreen to help establish our baseline. • Consider asking the City Building Official to discuss the implications of CALGreen

implementation. • Tracking is important; need to know baseline square footages of residential/commercial

development so can track and quantify water and energy savings cumulatively, to show the impact overall.

• The City is close to build out; need to be aware that more benefit can be achieved by dealing with the existing building stock.

• Much remodeling will occur and many will be shocked/stunned if regulations overreach; need gradual integration of policies and incentives and a forecasting out of when/if policies will be mandatory.

• A good ordinance now will start the process and over time change to address the needs of the City; we don’t have to wait to create the “perfect” ordinance because there will be follow-up.

Follow up comment received via email on 10-13-11:

• Keep the baseline simple, for example: use the different levels of the Green Point Rated System or the Built Green System (one or the other) for the different building types (Municipal, Commercial, Multifamily or SFD).

• Set the levels and thresholds for those as the City requirement and then allow substitution by the applicant to step up and use a more restrictive system (LEED) at their discretion.

• Thus applicants would not be forced into doing both if they want a LEED Certification as opposed to using LEED for Municipal/Commercial, GPR for Multi-family and Built Green for SFD. Keep the basic solution simple and within a single rating system and yet allow for stepping up with incentives of some type.

The third portion of the meeting included a break out session intended to gather input and preferences of where Goleta should fit across the spectra of three Green Building Program aspects:

1. Type of Reference Standard: locally derived and implemented (amended version of the building code-CALGreen) as compared to a nationally derived and verified program.

2. Type of Project/Threshold: How many types of buildings should be required to comply. 3. Type of Regulation: What type of regulation is preferable; only in the code or

incentivized.

3

Feedback from Breakout Sessions Group 1:

Reference Standard – Sliding scale recommended: Municipal and large commercial buildings = LEED; Multifamily residential = GPR, which is less onerous; Single-Family & Additions = Built Green Santa Barbara; which the City of SB uses; would support consistency throughout the region. Threshold – Identifying incentives that are functional is difficult. Time savings is critical, if it can be somehow documented but it typically cannot be guaranteed due to the nature of the process. Regulation – Sliding scale with municipal and large commercial standards required by code, with multi-family and single family projects being incentive-based. The City needs to set the standard and lead the way.

Group 2:

Reference Standard – Built Green Santa Barbara – it has a good track record; build on the existing structure that is doing well and modify to fit Goleta; appreciate aspects of LEED; need specific examples. Threshold – Hold municipal and large commercial projects to those requirements but exclude small remodels; question regarding new single-family; 15% over Title 24 should be the floor – codify and incentivize. Regulation – Incentives, but type not identified.

Group 3:

Reference Standard – Not LEED certification, it is too expensive; not much experience in this area with GPR; Keep CALGreen at the baseline and use incentives for Tier I and II. Threshold – CALGreen is baseline and use incentives for Tiers. Regulation – Time savings is the key; more plan checkers and inspectors will be needed; provide exemptions for small projects (ex. Projects less than 500 sf). Built Green has reviewed the plan check process to help save time and can be used as a preference.

Group 4 & 5:

Reference Standard – CALGreen is given; appreciate aspects of LEED such as prescriptive requirements and approaches, and third-party verification which is useful and important, but certification should not be included. GPR is worth noting to determine if there is something that could be utilized from it; also need to look at Built Green Santa Barbara, which does include third party verification. Threshold – Use phased approach: first phase - municipal, new large non-residential and residential; second phase – renovations. Regulation – Resounding agreement for an incentive-based approach combined with education and outreach; need education on existing incentives.

4

Discussion from Breakout Session Feedback:

• The City would not be doing itself a service if single family buildings were excluded from requirements.

• Invite a real estate professional / appraiser to the meeting. • Comments regarding statewide legislation requiring public disclosure of energy use and

benchmarking and energy improvements may be required by the State in future legislation.

• Could codify 15% better then energy code (as the floor) and build incentives from there.

