City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-1
RECOMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter
15.02, Buildings, Structures and Equipment, of the Culver City Municipal Code, to
add a new Subchapter 15.02.1100, et seq. entitled “Green Building Program and
Requirements.”
BACKGROUND:
In September 2008 staff presented three options for a green building standards
program to the City Council (Attachment 2). The first option included a partial permit
fee refund to projects that obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED®) certification. It also included a "Green Zone" incentive program in
conjunction with the Culver City Redevelopment Agency "Area Improvement Plan"
area on West Washington Boulevard. The second option proposed a list of 22
mandatory green building requirements applicable to all new multi-family and
commercial construction in Culver City. The third option included a mandatory
Green Building Point System with increasing requirements based on the size of the
project.
During that meeting, the City Council directed staff to further review LEED®
certification requirements for all projects of 50,000 square feet or higher, to refine the
menu of mandatory items applicable to all new construction and allow for flexibility in
developer compliance and expand the green building stakeholder meetings to
include representatives from the Culver City Chamber of Commerce, Culver City
Meeting Date: March 9, 2009 Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM:
Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.02, Buildings, Structures and
Equipment, of the Culver City Municipal Code, to Add a New Subchapter
15.02.1100, et seq. Entitled “Green Building Program and Requirements.”
Contact Person/Dept.: Craig Johnson
Sol Blumenfeld
Phone Number: 310-253-5802
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Public Notification: Master E-mail notification List (03/04/09), public stakeholders,
public speakers at past green building City Council discussions. Advertisement in the
Culver City News (2/19/09)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (03/05/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (03/05/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball (03/05/09)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry Fulwood (03/05/09) City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-2
Unified School District and contractors. Additionally, the City Council requested that
public education efforts be enhanced and that the next green building stakeholder
meetings include Culver City Chamber of Commerce representatives as well as
construction contractors.
In October 2008 staff met with the City Council Sustainable City Subcommittee to
further refine this direction and in December 2008 staff met again with the green
building stakeholders group. (Attachment 3) During the stakeholders meeting, staff
presented the refined options and garnered feedback from the group. The comments
focused on the following areas:
Revaluation of mandatory point items as some “green “ projects may not be able
to meet requirements based on building type (concrete, steel, wood, etc.) and
remove items that may already be required by other existing ordinances.
Consider holistic “parallel track” project review including a “green building review
board” consisting of local experts that would consider projects that cannot meet
the mandatory requirements based on design features.
Consideration of waste removal as an eligible point element, and develop list of
professional “scavengers/recyclers” that could remove unwanted debris.
Investigate efficiency of transformers on older buildings and determine if
increased efficiency could be integrated into the program.
Research AB 811 regarding bond program to finance solar photovoltaic systems.
Propose all of the green building options as one integrated program.
Staff also received correspondence from Sony and the Chamber of Commerce
(Attachment 4) outlining their comments as well.
DISCUSSION:
As directed by Council and advised by the green building stakeholders groups, the
Green Building Program would include the following three components:
A. Mandatory Menu for projects up to 49,999 square feet
This program would be applicable to all new buildings of 49,999 square feet or
less of gross floor area and major renovations to existing buildings of 49,999
square feet of gross floor area, where such renovation is equal to at least 50% of City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-3
the valuation of the existing space or structure, not including single family and
two family residences.
Qualifying projects as described above must comply with 20 of 25 items as set
forth in Section 15.02.1115.A of the proposed Ordinance, as follows.
1. Heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) units shall have a
minimum seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) of 17;
2. Gas heating units shall be a minimum of 93% energy efficient;
3. All heating and cooling ducts shall be located within the space to be
heated and cooled;
4. Roof and floor structures abutting an exterior space shall be a
minimum value of R-38 (thermal resistance value); and all exterior walls shall be
a minimum value of R-28;
5. Radiant barriers shall be installed under all new roof sheathing;
6. All new exterior glass shall be a minimum value of U.35 (measure of
heat conducting properties) and a minimum value of .30 SHGC (solar heat gain
coefficient);
7. Low slope roofs shall be a minimum value of 75% SRI (solar
reflectance index);
8. Exterior shading shall be provided over all west, south and east facing
exterior glass. Where exterior shading is infeasible, all new exterior glass shall
be a minimum value of U.32 and a minimum value of .27 SHGC;
9. All new interior and exterior lighting shall be fluorescent, LED or other
type of high efficiency lighting;
10. All new lighting installed in restroom or bathroom areas shall be
fluorescent, LED or other type of high efficiency lighting and shall be motion
sensor controlled. All new exhaust fans installed in restroom or bathroom areas
shall be motion sensor controlled;
11. All new lighting installed in any corridor, entryway or other typically
unoccupied space shall be fluorescent, LED or other type of high efficiency
lighting and shall be motion sensor controlled. Minimum base level lighting shall
be permitted;
12. All new lighting installed in a garage or parking structure shall be
motion sensor controlled. Minimum base level lighting shall be permitted;
13. Water closets shall be dual flush models;
14. Urinals shall be waterless models;
15. Water heaters installed for the heating of water in residential units
shall be tankless models;
16. Two two-inch electrical conduits shall be installed from the roof to the
electrical panels for future solar photovoltaic installation for each unit in
residential and commercial buildings. (Qualifying Projects that are subject to the City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-4
provisions of CCMC Section 15.02.1005, may not use this item toward satisfying
the requirements of this Section.);
17. A 20 square feet area to house recyclable material containers shall be
provided. This requirement shall be in addition to any other CCMC requirements
related to solid waste and recyclable material containers;
18. Multistory buildings shall provide separate trash chutes for recyclable
and non-recyclable materials and waste. Such chutes shall discharge directly
into separate recyclable and non-recyclable materials and waste containers.
This requirement shall be in addition to any other CCMC requirements related to
trash chutes;
19. One duplex weather proof (WP) ground fault circuit interrupter (GFCI)
outlet shall be installed for every eight parking spaces to be utilized for future
electric “plug-in” vehicles.
20. All doors leading from heated or cooled spaces to non-heated and
non-cooled spaces shall be insulated doors and shall include weather-stripping
and adequate closers.
21. Any new on-site, ground-level paving, which is open to the sky, shall
be permeable.
22. All on-site landscaping shall be low-water, drought tolerant. All
irrigation shall be bubbler systems.
23. All wood floor and roof structures shall be constructed with 90%
engineered lumber.
24. A minimum of 50% of the overall building insulation shall be
formaldehyde free and recycled content. A minimum aggregate of 60% of the
wall, ceiling, and floor insulation shall be cellulose, cotton ball, or bio-based foam.
25. 1kw of solar photovoltaic power shall be installed. (Qualifying
Projects that are subject to the provisions of CCMC Section 15.02.1005 may not
use this item toward satisfying the requirements of this Section.).
2. Mandatory LEED® “Certified” Performance Level or higher for projects that
exceed 50,000 square feet.
This program would be applicable to all new buildings of 50,000 square feet or
more of gross floor area and major renovations to existing buildings of 50,000
square feet or more of gross floor area, where such renovation is equal to at
least 50% of the valuation of the existing space or structure, not including single
family and two-family residences.
The U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® rating system for New
Construction and Major Renovations Version 2.2 is the current LEED® rating
system for such projects. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-5
There are six categories with a total of 69 possible points:
1. Sustainable Sites: 14 possible points.
2. Water Efficiency: 5 possible points.
3. Energy & Atmosphere: 17 possible points.
4. Materials & Resources: 13 possible points.
5. Indoor Environmental Quality: 15 possible points.
6. Innovation & Design Process: 5 possible points.
Performance thresholds are as follows:
Certified = 26-32 points,
Silver = 33-38
Gold = 39-51
Platinum = 52-69 possible points.
Qualifying projects as described above will be required to obtain a LEED®
“Certified” Performance level or higher, though not necessarily LEED®
Certification. Applicable projects will be encouraged to obtain full LEED®
“Certified” status and be eligible to be listed on the USGBC LEED® website.
All qualifying projects must comply with the procedure set forth in Section
15.02.1115.B of the proposed Ordinance, as follows:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall submit the
following:
a. Evidence that a LEED®-AP is one of the members of the
Project team.
b. Evidence that the Project has been registered with USGBC’s
LEED® program.
c. A LEED® checklist, including points allocated to the
“Innovation and Design” category, which demonstrates that the Project
meets the selected LEED® Rating System at the “Certified” level or
higher.
d. A signed declaration from the LEED®-AP member of the
Project team, stating that the plans and plan details have been reviewed
and the Project meets the intent of the criteria for certification of the
selected LEED® Rating System at the “Certified” level or higher.
2. The Project shall comply with USGBC’s “3 point margin of error” for
LEED® certification.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-6
3. Applicant shall submit to the Building Official copies of all
correspondence between the Applicant and USGBC regarding the Project.
Further, LEED® Checklist and items in the construction drawings will be plan
checked by City staff concurrently with all other routine City reviews. Errors in
either the LEED® Checklist or items in the construction drawings will be noted
as plan check corrections concurrently with all other City review comments.
Once the project has been approved by all City plan reviewers including the
LEED® review and the construction permit has issued, the project applicant
has the responsibility of informing City staff of any changes to the LEED®
items. City staff may issue field correction notices and/ or stop work orders for
any discrepancies of the LEED® items, as is the same with all City
requirements. All filings of the project LEED® AP with the USGBC LEED®
Program are to be copied to City staff. Once the project construction is finished
the project developer is encouraged to complete the LEED® approval with the
USGBC LEED® Program. Projects obtaining LEED® Certification will be
eligible for listing on the Culver City web page.
3. “Green Zone” Incentive Program
This program would allow for permit fee reductions for installation of any
approved energy saving construction within the City’s designated “green
zones.” It is proposed that these initial green zones be co-terminus with the two
Area Improvement Plans already identified and include the portion along West
Washington Blvd from Wade to Beethoven Avenues (Phase I) and Centinela
Boulevard to Colonial Avenue (Phase II).
Staff proposes a 1 building permit fee waiver not to exceed $5,000 for green
building improvements in the Green Zone. An example is illustrated below:
Project Scope
Project
Valuation
Total Permit
Fees
Building
Permit Fee
Total Amount
of Incentive
Improve energy efficiency
through upgraded insulation,
exterior doors and windows.
$40,000 $2,200 $650 $650
Staff recommends the Green Zone program budget be capped at $20,000 per
year, distributed on a first come, first served basis. Staff recommends that the
Green Zone program be in effect for five years for each zone designated in
order to effectively allow business and property owners to participate. If all
Green Zone funds are expended each year for each of the 5 program years the
total 5 year cost to the Redevelopment Agency would be $100,000. Should the City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-7
City Council determine to implement this item, an appropriate item would be
placed before the Agency for its consideration at a future meeting.
Other Green Building Program Components/Considerations
Urban Trees Requirements:
There are many documented benefits of urban trees, safer walking environments,
less drainage structure, and many others. (Attachment 4)
Particularly important are the pollution reduction benefits. A single mature tree can
absorb 48 pounds of carbon dioxide reduction per year, and can release into the
atmosphere enough oxygen to support two human beings. In addition trees also
remove other gaseous pollutants by absorbing them with normal air components
through the stomates in the leaf surface. Trees absorb sulfur dioxide, ozone,
nitrogen oxides, and other particulates from smoke produced by burning of carbon
fuels. There is a 60% reduction in street level particulates on streets with street
trees.
One sugar maple tree 12’ trunk height, planted along a roadway, will remove in
each growing season 60 mg cadmium, 140 mg chromium, 820 mg nickel, and
5,200 mg lead from the environment. Over a 50 year lifetime, one full size tree
generates $31,250 of oxygen, provides $62,000 of air pollution control and
recycles $37,500 of water. Planting trees is one of the most effective means of
removing excess carbon dioxide and other pollution from the atmosphere.
To this end, staff proposes for all qualifying projects a condition be imposed
requiring that, when feasible:
1. All existing on-site trees with a trunk diameter of 2" or greater be preserved
or replaced with trees of comparable size per the recommendations of the Parks
Manager; and,
2. All existing street trees with a trunk diameter of 2” or greater be preserved or
replaced with trees of comparable size per the recommendations of the City
Engineer.
As with any of the provisions of the proposed Ordinance, no final inspection will be
approved for a project, nor will a temporary or final certificate of occupancy be
issued, until such time as these requirements have been satisfied, as determined
by final inspection of the Building Safety Division.
City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-8
Education/Public Outreach
Once the green building program is finalized, staff will continue to provide
educational materials to the community.
At this time, three additional green building handouts are available for distribution:
1. "Top 20 no or low cost Green Building Strategies"
2. "Recommended Sustainable Building Measures"
3. "Culver City Building Safety Division Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Requirement".
Through our web page, Culver City also offers a number of informative links to
include "Symantec Culver City Awarded Prestigious LEED® Gold Certification",
"Green Building Tour, Saturday April 2nd, 2005", "Green Building in Southern
California", "Culver City Solar PV Inspection and Submittal Guidelines", "Solar
energy Presentation to the Culver City Planning Commission 6/8/05", and a link to
the "Go Solar California" website.
Recently Building Safety has added a "Green Building Guidelines" handout and a
"Tips for Saving water at Home" as well as a link on the Building Safety web page to
a "United States Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® webpage and details for
the v2.2 for New Construction and Major Renovations Guideline." The webpage will
also be updated with a list of the other sustainability laws that Culver City enforces.|1010|
Enforcement of the Proposed Culver City Green Building Program
As noted previously the proposed Culver City Green Building program measures
are intended to be integrated into the existing Culver City discretionary review,
construction permit application plan check, and field inspection procedures.
Project developers will be given comments on green building measures the same
as any other City requirements throughout the development process.
Additionally staff will require all green building measures to be completed and
operating prior to any final inspection, and prior to issuing any temporary or final
certificate of occupancy.
Under State law, any local building code amendment must be reviewed and
approved by the State. To allow for this required review and approval and sufficient
notice of this change in the City’s building regulations, staff proposed the Ordinance
become effective upon approval by the State or on July 1, 2009, whichever is later.
FISCAL ANALYSIS: City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-9
The Culver City Green Building Program may result in slightly lowering the Culver
City Utility Users' Tax (UUT) revenue. Buildings with greater energy efficiency will
pay less per square foot in energy costs than less efficient buildings. The current
annual UUT revenues, excluding telecommunications and cable (i.e. electricity, gas
and water) are approximately $8.5 million, with more than $6 million of that being
electricity utility use. However, future economic costs to clean the environment may
exceed the very small potential loss to the UUT. Over time, the impacts on UUT
revenues will grow – potentially becoming significant.
The program may be integrated into the existing City plan check and construction
permitting processes with no other additional costs to the City with the exception of
staff training to conduct LEED® plan checks. Staff anticipates this amount to be a
one time cost of approximately $10,000.
