Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
SUSTAINABILITY
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
CLIMATE CHANGE
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Most polluted metropolitan regions by particulate matter
Most polluted cities by ozone pollution
1. Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA
1. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
2. Bakersfield, CA
2. Bakersfield, CA
3. Fresno-Madera, CA
3. Fresno-Madera, CA
4. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA
4. Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA
5. Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA
5. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
6. Modesto-Merced, CA
6. Modesto-Merced, CA
7. El Centro, CA
7. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA
8. Pittsburgh-New Castle-Weirton, PA-OH-WV
8. Sacramento-Roseville, CA
9. Cleveland-Akron-Canton, OH
9. New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA
10. San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles, CA
10. Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
COURTESY OF ARUP
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
RESILIENCE
INCREASE IN AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
8° C RCP 8.5 Business as usual 2.2 trillion tons carbon
7° C 6° C
RCP 6.0 emissions peak 2080 2.2 trillion tons carbon
5° C 4° C
RCP 4.5 emissions peak 2040/2050 1.3 trillion tons carbon
3° C 2° C 1° C
RCP 2.5 0.53 trillion tons carbon zero CO₂ emissions ~2050
2014 0 1950
2000
2100
2050
2150
2200
GLOBAL TEMPERATURE PROJECTIONS FOR VARIOUS RCP SCENARIOS
THE 2 C SCENARIO O
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
30
RCP 8.5 2.05 trillion tons carbon
FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS (GTC / YEAR)
25
20 emissions peak 2080
15
RCP 6.0 1.43 trillion tons carbon
emissions peak 2040/2050
10 emissions peak 2020
RCP 4.5 1.15 trillion tons carbon
5 ~ 33% above 2°C
RCP 2.6 (2° C) 0.64 trillion tons carbon
~ 66% below 2°C
0 1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
PATHWAYS FOR FOSSIL FUEL CARBON EMISSIONS TO 2100
THE 2 C SCENARIO O
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
30
RCP 8.5 2.05 trillion tons carbon
FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS (GTC / YEAR)
25
20 emissions peak 2080
15
RCP 6.0 1.43 trillion tons carbon
emissions peak 2040/2050
10 emissions peak 2020
RCP 4.5 1.15 trillion tons carbon
5 RCP 2.6 (1.5° C) >85% below 2° C -0.53 trillion tons carbon
RCP 2.6 (2° C) 0.64 trillion tons carbon
0 1960
1980
2000
2020
2040
2060
2080
2100
PATHWAYS FOR FOSSIL FUEL CARBON EMISSIONS TO 2100
THE 1.5 C SCENARIO O
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
HIGH PERFORMANCE DESIGN
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
DEEP EFFICIENCY RENOVATIONS
RENEWABLE ENERGY
PATH TO 80% BY 2050
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Typical building Office 2008
Building Stock Office 2012
Title 24 - 2013 Title 24 - 2016
Tier 1 - 15% Stretch Code Tier 2 - 30% Stretch Code
Title 24 - 2013
Title 24 - 2016
Title 24 - 2019 (EDR Efficiency) Title 24 - 2019 (EDR PV Solar)
100
80 84
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
60 72
40 51.5 50 47.6 45 40.5 33.3
20 24.3
0 Net Zero
PATH TO NET ZERO
RPS RENEWABLE CAPACITY INSTALLED IN CALIFORNIA (IN MW) BY RESOURCE TYPE
STATEWIDE AND U.S. BASELINE ELECTRICITY ANNUAL CONSUMPTION PER CAPITA
25,000 14,000
600
NAMEPLATE CAPACITY (MW)
12,000
10,000
500
KWH
400
8,000
6,000
300
Per Capita Consumption - CA
20,000 Solar PV Solar Thermal
15,000
Wind Geothermal Small Hydro
10,000
Biomass
4,000
5,000 Per Capita Consumption - US
200
2,000
SOURCE: California Energy Commission, Tracking Progress web page. Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, updated December 20, 2016.
CALIFORNIA ENERGY
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2014
2011
2008
2005
SOURCE: California Energy Commission, 2016. California Energy Demand 2016-2026. Revised Electricity Forecast. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC-200-2016-001-V1 Adopted 2016.
NOTE: Not shown is California’s 2050 goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 as set in Executive Order B-30-15.
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
2002
2030
1999
2025
1996
2020
1993
2015
1990
2010 YEAR
1987
2005
1984
2000
1981
1995
1978
1990
0
0
0
1975
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (MMTC02e)
CALIFORNIA’S PATH TO PROGRESS TO MEET CLIMATE GOALS
SOURCE: California Energy Commission, prepared with data from Tracking Progress, Renewable Energy, updated December 22, 2016, and posted December 27, 2016. (This approximates RPS eligibility but it should not be used for evaluating compliance.)
CONSUMPTION
7.25
14.0
13.5 BILLION SQUARE FEET
BILLION SQUARE FEET
7.00
6.75
6.50
6.25
13.0
12.5
6.00
12.0
0
0
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2000
2014
2002
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (FLOOR SPACE 2000 - 2014)
350,000
18,000
300,000
16,000 MILLIONS OF THERMS
MILLIONS OF KWH
CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS (FLOOR SPACE 2000 - 2014)
2004
250,000
200,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
150,000
California 2014-2015 Record warm years
100,000
8,000
0
0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION (BUILDINGS)
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
CALIFORNIA BUILDING
2012
2014
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
CALIFORNIA GAS CONSUMPTION (BUILDINGS)
CONSUMPTION
16
& PG
Equivilent to emitting
METRIC TONS OF CO2 on a monthly basis.
Average of
E
E SC
30,000
kWh per month.
Equivilent of CO2.
