|
Laurence Kornfield, CBO, TSD/DBI
Alan Tokugawa, TSD/DBI
Craig Nikitas, Senior Planner, Planning Dept.
Ken Cleaveland, BOMA
|
|
3.0
|
Discussion and possible action regarding green building issues as they may relate to structures of historic nature.
Craig Nikitas, Senior Planner, stated that the Planning Department proposed a revision to the Green Building Ordinance to address:
1.) greater encouragement than the current LEED system offers to reuse existing buildings and to retain the historic fabric of historic resources, and
2.) find a means of measuring the embodied resources that are lost when a building, historic or otherwise, is demolished.
The following items were discussed:
- The Planning Department estimates that there are between 110 and 115 million (?) BTUs per square foot of embedded resources in a building that includes the energy required to manufacture and distribute materials, and to construct a building. This is not addressed under the LEED system other than to allow some points for the reuse of elements of the building, and it is not addressed at all in the GreenPoint rating system. The Planning Department has looked at providing for a demolition offset that would require a project that demolishes a building to achieve a higher number of GreenPoints or LEED credits.
- Demolition is defined for a building that is not an historic resource, under CEQA, as removing 50 percent of the front and rear facades, and more than 65 percent of the total perimeter of the building. This is the definition given in the Planning Code. For buildings considered an historic resource, demolition is defined as per Article 10 of the Planning Code dealing with historic preservation.
- Demolition offsets may be reduced for non-historic resource buildings by increasing the occupant density of the project. Increased occupant density for a given building footprint would inherently create an economy of scale with respect to energy usage, increased transit benefits, construction costs, etc. For example, tripling the density would allow for an 8 percent offset reduction.
- This ordinance has set the LEED standard to be used to that which was in place about a year ago. A project sponsor may choose to use more current LEED standards if the requirements are considered to be more stringent than the previous edition.
- Phil Williams noted that he had concerns with the process of this ordinance because it was adding a dimension to the project review that was outside of a recognized system, i.e., a San Francisco only system, and also that it added a level of calculation complexity. All of these would occur at the environmental review stage, and not the DBI review stage, so the requirements would be known up front.
- There may be a possibility of exempting previously required demolition offsets by means of a canceling a permit and reopening a permit application under a new project and sponsorship. This can be covered by including a five-year “reach-back” requirement for demolitions.
- The source for the figures for the value of the energy embedded in existing construction was discussed further. The figures were based on a case study of about 24 buildings on the West Coast and calculate the savings based on LEED points.
- For mid-size commercial interior improvements (5,000 to 25,000 s.f.), there are no associated LEED credit requirements, but prerequisites, such as the provision of five different items beyond current standards, e.g., save water, provide for rainwater, etc. , which are phased in over a period of five years of the ordinance, but for demolition offsets, these prerequisites would have accelerated implementation.
- It was noted that the application of Build it Green standards to highrise buildings as an alternative rating system is a possibility.
- This ordinance was supposed to have a 90-day hold period after it is approved by the mayor before it becomes effective, but due to the length of time expended on it thus far that the Supervisors are considering reducing it to a 30-day holds period after the mayor signs the legislation.
- DBI and Planning are taking steps now to prepare for the implementation of this ordinance through training, certifications, etc.
- It was suggested that an informal letter of endorsement to the Board of Supervisors from this Subcommittee would be helpful to the Planning Department. Momentum would be lost if approval from the full CAC was waited for.
- It was questioned whether there would be any prerequisites or standards in the LEED system that would be dropped out if the Build It Green system was accepted for highrise projects. This should be reviewed further and the Department of the Environment will have a chance to make their comments as well. The better way would be to have an appropriate professional review the project and write a letter stating that the proposed credits or prerequisites meet certain LEED levels.
- Next step, Craig Nikitas will redraft his initial memo and redo the five case studies of different types of projects: highrise, mid-size commercial, mid-size residential, small residential, and major alterations. He will also simplify the credits for the reuse of historic materials.
- Suggested text of endorsement letter: “The Subcommittee endorses the proposed amendments to the Green Building Ordinance regarding demolition and retention of historical and non-historical buildings, and the cultural significance, embodied energy, and the value and efficiency of urban density with regards to sustainable design and development.”
- A motion was made to adopt the proposed letter of endorsement, seconded, and passed unanimously.
|