If the City Council chooses to require full LEED® Certification as opposed to a
LEED® Certified Performance Level for projects of over 50,000 square feet, staff
estimates a qualified professional will be necessary to verify compliance at all stages
of the development process, particularly at the end of the process. Staff estimates
the annual cost of a qualified consultant may be approximately $20,000; varying with
the number of certified projects each year.
The Green Zone program, if fully utilized as proposed, will cost the Redevelopment
Agency $100,000 over 5 years.
To enforce the LEED® program requirements City staff will be encouraged to obtain
additional training and obtain LEED® Accredited Professional (LEED®-AP)
certification. To this end staff recommends allocating $1,000 for staff training and
$1,500 for staff testing ($2,500 per staff member) for 4 City staff members.
Should the City Council approve this recommendation, staff will include the above
amounts in the Fiscal Year 2009/2010 budget request. Given the $4,000,000 deficit
currently projected for Fiscal Year 2009/2010, any General Fund monies allocated
for this purpose would need to come from the General Fund Reserve or from a
expenditure reduction in another General Fund program.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Culver City Green Building Chronology.
2. City Council Green Building discussion Item 9-22-08 Staff Report.
3. Green Building Stakeholders Group
4. 4: Correspondence from Stakeholders
5. Urban Street Trees City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-10
6. Proposed Ordinance
7. Notice of Public Hearing
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 15.02, Buildings, Structures and
Equipment, of the Culver City Municipal Code, to add a new Subchapter
15.02.1100, et seq. entitled “Green Building Program and Requirements.”
|1010| Current Culver City Environmental Enforcement Efforts
Culver City routinely enforces various state laws that have energy efficiency, green building, or water quality
impacts.
The Building Safety Division enforces the 2007 California Building and Energy Codes, including but not limited
to:
1. Basic building commissioning (i.e.; "tuning") of the building hvac and
lighting systems.
2. Hvac demand ventilation control; sensor controlled variation of outside
ventilation.
3. Primary roof insulation to be at the roof or hard ceiling (t-bar ceiling) level.
4. Hvac duct insulation, duct sealing in all unconditioned spaces.
5. All new commercial lighting to be high efficiency, all new residential kitchen,
bath, laundry, and garage lighting to be high efficiency.
6. All new commercial exterior lighting to be high efficiency.
7. Skylights are required in new "big-box" buildings; controls shut off lighting when
sufficient daylight is available.
8. Efficient space conditioning systems; efficiency rating, variable air volume,
variable speed drives, efficient cooling towers.
9. Efficient lighting systems in unconditioned buildings.
10. Pipe insulation on hot water piping in new commercial buildings.
11. All new commercial and residential windows to be high efficiency, minimum
solar heat gain.
12. Low flow shower heads and low flush toilets to reduce water use.
13. Waste interceptors and/ or grease traps at all required locations.
The Culver City Engineering Division and the Environmental Programs and
Operations Division enforce the Los Angeles County Storm Water National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Regarding buildings, the NPDES requires a Local Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) for runoff control during the construction phase and a
Standard urban Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) for runoff control for the life of
a new project.
An LSWPPP plan limits pollutants entering the storm drain system during
construction through the use of silt fences, storm drain inlet protections, sediment City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
A2-11
traps, erosion control mats and other measures.
A SUSMP plan limits pollutants entering the storm drain system for the life of a
project through the use of less impervious paving, larger green areas, catch basin
filter systems, infiltration pits, and other measures.
State Approval of a Culver City Green Building Program:
All local amendments to the California Buildings Codes must gain approval of the California Building Standards
Commission. If the Culver City Council approves a Green Building Program staff will make the proper filings
with the California Building Standards Commission.
Meeting Date: 03/09/09
Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM: Introduction of Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.02, Buildings,
Structures and Equipment, of the Culver City Municipal Code, to Add a New
Subchapter 15.02.1100, et seq. Entitled "Green Building Program and
Requirements."
ATTACHMENTS: PAGES
1. Culver City Green Building Chronology. 1-2
2. City Council Green Building Report.(9/22/08) 3-12
3. Green Building Stakeholders Group 13-14
4. Correspondence from Stakeholders 15-22
5. Benefits of Urban Trees 23-38
6. Green Building Program and Requirements Ordinance 39-50Attachment No. 1
Green Building Chronology
• April 2004, two voluntary informational green building handouts
were developed and available to the public at the Building Safety
information counter.
• February 2005 the City Council considered an item; a "Discussion
of Future Green Building Standards in Culver City".
• November 2006 the City Council directed staff to form a
Sustainable City Plan (SCR). To achieve this; an
"Interdepartmental Sustainable Culver City Green Team" was
formed consisting of City staff members from several different
departments and a City Council subcommittee. The plan includes
five overall goal areas: Resource Conservation, Environmental
Pollution and Public Health Protection, Solid Waste Diversion and
Recycling, Open Space and Land Use, and Community Education
and Civic Participation.
• May 2007 Culver City was host to an American Institute of
Architects "Sustainable Design Assessment Team" (SDAT).
Culver City received technical assistance under the SDAT
Program and conducted community outreach through charrette
style workshops from which a final report has been received and
is being evaluated by staff.
• July 2007 City staff obtained California Energy Commission
approval of a Culver City mandatory solar photovoltaic
requirement.
• August 2007 the City Council approved the Mayor signing the
"U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement", with
a broad goal of reducing greenhouse emissions and global
warming.
• February 2008 the City Council gave final approval to a
mandatory solar photovoltaic requirement for new construction,
additions, and major renovations over 10,000 square feet.
• March 2008 the City Council discussed several green building
options, including the green building programs of Santa Monica,
West Hollywood, Pasadena, and Manhattan Beach.• May 2008 City staff hosted a meeting of local green building
stakeholders; local design professionals and energy and green
environment experts to discuss green building options.
• July 2008 City staff refined the green building options and hosted
the second meeting with the green building stakeholders. City
staff also met with the City Council Sustainable City subcommittee
to discuss overall sustainable City direction.
• July 2008 City staff met again with the City Council sustainable
City subcommittee to discuss green building direction.
• August 2008 City staff met with the City Council Sustainable City
subcommittee to discuss overall sustainable City direction and
this report.
• September 2008 City Council green building discussion item. #
options were discussed; staff received direction.
• October 2008 City staff met with the City Council sustainable City
subcommittee to discuss the latest green building direction.
• November 2008 City staff met with the City Council sustainable
City subcommittee and hosted the third meeting with the the
green building stakeholder group, including local general
contractors and local business representatives, to discuss the
latest green building direction.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 9.22.08 Item Number: A-2
AGENDA ITEM: Discussion of Green Building Standards in Culver City
Contact Person/Dept.: Craig Johnson Phone Number: 310-253-5802
Sol Blumenfeld 310-253-5702
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No fl General Fund: Yes [X] No j]
Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: Attachments: [x]
Public Notification: Master E-Mail Notification List (09/17/08), public stakeholders,
public speakers at past green building City Council discussions. Advertisement in
Culver City Observer (9/18/08)
Department Approval:
Sol Blumenfeld (09/16/08)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (09/16/08)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) (09/17/08)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry Fulwood (09/17/08)
RECOMMENDATION
proposed green building standards and
a menu both to require and encourage
contained herein are intended to
accomplished over the last two years.
chronology. (Attachment No. 1).
the areas of environmental stewardship,
the problems of rising energy costs and
consider a more sustainable approach
"Green" buildings are more
construction, reduce environmental
Green buildings create healthier work,
more natural light and cleaner air,
productivity.
as an important component of
and sustainable measures may be
Plan and focus on the areas of
Staff recommends the City Council discuss
provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to provide
green building in the City. The recommendations
build on the successful work that has been
These efforts are summarized on the attached
DISCUSSION
In keeping with Culver City's leadership in
the City has taken certain steps regarding
global warming have prompted the City to
to the way buildings are planned and constructed.
energy efficient, reduce solid waste during
pollution and conserve natural resources.
learning, and living environments with
contributing to improved health, comfort, and
Staff has focused initially on green building
sustainability. Other program considerations
coordinated through the Sustainable City
conservation, land use and waste diversion.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
In looking at best practices of current
Monica, West Hollywood and other
prepared three green building options
options range from incentive programs
new development. Staff recommends
one or more of the following green building
Option 1: Incentive Program for
Program
Option 2: Mandatory New Development
Option 3: Mandatory Green Building
Option 1: Incentive Programs for LEED
LEED Certification Incentive Program
green building programs operating in Santa
nearby cities (Attachment No. 2), staff has
for the City Council's consideration. These
to mandatory construction requirements for
that the City Council consider implementing
options:
LEED Certification and "Green Zone"
Requirements
Point System.
Certification & Green Zone Program
fee refund for projects obtaining Leadership
(LEED) Certification. Building permit fee
but do not fully cover the costs of obtaining
party review and green building rating system
new construction: Certified, Silver, Gold,
to five green design categories:
energy and atmosphere, materials and
The LEED certification adds from 6%
refund schedule as follows:
projects obtaining LEED certified status
projects obtaining LEED silver status
projects obtaining LEED gold status
projects obtaining LEED platinum status
Certification Costs:
This option proposes a partial permit
in Energy and Environmental Design
refunds are an incentive to developers,
LEED certification. LEED is the third
which offers four certification levels for
and Platinum. These levels correspond
sustainable sites, water efficiency,
resources and indoor environmental quality.
to 9% to overall building permit costs.
Staff proposes the City establish a fee
> 20% of the building permit fee for
> 30% of the building permit fee for
> 40% of the building permit fee for
> 50% of the building permit fee for
Example of New Development and LEED
New
Development
(square
footage)
Valuation Approximate
Building
permit fees*
Certified Silver Gold Platinum
6% of
project
valuation
7% of
project
valuation
8% of
project
valuation
9% of
project
valuation
117,000 $14.7 Million $90,000 $882,000 $1,030,000 $1,176,000 $1,323,000City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
• excluding plan check fees and all other City fees and
mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits that may
It is important to note that the typical Culver
refunded in full, would probably only cover
certified status. Since a full refund would significantly
revenues, staff recommends a cap of $60,000
proposes administering this program by collecting
to construction. Upon presentation of LEED
generated (subject to the annual cap as recommended
the City Council).
"Green Zone" Demonstration Program
charges, and excluding
be typically expected
City
the cost of
for any
the full
fee waivers
the City's designated
current Phase
(West Washington
Attachment
A list of
the proposed
refund as
certification,
the costs of the other civil, fire,
with a project of this type.
building permit fee cost, if
a project to obtain LEED
reduce City building permit
individual project. Staff
building permit fees prior
a refund would be
by staff and approved by
for installation of any
"green zones." It
I and Phase II Area
Blvd from Wade to
No. 3) and Centinela
approved energy saving
Mandatory measures
illustrated below within the
project.
This program would allow for building permit
approved energy saving construction within
is proposed that these green zones be the
Improvement Project Demonstration Areas
Beethoven Avenues (Phase I Shown on
Boulevard to Colonial Avenue (Phase II)).
construction efforts would be culled from
(Option 2) and the points based system (Option3).
Staff recommends a 100% building permit fee
green zones with a maximum cap of $5,000 for any individual
Project
Scope
Project
Valuation
Total Permit
All Fees
Building
Permit
Fee
Total Amount
of Incentive
Improve energy efficiency
through upgraded insulation,
exterior doors and windows.
$40,000 $2,200 $650 $650
Staff recommends that the Green Zone program remain in effect for five years for
each zone designated in order to provide time to encourage business and property
owner's participation. There are approximately 40 properties and businesses that
could benefit from this option. This option would provide a financial incentive in a
highly visible demonstration program for the City.
Option 2: Mandatory Requirements Program for All New Development
This option involves the creation of a list of mandatory prescriptive measures that
would apply to new ground-up construction. A building permit will not be issued until
adherence to the program req uirements is achieved. Over time, zoningCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
considerations and new technology may require updating this list to ensure program
effectiveness. This option does not provide any financial incentive; but would be
effective and relatively simple to administer.
The following mandatory green building requirements are proposed for all new
development:
1. Minimum 17 Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ration (SEER) for all new ac units in
new construction (The efficiency of air conditioners is often rated by SEER.
The SEER rating is the Btu of cooling output during a typical cooling-season
divided by the total electric energy input in watt-hours during the same period.
The higher the SEER rating of a unit, the more energy efficient it is. A
minimum SEER rating of 13 is currently required under the Building Code??.)
2. All new gas heating units in new construction to be minimum 92% efficient
(96.6% efficient is the highest efficiency generally available).
3. All heating and cooling ducts to be within heated or cooled space for new
construction.
4. Minimum R-38 roofs and floors (to exterior spaces), minimum R-28 walls in
new construction. (R—rating is an index of the insulation value. The higher the
rating, the higher the insulation value.)
5. Radiant barriers under roof sheathing in new construction. (Possible
additional measure: also require radiant barriers under all west, south, and
east wall sheathing in new construction.)
6. Current code allows exterior glass to be U .38 and SHGC of .31; require all
new glass to be minimum U .35 and SHGC of .30 in new construction and
additions and remodels_ (U-rating is an insulation rating of the glass. The
lower the U-rating, the higher the insulation value. SHGC is the Solar Heat
Gain Coefficient which is a measure of glass resistance to radiant heat. )
7. All new low-slope roofs to have a minimum SRI of 75% in all new
construction and all low-slope re-roofing permits. (Solar Reflectance Index is
a measure of reflectivity of the roofing surface.)
8. Exterior shading over all glass on the west, south, and east sides of all new
construction. (Alternate: require all glass on the west, south, and east side of
new construction to be upgraded performance.)
9. All new interior and exterior lighting to be fluorescent or Light Emitting Diode
(LED) or other high efficiency lighting in new construction.
10.A11 bathroom lighting (fluorescent or LED) and exhaust fans to be motion
sensor controlled in new construction.
11 .All corridors (and any other typically unoccupied spaces) lighting
(fluorescent or LED) to be motion sensor controlled in new construction.
12. All garage and parking structure lighting (fluorescent or LED) to be motion
sensor controlled in new construction. (Minimum base level lighting allowed.)
13. Dual flush water closets in new construction.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
This
will
the
from
would
Each
meet
An
Option
energy
improvements,
footage.
14. Only waterless urinals in new construction.
15.Tankless water heaters in new residential construction.
16.Two(2) - 2" electrical conduits to be installed from the roof to the electrical
panels for future photovoltaic installation for each unit in all new residential
construction and in all new commercial construction. (Of less than 10,000
which doesn't qualify for mandatory photovoltaic installation.)
17.A bike parking area in all new construction.