16
ENERGY WP D A
METRIC TONS OF
S
F
C
NI A IFOR L A
L
Biomass & Biowaste Geothermal Hydro Solar Wind Natural Gas Nuclear Coal Other Unspecified Sources
STAT EO
UNDERSTANDING OUR CONSUMPTION
Equivilent of
& DG
5
E
annual vehicles.
40,000
30,000
2
20,000
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
homes’ annual
October
August
July
June
May
April
March
February
January
(kWh) 0
December
30’
November
10,000
September
Equivilent of consumption.
GHG emissions: Monthly average GHG emissions: Year to Date GHG emissions: Anticipated annual generation
15
Requires sequester.
Acres of forest to
AB 32 CA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
AB 802 ENERGY EFFICIENCY (ENERGY STAR)
SB 775 AB 32 - CAP + TRADE EXTENSION
2006
2016
2017 - TBD
requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a reduction of approximately 15 percent below emissions expected under a “business as usual” scenario.
establishing as a market-based compliance mechanism, basically a revamp of the current Cap + Trade program by increasing the minimum reserve prices for GHG(e) allowances and increasing over time.
mandates the establishment of a new (extension of the) statewide building energy use benchmarking and public disclosure program known as Energy Star for the sale or refinancing of a facility.
SB 32 AB 32 EMISSIONS LIMIT EXTENSION
SB 375 SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
2016
2008
Extendes the GHG Emission reductions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030.
supports the State’s climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. (Driven by ARB 2020 and 2035 regional targets).
AB 197 AB 32 EMISSIONS REGULATION 2016
AB 341 COMMERCIAL RECYCLING LAW 2011
sets a 75% waste diversion goal for all commercial facilities, and those generating greater than 4 cubic yards of waste on a weekly basis by 2020.
increases legislative oversight of ARB and provides additional direction about how to achieve the new SB 32 2030 goals.
SB 1383 SHORT-LIVED CLIMATE POLLUTANTS 2016
establishes specific reduction goals for nonCO2 climate pollutants such as methane, black carbon and HFCs.
SB 350 CLEAN ENERGY & POLLUTION 2015
REDUCTION ACT
Increases renewable targets for utilities to 50% by 2030. Driven by the PUC.
2006
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
2008
2011
2015 2016
POLICY
DESIGN HEALTH + + CONSTRUCTION WELLNESS
URBAN DENSITY REPORTING + ESG COMMUNITY GRI CSR
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
WELL LIVING LAB
CLIMATE ACTION PLANS
VARIOUS CERTIFICATIONS
DISTRICT SCALE INITIATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE GLOBAL REPORTING INITATIVE
OWNER DRIVEN CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY REPORT
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
TRENDS
1,000+ RESPONDENTS 27% Architects 25% Contractors / Builders 22% Specialist 13% Owner / Developer 13% Engineering Firm
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
LOS ANGELES
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Defining the PIVOT
100,000
Owners of existing green buildings reported that their ROI improved by
100,000 LEED Certified Projects to date
80,000
And new projects increased by
19.2% 9.9%
60,000 40,000
Operating costs decreased by for new construction
20,000
400 WELL Projects Registered / 20 WELL Certified Projects to date
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
0
And existing building projects decreased by
10.9% 6.8%
New Construction building value increased by And existing building retrofits saw an increase of an average of
400 350 300 250
Increased asset valuation: New green building projects: 2017
2016
2015
200
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
13.6% 8.5%
Green building retrofits:
5% 4%
Summary Statement Market Sector Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
A holistic approach to reducing the impact GHG emissions and overall enviornmental impact in the built enviornment. New Construction and Existing Buildings Worldwide, primarily US LEED AP
Reviewing Entity
GBCI
Year Established
2000
GSF Certified Number of Projects Certified
In the Billions 101,501
Major Players
GSA, Kohls, Hines, Brookfield,
Sub-Systems
BD+C, ID+C, O+M, ND, Homes
Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase Required by Governmental Entities Financial Benefits % overlap with CA Code Registration Fees Consulting Fees Review Fees
Point Based: 40 - 110 Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum Prescriptive, Performance and Policies Design / Construction / Post Occupancy GSA - 25% of market is required to be in a LEED certified space. Many cities within CA has adopted LEED into their local codes Tax benefits in several states 40% in California $ $900 $$ - $$$ $30,000 - $120,000 $$ ~ $.03 / SF - $15,000 Max
Most Valued Take-Away
Driving force behine environmental stewardship in buildings. The basis for GRESB
Notes
The quantity of registration has finally plateaued, though are still consistently pursuing
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Summary Statement Market Sector
Aims to protect, improve and regenerate ecosystems through it’s projects. Largely landscape architecture (of first 150 beta projects, 25% were open space, followed by institutional‌ etc.)
Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
Worldwide Sites AP
Reviewing Entity
GBCI
Year Established
2006 / 2015
GSF Certified Number of Projects Certified
46
Major Players
Federal Government, States, Counties, Cities
Sub-Systems
None
Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase Required by Governmental Entities Financial Benefits % overlap with CA Code Registration Fees Consulting Fees Review Fees Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
2 year pilot 6/2010 - 6/2012 with 46 projects (30,000,000+ SF). Currenlty have 40,000,000 SF registered across 40 projects.
Points, same as LEED Cert / Silver / Gold / Platinum Same as LEED Design and Construction Yes - see market research notes (Government and Cities adoption) (CA, NJ adopting) No Federal, but looking at other incentives. TBD. TBD $2,500 - $3,000 TBD, likely $20k - $50k $6,500 - $9,000 Great for landscape architecture.
Project Name: _____________________________________________________________________
SITES v2 Scorecard Summary YES
0 Y Y Y Y
0 Y Y Y
0 Y Y
0 Y Y Y
0 Y
?
