A path to a greener l a by UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs

A PATH TO A GREENER L.A. An investigation of the LEED-EB standard as a framework for the sustainability of the buildings of the City of Los Angeles Travis Broussard Michael Leighs April Newman John Ragosta U.C.L.A. School of Public Affairs Applied Policy Project April 29, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD……………………………………………………………………………………...iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY……………………………………………………………………….iv INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………1 BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………...3 METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………………………………………8 ANALYSIS………………………………………………………………………………………...10 ANALYSIS OF LEED-EB AS A GREENING TOOL CRITIQUE OF LEED-EB FOR INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS APPLYING LEED-EB ACROSS A PORTFOLIO OF BUILDINGS ASSESSMENT OF CITY OF L.A.’S CURRENT OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………………………………………….…...30 DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: PURSUE LEED-EB CERTIFICATION FOR FIVE BUILDINGS 1. Create a Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings Position in GSD 2. Form an Existing Building Sustainability Taskforce of City Departments Leaders 3. Assemble a Demonstration Project Implementation Team 4. Conduct the Demonstration Project Itself: Get Five Buildings Certified! 5. Develop a Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Manual 6. Conduct Ongoing Evaluation of Citywide Sustainable O&M Practices CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………....40 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………….41 APPENDIX A: LEED Rating System APPENDIX B: Current Practices in the City of Los Angeles APPENDIX C: LEED Registration and Certification Fees APPENDIX D: Most-Achieved Points in Each LEED-EB Category APPENDIX E: Interviews Conducted REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….…..64

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank our advisor, Professor Amy Zegart, for her guidance, feedback, encouragement, and faith throughout this project. We would also like to thank our client, the Office of Councilmember Herb Wesson, particularly Senior Deputy Andrew Westall, whose support was critical to making this project possible. For our project to be meaningful, we relied on the cooperation and input from numerous professionals, including City of Los Angeles staff, LEED-EB project managers, USGBC staff, representatives from municipalities and states across the country, and others who do not fit so neatly into categories. We would like to thank them all for their participation and willingness to share their expertise and experience. Finally, we would like to thank those closest to us.

This report was prepared in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master in Public Policy degree in the Department of Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Public Affairs. It was prepared at the direction of the Department of Public Policy and of Andrew Westall, Senior Deputy for the Office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Herb Wesson, as a policy client. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department, the UCLA School of Public Affairs, UCLA as a whole, or the client.

FOREWORD This report was prepared for the office of Los Angeles City Councilmember Herb J. Wesson, Jr. under the direction of Senior Deputy Andrew Westall. The impetus for this report is City Council Motion 06-1963, submitted by Councilmember Wesson on August 16, 2006. The motion instructs the City’s General Services Department (GSD) to work in concert with all relevant Los Angeles City (L.A.) agencies to develop a report that “would include a series of recommendations, and possible draft ordinances, in order to phase-in retrofitting of all existing City-owned buildings and public spaces to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards.”1 Hearings were held on the motion in the Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee on February 6, 2007. The Information and Technology and General Services Committee filed the motion on February 12, 2007 and will consider the motion next. Because the scope of the report requested in Council Motion 06-1963 is quite broad, we developed a more focused report that offers suggestions to City policymakers as they consider the prospect of a green retrofitting project for City-owned buildings. While the motion seeks an assessment of job opportunities that may be created through a comprehensive green retrofitting project, such an analysis is beyond the scope of our project. The motion also makes reference to the greening of “public spaces.” Through consultation with our client, we have examined only non-proprietary City-owned buildings. These properties are managed by the City of L.A. General Services Department (GSD). Motion 06-1963 also references green building opportunities for renovating dilapidated buildings. Only a small number of buildings are renovated each year in the City. Meanwhile, the operations and maintenance of the City’s large stock of existing buildings significantly impacts the environment and the health of building occupants. Our analysis focuses only on LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) as a comprehensive way to assess and improve the sustainability of current operations and maintenance practices for the City’s buildings. Councilmember Wesson’s motion has encouraged a meaningful debate among policymakers on how to further promote sustainability in Los Angeles while setting an example of environmental stewardship locally and for the nation. Addressing the operations of City buildings offers a tremendous opportunity for limiting greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. through improved efficiency and increased use of renewable resources) and improving the health of City workers and residents as well as serving as a catalyst for the private sector to construct and operate buildings in environmentally sustainable ways. We hope that this report will serve as a useful tool in furthering this important discussion.

City of Los Angeles, CA. Council File Number: 06-1963. Submitted August 16, 2006. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/CFI/DisplayOnlineDocument.cfm?SRT=D1&cfnum=06-1963 (accessed October 15, 2006).

iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In an effort to combat global climate change, policymakers, scientists, environmentalists, and those in the construction industry have increasingly supported “green” building practices that focus on resource efficiency and environmental sustainability. In response to the demand for a standardized system to evaluate the environmental sustainability of buildings, the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) created the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which has been adopted on a wide scale among businesses, governments, and non-profit organizations. The City of Los Angeles has demonstrated its commitment to sustainable building through the adoption of a 2002 City Ordinance mandating that all new City-owned buildings of at least 7,500 square feet achieve LEED certification.2 While requiring that new buildings meet strict environmental standards is important, this focus does not account for the impact of existing buildings. In fact, in 2006, the City built only a handful of new buildings, whereas it maintains an inventory of over 800 buildings.3 Recognizing the importance of existing buildings’ sustainability, Los Angeles City Councilmember Herb J. Wesson, Jr. introduced City Council Motion 06-1963 on August 16, 2006 asking the City’s General Services Department (GSD) to explore the possibility of increasing the environmental sustainability of City-owned buildings under LEED guidelines. Consistent with the goals of City Council Motion 06-1963, this paper analyzes the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) standard as a tool for improving building sustainability. Further, this report considers how the standard should be implemented by the City of Los Angeles. Our analysis has led to the following recommendation: The City should proceed with a LEED-EB demonstration project across five City-owned buildings to achieve the following goals: • • •

Assess the sustainability and efficiency of current operations and maintenance practices Determine LEED-EB practices most feasible to implement across the City building stock Develop an operations and maintenance (O&M) manual to enhance the sustainability of O&M practices Citywide

Applying the LEED-EB standard across five buildings offers a tremendous opportunity for the City to conduct a comprehensive review of its operations and maintenance practices with respect to environmental sustainability. By applying the lessons learned across the City’s stock of existing buildings, Los Angeles can make an important contribution to the efforts to combat global warming while demonstrating environmental leadership to other governments and businesses across the region and country.

City of Los Angeles, CA. Council File Number: 02-0182. Adopted April 19, 2002. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/cfi/Pub_Search_Summary.cfm?S=2&T=1 (accessed January 10, 2007). 3 Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. “Executive Summary,” Infrastructure Report Card for the City of Los Angeles, 2003. p. 34.

Specifically, the goals of this report are: • • •

To provide a critical analysis of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standard for existing buildings (LEED-EB) To assess current Los Angeles City practices and the gap between those and the LEEDEB Certification standards To propose a work plan for the City’s pursuit of greening its existing buildings using LEED-EB as a framework

INTRODUCTION City of Los Angeles Council Motion 06-1963 On August 16, 2006, Los Angeles City Councilmember Herb J. Wesson, Jr. introduced Council Motion 06-1963 asking the City’s General Services Department (GSD) to explore the possibility of increasing the environmental sustainability of City-owned buildings. Specifically, the motion requested that GSD work with other relevant City departments to consider retrofitting buildings to meet the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard. The LEED Standard LEED is a nationally recognized, consensus-based building standard for environmental sustainability, or “greenness.” The United States Green Building Council (USGBC), “a coalition of leaders from every sector of the building industry,”4 created the point-based rating system to fill the demand for measuring sustainability in the building sector. LEED is the most widelyused environmental sustainability standard for buildings in the United States. Specifically, 65 cities and counties and 21 states in the U.S. have already adopted LEED-based policies.5 In particular, the City of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance in 2002 that requires all of its new buildings of at least 7,500 square feet to meet the LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) certification standard.6 While reducing buildings’ negative environmental impacts is the ultimate goal of Los Angeles’ greening efforts, in this report we do not attempt to quantify environmental effects (such as tons of greenhouse gas emissions reduced or tons of waste diverted from landfills) resulting from a LEED program. The detailed data about a particular building’s current energy use, water use, and waste production make such outcomes difficult to quantify accurately for a single building. Considering that the City of Los Angeles (L.A.) owns and operates roughly 840 unique buildings, our attempt to quantify environmental harm mitigation resulting from a LEED policy would be dubious at best. We instead analyze the merits of a sustainability policy for the City of Los Angeles’ existing building stock using LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB), which is a collection of best practices for environmental sustainability and operational efficiency. LEED for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) USGBC employs LEED standards for several types of structures.7 This report focuses on LEEDEB because City Council Motion 06-1963 pertains specifically to the City’s current building stock and requests an analysis of LEED standards, of which EB is the most appropriate standard to apply. LEED-EB addresses building sites, exteriors, and interiors and emphasizes building operations and maintenance in increasing environmental sustainability.8 4

U.S. Green Building Council. About USGBC. 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=1 (accessed March 18, 2007). 5 U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Initiatives in Governments and Schools. March 2007. https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=691 (accessed March 18, 2007). 6 City of Los Angeles, CA. Council Motion 02-0182. 2002. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/cfi/Pub_Search_Summary.cfm?S=2&T=1 (accessed January 10, 2007). 7 For information on the various LEED standards, see “What is LEED?” Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design by the USGBC (http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=19). 8 For specific information on the sustainability categories of the LEED-EB rating system, specific “credits” or “points,” and distribution of points among categories, see Appendix A.

Goals of This Report In response to Councilmember Wesson’s motion, this report aims to: • Analyze whether the City of Los Angeles should use LEED-EB as a framework to increase the sustainability of its existing buildings, and if so, • Recommend how the LEED-EB standard should be implemented. Our guiding question in this investigation is: Can LEED-EB be effectively applied to the City of Los Angeles’ existing building stock to improve environmental sustainability? By “effectively” we mean in a matter that: • Promotes the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of green building: “the practice of creating healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition.”9 For this particular project, we focus on green operation and maintenance practices because the Council’s motion refers more specifically to existing buildings, not new ones or those soon-to-be demolished. • Is flexible. Because the City’s building stock includes 842 sites,10 an effective program will be applicable across a wide range of building types, ages, and sizes. • Is technically feasible. An effective tool will outline specific and actionable recommendations that the City is capable of implementing. • Is economically feasible. The program should be affordable so that the financial burden is not a barrier to implementation.

Environmental Protection Agency. “Green Buildings.” 2007. http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/greenbuilding/ (accessed February 27, 2007). 10 Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles. “Executive Summary,” Infrastructure Report Card for the City of Los Angeles, 2003. p. 34.

BACKGROUND Climate Change Over the past decade, the issue of climate change has received increased attention among policymakers from local to international levels. An enormous consensus has developed among the scientific community supporting the finding that human-made production of gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) has caused a significant spike in the earth’s temperature. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “over the past 200 years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation have caused the concentrations of heat-trapping ‘greenhouse gases’ to increase significantly in our atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space,” resulting in a dangerous warming of the earth’s surface temperature.11 The Role of Buildings in Climate Change To combat the climate change crisis, scientists and policymakers have become increasingly concerned with identifying and limiting the production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While pollution from coal-fired power plants and automobiles is often cited as a major cause of global warming due to these sources’ high levels of GHG emissions, the role of buildings is often overlooked. Considering both the operation of buildings as well as the construction process, buildings are a major factor in exacerbating the climate change crisis. According to the climate change advocacy group Architecture 2030, “Combining the annual energy required to operate residential, commercial, and industrial buildings along with the embodied energy of industryproduced building materials like carpet, tile, glass, and concrete exposes buildings as the largest energy consuming and greenhouse gas emitting sector.”12 Buildings across California contribute significantly to the problem of climate change. While transportation continues to serve as the largest contributor of GHG emissions in California, the production of electricity also plays a tremendous role. In 2004, electricity production was the second largest generator of GHG emissions (22.5%) in California behind transportation (40.7%).13 Buildings overwhelmingly drive the demand for electricity in the state. According to the 2002 report Electricity Use in California, “During the 1990s, most of the growth in electricity use has been in the buildings sector, particularly commercial buildings. In 2000, the building sector accounted for 2/3 of annual electricity consumption and 3/4 of the summer peak load.”14 Given that almost a quarter of the state’s GHG emissions are driven by the production of electricity, efforts to make buildings operate more efficiently could have a critical impact in limiting the state’s contributions to climate change.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information,” Climate Change. 2006. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html (accessed February 27, 2007). 12 Ed Mazria. Building Sector. Presentation in Los Angeles, Architecture 2030. December 2006. http://www.architecture2030.org/building_sector/index.html (accessed January 8, 2007). 13 Gerry Bemis. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. California Energy Commission. December, 2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006 -013-SF.PDF (accessed January 8, 2007). 14 Richard E.Brown and Jonathan Koomey. Electricity Use in California: Past Trends and Present Usage Patterns. May 2002. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-47992.pdf (accessed March 14, 2007).

While electricity consumption is the most commonly cited environmental impact attributed to buildings, several other factors also contribute to a building’s overall sustainability. Indoor Environmental Quality According to the Leonardo Academy’s 2006 report Deliver the Green, “Indoor environmental contaminants can originate within the building or be drawn in from outdoors. Poor indoor air quality can increase occupant illnesses, absenteeism and health care costs.” Proper building operations and maintenance can help mitigate these factors, improving employee health and limiting liability for building owners.15 Waste Reduction According to the City of Los Angeles’ Sustainable Building Initiative guide, “In California, buildings generate about 30 percent of the state’s solid waste materials.”16 These materials can include “non-liquid, non-soluble materials ranging from municipal garbage to industrial wastes that contain complex and sometimes hazardous substances.”17 The guide also points out that “City departments are responsible for 38 percent of the waste deposited at local landfills.”18 Comprehensive recycling efforts can dramatically limit the amount waste generated by buildings. The benefits of waste diversion can have far-reaching environmental impacts. By limiting the demand for new products, recycling conserves energy by reducing the use of fossil fuels needed for manufacturing and transportation, while also diminishing the risk of soil, air, and water contamination.19 Water Conservation In addition to energy usage, water conservation represents one of the easiest opportunities to make measurable improvements in a sustainable building effort. According to the federal government’s Energy Star program, a benchmarking system for efficiency, “Commercial buildings use close to 20% of U.S. drinking water supplies. Reducing total commercial building water consumption by just 10% would mean saving well over 2 trillion gallons of water each year.”20 Some of the common upgrades that improve efficiency include the installation of automatic water fixtures and low-flow toilets.21 In addition to the opportunities for conservation inside a building, efficiency measures can also be incorporated into landscaping practices on a building’s property. 15

Michael Arny, et al. Deliver the Green – A Fresh Look at LEED-EB and Facility Management. Leonardo Academy. 2006. http://www.ifmafoundation.org/deliverthegreen.pdf (accessed March 9, 2007). 16 Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles Sustainable Building Initiative. April 2003. p. 5. http://eng.lacity.org/projects/sdip/docs/SustainableBuildingInitiativeActionPlanFinal043003.pdf (accessed November 5, 2006). 17 Environmental Protection Agency. “Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations and Acronyms.” 2007. http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/sterms.html (accessed April 26, 2007). 18 Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles Sustainable Building Initiative. April 2003. p. 10. 19 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Business Waste Reduction. 2007. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BizWaste/ (accessed March 13, 2007). 20 Energy Star. The First Step to Improving Water Efficiency. 2007. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_water (accessed March 13, 2007). 21 Michael Arny et al. Deliver the Green – A Fresh Look at LEED-EB and Facility Management. Leonardo Academy. 2006. http://www.ifmafoundation.org/deliverthegreen.pdf (accessed March 9, 2007).

National, State, and Local Efforts at Promoting Environmental Building Practices The current political environment is highly receptive to policies aimed at increasing environmental sustainability. Policy changes at the national, state, and local levels have demonstrated a commitment by leaders in both the government and private sectors to reduce the harmful environmental effects of negligent construction. Executive Order S-20-40 In 2004, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-20-04 establishing a progressive plan to reduce energy use in state-owned buildings by 20% by the year 2015.22 An accompanying document, the “Green Building Action Plan,” outlines specific steps to achieve this goal. The Executive Order mandates that all new state-owned buildings and renovations of state-owned buildings of at least 50,000 square feet must adhere to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for New Construction (LEED-NC) or for Existing Buildings (LEED-EB) where applicable, and that all existing state-owned buildings must meet LEED-EB standards by the year 2015.23 Apollo Alliance The Apollo Alliance is a national organization comprised of unions, environmentalists, businesses leaders, and community-based organizations that pursues dual goals of creating new jobs and improving the environment through investment in renewable energy and pursuit of energy efficiency. The Alliance’s Advisory Board includes representatives from the Sierra Club, Global Green USA, and two members of Congress. To achieve its goals, the Alliance has set forth an ambitious Ten Point Plan to which local chapters must adhere. The second point in the plan directs governments to invest in green building by retrofitting existing buildings to improve energy efficiency. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has accepted the challenge by launching the “Apollo Green Building Initiative” in August 2006, which supports the Alliance’s vision by working to green existing City-owned buildings. City Councilmember Herb Wesson introduced the Apollo plan to the L.A. City Council. The report addresses Councilmember Wesson’s motion 06-1963.24 While Los Angeles has implemented several programs that improve the sustainability of the City, there is still tremendous room for growth. In fact, in a ranking of overall sustainability programs, Los Angeles currently ranks 25th out of the 50 largest cities in the United States.25 In particular, while the City has adopted a demanding environmental standard for new City-owned buildings; existing City-owned buildings have not been duly addressed.

State of California. Executive Order S-20-04 Green Building Action Plan. Signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. December 14, 2004. http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/documents/executive_order_s-2004.html (accessed January 2, 2007). 23 California Energy Commission. Green Building Initiative, State of California Executive Order S-20-04. http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/index.html (accessed January 27, 2007). 24 Apollo Alliance. Apollo Across the Nation: States, Cities, and Campuses. 2007. http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/ (accessed January 26, 2007). 25 SustainLane. 2006 U.S. City Sustainability Ranking. 2007. http://www.sustainlane.us/overview.jsp (accessed February 21, 2007).

