A Law Firm Relocates after Four Decades
by Bill Puetz, CID, LEED AP

Relocating an office of 120 legal professionals is a daunting task under any circumstance. But when a law firm has been in the same space for four decades, there is even more at stake.  This was the case for our client Squire, Sanders & Dempsey that took the opportunity to address changes within the legal profession as well as to reflect upon the core values that define its culture today.

Squire Sanders, an international law firm, had outgrown its San Francisco Financial District office at One Maritime Plaza.  Attorney Thomas Woofter and Office Administrator Joan Klaassen lead the charge to plan the new space.  We had the pleasure of sitting down with them in their new offices at 275 Battery Street to look back at the process.

Bill:       What were the big changes that took place in the 37 years prior to your move?

Tom:     I would say the biggest changes are in the ways in which we now communicate and work together, both internally and externally.  Thanks to technology, more and more communication is done by e-mail and most research is done online.  As a result, we now have lesser need for extensive library space, but greater need to make and find ways and places for people to get together to share thoughts and ideas.

Joan:    Also, as a practical matter, since this generation of attorneys does more of its own work, there is less need for secretarial areas.

Bill:       How did this inform the design of your new office?

Tom:     We wanted to have an area where people could get together and collaborate.  We wanted to have spaces where we could host seminars and interact with people from outside the firm.

Bill:       There used to be segregation between partners, associates, paralegals, and secretaries.  But you chose to create a shared lounge?

Tom:     We are not as hierarchical as your typical law firm.  We wanted to have areas like the employee lounge for everyone to gather.  The intensity of a law practice is just as stressful for the staff as it is for the attorneys.

Bill:       Would you say mutual respect is part of your firm’s culture?

Tom:     We really emphasize it, and what you emphasize is what you get. It creates your environment.

Bill:       The law library is still an iconic part of your office environment, though the number of books was reduced dramatically. Who advocated for the library?

Joan:    The funny thing is it’s the younger staff who were concerned about reducing the collection.

Bill:       Are they doing more of the research?

Tom:     Yes, they are, and while they do most of their research online, in some cases they still like to have particular resources they can lay on their desks and refer to as well.

Bill:       How have the meeting spaces changed how you work?

Joan:    We are doing more of our meetings here, which we weren’t doing before.  Attorneys were holding meetings at other locations, because they didn’t want to bring clients or guests to the old space.

Tom:     Everyone likes having a conference center as opposed to having conference rooms distributed throughout the various floors.  And now, we’re letting different organizations use our space for meetings and other events.  They are nonprofits that we support or associations for select practice areas.

Bill:       You both put a lot of thought into starting the design process early.  Many things changed in the commercial real estate market since you started planning.  Why did you have such a long schedule?

Joan:    If you leave enough time, the visioning can be implemented.  I was looking through the programming documents the other day, and what we wanted is definitely what we got.

Tom:     We were able to envision what we wanted, identify space early, evaluate what could be saved and reused, and pay no double rent.

Bill:       You involved different groups in visioning and the design phase.  Were you able to engage more people internally that way?

Tom:     We discussed how to shape that process, because we wanted people to be invested.  We had to have representation among practice groups, partners, associates, and staff.  We had a good balance between letting people have a say and making sure the process moved ahead.

Bill:       My hope was that no one would recognize that the space had once belonged to another law firm. Because of your sustainability goals, we reused 60% of the existing construction. Did that limitation ever get in your way?

Tom:     I don’t think so.  We achieved what we wanted and managed to keep 60%.

Joan:    I think the space looks completely different from what it did before.

Bill:       I’ve worked on LEED projects where clients wanted to pursue certification because it’s trendy, but Squire Sanders has a longer green history.

Tom:     Through Joan’s efforts in our Palo Alto and in San Francisco offices, we adopted policies to systematically improve the sustainability of those facilities.

Bill:       Do your clients care about your carbon footprint?

Joan:    Yes. We developed materials regarding our firm-wide green initiatives that we offer when a client asks about our sustainability efforts.