0
0
0
0
0
NO
0 1: SITE CONTEXT CONTEXT P1.1 CONTEXT P1.2 CONTEXT P1.3 CONTEXT P1.4 CONTEXT C1.5 CONTEXT C1.6 CONTEXT C1.7
Possible Points: Limit development on farmland Protect floodplain functions Conserve aquatic ecosystems Conserve habitats for threatened and endangered species Redevelop degraded sites Locate projects within existing developed areas Connect to multi‐modal transit networks
0 2: PRE‐DESIGN ASSESSMENT + PLANNING Use an integrative design process PRE‐DESIGN P2.1 Conduct a pre‐design site assessment PRE‐DESIGN P2.2 Designate and communicate VSPZs PRE‐DESIGN P2.3 Engage users and stakeholders PRE‐DESIGN C2.4
Possible Points:
0 3: SITE DESIGN ‐ WATER WATER P3.1 WATER P3.2 WATER C3.3 WATER C3.4 WATER C3.5 WATER C3.6
Possible Points:
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
?
0
0
0 6: SITE DESIGN ‐ HUMAN HEALTH + WELL‐BEING Possible Points: 30 Protect and maintain cultural and historic places HHWB C6.1 2 to 3 Provide optimum site accessibility, safety, and wayfinding HHWB C6.2 2 Promote equitable site use HHWB C6.3 2 Support mental restoration HHWB C6.4 2 Support physical activity HHWB C6.5 2 Support social connection HHWB C6.6 2 Provide on‐site food production HHWB C6.7 3 to 4 Reduce light pollution HHWB C6.8 4 Encourage fuel efficient and multi‐modal transportation HHWB C6.9 4 Minimize exposure to environmental tobacco smoke HHWB C6.10 1 to 2 Support local economy HHWB C6.11 3
0 Y Y Y
0
0 7: CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION P7.1 CONSTRUCTION P7.2 CONSTRUCTION P7.3 CONSTRUCTION C7.4 CONSTRUCTION C7.5 CONSTRUCTION C7.6 CONSTRUCTION C7.7
3
23
4 to 6 4 to 6 4 to 5 4 to 6 Possible Points:
0 5: SITE DESIGN ‐ MATERIALS SELECTION Possible Points: Eliminate the use of wood from threatened tree species MATERIALS P5.1 Maintain on‐site structures and paving MATERIALS C5.2 Design for adaptability and disassembly MATERIALS C5.3 Use salvaged materials and plants MATERIALS C5.4 Use recycled content materials MATERIALS C5.5 Use regional materials MATERIALS C5.6 Support responsible extraction of raw materials MATERIALS C5.7 Support transparency and safer chemistry MATERIALS C5.8 Support sustainability in materials manufacturing MATERIALS C5.9 Support sustainability in plant production MATERIALS C5.10
5/12/2017
YES
3 to 6 4 2 to 3
3
Manage precipitation on site Reduce water use for landscape irrigation Manage precipitation beyond baseline Reduce outdoor water use Design functional stormwater features as amenities Restore aquatic ecosystems
0 4: SITE DESIGN ‐ SOIL + VEGETATION Create and communicate a soil management plan SOIL+VEG P4.1 Control and manage invasive plants SOIL+VEG P4.2 Use appropriate plants SOIL+VEG P4.3 Conserve healthy soils and appropriate vegetation SOIL+VEG C4.4 Conserve special status vegetation SOIL+VEG C4.5 Conserve and use native plants SOIL+VEG C4.6 Conserve and restore native plant communities SOIL+VEG C4.7 Optimize biomass SOIL+VEG C4.8 Reduce urban heat island effects SOIL+VEG C4.9 Use vegetation to minimize building energy use SOIL+VEG C4.10 Reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire SOIL+VEG C4.11
13
Project ID#:_______________ Date: __________________
40
4 to 6 4 3 to 6 4 to 6 1 to 6 4 1 to 4 4 41 2 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 4 3 to 5 1 to 5 1 to 5 5 1 to 5
0 Y Y
0
NO
Possible Points: Communicate and verify sustainable construction practices Control and retain construction pollutants Restore soils disturbed during construction Restore soils disturbed by previous development Divert construction and demolition materials from disposal Divert reusable vegetation, rocks, and soil from disposal Protect air quality during construction
3 to 5 3 to 4 3 to 4 2 to 4
0 8. OPERATIONS + MAINTENANCE Possible Points: Plan for sustainable site maintenance O+M P8.1 Provide for storage and collection of recyclables O+M P8.2 Recycle organic matter O+M C8.3 Minimize pesticide and fertilizer use O+M C8.4 Reduce outdoor energy consumption O+M C8.5 Use renewable sources for landscape electricity needs O+M C8.6 Protect air quality during landscape maintenance O+M C8.7
3 to 5 4 to 5 2 to 4 3 to 4 2 to 4
Possible Points:
11 3 to 4 3 4
Bonus Points:
9 3 to 9
0
0
0 9. EDUCATION + PERFORMANCE MONITORING Promote sustainability awareness and education EDUCATION C9.1 Develop and communicate a case study EDUCATION C9.2 Plan to monitor and report site performance EDUCATION C9.3
0
0
0 10. INNOVATION OR EXEMPLARY PERFORMANCE Innovation or exemplary performance INNOVATION C10.1
YES
?
NO
0
0
0
TOTAL ESTIMATED POINTS
KEY YES Project confident points are achievable ?
17
Project striving to achieve points, not 100% confident
NO Project is unable to achieve these credit points
Total Possible Points: SITES Certification levels CERTIFIED SILVER GOLD PLATINUM Page 1 of 1 Copyright © 2014
22
200 Points 70 85 100 135
Summary Statement
Living Buildings are self-sufficient and remain within the resource limits of their site. Living Buildings produce more energy than they use and collect and treat all water on site.
