CODE AND REGULATORY BARRIERS TO THE LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE FOR SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

REPORT #3: COST BENEFIT SUMMARY

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:

CITY OF VANCOUVER, WA CASCADIA REGION CLARK COUNTY, WA GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL

Produced through funding from the Washington Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.

PROJECT TEAM & CONTRIBUTORS

This report is the third and fi nal for the project: Code and Regulatory Barriers to the Living Building Challenge for Sustinable, Affordable, Residential Development (SARD). The SARD project is funded through the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development and managed by the City of Vancouver, which contracted with the Cascadia Region Green Building Council to perform the study.

PROJECT LEADS

Marian Lahav, Senior Planner City of Vancouver

Gordy Euler, Planner, Clark County

CONSULTANTS

Gina Franzosa, Oregon State Director, Cascadia Region Green Building Council

Lisa Petterson, Associate, SERA Architects

Eric Ridenour, Associate, SERA Architects

Steve Clem, Director of PreConstruction, Skanska

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The following agencies provided real cost information and feedback for Report #3:

City of Vancouver: Community Planning, Development Review Services/Building, Public Works, Transportation, Fire Marshal, Community Development Block Grant Program, and Human Resources

Clark County: Community Development, Community Planning, Public Works, Transportation, Fire, and Public Health

Clark Regional Wastewater District Engineering

Clark Public Utilities District

Vancouver Housing Authority

YW Housing

The following individuals from local jurisdictions provided insight and information based on their experiences implementing innovative programs that Vancouver and Clark County may wish to undertake:

Cynthia Moffi t, King County

Debbie Cleek, City of Portland

Jenna Garmon, City of Eugene

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................7

BENEFITS ......................................................................................................................11

COSTS ............................................................................................................................15

APPENDIX A: BENEFITS .................................................................................................19

APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC SECTOR SURVEY ON COST AND IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES .............................................................................................24

APPENDIX C: PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS / PAYBACK CALCULATIONS ................................38

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 1Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report quantifi es the cost and benefi ts of removing barriers to sustainable, affordable, residential development (SARD) in Clark County and the City of Vancouver. Its purposes are:

To provide an estimate of the benefi ts resulting from implementation of green building goals in • the context of sustainable, affordable, residential development;

To provide an estimate of the cost impacts of implementing the proposed code, standard, and • policy recommendations delineated in Report #2 to the City and County; and

To provide an estimate of the cost impacts of sustainable development (as defi ned by the Living • Building Challenge™) to developers and buyers of affordable, residential projects.

The Living Building Challenge, a rigorous performance-based standard developed by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council, was used as a metric to defi ne sustainable development. The standard was selected because it is the most stringent standard established for green building projects available today, and thus represents the closest measure of true sustainability in the built environment.

Report #1: Findings highlighted the obstacles project teams may encounter when seeking approval for a Living Building project. Some of the barriers found were directly related to City and County regulations, while others extended beyond the authority of the local jurisdiction to the state level.

Report #2: Strategies and Recommendations provided a prioritized list of key barriers with short and long term recommendations for overcoming those barriers.

This report, Report #3: Costs and Benefi ts, provides some understanding of the costs of implementing each of the twenty-one recommendations identifi ed in Report #2 and provides a summary of the environmental, societal, and fi nancial benefi ts of sustainable, affordable, residential development. The report also provides developers of single and multi-family residential projects with a range of additional fi rst costs for developments which strive to achieve the Living Building Challenge. Finally, the payback period for investing in single and multi-family residential buildings, which strive to attain this high level of sustainability, was evaluated against water and energy costs in the City of Vancouver and Clark County.

The costs of implementing the twenty-one recommendations noted in Report #2 were estimated in four general categories: additional staff needs, additional training needs, additional costs for a public outreach campaign, and infrastructure costs associated with implementing any of the other three. For the purposes of estimating the costs for each recommendation, it was assumed that all twenty-one measures were implemented in isolation. In reality, we recommend that the measures be combined, either with each other or with joint funding from the City and County to minimize duplication of effort and achieve economies of scale. The measures were prioritized in terms of long term and short term recommendations in the previous report. A next step for moving forward with the recommendations would be development of an implementation plan that thoroughly considers potential synergies between the various recommendations.

Quantifying the true costs of non-sustainable development is very diffi cult, as the larger societal costs of many current development practices are not often accounted for. For example, the global impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from the long distance transport of materials is not included in the current costs of materials, allowing materials from China to be cheaper than those manufactured in our own state. Similarly, the added health care costs that result from residents living or working around off-gassing materials is not included in the cost of the construction.

The cost of building a Living Building was estimated by comparing the cost estimates from two

2 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

real projects constructed locally to the same projects hypothetically redesigned to meet the Living Building Challenge. For the purposes of this cost estimating exercise, the societal costs of non-sustainable development were not accounted for. Only direct construction costs attributable to changes in the development’s physical features and systems were considered for this analysis. Payback was calculated using only direct water and energy costs. The less tangible, but very real, benefi ts seen from improved quality of life are not included in the payback calculation.

In the City of Vancouver/Clark County, our analysis showed the payback period for projects striving to meet the Living Building Challenge were relatively high. This is due to the small scale of the residential projects and the comparatively low local utility rates charged in the area. The incentives available in a jurisdiction also have an effect on the fi rst cost increase, which in turn affects payback. Projects in the City of Vancouver and Clark County can utilize federal and state incentives for many of the project’s energy related features. Other jurisdictions offer additional incentives which lower fi rst costs further.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 3Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Benefi t Category Benefi ts

I. ENVIRONMENTAL • Reduced fossil fuel use and dependence

• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions, which is linked to reduced risk of global climate change

• Enhanced protection of ecosystems • Improved air and water quality

• Reduced waste

• Conservation of natural resources

• Reduced pollutants

• Clean, renewable energy

II. SOCIETAL • Enhanced occupant comfort and health • Minimized strain on local infrastructure

• Improved enjoyment and quality of life

• Reduced pressure from sprawling development models on prime agricultural lands which helps maintain localized food production systems and reduce transportation costs

III. FINANCIAL • Reduced home/building operating costs

• Increased jobs and economic development resulting from exporting green building technology beyond our region

• Improved occupant productivity and lower health care costs

• Optimized life-cycle economic performance

• Reduced costs to maintain and expand infrastructure

TABLE 1: BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTThis table lists benefi ts of sustainable affordable, residential development in three benefi t categories: environmental, societal, and fi nancial.

4 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF COST BY RECOMMENDATION

Barriers Maximum Estimated Costs Potential Strategies to Control

CostStaff Training Outreach Infrastructure

INSTITUTIONAL/PROCESS BARRIER

1. Expedited or priority permit processing program

City: $170,000 - $240,000

County: $115,000

$7,500

$7,500

$2,500

$22,000

NA

NA

Assign innovative projects to most experienced reviewers rather than add staff.

2. In-House Mandatory Trainings

City: $60,000

County: $35,000

$20,000

$10,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

Incorporate into existing training procedures and cycles.

Use local experts wherever possible.

3. Mandatory Green Pre-Application Meetings

City: basic cost included in present services; ombudsman, $100,000 - $120,000/year

County: no additional cost if bundled with In house trainings

NA

NA

$2,500

NA

NA

NA

Combine position.

4. Green Building Technical Assistance Program

City: $75,000/year

County: $35,000

NA

$350/person

NA

$5,000

NA

NA

Combine position.

Collaborative public outreach campaign with other agencies.

ENERGY

1. Develop Guidelines for Permitting Renewable Energy and Passive Heating/Cooling Systems

City: $115,000

County: $50,000

NA

NA

$5,000

NA

NA

NA

Utilize MSRC research, others to reduce time devoted to original research.

Bundle revisions with other code.

2. Consider Density Bonuses for Energy Effi ciency Measures

City: $50,000

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

$1,000

NA

NA

Revisions to minimize review time.

3. Amend SEPA to Include Evaluation and Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Construction Projects Including Embodied Energy of Materials, Construction Activities, and Ongoing Operating Energy

City: $50,000 - $150,000

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Utilize resources — calculators, background data, etc. — from State, King County.

4. Require and Enforce performance testing to demonstrate Residential Energy Code Compliance

City: NA

County: $50,000

$5,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Partner with a community college or green building program to provide this service.

5. Develop a District Energy Demonstration Project Ordinance

City: $100,000

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

This table refl ects maximum aggregated costs. Costs could be minimized and economics of scale achieved by combining strategies and implementing them jointly amoung departments and jurisdictions.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 5Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Barriers Maximum Estimated Costs Potential Strategies to Control

CostStaff Training Outreach Infrastructure

NON-CONVENTIONAL GREEN BUILDING STRUCTURES

1. Allow Flexibility within the Building Codes for “Incubator” Pilot Projects to Test Alternative Green Materials

City: minimal

County: $50,000 +

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2. Develop Code Guidance for Strawbale Structures

City: NA

County: $20,000

NA

NA

$250

NA

NA

NA

Adapt from other jurisdictions.

3. Develop an Advisory Committee of Green Building Experts for Alternative Technologies

City: $60,000

County: $60,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Combine with other strategies, such as technical assistance.

DRIVEWAY & FIRE ACCESS ROAD WIDTHS

1. Develop Code Guidance on Acceptable and Best Practices for Low Impact Development

City: $155,000

County: NA

NA

NA

$9,000

NA

NA

NA

Integrate with other code updates.

2. Update Standards for Streets, Fire Access Roads and Private Driveways

City: NA

County: $25,000

NA

NA

$5,000 - $10,000

NA

NA

NA

Integrate with other code updates.

3. Consider Stormwater Management Utility or SDC Fee Reductions

CIty: Complete

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Raise fees on other projects to create a fund for fee waivers. Fees would be directly tied to impacts on public infrastructure.

PARKING

1. Consider New Policies to Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements

City: $50,000

County: $34,000

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Integrate with full Transit Oriented Development (TOD) program.

CISTERNS

1. Provide Guidance on Designing, Permitting, Installing, and Maintaining Rainwater Harvesting Cisterns into New Construction

City: $10,000

County: minimal

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Adapt from other jurisdictions.

2. Revise Code Requirements for Setbacks and Building Separation for Above-Ground Rainwater Cisterns

City: $30,000

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Adapt from other jurisdictions.

CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT

1. Develop New City and County Cottage Housing Codes

City: $30,000

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Integrate with other code updates.

WATER

2. Provide Guidance on Designing, Permitting, Installing, and Maintaining Rainwater Harvesting Cisterns

City : $0 - $20,000

County: NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Adapt from other jurisdictions.

6 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Project Size Anticipated First Cost Increase Payback

SINGLE FAMILYRESIDENCE

27-32% increase 30 years

MULTI-FAMILYRESIDENCE

31-36% increase 22 years

TABLE 3: PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS / PAYBACKThis table summarizes the anticipated fi rst cost increase and payback for the single family residence and multi-family residence when prerequisites of the Living Building Challenge are met.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 7Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

FIGURE 1: CO2 EMISSIONS 1

FIGURE 2: ENERGY USE FIGURE 3: ELECTRICITY USE

INTRODUCTION

Climate change, loss of forested land, water contamination, air pollution and dependence on foreign oil are concerns associated with building construction and operation. In aggregate, buildings consume a large portion of the water, energy, materials, and other resources used in the United States. For example, US buildings are responsible for more C02 emissions than any other economic development sector, including industry and transportation.

In the United States, buildings consume 48% of the total energy and 76% of the nation’s electricity. In addition, they consume a large portion of the materials and water used by our economy, as well as generating signifi cant amounts of waste. For additional information on the impacts of green building, see www.usgbc.org.

Because humans spend the majority of our time indoors, buildings also signifi cantly affect human health and productivity and can have a negative effect through poor indoor air quality and exposure to toxic materials. Due to growing health concerns and higher operational costs, questions have begun to emerge about whether we can produce, operate, and maintain buildings more sustainably to minimize adverse impacts on the environment and public heath, and whether this can be done economically.

This report examines the costs and benefi ts of incorporating progressive green building strategies into affordable residential developments utilizing the twenty-one strategies identifi ed in Report #2 as a means to encourage and provide support for public and private developers.

The above graphics, prepared by SERA Architects, are based on information provided by Architecture 2030. See www.architecture2030.com.

8 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Code

Zoning VMC Title 20, CCC Title 40

Land Divisions VMC 20.320, CCC 40.540

Planned Unit Development VMC 20.260, CCC 40.520

Site Plan VMC 20.270, CCC 40.520

Grading VMC 17.12, CCC 14.07

Erosion Control VMC 14.24, CCC 40.380

Stormwater Management VMC 14.25, CCC 40.380

Parking Standards VMC 20.945, CCC 40.340

Street Standards VMC Title 11, CCC 40.350

International Building Code – 2006 Edition Standards and Amendments WAC 51-50

International Mechanical Code – 2006 Edition Standards and Amendments WAC 51-52

International Fire Code – 2006 Edition Standards and Amendments WAC 51-54

Uniform Plumbing Code – 2006 Edition Standards and Amendments WAC 51-56, 51-57

Washington State Energy Code – 2006 Edition WAC 51-11

Washington State Ventilation and Indoor Air Quality Code – 2006 Edition

WAC 51-13

On-site Sewage Systems CCC 24.17

Group A Public Drinking Water Systems WAC 246-290

Group B Public Drinking Water Systems WAC 246-291

Large On-Site Sewage Systems WAC 246-272B

Wastewater Treatment Facilities WAC 173-240

Evidence of Adequate Drinking Water Supply RCW 19.27.097

BACKGROUND

The City of Vancouver, Washington, in partnership with Clark County, has contracted with the Cascadia Region Green Building Council (Cascadia) to evaluate City and County codes and regulations that pose barriers to sustainable, affordable, residential development. Cascadia’s Living Building Challenge™ was used as the benchmark performance standard for the code study, because it is the most stringent standard established for green building projects available today and, thus represents the closest measure of true sustainability in the built environment.

The following codes were analyzed as part of this project:

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 9Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

In November 2008, Cascadia published Report #1: Findings, identifying more than 80 obstacles that currently exist within Vancouver and Clark County codes and regulations, which project teams may encounter when seeking approval for a Living Building project. Roughly 30 of these code barriers were found in the land use and development codes and another 50 were found within the building, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fi re, ventilation and indoor air, and energy codes. Some of the barriers were directly related to City and County regulations, while others extended beyond the authority of the local jurisdictions to the State level. A full list of building, development, and land use code barriers was identifi ed in Report #1: Findings, which can be found online at: www.cityofvancouver.us/envplan.

Report #2: Strategies & Recommendations, published in April 2009, summarized a comprehensive list of strategies to address the barriers identifi ed in Report #1: Findings and divided them into 21 short-term and long-term recommendations. This prioritized list of key barriers was developed in order to assist the City and County with addressing and removing barriers to sustainable, affordable, residential development.

GOALS

The purposes of Report #3 are:

To provide an estimate of the benefi ts resulting from implementation of green building goals in • the context of sustainable, affordable, residential development;

To provide an estimate of the cost impacts of implementing the proposed code, standard and • policy recommendations delineated in Report #2 to the City and County; and

To provide an estimate of the cost impacts of sustainable development (as defi ned by the Living • Building Challenge) to developers and buyers of affordable, residential projects.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 11Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

BENEFITS

The benefi ts of sustainable development can be categorized in three primary areas: Environmental Benefi ts, Societal Benefi ts, and Financial Benefi ts.

The benefi ts listed below are intended to demonstrate the breadth and diversity of potential positive outcomes that can be realized through sustainable building practices. References to studies and research regarding green building benefi ts are cited for areas where the benefi ts are not widely known or understood. The US Green Building Council’s website1 provides an excellent overview of both the impacts buildings have on the environment and the benefi ts from green building practices.

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Sustainable development reduces the substantial impact buildings have on the natural environment, while increasing quality of life. Sustainable development also reduces fossil fuel use through energy effi ciency and on-site production of renewable energy, which in turn reduces climate change and air pollution. It also provides direct environmental benefi ts for local and global ecosystems through the use of environmentally-sustainable practices. Sustainable development reduces the amount of material added to the waste stream and helps to conserve natural resources. Finally, sustainable development reduces the pollutants off-gassing into our atmosphere, providing a benefi t to both human and non-human species.