2030 Challenge Recognizing that almost half of greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to buildings and 76% of the energy generated in the United States supplies the building industry, the nonprofit organization Architecture 2030 has issued a challenge to the building sector. The 2030 Challenge lays out ambitious goals for the reduction of energy consumption by the architecture and building community. To be phased in over the next 23 years, the plan calls for all buildings to eventually operate using no fossil fuels for energy.26 The American Institute of Architects, which has 78,000 members, and the United States Conference of Mayors have both adopted the goal as part of their own missions.27 Though a focus of the plan is to construct new buildings using methods such as site selection, materials selection, window glass properties, and natural heating and cooling to achieve environmental sustainability, it also acknowledges the importance of bringing all existing buildings up to these standards. While the 2030 Challenge is strictly a challenge with no legislative authority, the project demonstrates a national interest in reducing energy consumption and GHG produced by buildings. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)28 LEED is a national standard for green building in the U.S. The program is administered by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), which is comprised of 7,500 organizations, divided into 75 regional chapters, representing the entire spectrum of the building construction industry, including architects, building product manufacturers, building owners, contractors, and environmental specialists who are interested in the promotion of green building in the U.S.29 The goal of USGBC is to bring sustainability to the forefront of the building market through education, research, and programs such as LEED. The LEED standard was first released in 1998 as a pilot project in response to the building industry’s demand for a standardized metric to define what constituted a “green building.” The phrase green building is generally understood to mean “the practice of creating healthier and more resource-efficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition.”30 Until the introduction of LEED, no systematic evaluation had been applied across the industry to define which buildings met this definition. Currently, LEED offers eight different types of products, or certifications, to meet the needs of distinct projects. This report focuses only on Existing Building Operations and Maintenance, or LEED-EB. Distinct from LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC, the original LEED standard), LEED-EB certification is designed for existing buildings, in which 26

Ed Mazria. Climate Change, Global Warming, and the Built Environment and The 2030 Challenge. Architecture 2030. Presentation in Los Angeles. December 2006. http://www.architecture2030.org/home.html and http://www.architecture2030.org/open_letter/index.html (accessed January 8, 2007). 27 Gil Friend. “The 2030 Climate Challenge and West Coast Green.” WorldChanging. October 2, 2006. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005005.html (accessed March 20, 2007). 28 Except where otherwise noted, the information in this subsection is compiled from the USGBC website: www.usgbc.org. 29 Chris Scheuer and Gregory Keoleian. Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods. Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan. 2002. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/gcrs/02836.pdf (accessed February 22, 2007). 30 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Green Buildings.” 2007. http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/ (accessed February 22, 2007).

construction is already complete. While LEED-NC serves as a guideline for major structural components of a building (site selection, building orientation, etc.), LEED-EB is designed to address a building’s operations and management as well as its physical systems (equipment, land use, etc.). It is a method to ensure that a building’s ongoing functions are environmentally friendly and sustainable through a process of reporting, inspecting, and reviewing operating and maintenance procedures. USGBC piloted LEED-EB in 2002 and released the current system, Version 2.0, in 2004.31 To date, 42 buildings have been LEED-EB certified.32 LEED-EB is a system by which a qualifying building can achieve a rank of Certified, Silver, Gold, or Platinum based on the total number of “points” or “credits” awarded to it during a LEED audit. Points are earned for compliance with specific objectives outlined by USGBC as important components of an ideal green building. Figure 1: LEED-EB Point Distribution Sustainability Category Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy and Atmosphere Materials and Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Innovation and Design Process Total:

Points Possible 14 5 23 16 22 5 85

LEED-EB Certification Levels Points Level 32-39 Certified 40-47 Silver 48-63 Gold 64-85 Platinum

The points are distributed among five areas of environmental sustainability: Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, and Indoor Environmental Quality. Extra points can be earned for especially innovative or exemplary green processes in any area. Within each category, there are prerequisite objectives as well as optional objectives, each worth one point. A maximum of 85 points is possible (see Appendix A).

U.S. Green Building Council. “Technical Review/ Introduction to LEED-EB Rating System,” LEED Green Building Rating System. 2005. slide 30. https://www.usgbc.org/FileHandling/show_general_file.asp?DocumentID=1036 (accessed February 20, 2007). 32 Marc Heisterkamp. Assistant Manager, LEED-EB Portfolio Program, United States Green Building Council. Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 9, 2007.

METHODOLOGY At the outset of this study, our client assembled a meeting with key L.A. City officials in early January 2007 to discuss City Council Motion 06-1963, as any comprehensive effort to improve the sustainability of existing buildings would involve the cooperation of several City agencies. Present at the meeting were representatives from: the General Services Department (GSD), Department of Water and Power (DWP), Bureau of Engineering (BOE), Environmental Affairs Department (EAD), City Administrative Officer (CAO), Department of Building and Safety (DBS), Chief Legislative Analyst’s office (CLA), and Mayor’s office. According to the proposed motion, GSD would be responsible for implementing much of the policy regarding building sustainability, but it was apparent that much of the expertise needed rested with other departments. For example, DWP outlined an audit it would be conducting in the coming months to identify key areas where energy and water efficiency of City buildings could be improved. These goals correlate directly with several criteria of LEED-EB. After this initial meeting, we sought individual interviews with each representative to better assess the sustainability of current City practices. We asked each staff member a series of questions to identify where L.A. is relative to the LEED criteria under the purview of various departments. In total, we conducted interviews with 17 City staff members. To gain an in-depth understanding of LEED-EB and the process of certifying buildings, we  Case Studies interviewed professionals who had managed a 34 of 42 scores analyzed = LEED-EB certification project. Of the 42 buildings 81% of all projects completed certified across the country, we spoke with 26 of 42 cases interviewed = managers of 26 of the projects, for a 62% response 62% of all projects completed rate. We also spoke with representatives from 20  Green Cities in the U.S. cities recognized as leaders in the green community 20 Cities known for environmental to better gauge whether LEED-EB had been leadership adopted by other major cities. Because applying  Los Angeles City Staff LEED standards across a large number of buildings 17 personnel from 14 divisions in 11 poses unique challenges, we conducted more departments and offices detailed interviews with representatives from the  LEED Professionals four cities we surveyed with LEED-EB policies, the  Green States, Portfolio Cases state of California, the state of Colorado, and UC Santa Barbara (other public sector entities with LEED-EB policies). Additionally, we interviewed seven experienced LEED-EB professionals. Targeted & Comprehensive Research

We also conducted a review of literature to gain a baseline of knowledge about sustainable practices in the building industry, the impact of buildings on the natural environment and current actions being taken to mitigate these impacts. Our research included reports on local and national trends in sustainable operations and maintenance practices, studies of the LEED system, and case studies of LEED-EB certified buildings.

Constraints We were confronted by three major challenges: • The green building and facility manager communities lack familiarity with LEED-EB because the system is relatively new. • Data on costs and savings have not been reported consistently across studies. • Cost and savings are highly dependent on the individual characteristics of buildings. Because LEED-EB was only piloted in 2002 and released for general use in 2004, there is limited experience with the program and a dearth of rigorous study on LEED-EB cases. In fact, as of this writing, only 42 buildings across the country have been LEED-EB certified,33 and of the cities contacted, only four have adopted a LEED-EB policy.34 No one has collected comprehensive or aggregated data on these buildings. Also, data were not consistently collected across studies. For instance, project managers for Johnson Diversey Headquarters, one of the first LEED-EB certified buildings, kept cost and savings data for every element of their project.35 Not only did few subsequent projects track cost and savings data as closely, but few projects used the same methods for tracking data. No standardized method for tracking has yet emerged. Consequently, making generalizable cost estimates was impossible based on the incomplete data and the inconsistent literature and responses in our interviews. Further, no metrics exist to measure the potential benefits of many of the LEED-EB points. For example, switching to green cleaning and pest control products can benefit the health of the cleaning staff and building occupants, but is difficult to measure. Thus, even if all case study participants were committed to a standardized method of capturing savings, the nature of many LEED-EB points simply makes financial comparison of points infeasible. Variability among buildings’ characteristics such as age, square footage, current operating procedures, and current efficiency also creates significant barriers to calculating the cost of green compliance and potential savings. Calculations done on one building, therefore, are extremely difficult to generalize across a diverse inventory of buildings. Facing these challenges, we determined that the best way to understand the certification process and develop case-based cost and savings estimates was to canvass all 42 buildings that have achieved LEED-EB certification. Ultimately, we received feedback from managers of 26 of these buildings to whom we administered a short questionnaire. We are able, however, to identify several themes and concepts common to many or most of the buildings. Through this comparative analysis, we weigh the most cited advantages and disadvantages to determine whether the LEED-EB certification is an effective tool to increase building sustainability.

Marc Heisterkamp. Assistant Manager, Portfolio Program, United States Green Building Council. Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 9, 2007. 34 See Figure 7 in the Analysis section, p. 22. 35 U.S. Green Building Council. LEED Project Case Study: Johnson Diversey Headquarters. December 2004. https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEEDdocs/JohnsonDiversey %20Narrative%20Case%20Study%20V5.pdf (accessed February 2, 2007).

ANALYSIS The purpose of this section is to: 1. Analyze the effectiveness of the LEED-EB standard as a tool for improving sustainability for existing buildings. 2. Assess the appropriateness of the LEED-EB criteria for operating and maintaining existing buildings in Los Angeles. ANALYSIS OF THE LEED-EB STANDARD FOR AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING To answer the fundamental question of whether or not LEED-EB is an appropriate tool to increase sustainability among the stock of L.A. City-owned buildings, we first look at the value of the LEED-EB standard as a tool for buildings on an individual basis. POINTS ACHIEVED IN LEED-EB CASES Of the 42 LEED-EB projects completed to date, we were able to obtain scorecards for 34 of the project that detail precisely which credits they each achieved. The figures below illustrate which were the most and least popular points to earn. Although buildings differ greatly in their individual characteristics, the aggregate data on their certifications can be used to inform future projects on which elements are generally the easiest and/or most cost-effective to pursue. Figure 2: Fifteen Most-Achieved LEED-EB Points36 I&D: LEEDâ&#x201E;˘ Accredited Professional

100%

IEQ: Green Cleaning - Entryway Systems

100%

SS: Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Mgt - 4 specific actions

100% 97%

E&A: Building Operation & Maintenance - Bldg Systems Maintenance 94%

M&R: Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Mgt - Divert 50%

94%

LEED-EB Credit

WE: Water Use Reduction - 10% Reduction 91%

M&R: Occupant Recycling - Recycle 30% of the Total Waste Stream E&A: Building Operation & Maintenance - Staff Education

88%

E&A: Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 63

88%

I&D: Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance

88% 88%

IEQ: Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Pest Mgt Policy M&R: Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 10% of Total Purchases

85%

M&R: Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 20% of Total Purchases

85%

SS: Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Mgt - 8 specific actions

85%

IEQ: Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Policy

82%

80%

85%

90%

95%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

100% (n=34)

For a complete rating of all the LEED-EB credits earned by projects presently completed, see Appendix D.

Certifying a building as LEED-EB primarily requires building managers to change operations and maintenance (O&M) policies. Figure 2 underscores this point. Thirteen of the 15 most popular points achieved in the case studies examined require facilities managers to improve the sustainability of their O&M practices. For example, every project manager achieved the Building Site Exterior credit, which requires managers to use sustainable practices for landscaping and general exterior maintenance. Similarly, 82% of managers earned a point by implementing a green cleaning policy. The two remaining most popular points, LEED Accredited Professional and Optimizing Energy Performance, require hiring a LEED-trained expert to consult on a project and implementing energy efficiency improvements respectively. Figure 3: Ten Least-Achieved LEED-EB Points

LEED-EB Credit

WE: Innovative Wastewater Technologies

15%

SS: Heat Island Reduction - Roof

12%

E&A: Performance Measurement Enhanced Metering (12 specific actions)

12%

E&A: Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 99

12%

IEQ: Documenting Productivity Impacts Other Productivity Impacts

IEQ: Daylight & Views Daylight for 75% of Spaces

E&A: Renewable Energy On-site 9% / Off-site 45%

IEQ: Documenting Productivity Impacts Absenteeism & Healthcare Cost Impacts

E&A: Renewable Energy On-site 12% / Off-site 60%

IEQ: Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Isolation of High Volume Copy/Print/Fax Room

10%

15%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

Generally, the least-achieved credits required devoting financial or human resources beyond what managers and their organizations were able to commit. Six of the ten least-achieved points require features that are more easily integrated into the design of a new building than into an existing building. For instance, the ‘Heat Island Reduction: Roof’ credit requires either highreflectance, high-emissivity roofing material or installation of a green roof in order to reduce the building’s impact on the surrounding area’s microclimate. Only 12 percent of the cases in our sample chose to pursue this credit, while the City of Los Angeles incorporates this credit into 83

percent of the LEED-NC buildings completed or under construction.37 Achieving the two renewable energy credits on this list proved to cost more than 88 percent of the projects were willing to spend, although 41 percent of projects either produced or purchased enough renewable energy to receive one credit (see Appendix D). Finally, Figure 3 shows that fewer than 10 percent of projects devoted the human resources necessary to track the productivity impacts that result from improved sustainability. COSTS AND SAVINGS Costs and savings are key components when considering whether and how to use the LEED-EB standard to increase buildings’ sustainability. The level of costs and savings data, however, varies greatly between projects and is unavailable for many. REQUISITE COSTS AND RETROCOMMISSIONING Despite the variability between overall costs, some costs are standard among buildings, such as registration and certification fees. Other mandatory costs include building commissioning, asbestos removal or containment, waste stream audits, and other prerequisites in each of the five LEED sustainability categories if a building has not already met these features.38 For one, retrocommissioning is the process of examining an existing building’s systems in depth and assuring they are running at full efficiency. The extensive process includes checking components such as the electrical wiring or the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) mechanisms. Retrocommissioning can greatly improve energy efficiency, thereby producing dramatic savings. A 2004 study of retrocommissioning for existing buildings found median commissioning costs of $0.27/sqft, whole-building energy savings of 15 percent, and payback times of 0.7 years.39 The cost per square foot tends to be less for larger buildings, but depends on the complexity and condition of a building’s systems. VARIANCE OF COSTS AND SAVINGS ESTIMATES Aside from the prerequisites, the environmentally sustainable elements of LEED-EB buildings vary significantly. Because certification can be achieved in any number of ways, provided a building earns 32-39 of the 85 possible credits, the combination of LEED features and their associated costs differ with each project. For instance, the most expensive LEED-EB project to date (among those for which cost information is publicly available) was the New York Power Authority (NYPA) facility in White Plains, NY (see Figure 4 below). This project cost $7.49 per square foot. The General Dynamics Roosevelt Facility project cost the least, $0.14/sqft. The median cost was $1.91/sqft. Variance among the projects is demonstrated in the different LEED37

Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. LEED Project Status. May 5, 2006. http://eng.lacity.org/projects/sdip/docs/leedprojecstatus.pdf (accessed January 31, 2007.) 38

For specific registration and certification fees, see Appendix C. All prerequisite features are listed in Appendix A, Table A.3, the LEED-EB Project Checklist, version 2.0. 39 Evan Mills et al. The Cost-effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. December 15, 2004. http://eetd.lbl.gov/Emills/PUBS/Cx-Costs-Benefits.html (accessed January 4, 2007).

EB credits each project pursues. In particular, the Len Foote Hike Inn attained almost one quarter of its credits from just one feature, optimizing its energy performance, whereas NYPA earned twice as many credits as the Inn in both the Materials and Resources and the Indoor Environmental Quality categories. This is merely one illustration of differing processes and costs of LEED-EB certification between buildings with distinct owners, occupants, and goals. Figure 4: LEED-EB Case Studies: Project listed by cost per square foot Project Name General Dynamics Roosevelt Facility Department of Ecology (WA) Headquarters Facility University of Colorado Memorial Center Johnson Diversey Global Headquarters Joe Serna Jr. Building, Cal/EPA Headquarters Goizueta Business School, Emory University Len Foote Hike Inn median Adobe Systems, West Tower Alliance Center

AJ Martini, Inc. Girvetz Hall, UCSB Porter Industries Building Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects Design Studio New York Power Authority, White Plains

City, State

Square Footage

Year Built

Cost of Implementation

Cost($)/sqft

Annual Net Savings

Scottsdale, Arizona

1,500,000

2004

$214,000

$0.14

$322,000

Olympia, Washington

322,000

1993

$55,000

$0.17

probably not much

51,000

2000

$11,220

$0.22

unknown, not much

Sturtevant, Wisconsin

277,440

1997

$73,800

$0.27

$137,320

Sacramento, California

950,000

2000

$500,000

$0.53

$610,000

Atlanta, Georgia Dawsonville, Georgia

122,000 6,000

1997 1998

$95,000 $10,000

$0.78 $1.67 $1.91

$151,000

San Jose, California Denver, Colorado

391,708 38,000

1996 1908

$847,000 $100,000

$2.16 $2.63

$1,000,000

$100,000

$5.00

no baseline information

Boulder, Colorado

Winchester, Massachusetts Santa Barbara, California

n/a

1968, 20,000

remodel:

2002

46,726

1955

$240,000

$5.14

n/a

Loveland, Colorado

10,000

1997

$62,500

$6.25

n/a

Henderson, Nevada

11,119

1995

$75,000

$6.75

n/a

White Plains, New York

420,000

1981

$3,145,292

$7.49

$336,951

n/a = not available

TRADEOFF BETWEEN EFFICIENCY AND LOW COST Buildings that are highly efficient before undertaking the LEED-EB certification process generally cost less to certify and result in smaller savings because they do not require major mechanical upgrades; conversely, older or less efficient buildings usually cost more to certify and

yield greater cost savings and efficiency gains. Figure 5 shows the variation in costs and savings for the cases studied. Figure 5: LEED-EB Case Studies: Projects listed by annual net savings per square foot Project Name

City, State

Adobe Systems, West Tower Goizueta Business School, Emory U. New York Power Authority, White Plains median Joe Serna Jr. Building - Cal/EPA HQ Johnson Diversey Global Headquarters General Dynamics Roosevelt Facility

San Jose, California Atlanta, Georgia White Plains, New York Sacramento, California Sturtevant, Wisconsin Scottsdale, Arizona

Square Footage

Cost of Cost/ Implemensqft tation

391,708 $847,000 122,000 $95,000 420,000 $3,145,292 950,000 277,440 1,500,000

$500,000 $73,800 $214,000

Annual Net Savings

$2.16 $1,000,000 $0.78 $151,000 $7.49 $336,951 $329,476 $0.53 $610,000 $0.27 $137,320 $0.14 $322,000

Annual Net Savings/ sqft

Payback Time (years)

$2.55 $1.24 $0.80 $0.72 $0.64 $0.49 $0.21

0.9 9.3 0.7 0.5 0.5

For example, of all the LEED-EB projects completed and with savings figures publicly available, the Adobe Systems West Tower reaped annual net savings of $1 million. The project was one of the more expensive per square foot among the group, and also achieved the greatest savings per square foot, $2.55/sqft/year. ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS EB projects achieved significant savings in energy and water consumption. The Tate Snyder Kimsey architectural design studio demonstrated the greatest water use reduction, saving 90% annually.40 The Adobe Systems West Tower also significantly reduced its water and energy use in pursuing LEED-EB certification:  22% reduction in domestic water use  76% reduction in landscape water use  35% reduction in electricity usage  41% reduction in natural gas usage41 WASTE DIVERSION Waste diversion is another area of substantial savings opportunity. For example, the Adobe Systems West tower diverts 85% of its solid waste from landfills. By redesigning its waste disposal programs with features such as need-based rather than regularly-scheduled waste removal, the Getty Center in Los Angeles reports annual savings of $50,000 to $100,000 in waste pick up.42 40

Randy Spitzmesser. Principal and Partner, Tate Snyder Kimsey. Henderson, NV. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. March 6, 2007. 41 George Denise. “Managing for the 21st Century: LEED-EB Green Building Certification as the New Standard of Excellence In Facilities Management.” February 2006. http://www.worldworkplace.org/files/sessions/Handouts/2.11.ppt (accessed February 2, 2007). 42 Jim Bullock. Director of Facilities, The Getty Center, Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007.

PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES The indoor environmental quality (IEQ) category intends to improve the conditions of a building’s occupants and other users. Measured by decreases in absenteeism, worker productivity has been shown to increase after a building’s indoor environment quality is improved.43 Improving IEQ can both enhance the property itself (e.g. increasing value with more daylight and views) and benefit employees with improved health (e.g. through decreased air pollution). None of the project staff we interviewed, however, tracked potential improvements in worker health and productivity. COSTS AND SAVINGS SUMMARY Figure 6 below summarizes the financial data from six cases for which savings data is available. All but one of the cases experienced higher savings than costs per square foot. The outlying case of the New York Power Authority building in White Plains was more expensive than the other projects because even before pursuing LEED-EB certification, it had committed to undergoing an extensive energy systems upgrade, which greatly surpassed the requirements for earning LEEDEB points. In general, there is a trend between costs and savings: projects that spend more also save more. Figure 6: Annual Net Savings Exceed One-Time Implementation Cost (Dollars per Square Foot) General Dynamics Roosevelt Facility Johnson Diversey Global Headquarters Joe Serna Jr. Building -Cal-EPA Headquarters Goizueta Business School Emory University Adobe Systems West Tower $0.00

$0.50

$1.00 Annual Net Savings

$1.50

$2.00

Implementation Cost

$2.50

$3.00

$/SQFT

Michael Arny et al. Deliver the Green – A Fresh Look at LEED-EB and Facility Management. Leonardo Academy. 2006. http://www.ifmafoundation.org/deliverthegreen.pdf (accessed March 9, 2007).

COSTS AND SAVINGS CONCLUSIONS While LEED-EB projects completed at this point vary widely in both costs and savings, the following points should be taken away from these completed cases: • Buildings for which LEED-EB was more expensive to implement were usually the ones that were the least efficient and had the most to gain. Thus, these buildings were more likely to undergo expensive mechanical upgrades that would lead to increased efficiency. • Most of the buildings certified were newer and were already operating at a high level of efficiency. These buildings were easy to certify, but in some cases offered minimal or no savings. • Given the variation in the costs and savings associated with each LEED-EB component, generalizable cost estimates are difficult to obtain. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES Through interviews with project managers of buildings that have been LEED-EB certified, we constructed a comprehensive list of advantages and disadvantages of certification. By weighing these advantages and disadvantages against one another, we conclude that, overall, buildings and their owners and occupants benefit from LEED-EB certification. ADVANTAGES: Holistic Approach “[LEED-EB] was the most inclusive program of anything we had seen in the past." – Richard Cline, National Geographic Headquarters44 The most commonly cited benefit of the LEED standard was its holistic approach to building sustainability. People who oversaw LEED certification for their building appreciated the comprehensive analysis of building systems guided by the five areas of specific sustainability criteria: Energy Efficiency, Water Efficiency, Site Selection, Indoor Environmental Quality, and Materials and Resources. The combination of requirements and optional points for each category forced building managers to consider the impact of a wide range of operations and maintenance protocols on the sustainability of their buildings. Less comprehensive approaches may omit or ignore certain components. For example, any approach that focuses exclusively on energy and water efficiency, such as the current audit by DWP, would fail to direct a building manager to evaluate his building’s policy on materials and subsequently overlook the maintenance of a recycling program. Self-assessment of Operations and Maintenance "I thought we were doing well, but to actually have an IAQ [indoor air quality] plan, recycling, site maintenance plan . . . Looking at it for one site made us rethink how we do things.” – Dave Logan, Ada County, Idaho45

Robert Cline. General Manager, National Geographic Headquarters. Telephone interview with Travis Broussard, March 6, 2007.

Because of the rigorous standards to which LEED-EB certified buildings are held and the documentation required to demonstrate that buildings meet those standards, the certification process often forces managers to evaluate systematically the ways buildings are managed with respect to sustainability. This allows managers to develop the practices necessary to mitigate the environmental impact of their buildings. One manager quoted an adage that “you can’t manage what you can’t measure.” The LEED certification process provides managers with a framework to assess current practices and develop standard best practices. Managers are excited about the program because the criteria identified by LEED are generally accepted by the green community as methods to increase sustainability; thus it removes the guesswork from building operators who do not necessarily have expertise in green operations. They can be confident that standard maintenance and operating procedures developed in concert with LEED certification are appropriate and commensurate with green industry standards. Increased Efficiency and Cost Savings “I’m somewhat of a perfectionist, and I really like operating efficiency . . . . I don’t like waste.” – George Denise, Adobe Systems46 In most cases we studied where a building underwent LEED-EB certification, energy and cost savings were realized. Specifically for buildings operating below accepted minimum energy efficiency levels, LEED prerequisites will guarantee cost savings. Additionally, minimum water efficiency standards must also be met, ensuring savings for those currently operating below them. These savings diminish, though, as buildings that are newer or better maintained than other buildings are certified. While it is possible that these buildings may already meet LEED standards and certification may only recognize current efficiency levels, every project manager interviewed has realized or anticipates cost savings. DISADVANTAGES: Documentation and Certification “The process became very time intensive during the last three months for our team of about 12 people. Aside from the time commitment for specific credit responsibilities, we had weekly meetings to be sure documentation was being completed in a timely manner.” — Marty Sweeney, Owens Corning47 The largest drawback of such a comprehensive monitoring system is the inherent documentation needed to ensure compliance with criteria as well as quarterly monitoring by USGBC. In some cases, this is the most time-consuming aspect of certification. For the Joe Serna California EPA building, documentation alone took a year.48 For some of these buildings, however, certification 45

Dave Logan. Director, Operations Department, Ada County, Idaho. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 27, 2007. 46 George Denise. Adobe Systems. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 27, 2007. 47 Marty Sweeney. Marketing Manager, Environmental Building Science, Ownings Corning. E-mail corresponsence with Travis Broussard, March 9, 2007. 48 Sheehy, Craig. Director, Property Management, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. Sacramento, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007.

occurred while LEED was a pilot program, when the documentation processes were still unrefined. Several managers cited a more detailed reference guide and new online templates that have since made documentation an easier task than in the initial stages of LEED. Kirksey project manager reflected, “We were dealing with the Reader’s Digest version, for a couple of years. Once [USGBC] came out with a comprehensive manual and on-line templates, we used them.”49 Despite its tedium, the documentation process, as earlier noted, was cited as a significant benefit in the end because it produced lasting standard operating procedures that ultimately enhanced building sustainability. We conclude, therefore, that the benefits of strict documentation outweigh the difficulty in collecting the information. Human Resources Required “Man hours were the biggest cost.” – Brian Malarkey, Kirksey Corporate Office Building “I would look closely at committing the human resources necessary to complete the project.” -- Mike Brown, Director of Operations, Oregon Convention Center50 Finding the human resources necessary to evaluate the feasibility of certification, to implement procedures to meet compliance, and to document the entire process is a glaring challenge for any building considering the LEED standard. Because the certification process is highly specific for each building, teams of experts are generally assembled to carry out the various requirements. Retrocommissioning is especially burdensome. A building manager may devote in-house engineers to calculating energy efficiency and performance, or outside engineers may be hired to do the work. Sometimes, a combination of both is used. In any case, the process is resource intensive. Once this step is completed, teams of five to six people may spend months documenting systems performance. These costs, however, vary significantly between buildings and depend heavily on current practices. Well-maintained buildings require less time and money to retrocommission if current practices already encourage energy efficiency. We noted a wide range in the magnitude of resource devotion, with newer buildings generally requiring fewer resources. The degree to which resources become a challenge depends on several factors such as the age of the building and current practices, which makes weighing this disadvantage across an entire stock of buildings impossible. Executive, Staff, and Tenant Buy-in “When choosing a building, make sure the staff and the occupants are supportive of the process.” — Barry Giles, Moss Landing Marine Lab51 “Programs like this are much easier to do in the context of a larger sustainability initiative that has the backing of the city’s highest level of leadership.” –Christian Willis, City of Denver52 49

Brian Malarkey. Vice President, Kirksey Architecture. Houston, TX. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 2, 2007. 50 Mike Brown. Director of Operations, Oregon Convention Center. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 20, 2007. 51 Barry Giles. Building Services Engineer, Moss Landing Marine Lab. Moss Landing, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February, 23. Email communication with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007.

Even the most enthusiastic managers must face the challenge of getting buy-in from their superiors, peers, and subordinates because, as mentioned above, the certification process can be very resource-heavy. A manager needs his or her superiors’ support to finance the project as well as allocate other resources such as manpower. Because of the specific nature of many of the criteria, a manager must also work with experts such as engineers and administrative staff to ensure that operational protocols meet or exceed LEED requirements. This challenge, however, did not appear to significantly obstruct the certification process. The key to buy-in, it seems, is to motivate staff members to participate in the process without overwhelming them with burdensome responsibilities.53 Once a manager receives buy-in from the bottom to the top, staff members usually integrate themselves into the process, and managers may find savings in places they never thought to look. As far as tenant buy-in is concerned, education can play a key role. In Denver, staff members were resistant to the LEED program initially.54 However, through staff education and dissemination of information through flyers that described the importance of LEED, this resistance was overcome. Thus, if done with forethought, we do not believe that buy-in will pose a significant challenge to certification. Advantages and Disadvantages Conclusion Through our interviews, we have determined that the benefits of LEED-EB certification (a holistic approach, self-assessment of maintenance and operation, and cost savings) were realized by nearly all buildings that undergo the process. Underscoring the value of using this standard, 100% of managers interviewed said that, given the opportunity, they would go through the certification process again. While specific challenges of documentation, resource allocation, and staff buy-in pose threats to success, we have seen that these threats can be mitigated. Therefore, we conclude that LEED-EB is an appropriate tool for property managers interested in improving building sustainability. APPLYING LEED-EB ACROSS A BUILDING PORTFOLIO Applying LEED-EB standards to a portfolio of buildings poses challenges distinct from a single building project.55 For instance, an organization with a large portfolio of buildings must decide which building to work on first; whether it should limit the number of buildings to certify; how to come to this determination; how certifying one project as LEED-EB should inform sustainability across the portfolio; and who work on these projects. In this section, we analyze data collected

Christian Willis. Real Estate Agent, Facilities and Planning Management. City of Denver, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. February 28, 2007. 53 Marty Sweeney. Marketing Manager, Environmental Building Science, Owens Corning. Email communication with Travis Broussard, March 9, 2007. 54 Christian Willis. Real Estate Agent, Facilities and Planning Management. City of Denver, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. February 28, 2007. 55 USGBC is currently developing a LEED standard for portfolios. U.S. Green Building Council. “Frequently Asked Questions” regarding the LEED Portfolio program. 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1622 (accessed March 13, 2007).

from interviews with some of L.A.’s peer cities that have demonstrated environmental leadership and literature on LEED-EB policies adopted by public sector entities. Municipalities Considering LEED-EB Policies We interviewed facilities managers and environmental division managers in 20 major cities known for sustainability practices to better understand: 1) Whether LEED-EB was being used among L.A.’s peer cities 2) Approaches to applying LEED-EB to a city’s building stock We initially limited the targeted cities to those ranked in the top 20 for sustainability practices.56 We were able to contact managers in 16 of these cities. We also interviewed managers in four additional cities – Berkeley, CA; Eugene, OR; Milwaukee, WI; and New York, NY. These cities were chosen because they had pursued a LEED-EB policy (Eugene, OR), were large cities like Los Angeles (New York, NY), or were cities with reputations for leadership in environmental policies (Milwaukee, WI and Berkeley, CA). While all of the cities surveyed were exploring ways to improve the sustainability of their existing facilities, Figure 7 shows that 55% of the cities in the sample were either unfamiliar with the LEED-EB standards or had not come to a decision on the standards. Figure 7: LEED-EB Policy Status of Environmentally-Active U.S. Cities LEED-EB Policy Status of Environmentally-Active U.S. Cities

Have decided against adopting a LEED-EB policy 25%

Have adopted a LEED-EB policy 20%

Unfamiliar with LEED-EB/ Have not considered a LEED-EB policy 40%

Are currently considering adoption of a LEED-EB policy 15%

LEED-EB Policy Status

Of the nine cities that had considered a LEEDEB policy, four adopted some level of LEEDEB standards while five did not. Among these five cities that decided against pursuing a LEED-EB policy, none had a firm understanding of the requirements of the standards. And while each representative did express a general sense that pursuing LEEDEB certification would be too cumbersome, these decisions did not seem to close the book on future adoption. Every interviewee expressed interest in the results of our investigation.

Qty

Have adopted a LEED-EB policy

20%

Denver, Eugene, Portland, San Jose

Are currently considering adoption of a LEED-EB policy Unfamiliar with LEED-EB/ Have not considered a LEED-EB policy

15%

40%

New York, Sacramento, San Diego Baltimore, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Boston, Pasadena, San Francisco, Milwaukee, Oakland

Have decided against adopting a LEED-EB policy

25%

Austin, Cleveland, Dallas, Washington, Berkeley

Total:

Cities

SustainLane. 2006 U.S. City Rankings, “Cities by Category Ranking: Green (LEED) Building.” 2006. http://www.sustainlane.us/Green_LEED_Building.jsp (accessed February 13, 2007). These rankings are based on the number of registered and certified LEED projects per capita in a city.

PUBLIC-SECTOR LEED-EB POLICIES Because few cities have pursued LEED-EB policies, we expanded our analysis to include other public sector entities which have adopted a LEED-EB policy. Included in the analysis below are data collected from interviews with sustainability managers for the state of California and the state of Colorado -- the only two states which we discovered had adopted a LEED-EB policy for their buildings -- and the manager of facilities for the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), which has committed to certifying 25 buildings as part of a USGBCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s LEED-EB Portfolio Program Pilot.57 The analysis in this section focuses on the scope of the policies, the characteristics of buildings that were chosen as demonstration projects, and the challenges to implementing a LEED-EB policy within a public sector organization. Scope of Policies Among the governments surveyed, there was a fair amount of variance in the language of their LEED-EB legislation. For instance the State of California, in order to reduce the number of buildings subject to the law, created a minimum size requirement of 50,000 sq ft.58 The City of Eugene, the City of Denver, and the state of Colorado laws require that the cities apply LEEDEB standards when appropriate across all of their buildings. Conversely, Portland wrote no such restriction into their policy.59 The City of San Jose is unique in that the Council has formally asked staff to report back on using LEED-EB to assess current city building operations and maintenance practices, including a detailed plan for implementing a demonstration project.60

Perrin Pelligrino. Campus Sustainability Manager, Facilities Management, University of California, Santa Barbara. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 27, 2007. 58 Dan Burgoyne. Sustainability Manager, Department of General Services, State of Califronia. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, January 30. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 18. 59 Portland City Council Resolution No. 36310. ENB-9.02 Green Building Policy Update adopted by Council on April 27, 2005. http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=80338&c=34835 (accessed February 22, 2007). 60 Michael Foster. Green Building Program, City of San Jose. Telephone interview conducted by John Ragosta, February 27, 2007.

Figure 8: Description of LEED-EB Policies Jurisdictions with Date of LEED-EB Policy Adoption City of Denver, CO

7/12/2006

City of Eugene, OR

7/10/2006

City of Portland, OR

4/27/2005

City of San Jose, CA

11/21/2006

State of California

12/14/2004

State of Colorado

7/15/2005

UCSB

N/A

Scope of Policy

“Fully implement all appropriate LEED-EB principles into City operations and maintenance.”61 Requires that the City use LEED-EB “…as a guide for the the sustainable operation and maintenance of City buildings.”62 Requires LEED-EB Silver certification “…for all City-owned occupied, existing buildings…”63 City staff to report on how to use LEED-EB to assess existing City facilities, including a LEED-EB pilot project proposal.64 All existing State buildings over 50,000 sq ft shall meet LEED-EB by no later than 2015 to the maximum extent cost-effective.65 Directs state agencies and departments to incorporate LEED-EB practices “to the extent applicable and practicable.”66 Contracting with USGBC to certify 25 buildings as a pilot for the USGBC’s Portfolio program.