Bill:       Environmental law is one of your more growing practice areas.  There’s a link between what you do internally as a firm and the services you provide in that particular practice group.  What are some initiatives your clients want to know about?

Joan:    In all of the offices, we track kilowatt usage every month.  For this office, I worked closely with the building management to collect this data since our move.

Bill:       Many clients will focus on one aspect of the project, like sustainability, but you didn’t want to omit good design or other criteria.  Can you explain why that balance was so important to the project?

Tom:     Not having moved in 37 years, this was a very important move.  Getting everything right was critical.

I think you remember my line: “We can do whatever we need to do to save existing conditions, but in the end we have to have first-class space, or I will be hung.”  That’s why we paid attention to everything.  And also Joan insisted on it.

Bill:       Although we scaled back when you needed to meet your financial objectives, were there any goals you did not meet?

Tom:     You did a good job of helping us understand what certain options would cost, and we did do away with some features that would have been nice to have.  We kept a lot, too, like the folding door in the conference center.  That is the designer’s role, to help the client understand the trade-offs.

Bill:       Tom, with all of your managing responsibilities, was it difficult to attend every meeting over the two and a half years?

Tom:     Not when there are pastries.

Joan:    I think that shows real commitment from Tom, and if it’s that important to you, what’s the best thing to do?  It’s to be there.

Tom:     One of the reasons I could be at every meeting was this was one of the last administrative responsibilities I had, and I wanted it to go well.  When I was a junior associate, I worked on a letter and couldn’t get it right.  I gave it to Sandy Calhoun, who was a senior attorney, and said “wave your magic wand over this and make it better.”  And he said “there is no magic wand, you just have to keep rewriting it.”

Whenever you are involved in a project, you want it to be a success.  When it’s not a success, it doesn’t matter whether it’s your fault or not.  Even if you’ve done a good job, it has to be a success for everybody.  And this project was more than a success. ◙

by Robin Bass, LEED AP

​As of January 1, 2011, the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code, or CALGreen, requires new building construction to reduce waste, improve water efficiency, and mitigate overall environmental impacts.  In spite of its environmental intent, CALGreen is not without limitations. As so often with new legislation, and particularly in this era of fiscal constraints, there are few resources available to measure and enforce the new code.  While it is a groundbreaking milestone as well as a national precedent, what does this legislation mean to owners, developers, and A/E/C professionals? In the short run, CALGreen raises the floor for sustainable design and construction. However, it does not address many of the challenges that need to be met in terms of reducing carbon emissions or streamlining the regulatory and third-party certification process.

​A Potential Barrier to Increased Energy Efficiency
The State’s climate change goals, established in the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB-32) and reaffirmed by the voters through Proposition 23 just last year, aims to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 30% by the year 2020.  Ideally, CALGreen would support the greenhouse gas reduction targets with measurable goals for energy efficiency, but at present it only requires meeting the minimum mandatory energy efficiency standards required by the Calfornia Energy Code and Title 24. It remains to be seen in the current economic and political climates whether California’s Energy Code will require further energy reductions in the near future. Of course, California’s Energy Code reduces energy use more than most states, but as demonstrated by the more than 1,000 LEED Certified projects statewide, we can do better.
 
We now have the ability to achieve higher than minimum energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings in cost-effective ways.  With advances in lighting systems, mechanical equipment, and building envelope design, the goal should be to design for maximum energy efficiency wherever and whenever possible. For example, on the multiple LEED Interior Design + Construction projects I have completed, the project team consistently achieves greater than 15% over Title 24.  In cases where utilities are rolled into a commercial lease and a tenant has no monetary incentive for improved energy efficiency, energy consumption is routinely realized on a cost neutral basis. In addition to energy, CALGreen’s minimum requirements for water reduction, recycling, indoor air quality, and other criteria should be exceeded at minimal or no additional cost.

​Challenges with Implementation
With any new building code, there is a need to educate plan reviewers and inspectors and to develop a strategy for enforcement.  The economic climate has significantly reduced the resources, such as staff and operating hours, which many city and county building and planning departments can allocate to incorporate CALGreen at a local level.  Building departments will be challenged to review and verify the necessary documentation for CALGreen compliance to truly give it any weight. 
 
