SF to require new buildings be green

[BTinSF]

S.F. ahead of green curve
New development: Many companies eager to build in environmentally friendly manner
- Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer
Sunday, February 4, 2007

San Francisco is aiming to become one of the nation's first large cities to require that new, privately developed buildings meet rigorous standards of environmental friendliness.

The decision to pursue such standards, which will need Board of Supervisors approval, follows similar actions taken in Boston and Washington. Smaller cities have also adopted such mandatory rules, including several in the Bay Area.

It is part of a nationwide "green building'' revolution that experts say is prompted by government incentives and mandates, growing consumer demand and fears of global warming.

"It's a virtual tsunami of green buildings,'' said Charles Lockwood, a real estate consultant in Southern California and New York, who has written articles about green building for the Harvard Business Review and other publications. "Within the last year, the entire debate has shifted, and it's not a question of can we go green, it's how do we do it and how quickly.''

pb]Green buildings minimize environmental impacts with features such as natural lighting, solar power, low-flow water fixtures, no-flush urinals that use a chemical trap instead of water, and even use of nontoxic paints, glue, carpets and varnishes. A popular new product is an elevator that produces electricity as it descends.[/b]

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, buildings use more than 70 percent of the nation's electricity and more than 50 percent of natural gas. Roughly 15 million new buildings are expected to be built by 2015.

A 2003 study sponsored by the state of Massachusetts showed that the added cost of building according to LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) standards was less than 2 percent, but the financial benefits 10 times that amount due to less energy and water use, waste production and maintenance costs. The study estimated that such buildings were on average 25 to 30 percent more energy- efficient, and said other studies conservatively suggested that worker productivity in LEED buildings was higher by at least 1 percent.

Publishing giant McGraw-Hill, which owns trade publications aimed at the construction industry, produced a study that predicted 2007 would be a "tipping point'' for the residential green market, with most builders doing at least 15 percent of their work to green specifications.

That study also predicted that green building would comprise 10 percent of the nonresidential construction market, and last month McGraw-Hill reported that school construction is the fastest growing part of the green building explosion.

"We think that it's going to become standard for building over the next 10 years,'' said report author Michele Russo.

The firm estimated the green new-home building market at $7 billion a year and projected it would grow to between $20 billion and $38 billion by 2010. That is still only a fraction of the roughly $335 billion residential construction market.

Many local, state and federal government agencies already require that new public buildings meet the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED standards, which rate buildings in five key areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. Qualified buildings are given certified, silver, gold and platinum ratings based on a checklist. This has become the nation's most recognized rating system for large buildings

In San Francisco, planners are considering proposing a mandatory green building program for large projects just months after launching a fast-track permitting program for developers who voluntarily met LEED standards.

"We think it probably makes sense locally. We are giving serious consideration to moving with that as a legal requirement,'' said Dean Macris, San Francisco's planning director. A spokesman said Mayor Gavin Newsom also supports the idea.

A handful of cities in the Bay Area already have mandatory green standards.

Pleasanton in 2002 was apparently the first in the state, and one of the first cities nationwide, to require that large commercial buildings meet minimum LEED standards, and that civic projects qualify for LEED silver certification. The city also has green standards for single-family homes. Other cities with mandatory programs include Cotati, Livermore, Novato and Sebastopol.

So far, in Pleasanton about 25 commercial projects and hundreds of houses have been developed to meet the standards. There, Centex Homes has almost sold out its 30-unit Avignon subdivision of $1.5 million to $3.5 million homes, each equipped with solar panels and other green features such as tankless water heaters and use of recycled materials.

There are dozens of other public and private projects around the Bay Area boasting or seeking green certifications, including a police headquarters in Cotati, Orinda's new city hall, office buildings in San Mateo, San Rafael and San Jose and mixed-use buildings in Berkeley and Sebastopol.

"Green building in general was one of the first environmental movements that started to cross party lines because it just makes business sense. There's a really strong fiscal case,'' said Mark Zahniser, director of the Green Building Council's LEED program.

Such buildings result in lower energy and water bills. Studies have also shown that increasing the amount of natural light, using materials with fewer toxins and increasing air circulation translates to greater worker productivity, reduced absenteeism and better employee retention, said real estate consultant Lockwood.

Brian Gitt, executive director of Build-It-Green, a Berkeley-based rating and certification agency similar to the Green Building Council, said he is fascinated at the surge of interest among builders, architects, engineers and Realtors. The group's certification classes were sparsely attended three years ago, but now the council routinely sells out 100-seat seminars. They have a waiting list for future classes.

"Something happened about a year ago. No one can put their finger on it, but there was an incredible surge in attention to green building,'' he said. Today, the group is consulting with 70 public agencies around the state.

San Francisco officials say they have been overwhelmed since September with inquiries from developers who want to get on the permitting fast track in exchange for building green projects. Such a perk means developers are assigned a city planner in weeks, not months, and their building plans are also reviewed in just a few weeks instead of an additional six months.

A half-dozen high-rise projects are already getting fast-track treatment. But so many developers sought the speedy approval that planners decided to make green building requirements mandatory. Boston adopted mandatory standards last month, although those requirements aren't as strict as what is proposed in San Francisco.

Mark Solit, the Orinda developer who has proposed a San Francisco development that includes two 1,200-foot-tall skyscrapers at First and Mission streets, said it's not just planners who want green projects.

"More and more consumers are aware of it and want it and are willing to pay for environmentally sensitive products, of all kinds, not just development,'' he said. "Obviously the marketplace is dictating to us that we do some of these things voluntarily.''

Mandatory standards have opposition in the California Building Industry Association, which sponsors a voluntary certification program called California Green Builder.

Don Mull, who heads the Stockton-based program, said that programs ordered by local governments create regulatory inconsistencies statewide and drive up prices by preventing builders from mass producing houses.

The Green Builder program requires 15 percent better energy efficiency than the state's residential standard, and a cut in water usage of 20,000 gallons -- about 12 to 14 percent of normal usage. About 1,100 homes have been completed through the program, and 2,300 more are under construction, Mull said.

Page A - 1
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...2/04/GREEN.TMP

HOWEVER, with regard to green residential construction, the Wall Street Journal published this piece today:

February 2, 2007, 6:09 pm
Few Home Buyers Pay Up for Green Features
These days, everyone is talking about eco-friendly home construction, but BusinessWeek finds that few consumers are willing to spend money on environmentally friendly features.

Green home amenities — from bamboo flooring to solar panels to energy-efficient appliances — used to be available primarily in custom-built houses aimed at rich or very environmentally conscious buyers. But in the past few years, home builders have begun to offer green features to a broader market. What they discovered, BusinessWeek says, is that the publicity surrounding eco-friendly homes isn’t translating into sales.

Three years ago, home-building giant KB Home began offering houses built with eco-friendly wood in Pleasanton, California. Although this added only $3,500 to the cost of a $700,000 home, buyers weren’t interested. Last year, just 47 of KB’s 25,000 home buyers chose bamboo flooring. Elsewhere, eco-oriented home builder McStain Neighborhoods of Louisville, Colo., says few of its customers are interested in its $25,000 solar panels — it has installed just three solar kits in six years.

BusinessWeek says recently introduced government subsidies, along with more stringent environmental building codes, could jumpstart the green-home market. And as the housing market cools, some builders have decided to make green features standard to lure buyers. – Wendy Pollack

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader/...res/trackback/

^^^By the way, my sister recently had wood floors retrofitted in her house and chose bamboo. IMHO, it looks really nice and has the advantage of being harder, and therefore more scratch-resistant, than conventional wood flooring.