18.A recyclables collection area in all new construction. (Possible additional
measure: require 2 trash chutes in all new multi-floor construction; routed
directly to 2 different dumpsters in a trash room below; one for trash, one
recyclables.)
19.0ne (1) duplex ground fault circuit interrupter outlet for each eight parking
spaces in new residential construction. (For future plug-in vehicles.)
20. Require all new construction to have smart irrigation controllers.
3: Mandatory Green Building Point System.
option involves the establishment of a mandatory point system to help achieve
efficiency in new development and building improvement. A building permit
not be issued unless there are a minimum number of points received pursuant
table below. The points based system is a compilation of the most effective items
several points based systems from other cities as well as LEED checklists
be administered in addition to the mandatory items prescribed in Option #2.
item on the list would equal one point and would apply to all remodels, tenant
additions, and new construction. Projects of varying scopes must
a thresholds of the available points based on new construction square
example is illustrated below:
sf
for
to
and
of
Square footage Mandatory list
All items
Points required
13 points 10,000 — 25,000 sq. ft.
25,000 — 50,000 sq. ft AU items 16 points
Over 50,000 sq. ft. All items 22 points
Site
street trees.
tolerant landscaping and shade trees, minimize
(minimize spray heads, maximize use
• Preserve all existing site and/or
• Provide additional drought
turf areas.
• Install efficient irrigation system
bubblers and ri tilp irrigation.)City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Natural Heating and Cooling
• Provide operable windows for ventilation in all new construction.
• Provide ceiling fans in all habitable areas.
• Minimize air conditioning.
Foundation
Incorporate fly ash or recycled content in all paving and foundation concrete.
Structure
• Use engineered wood or steel for 90% of the floor and roof framing (to reduce
amount of wood consumption.)
• Use FSC certified wood framing for 20% of all wood framing materials.
• Use structural insulated panels.
Plumbing
• Insulate the full length of all hot water piping.
• Install faucets of less than 2.5 gpm.
Insulation/ Energy
• Minimum 25% of insulation formaldehyde free, recycled content.
• Minimum 60% of wall insulation cellulose, cotton ball, or bio-based foam.
• Minimum 60% of ceiling insulation cellulose, cotton ball, or bio-based foam.
• Pre-plumb for future solar hot water heating.
• Install solar photovoltaic (for projects less than 10,000 sf not qualifying for
mandatory solar pv.)
• Install Energy Star programmable thermostats.
• Perform duct testing.
Indoor Air Quality
• Use low Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)sealants and adhesives.
• Use composite wood with no added urea formaldehyde for counters and
countertops.
• Use carpet Carpet and Rug Institute Green Label certified.
• All wood flooring bamboo or other renewable material.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Roofing
• Use 25% recycled content roofing materials.
• Roofing materials warranty minimum 40 yr. for asphalt shingles, 15 yr. for
built-up.
Exterior Finishes
Minimum 30% of exterior surfaces integral or no color stucco, or durable
surface panels.
Interior Finishes
• Minimum 20% exposed concrete floors.
• Minimum 25% recycled content countertop materials.
General
• Divert minimum 75% of construction demolition by weight to recycling.
• Innovative design as determined by City staff.
Costs and Benefits of Potential Culver City Green Building Programs
Staffing
Option 1 and Option 2 would not require additional staffing to implement.
Staff estimates, however, that Option 3 would require, at minimum, one additional
full time City staff member and one additional City vehicle. (Attachment No. 3)
Energy Costs and Annual Emissions Illustration
In an effort to illustrate the relative benefit of these programs/options against the
current Energy Code, an example of a commercial project (totaling 282,000 sq. ft.)
and nine new residential units (totaling 49,000) is highlighted below:
Options I Annual I Annual Annual Annual Construction I Additional I
Commercial Residential Carbon i Energy Cost increase I Staffing City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
BTU's Btu's Emissions Costs
Standard 25.5 billion 18 561 tons $392,000 (0)
California
Energy Code
Option 1 — 21.7 bllhon .66 477 tons $333,000 $376,000 n/a
LEED
certification*
Option 2 — 22.9 billion .70 505 tons $353,000 $188,000 n/a
Mandatory
Program **
Option 3 —
Points based ***
20.4 billion .62 448 tons $313,000 $564,000 1 additional
staff
* assumes Silver certlication level, 15% energy improvement and additional $1.00 square foot construction cost.
Does not include green zone program.
** assumes 10% energy improvement and an additional $.50 per square foot construction cost.
*** assumes 20% energy improvement and an additional $1.50 per square foot construction cost.
General Assumptions;
• That under each option all annual 282k s.f. of new commercial space and all9 new residential units fully
comply with that option.
• That the consumption of each 45,000 btu's produces 1 ton of carbon emissions
• The btu cost is estimated at 70,000 btu's per $1.
• The estimated construction cost increase is an additional cost to the developer of a building.
SUMMARY
Staff is proposing three green building program options for Council consideration.
Option 1 is an incentive program that could offer a refund of up to 50% of the
building permit fee for LEED certified projects. It is proposed that a cap be put in
place of at least $60,000 for individual projects and $225,000 annually for the
program as whole. This option also includes 100% building permit refunds for
"green zones" within the City. As a pilot program, staff recommends that the first
green zone be coterminous with the current West Washington Demonstration
Project — Phase I. Based on the current property and business constitution, the cost
for this program could be up to $15,000 in building permit refunds and would not
require any additional staffing.
Option 2 is a mandatory checklist of standards applied to all new development. The
list represents a number of effective and straightforward prescriptive measures that
would effectively reduce carbon emissions and increase sustainability within the
City. Staff believes that this program could be absorbed with current staffing levels
and would not require any additional staffing.City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Option 3 is a hybrid program that would require adherence to all of the measures
listed in Option 2 as well as additional requirements, via a point system, based on
building square footage. This option would be case specific for each new project
and would require more in depth inspection to ensure compliance. This option
would require an additional staff person and associated resources.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
All three options would forward the City's general policy goal of obtaining a more
sustainable environment. However, there is a fiscal cost to the City to implement
each option. All three options would have the consequence of a loss in Utility Users'
Tax (UUT) revenue. There is a direct relationship between UUT revenues and a
building's energy efficiency. As energy efficiency increases, the amount that a
business pays per square foot in utilities (such as electricity, gas and water)
decreases, consequently decreasing the amount of UUT paid by the consumer.
Currently, electricity, gas, and water UUT combined generate approximately $8
million in revenues, with the primary piece of that being electricity at approximately
$6 million. As the number, size, and level of energy efficient projects increases over
time, the City can expect to see a proportionate decrease in UUT revenue over what
would be generated by a traditional project. That being said, the economic cost to
clean the environment in the long run may far exceed the potential loss of UUT
revenue.
If Option #1 were pursued (LEED Certification and Green Zone incentives), staff
recommends the City Council determine annual cap limits for building permit refunds
and incentives that would result in a decrease in net revenues to the General Fund.
As proposed, these discounts would not fully cover the actual cost of LEED
certification, but could substantially subsidize consultant fees to achieve certification
and/or make sustainable improvements to an existing structure. The cost of this
program is whatever the City Council ultimately determines as an annual cap for the
program (see next paragraph) plus foss of UUT revenue.
For example, in Option #1 a total annual program cap of $225,000 ($60,000 per
individual project), or approximately 10% of annual Building Safety revenues, could
include three commercial projects refunded $30,000 each and nine residential
projects refunded $15,000 each or any other combination within this limit. This
would, in essence, cost the City up to $225,000 plus ongoing lost UUT revenue plus
staff time to develop the necessary applications, rating processes, benchmarks, etc.
Additionally, the "green zone" program could refund an additional $15,000 in building
permit fees if approximately 50% of the business participated in the West
Washington Demonstration Project, Phase I. Based on the location of theseCity of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
businesses, staff anticipates that most of the sustainable upgrades would be limited
to energy efficiency efforts to include glass/window upgrades, insulation, and HVAC.
As proposed, Option #2, a Mandatory Green Building Program, would not have
additional cost to the City beyond the potential loss of UUT revenues and some
additional staff time to implement the additional requirements for developers.
Option #3, a Points Based System, would require one additional full-time employee
(approximately $100,000 including salary and benefits, which would increase on an
annual basis), $30,000 for one additional hybrid vehicle, and $5,000 annually for
related amortization and garage expenses.
Based on the City Council's desire to explore implementation of one or more of the
proposed options, the further fiscal impacts would need to be refined.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Green Building Chronology
2. Green Building Programs in Other Cities
3. Deomonstration Area Map
4.Staffing Requirement Calculation for Option 3
5. Culver City Mandatory Solar Photovoltaic Information
6."Building Green with Carrots and Sticks", Western City Magazine, May 2008
7. Los Angeles Business Journal Article, August 18, 2008.
8.Other Programs for Consideration
MOTION:
That the City Council:
Receive and file this report and provide direction regarding proposed green
building standards. GREEN BUILDING STAKEHOLDERS
Attachment 3
1 John Maloney
Architect
2 Trever Abramson
Principal
Abramson Teiger Architects
3 Carl Johnson
Vice President
HOK
4 Zoltan Pali
Principal
SPF:architects
5 Lori Selcer
Senior Associate
HOK
6 Gregory Fisher
Senior
SPF:architects
7 Joel Davidson
Principal
Solutions in Solar Electricity
8 Colette Brooks
Chief Imagination Officer
Big Imagination Group
9 Erik Mar
Carde Ten Architects
10 Greg Reitz
Principal
ReTh ink Development Corp.
11 Stephanie Pincetl
Professor, Green Building
University of California, Los Angeles12 Amy Rosenstein
Architect
13 Steven J. Rose
CEO
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
14 Karen Kurokawa
Impact Design, Inc.
15 Tony Haske
Solar City
16 Jonathan Cowan
Executive Director, Government Affairs
Sony Pictures Entertainment
17 Scott Wyant
Green Representative - Chamber of Commerce
18 Bob Grush
Contractor
Ed Grush
19 Mike Corigan
CCUSDCULVER CITY
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
January 6, 2009
Elaine Gerety-Warner
Senior Management Analyst
Community Development
City of Culver City
PO Box 507
Culver City, CA 90232-0507
Dear Ms_ Gerety-Warner
Thank you for including the Culver City Chamber of Commerce in your stakeholders
meeting to solicit feedback on staff's Green Building Standards proposal_ As a follow-
up, this letter addresses the Chamber's response to the plans that were presented.
Generally, the Chamber of Commerce, has the following concerns.
• The mandatory checklist proposal would require applicable projects to comply
with 20 of 25 items. The Chamber believes that this is too stringent a
requirement. If the city settles on a mandatory checklist for projects, there should
be a much lower threshold, e.g. 10 of 25 items. Not every item applies to every
project, as there are differences between residential and commercial construction,
as well as between a new building and a renovation. Requiring fewer items to be
met allows greater flexibility to best suit the parameters of individual projects.
• The mandatory checklist proposal doesn't distinguish between provisions that
apply to new projects versus renovations. Some items on the checklist may be
more feasible to achieve during new construction and this distinction should be
reflected in staffs final proposal.
• How is city staff planning to administer the LEED Certified Performance Level
proposal under current staffing levels? Because there is some subjectivity in the
LEED credit process, is the City planning to defer to the US Green Building
Council for these decisions or to hire its own expert? Since some credits are up
for interpretation, will the review and re-review process lengthen the amount of
time typically required for plan check? Will the city be using its own templates or
relying on the LEED templates for what has to be submitted?
t• In an economic downturn where real estate construction and renovation activity
has greatly decreased, what incentives has staff considered to entice developers to
build in Culver City in return for meeting these additional cost hurdles? From
changing parking requirements, to density bonuses, to quicker permit approval,
staff has a range of options that should be considered so as to not send a negative
message to the development community.
Attached to this letter, you'll find a more detailed point-by-point response to the specifics
of the various proposals. Again, thank you for working with the Chamber on this issue
and flook forward to our continued dialogue.
Sincerely,
Steven J. Rose
President/CEP
Cc:
Chamber BoardPOINT-BY-POINT RESPONSE TO GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM
PROPOSALS
I. MANDATORY CHECKLIST
3. It is the Chamber's understanding that requiring all heating and cooling ducts
to be within heated or cooled space for new construction will be challenging to
achieve. Ductwork that runs from the exterior unit to roof penetration locations
is exposed but this penetration is insulated to accommodate.
4. R-30 for roofs and R-19 for walls is often specified for LEED projects so this
would be a better minimum to focus on.
5. Radiant barriers are used within attic spaces so this item should specify that
this won't be applicable in all cases as this is most typical for residential projects.
12. This could be problematic from a security standpoint as night-time lighting is
a safety issue.
14. This requirement should recognize that waterless urinals may not be
achievable in certain projects due to drain slope and other factors.
20, This seems to be addressed in number 22.
21. Permeable paving may not always be achievable with given soil types within
the city. The soil may not allow any infiltration which would prevent the
permeable paving from being effective.
22 LEED Credit 1.1: Water Efficient Landscaping Reduce by 50% allows for
greater flexibility in the types of landscaping as long as the efficiency rating is
maintained. There may not be a need to prohibit grass areas completely_
23. Use of engineered wood is typically not applicable in commercial construction
given the size of these project types. Because of size, most commercial
construction requires concrete and steel.
IL MANDATORY LEED CERTIFIED PERFORMANCE LEVEL
7. This states that the LEED checklist and items in the construction drawings will
be plan checked by city staff concurrently with other routine city reviews. LEEDhas both design and construction credits. However, only the design credits, if
completed, will be available at the time of plan check. The construction credits
are an ongoing process and typically not available until after the building has been
completed and occupied. This item should be changed to clarify what is needed
at the time of city submission.9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CA., 90232-0507 www.culvercity.org
CUAtelL CITY
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION
February 10th, 2009
Mr. Steve Rose
President/ CEO
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
4249 Overland Avenue
Culver City, CA, 90232
Re; reply to your letter of January 6th, 2009, regarding a potential Culver City Green Building
Program
Dear Steve,
Thank you very much for your continued interest and support of a potential Culver City Green
Building Program; in reply to your comments:
1. "...mandatory checklist proposal...20 of 25 items...too stringent a requirenrient...there should
be a much lower threshold..."
Please note the checklist applies only to new ground up buildings and major renovations, and the
number of required items may be reduced by the City Council. Please also note that as the
California Codes become more stringent many of these items will likely become mandatory in the
near future, so Culver City may be viewed as merely accelerating California's process of adopting
more stringent green building codes.
2. "...mandatory checklist...doesn't distinguish between...new projects versus renovations..."
Please note that most items applying to new buildings will also apply to major renovations, and as
noted above the City Council may reduce the number of required items.
3. "How is City staff intending to administer LEED certified performance level...is the City
intending to defer to the US Green building Council for these decisions..."
