HER LEED » San Francisco Green Rush

The Challenge

Lisa Goddard — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:25:45 +0000

The challenge that the built environment faces is not constructing with LEED design, that is being increasingly normalize in the industry and by codes like the San Francisco Green Building Ordinance. Rather it’s looking at the building as a whole system, not just stopping after the building is constructed and annually checking that the windows still seal properly. It’s making sure that features like the interior/exterior lights are compact florescent and are timed to turn themselves off; that low flow toilets are standard and innovative engineering is utilized to redistribute waste heat generated from tenant computer networks. It’s creating lease agreements that have mandatory energy saving requirements, like shutting down the computers at night. Energy efficiency is still the lowest hanging fruit, and San Francisco’s latest task force is scheduled to address it with their recommendations in June.
As we face what are clearly uncertain economic times, cities like San Francisco are responding to the message from Washington and attempting to put the systems in place to support a new energy infrastructure. We are a nation in peril, tied to a market that is failing, and a climate that is changing. The incremental changes that policies like the Green Building Ordinance address are helpful, but they are not enough. Greening America is being implemented in every segment of our market economy, but it is not enough. We must change our behavior before the effects of global climate change force it. The time is now; and the message is delivered daily, but like a nation of sheep, we wait for the invisible hand to point the way.

Legislating behavior

Lisa Goddard — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:31:14 +0000

In the introduction to this research I suggested that San Francisco was setting an example of smart city planning. The presumption was that by changing building codes to value energy efficiency and conservation, behavior would change; not only in the City’s built environment, but in the lives of its citizens. What I discovered is that San Francisco is creating change and affecting behavior. They are the first U.S. city to ban plastic shopping bags in large supermarkets, and the first large city to start a composting program for its residents (sfenviron,“Zero”). These two programs speak directly to consumer and citizen behavior. By supplying paper bags over plastic the consumer automatically chooses green, and by making it easy to throw away food scraps, in the free bin provided by the city, composting will become a norm over time.
Changing building codes have a limited effect on behavior. The development community is smaller and their motivation to go green is different from the average citizen. Recall, that the developer’s bottom line is to get their project built and leased up as quickly as possible to recap their investment. When the market calls for green, they are ready to comply. They are moderately impacted by increased construction costs that green building compliance dictates, but the entitlement process is much more cost prohibitive in comparison. Changing the building codes mandates a change in the developers actions. It is a change in the process, an additional form to complete, another checklist to meet, and another approval to receive. That a developer adopts sustainable building practices does not make them a spokesperson for the environment. Their behavioral change is in response to a legislative one. Those ideas established in the early years of conservation the “unofficial energy policies” (Nader, p590) of S. David Freeman, Arthur Rosenfeld and Amory Lovins are now being codified in an official capacity. They will change how things are built and the administrative process will dictated the behavioral change in the development community.

What this is about…

Lisa Goddard — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:58:23 +0000

This research was part of my senior thesis at UC Berkeley. The overlying questions is will smart city planning lead to behavioral change? The investigation looked at the policies put in place as early as 1963, that first protect our air quality, and briefly chronicled the subsequent 46 years of environmental policies established for the built environment. The case study identified San Francisco’s process of changing their building codes, and revealed that even with the best intentions, the City is still subject to the authority of an economic government embedded in financial markets and corporate greed. Economist, Adam Smith’s invisible hand holds our public institutions in its palm, as cities and their citizens wait to see when the market will right itself so that well planned social programs can be implemented.
The Green Building Ordinance and legislation like it, are formed by task forces in cities across the country. Initiatives on energy efficiency, transportation reform and walk-able communities recognize that investing in our energy infrastructure can solve many of our economic and social problems. The people resisting solutions, are often not people at all; they are the corporations, the capitalist, whose obligation is not to the public but to their shareholders. They are the overleveraged companies like General Growth, whose strategies looked more like a ponzi scheme than an investment in society.
There is certainly a lot of talk about the end of capitalism, but as long as the President speaks in terms of the market based economy the indistinguishable relationship between the State and the capitalist class will continue.

