| by
Mike Allen,
Associate Professor of Mathematics
It
is a truism that great power implies great responsibility. So it
is that when the voters of our district handed us the power to tax them
for $98 million (think about that figure again) to fund construction, we
took on a serious responsibility to use the money well. Fortunately, we
had the foresight to map out the buildings we thought we would need
before we decided on how much to ask for. So the question now is
not what to build, but how to build it.
There is a movement afoot in this country to design buildings in
ways that reduce their impact on the environment.
This is especially important in Southern California, due to our
strained water supplies, serious air pollution, and burgeoning
population. Recently, local activists from the Sierra Club,
Coalition for Clean Air, and the League of Women Voters have asked our
Board of Trustees to follow the lead of Los Angeles Community College
District and adopt Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
standards for our future buildings.
The standards, developed by the U.S. Green Building Council,
identify best practices in various categories of building design, such
as materials, energy efficiency, landscaping, and water efficiency.
They even take into account things like the distance materials used in
building have to be shipped. Unfortunately, if we were to commit
to using best practices in every area, it would make our buildings
significantly more expensive to design and build.
However, the LEED certification system is flexible. To
obtain
certification,
the buildings must meet certain minimum standards in each category.
Then, the designer is free to choose from the "menu" of best
practices, each choice earning points. A certain total of points
is required to be "certified" as a green building. If
more points are obtained, the building can reach the "silver,"
"gold," or "platinum" levels of certification.
The proposal to the Board of Trustees is that what we build with Measure
G funds reach the silver level.
It has been estimated by the various organizations that have
already done this that silver-level certification makes the building
about 5 percent more expensive to design and build. However, it
typically results in utility bills that are 30-40 percent lower than in
a regular building.
Thus, building to the standards saves money in the long run.
Also, there is the added benefit that the extra upfront costs
come from the Measure G money (which can only
be spent on construction anyway), whereas the savings come
immediately from our operating budget.
In other words, if we don't build to the standards, the impact of
new buildings on our operating budget will be more severe.
Since the cost of operating and maintaining a building for 10
years is as much as the initial cost of constructing it, the Board
should take this consideration
seriously.
Moreover, if they were to adopt this policy, we would not be
"locked in." The Board could always vote to rescind the
policy, exempt a particular building, modify the level, etc..
Other benefits of the standards include that they encourage
improved indoor air quality, through the
avoidance of carpets and furniture materials that emit
harmful gases. Double-paned windows are recommended to improve
energy efficiency, but as a side benefit also improve sound insulation.
Also, the buildings can serve as objects of study here on campus in
classes ranging from architecture to the sciences to vocational
programs.
All in all, I believe the policy would be a
good one to adopt. It was discussed at the Campus Development
Committee meeting in October, and is set to be considered again at their
meeting on November 7. Let them and the Board know what you think
about this issue!
&
[back
to the top]
|