The LEED Certified performance level program is a program very similar to the green building
program now in effect in the City of Los Angeles. The City of Los Angeles has hired a consultant to
audit one of every seven qualifying projects due to their large volume of building activity. Culver
City has a relatively low number of qualifying projects; therefore existing City staff will be able to
monitor compliance.
The proposed program involves City staff informing design professionals and property owners of
the green building program and requirements at the outset of a project. City staff verifies the project
has a LEED Accredited Professional as part of the design team. Staff verifies the project has
incorporated the required LEED certified items into the project construction documents. Staff
verifies the project has registered with the US Green Building Council (USGBC), and verifies the
LEED certified items are part of the building construction; this is similar to the City of Los Angeles
green building program, with the exception of the audit firm.
CRAIG JOHNSON, RA, GC, CBO, BUILDING OFFICIAL
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION TEL 310-253-5800 FAX 310-253-5824
Past President of the International Code Council Los Angeles Basin Chapter0770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CA, 90232-0507 www.culvercity.org
4. "Will the review and re-review process lengthen the amount of time typically required for
plan check?"
The Culver City Green Building program is intended to be integrated into and operate concurrently
with the existing Culver City discretionary review, construction permit application, and field
inspection processes, and isn't expected to lengthen the process, unless project developers fail to
comply with the requirements.
5. "Will the City be using its own templates or relying on the LEED templates...?"
As noted above City staff will be verifying compliance with a LEED certified performance level
and correct documentation with the USGBC, not reinventing the USGBC LEED program.
6. "What incentives have staff considered...additional cost hurdles...changing parking
requirements, density bonuses, quicker permit approvals...should be considered..."
Staff is proposing a "green zone" with permit fee incentives as part of the Culver City Green
Building Program. There are many studies showing the life cycle costs of green buildings to be
lower than non green buildings; this will be increasingly true as fossil fuel costs continue to rise. As
you may be aware, more lenient parking requirements and greater density have not been popular in
Culver City. Therefore these incentives are not proposed as part of the Culver City Green Building
Program. Culver City already has very quick construction plan check times. With the proposed
Green Building Program being integrated into the existing permitting processes no special
expediting will be necessary.
7. Mandatory Checklist
8. "3all heating and cooling ducts to be within the heated space...will be challenging to
achieve...ductwork...exposed but...insulated to accommodate."
The requirement applies to new construction; almost all new construction already complies with this
item. The staff report does note that City staff will have the ability to authorize appropriate
adjustments; such as upgraded insulation for exposed ducts.
9. "R-30 for roofs and R-19 for walls is often specified for LEED projects so this would be a
better minimum..."
R-30 roofs and R-19 walls are already generally the minimum for projects to comply with the
existing California Energy Code. The Culver City Green Building Program is proposed as an
improvement to existing California Codes. Upgraded insulation is one of the most cost effective
methods to lower energy use.
10. "Radiant barriers...this item should specify that this won't be applicable in all cases as this
is most typical for residential projects."
As noted the Mandatory Checklist is flexible in that project developers may pick and choose which
items to apply. Radiant barriers are also one of the most cost effective methods to lower energy use.
11.(Garage and parking structure lighting to be !notion sensor controlled...) "This could be
problematic from a security standpoint..."
That item does note minimum base level lighting is allowed. Garage lights left on in residential uses
is one of the most common energy wastes.
12. (Waterless urinals) "This requirement should recognize that waterless urinals may not be
achievable in certain projects due to drain slope and other factors."
CRAIG JOHNSON, RA, GC, CBO, BUILDING OFFICIAL -
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION TEL 310-253-5800 FAX 310-253-5824
Past President of the International Code Council Los Angeles Basin Chapter9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, C.A,, 90232-0507 www.culvercity.org
As noted the Mandatory Checklist is flexible in that project developers may pick and choose which
items to apply. Waterless urinals are a major water saver and operate with the same drain line slopes
as other plumbing fixtures.
13. (Smart irrigation controllers) "This seems to be addressed in number 22"
The smart irrigation controller item has been removed.
14. "Permeable paving may not always be achievable..."
As noted the Mandatory Checklist is flexible in that project developers may pick and choose which
items to apply. Its true permeable paving may not always be achievable or desirable on every
project but during the City Council review of the Green Building discussion Item in September
2008 the City Council unanimously approved permeable paving as part of a Culver City Green
Building Program.
15. "LEED credit 1.1; water efficient landscaping...there may not be a need to prohibit grass
areas completely."
The staff report does note that City staff will have the ability to authorize appropriate adjustments.
16. "Use of engineered wood is not typically applicable to commercial construction...because
of size, most commercial construction requires concrete and steel."
The largest commercial projects certainly are built primarily with concrete and steel, but all other
projects, including mid size commercial projects, contain a large degree of wood construction.
Using engineered wood members is one of the best methods to reduce wood usage.
17. Mandatory LEED Certified Performance Level
"LEED checklist and items in the construction drawings will be plan checked by City staff
concurrently..LEED has both design and construction credits...construction credits are an
ongoing process and typically (are) not available until after the building has been completed
and occupied...cIarify what is needed at the time of City submission."
As noted previously qualifying projects will have to provide evidence the project has been
registered with the USGBC LEED program, and the required LEED items as part of the USGBC
submission will be required to be part of the construction documents.
City staff will verify the required LEED items are part of the construction documents and will also
verify the required LEED items are incorporated into the project during the construction.
You're correct a LEED project will be required to provide construction documentation to the
USGBC to obtain final LEED Certified status.
Culver City, similar to the City of Los Angeles, is not requiring LEED Certified status, merely a
LEED Certified performance level.
It is hoped that qualifying projects already having a LEED AP as part of the design team, already
registered with the USGBC, and meeting a LEED certified performance level will choose to
complete the LEED documentation and obtain LEED Certified status.
CRAIG JOHNSON, RA, GC, CBO, BUILDING OFFICIAL
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION TEL 310-253-5800 FAX 310-253-5824
Past President of the International Code Council Los Angeles Basin Chapter9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, C.A., 90232-0507 www.culvercity.org
Thank you again for your continued support of green building in Culver City, and I look forward to
your continued involvement in Culver City sustainable efforts.
Best wishes, sincerely,
Craig Johnson
Building Official
Culver City Building Safety Division
cc: Mr. Sol Blumenfeld, Culver City Community Development Director
Mrs. Elaine Gerety-Warner Culver City Community Development Department Management
Analyst
CRAIG JOHNSON, RA, GC, CBO, BUILDING OFFICIAL
BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION TEL 310-253-5800 FAX 310-253-5824
Past President of the International Code Council Los Angeles Basin ChapterfitS;Ext
Tree Benefits Page
Page 1 of 10
.71700-are-.tniajFT:g4polg.sett,:;jktiti::00794::::*40t0;:sKatof,,.;-:,
: 4-10.*ilkg.i:15.64-ktaiiiR*0.4:40.6iitt$0461011t#00:1kiiiitt:A:
infia I • :1 Ii. • ,
so are publicly oied trees Trees and, cci ctive
&_*50440*10$ 7 giiKi'.0940 .- ae*:i4:410(064.00k
other
:iis:toiroftive!dEieerwirbtirnekE:atio ..otiatitkiii
- , .
ado's
£,J from the obvious- aesthetic bei
our air, protect ourwáLei. savelerier
an-urban to ruraigradie
-4.7)6C4-0
*046404:440C.064.
thle ii izigerneril imp lications of
_
air p0' ii nt uptake benefits from tree plar ' ma, he 0
aar
2,16trOr,
„ .
St as streets;.
a community's
egli[bai
,
frig- Irk:fel - of'
..... a nyenvironmental heftef is to our,;COMMtillt
t4lts, trees within ou urban forest . 3# tyro:
Ve econnantsustatriabi
inciAtier'wbOlt; -'0.Eite: illiOr|1010| Are.Oktta‘v#:'p6a ,ii . :1) • tlf
4$;:o
her
_,,•
• Heat .fiorri:tarth is trapped in the atmosphere due to high levd of carbon dioxide (CO2 ) aria other heat
trapping gases that prohibit it from releasing heat iniciSpace . Creating A.3phenoinenon -AnoWri.As the
reenhotjse effect Trees remove tsequester) CO 2 from the A6ihospbere: r daring : OhiitaiiiitheSiS,'to form .
-caiiiiiti -ydrAtetiitAl'eliSedin:. :1)tAntistrUCtUreiftinction'and ,,returhoxygeht.baCk,tbilie .:atinoSphere As A .-
,byriroduc:L .'About balf. Of Ihe,greerihouse: :effectiiS--CaiAOid bYl--c0-.:-.'Trees'therefrireA .(:-:as.-4.-ceb.a.n.-Mnk by
removing the carbon and storing it as cellulose in their trunk Dranches eaves and roots while releasino
oxygcn back rite Lhe air
•
. . . .
: .:Trees.: -AlSO:r'soducothe :. :0:66rihptiseeffet.-hy .shading our horneS , and:office buildings This_)-ed0CeS.air
:conditioning needs .:Up to 30.%,:therebyroduCing the arnOUntat fossil fuels burned fOl.procluth'Olettricity. This
• .combination of CO .rerficiial. frorn . ,the .AtmOsphore; carbon-storage in inrCiOd;a rriti .the -COOling effect Makes .
:• trees a :very efficient tot* Arf ighting'the: •greenhoUse effect. :;- (11) .- • s . ... . • .
. One tree that shades your home in the city save fossil fuel cUtting:CO . buildup As math as 15
htip://www.coloradotrees.orgibenefits.htm
12/17/2008Tree Benefits Page Page 2 of 10
• Approximately 800 miLlion tons of Carbon are stared in U.S. Urban forests with a $22 billion equivalent in
control costs. (1 )
• Planting trees remains one of the cheapest, most effective means of drweving'eXcess - 0O2 from the
atmosphere. (15)
• A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs. /year and release enough oxygen back
into the atmosphere to st.jpport . 2 human beings. L1Q)
• Each Person in the U.S, generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO 2 each year...A •healthy tree stores about 13
•• pounds Of carbon annually-- or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre Of trees :absorbs enough CO 2 over one .
year tOeqUallthe arnatint produced by driving a tar.26,000.riiiles.:An estimate Of carbon emitted per vehicle
• mite is between 0.88 ib::COVrrit.:',1 .-06 lb. "ct) (NoWak.;-193):Thus a tar .driven 26,000 mites will
:emit •between :22; 880lbs:CO and 0:6474:is;c02.-Thus;'•qne. :aCre of tree'CoVerin : Brooklyn can compensate
.for apioiriobite fuel use equivalent to driving A tar between 7,200 and s,zppirnnes.As)
• lf.everyAmerican finiity:pLarttedr•jut One tree, the amount of CO 2 in the .atiposphere.would be reduced by
one billion lbs annuallyThis is :alrnoSt 5% of the amount that human activity :pp-N.:is into the atmosphere
• The U.S. forest Service estimates thatall the forests in the .United States combined sequestered a net of
-appro)drnatety 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1 .952.-to . 1992, 'offsetting.aporo*fiatelY 25% of U.S.
• -human-caused emissions . of carbon during that Period.;::-. 1 .
• • Over a 50-year lifetime, a tree.t renerates:$31,250 worth Of oxygen, provides $62,000 worth of air pollution
control, recycles $37,500 worth of Water, and. controls $31,250 worth of-soil eresior1.17} •
. :.!1! St M- teS ;irrthe:leaf,Stirfate,::0 .,:...,.:H• • - ::
- -
TreeS " . also remove Oth...elT
:.8Pe . PITS :,.:.: " t ,, , .
.rp!::.:!ii. .:?. ,.:!. . .:!:. : r .:!i .:i .,?:., .:. .t . : f.:7,,,-„:71 ...:::-.tri-1 ,......:..0. 0 .7 :,!.i.r.-cp.#.06n F .-1 :!. : hititTl 1.: he
P4.)a'" . . tith.e'c'iria'i.Pr;
ir°64.1"1?°-P-
-electricity/ home
'h .eii . r. .ig. -: .i
.:j7eT.9.T
oi:: 59. .--.C-ii-16
.P' -.:' - '
--de-fso' ri, L:toal.,
'bUrning '.fOt...,,...,,
:.....
.,:.b,:srotfp.rro.„4. .1., . .: ,2
% . j -. , fi ...i :.dr.i .jam iliati.430.ups
:pp:, -pa::::.•-.: .,:;...:,:... ., . .. „ ,,.....
r
.,.....,,, the ulfur;4:1ii:,,Xide:.r.).
." heall.",.'.',Re
fin ing
: „,,,... . - ......„';,1.:':.: h!r6 p 1:6 pe tiiil r: . '1:” . 5dij s:t h.:r
'produce
3 .? . :, .41 . . 44 It
!.6±666,-
.#61::'''1.1a.t. ,-'---"--• • "::
.:...."'"' .
responsible for aliticit ..6ppercent o .
',a;ncir: ric)t .berf:oxt.ctar 4.i.:.pe.i.:9 ..... ....r :".. 4pAN
y:b5rhe .:-ff .Milllhoemikip . S . .' pfLita ii iTi t o ti b Tc ilo en $ . a . 0.6 11 trato:ps .
' '.' '._ -... :. ,.:, :: is .a
..........1,':,,.......: - . 'all.v )iii : ac C e ii .t r vA rin ni g:.p •Oii ti e da : nt,...r i: j. :S .i ...ti : ii. .i .n,.gi:t .3 . 7 .a . . : rn X , ..O.p .. 1tn. nt.sc . are it,.9 ...rOn i.o . im_ s_vn, l.:! .0g .....,:": .l::. g .0 .4 ,-,- t .ii. r.h say ...-; ...6e. stba rhu 3eS .h( .j t .:.:2 ...:.'.
i 'in f :ci dU :tya Sa .7 . ,
arid
on
': :l . 3 : Y . , : :'- wA l' o:;:i,,, :"1: t14 .::;rci.--X.° ,:u . i. n.g.;.,h .. .:ue fii :p :;.,w .i::: .r:;n-e :c .l oi. .:e .,:rth .: :.ed .,97 .:0,:il: L... ,:.h r.fl ."..6 :...'.!.at .'...",o .o rxcti ,4e ..-7 _..0 i .L...c ...m ..a.o L.,lbr ., :7 .:a.,:.,...L .s ."_., ,.
producer .