The Natural Step

Lisa Goddard — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:52:49 +0000

The Green Building Ordinance codifies what the development industry was already inclined to do. Architects made headway with developers on greening their buildings when the incentives to fast-track the permitting process were introduced in 2006. The market value of green building is high, but development in San Francisco is low. The city currently has two cranes floating above it, representing two commercial development projects that were permitted before the ordinance passed. General Growth Properties, one of the nations largest developers of shopping malls, filed the largest real estate bankruptcy in U.S. history (Jonas, “General”). “Everyone is worried about money,” said architect Robert Baum, including the Department of Building Inspection, who laid off 25% of their staff effective May 1, 2009. The industry is intertwined with banking and sources of financing are limited. According to Sam Chandan, president and chief economist at Real Estate Economics, “We will see a significant rise in delinquent and defaulted mortgages in commercial real estate above and beyond what we already experienced.” (ibid) The irony is that construction costs have free-falled and it’s cheaper to build a LEED certified building today then its ever been.

Renovation Credit

Lisa Goddard — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 18:50:16 +0000

The Ordinance maintains the aesthetic and character of San Francisco by penalizing demolition, and encouraging renovations. The strictest consequences apply to projects where the building slated for demolition, is also historical. With that criteria, a proposed project is required to attain LEED certification as well as LEED points equal to 10% of the total number of points available (Coblentz, p8). For example, if a building is required to obtain LEED Silver under the Ordinance and it plans to demolish an existing structure, it would have to actually attain LEED Gold. Choosing to renovate a historic building is rewarded by additional LEED points. The number of credits granted to the project is at the discretion of the DBI (ibid, p10).

Operational Efficiency and Commissioning

Lisa Goddard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 21:10:50 +0000

The Board of Supervisors passed the San Francisco Green Building Ordinance unanimously. There has been no industrial backlash and the only reported concern with the Ordinance has to do with some procedural liability issues at the DBI. The one issue expressed by both Robert Baum and Laurence Kornfield was that the LEED system has not sufficiently addressed the buildings operational efficiency. What this means is that measuring the buildings performance can’t occur until the building has been operation for at least a year. LEED has only addressed building operational efficiency in a section headed “Optimize Energy Performance” that allows up to 10 points for more efficient mechanical systems (USGBC, “LEED Green”). That less then 7% of the LEED Rating/Certification rewards the buildings operational efficiency indicates that the focus of the LEED rating is not properly weighted. This problem is currently being addressed by both the USGBC and through a new task force that the Mayor conveyed in February 2009, aptly named the “Existing Buildings Efficiency Initiative Task Force.” The task force is scheduled to deliver its recommendations by June 15, 2009 (SFenviron, “Mayor”). Kornfield, for his part at the DBI considers projects that propose alternative approaches to LEED and are geared toward increasing the buildings “durability” which will reduce the buildings operational cost.

Along the same lines of measuring the buildings operational performance is a section in the code for “Fundamental” and “Enhanced Commissioning.” What this states is that the building owner has to periodically verify that the building is meeting its sustainability requirements, by checking the buildings energy systems (SF, Build Code). The Fundamental Conditioning reviews the performance of HVAC, refrigeration, hot water and any renewable energy and lighting systems; Enhanced Commissioning deals with all the fundamental system verifications plus performance in other areas of sustainability (USGBC, “LEED”). The verification of the commissioning component has not been sufficiently developed in the LEED system. LEED is a point in time certification and there is currently no ongoing maintenance requirement (Longinotti, p21). According to Kornfield, there isn’t a green building inspector who makes a site visit, commissioning is met by a document that the owner submits verifying their compliance.

Green Building in the Great Recession

Lisa Goddard — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:50:55 +0000

What this meant for San Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance was that it would have to wait. The commercial real estate market dried up with the banking industry. The city agencies that were charged with moving projects through entitlement slowed; and developers waited. Tenant improvements to existing commercial spaces still occurred, but the scale of the projects didn’t require LEED certification. Residential building also continued, but was only subject to GreenPoint Rating/Certification that had a 25 point obligation over four areas.
The final Ordinance lacked the incentive based agreements between city staff and the developers, as suggested by the Task Force Recommendations. No incentives were included in the final Ordinance. Laurence Kornfield [Deputy Director] at the Department of Building Inspection (DBI) said in a telephone interview, “You’ve got to tell them [developers] what to do because incentives don’t work. ” Further, Kornfield added, the 2006, ordinance that updated the permitting process guidelines also gave priority status for LEED Gold certified projects.
San Francisco architect, Robert Baum, explained how the expedited process worked for his firm. They met with what he called the “Green Team” where the proposed project design and construction were reviewed, and LEED Gold certification confirmed. Some member of the Team said that they qualified for priority processing and that was it. The project moved toward permitting faster, he said, but he could not recall how much time was shaved off the waiting process and he questioned how the queuing up of projects were handled at the city agencies.
In the course of my research, I conducted four interviews: a land use attorney, a commercial architect, a developer and the building inspector. They all confirmed that while the ordinance codified LEED Silver Certification, the industry strives for LEED Gold. LEED Gold establishes priority processing and the cost benefit to the owner is greater. The general consensus was that LEED certification is valued in the marketplace, not only because its good for the overall health of the built environment, but it adds status and a source of competition in the industry. The development climate has progressed since the 2006 LEED Gold incentive and developers are increasingly motivated by the market demand for green.