Market Sector
New Construction
Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
Worldwide, primarily US NA
Reviewing Entity
Living Building Institute
Year Established
2000
GSF Certified Number of Projects Certified
14 Million+ GSF 300+ most on the US West Coast
Major Players
Institutional / Environmental
Sub-Systems
Buildings, Renovations and Landscape + Infrastructure
Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase
100% Compliance with system Living Buildings Challenge / Living Communities Challenge / Petals Prescriptive, Performance and Policies Design / Construction
Required by Governmental Entities
NA
Financial Benefits
NA
% overlap with CA Code
NA
Registration Fees Consulting Fees Review Fees Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
$ $900 $$ - $$$ $30,000 - $120,000 $$ $1,250 - $10,000+ A true challenge for designers. Energy and Water issues vary depending on location / climate.
SUMMARY MATRIX Imperative omitted from Typology
The 20 Imperatives of the Living Building Challenge: Follow down the column associated with each Typology to see which Imperatives apply.
Solutions beyond project footprint are permissible
LIVING COMMUNITY CHALLENGE 1.1
SM
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 3.1 BUILDINGS
RENOVATIONS
A Visionary Path to a Regenerative Future
LANDSCAPE + INFRASTRUCTURE
PLACE
01. LIMITS TO GROWTH SCALE JUMPING
SCALE JUMPING
02. URBAN AGRICULTURE
SCALE JUMPING
03. HABITAT EXCHANGE
LI BU CH
04. HUMAN-POWERED LIVING WATER
SCALE JUMPING
05. NET POSITIVE WATER
ENERGY
SCALE JUMPING
06. NET POSITIVE ENERGY
HEALTH + HAPPINESS
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 3.1
07. CIVILIZED ENVIRONMENT
SM
08. HEALTHY INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT 09. BIOPHILIC ENVIRONMENT MATERIALS
A Visionary Path to a Regenerative Future
10. RED LIST SCALE JUMPING
11. EMBODIED CARBON FOOTPRINT 12. RESPONSIBLE INDUSTRY 13. LIVING ECONOMY SOURCING
LIVIN PROD CHAL
14. NET POSITIVE WASTE EQUITY
15. HUMAN SCALE + HUMANE PLACES 16. UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO NATURE + PLACE SCALE JUMPING
LIVING PRODUCT CHALLENGE 1.0
17. EQUITABLE INVESTMENT 18. JUST ORGANIZATIONS
BEAUTY
SM
19. BEAUTY + SPIRIT
A Visionary Path to a Regenerative Future
20. INSPIRATION + EDUCATION
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Living Building ChallengeSM 3.1
|
21
Summary Statement Market Sector Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
To create healthy, productive, enjoyable environments Primarily office, followed by residential Worldwide, largest market is California followed by Guangdong Sheng WELL AP / Assessor
Reviewing Entity
3rd Party Entity - IWBI (International Well Building Institute)
Year Established
2013
GSF Certified
TBD
Number of Projects Certified Major Players
CBRE, Delloitte, HOK, Glumac, HSK
Sub-Systems
CS, NB and EB
Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase Required by Governmental Entities Financial Benefits % overlap with CA Code Registration Fees Consulting Fees Review Fees Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
33+ projects certified, 400+ registered
Feature based, Pre-Conditions = Silver, 40% = Gold, 80% = Platinum Silver, Gold, Platinum Primariliy visual inspection and performance verification, also policy and documentation based. More about implementation over documentation. Design None Productivity increases, talent retention, etc. Mostly with ASHRAE standards $ - $$$ $11,800+ $$ $0.05 - $.17 / SF (recertification) TBD The standard is still evolving. Essential for stakeholders to be involved from the beginning. Assessor costs can be a hurdle.
Core and Shell Nourishment 38 Fruits and vegetables
P
P
39
Processed foods
P
P
P
40
Food allergies
P
P
P
41
Hand washing
P
P
42
Food contamination
P
P
43
Artificial ingredients
O
P
P
44
Nutritional information
O
P
P
45
Food advertising
O
P
P
46
Safe food preparation materials
O
O
47
Serving sizes
O
O
48
Special diets
O
O
49
Responsible food production
O
O
50
Food storage
O
O
51
Food production
O
O
O
52
Mindful eating
O
O
O
Light 53
Visual lighting design
P
P
54
Circadian lighting design
P
P
55
Electric light glare control
P
P
P
56
Solar glare control
O
P
P
57
Low-glare workstation design
O
O
58
Color quality
O
O
59
Surface design
O
O
60
Automated shading and dimming controls
O
O
61
Right to light
O
O
O
62
Daylight modeling
O
O
O
63
Daylighting fenestration
O
O
O
P
O
P
Fitness 64 Interior fitness circulation 65
Activity incentive programs
P
P
66
Structured fitness opportunities
O
O
67
Exterior active design
O
O
O
68
Physical activity spaces
O
O
O
69
Active transportation support
O
O
O
70
Fitness equipment
O
O
O
71
Active furnishings
O
O
P
P
P
P
Comfort 72 Accessible design
P
73
Ergonomics: visual and physical
74
Exterior noise intrusion
P
O
P
75
Internally generated noise
O
P
P
76
Thermal comfort
P
P
P
77
Olfactory comfort
O
O
78
Reverberation time
O
O
79
Sound masking
O
O
80
Sound reducing surfaces
O
O
81
Sound barriers
O
O
82
Individual thermal control
O
O
83
Radiant thermal comfort
O
O
WELL Building Standard v1 Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
New and Existing New and Existing Interiors Buildings
O
Introduction
20
Summary Statement Market Sector
Aims to create healthy environments for employees using a government tested pilot and minimal fees. Largely office, open to all facility types - New Construction and in Existing Buildings
Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
United States Fitwel AP
Reviewing Entity
CfAD - Center for Active Design
Year Established
2015, open to the public as of 2017
GSF Certified
100+ projects tested through GSA
Number of Projects Certified
< 20
Major Players
Federal Government, Offices, opportunity for retail
Sub-Systems
None
Scoring System Levels of Certification
90 - 144 points 1 - 3 stars
Tracking Mechanism
Online platform - very user friendly
Bulk Phase
Design / Construction / Operations
Required by Governmental Entities Financial Benefits
No, however it was generated by the CDC and GSA Branding, talent recruitment
% overlap with CA Code
NA
Registration Fees
$0
Consulting Fees Review Fees Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
TBD, approximately $10,000 $6,000 Simple process, easy to implement from a documentation perspective. Quick timeline in early phase.
