OPINION COLUMN, MARCH 2008

GOOD INTENTIONS, NOT ENOUGH TEETH
Los Angeles' new green building ordinance is not nearly forceful enough to truly effect change. Similar legislation elsewhere in the West can — and should — do better.
Randy Shortridge

Shortridge

Although it is a small step in the right direction, lack of teeth may undercut the good intentions of the soon-to-be-adopted green building ordinance establishing a Green Building Program in the City of Los Angeles. Unfortunately, the ordinance’s good intentions lead to a reality in which developers won’t have to make many real, substantive changes beyond current California standards. The city can and should do more to ensure energy and resource conservation in new buildings coming online in Los Angeles.

Living Up to a Legacy

California specifically and the West in general have historically led the nation in its legislation on energy conservation and environmental policy; new green building legislation throughout the Golden State should live up to that legacy. Nearly 30 years ago, California Title 24 established energy efficiency standards that were ahead of their time, and California led the nation in these requirements. With the state mandated Title 24 standards already in place and continually updated, adding basic LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards is a small step forward rather than a major milestone in advancing sustainability goals. New legislation should effect change by making sure policies apply to projects of all or at least most sizes, and by ensuring that simple practices that can have substantial impact become mandatory and rigorously enforced.

Downtown Los Angeles

The reality is all sizes matter — small projects need to contribute to creating a more sustainable environment as much as large properties. The L.A. ordinance as written only addresses properties that comprise more than 50,000 square feet or 50 residential units, leaving the majority of smaller building and remodeling projects unaffected by the new rules. Single-family homes, small multifamily residential projects and modest-size commercial properties make up a significant percentage of the built environment (old and new), and these remain unaffected by this ordinance. Other communities in the state are more fundamentally affecting their built environment by passing legislation that enforces sustainability standards for a much broader range of building scales. For example, neighboring Pasadena’s ordinance requires municipal buildings of more than 5,000 square feet and commercial buildings of more than 25,000 square feet to adopt green measures.

Reliance on basic LEED intent, as opposed to certification, to drive resource efficiency is another carefully veiled flaw of the ordinance. In fact, California’s Title 24 already provides for higher levels of energy efficiency than ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers) standards. With existing state and local requirements already in place, achieving an unverified LEED Silver equivalency won’t require too much additional effort or investment. Amazingly, projects at this level are promised a leap to the front of the building permit line, but since they will not have to receive actual certification, substitutions and value engineering during construction will likely undermine the good intentions of the ordinance.

Ideally, property developers in Los Angeles should be required at a minimum to certify — not just meet the intent of — LEED Silver rating and should promise LEED Gold levels before they elbow their way to the front of any lines. This requirement will equip legislation with the metaphorical teeth it needs to effect real change. The truth is, in Los Angeles today, basic LEED equivalency can be achieved by almost any project. For example, developers can be awarded LEED points for project features that are readily available givens for any real estate endeavor in most areas of the city: proximity to public transportation, adaptive reuse, reduced parking capacities, redevelopment of urban sites, etc. Other easily achievable points such as basic construction stage waste sorting procedures are already in place, and, of course, Title 24 energy codes are already mandated — all easy LEED points, so to speak. This ease-of-achievement renders the new L.A. ordinance a rather weak attempt at change.

Actually requiring new and refurbished buildings to be LEED certified would raise the bar to an appropriate level. For example, as a mandatory part of actual LEED certification, mechanical systems commissioning is required, and this component of the process comes long after building permits are issued. Much like tuning a piano, a team of engineers calibrates the heating and cooling systems within a building upon completion and trains the building maintenance engineers to ensure that the systems operate at maximum efficiency. Without the LEED certification requirement, the process of making a building up to 10 percent more energy efficient is often overlooked because of budget and time constraints as the design and construction teams rush to complete their punch lists and open the building for operation. The new ordinance should make this process mandatory to ensure that all new buildings covered by it operate in a significantly more energy efficient way.

Small Steps vs. Major Strides

All things considered, something is better than nothing, and the L.A. ordinance does represent a tentative step in the right direction. There are specific aspects of the L.A. ordinance that will positively impact the city’s water and energy usage, and should cost an estimated average of less than 2 percent more to build — that is, if developers follow through on the promises they make at the building permit desk. Another encouraging aspect of the ordinance is the promise that the Green Building Team it creates will continually strengthen the various ordinance provisions. Other municipalities, however, should consider making major strides toward a sustainable built environment, rather than small steps that will almost certainly require revision in years to come.

Randy Shortridge is vice president of RTKL Associates in Los Angeles.

©2008 France Publications, Inc. Duplication or reproduction of this article not permitted without authorization from France Publications, Inc. For information on reprints of this article contact Barbara Sherer at (630) 554-6054.