Sustainable Community « California Green Building Blog

Sustainable Community

Archived Posts from this Category

August 12, 2010

Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard Redevelopment Project Approved

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Sustainable Community | Tags: Bayview, Bayview Hunters Point Shipyard, BVHP, California, Carbon Footprint, Energy, Green Building, Green Jobs, Hunters Point, Hunters Point Shipyard, Lennar, PowerSmart, San Francisco, SunPower, SunPower Access, Sustainable Development |
Leave a Comment

Last week the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a measure approving the plan and EIR for the redevelopment of the Bayview Hunters Point neighborhood. The measure was championed by City Supervisor Sophie Maxwell, and passed with an 8-3 margin.

The project, encompassing 720-acres along the Southeast waterfront of San Francisco, adds 10,500 residential units, nearly a third of which would be priced for low-income residents. The plan also calls for 320 acres of parkland and open space; retail and commercial space – including a new stadium if the 49ers show some loyalty (they won’t) – and new transportation.

Predictably, there are more than a few immediate issues with the project. At the top of the list….Lennar needs funding, the stadium has no tenant, the shipyard at the site is highly toxic, and a proposed bridge appears to unnecessarily impact sensitive wetlands. Lets just gloss over those for a minute and imagine what this current symbol of blight might look like if these initial issues are solved and the plan moves forward.

We are interested in green building here at the CGBB, so let’s look at this statement from the project website:

“Hunters Point Shipyard will be the first neighborhood in San Francisco powered entirely by clean, reliable public power. In the new “Green Public Power Community,” the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will deliver reliable, 100 percent renewable and cost-competitive power to new residents and businesses of the current and future developments through its extensive hydropower, solar and other renewable energy generation projects.”

What? 100% from renewable sources? Until someone really proves they can pull this off, I’m going to say this looks like greenwash. Where’s the co-gen plant? Where’s the solar array? There is not much on their website about how efficient the structures will be, so just stating they will pull 100% of renewable energy from the PUC sounds like Lennar is setting up a patsy if the plan falls short, and the PUC will still get paid. Lennar’s plan relies on the development of new energy production technology, and the cost reduction of existing technology. That, in and of itself, is risky. One can not rely on new technologies. For example, as we discussed last month, the California Solar Initiative is reducing the state (taxpayer) funded incentives and rebates for solar installations.

But, before I just cynically dismiss this lofty and worthy project, let’s look at Lennar’s track record. Lennar is experienced in green development, and has the ability to scale the implementation of sustainable technologies. According to a June 15, 2010 press release, Lennar is the largest producer of solar residential homes in the nation. In the press release, Lennar discussed the success of its “SunPower Access” partnership with SunPower Corporation to provide a “no-money-down” leaseback program for residential photovoltaic solar installations. (I am not familiar with the program, but I imagine it follows a Solar City model). Additionally, Lennar, through its PowerSmart program, offers a pre-designed green home in about a dozen cities in four states (including California). The PowerSmart program offers homes that are 15% more efficient than California’s current Title 24 requirements.

Whether PowerSmart homes are more efficient than the CalGreen codes that are mandatory starting in 2011 is another story. And, it will take more than green building to make Bayview Hunters Point stick to its 100% renewable energy promise. Stay tuned for more on this project.

For more information visit the community group by clicking here, or Lennar’s website by clicking here.

June 2, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 3

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Finance, Finance / Mortgages, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Solar, Sustainable Community, Wind | Tags: AB 1103, AB 811, BerkeleyFirst, California, Carbon Footprint, Commercial, Distributed Power, Energy, Finance, Green Jobs, GreenFinanceSF, net energy metering, Renewable Funding LLC, San Francisco, Sustainable Development, Task Force On Existing Commercial Buildings |
Leave a Comment

Parts One and Two of our analysis of the Final Report and Recommendations from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings discussed mandatory energy audits, the risks associated with allowing unilateral submetering, and the welcome drive to increase transparency in energy use reporting under an expanded implementation of AB 1103. In Part Three of this post, we look at the task force’s proposal to “attract game-changing capital.”

First, it should be noted that the task force’s interest in attracting game-changing capital comes from not only prudence, but also awareness of the acute financial restraints facing our society. The task force offers low-cost solutions such as the Green Tenant Toolkit, and looks to engage the private sector in these and other initiatives.