::1 , .i. N , .0l:... .....h ,0 ,.t .,. .....-7ides,o;,.....ii ., i.t ...r.p , g. eri .:aii.to... ::.:
r1.'oitipi.- -t?-5c.tao.,,,-,;46.iiir)).titlYe ex . ' tfi' Largest pro .. .:....x...... . r
Isci'fOriried.by-CoMbilstiorr at hightemPeraturOlkthe:pli.sence -Of.-009 .'n#VOttc44rtentrstif .the. : - r -
air nitrogen and oxygen
c .:) ::-.4 -JartiCOlatesare:small . +51Q..m.lcrons) - .-oarttlosernittOd,ip:-.Smokefronr,bili:tiog:fuel';:pa .rtictilar diesel,,.
• that enters oiieli.iiig.'aiiiii:iie respiratory problems (10) ::: .....:::.".':. -1-- - -1,.-;-, • -,--_:-:•_•,:., - ' . .
• Thereis'opi.4i.a 6.024:redUctiOn in: S .:treitleVol;:partiCtilates-iiiitktrees::(1) : . . ... . ... : .:.
j* . ::10, -Orte:Orban :paric.(212.ha...) •treecOVerwaS-:fddridito remove daily 48l b s . particulates-;,:9:lbs:nitrogen'diOxiclo,
6 U*'5141f!i.e li.okicie;.;*60.:... r...Ryicael400;rnonoidOe,:($1-36/10Y.-% . 9ti-iir: r4Osed '--606A .:i iillilitiCi6 L66iia:technolo gy) and
100 lbs of carbon (1)
• :sCrri .e.t : ...t .e . li-j fp. .l .e . t.ir :iboi-r).:.0,1.orig-*ifOaciway:removes-iri:one . groviingseasott Prrig .Cadiniurri,',140 :mg, .
- :. ........ :......... : ... : ...„. .: :.:.- ....... ,....:, .......„.: -,:. ....., .,
ChrOMfurri;.: .8Z0-rogiiitice4;and:'$Iop,mg rleadfrpm,"tiloppyir.OrTment: -.(I):.:::::;:,.
.4;; P.laritiriglree5iAria: .eicpAridiiii:P411a4PaS :!.1.7 .i . prove§'.toe -.atri4ifOliti . of LOs:Arigele -toiiiyjiAA -OW ,.of.'- .0.0." frees
. ....... : ...,
-tan-:Cpunter' .041.aPcet
.t .)e -,:arpourktbt .POINtitinone:person :vrodutes.in a .-tire:tirrie ,(1p) .,
EK;ad. '
. . .
.• ... Trees reduce topsoil erosion,: prevent harmfullaodpollutan6 contained :i.nthe.scill from :getting into our
waterways slow 0.0
1 :water run off and ensure that our gounidwater supplies are continually being ...:
'. : . reliteriihed, for •every :5 of tree cover added :to .a community, stormwater.runoff15 redotectpy.-
si: ,:ResearCh.by .the-USFS - hp±,A;t:s.' .iria.,in- a:1 iingfi .raiostorro-riv'e .r. 12,:hours, -the:interception:of rain by the canopy .
. : . . . . . : . . . , . - . . . „ . . . : . : .
'' of the urban forest Jo :Salt .Lake .-City TodUCes . surface runoff by about 11 3 r i"'""-'galloris,; or i7. These .
ilialOeS Would increase as the canopy .increasp.s,113) : :..'::::..-:-':•:.:..: - ---' '...• ':-' : f ::::... . ,. : .:::.:: •••• ' :
• 'Along with -breaking the fall of rainWater,. tree roots remove nutrients harmful toWater ecology and quality.
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htin
12/17/2008Tree Benefits Page Page 3 of 10
• Trees act as natural pollution filters. Their canopies, trunks, :roots, and asseciated soil and other natural
-elements of the landscape litter polluted particulate matter out Of the flow toward the storm sewers.
Reducing the flow of stormWater reduces the amount of pollution that is washed into a drainage area Trees
use nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus ; and potassium byproducts of cirbanliying-7which can pollute
streams. (70) •
. . .
• l Homeowners that property Place trees In their landscape
can realize savings - up to 58% On 'daytime air conditioning
and as high as for mobile homes If applied .nationwide
to btiildings not now benefiting from trees; theihadecoutd
reduce our hation!s consumption of .oil by 500;0(10 barrels.
of oil/day. 1121 • •
• The 'maximum potential annual savings from energy
conserving landstapes around a typical residence ranged
from I3% in Madison up to 38% in Miami Projections
Suggest that 400 million additionalmatureireesjn U5
cities (3 trees every unshaded
could save tnier: $2" billion in energy casts per year (10) r
• Trees lower Local air temperatures by transpiring water,.
anclshading Surfaces: 13ecaUsePey: :lower, air -ternPeraOres;:shadebuildingSin the surnmer; ,and block .winter
Winds; they can reduce building energy use and:cooling-costs...KO • s. :. : "
• •Help to: • .- dat.eities .byireciticinheat:Sinks ...FleatsiiikS are:6-;19 degreeS •:FP-WarMer than opic surroundings
(Glop(.000,-0;0-A):::* .ireojtan-be:a .:riatOral lairCtiriditiOner.::The ._evaporation from r a Single Large tree can .
.:wpdoco:,.ttie. cootint .egoo ,of 10:TOom:size'air•conditionersOerating (:18.)z
:':USES'estirnateS:the annual. eifect-,of. ,WeWPositiOned-ti-e6SiOn energy use in-conventional nouSeSatssayings
between 20-25% When compared to a'hOOS -e -. .ih:A Wide 7opeitrarea. (USF5 meteOralogiSt.:Gcirdan Heister)(ii3):::
s
The 4s0,1:i .att:Pafing.:0.0 streets 'contain Stone
.-.aggregate in ann oil binder. Without tre
• . . . . . • - . • ••
shade, the
oil heats.up and volatoes, leaving Lhe aggregate-
,. . . . •• •*fir:Otedf6d .• • :. -• " '•• • • •
. „
Vehicles then Loosen'•t4e--aggregate::,an.d.mUcti
sandpaper;-;.theloose'aggregate4rindfdOyin.;.the.::-„--
paverrient,::Streets:ShOold-rbe.OVerlai&or-skirry.•..'
eated•e;i;eryi:T710:ra.rs_:over
sturry'Seat'cOsis
$50,,000 .41-inear m1e. .pecause ...the . oil doeSriOt,dry':
out As fast on a olaitieCi . street asit does: ;
:street with no Shade.reeS.;
maintenance -can ,.be•Aeferm4.-
PIP
slurry. seal
• . . . . .
'-•Iple deferred ficipi-every . 10 year's:to ever,if
years for older :St reetS with .extensive .tree-:.tan.opy• COver; ( 19)
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htrn 12/17/2008' . 7
Tree Benefits Page
Trees can also enhance traffic calming measures, such as narrower streets--extended curbs, roundabouts,
etc. Tall trees give the perception of making a Street feet narrower, slowing people down. Closely spaced
trees give the perception of speed (they go by very quickly) slowing people down. A treeless street enhances
the perception of a street being wide and free:Of hazard, thereby increasing -speeds.'increased speed leads
to more accidents. • •
Trees can serve as a buffer between moving 'vehicles and pedestrians
Street trees also forewarn drivers of upcoming turves, If the driver sees tree trunks curving ahead before
seeing the road curve; they will slow down and be More cautious when approaching curves : tio)
Page 4 of 10
The scope and Condition of a community's trees and conectively,.its .urban forest; . is usually the first 'Impression a
community projects to its visitors. A-CornmUnitys Urban forestis-an extension of its pride and community spirit.
Studies have shown that:
,1. Tree.; enha ncecommunity ecOnOnift Stability by attracting bUSineSsesa nd:toUrists:
2. . :People Linger and shop longer : atong.tree,lined.streets.:;.::
Apartments and Offices in wooded areas rent MOre quickly and have higher occupancy rates
: :Businesses leasing office spaces in deyelopments-With:tries':fincl.their:workers'arernore productive and
:absenteeism- is reduced • :: •
"ak.-p.r9pe ' rLY- kalOes:inCrease:- 5-4556iyiinen . compared to properties without trees (depends on species,- .--rn turity.„-:
quantity aod Location)
•
:
,
. A.-1T/6„ .study...that evakyatcfftie .effettt. ol.seiferal different variables on home, in Manchester Connecticut
fiii06thatstreef trees added 'abdut'$7686 iirlato :the --.sale price of a borne:A1,CD
More recent study indicated that treeadded--$9 5O( or more than 18 Percent to the average Sale price
of :a-residence:in a suburb of Rochester • New York (8)
.71-Wo . University of Illinois researchers (Kuo•and Sullivan) studied now :Well residents Of the Chicago : Robert Ta ylor
Housing Project (thelares(.0Utilicfibusing4eveloprnentin the World) Were doing in their daily lives based upon the
amount of contact they had With:trees;:-andCameto,thefoliowing
. . . . • . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
:TreeS:haVethepotentiaCto:redUce:Socialteriike::1:).Udeisdecrease:pcince.t.t4.for0O-filOstie;Oblene,
•••• • • • . •• •. •: .r . . . •.
.strengthen.urt 'aii:ebinirAiiiitie, : . : ndAecr'eaSe theinc.1.0ence:pfenild:ablise-*04.114.::t0.:.th.O'study:Chicago
officials heard that message last year.'TheritYgovernment :•spent: 16,Milifoifto •plant:10X1 .00 trees, a .
decision influenced by ku&s and 5ulhvan's research, according to the Chicago Tribune
Residents who live near tieeS:hae.: signiffearitlylietter relations : With andiStrPngerAiesto.thein-rieighbors.
:Researchers: found feWer.:reportSief physical ViCiteriCeinbornes.that had trees outside the buildings Of the
k' -cg .c .lents-InterkieVied;: :: .
14%.14residentS4iVing:j6 :barren:,.coriditiOnS:haVethreatened:f6::iiKe:*knife . Or gun
.
against
.
therr
.
children
.
versus 3% for the residents living in green conditions (15)
• 'Studies haveShOWnlhat.hoSpitalliatien6With .: .a -.VieW -OfsfreeSoUt theiri *inc103.-hrs -reter'l lnikii-faster and
. .
• with f complications than similar patients-withoti6sUChiiieWS:4131 •
• • . . . . ..... •
• . Teias .•:AEM study indicates that trees help .create relaxation end well being
• A us,-.pe •parteneht of Energy studyreportsthattrees reduce noise pollution by acting as a buffer and
. absorbing ,50x, , of urban noiSe.":" " • •:
http://www.coloradotrees.orebenefits.htna 12/17/2008Tree Benefits Page
1. Coder; pr. Kim D., "Identified Benefits of Community Trees and " FOrests:',. University of Georgia, October,
2. USDA Forest Service Pamphlet io . R1-.-92-100 I : . • :
. -
• 3. . International Society of Arboriculture Tree Care Bulletin, Benefits Of Trees , • : • • ••••• : :. • •
• • • • - • • , • . •
4. ,07.een:Z11Vir,Q0inerital Coalition .
. 5. Sierra club of 'Canada, "Emission Trends Byttiintry";:October 1997 :•• • :
6. ,:NoViiak; :David J., "Urban :Trees and Air Qiiality'!, November, :1995 ••• . •
• ••• 7. 'Martin, Paul, :"The Value of Trees" .• .; .; • : • •
8. Nowak, David J.; "Benefits of Community Trees (Brooklyn Trees, USDA Forest Service :Gen6.-61 Technical
Report;Th review)
9. Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GliA51));Trees_and Our Air ", January, 1999,
. .
10. •cAtineY, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land
Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993 I : • .
Michigan State University Extension,, Urban Forestry #07269501; '.15enefits.of.-Urban:Trees"
• 12. American Forests, .".The Case:For.Greener.CitieS7,',Auturnii49.99. .• . " .
• 1. : :Ainerican forest's; climate; Change:;'.1999
• 14. Amerlcan Forests, ":Why Plart Trees", 1999. . :.
"15 Prtpk; :Tina,; •:.;1,31e...Ppy4er .: 0.f.2 Trg e.$!!:; :-Hurna6 :EnVironrnental:ReSearch LaborattirYat .Univei-sityfof Illinois. •.•
AationaLArbbr :DayfOundatiOn'OaMOhlet :/#96980005 •:...- i :
,...17.;. :.•ArnericarfforeStry:Association.Tree.Facts: •,Growingc reenertitieS;;.1.992,, 18 USDA s.ei.v0'.ParnfOrlet • , : ••••:•:
•-7•••• •• . • . — :•• - . - • . :
Services
. •••. . . .
Western :for. Urban :Forest Research and:EdUcatiort...
: . . . . . . .
AmeriCan',ForeSts.Magaiirie;i 7Trees ::Tacklettearr. :Water RegUlatiOns'.',-SOrniner':•2000.
Page 5 of 10
• . :
A large 00.4 yard tree lea 'San 400iit.tin Valley ,coinrnun .ity4*e:Modesto (dry like Colorado) provides : the following
turriniertirne bout .9%
tdig.inni.fat ale ccnditioning cost
:2 Ab orbs 10 Lbs of air pollutants including 4 tbc of ozone and - L -!3-Ab dif. ,:jjartietilatg:•:•tie. :- .:Valtie lbf - Pollutant : •
uptake by the tre€ is S4 using the focal Ma rket . price of emission reduction credits Uptake of NOx by the
-F. -
.tree Is equivalen.t
.
typical
.
car driven 3,60
0• •..• -
3 ,ltercepLs 760 gal 01 rdmtalt in ts crown thereby reducing :itiriOff,of,'pOiluted.:Stbrmwater an&flooding.- This .
benefit is valued at 56 based on Local expenditures for water quality
management aid flood control '
CO2 .-1901--lbS .CTirdro.the-atinaspherettiough :diekttelbiLiettratiori . in :the : tte6-1;46od and
• . . . . . . : • .• . . .
reduced power plant emissions due to cooling energy :saVings: :.The value of tti.iS'.beriefjt-isi.S5 :•aSsuming the
CaLifornia Energy Commissions Ørice of $0/tbii. This treeredu. e.thetarrie. artothJed::•atfriosiiherk:CO2
car'driyer(5op.:00if::
5. Adds abdut j%
. . .
to the tales price of the property, or about '•$25 :each year"Wheii.annuatizedbverfa 40-year
" • :period:::This .asspmes a rnedian .:residentiaL:p .roperty.sales'orice.'of--$IqD,DQQ;.; „,: • : ip, . • • -
.:.-1:/?q .
valuebf:bll)5er*its-is -$ .
01.1646isexarnple,:
TYPIra!ly.,a-'titY;*.ill,spend-.-$20-'$40 . -per year td-Manitairia street-,
--. :tree of this -sizelsOrnetiMes :.:letatediri s.i'frotir yard eaerrientyantla- resident :.Will.tpendAiOOt'Sjp-:pet;Year
:.... . . ..„ .