Attendees Included:

Mayor Margaret Connell, City of Goleta Steve Chase, City of Goleta Cindy Moore, City of Goleta Carl Schneider, AIA, City of Goleta DRB Member Walker Wells, Global Green Hagu Solomon, Global Green Peter Koetting, Westar Associates Russ Goodman, Sares-Regis Group Pete Perea, Comstock Homes Tiffany Sukay, Comstock Homes Jim Knight, Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce Lincoln Liechti, Dos Pueblos High School Student Carlos Jimenez, Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Joe Wilcox, AIA, KBZ Architects, Inc. John McInnes, Goleta Water District Chris Rich, Goleta Water District

David Matson, Goleta Water District; Built Green Santa Barbara Paul Poirier, AIA, Built Green Santa Barbara Dave Davis, Community Environmental Council Jordan Sager, UCSB Sharon Friedrichsen, Santa Barbara County, emPowerSBC Betty Wong, Santa Barbara County, emPowerSBC Susan Curtis, Santa Barbara County, Planning & Development Perrin Pellegrin, USGBC Central Coast Chapter Karin Perissinotto, Santa Barbara Contractors Association Patrick Foster, Goleta resident & SBCC Construction Technology Department Ashley Watkins, Ecology Action/Energy Upgrade CA

1

City of Goleta Green Building Program Development Green Ribbon Committee Meeting Minutes 11/9/11 5:30-7:30pm Meeting Overview: Welcome by Cindy Moore and Committee member introductions. Global Green gave a brief overview of the last meeting including the goal of developing a draft green building ordinance, the timeline for this process (funded by Southern California Edison). Global Green reviewed the background research on other city green building ordinance components and peer municipalities and their approach to green building requirements above CALGreen-such as the City of Goleta. Global Green reviewed the main findings within the three topic areas listed below from the previous meeting:

1. Reference standards CALGreen LEED Green Point Rated (GPR) Built Green SB

2. Thresholds and project types Sliding scale for various project sizes and types Sensitivity to remodels/small scale projects CALGreen as a baseline Phased approach to ease renovations projects into the process

3. Regulation type Incentive based More inspectors Exemptions Education and outreach

The major points centered on using the reach code and other city policies as a foundation for any additional requirements to build around and link into strategically. Additionally, the committee emphasized an incentive based program to reward compliance and avoid an onerous building program within the City. The discussion on building types and thresholds centered on the amount of existing single family homes and the number of remodels within the City, as such Global Green introduced additional research that shows the importance of including existing buildings in a green building program in order to make an impact on GHG emissions reductions. Finally, Global Green reported on the committee’s desire to learn more about the relevant reference standards for which Global Green created a synthesis of that information. Review of Reference Standards The purpose of synthesizing the relevant reference standards is not to select the “best” standard; rather it is to understand which standard(s) are applicable to Goleta (with an emphasis on the option of providing choices to residents/developers/etc). Global Green reviewed the important components of any reference standard:

2

• Intention behind the standard should benefit the environment/humanity (through health) • Transparent and integrated process with clear objectives and participation • Comprehensive (addressing site, energy, water, materials and air quality) in order to

achieve overall sustainability • Use acceptable Standards and Metrics that are universally understood (i.e % better than

energy code, construction demolition waste diversion) • Field verification to ensure efficacy in light of changes in the field • Third-Party, independent certification

The following reference standards were compared, each include the components described above to varying degrees and therefore eligible for consideration for Goleta’s Green Building Program:

CALGreen • Developed by the State’s Building Standards Commission as the first statewide

green building standard • Managed and adopted by local jurisdictions • Rating preformed by city staff (commissioning for non-residential buildings over

10,000 SF • CALGreen at the mandatory level does not equate to LEED certification (for

residential), or GPR (for non-residential)-namely because there is no energy requirement in CALGreen

• CALGreen at Tier I is approximately equivalent to GPR (non-residential) certification, and CALGreen at Tier II is approximately equivalent to LEED (residential) certification

LEED • Consensus based • Applied to residential and non-residential, new and existing • Administered through regional providers and through USGBC • Designer flexibility

Green Point Rated

• More prescriptive • Developed in the Bay Area • Organized around trades: electrical, plumbing, roofing and mechanical- more

applied • Rater driven –which poses a challenge if there are no raters in the area

Built Green SB

• Regionally developed • Applies to residential and non-residential, new construction and remodels • Easy entry point for those interested in green building at star levels 1, 2, and 3

(self certification) • Required third party certification at star levels 4 and 5 • There is no reason the same certification protocol couldn’t apply to the 3 star

level, which is more robust and appropriate for city policy

3

Reference Standard Discussion: • Redondo Beach is the only city to adopt Tier II under CALGreen which may cause some

problems for commercial buildings trying to achieve energy efficiency requirements in their climate zone (6).