More than 70 cities and counties throughout the state have already developed and adopted energy efficiency requirements within their local green building regulations. In San Francisco, the 2008 Green Building Ordinance addresses more aggressive energy reduction targets and will remain the standard for all new construction.  Other cities that first work through CALGreen become pacesetters in incorporating the code. There are many existing case studies and best practices among cities in the Bay Area that could serve as models for local agencies and developers to apply to regions lacking green building momentum.
 
Particularly in these areas with no local green building legislation, developers should evaluate a project team’s qualifications and experience with sustainable design being a major criteria.  Challenges that developers might be facing could include a longer review process, additional information required for drawing documentation, and expanded inspection services in order to comply with CALGreen. Above and beyond the 65 mandatory measures in CALGreen, there are also levels (Tier 1 and Tier 2 – Tier 2 being the most aggressive) that jurisdictions can choose to adopt which alter the definition of green building.

​Meeting Demands of Climate Change
Because of its high density, San Francisco has learned right away that its carbon footprint is linked to its existing building stock.  The City’s Existing Commercial Buildings (ECB) Task Force has made significant strides toward creating a plan to reduce total energy use by an estimated 50% by the year 2030.  The driving force behind this plan is AB-32.  Released in 2007, LA’s Green Building Plan calls for the City to reduce its carbon footprint by 35 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.  If the goal for California is to reach 30% statewide energy reduction, it won’t be met with CALGreen’s minimum guidelines for new construction.  The strength of the ECB’s plan is its holistic approach to evaluate a building’s life span through energy benchmarking.  If businesses and institutions first create strategic improvements in their existing buildings, that success can set the stage for even greater accomplishments with new construction.

​Building a Better Baseline
CALGreen is a statewide regulation that we must understand, follow and integrate into our design, construction and building permit processes. But from the onset of a project, building owners and developers need to be aware of CALGreen’s minimum regulations as well as adopted tiers and encouraged to explore options to achieve the best possible levels of energy efficiency. The good news for those of us who have been committed to sustainability for many years is that CALGreen is an easily achievable baseline that will allow for improvements that we can exceed on every level. For those who are late adopters, it is now a requirement, but hopefully, a welcomed platform that will promote green building throughout the state and the country.  It’s too early to tell just how local and state mandates and third-party rating systems like LEED will converge and work with or against each other, much less what will happen across the country as other states begin to follow California’s lead.  But I am optimistic that CALGreen can adapt and evolve to ultimately help California meet its climate change goals.

Robin Bass, LEED AP, is a Senior Associate of Huntsman Architectural Group. An advocate for sustainability within the firm and in the community, Robin has served as a member of the USGBC's Steering Committee and as an ECB Task Force member.
​

How Green Is Transforming Lease Partnerships in San Francisco
by Robin Bass, LEED AP

In the summer of 2009, the City and County of San Francisco, with support from its Department of the Environment, formed the Existing Commercial Buildings Task Force, which comprises building owner representatives, real estate professionals, facility managers, and building consultants. Mayor Gavin Newsom convened the group to continue to build upon the momentum generated by the Green Building Task Force for New Construction, which developed the City's priority permitting process for buildings submitted for LEED certification. Recognizing that new construction represents a small part of the overall building inventory in San Francisco, addressing the stock of existing buildings is a critical first step in reducing the city's carbon footprint. The task force's assignment was to recommend strategies and solutions for training, information tools, incentives and cost effective requirements as a first step in establishing a baseline energy usage for commercial buildings. In its fall 2009 final report, the task force has developed a strategy that supports San Francisco's goal of reducing total energy use in existing commercial buildings 50% by the year 2030.