.,rnaintainirig:a:-Iarge yard tree. Our benefit-cost •• ahalysis - forModestot :9.1:1;000 .streetiOark • tree.S-.1O0nd-$1:89 returned::
. : annually .for:every :Sfinvestedin.stewardshiO: : ss • . ,..." • : •.:
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm 12/17/200871. - A
r
e,ara •
tk.
"Z717,172JI
•
Tree Benefits Page
Page 6 of 10
We all know that trees give us shade, protect us from wind and rain, add beauty to a home landscape, soften the harsh- .
lines of urban architecture, provide homes for birds and squirrels, and much, much more. Most of Us can't imagine a city
without trees. They have become part of the infra structure like the streets, lights, Sidewalks, schools, and other city .
assets. Quantifying the value of these benefits is difficult but there.areresearchers 'doing just that Here is some recent -
information from David Nowak, a researcher With the USDA Forest Service in Syracuse. :NY-. iie•isnswering some questions
asked by city forester.
I've heard that 1 ac of trees provides oxygen for 1$ people every day 'a) how many trees per ac are we talking and What
type Et size of trees? b) how much oxygen does 'a person need every cloy?:
Based on field data and modeling for Brooklyn,,NY:.(Nowak et at, in . reitievi), one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn gives off an -
approximate net amount of 2.8 t 02/yr (this estimate does not include tree L71ecornix)sition). Estimated annual average net
oxygen production for Brooklyn trees is (for various tibli classes):
0-3 6
49
18-21 115
27-30 148
; 39+ 247
, . .
-
a)1110 average; densitkpi ;a ftkeststai .ici::4 •::araund 480 tree/Be:( e::g413ail 4 and Leathertier .4908)::AVerage treeldensitY'.
within tree covered urban proximaLely 204treesLac of tree cover. This estirnateishaSed.pn field data,frOM:7.,.
• iri,:reVieW).:16theChicagti ateal(oek-aiicibliPap:Counties -bk77%-.Ofihe:trees .:Were less than '
. — .
. . . . .
. .
.- .- -b).-The:averageannual:Oxygeir consumption for a:-perso9...at rest :a t .'20.degrees::Cand, s7.60.:rniVF.IgIStandard pressure) is
3 55 arid 444:115v,sir,:(o .v .400:...,4c5:14b .$:-02/,: .irf)_jf.0. :.is--a .ConserVatiVe-eStirriateaS:exerCise . will increase:
•••• ••- - • •
:,•
Based on the above estimates of le*YgenitOnStiMPtfon ;a and net oxygen production by an acre of tree cover iri Brooklyn. one:aCrei;
of trees would :produeertougl“wgen ior:14 ...peo*.:1-kieye .,r;4-is.:debatableas .to .whether.:9?-kygoo:fProdUCtili?ri-:by an aere:pf--::::-
:- -trees or Large tracts of forests are significant, because if the acre of treotlicl'ii6i4xisi;:14:1***001d,riatuf.iocate from lack
Offoxyg ' en:- .Thereare:ipany-sOurces :Of Oxygerr:andPlentr.ofbx - Ygemintheatmosphere,
.atrtiospherel:. W.e .:haVealai-gelitirober:kif:SeitiOns:ecoltigitatiOrOblernS :;bi.OqffeCatiOn'frOOlaCksOf oxygen ,-- not :ene of .therri:::--
, (OrPeker 19 ,70;:scEp497 .0)...i.The'pxyien-jeop tefitiitth6Atroci$01i6ie- ...iierrialp'eseilitANtoristiiit .;:.3.4ith:the tp.tirgen:ConsiiMedbY
all anirnals,: .bacteria,,,and :OSPiratiOn . ...kOCeiSeS . roOgh14,:balariCed Uv the oxygt ii rcLeased b y land and sea pbnts dur1rrg"
• • . ••
-Thepresen t atmospheric oxygen content seems not to:haVe:thanged -sincef910(5CEP:197u) :::furtheritibie',betatise air is about
•
.: -2900:06;*ywil; the tiital: .g.ipply.iSiiirt.i.epSe4Broekee::::Iwqr :.(Mit.r.;-1:970:.: Waters of the world are the main.Oxygen
: generators Of the os ne e, their algae are estimatedtristeplace 6 bout 90% of all OkYgeri- USed(ntyclopedia Prittannica,',1994),
...,ALso, most of the .Oxygen .Produced-by trees will be consumed When the tree dies and decomposes.
I've read that '1 ac Of trees absorbs enough .00 in a year is equal to that Produced from driving 42 car 26K miles. a) how
inuch.00 does 1 ac of trees absorb in .1 year? b) how much CO 2 doe's deiving:a car 26K ad produce?
• .•
a) this answer depends on tree aensIty".19er4c-rei ,diairiefei::Structuie;• :speCies composition,.and growth rates.- Estimates from
: Chicago .,are . 2.7 t Ciac of tree COvellyr.(hloWak'l 99P); the chicagoarea .:.2 2:t 'Vac of tree .:.cov.ert.yr, (Nowak, ...1994b); and in
Brooklyn NY a t .itree:coNiei-NeINOWalc.,et al the:se;aregrosS carbon sequestration - estimates and do not
: account for CarbianIernitted due todedimpositiorL'Inet4itago -estirriates -arelikelYliberatas they do :not account for tree.:
condition Orstand.structbre effeCts. On . :gidWth ...::Gross carbon sequestration estimates for in:dividuat trees in Brooklyn by various
diameter classes are (Nowaket aL, in review): : j •
1.4g0t-W— .
0-3
9-12
18-21
27-30
19
43
55
http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefitsltni 12/17/2008How is the value derived from the in Jeaf pollution removal (Dave.Nowales research)?
Tree Benefits Page
Page 7 of 10
39+
93
b) Estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is approximately 0.24 Lb C/mi (see Nowak, 1993 for calculation and references)
but is as high as 0.29 Lb C/mi if carbon produced from transportation and fuel processing is included. Thus, a-car driven 26,000
miles will emit 6,240 tbs C (22,880 Ws CO2) or 7,540 ibs C (27,647 lbs CO 2) if the whole fuet process-is included. Thus, one acre
of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles,
depending on which estimate you choose to use. However, when the tree dies, most, if not all, "of the carbon stored will
eventually be released back to the atmosphere and form. C0|1010| .:Thus, the CO2 gains made by trees are sustained:as long as the
forest structure is sustained_ Also the gains made are only good for the first generation of trees, unless the carbon is prevented,
from decomposing. If first generation decomposes, the second generation :oftrees wilt only compensate for-the loss of the first
••.•
generation (Nowak et al., in preparation). . • .
What about the statement, .1 -ac of tre
carbon in the air come from?
See answer 2a for urban forest estimates.
store2.6 tons of carbon :eactiyea removed froni the air) where •does the
Carbon in the :atmosphere comes mainly from fossil fuel Combustion (emissions of approximately 5 biltian. metric tons/yr) arid
deforestation (toss of stored carbon In biomass) (emissions of about 1-2 billion metric tonsAyr) (Schneider, .1989). Carbon in
trees comes from atmospheric Carbon dioxide (a very minor portion may come from other chemicals containing carbon [e.g.,:
carbon monoxide] but many of these chemicals convert to carbon dioxide through timey • • •
. .
Trees remove severaltons/day of 0 ••C
3,
element?
HoW.Mnny„ trees apes take to Mopy tons of one
. .
•|1010|We are currently completing acompar scin •dtooptior! removal by trees in 50 cities across the United 5tates..Pottutien removal
Varies:based:On meteorology, amount of treeand-Shrub"cover. (acres), •:pdtitifian-Coricentration, and length of growing season.t
Pollution renfoVal(Ozone, -particulate matter, sulfur dioxide; nitrogenCliOXide, And Carbon 'Monoxide) by rues and shrubs in
Chicago in .1994 was estimated at 651 -tons !(rateS . Varied;_for: ,:eactipelltitant) (Nowak ; :1 994c): ::In : Brooklyn1994 pollution reMoVal-; .
' . (Saine5-pollutants)by .trrees'and.ShrUbsiWas estirnatedrat ,287icins (Newak.-etAl.; . in:revieW).-AverageindiVidual tree pollution
'!-e. FT.1 17v .
aleStiMateSfor Breeklyn by:.variciUS':diaMeter clastesare;:
MEW.:
0-3 0.07
-9-12 0_8
• .18-21 2.2
27-30 2.0
39+ 5.3
Differences in removal rates per tree by diameter classes are due te :differenceS:in : the ,aVerage-amaunt of healthy leaf area per
, .
tree among the diameter classes. : . .
• s
Where Vic the infolcorne fromon.trees.redUcingArban ternas 4:the 2% Increase in elettriciticonsuinrition for every
"For U.:5. cities with -poPutatidni"larger than :106;000, peak 'Utility loads_WkincreaseI .5 tO:2:pereent fOreyery 1 degree F
increase in temperature7 islrom page 16
of Ahbari et at (1°92) on p a
ge :18
it, repOrt.s:76e'nation,,wide respOnse ofpealc7cooling::.
electricity load .totemperattire in the United States could :range froM:13.5 ...:to:3.percent for each 1-degree F . kise:.in temperature:,
It appears that"these .figOreSMay cornelrorn:t.inder and;i.nglis (1989),1t -JS important to note 'that these data are for peak .loads •
However, from A graph:on page 20, it appears that annual energy,use : coutdinerease between 0_2594.and .3 . (average of aPprox_
1.1%),per degree :F . : rise in temperature depending on Idcation
• . ;1 •• .
. . .
:Novi much carbon does o.tree store in itswood?•ls it based:on size?'" •
,•. • -". .1 . • • .
, .
One half of a tree's dry weight. is carbon (see Nowak; 197 .0 for variotitations)Tbus carbon storage is directly related to size
(i.e., bigger:trees-have more carbon Stored). Annual carbon sequestration (the amount Of carbon removed from the atmosphere
. -
each year) is related to tree .size:and groWth . rates Oarge trees with fast groWth rates will remove more carbon annually than
small trees with slow growth rates).
http://www.coloradotrees ,org/benefits_htm
12/17/2008Page 8 of 10 Tree Benefits Page
Values are derived based on median environmental externality values for the United States for each pollutant from Murray et al.
(1994) (Nowak et al, 1998). Environmental impacts or damage caused by pollutant emissions are one type of environmental
externality. Externalities include benefits and costs resulting as an unintended byproduct of economic activity that accrue to
someone other than the parties involved in the activity. Externality values attempt to account for
the cost to society due to the pollutant emission, and are usually given in .5/ton. There are various limitations with certain
approaches to obtaining externality values, but externality values are one of the most reasonable approaches to valuing the
functions of urban forests, particularly if the externality value is directly derived from the societal costs of the pollutant
emitted into the atmosphere (e.g., human health, materials damage, etc.).
References:
Akbari, H., Davis, S., Dorsano, S„ Huang, J., and Winnett, S, 1992, Cooling Our Communities: A Guidebook on Tree Planting
and Light-colored Surfacing, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Anderson, L.M. and Cordell, 4.K.; 1988, Influence of trees on . residential property values in Athens, Georgia (USA): A survey::
based on actual sates prices, Landscape and Urban Mann. 1S:153-1.64.:
• :
Broeker, W.S., 1970, Man's oxygen reserve, - Science, 189:460-463.
Dwyer, IF., 1-485,:The economic value of urban plants, in. iniProving .theQuality of :urban Life With Plants; -(Karnosky, D.F,.and
Karnosky, Si_ eds.) proc: 1983 Intern. SyrrivOn Urban HOrt, New York Botanical Garden Instftute of Urban Horticulture, Publ.-
?: pp. 15-27
11±:Atoyer, J.F.,•Nowak,-D.:).;;Noble, M:14, :arid •SISinni; :S.M: 'In I:eyiew, COnnecting:PeoPle With Ecosystems in the 21st century ' n
)Assessment of our Nation's Urban Forests, ::tiraft:Prhan.FOrest RPA ;
Encyclopedia ,BrittanniCa; 1994; Oxyger., A/614(w 9, EncyClOPiadia BrittanniCa; -15P:r ed.,
•••• •
•Linder, K2., and Inglis; M.R„:„:',1989;: :Thepotentia(effectS:pf,dimate:,changes'oriregional'and:national demands for elect rici
in The Potential Effects of Global Climate Chang' on the United • •
:
" • • . "
pencii.x - ,Infrastrticture, (15. sothz ailci-P A. ,...Tirpalc.ed. .) i.f.s'EnVirtinipeotal:Protection'Agency,--Washington, DC,
:-
rMiller,G;f 1979, Living in the Erivironnient.--WadsWorth Pubt,.Co:;-:8.elrnorif;-.CA...pg,-, 91
and:Favretti;:.R J 1976 The -contribution Of frees'in :residential property Value: 'Manchester Conn
Valuation,
MoraleS.,.:,M1
:• .
Murray, F.J.;.Marsh
Office; Albany.
, .
and weber,
. - -
L',:and-Iyadford;
Two
rned-I9ds
of valuating trees on residential sites:- 'Arboric 9:21,-24
1994 N€w York State Energy Mar, Volidt .:; _.4iSbe...Refia :riNeW.YOr'k State -Energy
Nowak D.J. '1991 -Atmospheric carbon reduction by urban trees. I
Enviren. :Mange..37(31:207-217:
Nowak, 1994a, Urban forest structUre,. the state of Chicago's toark forest,. in: Chicago'sUrhan Forest Ecosystem: Results of
the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project,. (E:G.A6cPhersori :•p.J. Nowak, and R.A. : RoWn(ree, eds.) Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186,-
USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, RadnOr-,:;PA, .0 3-18; 140,164:: : :: •
:Nowak, -D.J.; 1994b,Atmospherit :carbna dioxide reduction -by.:Chicagd'S urban forest; in: Chicago's - Urban Forest Ecosystem:
Results of the Chicagtiurban Forest Climate Project, (E.4. McPhersCin,-; D.J. NOwak;-and•fLA:Rowntree, eds:).Gen. Tech. 'Rep.
NE-185, USDA Forest Service, Northeastern Forest ExperinientStatian i: Radnor; PA, pp. 8344. .
Nowak, 0.1, 1994c; Air pollution remOval:bY Chicago's urban .forest; in: ChiCago'sll rbari forest Ecosystem : Results of the -
Chicago Urban Forest Climate ProjeCt,IF.pMCPherson,,D.J. : Nowak, •and . R.:A. Rowntree, eds.) Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-186, USDA : .
Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,- Radnor, PA.; : : .
Nowak, D.j., Crane, D.E., Stevens, :LC:, and lbarra; M. y in review, Brooklyn 's Urban Forest: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
Nowak, D.J., McHale P.1, lbarra, M., Crane; D, Stevens, 1, and Luley,.C., 1998,.Modeting the effects of urban vegetation on
http://www.coloradotrees.orgThenefits.htm 12/17/2008• • • - - - • • • • -- - - - -
. ... . . . ... ... . - . . . . . . .