• Reduced fossil fuel use and dependenceGreen buildings help to reduce fossil fuel consumption through energy effi ciency and the use of clean energy technologies. Fossil fuels – e.g. petroleum, coal, natural gas – are limited resources. As they become more scarce, they are likely to increase in cost and could contribute to growing global instability if they continue as the dominant energy source for global economies. Extraction and transport of petroleum and other fossil fuels are also linked to environmental degradation through air pollution at oil fi elds and refi neries, and water pollution through oil spills and the refi ning process.

• Reduced greenhouse gas emissionsIn addition to impacts associated with their extraction and scarcity, consumption of fossil fuels is linked to global climate change. The Architecture 2030 website states, “credible scientists give us 10 years to be well on our way toward global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions, in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. Yet there are hundreds of coal-fi red power plants currently on the drawing boards in the US. Seventy-six percent (76%) of the energy produced by these plants will go to operate buildings.“2

The phenomenon of climate

change is projected to lead to more volatile weather patterns and higher sea levels. The University of Arizona’s Department of Geosciences Environmental Studies Laboratory has mapped the increased sea levels estimated to result from increases in global temperature to demonstrate the catastrophic effects that could occur.3

• Enhanced protection of ecosystems Many green building strategies can help reduce impacts on ecosystems. Reducing the need for water reduces stress on local water infrastructure and allows more water from managed watersheds to be made available for aquatic ecosystems.

1 See www.usgbc.org/Display page.aspx?CMSPageID=1718.

2 See www.architecture2030.org.

3 See http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dges/research/other/climate_change_and_sea_level/sea_level_rise/fl orida/sir_usafl _i.htm.

12 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Sustainably produced materials, such as forest products, can also signifi cantly reduce building impacts on ecosystems. For a forest product to be certifi ed as sustainable, the forest management unit must demonstrate responsible forestry practices, including forest ecosystem maintenance, long-term timber management plans, and wildlife surveys.

Green buildings also keep ecosystems intact through careful siting and correct sizing. Building on or near an ecosystem that is sensitive to human activity can easily harm wildlife by hampering breeding or destroying hunting grounds. Siting decisions that avoid the most sensitive lands, maintain appropriate buffers, and provide for habitat continuity can directly support healthy ecosystems.

• Improved air quality Currently, green building practices that improve air quality are mainly concentrated on reducing toxicity of the materials using strategies such as incorporating only low VOC (volatile organic compounds) materials and enhanced ventilation rates. When low toxicity materials are selected, the potential for industrial pollutants to be introduced into the air or water streams is reduced. Several strategies have indirect benefi ts on general outdoor air quality as well. For example, reducing energy use also reduces particulates and greenhouse gasses associated with conventional energy production. Recycling of demolition materials and use of materials with high recycled content can reduce pollutants related to waste incineration in areas where that is a common practice.

• Improved water quality Water quality is also improved through several green building strategies. On-site management of stormwater reduces the potential for pollution of waterways, especially where storm and sanitary sewers are combined. Treatment of stormwater with swales directly reduces phosphates and particulates in surface waters.

• Reduced waste Because green buildings incorporate recycled materials and reduce construction scrap materials, they prevent those materials from ending up in landfi lls. A green building can also be planned for deconstruction at the end of its lifetime, thus saving any reusable materials and preventing the release of toxins associated with building demolition.

• Conservation of natural resources One objective of green building seeks to reduce the consumption of material resources by mandating recycling and the wise use of resources during construction and by promoting the use of recycled building materials.

• Reduced pollutants Paint, adhesives, carpets, and wood contain a wide array of chemical pollutants. These toxic substances continue to be released into the indoor and outdoor atmosphere long after construction has been completed. They can contaminate the air and water, with some substances remaining in the environment for many years. Because green buildings contain low-emitting materials, they pose less of a risk to the building’s occupants and to the natural environment.

• Public Health Outcomes How communities are built affects human behavior which, in turn, affects public health. In their report, Understanding the Relationship between Public Health and the Built Environment, the LEED-ND® core committee summarized the positive relationship between smaller, dense development and physical activity, which results in fewer traffi c accidents, and improved respiratory health and mental health.4

4 Ewing, R. & Kreutzer, R., “Understanding the Relationship Between Public Health and the Built Environment: A Report Prepared for the LEED-ND Core Committee.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 13Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

SOCIETAL BENEFITS

Several studies have been performed to better understand the less tangible, but real benefi ts sustainable developments provide to society as a whole. Because the benefi ts of improving visual, thermal, and acoustic environments are so diffi cult to measure, studies have instead assessed the increased productivity that results from living or working in these environments. Occupant comfort and health are enhanced by the introduction of daylighting. Potentially one of the most signifi cant improvements that can be made to the environment is improved air quality through reduced exposure to VOCs emitted by materials used during and after the building process. In addition, the societal benefi ts from sustainable development include minimized need to expand the capacity of local roads and utilities and reduced pressure from sprawl on prime agriculture lands.

• Enhanced occupant comfort and health/Improved quality of lifeNumerous studies have found that good ventilation, access to views, and exposure to natural daylight result in less sick days among building users, and can indirectly improve the quality of life.5 Two studies involving “more than 11,000 workers in 107 buildings in Europe also found increases in perceived productivity, fewer illness symptoms, and less absenteeism in buildings that provide workers with control over temperature and ventilation conditions compared to a control group.”6 A major link drawn includes increased productivity of users, which benefi ts society at large.

These comfort and health benefi ts also have been studied to indirectly analyze quality of life. For example, in schools, access to daylight has been linked to better student performance,7 while in retail settings, daylighting has been shown to improve sales.8

There are also directly attributable factors that infl uence human health which result from green building practices. For example, the Public Health and Economic Impact of Dampness and Mold study, completed in 2007, found “that exposure to dampness and mold in buildings poses a signifi cant public health risk, resulting in an economic impact of $3.5 billion each year.”9

• Minimize need to expand the capacity of local roads and utilities When green building projects manage stormwater on site or reduce the wastewater fl ow to public sewers, they can reduce the pressure to expand utility infrastructure, a signifi cant (and typically public) expense.

• Reduced pressure from sprawling development models on prime agricultural lands Green building strategies that favor clustered development and preservation of open space can help to preserve farmlands, as well as natural areas. Farmland close to a city is of especially high value because of its accessibility to consumers, which minimizes transit costs. This proximity also generally means the land nearest the city is under the most pressure to develop.

• Expansion of green practices industry-wideAn indirect, but important benefi t of sustainable development practices results from the experience and leadership of the businesses that adopt emerging practices. By adopting best practices, builders and others demonstrate their leadership, help improve the industry practices, and position themselves for future business development opportunities.

5 Judith Heerwagen, “Sustainable Design Can Be an Asset to the Bottom Line - expanded internet edition,” Environmental Design & Construction, Posted 07/15/02. Available at: http://www.edcmag.com/CDA/Article Information/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,4120,80724,00.html.

6 Ibid.

7 Lisa Heschong, “Daylighting In Schools: Reanalysis Report,” California Energy Commission available at www.newbuildings.org/downloads/FinalAttachments/A-3_Dayltg_Schools_2.2.5.pdf.

8 Lisa Heschong, “Daylighting In Retail Sales,” California Energy Commission available a www.newbuildings.org/downloads/Final Attachments/A-5_Daylgt_Retail_2.3.7.pdf.

9 Mudarri, D. & Fisk W., “ Public Health and Economic Impact of Dampness and Mold,” 2007.

14 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

FINANCIAL BENEFITS

The fi nancial benefi ts of green buildings include lower costs for energy, waste disposal, and water, as well as lower environmental and emissions costs, and lower operations and maintenance costs. In addition to the direct tangible benefi ts of lower operating costs, which are primarily a result of a reduction in energy use, sustainable development provides indirect value to the development’s inhabitants, through improved occupant health, happiness, and productivity, which in turn provides an economic benefi t to employers working in green buildings. Financial benefi ts can also be realized at the local or regional scale through the potential for greatly expanding markets for green products and services, which creates jobs and exportable skills and products.

• Reduced home / building operating costsPerhaps the most compelling argument for green buildings is their proven ability to provide monetary savings over time. “By incorporating green-building practices, Washingtonians and Oregonians could save more than $90 million each year in energy, water, and construction-related costs.“10 These savings come from better energy performance resulting from better insulation, more effi cient heating, cooling, and ventilation equipment, more effective and effi cient lighting, and by harnessing waste energy within the building. On-site renewable energy sources like solar, wind, and biomass can add to overall reductions in utility expenses.

• Expanded market for green product and services, resulting increased jobsThe market for green products and services continues to grow and expand at an exponential pace. Incorporating green building practices in local development further increases this emerging market, creates a demand for locally-made products, positions the region in a leadership role, and thereby can help strengthen our trade with out-of-region markets, as well. The Pacifi c Northwest is home to many green building experts and manufacturers of green products; thus increasing sustainable development also increases our regional brand.

• Improved occupant productivity and lower health care costs As noted above, sustainable developments will generally have happier, healthier and more productive occupants. “Recent studies reveal that buildings with good overall environmental quality can reduce the rate of respiratory disease, allergy, asthma, sick building symptoms, and enhance worker performance. The potential fi nancial benefi ts of improving indoor environments exceed costs by a factor of 8 to 14.“11 If an 8-14% increase in overall productivity is multiplied by the payroll cost of a business, the savings attributed to green building can be very high indeed.

• Optimized life-cycle economic performance An important, but often overlooked, green building strategy is to build for durability. A building component or system that is designed to perform well for a long period of time and be easily cleaned and serviced is likely to save money over the lifetime of a building.

• Reduced costs to maintain and expand infrastructure By reducing the need for new or larger roads and utilities, we save resources as well as dollars.

The specifi c environmental, societal, and fi nancial benefi ts for each of the twenty-one recommendations are summarized in Appendix A. The table is divided into three columns summarizing the public sector benefi ts, private sector benefi ts, and the benefi ts to the community at large. In addition, icons are assigned to fl ag when a benefi t is fi nancial, societal, or environmental. For many of the strategies, more than one category might apply.

10 ECONorthwest, “Green Building: Saving Salmon, the Environment, and Mondy on the Path to Sustainability Opportunities for the Pacifi c Northwest,” Available at www.econw.com/reports/Green-Building-Salmon-Environment-Sustainability_ECONorthwest.pdf.

11 William Fisk and Arthur Rosenfeld, “Potential Nationwide Improvements in Productivity and Health From Better Indoor Environments,” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, May 1998TABLEi.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 15Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

COSTS

The costs of implementing sustainable, affordable, residential development were broken into two main categories: Public Sector Costs, which include costs to the municipalities, and Private Sector Costs, which include costs to developers. Public sector costs need to be offset by fees or offset through increased funding from an already tight general fund, while private sector costs are usually transferred to buyers and renters.

PUBLIC SECTOR COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THE 21 RECOMMENDATIONS

The costs for each of the 21 recommendations for implementation identifi ed in Report #2 are summarized in Table 2: Summary of Cost by Recommendation. They refl ect aggregated survey responses from City, County, and local Utility District staff, as well as from contacts with staff at King County, the City of Portland and the City of Eugene. The survey asked for detailed information on the staffi ng needs, training needs, infrastructure needs, and public outreach costs. Actual survey questions and summarized responses are presented in Appendix B.

Table 2: Summary of Cost by Recommendation also identifi es some key strategies for controlling implementation costs that were captured from survey responses. Several responses noted that one of the ways to reduce costs to the City and County would be through the joint implementation of some of the recommended programs. It should be emphasized that signifi cant savings to the public sector can be achieved by “bundling” multiple initiatives into one review process. Since a signifi cant part of the public sector’s process for approving code changes is administrative, e.g. public outreach mailings, staff time for setting meetings and hearings, etc., there will be effi ciencies in pursuing a comprehensive set of policy changes, rather than pursuing piecemeal changes.

PRIVATE SECTOR COSTS OF SUSTAINABLE, AFFORDABLE, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT

Background

Several studies have been done on the costs of adding sustainable design features to buildings. One study, Green Building Costs and Financial Benefi ts, states, “The average premium for these green buildings is slightly less than 2%, or $3-5/ft2, substantially lower than is commonly perceived.”12 Because of the prevalence of the LEED© rating system, most studies have compared conventional building projects to LEED projects. These studies have found results ranging from a very small cost premium (less than 1%) to a 6% cost premium for LEED Platinum projects. The Federal General Services Administration (GSA) study LEED Cost Study13 found a range for GSA buildings of between a -.04% cost decrease to 8.1% cost increase. The Davis Langdon study entitled The Cost of Green Revisited: Reexamining the Feasibility and Cost Impact of Sustainable Design in the Light of Increased Market Adoption14 found that “there is no signifi cant difference in average costs for green building as compared to non-green buildings.” This study evaluated 221 buildings in total, 83 LEED buildings and 138 non-LEED buildings. The buildings were categorized by type to facilitate comparison.

Less information is available on the potential cost increase for buildings achieving the Living Building standard. Two studies provide information in this area: The David and Lucile Packard

12 Gregory E. Kats, Capitol E, “Green Building Costs and Financial Benefi ts,” Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, available at www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf

13 See www.wbdg.org/ccb/GSAMAN/gsaleed.pdf for the GSA Cost of LEED® Study.

14 See the Davis Langdon website http://www.davislangdon.com/USA/Research/ResearchFinder/2007-The-Cost-of-Green-Revisited for more information on the Cost of LEED® study.

16 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Foundation’s Los Altos Project Sustainability Report15 and the Living Building Financial Study.16 The Packard report, fi rst completed in 2001 and updated in 2002, was the fi rst comprehensive look at the costs of all levels of LEED construction from Certifi ed through Platinum, including the Living Building. At that time, the Living Building was a conceptual framework and not a rating system, which meant many of the requirements of the Living Building project were not defi ned and thus could not be priced. Although the Packard matrix demonstrated that the level of Living Building was the best long term economic choice, the anticipated fi rst cost premium was signifi cant for the proposed project (a foundation headquarters located in California’s Bay Area).

A second study on the cost of Living Buildings entitled The Living Building Financial Study: The Effects of Climate, Building Type and Incentives on Creating the Buildings of Tomorrow17 was completed in April of 2009 by the team of SERA Architects, Skanska USA Building, Gerding /Edlen Development, New Buildings Institute, and Interface Engineering, along with Cascadia staff. This study evaluated nine different building types in four climate zones and found, “Living Buildings can be built cost effectively in today’s market-driven economy given the rising costs of energy and water.” The study went on to delineate the importance of building type, use, and scale, as well as the role of incentives on the affordability of this highest level of sustainability.

Understanding Costs to the City and County

In order to develop a scope for the cost to the City and County for implementing each of the 21 recommendations, a survey was sent to City, County, and local Utility District staff. The survey asked for detailed information on the staffi ng needs, training needs, infrastructure needs, and public outreach costs for each of the recommendations identifi ed in Report #2. The survey question responses are summarized in Appendix B. It was noted in several responses that one of the ways to reduce costs to the City and County would be through the joint implementation of some of the recommended programs.

Methodology for Estimating Costs and Premiums

The costs and premiums for building a Living Building were estimated using the protocol developed in The Living Building Financial Study, published by Cascadia. Calculations determined the increase in fi rst cost and the payback period for two projects: a multi-family and a single family residential project, which were considered representative of sustainable, affordable residential housing developments in the area.

Similar to the approach used to identify code barriers in Report #1, real projects were utilized both to simplify the methodology, as well as to provide a solid foundation for careful estimating. For the single-family residence, an 1,840 sf house, known as the Bacon Brenes House, was used as the cost model. For the multi-family residential project, the Tupelo Alley Development, a 140-unit mixed-use development was used. Each project’s cost estimate was divided into two areas: construction costs and owner / design build costs. Construction costs include costs for materials or systems and fees for contractor or subcontractor services. Owner / Design Build costs refer to costs borne by the developer, such as design fees, permit fees, carbon or habitat offsets, and incentives. Together, these two cost categories represent the total project cost. No costs were excluded, except for the cost of land, which is location specifi c and can vary widely. Each of the strategies added to the project is priced separately. For each strategy, the estimate displays the premium for the item on that division of work (e.g. Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical) and the premium on percentage basis compared to the total cost of construction.

15 See http://www.bnim.com/fmi/xsl/research/packard/index.xsl for complete information of the Packard matrix and report. Visit the Packard Foundation website at http://www.packard.org/home.aspx for more information on the foundation.