• Aspects of Tier I may be adopted as code in the future, however more research and discussion is needed

• Currently CALGreen only applies to new construction and residential buildings three stories and below, so future changes might address remodels and residential four stories and above, schools and hospitals to increase its applicability

• Think of CALGreen (Mandatory) as the “floor” which has a small number of prescriptive requirements, and is not a performance based system with a variety of options- it’s a good start but doesn’t equate to the other reference standards

Global Green concluded the presentation with a side-by-side graphic contrasting LEED, GPR, and Built Green SB with regards to the number of prerequisites, points, and third party certification to show how the rating systems relate.

LEED: 18 prerequisites, 45 minimum points out of 136, third party verification GRP: 3 prerequisites, 50 minimum points out of 290, third party verification Built Green SB: 39 prerequisites, 40 out of 818, third party certification

Difficult to draw a conclusion about the different point spread in the case of Built Green SB. It may mean that there are many more options or that the rating system has broken out credits that are bundled together in the other rating systems.

Each of the three rating systems has some degree of third party certification:

• LEED has the most robust, costly and onerous (if you haven’t done it before) independent verification process. It includes a HERS rater to verify energy performance, a Green Rater to verify the checklist documents, followed by overall review by a regional provider before being sent to the USGBC for final review and certification.

• GRP has some third party process where the work of the rater is checked but a lot of

the work goes towards updating rater training. • Built Green SB has designated entities eligible to do the certification based on their

professional qualification and a certain amount of training/code of ethics. These entities are autonomous from the Contractors Association and work independently. This process is new, started within the past year.

Breakout Sessions The third portion of the meeting is a break out session intended to gather input on the elements of two polarized draft green building programs to determine which aspects were the most relevant: Option 1: Augmented Code +Incentives (“carrot”) Option 2: High Standards for Sizable Projects (“stick”)

4

Feedback from Breakout Sessions Group #1 - Option 2: High Standards for Sizable Projects

• Residential remodel threshold is too high; it should be closer to 1,000 SF • New Non-residential threshold is too high; no consensus on the exact number,

somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 SF • New residential threshold should be between 1,000 and 1,500 SF • Why no remodel of non-residential as there is a lot of that in the City, 5,000 SF

would catch most of the Group #2 - Hybrid of Option 1 & 2

• LEED • All new residential and non-residential buildings + remodels (500 SF) • Third party standard • Refundable deposit • Incentives (“concierge level”) • Third party certification • Tier the standards; if larger project, must meet higher standard

Group #3 - Option 1: Augmented Code +Incentives

• Politically preferred • Flexibility (augment over time) • Increased cost to City to review more items may result in additional costs

Group #4 - Option 1: Augmented Code + Incentives

• Focus on incentives • “feeing” out- if you don’t want to participate, use fees to incentivize others get

through the process • Point of Sale- donate a portion of the proceeds to pull participating projects

(future incentives) • Identify a pathway to get to financing, maybe not a rebate, but a more flexible

way to partner with existing programs like emPowerSBC Discussion from Breakout Session:

• Option 2 should read, “ Higher” Standard for sizable projects • 750 SF is the trigger for Design Review for residential additions • If green project, trigger for DRB review could increase • Question on what is meant by “flexibility in development standards with parameters” as

an incentive in Option 1- described as some discretionary flexibility on green projects in terms of zoning or other development standards (ex. green roof replacing open space requirements)

• An additional 10% energy savings after the first 15% is much harder to achieve and requires more money

• Marginal benefits of existing buildings only, point of sale can trigger voluntary programs (ex. City of Berkeley’s Residential Energy Conservation Ordinance-RECO).

• Technical assistance proved as an incentive (Pasadena did this), retain a consultant to educate developers and residents

• Program needs to reach the person who doesn’t have an interest to be successful • Real estate listings showing Built Green (or other certification) status to improve sales as

another incentive

5

Next Steps Global Green will synthesize the input received and tweak various components of the program to get further input. Next meeting January 11th, 2012. Attendees Included:

Steve Chase, City of Goleta Cindy Moore, City of Goleta Carl Schneider, AIA, City of Goleta DRB Member Walker Wells, Global Green Hagu Solomon, Global Green Jim Knight, Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce Lincoln Liechti, Dos Pueblos High School Student Carlos Jimenez, Peoples’ Self-Help Housing

Joe Wilcox, AIA, KBZ Architects, Inc. Chris Rich, Goleta Water District Perrin Pelegrin, USGGC Central Coast Chapter Karin Perissinotto, Santa Barbara Contractors Dave Davis, Community Environmental Council Jordan Sager, UCSB Chuck Haines, UCSB Angie Hacker empower SBC (County)

