In This Issue:

• PROPOSED GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS – FEEDBACK NEEDED

• BUSY DAYS IN THE CAPITOL

• GREEN BUILDING PROGRAMS; PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS

• TIME-OF-SALE ENERGY AUDIT MANDATE

• ALTERNATE DEADLINE FOR PROPERTY TAX DELETION

• CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM

• ZERO-NET ENERGY MANDATES

• BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION “GREEN” CODES AUTHORITY

• CBPA 2008 CALENDAR

PROPOSED GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS – FEEDBACK NEEDED

In an effort to reduce green house gas emissions and promote sustainable buildings, the California Building Standards Commission (BSC) is currently conducting an annual building code adoption cycle that includes a new California Green Building Standards Code (CGBSC). The CGBSC is scheduled for adoption sometime this summer. When published, the CGBSC will contain green building standards for single family homes, schools, health facilities, and commercial buildings (commercial also includes industrial and retail real estate). Developed as a framework upon which to be built and refined further, the standards will initially be voluntary, however, it is the intent of the BSC to develop mandatory green building standards in subsequent code adoption cycles.

Your analysis and feedback is needed on the proposed changes for non-residential properties. Click here to read the proposed changes for California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24 -- Commercial, Industrial, and Retail Real Estate.

Since the intent is that there codes eventually become mandatory, it is very important that members of our industry read these regulations and identify issues that the BSC should consider. CBPA will, again, compile industry comments and provide written and verbal testimony. Please send any and all comments by replying to this email or sending directly to Matthew Hargrove. Comments are due to CBPA by no later than Tuesday, May 6.
 

BUSY DAYS IN THE CAPITOL

As a major deadline in the California Legislative Process looms, your CBPA advocates have been extremely busy in the Capitol working bills, negotiating amendments, and testifying in committee. In the current two week period, more than 300 bills being tracked on behalf of the commercial, industrial, and retail real estate industry will have been acted upon. Among major policy items that are being discussed…
 

GREEN BUILDING PROGRAMS; PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS

AB 2939 (Hancock; D-Berkeley) would allow local jurisdictions to supplant Title 24, the state building code, with private building standards. Title 24 is based on a transparent public process and is the strictest, most environmentally progressive building code in the nation. We testified that our collective members support green building standards and are actively engaged in proliferation of the technology, but that we have several concerns with the proposed policy.

AB 2939 is unnecessary as local jurisdictions already have the ability to adopt building standards that are stricter than Title 24 based on topographic, geologic, or climactic conditions. The bill would encourage adoption of building standards written by private entities whose process is not open to public input or scrutiny and we don’t think the state should relinquish its authority to set and maintain building codes. It is also unnecessary and duplicative of a process already underway at the Building Standards Commission, which is on track to adopt a statewide “green building” standard as early as June 2008.

The Title 24 process has proven to be very successful. Due to its adoption in 1978 and through regular updates on a two-year cycle, a new building in California uses approximately one-half the amount of energy and emits 50% less Greenhouse Gas than the national average.

Although the bill passed its first policy committee, the author acknowledged issues with the bill and committed to working with our members to craft language that would adopt “program neutral” language.
 

TIME-OF-SALE ENERGY AUDIT MANDATE

AB 2678 (Nunez; D-Los Angeles) would require an energy audit and upgrades for buildings at the time of sale, in an attempt to mandate existing buildings to become more energy efficient. Although we support cost efficient energy efficiency, we are concerned that requirements in AB 2678 will have the opposite effect of its intent. Currently, it is fairly standard practice that when a building is purchased, the new owner will then devote significant time and money into upgrading the building systems as an investment in the new property – investments the previous owner hasn't made for one reason or another. In such a case, allowing a building owner who can’t make such investments from transacting to one that is willing to make such investments may mean the property receives no upgrades whatsoever and continues to atrophy.