16 See Cascadia’s website http://www.ilbi.org/resources/research/fi nancial-study for more information on the Living Building Financial Study.

17 Ibid.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 17Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Incentives available for sustainable development were subtracted from the total project cost. Specifi c incentives available for projects in the study area include: the Washington State Solar PV Incentive, the Washington State Solar Thermal Incentive (which is sales tax exempt), the Clark County Public Utilities Solar Thermal Rebate, and the Clark Public Utilities Residential Rebates. In addition, federal incentives for solar were also included. Finally, it was assumed that a Living Building, which has no public water or sewer usage, could receive a 50% reduction in the County and City’s systems development charges (SDC’s).

Cost premiums for Living Building strategies were priced assuming that the proposed modifi cations were a part of the original design, not incorporated late in the project design or construction. This is based on the reasonable assumption that a developer would decide at the outset of a project whether or not to pursue the Living Building Challenge, not when the project is nearing completion, which would cause substantial project cost increases. The strategies employed to achieve Living Building status were all based on current, readily available technologies, using products and techniques currently in use.

Similar to the value engineering process during design, where individual systems, products, or materials are analyzed for cost impacts and less expensive alternates, changes to meet the Living Building Challenge were analyzed on a net-impact basis across the various building trade disciplines (e.g. mechanical, electrical, plumbing, structural). Although the impacts of each measure on other systems were considered, detailed engineering was not completed. For example, in the multi-family residential project, the building was redesigned to have a different orientation, which resulted in a cost reduction due to reduced building envelope area. This modifi cation also created an energy conservation benefi t because of less heat loss, which was accounted for. However, a full energy model was not provided to verify if we could also reduce the size of the mechanical system beyond the reduction in effi ciencies achieved from modifying the mechanical systems as a separate energy conservation measure (ECM). Potentially because of the reduced heat loss from the improved building envelope, we might also be able to downsize the mechanical system, as well.

Methodology for Estimating Payback Period

The methodology developed in The Living Building Financial Study was also utilized to arrive at an estimated payback for developing the project as a Living Building. First, the cost estimating team compared the building baseline costs (i.e. costs of a building built per current code standard construction practices) to the costs projected for the Living Building modifi cation (adjusted to May 2009 dollars) to arrive at the present worth for each building. Energy and water usage for baseline buildings were calculated using an escalation rate of 3% for energy and water in accordance with Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). Current energy and water rates were multiplied by the present worth factor of 24.165 (this factor refl ects a 30-year life cycle, 4.5% discount rate and 3% differential escalation). The total life cycle cost looks at both the annual cost and the present worth of the building to arrive at a present worth for the baseline building. The Living Building does not have any operational costs added to it as it has net zero energy and net zero water usage.

A major unknown, and unknowable, in these calculations is infl ation. It is also diffi cult to estimate how energy prices will change over time, especially considering that carbon emissions may become a nationally regulated or taxed commodity, which would establish a price for carbon and increase the price of carbon-fueled energy. The calculations used in the study follow the FEMP Modifi ed Uniform Present Value methodology18 for calculating the present value of energy costs or savings accruing over time. This is a relatively conservative approach because, while runaway infl ation is possible, it is even more likely that energy costs will rise and that carbon will soon have a cost that will increase energy costs more.

18 See NISTIR 85-3273 Energy Price indices and Discount Factors for Life-Cycle Cost Analysis; http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/ashb08.pdf- 1102.4KB-EREN.

18 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Results

Because of their small scale, residential buildings have one of the highest fi rst cost increases and a relatively long payback period (time needed to recapture the fi rst cost premium). In the City of Vancouver and Clark County the added costs for a net zero energy, net zero water, toxic free residence are anticipated to be between 27 and 32% for a single family residence and between 31 and 36% for a multi-family residence. The payback period varied depending on the assumed location of the structure, as the water and sewer rates vary slightly between residences inside the City of Vancouver and those outside the city limits. The payback period for a single family residence was approximately 30 years; for multi-family residential project, the payback period was 22 years.

It is interesting to note that varying choices (like eliminating a garage, changing building materials, or reducing house size) which were outside the parameters of this study, could negate the fi rst cost increases to achieving the Living Building Standard. Furthermore, the payback period is directly related to the cost of energy and water. If energy and water rates were higher, the calculated payback period would be reduced. Utility rates in Vancouver and Clark County are lower than other municipalities in the region where we have performed similar payback calculations. While lower rates may keep individual customer bills low, they also create a disincentive to building green in the local area.

Incentives also infl uence payback. Projects in the CIty of Vancouver and Clark County can utilize federal and state incentives for many of the project’s energy related features. Other jurisdictions offer additional incentives which lower fi rst costs further.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 19Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix A: Benefi ts

Bar

rier

sB

enefi

ts

Pub

licP

riva

teCo

mm

unit

y

INST

ITU

TIO

NA

L/P

RO

CES

S B

AR

RIE

RS

Expe

dite

d or

pri

orit

y pe

rmit

pro

cess

ing

prog

ram

Con

side

r ut

ilizi

ng e

xist

ing

gree

n bu

ildin

g st

anda

rds

as a

ref

eren

ce

for

achi

evin

g gr

een

build

ing

perf

orm

ance

.

$Es

tabl

ishe

s a

prot

ocol

for

proj

ects

•

that

allo

ws

them

to b

e m

ore

easi

ly

cate

gori

zed

to a

void

del

ays

in

perm

ittin

g.

Pro

vide

s a

smoo

ther

pro

cess

.•

$Ti

me

save

d in

per

mitt

ing

will

sav

e •

deve

lope

rs m

oney

.

Pro

vide

s a

smoo

ther

pro

cess

.•

Bui

lds

indu

stry

rec

ogni

tion

of e

stab

lishe

d •

gree

n bu

ildin

g st

anda

rds

and

prac

tices

.

$

Enco

urag

es s

usta

inab

le d

evel

opm

ent a

nd

• re

sour

ce c

onse

rvat

ion.

Get

s m

ore

sust

aina

ble

deve

lopm

ent i

nto

the

• co

mm

unity

mor

e qu

ickl

y.

Cos

t sav

ings

may

be

refl e

cted

in lo

wer

•

hous

ing

pric

es.

In-H

ouse

Man

dato

ry

Trai

ning

s

Com

bine

d tr

aini

ngs

with

m

onth

ly o

r qu

arte

rly

mee

tings

be

twee

n bu

ildin

g offi c

ials

, pla

ns

exam

iner

s, a

nd in

spec

tors

to

lear

n ab

out n

ew te

chno

logi

es a

nd

coor

dina

te c

omm

unic

atio

n on

gr

een

build

ing

proj

ects

.

Bri

ng in

exp

erts

from

the

priv

ate

sect

or a

nd u

tiliz

e in

-hou

se

expe

rts

to te

ach

trai

ning

s,

and

incl

ude fi e

ld tr

ips

to s

ee

sust

aina

ble

deve

lopm

ent

stra

tegi

es in

-pla

ce.

$

Pro

vide

s co

ordi

nate

d re

spon

ses

• an

d co

nsis

tenc

y.

Util

izes

exp

ertis

e of

loca

l •

com

mun

ity.

Som

e in

dust

ry e

xper

ts m

ay b

e •

will

ing

to d

onat

e so

me

serv

ices

fo

r tr

aini

ng, a

llow

ing

for

staf

f to

gain

exp

ande

d kn

owle

dge

of g

reen

bu

ildin

g at

low

cos

t to

the

agen

cy.

Coo

rdin

ated

res

pons

es a

nd c

onsi

sten

cy.

•

In a

dditi

on to

pri

mar

y be

nefi t

of e

duca

ting

• pu

blic

sec

tor

staf

f, th

ere

may

be

reci

proc

al

shar

ing

of in

form

atio

n in

bot

h di

rect

ions

.

B

ette

r tr

aini

ng r

esul

ts in

bet

ter

prod

ucts

on

• th

e m

arke

t.

Man

dato

ry G

reen

Pre

-A

pplic

atio

n M

eeti

ngs

Earl

y de

sign

mee

tings

.

Om

buds

man

or

“gre

en

cham

pion

.”

$

Allo

ws

staf

f to

bett

er s

ched

ule

• re

view

s, a

nd o

btai

n ad

ditio

nal

info

rmat

ion

need

ed p

rior

to r

evie

w

dead

lines

of a

sub

mitt

ed p

roje

ct.

Com

mun

icat

ion

with

team

ear

lier

• in

the

proc

ess

can

ultim

atel

y re

sult

in

a q

uick

er r

evie

w p

roce

ss a

nd

less

sta

ff ti

me

spen

t ove

rall.

$ $

Cha

mpi

on p

rovi

des

a si

ngle

poi

nt

• of

con

tact

thro

ugho

ut th

e pr

oces

s,

stre

amlin

ing

the

proc

ess.

Red

uces

tim

e in

per

mitt

ing

by e

limin

atin

g •

the

“tur

n in

, get

feed

back

, tur

n in

aga

in,

get f

eedb

ack”

app

roac

h to

pro

ject

rev

iew

.

Allo

ws

for

dial

ogue

bet

wee

n re

view

er a

nd

• ap

plic

atio

n to

faci

litat

e de

cisi

ons.

Allo

ws

deci

sion

s ab

out n

ew g

reen

bui

ldin

g •

idea

s to

hap

pen

muc

h ea

rlie

r in

the

proc

ess

whi

le th

ey c

an b

e m

ore

easi

ly b

e m

odifi

ed.

$

Cos

t sav

ings

from

str

eam

lined

pro

cess

may

be

• refl e

cted

in lo

wer

hou

sing

pri

ces.

Bet

ter

com

mun

icat

ion

resu

lts

in b

ette

r •

prod

ucts

on

the

mar

ket.

Gre

en B

uild

ing

Tech

nica

l A

ssis

tanc

e P

rogr

am

Inte

rnal

edu

catio

n an

d ou

trea

ch.

Tech

nica

l ass

ista

nce

prog

ram

.

Tech

nica

l coo

rdin

atio

n gr

oup.

Leve

rage

exi

stin

g co

nser

vatio

n pr

ogra

ms.

Allo

ws

agen

cies

to tr

ack

proj

ects

•

earl

ier,

pla

n re

sour

ces

for

revi

ew.

Age

ncie

s ca

n he

lp s

et p

rior

ities

, •

brin

g re

sour

ces

to p

roje

cts.

Can

incr

ease

inte

ract

ion

betw

een

• di

ffer

ent a

genc

ies.

Mak

es e

duca

tiona

l res

ourc

es a

vaila

ble

to

• de

velo

pmen

t tea

ms.

Pro

vide

s a

star

ting

poin

t to

brin

g in

new

•

and

inno

vativ

e su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t de

sign

str

ateg

ies.

Im

prov

es p

rodu

cts

on th

e m

arke

t.•

Soc

ieta

l

$

F

inan

cial

Env

iron

men

tal

LEGEND

20 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix A: Benefi ts

Bar

rier

sB

enefi

ts

Pub

licP

riva

teCo

mm

unit

y

BA

RR

IER

S TO

EN

ERG

Y EF

FIC

IEN

CY

Dev

elop

Gui

delin

es fo

r P

erm

itti

ng R

enew

able

Ene

rgy

and

Pas

sive

Hea

ting

/Coo

ling

Syst

ems

Defi

ne

stan

dard

s fo

r ur

ban

and

rura

l sm

all s

cale

win

d en

ergy

sy

stem

s, p

hoto

volt

aic

and

sola

r th

erm

al in

stal

latio

ns, p

assi

ve

sola

r de

sign

, and

nat

ural

ve

ntila

tion.

Cre

ates

a c

omm

on b

asel

ine

for

• em

ergi

ng te

chno

logi

es.

$

Pro

vide

s pr

edic

tabi

lity

in th

e pe

rmitt

ing

• pr

oces

s.

Red

uced

ene

rgy

cost

s ov

er th

e lif

e of

the

• bu

ildin

g.

$H

elps

cut

pol

lutio

n fr

om fo

ssil

fuel

s th

roug

h •

a pr

ogra

m th

at s

uppo

rts

dive

rsifi

ed, c

lean

er

ener

gy s

ourc

es.

Cons

ider

Den

sity

Bon

uses

for

Ener

gy E

ffi c

ienc

y M

easu

res

Incr

ease

den

sity

for

cott

age

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ents

.

Incr

ease

fl oo

r ar

ea r

atio

s (F

AR

) fo

r hi

gh p

erfo

rman

ce p

roje

cts.

$C

ultiv

ates

inno

vatio

n w

ith m

inim

al

• in

vest

men

t – i.

e., n

o ca

sh s

ubsi

dies

or

sta

ff ti

me.

$ $A

llow

s m

ore

deve

lopm

ent,

pote

ntia

l •

inco

me.

Red

uced

ene

rgy

cost

s.•

$

Supp

orts

gro

wth

whi

le p

rese

rvin

g la

rge

trac

ts

• of

und

evel

oped

land

whi

ch m

ay s

erve

as

a co

llect

ive

reso

urce

for

the

larg

er c

omm

unity

an

d ot

her

spec

ies.

Cre

ates

liva

ble

com

mun

ities

at d

ensi

ties

that

•

allo

w fo

r se

rvic

es to

dev

elop

nea

r re

side

ntia

l de

velo

pmen

t.

Red

uced

pol

lutio

n fr

om fo

ssil

fuel

s th

roug

h •

low

er e

nerg

y us

e.

Am

end

SEPA

to In

clud

e Ev

alua

tion

and

Mit

igat

ion

of

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

from

New

Con

stru

ctio

n P

roje

cts

Incl

udin

g Em

bodi

ed E

nerg

y of

Mat

eria

ls, C

onst

ruct

ion

Act

ivit

ies,

and

Ong

oing

Ope

rati

ng

Ener

gy

Ada

pt p

rogr

ams

and

reso

urce

s fr

om o

ther

juri

sdic

tions

(Kin

g C

ount

y, s

tate

).

Gen

erat

es d

ata

to e

valu

ate

• pr

ogre

ss to

war

d G

HG

red

uctio

n.

Pro

vide

s co

mpa

rabl

e m

etri

cs

• ac

ross

sta

te.

Link

s al

l env

iron

men

tal a

sses

smen

t •

to a

sin

gle

prog

ram

, acr

oss

all s

tate

ju

risd

ictio

ns.

Pro

vide

s a

met

ric

to e

valu

ate

cons

truc

tion’

s •

impa

ct o

n gr

eenh

ouse

gas

em

issi

on.

Red

uced

pol

lutio

n fr

om fo

ssil

fuel

s.•

Req

uire

and

Enf

orce

P

erfo

rman

ce T

esti

ng to

de

mon

stra

te R

esid

enti

al E

nerg

y Co

de C

ompl

ianc

e

Req

uire

blo

wer

doo

r te

stin

g on

ne

w r

esid

entia

l.

Dev

elop

a jo

b tr

aini

ng p

rogr

am

arou

nd b

low

er d

oor

test

ing.

Ensu

res

mea

sura

ble

benefi t

from

•

ener

gy p

olic

ies,

as

oppo

sed

to

desi

gn; i

.e. t

ests

inst

alla

tion,

not

ju

st d

esig

n in

tent

.

$

Pro

vide

s as

sura

nce

that

pro

ject

ed e

nerg

y •

savi

ngs

will

be

achi

eved

.

Red

uced

ene

rgy

cost

s ov

er li

fe o

f the

•

proj

ect.

$ $

Pot

entia

l gre

en b

uild

ing

job

prog

ram

.•

Red

uced

pol

lutio

n fr

om fo

ssil

fuel

s.•

Impr

ove

the

ener

gy e

ffi ci

ency

of t

he b

uild

ing

• st

ock

for

the

entir

e co

mm

unity

.

Dev

elop

a D

istr

ict E

nerg

y D

emon

stra

tion

Pro

ject

Ord

inan

ce

Add

ress

land

use

pla

nnin

g is

sues

as

soci

ated

with

cro

ssin

g pr

oper

ty

boun

dari

es, u

tility

con

nect

ion

requ

irem

ents

, and

ong

oing

m

aint

enan

ce a

nd m

anag

emen

t fo

r di

stri

ct s

yste

ms.

Gre

ater

zon

ing fl e

xibi

lity

for

pilo

t pr

ojec

ts w

ith r

equi

red

repo

rtin

g.