1

City of Goleta Green Building Program Development Green Ribbon Committee Meeting #3 Minutes 1/11/12 5:30-7:30pm Meeting Overview: Welcome and introduction by Cindy Moore and overview of revised timeline. Steve Chase reviewed the project goals, process, Goleta’s land use history, environmental landscape, and mandates (AB32, SB 375, CALGreen, sustainability plan, climate action plans, annual reporting requirements on GHG reductions to the State, and transportation plans aimed at GHG reductions). He thanked participants for engagement in this rule making process. Questions/Comments in response to Steve’s recap:

• Technology and professionals need to catch up with new state mandate • This community has talented professionals who are the leaders in showing others how to

implement new mandates on green building • Requirements for building in Goleta should be tough/more stringent to protect the unique

attributes of the city, however it cannot be cumbersome in addition to tough-there must be a streamlined approach in alignment with state mandates

Revised Timeline:

• SCE funding is driving the completion of program development and adoption by September

• Joint Planning Commission and City Council study session prior to the fourth stakeholder meeting

• Tentatively, Planning Commission in April/May; City Council in June • Green Ribbon Committee members will be notified of dates for the joint study session

and fourth Green Ribbon Committee meeting when those dates have been confirmed Presentation Content: Global Green’s Walker Wells reviewed the agenda and content of the meeting, highlighting the desire to get feedback on the proposed Green Building Program components piece-by-piece in a large group format, and the cost implications/how to quantify the benefits of Green Building. Global Green’s Hagu Solomon gave a brief overview of the feedback from the last meeting. The feedback was based on the two contrasting programs presented during meeting two, which components were favored, and how those suggestions translated into the Green Building Program being presented today. The review also covered the analysis done by Global Green on existing City policies related to development to assist in determining a meaningful incentive program for green projects. Additional vetting of these potential incentives is needed to ensure that the City can offer something that is feasible in the long run. Finally, Global Green is currently working with an energy modeler to determine the feasibility and cost of higher levels of energy performance needed to achieve LEED Silver or Gold for public buildings to be an example for private development. This section of the presentation focused on reviewing existing green building policies and regulations of which to be aware, a review of the proposed draft green building program outline in order to get input from stakeholders, and a review of the cost implications of green building.

2

I. CALGreen

• The next CALGreen code cycle update will be adopted on January 1, 2014 • Generally, this will result in some voluntary measures becoming mandatory

II. Goleta’s Reach Code • 15% over T-24 2008 Standards-which addresses one of the major voluntary

measures of the current CALGreen Code (adopt energy requirements higher than code minimum) o A stand-alone energy ordinance versus a green building ordinance, which is why

this process is important o Handled locally without third party verification o Applies to residential and nonresidential new construction and additions 500 sf or

more o The main question for us is what remains for the City to do that is productive and

can add to this existing energy ordinance

III. Proposed Draft Green Building Program Outline: Size of Project Included • Residential Remodels and New Construction

o Small : <1,500 sf o Medium: ≥1,500-5,000 sf o Large: ≥5,000 sf

• Non-Residential Remodels and New Construction o Small: 9,999 sf o Medium: ≥10,000 sf o Large: ≥25,000 sf

• Review of inventory of permitted projects within Goleta over the past six months: 23 residential projects permitted all of which fit into the “small” category, and 19 non-residential projects which range from a low of 194 sf to 25,035 sf.

o Comments on using this data for comparison of “Size of Projects Included” under the Green Building program were as follows:

Better to look at the projects permitted in 2007 since the past six month represented a slow development period

There are likely more projects in the “large” category as vacant, big-box stores change ownership

Look into what is coming down the pipeline (pre-entitled/entitled) to get a better comparison of what would be captured by the program parameters

The divergent point is between “small” and “medium” projects as this is the point where requirements change

A residential project may be incentivized to be more modest in size (and stay within the “small” category) if there are additional green building costs for being over 1,500 sf

The size distinction between the “medium” and “large” residential projects are based partly on the fact that a five unit plus development (appox. >5,000 sf or “large”) is considered a commercial loan or investment property, four units or less (≥1,500-5,000 sf or “medium”) is a residential loan and is probably the largest SF dwelling unit that will be built in Goleta

Non-residential projects required to get third party certification need to be over 10,000 sf in order to justify the cost of verification and certification

LEED certification for non-residential projects can be done for $50,000 -

3

$100,000, if we have a 10,000 sf project that would be an additional $10 a square foot for soft costs.