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Summary Statement
A rigorous sustainable urban development framework based on stakeholder engagement. The policy based, goal oriented protocol aims to enhance community and culture in a sustainable manner.
Market Sector
1. Municipalities + Government
4. Civic Organizations
2. Planning, Architecture and Design
5. University’s and Schools
3. Community Development
6. Developers
Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
$$ ($200 - $300 - First group going through AP’s now)
Reviewing Entity
3rd Party
Year Established
2016
GSF Certified
84+/- Cities / Municipalities 40+ Architecture Firms 60+ Community Development
Number of Projects Certified Major Players
https://ecodistricts.org/get-started/clients-and-partners / ~ 200 projects and ~ 90+ cities interested as of 2015. Predominantly Cities / Municipalities
Sub-Systems Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase Required by Governmental Entities Financial Benefits % overlap with CA Code Registration Fees Consulting Fees Review Fees Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
6 Categories Plan only, no pre-requisites. Performance is determined by stakeholders’ own goals NA Largely policy and performance Ongoing Aligns with Climate Action Plan requirments for the State of California. Any other states? Grants and Private Investment NA $ $900 $ $9,500 $ $1,200 (bi-annual report) Info Exchange for members only and access to cities $45 for reference guide / Membership = $150/year or $500 min for organization. Participant data available to members only
IMPERATIVES
Table 2.1: Protocol Framework
Table 6.2: Priorities and Objectives PRIORITIES WITH OBJECTIVE CATEGORIES
OBJECTIVES
PLACE Engagement + Inclusion
EQUITY
RESILIENCE
Civic engagement is strong and processes are inclusive and representative. Sharing programs are robust.
CLIMATE PROTECTION
Culture + Identity
Historic and culturally significant places are preserved and celebrated. Participation in cultural events is high.
Public Spaces
Public spaces are accessible to all. Public spaces are high quality, engaging and active.
Housing
Housing is affordable and well-maintained.
PRIORITIES
Housing is available to meet a diversity of dwelling needs. Housing is close to facilities that offer a complete set of daily needs. PROSPERITY Access to Opportunity
PLACE
PROSPERITY
HEALTH + WELLBEING
CONNECTIVITY
LIVING RESOURCE INFRASTRUCTURE REGENERATION
Income and racial inequality are reduced. Schools provide quality education. Career pathways and training are available.
Economic Development
Employment in the district is retained.
Engagement + Inclusion
Access to Opportunity
Culture + Identity
Economic Development
Public Spaces
Innovation
Active Living
Street Network
Health
Mobility
Safety
Digital Network
Food Systems
Natural Features
Air
New job creation occurs through economic development. Innovation
Water
Ecosystem Health
Waste
Interaction between entrepreneurs is fostered. Job growth in emerging sectors is higher than in traditional sectors.
HEALTH + WELLBEING Active Living
Access to recreation facilities and services is improved. Walkability is enhanced.
Connection with Nature
Housing
IMPLEMENTATION
OBJECTIVE CATEGORIES
Job quality in the district is enhanced.
Health
Health outcomes and life expectancy are more equitable. Affordable, high-quality health care is accessible. Toxic environments are remediated and regenerated.
Safety
Public safety is enhanced. The built environment is designed for public safety.
Food Systems
Healthy and affordable fresh food is accessible. Food production in the district is encouraged.
Chapter 3: Certification Process This chapter describes the major steps in the certification FORMATION ROADMAPprocess.
PERFORMANCE
CONNECTIVITY Street Network
The street network supports all travel modes. The street network accommodates people of diverse ages and abilities.
Mobility
District travel, internally and externally, is safe, efficient and multimodal.
Digital Network
Shared mobility options are increased. Quality wired and wireless connectivity is available throughout the district. Local government data is open and accessible for public consumption.
LIVING INFRASTRUCTURE
Figure 3.1: Protocol Certification Process BEGIN
3 PROTOCOL
CERTIFICATION
Natural Features
The quality and functions of habitat are enhanced. Natural features are protected.
Ecosystem Health
Rainwater is managed in the district. Soil fertility and farmland are protected.
MAINTENANCE
Contaminated land is remediated for productive reuse. Connection with Nature
Access to nature is improved.
RESOURCE REGENERATION Air
IMPERATIVES COMMITMENT Within one year of registration Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Greenhouse gas emissions are reduced in all sectors through energy efficiency and carbon-neutral fuels. Renewable power and thermal energy are produced onsite. The urban heat island effect is mitigated. Air quality is protected from pollutant emissions.
FORMATION
ROADMAP
Within two years of Imperatives Commitment endorsement. Certification is obtained upon endorsement of Formation and Roadmap submissions.
50 ROADMAP REQUIREMENTS
PERFORMANCE
Water
Within two years of certification.
Potable water is used efficiently. Alternative water sources are used for nonpotable purposes. Water quality is protected from pollutants.