Dem

onst

ratio

n pr

ojec

t allo

ws

• al

l par

ties

to b

ette

r un

ders

tand

re

quir

emen

ts, p

oten

tial o

f dis

tric

t sy

stem

s to

faci

litat

e w

ider

ado

ptio

n as

app

ropr

iate

.

$

Sim

plifi

es a

ppro

vals

pro

cess

ass

ocia

ted

• w

ith s

pecifi c

pro

ject

s.

Allo

ws

mul

tiple

pro

pert

y ow

ners

to

• co

llabo

rate

to a

chie

ve e

nerg

y sa

ving

s.

$

Pro

duce

s en

ergy

at l

ocal

leve

l, re

duci

ng

• de

pend

ence

on

conv

entio

nal (

and

ofte

n po

llutin

g) s

ourc

es.

Red

uces

dem

and

for

new

ene

rgy

• in

fras

truc

ture

to b

e bu

ilt.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 21Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix A: Benefi tsB

arri

ers

Ben

efi t

s

Pub

licP

riva

teCo

mm

unit

y

BA

RR

IER

S FO

R N

ON

-CO

NVE

NTI

ON

AL

GR

EEN

BU

ILD

ING

STR

UC

TUR

ES

All

ow F

lexi

bilit

y w

ithi

n th

e B

uild

ing

Code

s fo

r “I

ncub

ator

” P

ilot P

roje

cts

to T

est A

lter

nati

ve

Gre

en M

ater

ials

$

Red

uces

rep

etiti

on fo

r re

view

ers

by

• pr

ovid

ing

guid

elin

es fo

r de

velo

pers

to

follo

w.

Red

uces

res

earc

h tim

e ne

eded

to

• ap

prov

e al

tern

ate

tech

nolo

gies

.

Allo

ws

emer

ging

sys

tem

s to

ent

er th

e •

mar

ket a

head

of c

hang

es in

sta

te a

nd

natio

nal c

odes

.

If co

mbi

ned

with

mon

itori

ng r

equi

rem

ents

, •

prov

ides

rea

l wor

ld d

ata

on m

ater

ial

perf

orm

ance

in lo

cal c

ondi

tions

.

Dev

elop

Cod

e G

uida

nce

for

Stra

wba

le S

truc

ture

s

Util

ize

code

gui

danc

e la

ngua

ge

from

oth

er ju

risd

ictio

ns.

Pro

vide

s co

nsis

tenc

y w

ith o

ther

•

juri

sdic

tions

and

ben

efi t

s fr

om

less

ons

lear

ned

else

whe

re.

Faci

litat

es a

dopt

ion

of p

rove

n te

chno

logy

.•

Pro

vide

s in

form

atio

n on

a s

pecifi c

gre

en

• bu

ildin

g te

chni

que.

Dev

elop

an

Adv

isor

y Co

mm

itte

e of

Gre

en B

uild

ing

Expe

rts

for

Alt

erna

tive

Tec

hnol

ogie

s

Ass

embl

e a

grou

p of

thir

d-pa

rty

expe

rts

char

ged

with

rev

iew

ing

data

sup

plie

d by

the

appl

ican

t an

d m

akin

g re

com

men

datio

ns to

bu

ildin

g offi c

ials

.

Par

ticip

ate

on th

e C

ity

of P

ortl

and’

s A

lter

nativ

e Te

chno

logi

es C

omm

ittee

, or

deve

lop

a si

mila

r co

mm

ittee

sp

ecifi

c to

City

and

Cou

nty

proj

ects

.

$

Info

rmat

ion

shar

ing

impr

oves

•

know

ledg

e ba

se fo

r al

l age

ncie

s.

Red

uces

res

earc

h tim

e ne

eded

to

• ap

prov

e al

tern

ate

tech

nolo

gies

.

$

Pro

vide

s te

chni

cal r

esou

rces

for

proj

ects

.•

Faci

litie

s a

fast

er tu

rn-a

roun

d tim

e.•

Pro

vide

s a

foru

m fo

r th

e di

ssem

inat

ion

of

• gr

een

build

ing

tech

nolo

gies

DR

IVEW

AY &

FIR

E AC

CES

S R

OA

D W

IDTH

S

Dev

elop

Cod

e G

uida

nce

on

Acc

epta

ble

and

Bes

t Pra

ctic

es

for

Low

Impa

ct D

evel

opm

ent

Pro

vide

edu

catio

n an

d gu

idan

ce

to d

evel

oper

s on

cod

e-ac

cept

able

LI

D p

ract

ices

.

$C

ode

guid

ance

will

hel

p en

sure

•

that

app

llica

tions

are

com

plet

e,

and

addr

ess

conc

erns

iden

tifi e

d by

ag

enci

es.

$ $

LID

sol

utio

ns a

re o

ften

mor

e co

st e

ffec

tive,

•

redu

cing

infr

astr

uctu

re c

osts

for

larg

e pi

pes,

det

entio

n / r

eten

tion

faci

litie

s an

d as

soci

ated

exc

avat

ion

for

thes

e fa

cilit

ies.

Pre

-app

rove

d pr

actic

es s

impl

ify d

esig

n •

and

perm

it re

view

pro

cess

es.

$In

fras

truc

ture

cos

ts fo

r ne

w fa

cilit

ies

are

• re

duce

d, th

ereb

y re

duci

ng c

osts

for

all.

22 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix A: Benefi tsB

arri

ers

Ben

efi t

s

Pub

licP

riva

teCo

mm

unit

y

Upd

ate

Stan

dard

s fo

r St

reet

s,

Fire

Acc

ess

Roa

ds a

nd P

riva

te

Dri

vew

ays

Req

uire

LID

app

roac

hes

that

re

duce

impe

rvio

us s

urfa

ces

thro

ugh

the

desi

gn o

f nar

row

er

road

s an

d th

e us

e of

per

viou

s pa

vem

ents

.

$

Red

uced

mai

nten

ance

for

stre

ets.

•

Pro

vide

s an

inte

grat

ed a

nd

• ba

lanc

ed a

ppro

ach

to s

ever

al

som

etim

es o

ppos

ing

publ

ic s

afet

y fa

ctor

s: t

raffi

c ca

lmin

g, fi

re a

cces

s an

d st

orm

wat

er b

est m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

es.

$R

educ

ed c

onst

ruct

ion

cost

s.•

Enha

nced

dev

elop

men

ts.

•

Pot

entia

lly s

afer

str

eets

due

to s

low

er

• sp

eeds

.

Red

uced

dow

nstr

eam

impa

cts

due

to r

educ

ed

• im

perv

ious

sur

face

s.

Cons

ider

Sto

rmw

ater

M

anag

emen

t Uti

lity

or S

DC

Fee

R

educ

tion

s

Off

er fe

e re

duct

ions

for

LID

ap

proa

ches

that

man

age

stor

mw

ater

on-

site

.

Tier

fee

redu

ctio

ns to

pro

mot

e m

ore

aggr

essi

ve L

ID a

ppro

ache

s th

at in

clud

e co

mpr

ehen

sive

na

tura

l dra

inag

e st

rate

gies

.

$O

ver

long

term

, fee

red

uctio

ns

• ca

n be

off

set b

y re

duce

d im

pact

s on

pub

lic in

fras

truc

ture

, red

uced

pr

essu

re fo

r ex

pans

ion,

and

re

duce

d ca

pita

l exp

endi

ture

s.

$R

educ

ed fe

es to

rew

ard

best

pra

ctic

es.

•

$

Red

uced

dow

nstr

eam

impa

cts

due

to r

educ

ed

• im

perv

ious

sur

face

s.

Red

uced

pol

luta

nts

in o

ur n

atur

al w

ater

•

syst

ems.

Red

uces

bur

den

on p

ublic

infr

astr

uctu

re,

• le

adin

g to

red

uced

pre

ssur

e to

exp

and

faci

litie

s an

d as

soci

ated

cap

ital c

osts

.

MIN

IMU

M P

AR

KIN

G R

EQU

IREM

ENTS

Cons

ider

New

Pol

icie

s to

Red

uce

Min

imum

Par

king

Req

uire

men

ts

as P

art o

f an

Ove

rall

Str

ateg

y to

Incr

ease

Alt

erna

tive

Tr

ansp

orta

tion

in th

e N

ext C

ity/

Coun

ty C

ompr

ehen

sive

Pla

n U

pdat

e

Allo

w fo

r a

redu

ctio

n in

req

uire

d on

-site

par

king

in e

xcha

nge

for

dedi

cate

d ca

r-sh

are

vehi

cle

spac

es.

Red

uce

or e

limin

ate

park

ing

requ

irem

ents

for

deve

lopm

ents

lo

cate

d in

mix

ed-u

se d

istr

icts

.

Req

uire

bic

ycle

sto

rage

faci

litie

s.

Dev

elop

ped

estr

ian-

orie

nted

st

reet

sta

ndar

ds.

Req

uire

ped

estr

ian

conn

ectio

ns

betw

een

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ents

an

d ne

arby

com

mun

ity s

ervi

ces.

Allo

win

g gr

eate

r fl e

xibi

lity

for

affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng p

roje

cts

to

redu

ce o

n-si

te p

arki

ng p

rovi

ded

base

d on

nee

d.

$R

educ

es tr

affi c

and

par

king

by

• re

duci

ng in

cent

ives

to d

rive

alo

ne.

Pot

entia

l to

redu

ce im

perv

ious

•

surf

ace

impa

cts

on s

torm

wat

er

syst

em.

Red

ucin

g pa

rkin

g de

man

d fo

r •

hous

ing

- w

here

ser

vice

s an

d tr

ansi

t sup

port

are

in p

lace

-

crea

tes

an in

cent

ive

for

affo

rdab

le

hous

ing.

$ $

Red

uced

cos

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith p

rovi

ding

•

park

ing

that

wou

ld o

nly

be n

eede

d at

pea

k tim

es.

Con

trol

s co

sts

of p

roje

cts,

esp

ecia

lly

• af

ford

able

hou

sing

.

Con

trib

utes

to in

cent

ives

for

tran

sit.

•

Red

uces

spr

awlin

g ef

fect

of u

nder

deve

lope

d •

land

in p

arki

ng lo

ts.

Supp

orts

alt

erna

tive

tran

spor

tatio

n by

•

redu

cing

hea

vy tr

affi c

.

Enco

urag

emen

t of m

ixed

-use

dis

tric

ts c

an

• co

ntri

bute

to li

velie

r sa

fer

neig

hbor

hood

s,

whi

ch a

re o

ccup

ied

at m

ore

times

.

Supp

orts

bic

ycle

and

ped

estr

ian

trav

el, t

o •

redu

ce d

rivi

ng a

nd c

reat

e sa

fer

stre

ets.

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 23Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix A: Benefi tsB

arri

ers

Ben

efi t

s

Pub

licP

riva

teC

omm

unity

SETB

ACK

S &

SEP

AR

ATIO

N F

OR

RA

INW

ATER

HA

RVE

STIN

G C

ISTE

RN

S

Pro

vide

Gui

danc

e on

Des

igni

ng,

Per

mit

ting

, Ins

tall

ing,

and

M

aint

aini

ng R

ainw

ater

H

arve

stin

g Ci

ster

ns in

to N

ew

Cons

truc

tion

and

Ret

rofi t

A

pplic

atio

ns

$ $

Ado

ptio

n of

thes

e sy

stem

s re

duce

s •

impa

cts

on p

ublic

con

vent

iona

l in

fras

truc

ture

.

Red

uces

sta

ff r

evie

w ti

me

• by

pro

vidi

ng a

sta

ndar

d th

at

deve

lope

rs c

an fo

llow

.

$Im

prov

es p

roce

ss a

nd c

ost p

redi

ctab

ility

.•

Low

-im

pact

dev

elop

men

t can

ben

efi t

sur

face

•

stre

ams

by b

ette

r m

imic

king

nat

ural

sur

face

w

ater

fl ow

s, r

educ

ing

pool

ing

and fl o

odin

g.

Pro

vide

s st

orm

wat

er fo

r no

n-po

tabl

e •

appl

icat

ions

, con

serv

ing

reso

urce

s.

Rev

ise

Code

Req

uire

men

ts

for

Setb

acks

and

Bui

ldin

g Se

para

tion

for

Abo

ve-G

roun

d R

ainw

ater

Cis

tern

s

Elim

inat

e se

tbac

k an

d se

para

tion

requ

irem

ents

for

abov

e gr

ound

ci

ster

ns.

$ $

Supp

orts

ado

ptio

n of

low

impa

ct

• sy

stem

s to

red

uce

infr

astr

uctu

re

impa

cts.

Red

uces

sta

ff r

evie

w ti

me

• by

pro

vidi

ng a

sta

ndar

d th

at

deve

lope

rs c

an fo

llow

.

$W

ider

ado

ptio

n of

sim

ple

syst

ems

can

• re

duce

cos

t of l

ow im

pact

tech

nolo

gy.

Low

-im

pact

dev

elop

men

t can

ben

efi t

sur

face

•

stre

ams

by b

ette

r m

imic

king

nat

ural

sur

face

w

ater

fl ow

s, r

educ

ing

pool

ing

and fl o

odin

g.

Pro

vide

s st

orm

wat

er fo

r no

n-po

tabl

e •

appl

icat

ions

, con

serv

ing

reso

urce

s.

CLU

STER

DEV

ELO

PM

ENTS

/CO

TTAG

E H

OU

SIN

G

Dev

elop

New

Cit

y an

d Co

unty

Co

ttag

e H

ousi

ng C

odes

$Fa

cilit

ates

new

mod

els

of

• de

velo

pmen

t tha

t sup

port

co

mm

unity

bui

ldin

g an

d af

ford

able

ho

usin

g.

$Su

ppor

ts c

olla

bora

tive

mod

el fo

r •

deve

lopm

ent,

with

pot

entia

l to

redu

ce s

ite

infr

astr

uctu

re th

roug

h cl

uste

red

syst

ems.

C

lust

ered

dev

elop

men

t mod

els

typi

cally

•

pres

erve

land

for

habi

tat,

gree

n sp

ace,

etc

.

Mor

e ar

ea is

ava

ilabl

e fo

r na

tura

l infi

ltra

tion.

•

WAT

ER-R

ELAT

ED B

AR

RIE

RS

Pro

vide

Gui

danc

e on

Des

igni

ng,

Per

mit

ting

, Ins

tall

ing,

and

M

aint

aini

ng R

ainw

ater

H

arve

stin

g Ci

ster

ns

$R

educ

es im

pact

s on

pub

lic

• in

fras

truc

ture

.

Faci

litat

es a

dopt

ion

of lo

w-i

mpa

ct

• sy

stem

s.

LID

can

ben

efi t

sur

face

str

eam

s by

bet

ter

• m

imic

king

nat

ural

sur

face

wat

er fl

ows,

re

duci

ng p

oolin

g an

d fl o

odin

g.

Pro

vide

s st

orm

wat

er fo

r no

n-po

tabl

e •

appl

icat

ions

, con

serv

ing

reso

urce

s.

Coll

abor

ate

in a

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d-Sc

ale

Net

Zer

o W

ater

Pilo

t P

roje

ct

Dev

elop

a d

emon

stra

tion

ordi

nanc

e th

at a

llow

s fo

r fl e

xibi

lity

with

in th

e cu

rren

t co

des

for

a ne

ighb

orho

od-s

cale

de

velo

pmen

t with

net

zer

o w

ater

go

als.

Req

uire

mon

itori

ng a

nd r

epor

ting

of w

ater

use

and

was

tew

ater

re

duct

ion,

and

util

ize

data

to

supp

ort f

utur

e co

de u

pdat

es.

$

Pilo

t pro

ject

with

mon

itori

ng

• pr

ovid

es d

ata

for

futu

re p

roje

cts

and

for

impr

ovin

g dr

aft r

egul

atio

ns

and

stan

dard

s.

Red

uces

impa

ct o

n w

ater

sup

plie

s,

• st

orm

wat

er a

nd s

ewag

e co

llect

ion

syst

ems.

Faci

litat

es a

dopt

ion

of e

mer

ging

•

tech

nolo

gies

and

sys

tem

s.Es

tabl

ishe

s pr

eced

ents

for

colla

bora

tive

• ne

ighb

orho

od-s

cale

pro

ject

s.