Remodels of a “large” building might have an undue burden to achieve LEED Silver if they just want to turn on the lights and start a new business in an existing vacant building. The cost would almost be equal to reconstructing the whole building

Vacancies will continue if new building owners are required to pay that much to open their doors

Define and differentiate between “remodel” vs. painting, changing flooring, etc.

Old town needs to be revitalized and as it is written now this may kill that effort for owners who want a “simple” remodel

IV. Proposed Draft Green Building Program Outline: Reference Standard

• Small Projects: Adhere to the Reach Code and CALGreen with Local Amendments (see suggested list of options below)

o 65 % C&D diversion o 60% Landscape water use reduction o 30% Interior water use reduction o 80% Low VOC flooring o 100% Low VOC insulation o Solar ready

• Question/Comments:

o Break out the remodels and new construction categories! o Define what makes a remodel significant so the requirements for

remodels are appropriate o TCAC regulations for greening affordable housing requires compliance

with one of three rating systems (GPR, LEED, Green Communities) o Ideally if the City and State requires LEED as one option, the

advisor/consultant should recommend LEED vs. another rating system to address both City and State requirements

o Code amendments are only applicable to aspects of a project that are being altered/changed/touched

o Careful not to drive out “mom and pop” shops when landlords want to improve buildings in old town. There need to be a way to make the upfront costs affordable

o What is the trigger for a remodel? In some cities the trigger has been if a project is touching 3 of 4 major building systems: building envelope, mechanical, lighting, structural systems

o The reach code only applies to the square footage of the addition o Break up the categories into 1)New Construction and Additions and 2)

Remodels o Basic TIs shouldn’t trigger the higher code requirements o Change of use may be another “trigger”

V. Proposed Draft Green Building Program Outline: Verification

• Small Projects: Verified by Staff • Medium Projects: External Third Party (LEED or Built Green)

o Shouldn’t the City be trained to do this review and certification? The cost of

4

City Staff to do this review would be much higher than private sector o Using the private sector for external third party review allows for more market

competition and consumer choice o There is a differentiation between plan checks and inspector checks:

CALGreen is more of an inspectors code where you need to be out in the field as the project progresses, while the Reach Code and its local amendments is more of a plan checkers code (or in this case a third party reviewer of stated requirements)

o GBIG.com Green Building Inspector Gateway- USGBC is making it easier for City to review reference standard compliance

o How should we define new construction? o ADA requirements have an “unreasonable hardship” exemption that can be

an example

VI. Proposed Draft Green Building Program Outline: Enforcement • Small, Medium and Large Projects pay a minimal green building fee that would cover

the additional cost of City Staff time • In addition, Medium and Large projects post a refundable deposit roughly equivalent

to the cost of achieving certification in exchange for a temporary C of O for a given period of time until third party certification can be issued

• The deposit can be forfeited and the final C of O can be issued by the city if certification cannot be met

o Do projects actually forfeit that cost over to the City on a private project? o This idea has been used in the past for public improvement projects and is

being applied in a private development setting as a way to persuade projects to complete certification and offer a form of recourse in case it is not possible to complete certification

o This cost may be passed on to the project architect-contractually requiring that they ensure the project meet certification-which is something to consider

o This “out” might be much cheaper or less onerous then doing the requirements but will not achieve the objective of the ordinance depending on the cost of the refundable deposit

o It’s concerning that projects will not know if they are in compliance until 18+ months out after completing construction

o The Building department will still ensure that the project has been built out per the plans, the deposit is really to ensure that the documentation is carried out

o CALGreen does not allow the building department to pass on an additional surcharge for reviewing the new code

o The responsibility to achieve certification will be passed on to the project architects who will not have control over the budget or the construction site, but will carry all the liability which will discourage architects from doing projects in Goleta

o Remember that we are not asking for a very high standard, we are talking about LEED Certified or Silver or Built Green SB 3 or 4 Stars for “medium” and “large” projects, respectively

o Ultimately, the project that misses silver certification by one point is producing a better project then those that forfeit the deposit

o A $100,000 fee may seem like a lot of money but on a sizable project that is cheap when compared to traffic mitigation fees for a bank with a drive

through, for example, which can be upwards of $300,000

5

VII. Draft Green Building Ordinance Outline: Incentive Reference Standard

• For projects that want to be eligible for incentives they will need to achieve a higher level of certification for “small”, “medium”, or “large” project types

• The City is still considering the viability of offering development standard related incentives (such as increased density/FAR, or reduced parking requirements), which should coincide with the new zoning code-for which there is a much longer timeline