Summary of the ECB Task Force's Proposal
The report's seven proposals will reduce energy use in existing buildings and stimulate the energy efficiency services sector by systematically identifying and eliminating the factors that limit local energy efficiency through the following measures: 

1. Identify savings in every commercial building by requiring businesses to conduct an energy audit every 5 years for business license renewal. The energy audit will include identifying and listing applicable efficiency measures. This will ensure that building owners, managers, and tenants know exactly how much energy and money they can save through efficiency measures.
   ​
2. Disclose energy performance information by requiring building owners and managers to share energy data with the City. This data will be published to inform stakeholders. Monitoring and reporting provides a "miles per gallon" metric that enables tenants and buyers to identify efficient buildings.
   
   
3. Resolve "split incentives" that exist between tenants and landlords around industry standard lease language by providing a “Green Tenant Toolkit” and making sub-metering of tenant spaces a priority. Landlords and tenants will mutually benefit from reduced utility costs and sustainable operations.
   
   
4. Make incentives accessible through development of a Web-based tool that finds all incentives, rebates, and available financing for energy efficiency projects. This will help offset the costs of energy efficiency improvements and streamline payment of incentives.
   
   
5. Educate, train, mentor, and market energy efficiency through promotion of programs, facilitating mentorship and partnering with institutions to enhance workforce capacity and engage stakeholders to improve energy efficiency.
   
   
6. Lead by example in public facilities by benchmarking and disclosing energy performance of City-owned and operated buildings. The City's leadership will inspire others to act.
   
   
7. Provide financing through the launching of the SF Clean Energy 

What Is the Impact?
Currently, there is little information available that indicates how commercial buildings are performing and how they can be improved to increase performance. As of January 1, 2010, the State of California will require, through AB 1103, that building owners disclose the energy use intensity and available ENERGYSTAR rating for all nonresidential real estate transactions. For San Francisco, the ECB Task Force proposes that disclosure occur for all nonresidential buildings, whether or not they are subject to a sale or lease transaction. In addition, energy performance summary data will be disclosed to the City and made accessible to the public. What this means for current and prospective tenants is that a specific building's energy use becomes a lease consideration just like a building amenity.

With resources becoming more finite, benchmarking will provide the necessary information in order to gradually meet targets for carbon reduction by the 2030 deadline. As the ECB Task Force timeline suggests (reference graphic), building owners and operators will not only need to be aggressive in acquiring information about energy usage but also in pursuing suitable methods for improvement. The focus of efficiency upgrades should be on the "low-hanging fruit"—the ones with the biggest impact for the smallest investment. No one is expecting to see a wind farm on the roof of an office building! 

Change in the Form of New Relationships 
From an energy efficiency standpoint, the tenant/landlord relationship is not a mutual one. Many times the "split incentive" in rent structures overcomes any motivators on either side of the table to make a positive change in the efficiency of the building. Using "green" lease language will redirect the relationship and allow both parties to work together as co-owners of the building for the term of the lease to make the building perform better. Tenants benefit from having lower utility bills and more control over what has traditionally been a fixed cost rolled into their rent. Landlords will profit from having an equitable financial partner to help offset the costs of building system upgrades that will ultimately increase the building's property value. 
 
Later in 2010, the ECB Task Force will form a committee to develop the City's Green Tenant Toolkit—a document which will educate involved parties about lease language, facility features, and operational practices that align the interest of tenants and landlords to build, maintain, and operate their spaces more sustainably. The Toolkit will include recommendations for best practices, a model green lease, and a checklist to identify green features of spaces for lease.

Increased Efficiency Requires Investment
As the ECB Task Force was researching available incentives and rebates, the committee identified more than 300 existing programs that will subsidize upgrade costs. Finding the rebates and streamlining the process to get the funding into the hands of owners and tenants has traditionally been a hurdle. The development of a "rebate finder" web tool will help inform those that stand to benefit the most from the programs already in place and will also help promote new programs that come online as a result of the task force's outreach and promotion. With these resources coming online, and with the City's mandate to be the leader for all of these proposals, there will be an increasing body of case studies, success stories, and "lessons learned." Dissemination of this information to the commercial real estate stakeholders closes the circle and allows the task force to modify the process as needed.