24 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Inst

itut

iona

l/P

roce

ss B

arri

ers

Bar

rier

1:

Es

tabl

ish

an e

xped

ited

or

prio

rity

per

mit

proc

essi

ng

prog

ram

for

gree

n bu

ildin

g th

at a

chie

ves

a hi

gh le

vel

of g

reen

per

form

ance

(e.g

.

LEED

® G

old

cert

ifi ca

tion)

App

roac

h:

1A

. Con

side

r ut

ilizi

ng

exis

ting

gree

n bu

ildin

g st

anda

rds

as a

ref

eren

ce

for

achi

evin

g gr

een

build

ing

perf

orm

ance

.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

sta

ff F

TE:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

How

man

y pr

ojec

ts d

o yo

u se

e th

at h

ave

com

mitt

ed to

a g

reen

bui

ldin

g st

anda

rd?

Is th

ere

a re

sour

ce a

vaila

ble

on s

taff

that

cou

ld p

rovi

de g

reen

bui

ldin

g te

chni

cal

assi

stan

ce d

urin

g th

e re

view

pro

cess

?

Wha

t ext

ra ti

me

is in

volv

ed w

ith e

xped

ited/

prio

rity

per

mitt

ing?

Do

you

have

a p

erm

it fa

cilit

ator

that

cou

ld a

lso

prov

ide

this

ser

vice

?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

app

rox.

1 F

TE @

$11

0,00

0

City

Sol

id W

aste

: 1

- 2

FTE,

$60

,000

to $

120,

000

- po

tent

ial t

o sh

are

with

Cou

nty

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

sta

ff r

esou

rce

not c

urre

ntly

ava

ilabl

e

City

DR

S: L

ess

than

10%

of p

roje

cts

curr

entl

y ar

e gr

een;

Tim

e in

volv

ed d

epen

ds o

n th

e co

mpl

exity

of t

he p

roje

ct, u

sual

ly n

one

use

a m

ulti-

disc

iplin

ary

revi

ew te

am.

No

addi

tiona

l sta

ffi ng

; wou

ld a

ssig

n to

a s

easo

ned

revi

ew te

am

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: $

90,0

00; a

bout

10%

com

mit

to g

reen

goa

ls; s

taff

is b

uild

ing

know

ledg

e ba

se; e

xped

ited

perm

ittin

g is

ana

logo

us to

exi

stin

g ph

ased

per

mitt

ing,

ap

prox

10-

20%

pre

miu

m p

er p

roje

ct.

Lead

exa

min

er w

ould

per

form

pri

ority

re

view

s, w

ith c

ost i

dent

ifi ed

to fr

ee u

p tim

e fo

r th

is.

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g C

ost:

Are

ther

e ex

istin

g pr

ogra

ms

that

cou

ld b

e ut

ilize

d to

pro

vide

add

ition

al tr

aini

ng fo

r st

aff?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

app

rox.

$7,

500

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: $

7,50

0

City

DR

S: $

15,0

00 to

$20

,000

for

6 to

8 p

eopl

e

Gen

eral

: exp

lore

LEE

D tr

aini

ng fo

r st

aff;

trai

ning

s m

ust b

e ev

alua

ted

for

rele

vanc

e an

d su

bsta

nce

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew p

rogr

ams

to th

e pu

blic

?

Cou

ld a

n ex

istin

g ne

wsl

ette

r be

use

d to

mar

ket t

his

pote

ntia

l new

pro

gram

?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

app

rox.

$2,

500

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: $

22,0

00

Non

e to

min

imal

cos

ts -

from

the

Gen

eral

Fun

d

Gen

eral

: Gov

Del

iver

y pr

ogra

m, c

ity fl

yer,

pre

sent

atio

ns to

inte

rest

gro

ups;

exi

stin

g ne

wsl

ette

r av

aila

ble

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 25Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation IssuesB

arri

ers

Que

stio

nsA

nsw

ers

Inst

itut

iona

l/P

roce

ss B

arri

ers

Bar

rier

2:

D

evel

op in

-hou

se

man

dato

ry tr

aini

ngs

targ

eted

to p

lann

ers,

pl

ans

exam

iner

s, b

uild

ing

offi c

ials

, and

insp

ecto

rs.

App

roac

h:

2A

.Com

bine

d tr

aini

ngs

with

mon

thly

or

quar

terl

y m

eetin

gs b

etw

een

build

ing

offi c

ials

, pla

ns e

xam

iner

s,

and

insp

ecto

rs to

lear

n ab

out n

ew te

chno

logi

es

and

coor

dina

te

com

mun

icat

ion

on g

reen

bu

ildin

g pr

ojec

ts.

2B

. Bri

ng in

exp

erts

from

th

e pr

ivat

e se

ctor

and

ut

ilize

in-h

ouse

exp

erts

to

teac

h tr

aini

ngs,

and

in

clud

e fi e

ld tr

ips

to s

ee

sust

aina

ble

deve

lopm

ent

stra

tegi

es in

-pla

ce.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

sta

ff F

TE:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

How

man

y st

aff p

eopl

e sh

ould

att

end

the

trai

ning

s?

Are

ther

e gr

ant o

ppor

tuni

ties

to a

llow

for

staf

f allo

catio

n of

bill

able

tim

e?

Cou

ld a

bro

wn

bag

lunc

h fo

rum

be

utili

zed

to r

educ

e co

st?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

0.5

FTE

, $55

,000

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 0

.25

FTE,

$25

,000

. 6-

10 p

eopl

e to

trai

n

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.2

FTE

to 0

.25

FTE

City

SW

: $5,

000

curr

entl

y bu

dget

ed in

09-

10 C

.C. S

olid

Was

te B

udge

t for

10

staf

f

City

SW

: 10

- 15

sta

ff p

eopl

e sh

ould

att

end

trai

ning

No

spec

ifi c

gran

t opp

ortu

nitie

s id

entifi

ed

Bro

wn

bags

use

ful f

or o

ffi ce

sta

ff, l

ess

so fo

r fi e

ld s

taff

, and

may

be

of li

mite

d us

e fo

r sh

ort t

ime

fram

e tr

aini

ng

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g C

ost:

Are

ther

e kn

own

expe

rts

in th

e co

mm

unity

that

cou

ld b

e ut

ilize

d to

pro

vide

tr

aini

ngs?

Are

ther

e ex

istin

g tr

aini

ng r

esou

rces

that

cou

ld b

e us

ed fo

r gr

een

build

ing

trai

ning

s?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$20

,000

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: $

10,0

00

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

$20

0 fo

r m

ater

ials

City

SW

: $10

,000

for

outs

ide

trai

ners

and

2 d

ays

staf

f tim

e

City

HR

: es

timat

ed s

taff

tim

e fo

r ea

ch h

our

of tr

aini

ng: 4

for

desi

gn 9

one-

time

occu

rren

ce),

1 fo

r se

t-up

etc

. 1 fo

r de

liver

y (e

ach

pres

enta

tion)

Cou

nty

Sust

aina

bilit

y: $

500

in 0

9-10

bud

get f

or s

peak

ers

Cou

nty

stor

mw

ater

exp

ertis

e av

aila

ble

on s

taff

Gen

eral

: com

mun

ity r

esou

rces

are

ava

ilabl

e, w

ould

nee

d re

view

to e

nsur

e th

ey

mee

t spe

cifi c

trai

ning

nee

ds

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

N/A

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

N/A

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

Estim

ated

Infr

astr

uctu

re C

ost:

Do

you

have

spa

ces

avai

labl

e th

at c

ould

be

used

for

trai

ning

s?

Are

ther

e co

sts

asso

ciat

ed w

ith u

se o

f exi

stin

g sp

aces

?

Cou

ld o

ther

com

mun

ity r

esou

rces

be

used

?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$0

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: m

inim

al

No

infr

astr

uctu

re c

osts

ant

icip

ated

, pri

vate

sec

tor

trai

ners

cou

ld h

ost

Use

of C

ity s

pace

s m

ay h

ave

cost

s; C

ount

y no

t typ

ical

ly; p

riva

te s

ecto

r co

nfer

ence

ro

oms

coul

d be

use

d, w

hen

host

ing

26 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Inst

itut

iona

l/P

roce

ss B

arri

ers

Bar

rier

3:

Es

tabl

ish

man

dato

ry g

reen

“p

re-a

pplic

atio

n” m

eetin

gs

to in

volv

e bu

ildin

g offi c

ials

an

d re

view

ers

earl

y on

in

the

desi

gn p

roce

ss.

App

roac

h:

3A

. Pro

vide

ear

ly d

esig

n m

eetin

gs w

ith b

uild

ing

offi c

ials

and

rev

iew

ers

free

-of-

char

ge to

ap

plic

ants

as

an in

cent

ive

to e

ncou

rage

mor

e su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t pr

ojec

ts.

3B

. Ass

ign

the

gree

n pr

ojec

t an

ombu

dsm

an o

r “g

reen

cha

mpi

on”

with

in

the

depa

rtm

ent w

ho is

re

spon

sibl

e fo

r en

suri

ng a

fa

cilit

ated

rev

iew

pro

cess

, he

lpin

g to

add

ress

any

co

de o

bsta

cles

that

do

aris

e, a

nd c

omm

unic

atin

g w

ith p

roje

ct te

ams

on

poss

ible

sol

utio

ns.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

Estim

ated

Cos

t?

Do

you

requ

ire

pre-

apps

as

part

of y

our

proc

ess?

How

man

y pr

ojec

ts d

o yo

u se

e co

me

in th

e do

or w

ith s

usta

inab

ility

goa

ls?

Shou

ld th

is b

e so

met

hing

that

get

s ad

ded

to a

ll pr

ojec

ts, n

ot ju

st g

reen

one

s?

Is th

ere

a re

sour

ce a

vaila

ble

on s

taff

that

cou

ld p

rovi

de g

reen

bui

ldin

g re

com

men

datio

ns?

Cou

ld a

ny e

xist

ing

trai

ning

dol

lars

be

relo

cate

d?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$0

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: b

undl

ed w

ith c

osts

of i

n-ho

use

trai

ning

s, a

bove

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

$10

0,00

0 -

$120

,000

for

full

time

ombu

dsm

an

Gen

eral

: les

s th

an 1

0% o

f pro

ject

s cu

rren

tly

are

gree

n; m

ight

be

prem

atur

e to

re

quir

e “g

reen

pre

-app

” of

all

proj

ects

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g C

ost:

Is th

ere

a m

echa

nism

to p

rovi

de s

taff

acc

ess

to tr

aini

ngs?

[Fo

r ex

ampl

e, b

row

n ba

g lu

nche

s fo

r st

aff w

ith in

dust

ry e

xper

ts fa

cilit

atin

g tr

aini

ng?]

Cou

ld y

ou u

se e

xist

ing

trai

ning

bud

gets

and

rea

lloca

te ti

me

to g

reen

bui

ldin

g tr

aini

ng?

For

exam

ple

do a

day

long

trai

ning

ses

sion

?

Cou

ld a

gra

nt b

e ut

ilize

d?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$0

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: b

undl

ed w

ith c

osts

of i

n-ho

use

trai

ning

s, a

bove

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

Dra

w o

n P

ortl

and

expe

rts;

use

larg

e se

ssio

n fo

r to

pics

of

wid

e ap

peal

, sm

alle

r se

ssio

ns fo

r sp

ecifi

c to

pics

; city

trai

ning

bud

gets

are

cur

rent

ly

froz

en

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew p

rogr

ams

to th

e pu

blic

?

Cou

ld a

n ex

istin

g ne

wsl

ette

r be

use

d to

mar

ket t

his

pote

ntia

l new

pro

gram

?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$2,

500

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: b

undl

ed w

ith c

osts

of i

n-ho

use

trai

ning

s, a

bove

Res

ourc

es: g

over

nmen

t del

iver

y, c

ity fl

yer,

pre

sent

atio

ns to

inte

rest

gro

ups

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 27Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation IssuesB

arri

ers

Que

stio

nsA

nsw

ers

Inst

itut

iona

l/P

roce

ss B

arri

ers

Bar

rier

4:

C

reat

e a

gree

n bu

ildin

g te

chni

cal a

ssis

tanc

e pr

ogra

m.

App

roac

h:

4A

. Pro

vide

edu

catio

n an

d ou

trea

ch in

tern

ally

to C

ity

and

Cou

nty

staf

f as

wel

l as

to th

e pr

ivat

e de

velo

pmen

t co

mm

unity

.

4B

. Dev

elop

a c

ross

-ju

risd

ictio

nal t

echn

ical

as

sist

ance

pro

gram

be

twee

n Va

ncou

ver

and

Cla

rk C

ount

y an

d po

ssib

ly

incl

udin

g ot

her

citie

s/to

wns

with

in th

e C

ount

y to

he

lp im

prov

e co

nsis

tenc

y an

d st

retc

h lim

ited

reso

urce

s.

4C

. Lev

erag

e ex

istin

g co

nser

vatio

n pr

ogra

ms

fund

ed th

roug

h lo

cal

utili

ties

(suc

h as

sol

id

was

te, d

rink

ing

wat

er,

stor

mw

ater

, was

tew

ater

or

ener

gy)

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

sta

ff F

TE:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Wha

t exi

stin

g co

nser

vatio

n pr

ogra

ms

exis

t tha

t hav

e fu

nds

allo

cate

d fo

r gr

een

build

ing

proj

ects

? [i

.e. s

olid

was

te r

educ

tion

prog

ram

s, u

tility

Ene

rgy

Con

serv

atio

n in

cent

ives

]

Is th

ere

prec

eden

ce fo

r th

e ci

ty /c

ount

y pa

rtne

r w

ith o

ther

pub

lic a

genc

ies?

Can

you

leve

rage

acr

oss

juri

sdic

tions

for

exam

ple

wou

ld V

anco

uver

aff

orda

ble

hous

ing

part

icip

ate?

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 0

.75

FTE

$75,

000

beyo

nd c

osts

of i

n-ho

use

trai

ning

s, a

bove

Cou

nty

Solid

Was

te:

0.5

- FT

E, $

35,0

00

Nee

d to

rev

ise

rate

str

uctu

re

City

Wat

er:

mod

el o

n or

exp

and

exis

ting

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

prog

ram

Res

ourc

es/p

artn

ers:

Cha

mbe

r of

Com

mer

ce, B

uild

ers’

Ass

oc.

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g C

ost:

Cou

ld lo

cal g

reen

bui

ldin

g ex

pert

s be

util

ized

to m

inim

ize

trai

ning

cos

ts?

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g:lo

cal e

xper

ts c

ould

be

utili

zed,

but

onl

y to

aug

men

t in-

hous

e pr

ogra

mm

atic

sol

utio

n

Cou

nty

Solid

Was

te: $

350/

pers

on; E

xper

ts c

ould

be

used

, if i

nteg

rate

d w

ith C

ount

y re

quir

emen

ts, a

lter

nativ

ely

coul

d pa

rtne

r w

ith a

n in

dust

ry a

ssoc

iatio

n

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew p

rogr

ams

to th

e pu

blic

?

Cou

ld a

n ex

istin

g ne

wsl

ette

r be

use

d to

mar

ket t

his

pote

ntia

l new

pro

gram

?

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: b

undl

ed w

ith c

osts

of i

n-ho

use

trai

ning

s, a

bove

Cou

nty

Solid

Was

te:

$5,0

00 fo

r m

ater

ials

; col

labo

rate

with

sol

id w

aste

and

wat

er

prog

ram

new

slet

ters

Res

ourc

es: a

dver

tisem

ents

, web

mat

eria

ls, t

arge

ted

mai

lings

, and

pub

lic

pres

enta

tions

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

28 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Bar

rier

s to

Ene

rgy

Effi c

ienc

y

Bar

rier

1:

Defi

ne

requ

irem

ents

and

de

velo

p gu

idel

ines

for

perm

ittin

g re

new

able

en

ergy

and

pas

sive

he

atin

g/co

olin

g sy

stem

s.

App

roac

h:

1A

. Defi

ne

stan

dard

s fo

r ur

ban

and

rura

l sm

all

scal

e w

ind

ener

gy s

yste

ms,

ph

otov

olta

ic a

nd s

olar

th

erm

al in

stal

latio

ns,

pass

ive

sola

r de

sign

, and

na

tura

l ven

tilat

ion.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

Estim

ated

Cos

t?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to g

et a

new

cod

e/st

anda

rd a

dopt

ed?