There are two possibly expensive financial initiatives proposed by the task force that we will address at length. The first is a Financial Optimization Tool (FOT) – a fantastic idea. The proposed FOT is software that organizes and amalgamates all incentives and rebates available to building developers, managers, and tenants. Currently, the best place to find such information is through the Database of State Incentives and Renewable Energy (www.dsireusa.org) (a website that is the anchor on our Tax Incentives and Rebates page). The problem with DSIRE, and other resources such as the Flex Your Power website or the US Department of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy Newsletter, is the fluctuating information is difficult to organize.

DSIRE addresses this problem by simply listing every incentive available, and weekly (if not daily) updating that list. This approach is thorough, however it creates a mountain of information to sift. The FOT is a great alternative because it allows owners to use all incentives to design an energy efficiency program specifically tailored to their financial circumstances and their building’s design and condition.

To address the need for constant updates, the task force suggests a public-private partnership (P3). The inclusion of a private partner could be effective. But, as with so many other opportunities that are offered to private industry, this represents an early sale of future assets. Further, including private industry may undermine the intent of the FOT

P3s have an essential place in our society, however, for this situation P3s are not an effective solution. To have the greatest impact, all parties should have access to the FOT. Use could eventually be required as a standard of care for the building management industry or as part of energy audits. But, if a P3 private company is involved there needs to be a profit angle. Due to its niche market, the FOT will not produce sufficient advertising revenue. And without advertising, the only profit angle is through subscriptions.

A subscription-based FOT will fail because it will deter a majority of potential users including other municipalities. Further, if the FOT is privatized, anti-trust issues arise if use of the FOT is required

The best approach to implement the FOT is a “top down” approach that I will discuss in Part Four of our analysis. The federal government, working with state and local agencies, must come up with this tool, so that it is accessible to all interested parties. Perhaps federal leadership is too much for a locally convened task force to suggest, and perhaps this tool needs to start at the state level with contributions from our state universities. What the FOT does not need is a private partner seeking profit.

There are areas where a P3 will work, and one surprising area the Task Force misses is an opportunity to suggest a partnership in finance. The report suggests following the BerkeleyFirst distributed power program that utilizes AB 811. As we previously discussed on the CGBB, the BerkeleyFirst program is not only innovative in attaching the debt obligations of a solar installation to property taxes, it is also innovative in allowing a private company to underwrite the financing for the installations. This powerful P3 model epitomizes P3 success. The private partner provides funding, and earns a fair return on investment. The municipality reaps the reward of infrastructure development at a fraction of the cost. Perhaps the task force was wary of opening the proverbial floodgates to private enterprise, or perhaps the task force did not want to single out Renewable Funding LLC, the underwriter in the BerkeleyFirst program.

Nonetheless, San Francisco launched GreenFinanceSF, and the city called on Renewable Funding LLC to finance the project. BerkeleyFirst deserves a great amount of credit as the first program of this type in California, but GreenFinanceSF looks to be a broader initiative that has a longer list of eligible projects. Unlike BerkeleyFirst which funds solar residential solar installations, GreenFinanceSF finances a long list of energy and water retrofit projects. The California Green Building Blog will offer further analysis of the GreenFinanceSF program in the future.

The next and final installation of our analysis of the task force report will discuss a topic near and dear to my heart – the suggestion by the task force that government “lead by example.” I am a firm believer in this approach. This is not about government intervention, this is about leadership. No matter where your political loyalties fall, you’ll want to read next week…

May 25, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 2

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building Operations, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Incentives and Rebates, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Lease, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: AB 1103, California, Carbon Footprint, CEESP, Commercial, Commissioning, Energy, Green Building, Green Economy, Post-occupancy performance, San Francisco, Submetering, Sustainable Development, Task Force On Existing Commercial Buildings |
Leave a Comment

In Part One of our analysis of the report from the Mayor’s Task Force on Existing Commercial Buildings, we discussed the task force’s four themed approach to improving the energy efficiency of existing commercial buildings: 1) “maximize transparency,” 2) partner with the private sector, 3) attract game-changing capital, and 4) lead by example. We now turn to theme two, “partner with the private sector.”