Waste
Waste is diverted from landfills through reduction, reuse and recycling. The residual value of organic waste is captured.
51 ROADMAP REQUIREMENTS
Summary Statement Market Sector
Aims to reduce energy, water and waste consumption in buildings through benchmarking and transparency. Covers 99% of all building types
Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
United States PE, CEM or AIA for certification only
Reviewing Entity
Department of Energy
Year Established
1992
GSF Certified Number of Projects Certified
Enough 30,000+
Major Players
Supermarkets, Warehouses, Offices
Sub-Systems
Design to Meet Energy Star
Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase Required by Governmental Entities
Score of 1 - 100 Certified = minimum score of 75 Benchmarking Energy Model or operations Branding, talent recruitment
Financial Benefits
NA
% overlap with CA Code
$0
Registration Fees
$0
Consulting Fees
$1,500
Review Fees
$1,500
Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Simple process, easy to implement from a documentation perspective.
®
ENERGY STAR Statement of Energy Performance
96 ENERGY STAR® Score
1
The CalEdison DTLA Primary Property Type: Office Gross Floor Area (ft²): 277,750 Built: 1931 For Year Ending: June 30, 2016 Date Generated: October 13, 2016
1. The ENERGY STAR score is a 1-100 assessment of a building’s energy efficiency as compared with similar buildings nationwide, adjusting for climate and business activity.
Property & Contact Information Property Address The CalEdison DTLA 601 W 5th St Los Angeles, California 90071
Property Owner __________________ , (____)____-______
Primary Contact ____ ________ , (____)____-______ __________________
Property ID: 4207140
Energy Consumption and Energy Use Intensity (EUI)
Site EUI 35.7 kBtu/ft²
Annual Energy by Fuel Electric - Grid (kBtu) 7,609,646 (77%) Natural Gas (kBtu) 2,312,987 (23%)
Source EUI 94.8 kBtu/ft²
National Median Comparison National Median Site EUI (kBtu/ft²) National Median Source EUI (kBtu/ft²) % Diff from National Median Source EUI Annual Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Metric Tons CO2e/year)
Signature & Stamp of Verifying Professional I ___________________ (Name) verify that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Signature: _______________________Date: ___________ Licensed Professional ____ ________ , (____)____-______ __________________
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Professional Engineer Stamp (if applicable)
80.4 213.2 -56% 743
Summary Statement Market Sector
Aims to reduce energy, water and waste consumption in buildings through benchmarking and transparency. Covers 99% of all building types
Regional Locations Accredidation Requirements
United States PE, CEM or AIA for certification only
Reviewing Entity
Department of Energy
Year Established
1992
GSF Certified Number of Projects Certified
Enough 30,000+
Major Players
Supermarkets, Warehouses, Offices
Sub-Systems
Design to Meet Energy Star
Scoring System Levels of Certification Tracking Mechanism Bulk Phase Required by Governmental Entities
Score of 1 - 100 Certified = minimum score of 75 Benchmarking Energy Model or operations Branding, talent recruitment
Financial Benefits
NA
% overlap with CA Code
$0
Registration Fees
$0
Consulting Fees
$1,500
Review Fees
$1,500
Most Valued Take-Away Notes
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Simple process, easy to implement from a documentation perspective.
2015 GRESB Response Rate Management & Policy
Investor Members
328
115
151
378
155
2013 2012 51 2014 46 46
7
7
Globally diversified
10
92
104
10
Average size
North America
Europe
Asia
170
41
69
41
1,339,733
521,529
377,088
290,919
7,881
12,720
5,465
7,096
56%
55%
74%
39%
67%
537
114
311
63
35
9
0
2
12
1
4
962,149
434,036
372,860
73,167
72,704
3,230
1,792
3,807
1,199
1,161
2,077
707
155
380
104
47
10
0
2
12
1
4
2,301,881
955,565
749,948
364,086
156,751
4,415
3,256
6,165
1,974
3,501
3,335
441
based on GAV in USD million
Market coverage*
Development only participants
Gross asset value
19
USD million
Average size based on GAV in USD million
Total no of participants Development only participants
Gross asset value
19
58
359
USD million
Average size based on GAV in USD million
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
7
56,000
61,000 *
Company and Fund Manager Members
48
Based on the regional FTSE EPRA/NAREIT Developed Index
Private no of participants
Assets covered
50
3,329
4,127
100
87
56
Clearly, the awareness of sustainability issues in the In 2015, the performance of listed property companies and 47 real estate industry is increasingly reflected in both 21 entities is evaluated separately through dedicated Associate Members private 28 strategic development as well as actual implementation of peer groups in those markets where market coverage sustainability measures. Also, as further described in the is sufficiently large. The GRESB Quadrant Model also 12 Partners Disclosure & Assurance section of this Report, the quality of separately presents the13 average GRESB Scores of public the data and of documents provided as supporting evidence companies and private entities. The average GRESB Score of for sustainability programs and private entities is 54, as compared to an average score of 60 Australia/ South Globally NZ America policies has been improving for listed companies. This performance difference between 2015 GRESBAfrica ESG diversified scores 100 Investor Members Institutional Capital GRESB Participants 12 1 3 3 rapidly, leading to more positive listed property companies and private property funds is validation outcomes (and thus consistent with the performance differences observed in 84,048 1,185 9,151 55,813 higher scores). 2014. 7,004 1,185 3,050 18,604 Environment
Total
USD million
$2.3 trillion
69
2015
51 Model$6.1 The GRESB Quadrant also trillion
Management & Policy
Gross asset value
$2.1 trillion
Implementation & Measurement
2014
Listed no of participants
$5.5 trillion
Property value
New Construction and Major Renovations Assets
42 44
2015
707 637
Key Figures
4
2014
2015 $6.1 trillion
* Excluding single-family residential assets
0
2013
Listed
74
2
5
GRESB Participants
2011
0 10
Institutional Capital
Private
50
292
2015
2014
100
2
Private
Listed
707
$5.5 trillion 2015 2013 46 46 reflects improved performance 637 2012 2014 as measured by the fraction of 1,423 4,730 In 2015, GRESB introduced a breakdown of the GRESB 50 companies and funds that are Score into separate scores for Environmental, Social and 2011 Social 1,423 1,182 Green Starters, Green Walk, Governance (ESG). These scores are calculated based on 4 7 Green Talk, and Green Stars. the allocation of individual questions to E, S, or G. The ContinuingProperty the trend $2.1 trillion valueof previous 10,574 60,543 trillion results show$2.3 that GRESB participants score relatively high years, the number of Green 2,644 8,649 on Governance, with an average score of 69, a score of 58 Star-rated entities increased * 48 on Environmental. The Regional on Social, and a score of Governance 56,000 Assets covered 61,000 significantly in 2015, and now 0 Snapshots show how these scores vary by region. stands at a total of 387 entities, 0 50 100 New Construction Major or 56% of the and total. There3,329 is still Implementation & Measurement 4,127 Renovations Assets significant variation in scores among Green Stars, from those entities that areofonsustainability or just issues in the In 2015, the performance of listed property companies and Clearly, the awareness 1
4
0
0
0
0
ESG scores
* Excluding single-family residential assets
Entity and Reporting Characteristics:
The list of 2016 winners includes:
Management
Data Center: Equinix, Inc.