Considering that most of these policies have been implemented within the past two years and that only the State of California, the State of Colorado, and UCSB have actually certified buildings, it is difficult to anticipate how expansively and to what extent each policy will be implemented. Each government representative surveyed, however, reported either starting with one demonstration building or expressed plans to do so, with the idea that such a project would inform sustainability practices across building portfolios. Choosing Buildings for Demonstration Projects Representatives from all five jurisdictions that had begun the LEED-EB certification process (California, Eugene, Denver, UCSB, and Colorado) chose to first certify newer buildings or buildings that had previously undergone energy efficiency upgrades because those would be easier to certify. The City of Denver and the state of California certified buildings that were already certified under the LEED-NC standard. Dan Burgoyne, Sustainability Manager for the California Department of General Services (DGS), described how DGS pursued the Platinum

City of Denver. Greenprint Denver Action Agenda. 2006. http://www.greenprintdenver.org/about/plan.php (accessed March 8, 2007). 62 Eugene City Council Resolution No. 4884. Sustainable Buildings Policy For Buildings Owned and Occupied by the City, adopted by Council on July 10, 2006. (Emailed by Ron Sutton Facility Operations/Maintenance Manager, City of Eugene, OR, March 20, 2007.) 63 Portland City Council Resolution No. 36310. ENB- Green Building Policy Update adopted by Council on April 27, 2005. http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=80338&c=34835 (accessed February 22, 2007). 64 San Jose City Council and Redevelopment Agency Joint Session. Approval of actions related to the Green Buildings Policy on November 11, 2006. San Jose, CA. (Emailed by Michael Foster, City of San Jose Green Building Program February 27, 2006). 65 State of California. Executive Order S-20-04 Green Building Action Plan. Signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger December 14, 2004. http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/index.html (accessed January 2, 2007). 66 State of Colorado. Executive Order D-005-05 Greening of State Government. 2005. http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/CO35R.pdf (accessed March 16, 2007).

level certification to educate staff on the LEED-EB points and to create a template for future building certification.67 The City of San Jose plans to begin certification with city hall, built in 2005, and work on three other relatively new buildings; however, they have also identified an older building for which to pursue certification. Staff suspects that the building is in need of a Heating, Ventilation and Cooling (HVAC) system upgrade, and by pursuing an older building they can better gauge how to apply the LEED-EB standard to older buildings. Portland still has not chosen buildings to certify, but Green Building Specialist Alisa Kane mentioned that because most of the city’s buildings were relatively new, city staff would choose buildings that are high-profile and that are occupied by departments that are supportive of the process. Figure 9: Processes for Choosing Buildings Jurisdictions with LEED-EB Policy City of Denver, CO City of Eugene, OR City of Portland, OR City of San Jose, CA State of California State of Colorado UCSB

Choosing Buildings for Demonstration Projects Chose building that was designed for LEED-NC. Thought this would serve as good test case. Starting with buildings that will most easily meet LEED criteria. Most buildings are fairly new, so looking at high profile buildings and buildings with “key player” and occupant buy-in. Starting with City Hall b/c it has many sustainable design components, but also pursuing a 30 yr-old building in need of an HVAC system upgrade. Began with LEED-NC building because used this process resulted template for future buildings. Will certify NC and other new buildings first, then work on buildings Began with downtown complex which had recently undergone energy-efficiency upgrade. First project chosen had previously upgraded energy system and was an easily benchmarked type. The subsequent 5 buildings chosen were highest energy users on campus.

Challenges to Adopting and Implementing a LEED-EB Policy Funding was cited by most of the interviewees as a challenge to adopting and implementing a LEED-EB Policy. There is little doubt that pursuing LEED-EB certification demands an initial financial investment. UCSB’s building manager, however, highlighted the University’s use of rebates offered by their local utility to offset some of the non-staff financial costs of improving energy efficiency.68 Conversely, the state of California’s Sustainability Manager viewed the use of engineering staff on the project as lost revenue they could have been billing to other projects. Once approval came from the executive or legislative level, however, funding issues ceased to be the most prominent obstacle to pursuing LEED-EB.

Dan Burgoyne. Sustainability Manager, Department of General Services, State of Califronia. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, January 30. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 18, 2007. 68 Perrin Pelligrino. Campus Sustainability Manager, Facilities Management, University of California, Santa Barbara. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. February 27, 2007.

Figure 10: Challenges to Implementing a LEED-EB Policy69 Jurisdictions with LEED-EB Policy

Challenges Cited

City of Denver, CO

1) Making the financial case that benefits are worth it. 2) Occupant buy-in

City of Eugene, OR

1) “The hardest part was connecting the benefits with the spending.”70

City of Portland, OR City of San Jose, CA State of California State of Colorado UCSB

1) Coordinating across bureaus 2) Funding 3) Cultural resistance from implementing departments 1) Getting City Council approval 2) Funding 3) Philosophical difference between departments 1) Setting up the LEED-EB program 2) Assembling the project team, which included members with design and engineering expertise 1) Cross-departmental buy-in 2) Modifying existing contractual obligations which varied across agencies 1) Rearranging maintenance schedules

The other major challenge cited by respondents was cross-departmental coordination. Pursuing LEED-EB is a team effort. As such, in order to meet the rigorous documentation and implementation criteria, staff members from departments not accustomed to collaborating need to be managed. One project has been delayed by poor communication between the different departments needed for implementation.71 Even if the implementing departments are well coordinated, enlisting building occupants in the process can be a challenge.72 While coordinating across departments and functions was a challenge, respondents emphasized how much they learned from certifying the first building. ASSESSMENT OF L.A.’S CURRENT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE PRACTICES In this section, we have compiled information on the City’s current sustainability policies and measured them against the LEED-EB criteria. This analysis should be considered an initial assessment, as the only way to determine definitively if the City would obtain specific points would be to go through the full LEED-EB certification process. We have organized this analysis into the six sub-categories specified under LEED: 1. Sustainable Sites 2. Water Efficiency 3. Energy and Atmosphere 4. Materials and Resources 69

For specific references, see Appendix E: Interviews Conducted. Ron Sutton. Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance Manager, City of Eugene. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 9, 2007. 71 Frank Lombardi. Manager, Capitol Complex, Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. March 20, 2007. 72 Christian Willis. Real Estate Agent, Facilities and Planning Management, City of Denver. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. February 28, 2007. This issue was emphasized also by the project managers of nongovernmental LEED-EB case studies highlighted earlier. 70

5. Indoor Environmental Quality 6. Innovation and Design Process As previously mentioned, a minimum of 32 points, out of 85 total points are required to achieve LEED-EB Certification. Below is a summary of our findings under each subcategory. For a more detailed look at each point, which City agency is responsible for action under that point, and a listing of relevant City policies related to each point, please refer to Appendix B. 1. SUSTAINABLE SITES (14 POINTS) Many of the Sustainable Site credits are building-specific. However, City policies including the installation of bike racks and storage lockers at several locations may qualify for points under this section. In addition, the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s extensive bus system and rail transportation opportunities will help towards achieving points under the alternative transportation section. Also, the high number of City-owned buildings in the downtown area will result in widespread achievement of the high-density building credit. However, the areas of telecommuting and preference for alternative vehicle parking may pose challenges. While the City has a comprehensive stormwater management program in place, it is unclear whether the policy would meet the EB standards that require at least 25% diversion of stormwater for one point or 50% for two points. However, the City has pursued policies in the area of non-roof heat island reduction for new buildings.73 In addition, the Environmental Affairs Department (EAD) has prepared a resource guide titled Incorporate Rooftop Green Spaces as an Energy Efficiency Mechanism in response to a City Council motion that requested a study into green roofs.74 2. WATER EFFICIENCY (5 POINTS) The City has demonstrated excellent leadership in the area of Water Efficiency. According to the City of Los Angeles Sustainable Building Initiative guide: Despite a 20 percent population increase in Los Angeles since the mid-1980s, the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s water demand has remained constant. This remarkable statistic is due to water conservation measures taken by the City and its Department of Water and Power, extensive public awareness and education campaigns, advanced technology in water-savings equipment, and financial incentives for conservation.75

Sharam Farzan. Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles. Email communication with Travis Broussard, March 14, 2007. 74 Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department. Green Roofs - Cooling Los Angeles. 2006. http://www.fypower.org/pdf/LA_GreenRoofsResourceGuide.pdf (accessed March 2, 2007). 75 Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles Sustainable Building Initiative. April 2003. http://eng.lacity.org/projects/sdip/docs/SustainableBuildingInitiativeActionPlanFinal043003.pdf (accessed November 5, 2006).

Current City policies would make this one of the most successful areas for achieving points towards EB certification as the two prerequisites would be met as well as at least two of the five available points in this section. 3. ENERGY AND ATMOSPHERE (23 POINTS) The Energy and Atmosphere category offers the greatest opportunity to improve environmental sustainability, but it also contains some of the most difficult points to achieve. The most difficult is the prerequisite of commissioning which will certainly be a challenge in implementing LEEDEB across a large portfolio of buildings. We are not aware of any current efforts to commission any of the City’s existing buildings. While commissioning can be expensive, particularly for older, less efficient buildings, the savings can be dramatic as the process often leads to improved energy efficiency. In measuring energy efficiency, the LEED-EB system uses the Energy Star rating system and thereby award points. The Energy Star section alone represents nearly one-third of the 32 points necessary to reach EB certification. Currently, an average Energy Star score for commercial buildings is 50.76 As a prerequisite, a building must obtain a score of at least 60. The City does not track average Energy Star scores of existing buildings nor does it keep a record of energy usage of existing buildings so it is difficult to judge the feasibility of reaching this prerequisite across City buildings. Earning points in the renewable energy section was one of the most challenging areas for the case studies we analyzed and will likely be so for the City as well. However, DWP has set a goal of reaching 20% renewable energy by the year 2010.77 The agency has also been aggressively pursuing environmental sustainability in other areas, which can continue to help increase the greenness of City buildings. DWP will soon begin conducting water and energy audits of the City's building stock with the goals of decreasing utility consumption and reducing costs. The Department’s staff will walk through each building and identify areas where energy and water savings can be realized. For each building, DWP will provide to GSD a list of specific recommendations that outlines steps to increase utility efficiency. The list includes recommendations such as: Replace any incandescent lamps with the Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) equivalents where possible . . . . Replacing a 100 watt lamp with a 25 watt CFL will save 675 kWh or $80 a year if the lamp is on 24/7. Pay back is usually under a month and with possible incentives may be instantaneous.78 DWP is hiring several additional staff members to complete the audit. It expects to audit approximately 40 buildings per month and finish the audits in one year. For each building, this 76

Brodsky, Stuart. Energy Star Partners to Change the Energy Performance of Commercial Properties. Better Bricks. 2007. http://www.betterbricks.com/default.aspx?pid=article&articleid=38 &typeid=10&topicname=planningmanagement&indextype= (Date accessed March 20, 2007). 77 Metro Investment Report. February 2007. http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com/mir/?module=displaystory&story_id=403&format=html (accessed March 20, 2007). 78 Los Angeles Department of Water and Power “On-site energy assessment” per Gary Gero March 19, 2007.

audit could be used to guide energy and water efficiency improvements required by LEED-EB. The DWP recommendations will offer specific, actionable steps to increase energy efficiency and Energy Star ratings for City buildings. For recommendations such as light fixture replacement, energy and cost savings can be calculated immediately. DWP expects that more efficient light fixtures pay for themselves within one month to two years.79 Other individual recommendations will be difficult, if not impossible, to measure for efficiency or cost savings until aggregated and measured using the Energy Star Rating required by LEED-EB. 4. MATERIALS AND RESOURCES (16 POINTS) Almost all of the points available in this section can be achieved by changes in City policy that are not building specific as the section deals mostly with purchasing of green construction materials and green cleaning products as well as recycling programs. The City currently has a comprehensive recycling program that would certainly qualify for points provided that it is applied across City facilities. Los Angeles is subject to the requirements of Assembly Bill 939 that mandates certain waste reduction goals in all California municipalities. According to the City Sustainable Building Initiative guide, “While the City surpassed the 50% diversion guide for the year 2000, the City must now divert 70% of its solid waste from landfills by 2020.”80 However, Mayor Villaraigosa has requested that the City meet this 70% diversion mark five years earlier, in 2015.81 As for diversion specifically from construction projects, the City is operating at a very efficient level, diverting 85% of construction waste.82 LEED-EB makes up to five credits available under its “Optimizing Use of Alternative Materials” category, which encourages green purchasing practices. The City observes a “Recycling Products Purchasing Program and Ordinance” that encourages the purchase of recycled and other sustainable material. In Nov. 2006, the Environmental Purchasing Program Task Force recommended an expansion of the current green purchasing policy. It is unclear what percentage of total purchases can be considered alternative materials under LEED-EB.83 In this subsection, up to three credits are available for the purchase of green cleaning products. As the City has no specific policy on green cleaning products, it is unlikely to be compliant in this area.84

Gary Gero. Director of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Solutions, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). Telephone interview with Travis Broussard, March 19, 2007. 80 Jeffrey Harlan. City of Los Angeles Sustainable City Initiative. The Bureau of Engineering and the Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles. April 2003. http://eng.lacity.org/projects/sdip/docs/SustainableBuildingInitiativeActionPlanFinal043003.pdf (accessed November 5, 2006). 81 Alvin Blain. Recycling Program at the Garland Building. Inter-Departmental Correspondence. Department of General Services, State of California. July 24, 2006. 82 Nick Pendorf. Division Manager, Construction Forces, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles. Email communication with April Newman, March 12, 2007. 83 Detrich P. Allen. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. Environmental Affairs Commission, City of Los Angeles. Memo to City Councilmember Greig Smith. November 3, 2006. 84 Loretta Quenon. Senior Management Analyst II, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles. Email communication with April Newman, March 19, 2007.

5. INDOOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (22 POINTS) This section focuses on the health of building occupants and staff. Current City policies that limit building occupants’ exposure to tobacco smoke and mandate the removal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and asbestos should satisfy three of the four prerequisites in this section.85 Beyond these prerequisites, however, current City practices seem to be deficient in this subsection. For example, no reporting structure that we have found exists for measuring the productivity of staff in relation to the indoor environmental quality of buildings. In addition, the City falls below the 50% threshold for occupant control over lighting and temperature in buildings.86 The credits that track the daylight available in each building are site specific and cannot be affected by changes in City policy. However, up to six credits can be achieved by instilling green cleaning practices into City policy. While the City has investigated green cleaning products, various challenges have prevented the adoption of a comprehensive policy.87 6. INNOVATION AND DESIGN PROCESS (5 POINTS) This section is designed to encourage the development of innovative O&M practices by building managers to improve sustainability. In our case study analysis we found that few projects achieved points in this area. However, this section should not be dismissed, as it could serve as a catalyst for innovations that the City may be considering. In addition, the City may currently be incorporating green practices that are outside the framework of the previous five LEED subsections yet may qualify for credit under innovation and design practices. Further, a large city such as L.A. is in a strong position to pursue innovative environmental practices because of its reputation for environmental stewardship and the ability to have a significant impact on sustainability that smaller cities and individual projects cannot realize. STUDY CONCLUSION OF LEED-EB AS A GREENING TOOL FOR THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES We can analyze LEED-EB as an effective tool for L.A. City building sustainability by referring back to our criteria: • LEED-EB definitely promotes more resource-efficient models of operation and maintenance. The certification is specifically geared toward O&M practices for existing buildings, exactly the buildings we have targeted in this report. Our case studies have also consistently shown improved efficiency for water and energy consumption under the LEED-EB program. • The flexibility of LEED-EB is difficult to analyze for this project because of the large portfolio of buildings. On one hand, we feel that the framework is flexible because the optional point system gives project managers choices about where to focus their time and work to increase sustainability. On the other hand, the rigid documentation required by the USGBC to achieve certification, especially for 842 buildings, is a major hurdle.

Gregg Wilkins GSD Portfolio Manager. Email Communication with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. Gregg Wilkins. GSD Portfolio Manager. Email Communication with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. 87 Loretta Quenon. Senior Management Analyst II, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles. Email communication with April Newman, March 19, 2007. 86

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘

Our case studies have demonstrated that LEED-EB is technically feasible. Project managers were able to follow the LEED-EB checklist to implement changes specified by the LEED standards. Economic feasibility is perhaps the most nebulous component of our criteria. We have demonstrated that the cost for LEED-EB compliance and certification varies dramatically between buildings due to individual characteristics such as age, size, and type. However, our case studies also indicate that most buildings do in fact realize cost savings due to increased efficiencies. We do know, though, that certification for each building requires significant up-front costs for registration and certification. These costs could be mitigated, however, by certifying only a few buildings.

This analysis has also shown that Los Angeles has demonstrated sound policy in many of the LEED sustainability categories and faces challenges in others. An important point to consider is that 32 of the 85 points and six of the prerequisites needed to achieve LEED-EB certification can be achieved through changes in City O&M practices that are independent of specific building characteristics. Further, the opportunities for economies of scale are tremendous, as changes in City environmental policy on a system-wide level could have a dramatic impact on sustainability. The vast majority of the practices covered under LEED-EB fall under the jurisdiction of just two City agencies: the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) and the General Services Department (GSD). In fact, BOE and GSD are responsible for policies that make up more than 80% of the points achievable toward LEED-EB. Thus, leaders of these agencies must be engaged from the start of any consideration of LEED-EB practice implementation.

