lower sproul report

UC BerkeleyBriana Mullen

FULFILLING OUR

SUSTAINABILITY

December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL

MULLENpage 2

PROMISE OF

Executive SummaryThe proposed student union, the Lower Sproul project, will create a 24/7 space that

will act as the heart of student and campus life. Bridging campus and the

community, it inhabits a critical space of interaction, and, as a mixed-use space,

the ability to be multi-functional and adaptable to the many stakeholders is

instrumental. While campus policies, and the general mission of the campus

community recommend sustainable design, in practice sustainable design can also

be the most expensive and first to be cut in the process of affordable projects. The

campus mandates Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

certification, but the level of certification is internally decided, and effects are

mitigated by campus and UC policy that seeks to comply with rules, rather than

use innovative design to create the most sustainable space possible. In this

proposal, I will address some of the aspects in which the project seeks to be

sustainable, but has been limited by LEED Certification and Policy. I will also

suggest how the planning of the project could capitalize on the newest practices in

design and facility operations to create the greenest plan possible.


MULLENpage 3

Introduction

The Lower Sproul redevelopment project is a capital renewal project that will

completely demolish and rebuild Eshleman Hall, renovate Martin Luther King Hall

and parts of the Cesar Chavez Student Learning Center on the southern-most side

of the UC Berkeley Campus. This project encompasses buildings on the UC

Berkeley campus to address life and safety concerns, with Eshleman Hall having a

seismic rating of “poor”1 of the student services buildings on campus. Additionally

this project specifically focuses on a building that would encompass the “Student

Community Center” of student life. This section of campus referred to as “Lower

Sproul” additionally includes Zellerbach Performance Hall and a large plaza used

for student and community events and. The plaza area and surrounding buildings

generally act as a hub for student life and services for the 35,000 students that

attend UC Berkeley. This plaza area also serves as a gateway from the city of

Berkeley to the campus, with the southern face of the buildings facing Bancroft

way and commercial agencies

1 (Berkeley 2013)


MULLENpage 4

across the street. The Student Union lies at the corner of Bancroft and Telegraph

Avenue, what many consider the gateway into campus. As the student union for

UC Berkeley, Eshleman and MLK serve house the 700+ student organizations,

student government, and the proposed student services support all student extra-

curricular activity at the University of California Berkeley. Student leaders and the

administration recognized in 2009 the need for a Student Union that reflected the

true nature of student life and values, as well as make important seismic

improvements to the buildings that house these programs. The B.E.A.R.S. (Bringing

Energy and Revitalizations to Sproul) student fee referendum was proposed in the

spring of 2010 to cover $114 million dollars for the needed construction. With the

Figure 1 Lower Sproul Plaza Program


MULLENpage 5

intended goal to “Improve the safety, energy efficiency, and environmental

sustainability of Eshleman Hall (e.g., designed to target LEED Gold status), Martin

Luther King Student Union Building (MLK), and César Chávez Student Center (CC);

may create space for student-activity programs.” With this mission statement from

the referendum passed by students, financing by the University of California

Regents and Campus Life and Safety committee funded the General Obligation

Bond of $223 Million dollars, with student fees increasing for the next 30 years to

pay for the project. As the sustainability and environmental efficiency was stated

as a core value in B.E.A.R.S. initiative, the project would have a key focus on

sustainability, with a stated goal of attaining LEED gold status for Eshleman, and

LEED silver status for MLK. Moreover, sustainable design and practices for the

building are a core value for the students and programs that inhabit the space, and

as UC Berkeley we expect to set a standard of sustainable design to be followed by

other universities and public institutions. It is not clearly defined whether we truly

reflect these values and live up to this reputation in this project. In this proposal, I

will evaluate the current sustainable design measures of the project, the LEED

certification process for the Lower Sproul Redevelopment Project, and make

recommendations to create a student union complex that reflects the values and

commitment to a sustainable university that UC Berkeley promises to the world.

Existing Conditions of the Site and its Surroundings

The new Eshleman will occupy the heart of student life, bridging campus with

community, and occupying a unique purpose on campus that serves both students,


MULLENpage 6

who finance the project, but also campus and community members who will use

the building for multiple purposes.2 The outlined scope of the project includes;

• 24-hour study space and lounge; • Permanent Multicultural Community Center (MCC), with lounge; • Conference/ meeting rooms and catering kitchen; • New offices and conference space for Multicultural Student Development near new MCC; • Relocation of the Career Center across the street from Lower Sproul; • Free indoor dance and performance space; • Graduate student lounge; • Transit center and commuter lounge; • New space for student organization offices and activities; • New space for ASUC student government offices; • New storage space for student organizations located near Upper Sproul; • Meditation room; • Cal Corps public service center; • Improvements to make Lower Sproul Plaza wheelchair and bicycle accessible; • Multipurpose, meeting and student group space; and• Family friendly/ child accessible space Open air Café; 3

With these objects in mind the sustainability of the project and it’s programs still

operate within two main policy and procedures outlines; University of California

Office of the President Polices, and the UC Berkeley Office of Sustainability. I will

outline each offices goals and requirements in which the project aims to complete

by its mission statement and by requirement of being a Regental funded project

and being built on University property.