Policy & Disclosure
Retail: Macerich
Risks & Opportunities
Residential: Equity Residential
Monitoring & EMS
Office: Kilroy Realty Corp.
Performance Indicators
Industrial: Prologis
Building CertiďŹ cations
Lodging: Hersha Hospitality Trust
Stakeholder Engagement
Health Care: Welltower
New Construction & Major Renovations
Diversified: Vornado Realty Trust
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
Creating shareholder value is not the same as maximizing shortterm profits and companies that confuse the two often put both shareholder value and stakeholder interests at risk. Tim Koller, Author of Valuation, Measuring and Managing the Value of Companies via McKinsley&Company
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
PEOPLE
IMPACT
VALUE
Invest in people for return on investment Chart Title
Design impacts for new construction
Value for Investor
1% Energy 9% Rent / Operations
Attract + retain Maximize performance Build brand equity
Daylight
90%
Natural Ventilation
61%
Occupant Controls
71%
IAQ monitoring
66%
Green Spaces
83%
Other
16%
90% Personnel
Social and 1 2physical 3 environments are the determinant of health.
largest
Promote health
OWNERS VIEW THESE AS THE TOP BENEFITS OF HEALTHY BUILDINGS
79%
Cognitive Score Basic Activity Level
Applied Activity Level
Focused Activity Level
Positive impact on occupant satisfaction
Sleep Score Task Orientation
Crisis Response
Information Seeking
Information Usage
Breadth of Approach
Strategy
73% Positive impact on building leasing rate
63% Positive impact on building value
Average
2.00
GENETICS
LIFESTYLE / HEALTH BEHAVIORS
1.75
Score
MEDICAL CARE
1.50
1.25
PHYSICAL / SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT
1.00
0.75
Cognitive Domain
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
INDOOR HEALTH
THE IMPACT OF GREEN BUILDINGS ON COGNITIVE FUNCTION Results On average, cognitive scores were:
61% percent higher in GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS 101% percent higher in ENHANCED GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS COâ&#x201A;&#x201A;, VOCs AND VENTILATION RATE all had significant, independent impacts on cognitive function. Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
**Source: http://www.chgeharvard.org/resource/impact-green-buildingscognitive-function
INDOOR HEALTH
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
7
WASHINGTON million
4
OREGON million
40 4 1
CALIFORNIA million LOS ANGELES million SAN DIEGO million
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
The cost of growth has been heavy, hitting neighborhoods the hardest. Neighborhoods are the soul and lifeblood of cities. The world of city building has drastically changed, and it requires a more diverse and more integrated range of solutions to empower social vibrancy and restore ecological health. It is projected by 2050, 75% of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s population will increase from (today) 50% living in cities to 75%.
DENSITY
We seem to have a 2 vs 4 wheel transit mentality, when we all can share the road in a win-win situation. From Del Mar to Oceanside, cities are looking to slow traffic, widen bike lanes and implement other changes that encourage people to get out of their cars and use alternative forms of transportation. The reaction isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t always pretty. Retail sales typically increase
10%-30% where bike lanes are added.
Communities around the world have embraced the reshaped road and agree that itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more welcoming to cyclists, pedestrians and shoppers. Traffic experts say slower speeds on local roads add little time to a commute, at most two or three minutes while they greatly increase safety for everyone.
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
TWO WHEEL TRANSIT
M
TRANSPORTATION
ile
M 20
SINGLE OCCUPANT DRIVER
40
ile
BIKE / WALK PUBLIC TRANSIT CARPOOL MIXED MODE
M 10
DRIVE ALONE
ile
FREEWAYS METRO
T MILES | rdc-s111.com Long Beach,338 CA | 562.628.8000 104 TOM 37 KATIE K 30 SARAH G
T TRIPS TOM EVA KATIE K
4,232 T TIME 834 TOM 498 EVA 393 SARAH G
WALK / BIKE PUBLIC TRANSIT CARPOOL DRIVE OTHER
JOIN US TUESDAYS AT 12:00 FOR GROUP RIDES @ THE PROMENADE STATION
WALKING + CYCLING
MIXED MODE TRANSPORT
ile
PUBLIC TRANSIT
5
146 26 19 13
M
CARPOOL
LONG BEACH BIKESHARE
AVERAGE DISTANCE
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN??