RECOMMENDATIONS PURSUE LEED-EB CERTIFICATION FOR 5 BUILDINGS Given the uncertainty surrounding the appropriateness of pursuing a comprehensive LEED-EB policy, we recommend that the City proceed with a demonstration project to test such a program on five buildings. The goals of the Demonstration Project can be broken into three broad categories. While pursuing LEED-EB certification for five buildings, the project team, which will be composed of staff from relevant City Goals of departments, must systematically assess and LEED-EB Demonstration Project document the City’s current green operation and maintenance (O&M) practices using LEED-EB as 1. Assess the sustainability and a framework. Second, while certifying buildings, efficiency of current operations and the project team will determine which LEED-EB maintenance practices. practices are most feasible (cost-effective and easily implemented) to apply across the City’s 2. Determine LEED-EB practices building stock. The first two goals will inform the most feasible to implement across implementation of the third goal: development of City building stock. an operations and maintenance manual designed to enhance the sustainability of the City’s building 3. Develop operations and O&M practices. maintenance manual designed to enhance the sustainability of O&M As a collection of O&M best practices for practices. sustainability and efficiency, LEED-EB in many ways embodies measures that every facility manager should be taking. Of course, limited resources, time, and staff will restrict the City’s capacity to certify all of its buildings. By pursuing certification for five buildings, the City will build staff knowledge to create a sustainable O&M manual applying as many of these practices as possible Citywide. OPPORTUNITY FOR LEADERSHIP Our research has shown that no other city in the country has undertaken a significant initiative to increase sustainability among its stock of existing city-owned buildings. Los Angeles has an opportunity to become a national leader in implementing green practices as standard procedure. Our recommendations will put L.A. on the path to leadership. Recommendation 1 Create a Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings Position within the General Services Department (GSD) As the steward of the City’s building stock, GSD would be the implementing agency on many of the LEED points. The consensus among those who have pursued LEED-EB certification is that leadership from the property manager is essential. The City does not have property managers for individual buildings; instead, General Services dispatches personnel as specific maintenance

issues arise.88 We recommend, therefore, that GSD hire a Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings (Sustainability Manager) to track and manage sustainability issues across City buildings. The Sustainability Manager would coordinate the demonstration project and bear the responsibility for ensuring that the stated goals of the projects were met. More specific tasks assigned to the Sustainability Manager are highlighted below. The Sustainability Manager would need to be a LEED Accredited Professional (LEED-AP). To achieve AP status, the manager would have to pass the AP exam, which costs $250-$350.89 The estimated salary of a Sustainability Manager is between $50,000 and $85,000 annually.90 The following chart outlines the Sustainability Manager’s duties. The left column applies specifically to the demonstration project while the right column identifies concurrent and post-project responsibilities. Figure 11: Responsibilities of the Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings Demonstration Project

Ongoing Citywide Practices

Coordinates and manages the activities of the implementation team. Works with the LEED AP to ensure accurate documentation of points and administrative requirements for certification.

Manages a comprehensive database on City-owned buildings - This database will contain the following information on all City-owned buildings: address, year built, square footage, council district, energy usage, and other consumption statistics. In concert with DWP, maintains energy and water consumption data for all City buildings to identify potential inefficiencies. Conducts ongoing evaluation of building sustainability practices and O&M Manual.

Serves as liaison between Implementation Team and Existing Building Sustainability Task Force. Drafts and delivers quarterly reports to the Task Force. Coordinates development of Sustainability Operations and Maintenance Procedures Manual.

Recommendation 2 Assemble an Existing Building Sustainability Taskforce Composed of Decision-makers from Key Departments Role of Taskforce The primary function of the Taskforce will be to provide guidance to the entire sustainability review of O&M practices for City buildings, which the LEED-EB demonstration project is designed to inform. Assembling a taskforce also serves to obtain buy-in from key City departments and coordinate sustainability policies across departments. The Taskforce members will also assign specific staff members from their departments to be responsible for each LEEDEB credit pursued; these technical experts will form a Demonstration Project Implementation Team, outlined in Recommendation 3. 88

Gregg Wilkins. Personal interview with Michael Leighs, February 6, 2007. Marc Heisterkamp. Assistant Manager, LEED-EB Portfolio Program, United States Green Building Council. Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 9, 2007. 90 A survey by Abbott, Langer & Associates found the median annual earnings for facilities management to be $72,100. (Referenced by Heidi Schwartz in “Salaries on an Upswing,” Today’s Facility Manager. July 2004. http://www.todaysfacilitymanager.com/tfm_04_07_news1.asp (accessed March 12, 2007). 89

Ultimately, the Taskforce, along with the Sustainability Manager, will report to the City Council on the progress of each of the primary goals. Initially, the Taskforce should meet weekly or biweekly in order to move the demonstration project forward. Once certification of the first building is underway, the Taskforce should meet quarterly to receive a progress report from the Implementation Team, provide cross-departmental support for the project, and liaise between the Implementation Team and City Council. Because facility managers we interviewed repeatedly cited executive buy-in as essential to a successful LEED-EB process, the Taskforce should be composed of high-level representatives from each of the departments involved. The Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings should consult with staff from the Environmental Affairs Department (EAD) to propose a list of members. At a minimum, each of the following City departments should be represented: EAD, the Department of Water & Power (DWP), the Department of Building & Safety (DBS), Bureau of Engineering (BOE), and the Bureau of Sanitation (BOS). Because GSD is responsible for so many of the components of a sustainability and efficiency assessment for a building, this department should be heavily represented. Figure 12: Existing Building Sustainability Taskforce Membership Los Angeles City Department Environmental Affairs Department (EAD)

Position Division Director, Environmental Business & Neighborhood Services Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Deputy City Engineer Department of Water & Power (DWP) Director of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Solutions Department of Building & Safety (DBS) Chief of Case Management, Neighborhoods, and Government Services Division Bureau of Sanitation (BOS) Bureau Director GSD: Asset Management Chief Management Analyst GSD: Facilities Services Division (Recycling) Division Director GSD: Building Maintenance Division Division Director

Name Karin Christie Deborah Weintraub Gary Gero David Lara Rita Robinson Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr. Melody McCormick Dan Eason

Hold an Exploratory Meeting The initial Taskforce meeting would allow the Sustainability Manager to introduce the purpose of the group and the goals of the demonstration project. By this first meeting, each member would be expected to have gained intimate knowledge of the measures relevant to his or her department and a general understanding of the remaining LEED-EB measures. Release a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a LEED Accredited Professional Consultant This consultant should be an experienced LEED-AP who has worked specifically on LEED-EB projects, not only LEED for New Construction. The LEED-AP will guide the Sustainability Manager and the Implementation Team through the technical requirements of the LEED-EB certification process. Finalize Selection of Buildings for Demonstration Project The Taskforce will be responsible for selecting five buildings to pursue LEED-EB certification through the demonstration project. We have chosen 17 of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 842 buildings as candidates for the demonstration project based on the following characteristics:

1. Size: As noted earlier, one of the main challenges and benefits to LEED-EB certification is the required retrocommissioning process. The larger a building is, the greater the return on investment from retrocommissioning. Thus, the City should look at candidate buildings large enough to make the retrocommissioning process cost-effective. 2. Age: Our analysis demonstrates that an overwhelming number of LEED-EB certified buildings were built within the last ten years. Among building managers considering applying LEED-EB standards across a large portfolio of buildings, almost all elected to start with a building that was relatively new because achieving LEED-EB would be easier. The second or third building for which the City decides to pursue certification, however, should be an older building (at least ten years old) because the goal of our recommended process is to establish sustainable facility management practices across the City’s portfolio, of which a large portion are older buildings. 3. Type: A building’s function is an important consideration for two reasons. First, energy use measurements for a building are benchmarked against similar types of buildings. Buildings that do not fit a typing scheme will pose energy use measurement challenges.91 Second, a demonstration project may provide insight into a particular type of building, such as a police station. For example, the City has 63 police stations. By doing a demonstration project on a police station, the Implementation Team could gain an understanding of the specific needs required of a 24-hour use building. The City’s buildings can be grouped into the follow major types: • Commercial/Office – including office buildings, community centers, and similar facilities • Libraries • Industrial – including sewer and street maintenance yards (which typically consist of warehouse space and office space), treatment plants, auto-repair facilities, refuse collection yards, etc. • Police stations • Fire stations • Recreation and Parks – including gymnasiums and park facilities • Undeveloped or vacant properties Of the City’s holdings, commercial and industrial buildings constitute the vast majority. As previously mentioned, the LEED-EB standard is not designed to apply to industrial properties, and Recreation and Parks facilities represent only a small percentage of City buildings. We recommend, therefore, that the demonstration project be carried out on one new commercial office building, one older building, one library, one fire station, and one police station – the most prevalent building types of the City’s stock. The City should start by certifying one building in the beginning so that the Implementation Team familiarizes itself with the LEED-EB certification process. For the first pilot building, we

The five completed, City-owned LEED-NC certified buildings are libraries and fire stations, which are both types not easily benchmarked. But in the process of becoming LEED-NC certified, they have been benchmarked to USGBC’s satisfaction. This internal precedent will simplify the benchmarking process for remaining buildings fitting these types.

recommend the Marvin Braude San Fernando Valley (SFV) Constituent Service Center. We chose this building for the following reasons: • • •

At 142,000 sq/ft, it is one of the City’s largest buildings. It was built in 2005, so it is one of the City’s newest buildings. It is a commercial office building, representing the largest type of City buildings.

The following is a chart of our recommendations for the remaining four projects ranked in descending order of preference. The Task Force should choose one building from each category. We chose these buildings based on the criteria listed above (size, age, and type) to ensure that the project yields the most informative results. Libraries, police stations, and fire stations have all been selected because they represent unique types of buildings that, together, compose a majority of the building stock. This will focus the pilot on documenting and assessing current practices and procedures while minimizing the burden of retrofitting systems for compliance. For the City to understand how to certify older buildings, we have chosen four buildings built in the first half of the 20th century. While initially chosen by age and size, L.A. City Hall and the Central Library also serve as cultural and iconic structures that can underscore the City’s historic commitment to sustainability. Figure 13: Demonstration Project Candidate Buildings

Libraries

1 2 3 4

Little Tokyo Branch Edendale Branch Sylmar Branch El Sereno Branch

12,500 12,500 12,500 10,500

Year Built/ Renovated 2005 2004 2003 2004

Police Stations

1 2 3 4

West L.A. Police Station Devonshire Police Station Southeast Police Station Wilshire Police Station

29,505 26,700 26,700 26,700

2006 2006 2006 2006

Fire Stations

1 2 3 4

Fire Station # 89 Fire Station #5 Fire Station # 83 Fire Station # 65

16,300 15,250 15,250 15,250

2004 2006 2006 2005

Older Buildings

1 2 3 4

Los Angeles City Hall Central Library Frank Hotchkin Memorial Training Building City Personnel Department

823,272 538,802 470,448 122,000

1928 1926 1941 1936

Type

Rank

Name

Area (sq/ft)

Recommendation 3 Assemble Demonstration Project Implementation Team Composed of Technical Specialists to Implement Each LEED-EB Sustainability Point The Demonstration Project Implementation Team will be responsible for the day-to-day implementation of the demonstration project. Led by the Sustainability Manager, the Implementation Team will work closely with the LEED-EB Consultant to 1) implement green building technologies and practices in the pilot buildings, and 2) document necessary information for LEED-EB certification. Membership of the Team The Implementation Team will be comprised of staff members from City departments with specialization in areas relevant to LEED-EB certification. We propose the following members: Figure 14: Demonstration Project Implementation Team Members Member Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings General Services Department (GSD) Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Department of Water & Power (DWP) Department of Water & Power (DWP) Building Maintenance Department (BMD) Building Occupant Representative

Function Team leader responsible for coordinating the certification process Assist Sustainability Manager for EB with implementation and documentation Responsible for technical design Responsible for water efficiency Responsible for energy efficiency Responsible for Materials and Indoor Environmental Quality Tenant feedback

Team Education Members of the Demonstration Team need to become familiar with the LEED-EB standard and process. This training could be done either by the LEED-AP Consultant or in one of the LEEDEB training seminars which USGBC offers periodically.92 Progress Reports to the Taskforce In addition to actually implementing the Demonstration Project, the Project Team, led by the Sustainability Manager, would report on a quarterly basis to the Sustainability Taskforce on the progress of the: a) Demonstration project - general project status - evaluation of resources needed to complete the project - any challenges that have developed - an updated timeline as necessary b) System-wide O&M assessment c) Development of Citywide sustainable O&M practices and the creation of a Sustainable O&M Manual for the City of Los Angeles

U.S. Green Building Council. "LEED Technical Reviews: Credit Requirements & Processes/ Existing Buildings." Workshop Descriptions. 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1556 (accessed March 1, 2007).

Recommendation 4 Conduct the Demonstration Project: Get Five Buildings LEED-EB Certified! Certify the First Building Audit After the Implementation Team is trained, they would be ready to do a walk-through of the first demonstration building to assess its current state with respect to the sustainability standards outlined in the LEED-EB checklist. When looking at potential points from the checklist, the Team members would decide whether the building was already in compliance, might be in compliance, or is non-compliant. Additionally, the Team should consult with the Department of Water and Power (DWP) to glean information from their energy and water audits. First, the Team should ensure that the pilot buildings have been audited, and if not, DWP should audit them immediately. Second, the Team should use DWPâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s recommendations to gain points under the Energy and Atmosphere and Water Efficiency LEED-EB categories. Reaching LEED-EB standards For compliant areas, the responsible Team member would document compliance according to LEED specifications. For points on the checklist for which the building was noncompliant, the LEED Consultant would work with the relevant team member to determine the feasibility of compliance by estimating the cost and ease of implementation. These points should be ranked, ranging from easy and inexpensive to difficult and costly. The table below is an example of sustainability features that a building might achieve. Actual point rankings, however, are highly dependent on each buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s specific characteristics and needs (e.g. age, baseline energy efficiency, water consumption, etc.). Figure 15: Example LEED-EB Cost-Effectiveness Chart Effectiveness High

Low

Installing bike racks

Replacing thermostats, light bulbs

High

Installing on-site wastewater treatment systems

Establishing onsite renewable energy sources

Cost

Low

Most Cost-Effective

Least Cost-Effective

Project Team members should be assigned to verify whether a point is achievable, how to achieve it, and how much it might cost. Baseline energy consumption figures for the building could be obtained from the audit which DWP is currently conducting on all the City-owned buildings. The Team would then develop and execute an implementation strategy to achieve compliance where economically and technically feasible. The Team would carry out this strategy with the operations and maintenance staff assigned to the specific building. During this process, the Sustainability Manager would be responsible for ensuring that each Team member was progressing toward his specific goals. Reaching and documenting the points necessary to achieve LEED-EB certification would take approximately 8-12 months. Once the maximum number of points has been achieved and properly documented, the Consultant and Sustainability Manager would submit documentation and execute necessary administrative duties for LEED-EB Certification. Tracking progress toward a Citywide standard One of the responsibilities of the Sustainability Manager would be to ensure that the demonstration project process was informing the creation of a Citywide sustainability protocol. To this end, each Team member should keep track of her experiences during the pursuit of LEED-EB points. These experiences and lessons learned should be captured in a Demonstration Project Journal. Certify Next Four Buildings Once the first building is certified, the Team should meet to debrief and summarize the process. Guided by an analysis of the first certification, Team members should develop and execute an implementation strategy for the remaining four buildings concurrently, continuing to document progress toward the ultimate goal of a Citywide Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Manual. Initial costs The following table summarizes the minimum costs that may be expected in the certification process we have outlined: Figure 16: Demonstration Project Known Costs Service/component LEED-EB registration fee LEED-EB Certification fee AP exam for current employees Building commissioning GSD Sustainability Manager LEED-AP consultant

Cost $450-600 $1,250-15,000/building â&#x20AC;&#x201C; dependent on square footage93 $250-350 per exam $0.27/sqft94 $60,000-$85,000 $25,000-$65,00095

See Appendix C for exact certification fee schedule. Mills et al. The Cost-effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. December 15, 2004. http://eetd.lbl.gov/Emills/PUBS/Cx-Costs-Benefits.html (accessed January 4, 2007). 95 The estimate provided represents the cost range of hiring a consultant for certifying one building. Costs vary significantly, depending on the scope of services requested of a consultant. Based on our interviews with LEED-EB 94

Recommendation 5 Develop a Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Manual Throughout the demonstration project process, the Sustainability Manager and Implementation Team would meet with the Taskforce to relay the lessons learned from the demonstration project and make policy recommendations to the departmental directors in the Taskforce. These recommendations will be processed by the task force, most specifically by the implementing department representative, and either accepted or modified as standard operating procedure for building O&M practices across the City’s building stock. The Sustainability Manager will be responsible for compiling the protocol into a single manual. Recommendation 6 Conduct Ongoing Evaluation of Citywide Sustainable O&M Practices To assess the effectiveness of the new operations and maintenance practices, the City must develop protocols to track the progress of building sustainability. To start, the City should commit to a systematic review of the guidelines in the Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Manual every five years. As part of this review, the City should commission thirdparty studies of certain sustainable building components such as indoor air quality and its effects on worker productivity. Also, comprehensive energy and water audits should continue to be conducted by DWP as they have set out to do this year. Feedback from City staff tasked with implementing the sustainable components outlined in the operations and maintenance manual should also be captured. In particular, conducting staff surveys would be helpful to ascertain whether or not a certain practice is being implemented properly and if the staff feels that it is cost effective and appropriate. This process will also convey to staff the importance of their role in ensuring the success of the City’s sustainability goals. However, the key to any ongoing assessment plan is the City’s ability to capture and manage accurate data on the building stock and operations and maintenance practices. A key deficiency we identified in the City’s current practices is the poor data that is maintained on its building stock. No comprehensive list of City buildings exists that captures the type, age, square-footage and energy use of each building. The City could bolster its data gathering by employing interns from surrounding universities. While data collection may seem like an onerous task, the City’s limited budget necessitates an efficient targeting of resources that is impossible to carry out when relying on poor data. For example, better data would allow the City to focus its efforts on the least efficient buildings measured by accepted metrics such as energy usage per square foot and water consumption per square foot.

project managers, we recommend hiring a consultant to guide the Implementation Team for the certification of the first building; however, the City will have to decide how much will be expected of the consultant, and whether or not a consultant will be necessary for the subsequent projects. LEED-EB project managers we interviewed gave varying recommendations on this item.