As discussed in Part One of this post, the transparency mandates suggested by the task force, and/or mandated under AB 1103 will force private industry to report energy use. These reporting requirements will generate market forces that push buildings to higher energy efficiency. But, will developers, owners, and tenants really compete in a race to the top of efficiency based on AB 1103 alone? The answer is “probably not,” or maybe I should say, “probably not quickly enough.”

Sure, required energy reporting will occur, but the desired reduction in energy use will not manifest rapidly. Without government mandate and assistance for developers, owners, and tenants, the measures suggested by the task force, including mandatory energy audits, will create resentment and real hardship for businesses. Also, the local taxpayers might not be happy with the incentives and rebates suggested to assist in deferring the cost (though some of the underwriting will come from state and federal grants).

The task force suggests two low-cost “tools” to rapidly generate efficiency results and ease the private burden of implementing energy efficiency. The first suggestion is a “no-brainer,” but the second might not be as simple.

The first tool is the “Green Tenant Toolkit” (“GTT”). Rather than simply mandating energy efficiency, the GTT proposes a “toolkit” with suggestions for developers, owners, and tenants regarding “best practice recommendations, a model green lease, [and] a standardized checklist to identify green features of spaces for lease.” Also, as a part of the “partner with the private sector” theme, the task force suggests a public/private (dare I say) task force to come up with the language and suggestions for the GTT. The proposed GTT is a quick and easy resource, and one that will ease the burden of implementing energy efficiency measures.

The second tool suggested by the task force is “unilateral submetering.” This strategy proposes allowing tenants or landlords to implement submetering at the requester’s expense. This is risky, and not completely thought out. First, this option likely already exists for a majority of tenants and landlords, and second the suggestion ignores the issues that arise from such a policy.

For example, unlike other tenant-level capital improvements, submetering affects the operating costs of other tenants. Generally, a building’s utility costs are averaged, and then allocated to tenants based on square feet. If a large tenant has a significant amount of space that is below the average energy use in a building, and that space is removed from the building energy calculation, the average cost will rise for other tenants. Conversely, a landlord, at the bequest of other tenants, may submeter a power-sucking data center. This action will lower rent for a majority of other tenants, but send operating costs for the data center through the proverbial roof. It’s not quite that simple, but the example above is closer to the reality than the task force lets on.

To achieve the equity the task force seeks, unilateral submetering will need further analysis, or testing before city-wide implementation. Perhaps if a tenant submeters, a landlord could be forced for one year to keep the submetered tenant in as part of the calculation for the building’s energy use averages until other tenants can take action to either lower energy costs or also submeter? Or perhaps the city will limit the amount a landlord can raise an energy charge thus encouraging energy efficiency? Perhaps other tenants will just have to “get with the program,” submeter, and increase their efficiency to realize ROI. There are no easy solutions to this question, but submetering is an effective tool to reducing energy use, and is required for any effective energy efficiency policy.

The task force’s next suggestions – including the suggestion of a government fund to cover expenses for implementation of energy efficient technologies – will be covered in part three of our analysis. Stay tuned…

May 10, 2010

Friendly Reminder, Webinar Series Starts Wednesday, May 12

Posted by Steve Sacks under BIA / Building Industry Association, Build It Green / Green Point Rated, Building and Design, Building Operations, California Green Builder / Building Industry Institute, Editor's Note, Government, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Speaking Engagement, Sustainable Community, USGBC / LEED | Tags: Federal, California, Commercial, Residential, Energy, Green Building, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Webinar |
Leave a Comment

Hi All,

A friendly reminder that I am presenting in one of three great webinars presented by the State Bar of California. The webinars will be on May 12, 19, and 26. If you can’t make these dates, you can register by the date of the event, and listen any time in the three months afterward.

The first webinar is “Sustainable Development: Moving Beyond Green Building Toward Sustainable Building and Sustainable Master Planning” I will discuss alternatives to LEED and the many factors interested parties should consider when designing and developing sustainable buildings and neighborhoods. Jeff Conner (Conner & Associates), Matt Burris (CTG), and Patricia Chen (Miles Chen Law Group, P.C.) will join me in a roundtable discussion that will discuss LEED as well as other ways to develop a sustainable project (i.e. ICC, GreenPoint Rated, or independent assessment). Each approach requires unique planning and permitting. More information can be found by clicking here.