How

are

that

pro

cess

fund

ed?

Wou

ld d

evel

opm

ent o

f ene

rgy

effi c

ienc

y or

dina

nces

req

uire

any

add

ition

al

reso

urce

s?

If so

, are

ther

e re

sour

ces

in th

e lo

cal c

omm

unity

you

can

util

ize?

Is it

pos

sibl

e to

com

bine

sev

eral

(or

all)

of th

ese

proc

esse

s to

geth

er to

min

imiz

e co

st?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.5

FTE

, $50

,000

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 0

.5 F

TE, $

50,0

00

City

Sol

id W

aste

: 1 F

TE, $

65,0

00

City

: pro

cess

is fu

nded

by

fees

; pro

posa

l can

com

e fr

om th

e pu

blic

or

priv

ate

sect

or;

inpu

t fro

m m

ultip

le a

genc

ies,

sta

keho

lder

s. if

all

chan

ges

are

bund

led,

ther

e w

ould

be

a r

educ

ed c

ost,

paid

thro

ugh

Gen

eral

Fun

d

Cou

nty:

fund

s w

ould

nee

d to

be

prov

ided

by

Boa

rd, o

r gr

ant f

undi

ng p

ursu

ed;

plan

ning

/zon

ing

chan

ges

can

be b

undl

ed fo

r sa

ving

s, p

roba

bly

not w

ith B

uild

ing

Res

ourc

es; M

unic

ipal

Res

earc

h an

d Se

rvic

es C

ente

r (M

RSC

), B

onne

ville

Pow

er

Adm

inis

trat

ion

(BPA

), C

ity o

f Por

tlan

d, s

ome

stak

ehol

der

orga

niza

tions

for

spec

ializ

ed k

now

ledg

e

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g C

ost:

Who

wou

ld n

eed

to g

et tr

aini

ng a

bout

the

new

cod

e gu

ides

? In

spec

tors

/pla

ns

exam

iner

s/et

c.

Cou

nty:

com

bine

with

oth

er z

onin

g ch

ange

s, fo

r sa

ving

s in

trai

ning

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

achC

osts

:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew c

ode

guid

es to

the

publ

ic?

Cou

ld th

e co

de g

uide

s be

ava

ilabl

e on

line

?

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

$1,

000

for

publ

ic o

pen

hous

e

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

$4,

000

for

stak

ehol

der

outr

each

Res

ourc

es: p

ublic

ope

n ho

uses

, hea

ring

s, s

take

hold

er o

utre

ach,

web

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 29Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation IssuesB

arri

ers

Que

stio

nsA

nsw

ers

Bar

rier

s to

Ene

rgy

Effi c

ienc

y

Bar

rier

2:

C

onsi

der

dens

ity b

onus

es

for

ener

gy e

ffi ci

ency

m

easu

res.

App

roac

h:

2A

. Inc

reas

e de

nsity

fo

r co

ttag

e ho

usin

g de

velo

pmen

ts.

2B

. Inc

reas

e fl o

or a

rea

ratio

s (F

AR

) for

hig

h pe

rfor

man

ce p

roje

cts.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

Estim

ated

Cos

t?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to g

et a

new

cod

e/st

anda

rd o

pted

?

How

are

they

fund

ed?

Wou

ld d

evel

opm

ent o

f ene

rgy

effi c

ienc

y or

dina

nces

req

uire

any

add

ition

al r

esou

rces

? If

so, a

re th

ere

reso

urce

s in

the

loca

l com

mun

ity y

ou c

an u

tiliz

e?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.5

FTE

, $50

,000

plu

s re

sear

ch c

osts

Cha

nges

in d

ensi

ty m

ay p

oten

tially

acc

eler

ate

the

need

for

new

sew

ers

in s

ome

area

s

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

trai

ning

cos

t?

Who

wou

ld n

eed

to g

et tr

aini

ng a

bout

the

new

cod

e gu

ides

? In

spec

tors

/pla

ns

exam

iner

s/et

c.

none

iden

tifi e

d

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew c

ode

guid

es to

the

publ

ic?

Cou

ld th

e co

de g

uide

s be

ava

ilabl

e on

line

?

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

$1,

000

Res

ourc

es: b

roch

ures

, web

info

rmat

ion,

dir

ect o

utre

ach

to b

uild

ing

indu

stry

, web

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Bar

rier

3:

A

men

d SE

PA to

incl

ude

eval

uatio

n an

d m

itiga

tion

of g

reen

hous

e ga

s em

issi

ons

from

new

co

nstr

uctio

n pr

ojec

ts

incl

udin

g em

bodi

ed e

nerg

y of

mat

eria

ls, c

onst

ruct

ion

activ

ities

, and

ong

oing

op

erat

ing

ener

gy.

App

roac

h:

3A

. Ada

pt p

rogr

ams

and

reso

urce

s fr

om o

ther

ju

risd

ictio

ns (K

ing

Cou

nty,

St

ate)

.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Kin

g C

ount

y: E

ffor

t req

uire

d pa

rt o

f 2 s

taff

for

1-2

year

per

iod.

On-

goin

g op

erat

iona

l cos

t has

not

bee

n fo

rmal

ly e

stim

ated

; sta

ff ti

me

will

var

y de

pend

ing

on

dept

h of

rev

iew

of S

EPA

mat

eria

ls.

Pot

entia

lly $

50-1

50,0

00/p

er y

ear

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

0.2

5 FT

E

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

$10

,000

cos

t per

yea

r; n

eed

for

2 w

eeks

trai

ning

, on-

goin

g st

affi n

g an

d so

ftw

are

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

30 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Bar

rier

s to

Ene

rgy

Effi c

ienc

y

Bar

rier

4:

R

equi

re a

nd e

nfor

ce

perf

orm

ance

test

ing

to

dem

onst

rate

Res

iden

tial

Ener

gy C

ode

com

plia

nce.

App

roac

h:

4A

. Dev

elop

a p

roce

ss

for

requ

irin

g bl

ower

doo

r te

stin

g on

new

con

stru

ctio

n re

side

ntia

l pro

ject

s.

4B

. Dev

elop

a jo

b tr

aini

ng

prog

ram

aro

und

blow

er

door

test

ing

to h

elp

supp

ort l

ocal

eco

nom

ic

deve

lopm

ent.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

Estim

ated

Cos

t?

Are

you

r in

spec

tors

fam

iliar

with

blo

wer

doo

r ty

pe te

stin

g?

Wha

t add

ition

al p

aper

wor

k w

ould

be

invo

lved

if a

thir

d pa

rty

cert

ifi ca

tion

is

prov

ided

in li

eu o

f city

test

ing?

Not

e: C

ost o

f blo

wer

doo

r in

pri

vate

sec

tor

is $

200

to $

300

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

to b

e do

ne b

y (a

ppro

ved)

3rd

par

ty, a

t dev

elop

er’s

dir

ect c

ost

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 0

.5 F

TE, $

50,0

00

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

trai

ning

cos

t?

Cou

ld a

n ex

istin

g co

mm

unity

col

lege

pro

gram

be

utili

zed

for

trai

ning

?

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: $

5,00

0; p

oten

tial t

o us

e co

nsul

ting fi r

m

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew p

roce

dure

s to

the

mar

ket?

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

Estim

ated

Infr

astr

uctu

re c

osts

: ___

____

Wha

t equ

ipm

ent i

s av

aila

ble

to d

o bl

ower

doo

r te

stin

g?

Cou

nty:

$2,

000

if pr

ogra

m r

un in

-hou

se

Bar

rier

5:

D

evel

op a

dis

tric

t ene

rgy

dem

onst

ratio

n pr

ojec

t or

dina

nce.

App

roac

h:

5A

. Add

ress

land

use

pl

anni

ng is

sues

ass

ocia

ted

with

cro

ssin

g pr

oper

ty

boun

dari

es, u

tility

co

nnec

tion

requ

irem

ents

, an

d on

goin

g m

aint

enan

ce

and

man

agem

ent f

or

dist

rict

sys

tem

s.

5B

. Allo

w fo

r gr

eate

r fl e

xibi

lity

with

in th

e cu

rren

t co

des

for

pilo

t pro

ject

s an

d re

quir

e re

port

ing

to in

form

fu

ture

cod

e am

endm

ents

.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

Estim

ated

Cos

t?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to g

et a

new

ord

inan

ce a

dopt

ed?

How

are

they

fund

ed?

Wou

ld d

evel

opm

ent o

f dis

tric

t ene

rgy

ordi

nanc

es r

equi

re a

ny a

dditi

onal

res

ourc

es?

If so

, are

ther

e re

sour

ces

in th

e lo

cal c

omm

unity

you

can

util

ize?

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.1

FTE

; ord

inan

ce c

osts

are

sec

onda

ry to

cos

ts o

f pa

rtne

rshi

p, it

is im

port

ant t

o id

entif

y a

stro

ng p

roje

ct p

artn

er

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.5

FTE

pla

nnin

g, 0

.5 F

TE le

gal,

$100

,000

, inc

lude

s le

gal

inpu

t to

defi n

e di

stri

ct a

nd s

hare

d re

spon

sibi

litie

s

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

trai

ning

cos

t?

Who

wou

ld n

eed

to g

et tr

aini

ng a

bout

the

new

ord

inan

ce?

Insp

ecto

rs/ p

lans

ex

amin

ers/

etc

.

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew c

ode

guid

es to

the

publ

ic?

Cou

ld th

e co

de g

uide

s be

ava

ilabl

e on

line

?

Wha

t is

invo

lved

in in

form

ing

the

publ

ic a

bout

a n

ew p

ilot p

roje

ct?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

web

site

, new

s re

leas

es, d

irec

t mai

ling,

pub

lic fo

rum

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 31Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation IssuesB

arri

ers

Que

stio

nsA

nsw

ers

Bar

rier

s fo

r N

on-C

onve

ntio

nal G

reen

Bui

ldin

g St

ruct

ures

Bar

rier

1:

A

llow

fl ex

ibili

ty w

ithin

th

e bu

ildin

g co

des

for

“Inc

ubat

or”

pilo

t pro

ject

s to

test

alt

erna

tive

gree

n m

ater

ials

.

App

roac

h:

1A

Ada

pt a

ppro

ach

sim

ilar

to o

ther

juri

sdic

tions

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

sta

ff F

TE r

equi

red

to d

evel

op p

ilot p

roje

ct g

uide

line:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Is th

ere

staf

f ava

ilabl

e to

rev

iew

exi

stin

g gu

ides

from

oth

er ju

risd

ictio

ns to

use

as

test

s?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$0;

no

addi

tiona

l cos

ts fo

r al

tern

ate

mat

eria

ls, s

yste

ms

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 0

.5 F

TE, $

50,0

00

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g tim

e fo

r P

lans

Exa

min

ers:

Are

exi

stin

g pl

ans

exam

iner

s qu

alifi

ed to

insp

ect a

lter

nate

gre

en m

ater

ials

or

is

addi

tiona

l tra

inin

g re

quir

ed?

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 4

0-80

hou

rs, d

epen

ding

on

scop

e of

trai

ning

; gen

eral

ly h

igh

leve

l of

trai

ning

and

kno

wle

dge

base

, but

som

e sp

ecia

lized

trai

ning

wou

ld b

e re

quir

ed.

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Wha

t is

invo

lved

in in

form

ing

the

publ

ic a

bout

a n

ew p

ilot p

roje

ct?

How

do

you

get t

he w

ord

out r

egar

ding

pilo

t pro

ject

s?

Cou

ld a

n ag

reem

ent t

o pa

rtic

ipat

e in

info

rmat

ion

shar

ing

proc

ess

be a

par

t of t

he

requ

ired

doc

umen

tatio

n?

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

32 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

3:

D

evel

op a

n A

dvis

ory

Com

mitt

ee o

f gre

en

build

ing

expe

rts

for

alte

rnat

ive

tech

nolo

gies

.

App

roac

h:

3A

. Ass

embl

e a

grou

p of

thir

d-pa

rty

expe

rts

char

ged

with

rev

iew

ing

data

sup

plie

d by

the

appl

ican

t and

mak

ing

reco

mm

enda

tions

to

build

ing

offi c

ials

.

3B

. Par

ticip

ate

on th

e C

ity

of P

ortl

and’

s A

lter

nativ

e Te

chno

logi

es C

omm

ittee

, or

dev

elop

a s

imila

r co

mm

ittee

spe

cifi c

to C

ity

and

Cou

nty

proj

ects

.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

City

: $60

,000

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

NA

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

$10,

000

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Bar

rier

s fo

r N

on-C

onve

ntio

nal G

reen

Bui

ldin

g St

ruct

ures

Bar

rier

2:

D

evel

op c

ode

guid

ance

for

stra

wba

le s

truc

ture

s.

App

roac

h:

2A

. Util

ize

code

gui

danc

e la

ngua

ge fr

om o

ther

ju

risd

ictio

ns.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

Sta

ff F

TE?

Estim

ated

Cos

t?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to g

et a

new

cod

e /s

tand

ard

adop

ted?

How

are

they

fund

ed?

Wou

ld d

evel

opm

ent o

f str

awba

le o

rdin

ance

s re

quir

e an

y ad

ditio

nal r

esou

rces

?

If so

, are

ther

e re

sour

ces

in th

e lo

cal c

omm

unity

you

can

util

ize?

Is it

pos

sibl

e to

com

bine

sev

eral

(or

all)

of th

ese

proc

esse

s to

geth

er to

min

imiz

e co

st?

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: 0

.2 F

TE, $

20,0

00; a

lrea

dy a

ppro

ved

thro

ugh

alte

rnat

e m

eans

and

m

etho

ds; l

imiti

ng te

chno

logy

to a

few

pre

scri

ptiv

e ap

proa

ches

mig

ht n

ot s

erve

in

tent

to e

ncou

rage

inno

vativ

e so

lutio

ns

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

trai

ning

cos

t?

Who

wou

ld n

eed

to g

et tr

aini

ng a

bout

the

new

cod

e gu

ides

? [I

nspe

ctor

s, p

lans

ex

amin

ers,

etc

.]

Cou

nty

Bui

ldin

g: a

ll bu

ildin

g st

aff

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

do

you

mar

ket n

ew c

ode

guid

es to

the

publ

ic?

Cou

ld th

e co

de g

uide

s be

ava

ilabl

e on

line

?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

$25

0

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 33Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

2:

U

pdat

e st

anda

rds

for

stre

ets,

fi re

acc

ess

road

s,

and

priv

ate

driv

eway

s.

App

roac

h:

2A

. Req

uire

LID

ap

proa

ches

that

red

uce

impe

rvio

us s

urfa

ces

thro

ugh

the

desi

gn o

f na

rrow

er r

oads

and

the

use

of p

ervi

ous

pave

men

ts.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

LID

ord

inan

ces:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Who

(wha

t dep

artm

ent)

sho

uld

be in

volv

ed in

cre

atin

g a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce?

How

muc

h tim

e w

ould

the

crea

tion

of a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce

invo

lve?

Cou

nty

Pla

nnin

g: $

25,0

00

Cou

nty

Tran

spor

tatio

n: 0

.5 F

TE fo

r 1

year

Invo

lve:

Pub

lic W

orks

, Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing,

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent,

Tran

spor

tatio

n, F

ire

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

N/A

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

$5,

000

- $1

0,00

0, m

ore

if pr

ivat

e se

ctor

see

ks s

tudi

es to

su

ppor

t pro

pose

d pr

ogra

ms

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

City

Sol

id W

aste

: gen

eral

con

cern

for

adeq

uate

acc

ess

for

haul

ers

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Dri

vew

ay &

Fir

e A

cces

s R

oad

Wid

ths

Bar

rier

1:

D

evel

op c

ode

guid

ance

on

acc

epta

ble

and

best

pr

actic

es fo

r lo

w im

pact

de

velo

pmen

t.

App

roac

h:

1A

. Pro

vide

edu

catio

n an

d gu

idan

ce to

dev

elop

ers

on c

ode-

acce

ptab

le L

ID

prac

tices

.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

LID

ord

inan

ces:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Who

(wha

t dep

artm

ent)

sho

uld

be in

volv

ed in

cre

atin

g a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce?