. . .
Raile, G.K. and Leatherberry, LC.," 1988, Illinois forest resource, Res .ourBull. NC-105, .pstiA Forest Service, North Central
Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN, 113:p. r . . . . . . . ..... , - . '
SCEP (Study of Critical Environmental Problems), 1970, Man's Impact on the Global Environment, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
Schneider, S.H., 1989, The changing climate, .Scientific American, Sept. 1989:70-79.
Sella, A_F. and Anderson, L.M., 1982, Estimating costs of tree preservation on residential lots, J. Arboric. 8:182-185
Sella; A:F. and Anderson, L M 1984, Estimating tree preservationcosU on urban -reSidential lots in metropolitan Atlanta,
• • . .
r • " ". .
• . . : •
avid J. Nowak
:
reject Leader •.
:USDA Forest ,SerVite! ,'NortheaSfer,n Research Station .
5M6on Librar.Y.SUNY.CESF:
Syracuse, NY 13210
. . , : „ •
(315) 448-3212
315) 448-.3216 • •
This. infO:Wasi'eiiirestedlifsaiteyl-ludsonrand (pass it 0.11:in . case anyone:else,:iS interested It 'estimate of
. . . . . .
, •,rainfall .iritercot .i .on--bya!thorouglity 'sattir40d tree.(0.5 .,.ineh Storni).'„Tree'data awr,,:asecipp-±letrocti n.f .e sampling
•,•of. i 'scallep), ,Pear trogIn . :DaVis'and•JptercePtinn is based on ow measurements and modeling-.Using this tree:,
. • . : : : .
:Visit oor .website for related ,pubrications'(htlp:/ /www fs fed us/pswJprograms/cufr/) Greg•.• "
.
Size
. • . •
28'fttall;.1%ft crown diameter 276 276: : SO ft,•,CroWn:projectinn.:area•.:'
. . . . .
. . .
• - • (CPA), i,923sq ft leaf area; 446 sq ft stem area
Saturation storage leaf 0 04 inch stem = 0 04 inch
• Interception by
leaf: 472 gal
• '; Interception stern: :: 10.: .9 gat ' • :
•Total „interception: 58.1 galr... • ••••, : .
• Toia l-,-preCipjn CPA: .86:1 gal: • : . • -
Interception %: 68% • : : • . : :
, ; . s . " • "
'These values assume no evaporationfrom the crown so actual interception will increase as temperatures and wind
speed increase.and thereby drive higher evap rates In other,Wprds,:this is a:Lowballiestimate for an in-leaf pear.
We are beginning to measure the saturation storage capacity for different tree species and this info will improve
our ability to accurately Model impacts of urban forests on starinWatee runoff... ' " " : •
. • . : : : .
' • • " •• • • :
'
. . r
Greg McPherson. PhD • .
". 05 .DA Forest Service, •PSW
. .
http://www.eoloradotrees.orgThenefits.htm
2/ 7/200 8
Tree Benefits Page
Page 9 of 10
air pollution, pollution, In: Air Pollution Modeling and Its Application XII_ IS. Gryning and N. Chaurnerliac, eds.) Plenum Press, New York,
pp. 399-407.
Nowak, D.J., Stevens, J.C., Sisinni, S.M., and Luley, CJ., in preparation, Effects of urban tree management and species
selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide.
Payne, B.R., 1973, The twenty-nine tree home improvement plan, Nat. Hist., 82:74-75.
Payne, B.R. and Strom, S., 1975, The contribution of trees to the appraised values of unimproved residential lots, Valuation,-
Ys"'ii1 774 , .4r- P,"A " •
•-• ••••
•••
^:t.M
ar4. ;
,
:rotir .categor-ies of :perceptions emerged 4'PM participant . ratings:of...three business:ciistriCts: 'Amenity : and -Cornfort,
Antergcripiivirith Merchants, Quality of Products, Maintenance and :Upkeep, . - . •
Tree Benefits Page
Page 10 of 10
c/o Dept. of Environmental Horticulture
University of California
One Shields Ave.
Davis, CA 95816
530.752.5897 (fax) 530.752.663-4
Trees and business-. it's often a love-hate relationshipl.There are certainly costs that come With having trees on
streets. Yet, -a new study provides evidence that trees have positive .effects an consumers. Despite their costs, trees
•do provide indirect benefits to businesses.
, . .
About 70% of Arnerica's gross domestic product is generated by the purchases of iodividualS.-eonsurners consider
many factors when deciding on what products and services to buy. Value, quality and convenience are major
messages that marketers communicate about their products. :Often Overlooked is the importance of the retail place .
On shopping decisions. A pleasant, Weltoming.retail environment is important to consumers. • .
How does the community . forest y.influence consumers? A -national study, conducted by social scientists at the
University of Washington, used survey questionnaires to investigate public perceptions about the rote of trees in
'revitalizing business districts. Surveys were sent to selected districts in 'cities Of the'Pacific :NOrthWest, Austin, Los
, , . .
AngeleS, Chieago; :f.ittsburgh, : and -Washington; DC. :
CONSUMER PERCEPTIONS AND 8EHAVIDRS::
Consumersratings on each of the CategOiries ,wassignifiCaritly:highei-far districts that had .street .tre :es: and other
•::landscaperimProvernerits_forirstoco;:*m0Oity and aliotit'80%:bi 4oltfo( roArc t .frod
. , . .
: . sidewalk. : .c .ory .il*ed to . iicin 4r4deOstrOgt. 1 .300;::.:Quaifty of Piikkit%-y-atingS were 30%:hNher-in'clistekt hiving
. . . . . .
trees over those with bacrn sidewalks Interaction with Merchants TtOrns included cusomr service issues ratings
were about
ActionsIollôw our iniOreSS'oriS'of a place. Were asked to give opinioris'of their'behaviiar ,Withiiv the
three shopping :districts ; ;including travel : time travel distance; duration of . -a-ViSitfrequency of :.ViSitS and •
wittirigriess-: _toliay:for,parking: :-Again,Arees make a .:Clifferencel .ConSidering :ALIJ behaviors higher measures were
:.:reported in the district - S .Naving trees For instance,: reSPOndents:Claimed they would be yvilling.to )-jaiiMore.for .
:parking .irra :well landsCaPedblisinesS:diStriCt. This'_iiiggestS,greaCef revenues fro -Fri.:shaded parking could -offset the :.
-:costs of -parking :space lass a frequent objection by merchants ' • .
,
, ',Do.treestifitieriCe-hoWnidch:PeOptkare :WillingId .nayfor,goodSVCOntingent valuatibo methods- e e.used to assess .
hdviaineriityValues :retate'tottistomers': , ,price:ValUaticifis: ,...5urVey reSpondentS ,wereasked :,to:specify:.a!orice for each
oilS items in a.basket of goodsin the business districts. The suriiey
. . . .
ntss_.4iii consistently priced goods
significantly higher Milandscapeci.districts!.Prices.were; on :aVerage;:.ahotit 11%: higherforprodlicts in.the landscape
.1:compared :to ithe no-, :treedistrict. 3 :0!,,s .wo'true of _low.7 p ricei Imp ui.se,buy .convenience igoodsl . e-4:::Iunch:sandwich,
flower bouquet), as Welt as bigger liCket -:Cantparisdri-shoOPeCilteinSle.g:SPorts'ShOeS- neViglaSSeS1: ::GiVe:the low
-profit •margins of most retail businesses, trees appear to rovide a sigilificantramenity. margin : •
http://www.eoloradotrees.org/benefits.htm
12/17/200822 Benefits of Urban Street Trees
By Dan Burden, Senior Urban Designer
Glatting Jackson and Walkable Communities, Inc; May, 2006
U.S Forest Service facts and figures and new traffic
safety studies detail many urban street tree benefits.
Once seen as highly problematic for many reasons,
street trees are proving to be a great value to people
living, working, shopping, sharing, walking and
motoring in and through urban places.
For a planting cost of $250-600 (includes first 3 years
of maintenance) a single street tree returns over
$90,000 of direct benefits (not including aesthetic,
social and natural) in the lifetime of the tree. Street
trees (generally planted from 4 feet to 8 feet from
curbs) provide many benefits to those streets they
occupy. These trees provide so many benefits that
they should always be considered as an urban area
default street making feature. With new attentions
being paid to global warming causes and impacts
more is becoming known about the many negative
environmental impacts of treeless urban streets. We
are well on the way to recognizing the need for urban
street trees to be the default design, rather than a
luxury item to be tolerated by traffic engineering and
budget conscious city administrators.
The many identified problems of street trees are
overcome with care by designers_ Generally street
trees are placed each 15-30 feet. These trees are
carefully positioned to allow adequate sight triangles
at intersections and driveways, to not block
illumination of the street from overhead lamps, and
not impact lines above or below ground. Street trees
of various varieties can be used in all climates,
including semi-arid and even arid conditions.
The science of street tree placement and maintenance
is well known and observed in a growing number of
communities (i.e. Chicago, Illinois; Sacramento,
Davis, California; Eugene, Oregon; Seattle, Redmond,
Olympia and Issaquah, Washington; Charlotte, N.C.).
Although care and maintenance of trees in urban
places is a costly task, the value in returned benefits is
so great that a sustainable community cannot be
imagined without these important green features.Properly placed and spaced urban street trees
provide these benefits:
Increased motorized traffic and pedestrian safety
(contrary to popular myths). See below article for
details on mode safety enhancements. See
especially the compilation of safety benefits
detailed in, Safe Streets, Livable Streets, by Eric
Dumbaugh journal of the American Planning
Association, Vol. 71, No. 3, Summer 2005. One
such indication of increased safety with urban
street trees is quoted from this document
Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that the
inclusion o f trees and other streetrcape features in the roadside
environment may actu4 reduce crashes and injuries on urban
roadways. Nadesi (2oo) examined the safeDi impacts of
aesthetic streetscape enhancements placed along the roadside and
medians offive arterial roadws in downtown Toronto. Using a
quasi-experimental design, the awthorfound that the inclusion of
features such as trees and concrete planters along the n9adude
resulted in statatical# significant reductions in the number of
mid-bbck crashes along all five roadav6s, with the member of
crashes decreasingfiom between 5 and 20% as a result of the
stmefscape improvements. While the cause for these reductions a
not char, the author suggests that the presence of a well defined
roadside edge may be leading drivers to exercise greater caution."
L Reduced and more appropriate urban
traffic speeds. Urban street trees create
vertical walls framing streets, and a
defined edge, helping motorists guide
their movement and assess their speed
(leading to overall speed reductions).
Street safety comparisons show a
reduction of run-off-the-road crashes and
overall crash severity when street tree
sections are compared with equivalent
treeless streets. (Texas A and M
conducted simulation research which
found people slow down while driving
through a treed sca.pe. These observations
are also noted in the real world when
following motorists along first a treed
portion of a street, and then a non treed
portion. Speed differentials of 3 mph to
15 mph are noted_
22. Create safer walking environments, by
forming and framing visual walls arid
providing distinct edges to sidewalks so that
motorists better distinguish between their
environment and one shared with people. If
a motorist were to significantly err in their
urban driving task, street trees can deflect or
fully stop a motorist from taking another
human life.
3. Trees call for planting strips, which
further separate motorists from pedestrians,
buildings and other urban fabric.
4. Increased security. Trees create more
pleasant walking environments, bringing
about increased walking, talking, pride, care
of place, association and therefore actual
ownership and surveillance of homes,
blocks, neighborhoods plazas, businesses
and other civic spaces.
5. Improved business. Businesses on
treescaped streets show 20% higher income
streams, which is often the essential
competitive edge needed for main street
store success, versus competition from
plaza discount store prices.
6. Less drainage infrastructure. Trees
absorb the first 30% of most precipitation
through their leaf system, allowing
evaporation back into the atmosphere. This
moisture never hits the ground. Another
percentage (up to 30%) of precipitation is
absorbed back into the ground and taken in
and held onto by the root structure, then
absorbed and then transpired back to the
air. Some of this water also naturally
percolates into the ground water and
aquifer. Storm water runoff and flooding
potential to urban properties is therefore
reduced.
37. Rain, sun, heat and skin protection.
For light or moderate rains, pedestrians
find less need for rain protection. In cities
with good tree coverage there is less need
for chemical sun blocking agents.
Temperature differentials of 5-15 degrees
are felt when walking under tree canopied
streets.
8. Reduced harm from tailpipe
emissions. Automobile and truck exhaust
is a major public health concern and
contains significant pollutants, including
carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic
compounds (voq, nitrogen oxides
(N0x), and particulate matter (PM).
Tailpipe emissions are adding to asthma,
ozone and other health impacts Impacts
are reduced significantly from proximity
to frees.
9. Gas transformation efficiency. Trees in
street proximity absorb 9 times more
pollutants than more distant trees,
converting harmful gasses back into
oxygen and other useful and natural
gasses.
10. Lower urban air temperatures. Asphalt
and concrete streets and parking lots are
known to increase urban temperatures 3-7
degrees. These temperature increases
significantly impact energy costs to
homeowners and consumers. A properly
shaded neighborhood, mostly from urban
street trees, can reduce energy bills for a
household from 15-35%.
11. Lower Ozone. Increases in urban street
temperatures that hover directly above
asphalt where tailpipe emissions occur
dramatically increase creation of harmful
ozone and other gasses into more noxious
substances impacting health of people,
animals and surrounding agricultural
412. Convert streets, parking and walls into
more aesthetically pleasing environments.
There are few streetrnaking elements that do
as much to soften wide, grey visual wastelands
created by wide streets, parking lots and
massive, but sometimes necessary blank walls
than trees.
13. Soften and screen necessary street features
such as utility poles, light poles and other
needed street furniture. Trees are highly
effective at screening those other vertical
features to roadways that are needed for many
safety and functional reasons.
14. Reduced blood pressure, improved overa
emotional and psychological health.
People are impacted by ugly or attractive
environments where they spend time.
Kathlene Wolf, Social Science Ph.D.
University of Washington gave a presentation
that said "the risk of treed streets was
questionable compared to other types of
accidents along with the increased benefit of
trees on human behavior, health, pavement
longevity, etc.- She noted that trees have a
calming and healing effect on ADHD adults
and teens.
15. Time in travel perception. Other research
and obseivations confirm that motorists
perceive the time it takes to get through treed
versus non-treed environments has a
significant differential. A treeless environment
trip is perceived to be longer than one that is
treed (Walter Kulash, RE.; speech circa 1994,
Glatting Jackson).
16. Reduced road rage. Although this may at
first seem a stretch, there is strong,
compelling research that motorist road rage is
less in green urban versus stark suburban
areas. Trees and aesthetics, which are known
to reduce blood pressure, may handle some of
this calming effect.