Our webinar is the first of a series. There are two more webinars that are really worth checking out. The first is , “Sustainable Development: Charting a Course to a Sustainable Future Through CEQA Compliance and Effective Climate Action Planning – Demystifying AB 32 and SB 375″ and the second is “Sustainable Development: The California General Plan Law and General Plan Updates: The Future of Sustainable Development”

We hope to catch you online at these events!

May 4, 2010

Mayor’s Task Force Report On Existing Commercial Buildings – Part 1

Posted by Steve Sacks under Energy, Government, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Lease, Sustainable Community | Tags: AB 1103, California, CEESP, Commercial, Energy, Green Building, Post-occupancy performance, Sacramento, San Francisco, Task Force On Existing Commercial Buildings |
Leave a Comment

In December, 2009, a task force convened by San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom, issued a report on the steps necessary to make existing commercial buildings more efficient. (Click here for the full report) It’s not as comprehensive or technical as reports one expects from the specialists and experts that comprise the task force, but it is a good policy report. Why am I slightly “cool” on the report? It’s no fault of the task force.

The reason is because it’s a policy report, and until the policies are enacted, the report is just hot air blowing in December. (Cue sly grin for “hot air” pun). The reason this post is coming up now, however, is not only the fact that I’m finally getting around to it, but also the fact that Mayor Newsom seems to be as well…(getting around to the report, that is).

San Francisco has arguably the best green building track record of any city in the United States, so if anyone can enact the recommendations, San Francisco can. As you will read below, Mayor Newsom is reportedly going to propose enacting one of the recommendations into law. Before addressing the proposed law, let’s look at how the task force recommends we fix the existing commercial buildings.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, the task force recommends following the California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (CEESP). CEESP sets a goal of zero net energy for new (and some existing) residential buildings by 2020 and commercial buildings by 2030. Regarding existing buildings in San Francisco, the task force believes the CEESP goal could be achieved with a 50% reduction in all existing building energy use by 2030. That amounts to a 2.5 % reduction in energy use every year . . . daunting, but doable.

The task force report uses four general “themes” to suggest meeting and exceeding CEESP: 1) maximize transparency, 2) partner with the private sector, 3) attract game-changing capital, 4) lead by example. I will address each of these in turn, but don’t worry, I only address number 1 in this post. The rest will wait for Part 2.

1) Maximize Transparency: The task force recommends the disclosure of energy performance for all existing commercial buildings. Sounds pretty good, right? Well, the requirement to disclose energy efficiency in commercial buildings has been law for some time now. AB 1103, enacted in 2007, with requirements set to trigger in 2009 (delayed until July 2010), requires “electric and gas utilities . . . to maintain records of the energy consumption data of all nonresidential buildings to which they provide service.” And the utilities must provide those records to property buyers, tenants, or investors.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, the mayor will propose a similar requirement shortly, but with the added bonus that the energy consumption data would be available to the general public.

This idea sets off a slew of potential legal issues, and here’s one: From a transaction side, a lease now has new potential incentives and benchmarks. If a tenant reduces energy consumption over a series of years, that could be worth a bonus from the landlord because it makes the property more valuable from a public relations standpoint and also from a re-sale re-lease perspective. On the contrary, a landlord may simply require that a tenant improve energy efficiency every year, and set penalties if they fail to meet the benchmarks. A successful business relationship will find a middle ground, but these are certainly new bargaining chips. Just think we haven’t even entered the world of cap and trade…

Lets also remember there is no current penalty for failing to increase efficiency. The rest of the task force recommendations rely on private help and public leadership. Is that enough? I’m not so sure…

Stay tuned for Part 2….

(Editor’s Note: check out the Institute for Market Transformation – a great resource I found in researching some of this post.)

April 22, 2010

Happy Earth Day! Sustainable Community Interview Special!

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Energy, Government, Green Economy, Innovators, Interview, Just Plain Cool, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, People, Photovoltaic, Solar, Sustainable Community | Tags: Carbon Footprint, Commercial, Design, Energy, Green Building, Green Economy, Green Jobs, International, Net Metering, Photovoltaic, Residential, Sustainable Development, United States |
Leave a Comment

Geof Syphers is the Chief Sustainability Officer at Codding Enterprises, developer of Sonoma Mountain Village, a One Planet Communities development in Rohnert Park, California that aims to be close to net zero…as a village!