How

muc

h tim

e w

ould

the

crea

tion

of a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce

invo

lve?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.5

FTE

pla

nnin

g, 0

.5 F

TE le

gal,

0.5

PW

/sto

rmw

ater

Estim

ated

$15

0,00

0/ye

ar

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

0.3

FTE

pla

nnin

g, $

5,00

0

Cou

nty

Tran

spor

tatio

n: 0

.25

FTE

for

1/2

year

City

Dep

ts in

volv

ed: P

ublic

Wor

ks, P

lann

ing,

Dev

elop

men

t Rev

iew

Ser

vice

s, L

egal

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

N/A

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

$4,

000

if it’

s a

requ

ired

pro

gram

, sta

keho

lder

out

reac

h

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

$5,

000

if bu

ndle

d w

ith o

ther

cha

nges

Cou

nty

Tran

spor

tatio

n: in

exc

ess

of 0

.25

for

1/2

year

- w

ide

rang

e po

ssib

le

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

City

Sol

id W

aste

: gen

eral

con

cern

for

adeq

uate

acc

ess

for

haul

ers

34 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Dri

vew

ay &

Fir

e A

cces

s R

oad

Wid

ths

Bar

rier

3:

C

onsi

der

stor

mw

ater

m

anag

emen

t util

ity o

r SD

C

fee

redu

ctio

ns.

App

roac

h:

3A

. Off

er fe

e re

duct

ions

fo

r LI

D a

ppro

ache

s th

at

man

age

stor

mw

ater

on-

site

.

3B

. Tie

r fe

e re

duct

ions

to

prom

ote

mor

e ag

gres

sive

LI

D a

ppro

ache

s th

at

incl

ude

com

preh

ensi

ve

natu

ral d

rain

age

stra

tegi

es.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

ord

inan

ce:

Estim

ated

Cos

ts:

Do

you

have

sta

ff a

vaila

ble

with

exp

ertis

e in

Sto

rmw

ater

that

cou

ld b

e ut

ilize

d as

a

reso

urce

?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0 -

alr

eady

com

plet

ed

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

N/A

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Are

pub

lic h

eari

ngs

requ

ired

to m

odify

SD

C r

ates

?

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Min

imum

Par

king

Req

uire

men

ts

Bar

rier

1:

C

onsi

der

new

pol

icie

s to

re

duce

min

imum

par

king

re

quir

emen

ts a

s pa

rt o

f an

over

all s

trat

egy

to in

crea

se

alte

rnat

ive

tran

spor

tatio

n in

the

next

City

/Cou

nty

Com

preh

ensi

ve P

lan

Upd

ate.

App

roac

h:

1A

. Allo

w fo

r a

redu

ctio

n in

req

uire

d on

-site

par

king

in

exc

hang

e fo

r de

dica

ted

car-

shar

e ve

hicl

e sp

aces

.

1B

. Red

uced

or

elim

inat

ed

park

ing

requ

irem

ents

for

deve

lopm

ents

loca

ted

in

mix

ed-u

se d

istr

icts

.

1C

. Defi

ne

requ

irem

ents

for

bicy

cle

stor

age

faci

litie

s.

1D

. Dev

elop

ped

estr

ian-

orie

nted

str

eet s

tand

ards

.

1E

. Req

uire

ped

estr

ian

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

hous

ing

deve

lopm

ents

an

d ne

arby

com

mun

ity

serv

ices

.

1F

. Allo

win

g gr

eate

r fl e

xibi

lity

for

affo

rdab

le

hous

ing

proj

ects

to r

educ

e on

-site

par

king

pro

vide

d ba

sed

on n

eed.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

ord

inan

ce:

Estim

ated

sta

ff ti

me

to r

evie

w p

ilot p

roje

cts

wat

er u

se:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Who

(wha

t dep

artm

ent)

sho

uld

be in

volv

ed in

cre

atin

g co

mp

plan

upd

ate?

How

muc

h tim

e w

ould

a c

omp

plan

upd

ate

take

?

Wha

t are

the

oppo

rtun

ities

to p

artn

er w

ith o

ther

age

ncie

s?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.3

3 FT

E

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

0.2

FTE

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.3

FTE

to d

evel

op o

rdin

ance

, 0.1

FTE

to r

evie

w p

ilot

proj

ect;

$34

,000

Sh

ould

com

bine

with

a fu

ll tr

ansi

t-or

ient

ed d

evel

opm

ent (

TOD

) po

licy

rath

er th

an tr

eatin

g pa

rkin

g as

pie

cem

eal

Invo

lve

Pub

lic W

orks

, Pla

nnin

g, a

nd C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t, P

ublic

Hea

lth

C-T

ran

Tim

ing:

10

mon

ths

- 1

year

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

N/A

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Are

pub

lic h

eari

ngs

requ

ired

as

part

of t

he c

omp

plan

am

endm

ent p

roce

ss?

Wha

t mea

ns is

cur

rent

ly u

tiliz

ed to

info

rm th

e pu

blic

of c

omp

plan

am

endm

ents

?

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

0.1

FTE

, con

sult

ants

to g

uide

app

rova

ls p

roce

ss

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

the

polic

y ex

ists

; fur

ther

cha

nges

sho

uld

be c

ombi

ned

with

Cla

rk C

ount

y D

evel

opm

ent C

ode

Title

40

upgr

ade

that

is ju

st s

tart

ing

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 35Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation IssuesB

arri

ers

Que

stio

nsA

nsw

ers

Setb

acks

& S

epar

atio

n fo

r R

ain

wat

er H

arve

stin

g Ci

ster

ns

Bar

rier

1:

P

rovi

de g

uida

nce

on

desi

gnin

g, p

erm

ittin

g,

inst

allin

g, a

nd m

aint

aini

ng

rain

wat

er h

arve

stin

g ci

ster

ns.

App

roac

h:

1A

Rev

iew

gui

delin

es

crea

ted

by o

ther

ju

risd

ictio

ns.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

rai

n w

ater

har

vest

ing

guid

elin

e:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Is th

ere

staf

f ava

ilabl

e to

rev

iew

exi

stin

g gu

ides

from

oth

er ju

risd

ictio

ns?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to a

dopt

a c

ode

guid

e?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.2

FTE

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

coo

rdin

atio

n w

ith th

e Fi

re D

epar

tmen

t is

criti

cal,

min

imal

tim

e ex

pect

ed

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g tim

e fo

r In

spec

tors

:

Are

exi

stin

g in

spec

tors

qua

lifi e

d to

insp

ect r

ainw

ater

col

lect

ion

syst

ems

or is

ad

ditio

nal t

rain

ing

requ

ired

?

Cou

ld a

diff

eren

t ent

ity in

spec

t the

rai

nwat

er h

arve

stin

g sy

stem

?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

2 h

ours

trai

ning

req

uire

d

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Wha

t is

invo

lved

in in

form

ing

the

publ

ic a

bout

a n

ew c

ode

guid

e?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

non

e ex

pect

ed

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Bar

rier

2:

R

evis

e C

ode

Req

uire

men

ts

for

Setb

acks

and

Bui

ldin

g Se

para

tion

for

Abo

ve-

Gro

und

Rai

nwat

er C

iste

rns.

App

roac

h:

2A

. Elim

inat

e se

tbac

k an

d se

para

tion

requ

irem

ents

fo

r ab

ove

grou

nd c

iste

rns.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

sep

arat

ion

guid

elin

e:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Is th

ere

staf

f ava

ilabl

e to

rev

iew

the

exis

ting

guid

es in

oth

er ju

risd

ictio

ns?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to r

evis

e a

code

req

uire

men

t?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

con

tinue

to a

ddre

ss o

n a

case

-by-

case

bas

is

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0- 0

.2 F

TE fo

r 6

mon

ths,

$30

,000

- m

ight

be

able

to

acco

mpl

ish

with

exi

stin

g st

affi n

g.

Res

ourc

es: u

se M

unic

ipal

Res

earc

h &

Ser

vice

s C

ente

r of

Was

hing

ton

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g tim

e fo

r In

spec

tors

:

Are

exi

stin

g in

spec

tors

qua

lifi e

d to

insp

ect r

ainw

ater

col

lect

ion

syst

ems

or is

ad

ditio

nal t

rain

ing

requ

ired

?

none

iden

tifi e

d

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Wha

t is

invo

lved

in in

form

ing

the

publ

ic a

bout

a c

ode

requ

irem

ent?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

web

upd

ate

and

bulle

tin

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

36 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation Issues

Wat

er R

elat

ed B

arri

ers

Bar

rier

1:

P

rovi

de g

uida

nce

on

desi

gnin

g, p

erm

ittin

g,

inst

allin

g, a

nd m

aint

aini

ng

rain

wat

er h

arve

stin

g ci

ster

ns.

App

roac

h:

1A

. Elim

inat

e se

tbac

k an

d se

para

tion

requ

irem

ents

fo

r ab

ove-

grou

nd c

iste

rns.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

rai

n w

ater

har

vest

ing

guid

elin

e:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Is th

ere

staf

f ava

ilabl

e to

rev

iew

exi

stin

g gu

ides

from

oth

er ju

risd

ictio

ns?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to a

dopt

a c

ode

guid

e?

City

DR

S/B

uild

ing:

rec

omm

ends

use

of e

xist

ing

alte

rnat

e m

etho

ds a

nd m

ater

ials

pr

oces

s un

til s

tate

wid

e co

de is

ado

pted

.

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0- 0

.2 F

TE -

pro

babl

y co

uld

rely

on

exis

ting

staffi n

g

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

Tra

inin

g tim

e fo

r In

spec

tors

:

Are

exi

stin

g in

spec

tors

qua

lifi e

d to

insp

ect r

ainw

ater

col

lect

ion

syst

ems

or is

ad

ditio

nal t

rain

ing

requ

ired

?

Cou

ld a

diff

eren

t ent

ity in

spec

t the

rai

nwat

er h

arve

stin

g sy

stem

?

none

iden

tifi e

d

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Wha

t is

invo

lved

in in

form

ing

the

publ

ic a

bout

a n

ew c

ode

guid

e?

none

iden

tifi e

d

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Bar

rier

sQ

uest

ions

Ans

wer

s

Clus

ter

Dev

elop

men

ts/C

otta

ge H

ousi

ng

Bar

rier

1:

C

lust

ered

hou

sing

is

disc

oura

ged

by s

truc

ture

of

code

s.

App

roac

h:

1A

. Dev

elop

new

City

and

C

ount

y co

ttag

e ho

usin

g co

des.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Staf

f FTE

req

uire

d to

dev

elop

cot

tage

hou

sing

cod

es

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Is th

ere

staf

f ava

ilabl

e to

rev

iew

sim

ilar

ordi

nanc

es fr

om o

ther

juri

sdic

tions

?

Wha

t is

the

proc

ess

to d

evel

op a

new

cod

e gu

ide?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.5

FTE

, $3

0,00

0

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

0.0

5 FT

E

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

Estim

ated

trai

ning

tim

e fo

r or

dina

nce

deve

lopm

ents

: C

ount

y C

omm

unity

Pla

nnin

g: m

inim

al

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

Wha

t is

invo

lved

in in

form

ing

the

publ

ic a

bout

a n

ew c

ode?

Cou

ld e

xist

ing

foru

ms

(new

slet

ters

, mee

tings

etc

) be

utili

zed

to in

form

the

publ

ic?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

Sta

keho

lder

mee

tings

Cou

nty

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

Exi

stin

g ne

wsl

ette

rs a

nd o

ther

med

ia

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

N/A

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 37Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix B: Summary of Responses to Survey on Public Sector Cost and Implementation IssuesB

arri

ers

Que

stio

nsA

nsw

ers

Wat

er R

elat

ed B

arri

ers

Bar

rier

2:

C

olla

bora

te in

a

neig

hbor

hood

-sca

le n

et

zero

wat

er p

ilot p

roje

ct.

App

roac

h:

2A

. Dev

elop

a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce

that

allo

ws

for fl e

xibi

lity

with

in th

e cu

rren

t cod

es

for

a ne

ighb

orho

od-s

cale

de

velo

pmen

t with

net

zer

o w

ater

goa

ls.

2B

. Req

uire

mon

itori

ng

and

repo

rtin

g of

wat

er u

se

and

was

tew

ater

red

uctio

n,

and

utili

ze d

ata

to s

uppo

rt

futu

re c

ode

upda

tes.

Staffi n

g N

eeds

Estim

ated

sta

ff F

TE r

equi

red

to d

evel

op o

rdin

ance

:

Estim

ated

sta

ff ti

me

to r

evie

w p

ilot p

roje

cts

wat

er u

se:

Estim

ated

Cos

t:

Who

(wha

t dep

artm

ent)

sho

uld

be in

volv

ed in

cre

atin

g a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce?

How

muc

h tim

e w

ould

the

crea

tion

of a

dem

onst

ratio

n or

dina

nce

invo

lve?

Wha

t are

the

oppo

rtun

ities

to p

artn

er w

ith u

tiliti

es to

min

imiz

e re

port

ing?

How

man

y pr

ojec

ts s

houl

d be

invo

lved

in a

pilo

t pro

gram

(1-2

, 3-5

, 6+)

?

Are

ther

e ex

istin

g pi

lot p

rogr

ams

that

can

be

revi

ewed

as

a gu

ide?

City

Com

mun

ity P

lann

ing:

1.0

FTE

, $12

5,00

0

City

: W

ater

Eng

inee

rs, S

ewer

/Pub

lic W

orks

, Hea

lth,

Bui

ldin

g, P

lann

ing,

Fir

e

Tim

ing

and

size

: 4

- 6

mon

ths,

3 p

roje

cts

max

1 ho

ur b

imon

thly

per

hom

e

City

Wat

er:

Stat

e H

ealt

h w

ill n

eed

to a

ppro

ve w

ater

from

non

-City

sou

rces

. Fi

refl o

w n

ot fe

asib

le to

be

“off

gri

d” d

ue to

vol

umes

/fl o

w r

ates

req

uire

d.

City

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion:

0.1

FTE

for

ordi

nanc

e, a

nd 0

.1 to

rev

iew

pilo

t pro

ject

Trai

ning

Nee

ds

N/A

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Estim

ated

Pub

lic O

utre

ach

Cos

ts:

How

wou

ld y

ou a

dver

tise

the

pilo

t pro

gram

to e

ncou

rage

a g

ood

mix

of p

roje

cts?

City

: web

site

, art

icle

s, m

eetin

gs w

ith b

uild

ing

indu

stry

, sta

keho

lder

s, ta

rget

ed

mai

lings

Infr

astr

uctu

re N

eeds

Estim

ated

Infr

astr

uctu

re C

osts

:

Wha

t equ

ipm

ent w

ould

be

need

ed to

ver

ify w

ater

use

and

was

te w

ater

red

uctio

n?

Cou

ld th

e ut

ilitie

s re

port

this

info

rmat

ion

with

out v

iola

ting

priv

acy

law

s? to

red

uce

met

erin

g co

sts?

Is th

ere

prec

eden

ce fo

r se

lf r

epor

ting

of p

ilot p

roje

cts?

Indi

vidu

al m

eter

s an

d co

nnec

tion

to S

CA

DA

sys

tem

Cre

ate

a re

leas

e fo

rm

City

Wat

er:

win

ter fl o

w w

ill g

ive

relia

ble

base

line

estim

ate

for

non-

irri

gatio

n us

es.