• Basic permit fees, expedited permitting, and CEQA process timelines are not viable incentives because the City has a relatively short timeline for processing projects and inexpensive permit fees already and the CEQA timeline/process is required

• Analysis of potential incentives related to development impact fees, per the City’s recommendation, are still being analyzed-specifically the traffic impact fees due to the nexus between transit oriented development and traffic impacts

o If there is relief on the traffic impact fee the City is still accountable for the cumulative impact and need for additional transportation support and maintenance-so there are still some questions around the legality of this incentive option

o Questions still remain about what percent reduction the City could afford to offer, if any, on the Transportation DIFs

o More research and discussion is needed on the viability of this incentive

VIII. Cost Implications of Green Building • Cost for any building can vary and rating systems are performance-based (vs.

prescriptive) so it is hard to predict the cost of building green • Higher quality products cost more money, and green building have higher quality

products • Doing integrated design and starting early can save costs and some

methods/applications of green building can be cost-neutral (ex. Paint, carpet, ceiling fans, low VOC) or are required by CALGreen

• Generally Green Building will add 1%-5% to construction costs (hard costs) • Soft Costs can vary based on the project type as follows:

o $75,000 - $150,000 for a commercial building o $10,000-$15,000 for single family residential o $30,000 -$50,000 for multi-family residential

• What can you get for the money? Both tangible and intangible outcomes from Green Building:

o Quantifiable savings 15%-25% savings on the cost of energy 20%-40% savings on the cost of water

o Difficult to Quantify but no less important for public benefit Increased durability Project longevity Healthier living and working environment resulting in increased work

productivity and employee retention Unique market positioning, in some markets and not others, may

result in rapid lease-up, increase lease rate or rent, and increased assessed value

• Non-residential example with a payback period on hard costs of 12-18 years; when soft costs are folded in, payback is between 21-31 years • Questions/Comments

6

o Is there any analysis of the additional cost to operate a green building? o We haven’t seen that additional operational cost analysis o Reference standards do hit a 15% minimum standard or guaranteed energy

savings for projects over 500 sf o Note that another major community benefit and the rational as to why

additional requirements are emerging is that the State Strategic Energy Plan is not to build more energy plants and transition lines-those costs would be passed down through the utility

IX. Group Discussion

• Four questions for discussion: 1) Do the proposed sizes of projects to be included reflect the type of development expected in Goleta? 2) What are your reactions to the Green Building Fee and the Refundable deposit?

Green building fee for all project sizes, and deposit for “medium” and “large” projects

Fee is based on a cost recovery and fee study which produces a weighted average for an hourly rate

City contracts with Willdan, a private company; fee is based on their hourly rate

The cost will not be much more than what it is now because the fees that are in place now cover T-24 review and CALGreen review

Green building fee should be waived with no deposit, and a high penalty for non-compliance should be used to fund the Green Building Program

A line of credit can be used as a refundable deposit instead of the cash

The line of credit will still cost money Additional question to be posed: Can Projects shoulder these costs

and would it deter development? 3) What if any, zoning code standard or development impact fee reduction, or other mechanism, would provide a meaningful incentive for Green Building?

EmPOWER SBC financing is an option for a meaningful incentive; the Green Building Program is another pathway to leverage funds if actual energy savings can be stated and the other grant compliance requirements are met

EmPOWER SBC financing could be a great pilot program for all projects that get third party certification (not just the incentive track)

4) Is having three project categories based on size an effective way to distinguish among types of development and green requirements?

Alter the categories to reflect size, in addition to new vs. remodel Next Steps Steve Chase would like to continue outreach on these questions with some follow-up meetings

to get further input and share that information at the Joint Study Session. He requested that

7

everyone review the material and to stay involved as we continue rule making. Subsequent written comments were received from Carl Schneider, City of Goleta Design Review Board.

Attendees Included:

Steve Chase, City of Goleta Cindy Moore, City of Goleta Jim Guerra, City of Goleta Walker Wells, Global Green Hagu Solomon, Global Green Chris Rich, Goleta Water District Ashley Watkins, Ecology Action Lincoln Liechti, Dos Pueblos High School Dave Davis, Community Environmental Council Krista Pleiser, Santa Barbara Association of Realtors Peter Koetting, Westar Associates Jim Knight, Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce Paul Poirier, Built Green Santa Barbara Joe Wilcox, AIA, KBZ Architects, Inc. Carl Schneider, AIA, City of Goleta Design Review Board Carlos Jimenez, Peoples’ Self-Help Housing Corporation Chuck Haines, UCSB Angela Hacker, County of Santa Barbara, empowerSBC Russ Goodman, Sares Regis Corporation