Cost of Living Index
Property Price to Income Ratio
80.91
71.52
9.66
26.27
21.9
62.13
76.74
65.5
7.46
30.55
27.05
57.97
75.45 70.58
83.02 80.77
8.2 8.14
28.42 30.23
25.97 20.03
64.24 85.41
68.72
76.65
54.98
8.26
32.63
37.46
88.04
75.37
74.85
73.06
7.6
34.92
13.38
35.83
123.17 62.72
51.24 64.61
68.22 70.31
75.42 49.19
3.26 8.85
34.58 30.44
31.19 28.91
67.95 92.19
Rank
Country
Quality of Life Index
Purchasing Power Index
Safety Index
1
Austria
190.37
95.66
80.75
2
Germany
189.74
124.88
67.97
3 4
Denmark New Zealand
184.92 184.74
98.76 89.87
78.87 61.22
5
Spain
183.65
87.87
6
Finland
182.93
114.97
7
United States
Health Care Index
Traffic Commute Time Pollution Index Index
Climate Index
8
Portugal
179.73 178.43
9
Australia
176.54
101.94
57.58
74.25
80.66
9.24
34.73
24.58
72.79
10
Slovenia
175.45
78.23
75.95
64.35
53.24
8.34
26.48
26.37
60.5
11 12
Netherlands Switzerland
175.23
86.52
70.11
82.5
72.47
8.52
33.9
27.62
61.87
173.54
95.35
77.55
71.04
122.06
14.04
28.3
20.77
69.32
13
United Kingdom
172.87
96.85
58.81
74.28
69.49
10
34.6
34.88
78.91
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Sweden Estonia Croatia Canada Ireland Cyprus Norway Czech Republic South Korea
172.74 171.09 170.63 167.18 166.9 166.64 165.93 165.41
107.23 68.48 60.71 108.01 103.52 95.92 105.58 76.22
53.35 77 72.2 60.75 54.23 67.54 54.31 69.82
70.64 71.3 65.49 69.23 53.33 54.23 74.19 74.09
75.88 49.5 48 70.16 76.98 54.07 106.31 41.22
11.77 10.54 10.91 6.4 7.02 5.21 7.9 10.7
31.6 26.71 28.45 36.24 35.01 20.32 31.32 31.98
17.87 17.71 33.34 26.54 27.18 54.77 19.45 41.04
59.13 44.56 82.02 44.31 70.18 71.01 49.32 65.32
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Belgium France Israel Slovakia Poland Taiwan Greece Japan Saudi Arabia
162.49 160.52 160.25 157.88 152.55 150.21 150.08 148.32 147.49
102.38 91.02 87.29 94.47 64.75 71.75 118.57 58.24 102.52
74.73 55.49 56.34 70.99 69.82 68.47 82.76 59.68 79.11
83.2 78.92 78.62 74.78 62.63 61.46 81.14 53.92 78.63
75.41 75.36 74.89 77.74 44.9 38.15 61.38 55.87 85.28
12.38 6.96 11.58 10.87 9.85 10.12 12.87 8.33 12.68
34.18 36.26 35.81 36.52 36.03 34.55 32.69 31.6 46.81
52.73 48.92 40.15 61.71 43.51 50.33 62.91 52.05 41.01
61.2 75.16 73.91 81.01 65.06 62.53 24.48 87.25 31.91
32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42
South Africa Romania Italy Argentina United Arab Emirates Bosnia And Herzegovina Hungary Bulgaria Chile Serbia Qatar
146.41 144.72 143.04 142.52 139.59 139.27 139.14 138.82 138.2 136.2 133.43
138.05 98.96 53.44 71.83 58.4 116.77 51.29 47.52 51.4 61.28 40.8
76.35 24.28 72.05 55.34 37.37 79.34 59.03 61.61 59.82 52.5 61.38
60.41 61.72 53.11 66.31 73.3 60.49 61.49 53.46 54.03 60.97 53.86
48.37 43.12 35.63 83.7 52.57 67.98 35.05 42.77 36.49 50.09 33.79
2.85 3.58 10.79 12.39 12.07 5.6 11.35 11.2 9.07 10.67 17.87
36.31 42.98 31.97 36.38 37.95 35.05 26.63 33.09 27.92 35.7 29.93
74.18 63.56 50.9 51.57 53.33 58.52 60.69 43.99 63.12 67.67 55.29
17.96 88.74 64.45 82.6 90.67 8.86 73.29 66.49 77.05 89.39 82.66
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Lithuania Turkey Mexico Belarus Jordan Macedonia Colombia Lebanon
132.37 130.28 129.63 129.06 119.23 117.47 116.42 115.38 106.18
111.28 51.67 55.64 60.08 36.43 42.27 39.85 37.63 53.61
84.3 59.97 58.91 49.68 77.74 56.86 61.34 48.31 50.84
66.14 68.74 71.68 70.11 53.76 71.92 63.46 65.79 64.28
69.2 46.73 38.6 29.81 33.84 59.22 30.93 34.45 61.65
6.19 14.19 8.87 6.94 18.73 7.96 14.67 19.43 13.95
32.97 28 47.58 41.66 27.66 47.76 33.79 43.77 36.15
73.29 34.27 70.46 66.74 39.64 85.73 83.38 63.9 85.11
9.26 25.04 73.19 60.74 20.07 88.42 75.54 81.34 69.39
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com
QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX
Letâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s connect to discuss your next... Sara Hickman, LEED AP, WELL AP Sustainability Director Retail Design Collaborative + Studio One Eleven @sara_hickman @sarahickman007 sara.hickman@rdc-s111.com
Long Beach, CA | 562.628.8000 | rdc-s111.com