38 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

BUILDING TYPE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALBUILDING LOCATION: VANCOUVER, WA

Base Building Gross SF = 1,840Living Building Gross SF = 1,840

Site Gross Acreage = 0.11

Division Premium

(%)

Building Premium

(%)

Total Cost/SF Total Cost/SF

CONSTRUCTION COST

A Substructure 0.0% 0.0% $63,527 $34.53 $63,527 $34.53

Baseline Building $63,527 $34.53 $63,527 $34.53

W2 Rainwater Containment - 10,000 gal Rainwater Tank (included in base building) $0

B Shell 8.3% 3.8% $131,226 $71.32 $142,129 $77.24

Baseline Building $131,226 $71.32 $131,226 $71.32

E1A Improved Glazing (reduce solar heat gain) $4,303 $2.34

E1B Exterior Shading Devices $6,600 $3.59

M2H "High Mass" Concrete (existing exterior walls are ICF) $0

C Interiors 11.6% 1.5% $37,430 $20.34 $41,780 $22.71

Baseline Building $37,430 $20.34 $37,430 $20.34

M2A Thicken Lower Level Slab (2") and Gypcrete on Upper Level $4,350 $2.36

L1A Exposed Ceilings (white matte surfaces) $0

D.1 Services - Conveying Systems 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00

Baseline Building $0 $0

D.2 Services - Plumbing Systems 57.3% 2.1% $10,654 $5.79 $16,754 $9.11

Baseline Building $10,654 $5.79 $10,654 $5.79

W6 Low-Flow Fixtures / Optical Sensors $0

W2 Rain Harvesting (piping & pumps and filtration) $0

W7 Composting Toilets $6,100 $3.32

D.3 Services - HVAC Systems 98.4% 4.1% $12,008 $6.53 $23,827 $12.95

Baseline Building $12,008 $6.53 $12,008 $6.53

Baseline HVAC System Reduction (2/3 reduction in Air Handler and Ducting) ($7,381) ($4.01)

M2A In-Slab Radiant Heating and Cooling $9,200 $5.00

M2B Energy Recovery Wheel / Plate & Frame/Dedicated Outside Air System(DOAS) $0

M3C Solar Thermal System $10,000 $5.43

D.4 Services - Fire Protection Systems 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00

Baseline Building $0 $0

D.5 Services - Electrical Systems 68.1% 2.4% $10,136 $5.51 $17,036 $9.26

Baseline Building $10,136 $5.51 $10,136 $5.51

L2K Provide hardwired compact fluorescent fixtures in all spaces $2,200 $1.20

L2L Motion sensors for exterior lighting $300 $0.16

M2Z Ceiling Fans and window box fans ( five of each) $4,400 $2.39

LEED™ Gold Baseline Living Building

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 39Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

BUILDING TYPE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALBUILDING LOCATION: VANCOUVER, WA

Base Building Gross SF = 1,840Living Building Gross SF = 1,840

Site Gross Acreage = 0.11

Division Premium

(%)

Building Premium

(%)

Total Cost/SF Total Cost/SF

LEED™ Gold Baseline Living Building

E Equipment and Furnishings 0.0% 0.0% $1,011 $0.55 $1,011 $0.55

Baseline Building $1,011 $0.55 $1,011 $0.55

F Special Construction 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00

Baseline Building $0 $0

G Sitework 60.9% 4.2% $20,208 $10.98 $32,508 $17.67

Baseline Building $20,208 $10.98 $20,208 $10.98

W4 Stormwater Retention / Building Water Discharge $12,300 $6.68

H Logistics 0.0% 0.0% $3,280 $1.78 $3,280 $1.78

Baseline Building $3,280 $1.78 $3,280 $1.78

Living Building Prerequisites $0 $0.00 $13,603 $7.39

PR5 - Materials Red List 100.0% 1.0% $2,907 $1.58PR7 - Responsible Industry 100.0% 2.6% $7,488 $4.07PR8 - Appropriate Materials / Services Radius 100.0% 1.1% $3,208 $1.74PR9 - Leadership in Construction Waste 0.0% 0.0% $0

Subtotal Direct Costs 22.8% $289,480 $157.33 $355,456 $193.18

General Conditions 9.5% 22.8% 2.2% $27,383 $14.88 $33,624 $18.27

Fee, Construction Contingency, Insurance 10.5% 22.8% 2.6% $33,399 $18.15 $41,011 $22.29

Sales Tax on Permanent Materials 8.1% 22.8% 1.0% $12,767 $6.94 $15,677 $8.52

Location Modifier for VANCOUVER, WA 1.00 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0

TOTAL MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION COST 22.8% $363,030 $197.30 $445,768 $242.27

40 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

BUILDING TYPE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALBUILDING LOCATION: VANCOUVER, WA

Base Building Gross SF = 1,840Living Building Gross SF = 1,840

Site Gross Acreage = 0.11

Division Premium

(%)

Building Premium

(%)

Total Cost/SF Total Cost/SF

LEED™ Gold Baseline Living Building

OWNER & DESIGN-BUILD COSTS

Design/Build Owner Items

W3 Biological Bio-Reactor 0.0% 0.0% $0

PV1 Photovoltaic Panels and Infrastructure 5,900 Watts 100.0% 18.3% $53,100 $28.86

LB Prerequisite Items

PR3 - Habitat Exchange 0.114784 acres 100.0% 0.2% $574 $0.31PR6 - Construction Carbon Footprint 50 tons 100.0% 0.2% $550 $0.30PR15 - Beauty and Spirit (included in A/E fees below) 0.0% 0.0% $0

PR16 - Inspiration and Education 100.0% 0.5% $1,500 $0.82

Development Costs LEED LBC

Develoment Costs 3.31% 2.69% 0.0% 0.0% $12,000 $6.52 $12,000 $6.52

Architecture & Engineering 12.00% 15.00% 53.5% 8.0% $43,564 $23.68 $66,865 $36.34

Credits / Rebates / Incentives

PV Credits-(state, city, utility) 50% -100.0% -9.2% $0 ($26,550) ($14.43)

SDC Credits 50% -100.0% -1.0% $0 ($2,966) ($1.61)

WA State Solar PV Incentive 8,738 kWh -100.0% -0.7% $0 ($2,000) ($1.09)

WA State Solar Thermal (sales tax exempt) -100.0% -0.1% $0 ($365) ($0.20)

Clark Public Utilities Solar Thermal Rebate -100.0% -0.3% $0 ($1,000) ($0.54)

Clark Public Utilities Residential Rebates -100.0% -1.5% $0 ($4,225) ($2.30)

TOTAL OWNER & DESIGN-BUILD COSTS 75.4% $55,564 $30.20 $97,484 $52.98

TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $418,593 $227.50 $543,252 $295.25

LIVING BUILDING CONCEPTUAL PREMIUM RANGE: 27% TO 32%SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN VANCOUVER, WA

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 41Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

BUILDING TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSINGBUILDING LOCATION: VANCOUVER, WA

Base Building Gross SF = 209,678Living Building Gross SF = 209,678

Site Gross Acreage = 2.87

Division Premium

(%)

Building Premium

(%)

Total Cost/SF Total Cost/SF

CONSTRUCTION COST

A Substructure 10.3% 0.3% $622,710 $2.97 $686,735 $3.28

Baseline Building $622,710 $2.97 $622,710 $2.97

W2 Rainwater Containment - 30,000 gal Rainwater Tank $64,025 $0.31

B Shell 5.0% 1.6% $7,656,970 $36.52 $8,040,942 $38.35

Baseline Building $7,656,970 $36.52 $7,656,970 $36.52

E1D Reduce Glazing (30% of original window glazing) $165,200 $0.79

E1A Improved Glazing (reduce solar heat gain) $12,972 $0.06

E1B Exterior Shading Devices $468,000 $2.23

D2A Reduce Wall / Skin for Modified Design (not in base building design) ($405,600) ($1.93)

D3 Relocate Elevator $45,000 $0.21

D3 Covered Walkway $98,400 $0.47

C Interiors 5.3% 1.3% $5,891,333 $28.10 $6,205,850 $29.60

Baseline Building $5,891,333 $28.10 $5,891,333 $28.10

M2A Topping Slab / Stair Premium for Underfloor Radiant System (3" concrete) $314,517 $1.50

D.1 Services - Conveying Systems 0.0% 0.0% $244,158 $1.16 $244,158 $1.16

Baseline Building $244,158 $1.16 $244,158 $1.16

D.2 Services - Plumbing Systems 8.0% 0.6% $1,900,476 $9.06 $2,052,276 $9.79

Baseline Building $1,900,476 $9.06 $1,900,476 $9.06

W6 Low-Flow Fixtures / Optical Sensors $1,800 $0.01

W2 Rain Harvesting (piping & pumps and filtration) $150,000 $0.72

D.3 Services - HVAC Systems 387.3% 11.5% $717,870 $3.42 $3,498,260 $16.68

Baseline Building $717,870 $3.42 $717,870 $3.42

Baseline HVAC System Reduction (2/3 reduction in Air Handler and Ducting) ($535,000) ($2.55)

M2A In-Slab Radiant Heating and Cooling $1,048,390 $5.00

M3A Ground Source Heat Pump $1,959,000 $9.34

M2B Energy Recovery Wheel / Plate & Frame/Dedicated Outside Air System(DOAS) $308,000 $1.47

M2C Carbon Dioxide Sensors $0

D.4 Services - Fire Protection Systems 0.0% 0.0% $462,507 $2.21 $462,507 $2.21

Baseline Building $462,507 $2.21 $462,507 $2.21

D.5 Services - Electrical Systems 0.6% 0.1% $3,452,618 $16.47 $3,471,778 $16.56

Baseline Building $3,416,018 $16.29 $3,416,018 $16.29

L2E Occupancy Sensor for Transient Lighting (corridors/stairs) $28,000 $0.13

L2I Dual day/night light levels in corridors; occupancy sensors $8,600 $0.04

L2K Provide hardwired compact fluorescent fixtures in all spaces $55,760 $0.27

LEED™ Gold Baseline Living Building

42 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

BUILDING TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSINGBUILDING LOCATION: VANCOUVER, WA

Base Building Gross SF = 209,678Living Building Gross SF = 209,678

Site Gross Acreage = 2.87

Division Premium

(%)

Building Premium

(%)

Total Cost/SF Total Cost/SF

LEED™ Gold Baseline Living Building

E Equipment and Furnishings 0.0% 0.0% $948,170 $4.52 $948,170 $4.52

Baseline Building $948,170 $4.52 $948,170 $4.52

F Special Construction 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00

Baseline Building $0 $0

G Sitework 6.2% 0.6% $2,221,462 $10.59 $2,358,962 $11.25

Baseline Building $2,221,462 $10.59 $2,221,462 $10.59

W2 Stormwater Retention / Building Water Discharge $50,000 $0.24

D3 Added Courtyard $87,500 $0.42

H Logistics 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0.00 $0 $0.00

Baseline Building $0 $0

Living Building Prerequisites $0 $0.00 $657,243 $3.13

PR5 - Materials Red List 100.0% 0.8% $194,424 $0.93PR7 - Responsible Industry 100.0% 0.8% $202,298 $0.96PR8 - Appropriate Materials / Services Radius 100.0% 1.1% $260,521 $1.24PR9 - Leadership in Construction Waste 0.0% 0.0%

Subtotal Direct Costs 18.7% $24,118,274 $115.03 $28,626,881 $136.53

General Conditions 4.0% 18.7% 0.7% $964,731 $4.60 $1,145,075 $5.46

Fee, Construction Contingency, Insurance 4.0% 18.7% 0.8% $1,003,320 $4.79 $1,190,878 $5.68

Sales Tax on Permanent Materials 8.1% 18.7% 0.7% $950,847 $4.53 $1,128,595 $5.38

Location Modifier for VANCOUVER, WA 1.00 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0

TOTAL MODIFIED CONSTRUCTION COST 18.7% $27,037,172 $128.95 $32,091,430 $153.05

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 43Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

BUILDING TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY HOUSINGBUILDING LOCATION: VANCOUVER, WA

Base Building Gross SF = 209,678Living Building Gross SF = 209,678

Site Gross Acreage = 2.87

Division Premium

(%)

Building Premium

(%)

Total Cost/SF Total Cost/SF

LEED™ Gold Baseline Living Building

OWNER & DESIGN-BUILD COSTS

Design/Build Owner Items

W3 Biological Bio-Reactor 100.0% 4.1% $1,000,000 $4.77

PV1 Photovoltaic Panels and Infrastructure 825,000 Watts 100.0% 25.7% $6,187,500 $29.51

LB Prerequisite Items

PR3 - Habitat Exchange 2.86961 acres 100.0% 0.1% $14,348 $0.07PR6 - Construction Carbon Footprint 6,400 tons 100.0% 0.3% $70,400 $0.34PR15 - Beauty and Spirit (included in A/E fees below) 0.0% 0.0% $0

PR16 - Inspiration and Education 100.0% 0.2% $43,500 $0.21

Development Costs LEED LBC

Develoment Costs 28.00% 31.00% 31.4% 9.9% $7,570,408 $36.10 $9,948,343 $47.45

Architecture & Engineering 7.00% 9.00% 52.6% 4.1% $1,892,602 $9.03 $2,888,229 $13.77

Credits / Rebates / Incentives

PV Credits-(state, city, utility) 50% -100.0% -12.8% $0 ($3,093,750) ($14.75)

SDC Credits 50% -100.0% -1.4% $0 ($343,583) ($1.64)

WA State Solar PV Incentive 913,844 kWh -100.0% 0.0% $0 ($2,000) ($0.01)

WA State Solar Thermal (sales tax exempt) 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0

Clark Public Utilities Solar Thermal Rebate 0.0% 0.0% $0 $0

Clark Public Utilities Residential Rebates -100.0% -0.1% $0 ($14,075) ($0.07)

TOTAL OWNER & DESIGN-BUILD COSTS 76.5% $9,463,010 $45.13 $16,698,912 $79.64

TOTAL CONCEPTUAL COST: $36,500,182 $174.08 $48,790,342 $232.69

LIVING BUILDING CONCEPTUAL PREMIUM RANGE: 31% TO 36%MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING IN VANCOUVER, WA

44 Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Worksheet Baseline Living BuildingProject: Single Family ResidentialLocation: Vancouver, WA

Project: Living Building Challenge Financial Study Estimated Present Estimated PresentDiscount Rate : 4.5% Date: 5/20/2009 Costs Worth Costs WorthLife Cycle (Yrs.) 30

Initial/Collateral CostsA. Initial Costs 363,030$ 363,030 445,768$ 445,768B.C.D.E.F.G.Total Initial/Collateral Costs $363,030 $363,030 $445,768 $445,768Difference ($82,738)Replacement/Salvage PW

(Single Expenditures) Year Factor

A.B.C.D.E.F.G.Total Replacement/Salvage CostsAnnual Costs Differential PW

Escal. Rate Factor

A. Energy Costs 3.0% 24.165 1,609 38,882B. Water Costs 3.0% 24.165 216 5,220C. Carbon OffsetD.E.F.G.Total Annual Costs $1,825 $44,102

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth) $407,132 $445,768Life Cycle Cost PW Difference ($38,636)Discounted Payback (Living Building vs. Baseline) 30.6Total Life Cycle Costs - Annualized Per Year: $24,994 Per Year: $27,366

INIT

IAL

/CO

LLAT

ERAL

CO

STS

REP

LAC

EMEN

T / S

ALVA

GE

CO

STS

ANN

UAL

CO

STS

LIFE

CYC

LE

CO

STS

Report #3, Cost Benefi t Summary: 45Code Barriers for Sustainable, Affordable, Residential Development

1 June 2009

Appendix C: Private Sector Costs/Payback Calculations

Life Cycle Cost Analysis Worksheet Baseline Living BuildingProject: Multi Family ResidentialLocation: Vancouver, WA

Project: Living Building Challenge Financial Study Estimated Present Estimated PresentDiscount Rate : 4.5% Date: 5/20/2009 Costs Worth Costs WorthLife Cycle (Yrs.) 30

Initial/Collateral CostsA. Initial Costs 27,037,172$ 27,037,172 32,091,430$ 32,091,430B.C.D.E.F.G.Total Initial/Collateral Costs $27,037,172 $27,037,172 $32,091,430 $32,091,430Difference ($5,054,258)Replacement/Salvage PW

(Single Expenditures) Year Factor

A.B.C.D.E.F.G.Total Replacement/Salvage CostsAnnual Costs Differential PW

Escal. Rate Factor

A. Energy Costs 3.0% 24.165 143,888 3,477,087B. Water Costs 3.0% 24.165 10,443 252,358C. Carbon OffsetD.E.F.G.Total Annual Costs $154,331 $3,729,445

Total Life Cycle Costs (Present Worth) $30,766,617 $32,091,430Life Cycle Cost PW Difference ($1,324,813)Discounted Payback (Living Building vs. Baseline) 22.1Total Life Cycle Costs - Annualized Per Year: $1,888,810 Per Year: $1,970,142

INIT

IAL

/CO

LLAT

ERAL

CO

STS

REP

LAC

EMEN

T / S

ALVA

GE

CO

STS

ANN

UAL

CO

STS

LIFE

CYC

LE

CO

STS