517. Improved operations potential. When
properly positioned and maintained, the
backdrop of street trees allow those features
that should be dominant to be better seen, such
as vital traffic regulatory signs. The absence of a
well developed Greensrape allows the sickly
grey mass of strip to dominate the viswil world.
At the same time, poorly placed signs, signals,
or poorly maintained trees reduces this positive
gain, and thus proper placement and
maintenance must be rigidly adhered to.
18. Added value to adjacent homes, businesses
and tax base. Realtor based estimates of street
tree versus non street tree comparable streets
relate a $15-25,000 increase in home or
business value. This often adds to the base tax
base and operations budgets of a city allowing
for added street maintenance. Future economic
analysis may determine that this is a break-even
for city maintenance budgets_
19. Provides a lawn for a splash and spray
zone, storage of snow, driveway elevation
transition and more. Tree lawns are an
essential part of the operational side of a street.
20. Filtering and screening agent. Softens and
screens utility poles, light poles, on-street and
off-street parking and other features creating
visual pollution to the street
21. Longer pavement life. Studies conducted in a variety of California environments
show that the shade of urban street trees can add from 40-60% more life to costly
asphalt. This factor is based on reduced daily heating and cooling
(expansion/contraction) of asphalt. As peak oil pricing increases roadway overlays,
this will become a significant cost reduction to maintaining a more affordable
roadway system.
22 Connection to nature and the human senses. Urban street trees provide a
canopy, root structure and setting for important insect and bacterial life below the
surface; at grade for pets and romantic people to pause for what pets and romantic
people pause for; they act as essential lofty environments for song birds, seeds, nuts,
scrirrels and other urban life. Indeed, street trees so well establish natural and
comfortable urban life it is unlikely we will ever see any advertisement for any
marketed urban product, including cars, to be featured without street trees making
the ultimate dominant, bold visual statement about place.
61|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO. 2008- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.02, BUILDINGS,
STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT, OF THE CULVER CITY
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD A NEW SUBCHAPTER
15.02.1100, et seq., ENTITLED "GREEN BUILDING
PROGRAM AND REQUIREMENTS."
WHEREAS, State Mandates AB 32 and SB 375 require that local
municipalities join and lead in the fight against global warming. One method to achieve this
end is through Smart green building practices; and
WHEREAS, a number of existing green building programs at the State and
local level were reviewed in the process of developing the City's Green Building Program.
All programs surveyed were for commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family development and
almost all were mandatory; and
WHEREAS, the cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Pasadena
and West Hollywood have all adopted Green Building programs in an effort to reduce
carbon emissions and increase the health and sustainability of its residents and fight
against global warming; and
WHEREAS, Culver City has been developing a Green Building Program over
the last several years that derives best practices from neighboring cities, but that is
designed specifically for Culver City; and
WHEREAS, conventional design and construction methods produce buildings
that can negatively impact the environment as well as occupant health and productivity.
These buildings are comparatively expensive to operate and contribute to excessive
resource consumption, waste generation and pollution. To help reduce these impacts, theCity has proposed a set of guidelines for the development of "green buildings;" and|10109| WHEREAS, "green buildings" reduce energy and water consumption, and
3 improve air quality. Greenhouse gas emissions from building account for more than 40%
4 of global warming pollution. Green building ordinances are a good first step towards|1010|building energy-efficient, climate friendly sustainable cities; and|1010|WHEREAS, "green buildings" require the use of fewer natural resources and|1010|8 provide a healthy, productive, indoor environment for occupants by using an integrated
9 design approach that incorporates: site planning, design, building preservation,
10 construction, operations and maintenance; and
11 WHEREAS, the benefits of green building include: more natural resources
12
for the future, reduced energy consumption, lower operating costs, increased employee
13
productivity, increased energy efficiently in buildings, reduction of greenhouse gas
14
15 generated by buildings and reduction of the carbon footprint; and
16 WHEREAS, to ensure a viable future, the City must take a leadership role
17 and address the impacts placed on the environment by urbanization and a growing
18 populace, which includes air and water pollution, climate change and habitat loss; and
19
WHEREAS, the City is striving to become a model of environmental
20
21 excellence and a prevailing force of environmental protection. To accomplish these goals,
22 the City shall establish policies that will incorporate environmental responsibility into its
daily management of urban and industrial growth, energy and water use, air quality,
transportation, waste reduction, economic development and open space and natural
habitats.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
-2-
23
24
25
26
27
28SECTION
1. Based on the foregoing recitations and findings, Chapter
15.02
of the Culver City Municipal Code is hereby amended to add subchapter 15.02.1100,
et
seq. as follows:
GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM AND REQUIREMENTS
§ 15.02.1100 Establishment of Program and Purpose.
§15.02.1105 Definitions.
§15.02.1110 Requirements.
§ 15.02.1115 Urban Tree Requirements.
§ 15.02.1120 Green Zone Incentive Program.
§ 15.02.1125 Building Permit Fees and Inspections.
§ 15.011100 ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM AND PURPOSE.
The City has established a Green Building Program, which shall be
administered by the Building Safety Division pursuant to the provisions of this
Subchapter. The purpose of the Green Building Program is to reduce the
use of natural resources, create healthier living environments and minimize
the negative impacts of development on local, regional and global
ecosystems.
§ 15.02.1105 DEFINITIONS.
Terms defined herein shall have the following meanings when
used in
this Subchapter:
AIP — Phase I shall mean the West Washington Boulevard Area
Improvement Plan — Phase I (located on West Washington Boulevard
between Wade Street and Beethoven Street).
AIP — Phase II shall mean the West Washington Boulevard Area
Improvement Plan — Phase II (located on West Washington Boulevard
between Centinela Avenue and Colonial Avenue).
-3-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28Applicant shall mean any individual, firm, limited liability company,
association, partnership, political subdivision, government agency,
municipality, industry or public or private corporation, or any other entity
whatsoever that applies to the City for the applicable permits to undertake a
Qualifying Project.
Building Official shall mean the Building Official of the City of Culver
City or his or her designee.
Building Safety Division shall mean the City's Building Safety
Division and its staff.
Category I Qualifying Project shall mean the construction or major
renovation of any building or structure that requires a building permit and
meets the criteria established in Section 15.02.1105.A.
Category 2 Qualifying Project shall mean the construction or major
renovation of any building or structure that requires a building permit and
meets the criteria established in Section 15.02.1105.B.
CCMC shall mean the Culver City Municipal Code.
City shall mean the City of Culver City.
Director shall mean the Community Development Director of the City
of Culver City or his or her designee.
LEED® shall mean Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a
rating system put forth by the U.S. Green Building Council that is the
nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of
high performance green buildings.
LEEDCLAP shall mean a person who has been designated a LEEDO
Accredited Professional by the Green Building Certification Institute (GBCI).
Major renovation shall mean any change, addition or modification to
an existing building, where the valuation of the change, addition or
-4-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28modification is equal to at least fifty percent (50%) of the valuation of the
existing building.
Project shall mean the Qualifying Project that is the subject of the
permit application_
USGBC shall mean the U.S. Green Building Council.
§ 15.02.1110 REQUIREMENTS.
A. Category '1 Qualifying Projects. All new buildings of 497999
square feet or less of gross floor area and major renovations to existing
buildings of 49,999 square feet or less of gross floor area, shall comply with a
minimum of 20 of the following items:
Heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) units
shall have a minimum seasonal energy efficiency rating (SEER) of 17;
2. Gas heating units shall be a minimum of 93% energy
efficient;
3. All heating and cooling ducts shall be located within the
space to be heated and cooled;
4_ Roof and floor structures abutting an exterior space shall
be a minimum value of R-38 (thermal resistance value); and all
exterior walls shall be a minimum value of R-28;
5_ Radiant bafflers shall be installed under all new roof
sheathing;
6. All new exterior glass shall be a minimum value of U.35
(measure of heat conducting properties) and a minimum value of .30
SHGC (solar heat gain coefficient);
7. Low slope roofs shall be a minimum value of 75% SRI
(solar reflectance index);
-5-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28,
8. Exterior shading shall be provided over all west, south
and east facing exterior glass. Where exterior shading is infeasible, all
new exterior glass shall be a minimum value of U.32 and a minimum
value of .27 SHGC;
9. All new interior and exterior lighting shall be fluorescent,
LED or other type of high efficiency lighting;
10. All new lighting installed in restroom or bathroom areas
shall be fluorescent, LED or other type of high efficiency lighting and
shall be motion sensor controlled. All new exhaust fans installed in
restroom or bathroom areas shall be motion sensor controlled;
11. All new lighting installed in any corridor, entryway or
other typically unoccupied space shall be fluorescent, LED or other
type of high efficiency lighting and shall be motion sensor controlled.
Minimum base level lighting shall be permitted;
12. All new lighting installed in a garage or parking structure
shall be motion sensor controlled_ Minimum base level lighting shall
be permitted;
13. Water closets shall be dual flush models;
14. Urinals shall be waterless models;
15. Water heaters installed for the heating of water in
residential units shall be tankless models;
16. Two two-inch electrical conduits shall be installed from
the roof to the electrical panels for future solar photovoltaic installation
for each unit in residential and commercial buildings. (Qualifying
Projects that are subject to the provisions of CCMC Section
15.02.1005, may not use this item toward satisfying the requirements
of this Section.);
-6-|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2817. A 20 square feet area to house recyclable material
containers shall be provided_ This requirement shall be in addition to
any other CCMC requirements related to solid waste and recyclable
material containers;
18. Multistory buildings shall provide separate trash chutes
for recyclable and non-recyclable materials and waste. Such chutes
shall discharge directly into separate recyclable and non-recyclable
materials and waste containers. This requirement shall be in addition
to any other CCMC requirements related to trash chutes;
10 19. One duplex weather proof (WP) ground fault circuit
11 interrupter (GFCI) outlet shall be installed for every eight parking
12 spaces to be utilized for future electric "plug-in" vehicles.
13 20. All doors leading from heated or cooled spaces to non-
14 heated and non-cooled spaces shall be insulated doors and shall
15 include weather-stripping and adequate closers.
16 21. Any new on-site, ground-level paving, which is open to
17 the sky, shall be permeable.
18 22. All on-site landscaping shall be low-water, drought
19. tolerant. All irrigation shall be bubbler system&
20 23. All wood floor and roof structures shall be constructed
21 with 90% engineered lumber.
22 24. A minimum of 50% of the overall building insulation shall
23 be formaldehyde free and recycled content. A minimum aggregate of
24 60% of the wall, ceiling, and floor insulation shall be cellulose, cotton
25 ball, or bio-based foam.
26 25. lkw of solar photovoltaic power shall be installed_
27
(Qualifying Projects that are subject to the provisions of CCMC Section
28
'|1010101010101010|a|10 10|-7-1 15.02.1005 may not use this item toward satisfying the requirements a|109| this Section.).|109| B. Category 2 Qualifying Projects. All new buildings of 50,000|109| square feet or more of gross floor area and major renovations to existing|109| buildings of 50,000 square feet or more of gross floor area, shall comply with
6
the following requirements:
7
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, Applicant shall
8
submit the following:
9
a. Evidence that a LEED®-AP is one of the
10
members of the Project team.
11
b. Evidence that the Project has been registered with
12
USGBC's LEED® program.
13
c. A LEEDCO checklist, including points allocated to
14
the "Innovation and Design" category, which demonstrates that
15
the Project meets the selected LEED® Rating System at the
16
"Certified" level or higher.
17
d. A signed declaration from the LEEDO-AP member
18
of the Project team, stating that the plans and plan details have
19
been reviewed and the Project meets the intent of the criteria
20
for certification of the selected LEED® Rating System at the
21
"Certified" level or higher.
22
2. The Project shall comply with USGBC's "3 point margin
23
of error" for LEEDO certification.
24
3. Applicant shall submit to the Building Official copies of all
25
correspondence between the Applicant and USGBC regarding the
26
Project.
27
28
-8-1 C. Green Building Checklist. A green building checklist, on a form|109| approved by the Building Official, shall be completed and submitted prior to|109| construction of a Category 1 Qualifying Project|109| D. Exceptions. This Section shall not apply to one and two family|109| residences.|109| § 15.02.1115 URBAN TREE REQUIREMENTS.|109| Applicants of any Qualifying Project must comply with the following:
8 A. When feasible, all existing on-site trees with a trunk
9 diameter of 2" or greater shall be preserved or replaced with trees of
10 comparable size per the recommendations of the Culver City Parks Manager.
11 B. When feasible, all existing street trees with a trunk
12 diameter of 2" or greater shall be preserved or replaced with trees of
13 comparable size per the recommendations of the Culver City City Engineer.
14 § 15.02.1120 GREEN ZONE INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
15 A. Subject to approval by the Director, plan check and permit fees
16 in an amount not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) may be waived
17 for Category 1 and Category 2 Qualifying Projects, which comply with the
18 requirements of this Subchapter and are located in AIP — Phase I and AlP
19 Phase II areas.
20 B. The aggregate amount of fee waivers for the Green Zone
21 Incentive Program shall not exceed the amount, if any, appropriated for such
22 purpose by the Culver City City Council or the Culver City Redevelopment
23 Agency.
24 C. Fee waivers shall be granted on a first come, first served basis_
25 D. The Green Zone Incentive Program, as set forth in this Section,
26 shall remain in effect until , 2014, and as of that date is
27
28
-9-I repealed, unless a later enacted statute, enacted before , 2014,|109| deletes or extends that date.|109| § 15.02.1125 INSPECTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT.|109| A. No final inspection shall be approved for a Project subject to the|109| requirements of this Subchapter, nor shall a temporary or final certificate of|109| occupancy be issued for such Project, until such time as the requirements of|109| this Subchapter have been satisfied, as determined by final inspection of the|109| Building Safety Division.
9 B. The Building Safety Division may issue field correction notices
10 and/or stop work orders on a Project for non-compliance with the
11 requirements of this Subchapter.
12 C. The provisions of this Subchapter may be enforced through any
13 or all available remedies provided in the CCMC.
14 SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 619 of the City Charter, this Ordinance
15 shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Pursuant to Sections 616
16 and 621 of the City Charter, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the adoption,
17 the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published in the
18 Culver City News and shall post this Ordinance or a summary thereof in at least three
19 places within the City.
20 SECTION 3. The City Council hereby declares that, if any provision, section,
21 subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this ordinance is rendered or declared
invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by
reason of any preemptive legislation, then the City Council would have independently
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-10-2|10101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases
or words of this ordinance and as such they shall remain in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2009.
0. SCOTT MALSIN, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARTIN R. COLE, City Clerk
26
27
28
-11-