ATTACHMENT 3

Presentation to Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce

March 14, 2012

City of GoletaGreen Building ProgramGreen Building Program

Update and Status

Walker WellsGlobal Green

3/14/12

Green Building Trends & RegulationsLiving

BuildingLEED Gold & Platinum

Green Building Trends & Regulations

LEED Certified

Net Zero Energy

LEED Silver

Current Practice Future Trend

2006AB32

1978 California’s Title 24 Established

1992Federal Energy Policy Act 2002

State Recommends C t ti &

2008Title 24Update

2020Carbon Neutral Residential Buildings

1989California AB 939 Recycling

Federally Mandated Storm Water

Construction & Demolition Plans

2011State GreenBuildingStandards

2030Carbon Neutral Commercial Buildings

Management

Background ConsiderationsFederal and State Regulations

AB 32 and Climate Action

Background ConsiderationsAB 32 and Climate Action

Current Municipal Code

Existing Approval ProcessesExisting Approval Processes

Existing Energy Reach Code (15%)

Water Conservation and LIDWater Conservation and LID

Cal Green and Title 24, Part 6 updates

Existing Rating Systems

Existing Buildings and Remodels

Relative Value/Cost

CALGreen Building CodeCALGreen Building Code

1/1/14Title 24- Statewide Title 24 Statewide Effective Date of

the 2013 California Codes

Update to State Green Building Code (part 13): Effective January 1 2014Update to State Green Building Code (part 13): Effective January 1, 2014

Goleta Reach CodeGoleta Reach CodeReach Code Scope Reach Code

Requirement: Exceed 2008 Building Energy Requirement: Exceed 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards by 15%

Green building or stand-alone energy ordinance?

Energy Ordinance Only

Do minimum energy requirements NoDo minimum energy requirements increase after initial effective date?

No

Occupancies covered? Residential and Nonresidential BuildingsBuildings

Energy requirements apply to new construction, additions, alterations?

New Construction and Additions >500 sf.

Special or unusual energy Yes: Pool/Spa PumpsSpecial or unusual energy requirements?

Yes: Pool/Spa Pumps

Third party verification? No

Implementation details in the Within the Ordinancepordinance or in a separate document

Update to California Energy Code (part 6): Effective January 1, 2014

Green Building Rating SystemsGreen Building Rating Systems

1. Verification by HERS R t & P id

1. Verification by Green R t

1. Self-certification (1,2,&3 Star) Third Party Verifier Rater & Provider

2. Performance field verified

3. Challenge for first timers

Rater2. Performance more

dependent on builder3. More accessible - a

Star), Third Party Verifier (4&5 Star)

2. Performance dependent on builderM d fit

4. Strongest brand recognition nationally

5. Highest cost6 Good when you need

good fit for first timers4. Growing brand

recognition statewide5. Lower cost

3. More range- a good fit for first timers and experienced builders

4. Local brand recognition,6. Good when you need

to be able to demonstrate without a doubt that your building is green to

5. Lower cost6. Good as an entry level

rating system and as a lower cost option to LEED in markets where

5. Lower cost6. Good as entry level

rating system and as a lower registration cost g g

funders, regulators, the public

the LEED brand has less value.

option. Verification cost vary dependent on verifier

California Green Building CodeCalifornia Green Building Code

C i f C lG LEED d G P i t R t d

Mandatory Voluntary Tier I

VoluntaryTier II

Comparison of CalGreen LEED and Green Point Rated

y Tier I Tier II

Non-LEED

4 of 8 prereqsLEED

5 of 8 prereqsLEED

5 of 8 prereqsNonResidential

4 of 8 prereqs~15 pts

NOT CERTIFIED


NOT CERTIFIED


~CERTIFIED

ResidentialGPR

1 of 3 prereqs~30 points

NOT CERTIFIED

GPR2 of 3 prereqs

~70 points~CERTIFIED

GPR2 of 3 prereqs

~100 points~CERTIFIEDNOT CERTIFIED ~CERTIFIED ~CERTIFIED

Draft Green Building Program

Size of Projects IncludedSize of Projects IncludedResidential Remodels and New Construction

Small Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

<1,500 sf ≥1,500-5,000sf ≥5,000sf

Non-Residential Remodels and New ConstructionSmall Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