Barriers to Implemention

Lisa Goddard — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:45:40 +0000

To fully evaluate the Green Building Ordinance it is crucial to examine the real estate market and financial climate in San Francisco. While the Task Force worked with the City to construct policies and procedures for adopting green building standards, the global financial markets started their decent. The government sponsored mortgage corporation Freddie Mac, was the first institution to be hit by the sub-prime mortgage crisis in early 2007. When the Mayor’s Task Force convened for the first time, investment bank, Bear Stearns liquidated two of its hedge funds and was heading quickly towards collapse (Federal Reserve, “Financial”). Meanwhile, the national commercial real estate market contracted, as the housing market spiraled downward. Lehman Brothers, another investment bank, filed for bankruptcy while the California Energy Commission reviewed San Francisco’s proposed Green Building Ordinance. By the time the Ordinance went into effect in November 2008, the U.S. Department of the Treasury was bailing out American International Group (AIG) and was considering doing the same for the failing American auto industry (Sorkin, “U.S.”). Marx’s theory of the State was being observed on the national stage and articles about the end of capitalism were circulating in reputable publications. The covert actions of the State institutions, its political process and embedded relationship with the ruling class were made visible.

The passed Ordinance

Lisa Goddard — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:23:05 +0000

The Board of Supervisors reviewed both proposals over the first half of 2008, and passed the Mayor’s ordinance on July 22, 2008 with strict safeguards insisted on by Peskin that promoted renovation and deterred demolition (SF Board., Ord. 180). The “renovate-don’t-demolish” policy required additional permit approval for buildings slated for demolition as well as additional LEED points (Longinotti, p20). The policy, designed to protect historical as well as non-historical buildings, could hinder a building project by increasing the points needed for permitting and could conceivably prevent projects from being built (ibid). Additionally, the Ordinance contained a “commissioning” process to verify that a building meets its requirements. Along with commissioning, the ordinance required indefinite maintenance, something that the LEED certification requirement had not addressed and could be problematic when determining who should bear the cost of compliance (ibid, p 21).

A more stringent order…

Lisa Goddard — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:40:55 +0000

While the Mayor’s Task Force was less than a month away from announcing their support for incremental change, the President of the Board of Supervisors, Aaron Peskin, introduced a Green Building Design Ordinance to the Board on June 19, 2007. Peskin proposed to amend the San Francisco Building Codes to require all of the same construction types that the Task Force addressed to comply immediately with the LEED Gold Standard (Longinotti, p14). Additionally, when applying for a building permit, applicants would have to document which measures they used to comply with the Gold standard or their application would be subject to rejection (ibid). Peskin proposed a mandatory compliance inspection after one year and failure could result in stopping the work or not issuing a permit to occupy the building (ibid). Exceptions to the Peskin ordinance would only be allowed for city projects and hardship cases determined by the the Department of Building Inspection.
An Economic Impact Report (EIR) followed the Peskin ordinance in September, 2007 and concluded that to achieve LEED Gold standing would increase estimated construction costs by 1.8 to 5% (SF Office of Econ., p3). In the short term, the economic impacts of both proposed ordinances could reduce the number of projects built in the City, increase rental rates and reduce employment. There was general agreement in the industry that the negative impact of higher construction cost would decline over time and the energy and water saved justified the short-term decline (ibid, p28). The EIR mitigation measures, like those of the Mayor’s Task Force, were to phase implementation of LEED Gold requirements. Further, the EIR suggested a tax on carbon generating activities, while providing a tax cut in other areas (ibid, p29).