CBPA is also concerned that mandating such upgrades at the time of sale is not an efficient way for the state to achieve the goal of making the existing building stock more “green.” Such real estate transactions take place on a much quicker time frame than would allow for significant energy efficiency investment into a property. Again, the person selling the building many times does not have the capital or ability to invest in the property which may be a factor in why the transaction is taking place.

The recent “AB 2160 Green Building Report”, produced by the staff at the California Energy Commission, outlines a number of incentives and barriers that the state could consider to address these issues. We think the report thoughtfully outlines the many and complex issues involved with increasing energy efficiency and have urged consideration of a robust package of incentives and/or removing policy barriers contained in the report that, taken in total, will help move the existing building stock to become more efficient.
Simply starting out with a small education and incentive program for retro-commissioning may go a long way to decrease our overall carbon emissions from these buildings.

The bill will be heard on Monday, and we will be there to testify.
 

ALTERNATE DEADLINE FOR PROPERTY TAX DELETION

AB 2411 (Caballero; D-Salinas) proposes to delete the alternate deadline for filing a claim for refund under the Property Tax Law. This bill would limit the right to a refund to four years after making a property tax overpayment, even if a notice of a right to refund has not been delivered as required by current law. We oppose this measure because in the course of appealing property tax assessments many of our members waive their right to an expedited determination of their appeal. In those cases, the appellant may not know of the decision for a refund until after the four year deadline. Under this proposed change in law, they would lose their right to a refund entirely, even if their property tax appeal is ultimately decided in their favor. This is an unnecessary and unfair proposal.
 

CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING PROGRAM

AB 2144 (Smyth; R-Santa Clarita) will authorize a voluntary local program to recognize “green” buildings that exceed standards set forth in the state building code as a “California Green Building.” This bills provides a non-monetary incentive for companies building in this state to design and build more energy efficient and environmentally friendly buildings.

California’s building codes, commonly referred to as Title 24, are the most environmentally progressive building codes in the nation. Adopted in 1978, these codes are regularly updated and are the model program for the rest of the nation. A typical new commercial building in California uses about half the energy and emits about half the Greenhouse Gases as the national average. By recognizing those companies that voluntarily exceed the already stringent state minimum standard, AB 2144 will help California continue to lead the nation in green building standards and construction.
 

ZERO-NET ENERGY MANDATES

Two zero-net energy mandate bills will be heard on Monday. AB 2030 (Lieu; D-Torrance) requires all new non-residential buildings produce at least half of their energy on-site by 2030 and AB 2112 (Saldana; D-San Diego) does the same for residential but ten years earlier, forcing each and every building owner to become a mini-utility. These bills are de facto mandates for PhotoVoltaic Solar production as that is the only technology that is remotely feasible to help meet the aggressive goals set forth. Aside from issues related to managing a building where you must distribute and sell electricity, there is a great cost concern with PV, as the size of the system that would be needed to generate power for a large commercial building would be very large and expensive. There is also concern whether evolution of the existing technology will even be able to meet such a demand. We have received a great deal of feedback from members that these are very unreasonable mandates and we are opposing the bills.
 

BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION “GREEN” CODES AUTHORITY

A measure we strongly support, SB 1473 (Calderon; D-Montebello) provides clear statutory authority for the Building Standards Commission, Department of Housing and Community Development and several other agencies to develop, adopt and, most importantly, to update on a regular basis green buildings standards for the State of California. The bill also directs these agencies to prepare educational and training material to assist local building departments, design professionals and industry with the effective field application of these measures. Lastly, in order to generate the necessary resources to perform these tasks, a special fund is created for use by the BSC with the revenue being generated via a permit valuation fee of $4 for every $100,000 dollars for residential and commercial construction permits. This fee has a direct nexus to our projects and will provide clarity to businesses and building officials to the rush of green building codes that are rapidly being adopted.
 

CBPA 2008 CALENDAR

June 10-11, 2008
California Commercial Real Estate Summit (CCRES) & CBPA Annual Meeting
Sacramento, CA

October 23, 2008
CBPA Awards Dinner
The Island (formerly the Four Seasons), Newport Beach, CA