9,999sf ≥10,000sf ≥25,000sf

*Goleta Building & Safety Data

Actual Building Activity in Goleta (past 6 months)*

Permitted Low High Average

Actual Building Activity in Goleta (past 6 months)*

Permitted Low High Average

19 194 sf 25,035 sf 4,709 sf23 86 sf 584 sf 390 sf

Reference StandardReference StandardResidential Remodels and New Construction

Small Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

Reach Code & CALGreenwith Local Amendments

LEED Certified / Built Green SB 3 stars

LEED Silver / Built Green SB 4 stars

N R id ti l R d l d N C t ti **Non-Residential Remodels and New Construction**Small Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

Reach Code & CALGreenwith Local Amendments

LEED Certified / Building Green SB 3 stars

LEED Silver / Built Green SB 4 starswith Local Amendments Green SB 3 stars stars

** LEED-EBOM may be completed for an entire building as an option to completing LEED-CI for individual tenant improvements

Suggested Local Amendments to CALGreenSuggested Local Amendments to CALGreen65 % C&D diversion60% Landscape water use reduction30% Interior water use reduction80% Low VOC flooring80% Low VOC flooring100% Low VOC insulationSolar ready

VerificationVerificationResidential Remodels and New Construction

Small Projects Medium Projects Large ProjectsSmall Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

Internal (City Staff) External Third Party External Third Party

Non-Residential Remodels and New Construction**Small Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

Internal (City Staff) External Third Party External Third PartyInternal (City Staff) External Third Party External Third Party

EnforcementEnforcementResidential Remodels and New Construction


Green Building Fee Refundable Deposit Refundable Deposit

N R id ti l R d l d N C t tiNon-Residential Remodels and New ConstructionSmall Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

Green Building Fee Refundable Deposit Refundable Deposit

NOTE: o Fee would cover City Staff time for project review

o Refundable Deposit needs to be roughly equivalent to the cost of achieving certification

Incentive Reference StandardIncentive Reference StandardResidential Remodels and New Construction


LEED Gold / Built Green 4 Stars LEED Gold / Built Green 5 Stars LEED Gold / Built Green 5 Stars

N R id ti l R d l d N C t ti **Non-Residential Remodels and New Construction**Small Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

LEED Gold / Built Green 4 Stars LEED Gold / Built Green 5 Stars LEED Gold / Built Green 5 Stars

** LEED-EBOM may be completed for an entire building as an option to completing LEED-CI for individual tenant improvements

Incentives*IncentivesResidential Remodels and New Construction


Standards and DIF Flexibility Standards and DIF Flexibility Standards and DIF Flexibility

Non-Residential Remodels and New Construction**Small Projects Medium Projects Large Projects

Standards and DIF Flexibility Standards and DIF Flexibility Standards and DIF Flexibility

* LEED-ND certified neighborhoods are eligible for standards and DIF flexibility at the discretion of the Planning and Environmental Services Department Director

Green Building Cost I li tiImplications

Green Building CostsHard costs:

More efficient equipment

Green Building CostsMore efficient equipmentMore durable materialsAdditional costs for recycled-content orL i i t i lLow-emissions materialsAdditional labor for installationMore skilled labor

Soft costs:Registration feesCertification feesCertification feesConsultant or Rater feesAdditional design timeAdditional construction managementBuilding commissioning

Green Building BenefitsReduction in energy costs of 15% - 25%.R d ti i t t f 20% 40%

Green Building BenefitsReduction in water costs of 20% - 40% Increased durability and project longevityHealthier working and living environmentsea e o g a d g e o e s

increased employee productivity improved employee retention

Unique market positionmore rapid lease-upincreased lease rate or rentincreased assessed value

State Strategic Energy Plan= no new energy plantscost savings passed down through utility

Costs and BenefitsPerformance-based systems provide multiple choices.

Costs and Benefits

Choices have varying impacts on cost.

Integrated design can lead to lower costs.

Many green measures are cost-neutral or in CalGreen.

Higher efficiency or quality products add cost.

Green building adds 1% 5% to construction (hard) costsGreen building adds 1% - 5% to construction (hard) costs.

Additional design and project management (soft) costs can • $75,000 - $150,000 for a commercial building

• $30,000 -$50,000 for multi-family residential

• $10,000-$15,000 for single family residential

Costs of Green Building Revisited (Davis Langdon 2007) and Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, and Strategies (Kats, 2008).Stopwate.org, 2010

Agenda Item A.1 CPMS PUBLIC WORKSHOP Meeting Date...

Documents

Transcript of Agenda Item A.1 CPMS PUBLIC WORKSHOP Meeting Date...