The following chart displays the role of the Sustainability Manager in collaborating with the City Council, Sustainability Taskforce, Demonstration Project Implementation Team and relevant City departments. The chart also outlines the key outcomes expected from the process; the Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Manual that will lead to ongoing improvements in the sustainability of existing buildings. Figure 17: Demonstration Project Will Lead to Improved Ongoing Green Building Practices

CURRENT ACTORS

NEW TEAM

OUTPUTS

1 approve & create

City Council

Sustainability Manager for Existing Buildings

progress reports feedback/ advise

City Departments

ongoing evaluation

Third Party Audits

Existing Building Sustainability Taskforce

6 approval of manual

Demonstration Project Implementation Team 4

KEY ACTIONS

• Learn about LEED-EB • Audit demo. buildings • Implement green improvements • Document accomplishments/ LEED-EB compliance • Journal lessons learned 8

implementation

Demonstration Project

Sustainable O&M Manual

Improved Green Building Practices

Ongoing green operations

CONCLUSION We began this report with the basic question: Can LEED-EB be effectively applied to the City of Los Angeles’ existing building stock to improve environmental sustainability? Through our literature review, personal interviews, and case studies, we have determined that LEED-EB is a stepping stone for the City to increase its buildings’ sustainability. The holistic nature of the LEED-EB standard ensures that areas such as water efficiency, energy efficiency, site selection, materials, and indoor air quality are all addressed in a comprehensive analysis of a building’s systems operations. The thorough documentation required to achieve LEED-EB status forces building managers to examine and analyze the operations and maintenance procedures, giving them a better understanding of how to increase sustainability. Additionally, the LEED-EB standard also reduces wasteful practices such as superfluous energy and water consumption and inefficient waste material disposal. Additionally, the standards promote environmentally friendly practices such as recycling, carpooling, and purchasing renewable energy. Our research indicates that LEED-EB certification does reduce a building’s negative environmental impact as well as delivers overall operational cost savings. Therefore, we conclude that LEED-EB is an effective tool to increase sustainability of buildings. When analyzing LEED-EB’s usefulness to the City of L.A. for certifying its building stock, however, we stop short of recommending full scale implementation. From our case studies, we have learned that a significant benefit of LEED-EB certification is the development of better maintenance and operations procedures. The cost of certification, though, differs substantially between buildings because of age, size, type, and owner goals. For the City to implement LEEDEB certification across its building stock, the cost per building would vary, though costs such as registration and certification fees remain standardized. The benefits of certification, however, would decrease marginally as the development of maintenance and operations procedures would peak after certifying the first few buildings. The City could internalize sustainable standards across its stock of buildings without incurring the additional cost of external certification. We propose a pilot program consisting of five City buildings that represent the majority of its stock. The program we outline creates an Existing Building Sustainability Taskforce composed of relevant City officials to oversee the City’s sustainability efforts. A demonstration project Implementation Team composed of specialists in the five areas of sustainability will be responsible for implementing LEED-EB certification of the five buildings. Together, the Taskforce and Implementation Team will develop a Sustainable Operations and Maintenance Practices Manual based on lessons learned from certification. This manual will apply to all Cityowned buildings. If the City implements the policies within this manual with earnest, the overall environmental sustainability of buildings will increase without the external cost of certification. The City of Los Angeles has been implementing a number of environmentally sound building practices for decades. The City Council, individual City Departments, the Mayor, and others have demonstrated leadership and perseverance in their sustainable efforts. In the City’s continued pursuit of green policies and operations and its endeavor to reduce the negative impacts of its buildings, Los Angeles can strategically use the LEED-EB standard to systematically and cost-effectively increase its sustainability.

APPENDICES Appendix A: LEED-EB Rating System Appendix B: Current Practices in the City of Los Angeles Appendix C: LEED Registration and Certification Fees Appendix D: Points Participation in Each LEED-EB Category Appendix E: Interviews Conducted

Appendix A: LEED Rating System Table A.1 LEED-EB Rating LEED-EB Certification Levels Points 32-39 40-47 48-63 64-85

Levels Certified Silver Gold Platinum

Table A.2 LEED-EB Point System LEED-EB Categories Sustainable Sites

Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere

Materials & Resources

Indoor Environmental Quality

Goals of Each Category *Continue to use existing buildings and/or sites *Protect natural and agricultural areas *Reduce need for automobile use *Protect and/or restore natural sites *Reduce the quantity of water needed for the building *Reduce municipal water supply and treatment burden *Establish energy efficiency and system performance *Encourage renewable and alternative energy sources *Support ozone protection protocols *Use materials with less environmental impact *Reduce and manage waste *Reduce the amount of materials needed *Establish good indoor air quality *Eliminate, reduce, and manage the sources of indoor air pollution *Ensure thermal comfort and system controllability *Provide for occupant connection to the outdoor environment

Points Possible 14 points

5 points 23 points

16 points

22 points

Innovation and Design Process

*Reward projects that demonstrate exceptional performance in pursuing sustainability 5 points *Encourage leadership in the area of green building operation and upgrades Source: United States Green Building Council. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Technical Review/ Introduction to LEED-EB Rating System,â&#x20AC;? LEED Green Building Rating System. https://www.usgbc.org/FileHandling/show_general_file.asp?DocumentID=1036 (accessed February 20, 2007).

Table A.3 LEED-EB Checklist, version 2.0

LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Sustainable Sites Prereq 1 Erosion & Sedimentation Control Prereq 2 Age of Building

14 Points Required Required

Credit 1.1 Credit 1.2 Credit 2 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 3.3 Credit 3.4 Credit 4.1 Credit 4.2 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 6.1 Credit 6.2 Credit 7

Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Management - 4 specific actions Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Management - 8 specific actions High Development Density Building & Area Alternative Transportation - Public Transportation Access Alternative Transportation - Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms Alternative Transportation - Alternative Fuel Vehicles Alternative Transportation - Car Pooling & Telecommuting Reduced Site Disturbance - Protect or Restore Open Space (50% of site area) Reduced Site Disturbance - Protect or Restore Open Space (75% of site area) Stormwater Management - 25% Rate and Quantity Reduction Stormwater Management - 50% Rate and Quantity Reduction Heat Island Reduction - Non-Roof Heat Island Reduction - Roof Light Pollution Reduction

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Water Efficiency Prereq 1 Minimum Water Efficiency Prereq 2 Discharge Water Compliance Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping - Reduce Potable Water Use by 50% Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping - Reduce Potable Water Use by 95% Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction - 10% Reduction Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction - 20% Reduction

5 Points Required Required 1 1 1 1 1

Energy & Atmosphere Prereq 1 Existing Building Commissioning Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance - Energy Star 60 Prereq 3 Ozone Protection Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance

23 Points Required Required Required 1 to 10

Credit 2.1 Credit 2.2 Credit 2.3 Credit 2.4 Credit 3.1 Credit 3.2 Credit 3.3 Credit 4 Credit 5.1 Credit 5.2 Credit 5.3

Energy Star Rating - 63

Energy Star Rating - 67

Energy Star Rating - 71

Energy Star Rating - 75

Energy Star Rating - 79

Energy Star Rating - 83

Energy Star Rating - 87

Energy Star Rating - 91

Energy Star Rating - 95

Energy Star Rating - 99

Renewable Energy - On-site 3% / Off-site 15% Renewable Energy - On-site 6% / Off-site 30% Renewable Energy - On-site 9% / Off-site 45% Renewable Energy - On-site 12% / Off-site 60% Building Operation & Maintenance - Staff Education Building Operation & Maintenance - Building Systems Maintenance Building Operation & Maintenance - Building Systems Monitoring Additional Ozone Protection Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (4 specific actions) Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (8 specific actions) Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (12 specific actions)

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Credit 5.4 Credit 6

Performance Measurement - Emission Reduction Reporting Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts

1 1

Materials & Resources Prereq 1.1 Source Reduction & Waste Management - Waste Stream Audit Prereq 1.2 Source Reduction & Waste Management - Storage & Collection Prereq 2 Toxic Material Source Reduction - Reduced Mercury in Light Bulbs Credit 1.1 Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Management - Divert 50% Credit 1.2 Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Management - Divert 75% Credit 2.1 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 10% of Total Purchases Credit 2.2 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 20% of Total Purchases Credit 2.3 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 30% of Total Purchases Credit 2.4 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 40% of Total Purchases Credit 2.5 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 50% of Total Purchases Credit 3.1 Optimize Use of IAQ Compliant Products - 45% of Annual Purchases Credit 3.2 Optimize Use of IAQ Compliant Products - 90% of Annual Purchases Credit 4.1 Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials - 30% of Annual Purchases Credit 4.2 Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials - 60% of Annual Purchases Credit 4.3 Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials - 90% of Annual Purchases Credit 5.1 Occupant Recycling - Recycle 30% of the Total Waste Stream Credit 5.2 Occupant Recycling - Recycle 40% of the Total Waste Stream Credit 5.3 Occupant Recycling - Recycle 50% of the Total Waste Stream Credit 6 Additional Toxic Material Source Reduction - Reduced Mercury in Light Bulbs

16 Points Required Required Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Indoor Environmental Quality Prereq 1 Outside Air Introduction & Exhaust Systems Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Prereq 3 Asbestos Removal or Encapsulation Prereq 4 PCB Removal Credit 1 Outside Air Delivery Monitoring Credit 2 Increased Ventilation Credit 3 Construction IAQ Management Plan Credit 4.1 Documenting Productivity Impacts - Absenteeism & Healthcare Cost Impacts Credit 4.2 Documenting Productivity Impacts - Other Productivity Impacts Credit 5.1 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control - Reduce Particulates in Air System Credit 5.2 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control - Isolation of High Volume Copy/Print/Fax Room Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems - Lighting Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems - Temperature & Ventilation Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort - Compliance Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort - Permanent Monitoring System Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views - Daylight for 50% of Spaces Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views - Daylight for 75% of Spaces Credit 8.3 Daylight & Views - Views for 45% of Spaces Credit 8.4 Daylight & Views - Views for 90% of Spaces Credit 9 Contemporary IAQ Practice Credit 10.1 Green Cleaning - Entryway Systems Credit 10.2 Green Cleaning - Isolation of Janitorial Closets Credit 10.3 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Policy Credit 10.4 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policy Credit 10.5 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policy

22 Points Required Required Required Required 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Credit 10.6

Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Equipment Policy

Innovation & Design Process Credit 1.1 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance Credit 1.2 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance Credit 1.3 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance Credit 1.4 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance Credit 2 LEED™ Accredited Professional

5 Points 1 1 1 1 1

Project Totals (pre-certification estimates) 85 Points Certified: 32-39 points, Silver: 40-7 points, Gold: 48-63 points, Platinum: 64-85 Source: U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED for Existing Buildings Project Checklist,” LEED for Existing Buildings. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2247 (accessed December 5, 2006).

Chart A.1 Distribution of LEED Credits across Sustainability Categories LEED Sustainability Categories Sustainable Sites 18%

Water Efficiency 6%

Indoor Environmental Quality 28%

Energy & Atmosphere 28%

LEED Category

Points Possible

Sustainable Sites

16%

Water Efficiency

Energy & Atmosphere

27%

Materials & Resources

19%

Indoor Environmental Quality

26%

Innovation & Design Process Total:

Materials & Resources 20%

Appendix B: Current Practices in the City of Los Angeles Legend Achievement likely Achievement uncertain / dependent on characteristics of specific buildings Achievement unlikely

Table B.1: Current Sustainable Sites Practices in Los Angeles LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Sustainable Sites

14 Points

Erosion & Sedimentation Control

Required

Age of Building

Required

Departments Responsible BOE N/A BMD, R&P

Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Management - 4 specific actions

BMD, R&P Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Management - 8 specific actions

High Development Density Building & Area

Alternative Transportation - Public Transportation Access

Alternative Transportation - Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms

Alternative Transportation - Alternative Fuel Vehicles

N/A GSD Personnel Dept. GSD Personnel Dept. GSD Personnel Dept.

Summary of Current City Practices LEED-NC buildings conform to the EPA's 1992 standard for erosion and sedimentation96 Building Specific The City has planning codes, which incorporate ASTM certification ratings for materials. The City has standards for sealants, but no list of specific products which the workers must use.97 Pesticides: The Vegetated Management sub-group of the Forestry Division applies pesticides. They have a pest control advisor, and all applicators are certified. Also, there is ongoing training. They follow the state requirements in reading labels. Fertilizers: Staff use calibrated spreaders to measure applications. Education is used re. landscaping, maintenance, fertilizers, etc. Green waste. R&P collects grass clippings, and the Forestry Division makes green waste into mulch.98 R&P used to have a stricter standard, but now exterior management is done more project-to-project. Each facility has a Region (Valley, Griffith, & Pacific) Manager, to find out the preferences for that area. This manager works collaboratively with the client/building user.99 Building Specific Building Specific â&#x20AC;&#x201C; City provides $50/mo. towards public transit use. Building Specific â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Many City buildings have bicycle storage and the City is working to increase the availability of changing rooms and lockers. Priority parking for electric vehicles

Farzan, Shahram. Building Mechanical Engineer, Architectural Division, Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. Sustainable Stainable Design Implementation Program. Email communication with April Newman, March 14, 2007. 97 Deets, Deborah. Landscape Architect, Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 9, 2007. 98 McCall, Tom. Head Maintenance Division, Department of Recreation and Parks, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 16, 2007. 99 Deets. Telephone interview, March 9, 2007.

Alternative Transportation - Car Pooling & Telecommuting

Reduced Site Disturbance - Protect or Restore Open Space (50% of site area)

Reduced Site Disturbance - Protect or Restore Open Space (75% of site area)

Stormwater Management - 25% Rate and Quantity Reduction

Stormwater Management - 50% Rate and Quantity Reduction

Heat Island Reduction - Non-Roof

GSD Personnel Dept. R&P, BOE

R&P, BOE BOS, Street and Storm Water Program

BOS, Street and Storm Water Program BOE BOE

Heat Island Reduction - Roof

Light Pollution Reduction

BOE, GSD,

Carpools and Vanpools available, some depts. offer compressed workweeks and telecommuting100 Yes to some degree; see "City Landscape Ordinance." The ordinance defines shading requirements for parking lots, setbacks for plans, protected plants, etc. and specifies trees for safety, community, historic or decorative purposes. (Deets 3/9/07) R&P guidelines recommend using water-conserving trees and groundcovers whenever possible. (Davis 3/12/07) The City is currently creating a stormwater management plan. Presently, stormwater goes directly, untreated into the ocean. (Sewer water is different.) In an effort to reduce the trash going to the rivers and oceans, BOS has installed perforated covers on storm drains, where before there were just bars. They have started these installations in the hightrash areas (mostly downtown) first. Eventually, these covers should be installed throughout the City. The intent of the program is to reduce the amount of stormwater put into drains, rather than just getting it off private properties, which was the old mentality. They are working to contain water on-site. City meets standards for LEED-NC buildings. Unclear how existing buildings would score.101 EAD has issued a resource guide that had been “prepared in partial response to Los Angeles City Council motion CF#04-0074, Incorporate Rooftop Green Spaces as an Energy Efficiency Mechanism. This motion directed the Environmental Affairs Department (EAD) to lead the formation of a City task force for the purpose of developing and implementing ‘...a process, program, or procedure that will require City facilities to incorporate rooftop green spaces as an energy efficiency mechanism...’” The report cites that “none of the City’s LEED building designs have included a green roof, although a constituent services center currently being designed for Council District 9 will incorporate rooftop plantings.”102 No policy in place.103

Table B.2: Current Water Efficiency Practices in Los Angeles LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Water Efficiency

5 Points

Minimum Water Efficiency

Required

Discharge Water Compliance

Required

Departments Responsible BOE BOS, Wastewater Division

Summary of Current City Practices Meets prerequisite thorough City mandate on water conserving fixtures.104 City operates under NPDES permit CAS004001 105

100

Mariano, Melina. Manager, Air Quality Management Division, Personnel Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 11, 2007. (Information provided for all alternative transportation questions.) 101 Farzan, Sharam. Email communication, March 14, 2007. 102 Environmental Affairs Department. “Green Roofs – Cooling Los Angeles.” 2006. http://www.fypower.org/pdf/LA_GreenRoofsResourceGuide.pdf (accessed March 2, 2007). 103 Wilkins, Gregg. Portfolio Manager, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. 104 Farzan, Sharam. Email communication, March 14, 2007. 105 California Regional Water Quality Control Board/ Los Angeles Region. State of California. “NPDES Permit No. CAS004001.” 2001. http://63.199.216.5/webdata/data/docs/6948_01-182_WDR.pdf (accessed March 20, 2007).

R&P Water Efficient Landscaping - Reduce Potable Water Use by 50%

1 DWP, R&P

Water Efficient Landscaping - Reduce Potable Water Use by 95%

Innovative Wastewater Technologies

BMD

1 BOE

Water Use Reduction - 20% Reduction

Several neighborhood city halls are trying to collect water in cisterns and use it for irrigation.106 The City is currently looking for more sophisticated water controllers (sensor systems buried in the ground). DWP is working with R&P on water conservation pilot projects, which will be audited periodically. The audits will measure a system's efficiency (if it is done properly or poorly), effectiveness, and how much evaporation occurs.107 DWP has been working with R&P on multiple programs to install Smart Irrigation systems, using Smart Controllers.

BOE Water Use Reduction - 10% Reduction

R&P has water audits (a multi-year process) to measure the efficiency of their systems. The audit is about ten years old.

R&P educates its employees about different plants' water and maintenance requirements.108 The City uses reclaimed water on some of the golf courses, and wherever it can be feasibly transmitted. If reclaimed water is available, the City uses it in the parks.109 All existing facilities were retrofitted with low-flow fixtures a decade ago. All new construction since then has Included low flow fixtures.110 R&P's objective is to get fully automated irrigation across the park system. Citywide, the parks are about 85% automated. Some old, remote, non-staffed, or without-electricity locations are not yet automated.111 (See Above) The County is running a pilot project which takes urban stormwater and uses it in parks (Sun Valley Park?) instead of letting it flow to the ocean. "This is probably the most far-reaching water harvesting efforts.”112

Table B.3: Current Energy and Atmosphere Practices in Los Angeles LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Energy & Atmosphere

23 Points

Existing Building Commissioning

Required

BMD

Minimum Energy Performance - Energy Star 60

Required

BMD

Ozone Protection

Required

Optimize Energy Performance

1 to 10

BMD BMD

Renewable Energy - On-site 3% / Off-site 15%

Renewable Energy - On-site 6% / Off-site 30%

Departments Responsible

BOE BOE

Summary of Current City Practices

The City has removed all CFCs in HVAC systems.113 This section will be building specific, as each building will have a unique Energy Star score. The City does not maintain an average for City buildings. DWP has set a goal of reaching 20% renewable energy by the year 2010.114 (See Above)

106

Davis, Steve. Landscape Architect I, Architectural Division, Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 12, 2007. 107 Ibid. 108 McCall, Tom. Head Maintenance Division, Department of Recreation and Parks, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 16, 2007. 109 Davis. Telephone interview, March 12, 2007. 110 Wilkins. Email communication, March 6, 2007. 111 McCall. Telephone interview, March 16, 2007. 112 Davis. Telephone interview, March 12, 2007. 113 Wilkins. Email communication, March 6, 2007. 114 Metro Investment Report. “L.A. DWP Makes Progress Towards Renewable Energy Goals.” February 23, 2007. http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com/mir/?module=displaystory&story_id=403&format=html (accessed March 20, 2007).

Renewable Energy - On-site 9% / Off-site 45%

BOE

Renewable Energy - On-site 12% / Off-site 60%

BOE

Building Operation & Maintenance - Staff Education

Building Operation & Maintenance - Building Systems Maintenance

Building Operation & Maintenance - Building Systems Monitoring

Additional Ozone Protection Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (4 specific actions) Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (8 specific actions) Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (12 specific actions) Performance Measurement - Emission Reduction Reporting

BOE

Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts

BOE

1 1 1

BMD BOE BOE BOE BOE BOE BOE

We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. (See above) We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. (See above) DWP does not conduct any enhanced metering that would meet this requirement.115 (See above) --

Table B.4 Current Materials and Resources Practices in Los Angeles LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Materials & Resources

16 Points

Source Reduction & Waste Management - Waste Stream Audit

Required

Source Reduction & Waste Management - Storage & Collection

Toxic Material Source Reduction - Reduced Mercury in Light Bulbs Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Management Divert 50% Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Management Divert 75%

Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 10% of Total Purchases

Departments Responsible GSD - Facilities Recycling Program, BOS GSD - Facilities Recycling

Required

Required 1 1

GSD - Supplies Division GSD - Construction Forces Division GSD - Construction Forces Division GSD - Supplies Division, BOE

Summary of Current City Practices We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. The City currently collects white paper, mixed paper, newspapers/magazines, and commingled beverage containers (glass/aluminum/phatic/steel). Some sites do not have all of these items due to space or other issues. When new buildings are occupied, the design of cubicles etc. provides space for recycling bins. All leases for City facilities housing City employees are to have recycling requirements.116 We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. The City currently diverts 85% of materials from construction projects.117 The City observes a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Recycling Products Purchasing Program and Ordinanceâ&#x20AC;? that encourages the purchase of recycled and other sustainable material. In Nov. 2006, the Environmental Purchasing Program Task Force recommended an expansion of the current green purchasing policy. It is unclear

115

Director of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Solutions, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP). Personal interview with Travis Broussard in Los Angeles, January 20. Telephone interview with Travis Broussard, March 19, 2007. 116 Higgins, Karen. Manager, City Facilities Recycling Program, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with April Newman, March 12, 2007. 117 Pendorf, Nick. Division Manger, Construction Forces Division, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with April Newman, March 12, 2007.

what percentage of total purchases can be considered alternative materials under LEED-EB.118 (See above)

Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 20% of Total Purchases

Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 30% of Total Purchases

Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 40% of Total Purchases

Optimize Use of Alternative Materials - 50% of Total Purchases

Optimize Use of IAQ Compliant Products - 45% of Annual Purchases Optimize Use of IAQ Compliant Products - 90% of Annual Purchases Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials - 30% of Annual Purchases Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials - 60% of Annual Purchases

GSD - Supplies & Construction Forces Division, BOE

(See above)

GSD

City mandates low VOC paints, adhesives, carpets and wood products on new construction projects. For existing build. GSD's Purchasing Agent has been negotiating contracts for green materials. It is unclear if City would meet the 45% threshold.119

GSD

Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials - 90% of Annual Purchases

Occupant Recycling - Recycle 30% of the Total Waste Stream

GSD, BOS

Occupant Recycling - Recycle 40% of the Total Waste Stream

GSD, BOS

Occupant Recycling - Recycle 50% of the Total Waste Stream

Additional Toxic Material Source Reduction - Reduced Mercury in Light Bulbs

GSD, BOS GSD â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Supply Services

GSD does not have requirements for recycled content on all paper products. It does not have any mandates for chemicals. As a rule it does not use disposable janitorial products. It does use mops that a vendor picks up weekly in exchange for clean ones. All of the mops are cotton or rayon and are used until no longer effective.120 CA Assembly Bill AB 939 mandated that municipalities reach certain goals of waste diversion. In 2000, L.A. surpassed the 50% diversion requirement.121 In 2006 the Mayor issued a directive announcing a goal of 70% diversion by 2015.122 We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area.

Table B.5 Current Indoor Environmental Quality Practices in Los Angeles LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Indoor Environmental Quality

22 Points

Outside Air Introduction & Exhaust Systems

Required

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

Required

Asbestos Removal or Encapsulation

Required

PCB Removal

Required

Departments Responsible BMD EAD BOE, BOE BMD

Summary of Current City Practices We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. Has policy (add details) City either removed or encapsulated asbestos in all its buildings All PCBs have been removed123

Outside Air Delivery Monitoring

Increased Ventilation

BMD

We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. (See above)

Construction IAQ Management Plan

GSD Construction Forces Division

Required for new construction projects and some large remodeling projects, but not currently enforced on small tenant improvement projects.124

118

Allen, Detrich P., Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. Environmental Affairs Commission, City of Los Angeles, CA. Memo to City Councilmember Greig Smith. November 3, 2006. 119 Farzan, Shahram. Email communication, March 14, 2007. 120 Quenon, Loretta. Senior Management Analyst II, Department of General Services, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with April Newman March 19, 2007. 121 Harlan, Jeffrey. City of Los Angeles Sustainable City Initiative. The Bureau of Engineering and the Bureau of Sanitation. April 2003. 122 Blain, Alvin. Recycling Program at the Garland Building. Department of General Services, Inter-Departmental Correspondence. July 24, 2006. 123 Wilkins, Gregg. Email communication, March 6, 2007.

Documenting Productivity Impacts - Absenteeism & Healthcare Cost Impacts

GSD – Personnel Dept.

We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area.

Documenting Productivity Impacts - Other Productivity Impacts

GSD – Personnel Dept.

(See above)

Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control - Reduce Particulates in Air System

Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control - Isolation of High Volume Copy/Print/Fax Room

Controllability of Systems - Lighting

GSD

Less than 50% are controllable

Controllability of Systems - Temperature & Ventilation

GSD

Less than 50% are controllable125

Thermal Comfort - Compliance

BMD

Thermal Comfort - Permanent Monitoring System

BMD

We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area.

Daylight & Views - Daylight for 50% of Spaces

N/A

Building Specific

Daylight & Views - Daylight for 75% of Spaces

N/A

Building Specific

Daylight & Views - Views for 45% of Spaces

N/A

Building Specific

Daylight & Views - Views for 90% of Spaces

N/A

Building Specific

BMD

We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. “There is no policy about entry way mats. However, in many facilities we put them there just to reduce the amount of dirt entering the facility.”126 Most City buildings have a janitorial closet or hopper room where equipment is stored. They do not generally have separate, if any, ventilation systems. Many of the hopper rooms are plumbed for liquid waste disposal.127 GSD is not required to use any green cleaning products. It has been testing out several different products over the past six years; there have always been, however, some difficulties with these products, e.g. expense for installation of dispensers, lack of proper sink and back-flow valves, inferior cleaning properties, etc.

Contemporary IAQ Practice

BMD

GSD Green Cleaning - Entryway Systems

1 GSD

Green Cleaning - Isolation of Janitorial Closets

1 GSD

Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Policy

Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policy

Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Equipment Policy

GSD BMD GSD

GSD does have many training sessions of various topics which include proper maintenance of equipment and disposal of hazardous material., but nothing specifically directed toward environmentally friendly products.128 We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area. (See above) All GSD equipment is standard issue. (There was only one instance in which, under the direction of ADA, it procured a heap filter vacuum for an employee having trouble in the work space.)129

124

Farzan, Sharam. Email communication, March 14, 2007. Wilkins, Gregg. Email communication, March 6, 2007. 126 Quenon, Loretta. Email communication, March 19, 2007. 127 Quenon, Loretta. Email communication, March 19, 2007 128 Quenon, Loretta. Email communication, March 19, 2007 129 Quenon, Loretta. Email communication, March 19, 2007. 125

Table B.6 Current Innovation and Design Process Practices in Los Angeles LEED for Existing Buildings v2.0 Registered Building Checklist Innovation & Design Process

5 Points

Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance

LEEDâ&#x201E;˘ Accredited Professional

Departments Responsible

Summary of Current City Practices We were unable to obtain information on City practices in this area.

Appendix C: LEED Registration and Certification Fees LEED REGISTRATION & CERTIFICATION FEE SUMMARY As of November 15, 2005, for LEED-EB Registration Fees Charges Fixed Rate Members $450.00 Non-Members $600.00 Certification Fees Less than 50,000 Square Feet Fixed Rate

50,000 - 500,000 Square Feet Based on Sq. Ft.

LEED-EB Initial Certification Review Members $1,250.00 $0.025/Square Ft. Non-Members $1,500.00 $0.030/Square Ft. Source: United States Green Building Council. “Register Your Project,” LEED. 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=65 (accessed February 25, 2007).

More than 500,000 Square Feet Fixed Rate $12,500.00 $15,000.00

Appendix D: Points Participation in Each LEED-EB Category Table D.1 Participation in Points for Sustainable Sites Credit 1.1 Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Mgt 4 specific actions

100%

Credit 1.2 Plan for Green Site & Building Exterior Mgt 8 specific actions

85% 35%

LEED-EB Credit

Credit 2 High Development Density Building & Area Credit 3.1 Alternative Transportation Public Transportation Access

74%

Credit 3.2 Alternative Transportation Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms

74%

Credit 3.3 Alternative Transportation Alternative Fuel Vehicles

35%

Credit 3.4 Alternative Transportation Car Pooling & Telecommuting

59%

Credit 4.1 Reduced Site Disturbance Protect or Restore Open Space (50% of site area)

65%

Credit 4.2 Reduced Site Disturbance Protect or Restore Open Space (75% of site area)

59%

Credit 5.1 Stormwater Management 25% Rate and Quantity Reduction

38%

Credit 5.2 Stormwater Management 50% Rate and Quantity Reduction

29% 53%

Credit 6.1 Heat Island Reduction - Non-Roof 12%

Credit 6.2 Heat Island Reduction - Roof

50%

Credit 7 Light Pollution Reduction 0%

25%

50%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

75%

100% (n=34)

Table D.2 Participation in Points for Water Efficiency Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping Reduce Potable Water Use by 50%

76%

LEED-EB Credit

Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping Reduce Potable Water Use by 95%

32%

Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies

15%

Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction - 10% Reduction

94%

Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction - 20% Reduction

76%

25%

50%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

75%

100%

(n=34)

Table D.3 Participation in Points for Energy and Atmosphere Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 63

88%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 67

74%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 71

62%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 75

59%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 79

44%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 83

44%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 87

32%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 91

32%

LEED-EB Credit

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 95

24%

Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance: Energy Star Rating - 99

12%

Credit 2.1 Renewable Energy - On-site 3% / Off-site 15%

47%

Credit 2.2 Renewable Energy - On-site 6% / Off-site 30%

29%

Credit 2.3 Renewable Energy - On-site 9% / Off-site 45%

Credit 2.4 Renewable Energy - On-site 12% / Off-site 60%

Credit 3.1 Building Operation & Maintenance - Staff Education

88%

Credit 3.2 Building Operation & Maintenance - Building Systems Maintenance

97%

Credit 3.3 Building Operation & Maintenance - Building Systems Monitoring

56%

Credit 4 Additional Ozone Protection

76%

Credit 5.1 Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (4 specific actions)

62%

Credit 5.2 Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (8 specific actions)

29%

Credit 5.3 Performance Measurement - Enhanced Metering (12 specific actions)

12%

Credit 5.4 Performance Measurement - Emission Reduction Reporting

38%

Credit 6 Documenting Sustainable Building Cost Impacts

18% 0%

25%

50%

75%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

100%

(n=34)

Table D.4 Participation in Points for Materials and Resources Credit 1.1 Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Management - Divert 50%

94%

Credit 1.2 Construction, Demolition & Renovation Waste Management - Divert 75%

76%

Credit 2.1 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials 10% of Total Purchases

85%

Credit 2.2 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials 20% of Total Purchases

85%

Credit 2.3 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials 30% of Total Purchases

56%

LEED-EB Credit

Credit 2.4 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials 40% of Total Purchases

53%

Credit 2.5 Optimize Use of Alternative Materials 50% of Total Purchases

41%

Credit 3.1 Optimize Use of IAQ Compliant Products 45% of Annual Purchases

21%

Credit 3.2 Optimize Use of IAQ Compliant Products 90% of Annual Purchases

21%

Credit 4.1 Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials 30% of Annual Purchases

26%

Credit 4.2 Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials 60% of Annual Purchases

24%

Credit 4.3 Sustainable Cleaning Products & Materials 90% of Annual Purchases

18%

Credit 5.1 Occupant Recycling Recycle 30% of the Total Waste Stream

91%

Credit 5.2 Occupant Recycling Recycle 40% of the Total Waste Stream

76%

Credit 5.3 Occupant Recycling Recycle 50% of the Total Waste Stream

65%

Credit 6 Additional Toxic Material Source Reduction Reduced Mercury in Light Bulbs

26% 0%

25%

50%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

75%

100%

(n=34)

Table D.5 Participation in Points for Indoor Environmental Quality Credit 1 Outside Air Delivery Monitoring

47%

Credit 2 Increased Ventilation

24%

Credit 3 Construction IAQ Management Plan

76%

Credit 4.1 Documenting Productivity Impacts-Absenteeism & Healthcare Cost Impacts

Credit 4.2 Documenting Productivity Impacts - Other Productivity Impacts

Credit 5.1 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control - Reduce Particulates in Air Sys. Credit 5.2 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control Isolation of High Volume Copy/Print/Fax Room

21% 3%

Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems - Lighting

26%

LEED-EB Credit

Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems - Temperature & Ventilation

21%

Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort - Compliance

65%

Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort - Permanent Monitoring System

53%

Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views - Daylight for 50% of Spaces

44%

Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views - Daylight for 75% of Spaces

Credit 8.3 Daylight & Views - Views for 45% of Spaces

68%

Credit 8.4 Daylight & Views - Views for 90% of Spaces

38%

Credit 9 Contemporary IAQ Practice

62%

Credit 10.1 Green Cleaning - Entryway Systems

100%

Credit 10.2 Green Cleaning - Isolation of Janitorial Closets

74%

Credit 10.3 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Policy

82%

Credit 10.4 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policy

88%

Credit 10.5 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Pest Management Policy

29%

Credit 10.6 Green Cleaning - Low Environmental Impact Cleaning Equipment Policy

71%

25%

50%

75%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

100% (n=34)

Table D.6 Participation in Points for Innovation and Design Process Credit 1.1 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance

88%

LEED-EB Credit

Credit 1.2 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance

74%

Credit 1.3 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance

53%

Credit 1.4 Innovation in Upgrades, Operation & Maintenance

38%

Credit 2 LEEDâ&#x201E;˘ Accredited Professional

100%

25%

50%

Percentage of Projects with Credit Earned

75%

100%

(n=34)

Appendix E: Interviews Conducted Arny, Michael. President, Leonardo Academy and Chair, LEED-EB Committee. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 9, 2007. Azerbeji, Renee. Certified Engineering Manager, Ambient Energy. Denver, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. Basora, Zaida. Assistant Director of Public Works, Department of Public Works and Transportation, City of Dallas, TX. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 1, 2007. Beier, Ann. Office of Environmental Sustainability, City of Milwaukee, WI. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 9, 2007. Brown, Mike. Director of Operations, Oregon Convention Center. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 20, 2007. Bullock, Jim. Director of Facilities, The Getty Center, Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007. Burgoyne, Dan. Sustainability Manager, Department of General Services, State of California. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, January 30. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 18, 2007. Case, Laura. LEED Project Manager, Emory University. Atlanta, GA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs. February 22, 2007. Cline, Robert. General Manager, National Geographic Headquarters. Telephone interview with Travis Broussard, March 6, 2007. Davis, Steve. Landscape Architect I, Architectural Division, Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 12, 2007. Deets, Deborah. Landscape Architect, Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 9, 2007. Denise, George. General Manager, Cushman & Wakefield for Adobe Systems Inc. San Jose, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 27. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 13, 2007. Desowitz, Ken. Director of Supply Services Division, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 9, 2007. Farzan, Shahram. Building Mechanical Engineer, Architectural Division, Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. Sustainable Design Implementation Program. Personal interview with Travis Broussard in Los Angeles, January 30, 2007. Email communication with April Newman, March 14, 2007. Fiffick, Laura. Director, Office of Environmental Quality, City of Dallas, TX. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 19, 2007. Foster, Michael. Green Building Program, Environmental Services Department, City of San Jose, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 27, 2007. Freedman, David. Chief Engineer, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Atlanta, GA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 1, 2007. French, Grant. Corporate Sustainability Manager, Swinerton Incorporated. San Francisco, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 23, 2007. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 19, 2007. Gatlin, Doug. Director, LEED for Existing Buildings, United States Green Building Council. Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 7, 2007.

Gero, Gary. Director, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Solutions, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), CA. Personal interview with Travis Broussard in Los Angeles, January 20, 2007. Telephone interviews with Travis Broussard and April Newman, February 2, February 16 and March 19, 2007. Gilchrist, Monica. Global Green USA. Telephone interview with April Newman, February 2, 2007. Giles, Barry. Building Services Engineer, Moss Landing Marine Lab. Moss Landing, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 23, 2007. Email communication with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007. Gong, Alice. Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 16, 2007. Hackman, Richard. Program Manager, Energy Services, New York Power Authority. White Plains, NY. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 2, 2007. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 12, 2007. Hartke, Jason. Manager, State and Local Advocacy, United States Green Building Council. Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 2, 2007. Hayes, Patrick. Recycling Specialist, Public Works Agency, Environmental Services, City of Oakland, CA. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 12, 2007. Heisterkamp, Marc. Assistant Manager, LEED-EB Portfolio Program, United States Green Building Council. Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 9, 2007. Helminski, John. Project Officer, Energy Conservation and Management Division, Environmental Services Department, City of San Diego, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 8, 2007. Higgins, Karen. Manager, City Facilities Recycling Program, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with April Newman, March 12, 2007. Jabaji, Hatim. City Energy Office Manager, City of Baltimore, MD. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 16, 2007. Jones, Greg. Business Developer, Porter Industries. Loveland, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 27, 2007. Kane, Alisa. Green Building Specialist, Office of Sustainable Development, City of Portland, OR. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 21, 2007. Kerr, Laurie. Senior Policy Advisor on Sustainability, Office of the Mayor, City of New York, NY. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 27, 2007. Kline, Krista. Housing and Economic Development, Office of Mayor Villaraigosa, City of Los Angeles, CA. Personal interview with April Newman in Los Angeles, January 31, 2007. Lara, David. Chief, Case Management, Neighborhoods, and Government Services Division, Department of Building and Safety, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 1, 2007. Lombardi, Frank. Manager, Capitol Complex. Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration. Denver, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 20, 2007. Logan, Dave. Director, Operations Department, Ada County. Boise, ID. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 27, 2007. Malarkey, Brian. Vice President, Kirksey Architecture. Houston, TX. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 2, 2007.

May, Joe. Manager of Maintenance, Planning, and Support, J. Paul Getty Center. Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007. Mariano, Melina. Manager, Air Quality Management Division, Personnel Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 9, 2007. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 11, 2007. McCall, Tom. Head Maintenance Division, Department of Recreation and Parks, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman, March 16, 2007. Mejia, Mauricio. Sustainable Program Manager, City of Pasadena, CA. Personal interview with Michael Leighs in Pasadena, January 26, 2007. Miller, Kent R. Executive Director, Municipal Energy Office, City of Philadelphia, PA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 22, 2007. Miller, Robert. Project Manager, Director of Sustainable Building, AJ Martini. Winchester, MA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 23, 2007. Morgan, Richard. Manager, Green Building Program, City of Austin, TX. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 20, 2007. Nelson, Aaron. Project Director, Alliance for Sustainable Colorado. Denver, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. Nettleson, Bruce. Vice President of Operations, Ecolab. Eagan, MN. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 16, 2007. Newett, Lou. Director, Environment, Health and Safety, Knoll, Inc. Telephone interview with Travis Broussard, March 5, 2007. Pellegrin, Perrin. Campus Sustainability Manager, Facilities Management, University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 27, 2007. Pratt, Linda. Chief, Office of Environmental Protection and Sustainability, Environmental Services Department, City of San Diego, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 16, 2007. Pendorf, Nick. Division Manger, Construction Forces Division, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with April Newman, March 12, 2007. Petsche, Jim. Director of Corporate Sustainability, Nike Inc. Beaverton, OR. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 23, 2007. Previtali, John. Memorial Center, University of Colorado at Boulder. Email communication with Michael Leighs, February 24, 2007. Quenon, Loretta. Senior Management Analyst II, Department of General Services, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with April Newman March 19, 2007. Reitz, Greg. Green Building Advisor. City of Santa Monica, CA. Telephone interview with April Newman. January 25, 2007. Rives, Robert. Facilities Manager, General Services Department, City of Kansas City, MO. Telephone interview conducted by John Ragosta March 1, 2007. Roberts, Keith. Facilities Maintenance, General Services Department, City of Sacramento, CA. Telephone Interview with John Ragosta, March 5, 2007. Rodormer, Laura. Green Building Coordinator, Department of the Enviornment, City and County of San Francisco, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, March 5, 2007. Romain, Billi. Sustainability Coordinator, Office of Energy and Sustainable Development, City of Berkeley, CA. Email communication with John Ragosta, March 14, 2007.

Saltzman, Michael. Communications Department, New York Power Authority. White Plains, NY. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 23, 2007. Schoen, Richard. Professor Emeritus, Department of Architecture and Urban Design, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Personal interview with Travis Broussard in Los Angeles, January 15, 2007. Sheehy, Craig. Director, Property Management, Thomas Properties Group, Inc. Sacramento, CA. Telephone interview with John Ragosta, February 26, 2007. Email communication with John Ragosta, February 27, 2007. Soto, Ramon. Senior Administrative Analyst II, Office of the City Administrative Officer, City of Los Angeles, CA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 1, 2007. Specter, Carl. Director of Air Pollution Control Commission, City of Boston, MA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 20, 2007. Spitzmesser, Randy. Principal and Partner, Tate Snyder Kimsey. Henderson, NV. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. Sterling, Tomaysa. Sustainable Solutions Chief. City of Washington, D.C. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 28, 2007. Strope, Steve. Facilities Manager, Washington Ecology Department Headquarters Facility. Olympia, WA. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 27, 2007. Sutton, Ron. Facilities Operations and Maintenance Manager, City of Eugene, OR. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, March 9, 2007. Sweeney, Marty. Marketing Manager, Environmental Building Science, Owens Corning. Email communication with Travis Broussard, March 9, 2007. Tranby, Craig. Environmental Supervisor, Environmental Affairs Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Personal interview with John Ragosta in Los Angeles, January 31, 2007. Watterson, Andrew. Sustainability Programs Manager, City of Cleveland, OH. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 23, 2007. Weintraub, Deborah. Deputy City Engineer. Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. Personal interview with Travis Broussard in Los Angeles, January 30, 2007. Wilkins, Gregg. Portfolio Manager, General Services Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. Email communication with Michael Leighs, March 6, 2007. Williams, Lance. Executive Director, Los Angeles Chapter, United States Green Building Council. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 8, 2007. Willis, Christian. Real Estate Agent, Facilities and Planning Management. City of Denver, CO. Telephone interview with Michael Leighs, February 28, 2007.

REFERENCES Allen, Detrich P. Environmentally Preferable Purchasing. Environmental Affairs Commission. City of Los Angeles. Memo to City Councilmember Greig Smith. November 3, 2006. Alley, Richard, et al. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. February 2007. http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf (accessed February 19, 2007). American Institute of Architects. “Sustainability at the AIA.” 2007. http://www.aia.org/cote2_template.cfm?pagename=sustainability (accessed March 19, 2007). Apollo Alliance. Apollo Across the Nation: States, Cities, and Campuses. 2007. http://www.apolloalliance.org/state_and_local/ (accessed January 26, 2007). Arny, Michael, et al. Deliver the Green – A Fresh Look at LEED-EB and Facility Management. Leonardo Academy. 2006. http://www.ifmafoundation.org/deliverthegreen.pdf (accessed March 9, 2007). Bemis, Gerry. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. California Energy Commission. December, 2006. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-600-2006-013/CEC-600-2006-013SF.PDF (accessed January 8, 2007). Blain, Alvin. Recycling Program at the Garland Building. Inter-Departmental Correspondence, Department of General Services, State of California. July 24, 2006. Brodsky, Stuart. “Energy Star Partners to Change the Energy Performance of Commercial Properties.” Better Bricks. 2007. http://www.betterbricks.com/default.aspx?pid=article&articleid=38&typeid=10&topicna me=planningmanagement&indextype= (accessed March 20, 2007). Brown, Richard E. and Jonathan Koomey. Electricity Use in California: Past Trends and Present Usage Patterns. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. May 2002. http://enduse.lbl.gov/info/LBNL-47992.pdf (accessed March 14, 2007). Bullock, Jim. “Implementing the LEED EB Rating System at the Getty Center.” PowerPoint presentation. February 24, 2006. http://media.whatcounts.com/onenw_cgbc/2006/August/BIBPresentations/Bullock02240 6.pdf (accessed February 23, 2007). Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. “Executive Summary,” Infrastructure Report Card for the City of Los Angeles, 2003. p. 34. Bureau of Engineering, City of Los Angeles, CA. LEED Project Status. May 5, 2006. http://eng.lacity.org/projects/sdip/docs/leedprojecstatus.pdf (accessed January 31, 2007). Bureau of Engineering and Bureau of Sanitation, City of Los Angeles, CA. City of Los Angeles Sustainable Building Initiative. April 2003. http://eng.lacity.org/projects/sdip/docs/SustainableBuildingInitiativeActionPlanFinal0430 03.pdf (accessed November 5, 2006). California Energy Commission. Green Building Initiative, State of California Executive Order S20-04. 2004. http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/index.html (accessed January 27, 2006). California Integrated Waste Management Board. Business Waste Reduction. 2007. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BizWaste/ (accessed March 13, 2007).

California Regional Water Quality Control Board/ Los Angeles Region. State of California. “NPDES Permit No. CAS004001.” 2001. http://63.199.216.5/webdata/data/docs/6948_01-182_WDR.pdf (access March 20, 2007). California Sustainability Task Force. Building Better Buildings: An Update on State Sustainable Building Initiatives. October 2003. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Blueprint/2003/FullReport.pdf (accessed November 4, 2006). California Integrated Waste Management Board. Business Waste Reduction. 2007. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BizWaste/ (accessed March 13, 2007). Cepe, Pamela, Monica Gilchrist, and Walker Wells. “Developing Green Building Programs,” 2006. http://www.globalgreen.org/media/publications/StepByStep.pdf (accessed January 28, 2007). Colorado, State of. Executive Order D-005-05 Greening of State Government. 2005. http://www.dsireusa.org/documents/Incentives/CO35R.pdf (accessed March 16, 2007). Denise, George. “Managing for the 21st Century: LEED-EB Green Building Certification as the New Standard of Excellence In Facilities Management.” February 2006. http://www.worldworkplace.org/files/sessions/Handouts/2.11.ppt (accessed February 2, 2007). Denver, City of. Greenprint Denver Action Agenda. 2006. http://www.greenprintdenver.org/about/plan.php (accessed March 8, 2007). Energy Star. The First Step to Improving Water Efficiency. 2007. http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=business.bus_water (accessed March 13, 2007). Environmental Affairs Department, City of Los Angeles, CA. “Green Roofs – Cooling Los Angeles.” 2006. http://www.fypower.org/pdf/LA_GreenRoofsResourceGuide.pdf (accessed March 2, 2007). Eugene, City of, Oregon. “City Council Sets Sustainable Standard for City Building Construction and Maintenance,” Sustainable Eugene. 2006. http://www.eugeneor.gov/portal/server.pt?space=Opener&control=OpenObject&cached=true&parentname= CommunityPage&parentid=0&in_hi_ClassID=514&in_hi_userid=2&in_hi_ObjectID=15 53&in_hi_OpenerMode=2&# (accessed March 17, 2007). Eugene City Council Resolution No. 4884. Sustainable Buildings Policy For Buildings Owned and Occupied by the City, adopted by Council on July 10, 2006. (Emailed by Ron Sutton Facility Operations/Maintenance Manager, City of Eugene, OR, March 20, 2007.) Friend, Gil. “The 2030 Climate Challenge and West Coast Green.” WorldChanging. October 2, 2006. http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/005005.html (accessed March 20, 2007). Gordon, Kate, et al. New Energy for Cities. The Apollo Alliance, 2006. http://www.apolloalliance.org/docUploads/new_energy_cities.pdf (accessed February 4, 2007). Green LA. “A Green Los Angeles,” Recommendations to the City of Los Angeles, Fall 2006. http://www.libertyhill.org/common/publications/Greenla/GREENLA_to_print.pdf (accessed January 28, 2007). Haasl, Tudi, and Kristin Heinemeier. “California Commissioning Guide: Existing Buildings.” California Commissioning Collaborative. 2006. http://www.documents.dgs.ca.gov/green/commissionguideexisting.pdf (accessed January 4, 2007). Kats, Greg. “The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings.” Capital E. October 2003.

https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=1992 (accessed November 4, 2007). Los Angeles, City of. Council File Number: 06-1963. February 16, 2006. http://cityclerk.lacity.org/CFI/DisplayOnlineDocument.cfm?SRT=D1&cfnum=06-1963 (accessed October 15, 2006). Los Angeles Environmental Affairs Department. “Green Roofs - Cooling Los Angeles.” 2006. http://www.fypower.org/pdf/LA_GreenRoofsResourceGuide.pdf. (Date accessed March 2, 2007). Matson, Nancy E., and Mary Ann Piette. “Review of California and National Benchmarking Methods." Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. September 5, 2005. http://btech.lbl.gov/papers/57364.pdf (accessed January 4, 2007). Matthieeson, Lisa Fay, and Peter Morris. “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budget Methodology.” Davis Langdon, July 2004. http://davislangdonusa.com/Attachment%20Files/Research/costinggreen.pdf (accessed January 30, 2007). Mazria, Ed. The 2030 Challenge. Architecture 2030. December 2006. http://www.architecture2030.org/open_letter/index.html (accessed January 8, 2007). Mazria, Ed. Building Sector. Presentation in Los Angeles, CA, Architecture 2030. December 2006. http://www.architecture2030.org/building_sector/index.html (accessed January 8, 2007). Mazria, Ed. Climate Change, Global Warming, and the Built Environment. Architecture 2030. Presentation in Los Angeles. December 2006. http://www.architecture2030.org/home.html (accessed January 8, 2007). Metro Investment Report. “L.A. DWP Makes Progress Towards Renewable Energy Goals.” February 23, 2007. http://www.metroinvestmentreport.com/mir/?module=displaystory&story_id=403&form at=html (accessed March 20, 2007). Mills, Evan, et al. “The Cost-effectiveness of Commercial-Buildings Commissioning.” Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, December 15, 2004. http://eetd.lbl.gov/Emills/PUBS/CxCosts-Benefits.html (accessed January 4, 2007). Orlando, Claudia. “Benchmarking System for California Commercial Buildings.” PowerPoint presentation to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District on November 4, 2005. http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/documents/2005-1104_workshop/presentations/2005-11-04_ORLANDO.PDF (accessed December 19, 2006). Pelligrino, Perrin. LEED-EB Case Study: Girvetz Hall. September 21, 2005. http://sustainability.ucsb.edu/_client/pdf/conference2006/pres/green%20building%20and %20water/LEEDtm%20EB%20Case%20Studies/Perrin%20Pellegrin_LEED%20EB%20 Case%20Studies_Green%20Building%20and%20Water%20Track.pdf (accessed February 16, 2007). Portland City Council. Resolution No. 36310. 2005. ENB- Green Building Policy Update adopted by Council on April 27, 2005. http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?&a=80338&c=34835 (accessed February 22, 2007). Rosner, Sigalle. “Job Implications in Los Angeles’ Green Building Sector.” Master degree thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 2006. http://lewis.sppsr.ucla.edu/publications/studentreports/GreenSectorPaperSRrosner0506.p df (accessed September 26, 2006).

San Jose City Council and Redevelopment Agency Joint Session. “Approval of Actions Related to the Green Buildings Policy.” November 11, 2006. San Jose, CA. (Emailed by Michael Foster, City of San Jose Green Building Program on February 27, 2006.) Scheuer, Chris and Gregory Keoleian. “Evaluation of LEED Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods. Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan.” 2002. http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/gcrs/02836.pdf (accessed February 22, 2007). Schwartz, Heidi. “Salaries on an Upswing,” Today’s Facility Manager. July 2004. http://www.todaysfacilitymanager.com/tfm_04_07_news1.asp (accessed March 12, 2007). Shipley, David, G. Todesco, and Adelaar, Martin. “Modelling a Nation of Buildings: Estimating Energy Efficiency Potential for Large Building Samples.” Marbek Resource Consultants, Ottawa, Canada. 2002. http://www.esim.ca/2002/documents/Proceedings/Session%2044.pdf (accessed January 6, 2007). Smith, Robin and Steve Wiggins. “An Owner’s Experience with the LEED-EB Pilot Program.” Emory University, Atlanta, GA. January 2004. http://www.appa.org/files/FMArticles/FM010204_f4_LeedEBPilot1.pdf (accessed February 25, 2007). State of California. 2004. Executive Order S-20-04 Green Building Action Plan. Signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger December 14, 2004. http://www.energy.ca.gov/greenbuilding/documents/executive_order_s-20-04.html (accessed January 2, 2007). SustainLane. “2006 U.S. City Sustainability Ranking.” 2007. http://www.sustainlane.us/overview.jsp (accessed February 21, 2007). SustainLane. 2006 U.S. City Rankings, “Cities by Category Ranking: Green (LEED) Building.” 2006. http://www.sustainlane.us/Green_LEED_Building.jsp (accessed February 13, 2007). U.S. Department of Energy. “2006 Buildings Energy Data Book.” September, 2006. http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/ (accessed January 9, 2007). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Basic Information,” Climate Change. 2006. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html (accessed February 27, 2007). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Green Buildings.” 2007. http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/ (accessed February 22, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “About USGBC.” 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=1 (accessed March 18, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the LEED Portfolio Program.” 2007. http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1622 (accessed March 13, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Initiatives in Governments and Schools.” March 2007. https://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=691 (accessed March 18, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Project Case Study: Johnson Diversey Headquarters.” December 2004. https://www.usgbc.org/Docs/LEEDdocs/JohnsonDiversey%20Narrative%20Case%20Stu dy%20V5.pdf (accessed February 2, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “Project Profile: CalEPA.” 2006. http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=2058 (accessed February 23, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “Register Your Project,” LEED. 2007.

http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=65 (accessed February 25, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council. “Technical Review/ Introduction to LEED-EB Rating System,” LEED Green Building Rating System. 2005. slide 30. https://www.usgbc.org/FileHandling/show_general_file.asp?DocumentID=1036 (accessed February 20, 2007). U.S. Green Building Council, Colorado Chapter. “Colorado Building Green.” Newsletter. August, 2006. http://chapters.usgbc.org/colorado/Docs/pdf/CBG-August2006.pdf (accessed February 20, 2007).