Saturday, August 29 , 2015, 10:50 am | Fair 82.0º




Goleta Leaders Discuss Effects of City’s Green Building Program on Local Businesses

Concerns about higher costs, potential for stifling economic development the focus of roundtable discussion hosted by Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce and CEC

Walker Wells, green urbanism program director for Global Green USA, speaks Wednesday during the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Issue and Policy Roundtable at the Elephant Bar to discuss Goleta’s citywide green building program. “The community is supportive of environmental initiatives of energy savings and green building, which is good,” he says.

Walker Wells, green urbanism program director for Global Green USA, speaks Wednesday during the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Issue and Policy Roundtable at the Elephant Bar to discuss Goleta’s citywide green building program. “The community is supportive of environmental initiatives of energy savings and green building, which is good,” he says.  (Alex Kacik / Noozhawk photo)

By Alex Kacik, Noozhawk Staff Writer | @NoozhawkBiz |

Goleta city officials and business leaders attending the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce’s Issue and Policy Roundtable on Wednesday discussed the impacts of the citywide green building program on the local business community.

The roundtable, held at Elephant Bar in Goleta, was hosted by the chamber and the Community Environmental Council.

Walker Wells, green urbanism program director at Global Green USA, led the preliminary discussion on the details of the green building program, including current standards based on building size, who would be responsible for review and verification, various ratings systems, possible incentives, benefits and approximate costs.

One of the main concerns was in regard to additional costs that could potentially stifle economic development. According to Wells, the green building program would incur 2 percent to 5 percent in additional hard costs, for things such as materials and skilled labor. The soft costs, such as design time, certification and consultants, could cost up to $100,000.

Steve Fedde, vice president of development and operations for Sares-Regis Group, said Goleta companies already have to deal with lengthy regulatory processes, and additional time and costs would just push them away.

“If it will cost another 10 to 15 percent to do this work, the soft cost is the number I’m worried about,” he said. “Soft costs are just one more nail in the coffin for that company to justify staying here.”

But in terms of a green building, Wells said it goes far beyond energy efficiency. It’s a holistic standard that looks at a number of things — part of it is energy savings, water savings, where materials are coming from and a lot of it deals with indoor environment quality.

“The highest cost per square foot for businesses are the people, not energy or water costs, and if they are more productive, less sick and happier, then that’s where the biggest value in return comes from,” Wells said. “That’s why the green building consultant has emerged, because it’s someone with a breadth of knowledge that has to be a liaison to many different disciplines.”

About 18 months ago, the Goleta City Council adopted a “reach code,” or energy-efficiency standards that exceed the existing Title 24 California Building Standards Code minimums.

The ordinance established energy-efficiency standards for new building construction, large-scale remodeling and improvements such as lighting, and new heaters or circulation pumps for pools, spas and water features.

New residential buildings and additions more than 500 square feet are required to exceed Title 24 standards by 15 percent in energy efficiency; nonresidential buildings must exceed them by 10 percent to 15 percent. The reach code also will satisfy the greenhouse gas emission reductions set by Assembly Bill 32.

The city was awarded grant funding for the green building program, as outlined in the General Plan. It is an initiative that goes beyond the reach code and is voluntary.

Pacifica Commercial Real Estate Group vice president Mark Mattingly questioned why Goleta is pursuing the program.

“If the state has the highest level of environmental standards in the nation, why are we trying to exceed what is already questionably even achievable?” he asked.

It is achievable, according to Dave Davis, executive director of the Community Environmental Council. He said that in 2008, Santa Barbara adopted a reach code that has been 20 percent higher than the state’s standards.

California expects net-zero residential buildings by 2020, which means they will use little energy and offset that with energy output, Wells said.

“It is actually a long-range plan to keep California vital and produce energy and lower costs to keep us competitive in the entire world,” Davis said. “It’s big picture. They asked communities to step out and show how you make those steps. Santa Barbara did in ‘08 and Goleta did last year. Our communities are being leaders and have shown how it can be done and have been operating, growing and thriving.”

But there hasn’t been hard analysis of the cost in relation to size, according to Russ Goodman, Sares-Regis Group president of the Santa Barbara region.

If there’s a 1 percent to 5 percent increase in hard cost plus additional soft costs, they amount to $125,000 to $325,000 for a 25,000-square-foot building, he said. If it’s a 2 percent increase in hard costs, that’s a payback period of 21 to 31 years and a period of 39 to 57 for a 5 percent increase in hard costs. Goodman said businesses don’t usually invest in an initiative if it’s more than a seven-year payback period.

“The city should be lauded for bringing this into process at an early basis,” he said. “My recommendation is we need to slow down analysis, and it’s important to get the support from the community and understand costs.”

Wells said it’s also important to research other certification programs to cut back costs.

Craig Zimmerman, president of The Towbes Group, recommended retrofitting current buildings that are extremely energy inefficient rather than regulating new buildings.

“If new construction is meeting Title 24 and reach code, the incremental dollar to make it a little more energy efficient is terribly inefficient,” he said. “When you compare that against taking the incremental dollar and investing it in existing buildings and homes that are inefficient today, where are you going to get the bang for your buck?”

All of the discussion at Wednesday’s event was preliminary, and there will be many more. The Goleta City Council will discuss the green building program Tuesday. The council and the Planning Commission will hold a workshop on the progress of the program at City Hall at 6 p.m. Thursday. It will feature information from Global Green USA and the Green Ribbon Committee.

“The community is supportive of environmental initiatives of energy savings and green building, which is good,” Wells said. “There is also a concern about things not being so costly as to be detrimental for development.”

Noozhawk business writer Alex Kacik can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.




comments powered by Disqus

» on 03.16.12 @ 01:32 PM

I’m sorry guys, protecting the environment for future generations is more important than short term profits. Think of your children for a change.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

 

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.