We’ve written about Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO) before. Click here to review that post. Now, as an Earth Day special, please enjoy the interview I conducted with Geof a few days ago. Click here for the full text, or just click on the “Interviews” tab at the top of this page.

The thing that makes the interview so relevant to Earth Day is SOMO is a One Planet Community. This means that if every community on the planet lived like the residents in SOMO, we would only use the resources available on one Earth. As it stands now, if everyone on the planet lived like the rest of the United States, we would need multiple Earths to support our lifestyle! (Click here to take a fun, albiet non-scientific, quiz to check your sustainability footprint).

So, Geof, and the group at Codding are onto something. Enjoy the information in the interview, and have a great Earth Day!

March 1, 2010

Clean Tech Event – San Francisco March 17

Posted by Steve Sacks under Carbon, Conferences / Conventions / Events, Energy, Finance, Government, Green Economy, Innovators, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Make Money, Marketing Ideas, People, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: Carbon Credits, Commercial, Economic Stimulus, Energy, Federal, Green Building, Green Economy, Green Jobs, Green Products, International, PG&E, Power Purchase Agreement, San Francisco, Sustainable Development, United States |
Leave a Comment

My friends over at the Kellogg Alumni Club are at it again with another great clean tech event. On Wednesday, March 17 the group will host a panel discussion on two emerging clean industries: transportation and energy – including nuclear power. Can that, too, be clean?

The event is open to the public, and it will be a great way to learn and network with leaders. Ideas will definitely be flowing. The top-shelf presenters and panelists include:

Rod Diridon - Clean Tech Rail Pioneer, Executive, Political Leader, and High-Speed Rail Authority Board Member
Bob Garzee - Clean Tech Automotive Transportation Pioneer and Entrepreneur
Jeff Hamel - Energy Researcher and Clean Tech Advocate

Networking, passed hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar start at 6pm, and the presentations and discussion will go from about 7 – 8:30 pm. You couldn’t ask for a better setting: the beautiful McCormick and Kuleto’s – right on the water. See you there!

Click Here For More Information And For Reservations.

Also, remember Kellogg’s San Jose clean tech event with different panelists, Thursday, April 1. Click here for more information on that!

January 3, 2010

Book Review! Hot, Flat, And Crowded By Tom Friedman

Posted by Steve Sacks under Book Review, Building and Design, Carbon, Energy, Green Economy, Law, Legislation, and Policy, Research, Sustainable Community | Tags: Green Economy, Hot Flat and Crowded, Sustainable Development, United States |
1 Comment

Happy New Year!

Publishing a blog is a far cry from writing a book, let alone a number of best-selling books, so my credentials for reviewing Tom Friedman’s book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded, may be a little thin. But, since I recently read the book, it’s a free country, and I do publish a blog, here goes…buckle up, it’s the California Green Building Blog’s first book review!

Tom Friedman is a columnist for the New York Times among other publications. He also writes non-fiction books, and back in 2005, he wrote the wildly popular bestseller, The World Is Flat (about the tech revolution). I read The World Is Flat, as well as Hot, Flat, And Crowded, and I will say I like Mr. Friedman’s easy-to-read style. As with most essayists, he finds a topic of the times, researches the heck out of it, and comes up with conclusions (though often not really his own).

Hot, Flat, and Crowded follows that model. It is a quick review of the climate crisis and how we can solve the problem of global warming. However, I think Friedman was a little “late to the party” with The World Is Flat, (written in 2005 about the tech revolution) and I think he’s a little late with Hot, Flat, And Crowded. Anyone who saw Inconvenient Truth, or anyone who has been following the climate crisis, will find some of the ideas a little stale.

But, don’t get me wrong; Hot, Flat, and Crowded is enjoyable. Mr. Friedman condenses the need to “Green” the world into some convenient and, yes, some unique themes and provides examples of those themes in action. He has a knack for getting to the point which I appreciate, but there are some places where that comes at the expense of facing hard facts. For example, his “feel-good” story about an Indonesian oil and gas company’s preservation of a rain forest gives light treatment of the unique market forces at work.