University of California Office of the President Sustainability Policy4-2 (Mullen 2013)3 (UC Berkeley 2010)4 (UCOP 2013)


MULLENpage 7

All new construction and major renovations projects must meet a minimum standard of LEED-NC Silver

Renovation projects greater than $5 million that do not quality for LEED-NC must be certified under LEED-CI

By 2020 the University has pledged to: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, which represents a

reduction of approximately 50% compared to business as usual Achieve zero waste Purchase 20% sustainable food Reduce water consumption by 20%

Figure 2 LEED Certification of Campus Buildings

University of California Berkeley Sustainability Policy5

Energy & Climate- By 2014, reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. (CalCAP6) Achieve climate neutrality as soon as possible. (CalCAP, UCOP)

Water-Reduce potable water use to 10% below 2008 levels by 2020. Built Environment-Design future projects to minimize energy and water

consumption and wastewater production; incorporate sustainable design principles into capital investment decisions; base capital investment decisions on life cycle cost, including the cost of known future expenditures. (LRDP)

Waste-Achieve a 75% diversion rate by June 2012 and zero waste by 2020. (UCOP)

Purchasing-Comply with the University of California environmentally preferable purchasing policies and procedures. (UCOP)

Transportation-By 2014, reduce fuel use by commuters and campus fleet to 25% below 1990 levels.

Food & Dining-By 2020, increase sustainable food purchases by campus foodservice providers to at least 20%. (UCOP)

Land Use- Plan every new project to serve as a model of resource conservation and environmental stewardship. (LRDP) 5 (UC Berkeley 2013)6 (UC Berkeley 2013)


MULLENpage 8

These goals and the Cal Climate Action Partnership, which “is a collaboration of

faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas

(GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley” are the main bodies that address sustainable

building operation on campus. This commitment and policies are outlined at a UC

and Campus wide levels, but it is important to take into consideration the specific

nature of

this project, and it’s usage. In the new building, Eshleman will house a

transportation hub for one of the busiest bus stops in the east bay, servicing 9 bus

lines that serve the entire campus and the larger Berkeley community. The

environmental impact of not only public transportation, but also the heavy

congestion caused by motor vehicles down Bancroft, must be taken into

Figure 3 Public Transportation Servicing Program Area


MULLENpage 9

consideration when designing a project that will align with the previously outlined

values from the University and UCOP.

Another important condition to be taken into design elements is the student use

of the space. Over 700 student organizations, three departments, the student

government and multiple retail spaces will be housed in the building. Not only with

thousands of students be going in and out of these spaces, but also many will be

available 24/7. This high accessibility for the project will incur high usage of water,

electricity and waste to accommodate all of the users of the spaces.

The protection of strawberry creek, which flows from Strawberry canyon and

throughout campus, and its environmental integrity must also be taken into

consideration. Long standing as an important part of UC Berkeley’s history, it is

“Intended to serve as a resource for teaching and research and the general

public's appreciation of this historic natural resource.” The plaza, construction,

and rainwater that fall into the creek are important factors to take into

consideration of construction and design of the new Lower Sproul Program.

The CEQA report dated November 11, 2011 details the impact of the Lower

Sproul Program, and the campus standards, which the project will adhere to. The

Long Range Development Plan 2020 (LRDP), and Environmental Impact Report

(EIR) developed by the university, and submitted for CEQA approval in 2005, also

rely on LEED certification points for developing measurements for sustainable

design on campus. The CEQA Report states “Based on the analysis in the Final

SEIR, other than the identified impact to cultural resources, the University finds

that the Lower Sproul Project will not result in any new or substantially more


MULLENpage 10

severe significant impacts that were not examined in the 2020 LRDP EIR, nor

contribute to cumulatively significant adverse effects, … for each of the following

impact areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, climate

change/greenhouse gas emissions, geology, hazardous materials, hydrology and

water quality, land use, population and housing, transportation, and utilities and

service systems.” This report states that the project will not significantly affect the

surrounding areas environmentally, but may impact the ‘cultural resources’ in the

Lower Sproul Plaza area. The environmental and programmatic aspects of this

project are thus taken into consideration not only in the design of the building, but

also impact the quality of surrounding areas.

Major Planning IssuesEconomic and Environmental integrity of this project, as many of UC Berkley’s

projects, are intertwined by the nature of funding capital projects through student

fees, campus funding, and UCOP funding. The campus, UCOP, and the student

stakeholder’s commitment to sustainability in the project almost solely rest within

the LEED certification that is sought and the measures that gain points in its

design. LEED is a design tool and not a performance measurement, subsequently

this manipulation of the system has created a project that may not meet the

values or goals of the campus. The sustainability aspects of the projects address

key factors in LEED certification, rather than the larger goal of a sustainable

student union, thus misusing a system created by a third party, non-governmental

agency.


MULLENpage 11

Sustainable Design Elements of the Lower Sproul Project

Figure 4 Master Plan Sustainability Elements Diagram


MULLENpage 12

Although sustainability is cited as the main program goal in the Master Plan,

“Integrating Sustainability; Reinforce and display sustainable design measures and

practices as a critical component of the university’s educational mission”, many of

the original ways in which the project planned to accomplish efficiency and green

design have been cut away due to the fiscal solvency of the program. In the

original 12 designs goals proposed in the 2010 Master Plan (Figure 5), