Yudelson: ‘You should be tougher’ on non-LEED West Village

 

Your input is requested on a very important matter!

Yesterday, I highlighted the UC Davis West Village student/faculty housing development getting a $2 million grant from the California Energy Commission.

I also noted the project not adhering to LEED guidelines or any other third-party rating standard for that matter.

That definitely caught the attention of none other than Jerry Yudelson — a Green Journey reader with regular comments — who took me to task on not going deeper on the lack of third-party rating standard for the project.

His point:

Like this story, but you have to be tougher in your commentary. Not only is LEED not mentioned, thus no third-party accountability, but CEC did not require it as a condition of the grant, going against a clear requirement for all new state buildings. Also, there are no clear sustainability objectives: e.g., housing to use no more than 5 kWh/sq.ft./year for heating, cooling, hot water and lighting, no more than 50 gals/capita/day water, 100% use of certified wood, no use of PVC, etc. Without these touchstones/benchmarks, the so-called “sustainable design” is not ground-breaking at all, just a grab bag of technologies and design approaches.

I gotta admit: Jerry’s making a big point. It is true that not even the most minimum standard for energy and water saving guidelines were agreed for the project, despite it being a deal controlled and co-sponsored by the University of California (sponsorship from ground lessor relationship). Adding to that, the project received funding from the California Energy Commission, a big proponent of green building in general.

Here at Galley Eco Capital, we’re aware of several large developments in California that have gone through an extensive environmental review and entitlement process taking many years. The sustainability requirements that they were required to adhere to were baked into the deal years ago, somewhere during the process.

Should the developer feel compelled to achieve LEED-certification anyway?  I know that we USGBC supporters would want them to do so.

They finally achieve entitlements now, years later, during a new era that expects more vigorous, sustainable land use, transportation, environmental and building policy. I am not 100% sure about whether this is the case for West Village, but it fits the fact pattern.

Other developments, such as the Catellus Mission Bay project here in San Francisco, encountered a similar situation with their entitlements. In Mission Bay’s case, the master developer did not have to require LEED-certification from vertical developers, but some — Alexandria and McCarthy Cook, for example — built buildings to LEED-Silver, anyway.

In their case, these vertical developers needed LEED-certification from a marketability standpoint, to remain competitive with UC San Francisco or the large biotech and pharma companies on the prowl for new space. The West Village developers are marketing the units at below market prices, so assuming the pent up demand remains strong, they will not face any marketing risk associated with the fact that their product is essentially “self-certified”. Here the real estate story could trump the broader trend towards going green.

Your turn: What do you think?

• Should we be harder on the West Villages of the world, who are getting grant funding for “research” even as they avoid adhering to the most minimal third-party certification?
• Are we not hard enough?
• Are their efforts really just a ‘grab bag of technologies and design practices like Jerry says?

Please send me (and Jerry) your point of view. I will compile all the messages and share with those who respond.

We like this kind of issue here on Our Green Journey, because we want an authentic discussion first amongst finance and investment professionals — no fluff. That’s the only way that we are all going to create better, more sustainable results for our communities.

So tell it like you really see it. Your input would be very much appreciated.