Hot, Flat, and Crowded will grab the attention of readers with any level of expertise in Green. I did find some of Friedman’s conclusions compelling – particularly some of the terms he coins, and his comparison of the green movement to the civil rights movement. The book is well-organized, and won’t take long to read (unless you read it in 10 minute blocks on the subway like I did). Further, the statistics Friedman compiles are unique and staggering.

As with most climate change research these days, the numbers are depressing, and Friedman doesn’t shy away from shock value. Thankfully, the second half of the book focuses on solutions. From a Green building perspective, Friedman’s discussion of appliance energy efficiency, metering, and smart grid opportunities is particularly interesting. Thankfully, Friedman spends a decent amount of time on those topics.

Pick up Hot, Flat, and Crowded if you want some great new stats and some new thoughts and themes for redirecting the Unites States mentality. Also, stay tuned for our next book review. I’m almost done with Al Gore’s Our Choice…a far more comprehensive work.

UPDATE: Click Here For Our Review Of Our Choice, By Al Gore

December 10, 2009

Green Neighborhood Pops Up In Sonoma

Posted by Steve Sacks under Building and Design, Carbon, Green Economy, Sustainable Community, USGBC / LEED | Tags: BioRegional, California, Codding Enterprises, Green Building, Green Economy, Green Jobs, LEED-ND, Net Zero Building, Net Zero Carbon, One Planet Communities, Sustainable Development |
1 Comment

One of the most interesting sessions I attended at Greenbuild discussed sustainable neighborhoods. Greg Searle from One Planet Communities provided a great case study of Sonoma Mountain Village (SOMO), a new community being built in Sonoma California.

SOMO, a partnership between developer, Codding Enterprises, and consultant, BioRegional, is a fantastic example of green building. Not only is SOMO striving to be a net zero community, it is also being built on a defunct business campus, so it is a brownfield site. Along with municipal buildings, the 200 acre development will include commercial, office, retail, and residential space including 1,900 homes of all sizes and types for sale and rent. According to the SOMO website, the development has already generated more than 600 jobs, and will lead to 4,400 jobs by completion.

One Planet Communities is a fantastic concept, and I love the flexibility it offers… flexibility as long as you hit the very high benchmarks, which is not the easiest thing to do…. To achieve designation as a One Planet Community, a development must follow these ten principles:

Zero Carbon – All buildings and their fittings and fixtures must be energy efficient and supplied by renewable energy.
Zero Waste – At least 70% of waste by weight to be reclaimed, recycled or composted and ideally no more than 2% should be sent to landfill.
Sustainable Transport – CO₂ emissions of persons travelling to and from the site and within it must be reduced relative to an agreed regional benchmark. Ideally all unavoidable CO₂ emissions from transport should be offset by a certified carbon sequestration scheme.
Local & Sustainable Materials – Use of local, reclaimed, renewable, recycled and low environmental impact materials in construction and estate management should be increased and optimised.
Local & Sustainable Food – Healthy diets should be promoted and minimum targets achieved for supply of organic or low-environmental impact food and local sourcing.
Sustainable Water – Water efficiency and recycling must be promoted in line with country-specific best practice.
Natural Habitats & Wildlife – Local biodiversity and natural resource stocks must be increased.
Culture & Heritage – Valuable aspects of local culture and heritage must be maintained, enhanced or revived.
Equity & Fair Trade – Targets must be set to boost the local economy, notably in disadvantaged areas, and to ensure a set ratio of imported goods are fair trade certified.
Health & Happiness – Health and happiness of residents must be promoted based on emerging findings from ‘happiness’ research and periodic residents’ surveys

OK, I know some of these categories may sound like “fluff,” so you’ll have to go to the Principles Page on the One Planet Community website to read more.

The beauty of One Planet’s concept is the lack of rigid checklists found in the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) system (just emerging from pilot phase). LEED-ND is certainly a step in the right direction, but I think the One Planet Communities approach makes more sense for neighborhoods. LEED works well for buildings because builders want and need uniformity in methodology. Costs come down when you can reuse building methods from one building to the next. But neighborhoods are regional and unique. One Planet Communities’ flexibility acknowledges that difference with a simple approach that is easy to understand. In the end, the standards are set high, and that’s what matters.

It is unclear if SOMO will strive for LEED-ND, and with One Planet Communities certification under its belt, one has to wonder if a LEED-ND designation for SOMO is necessary at all.

California Green Building Blog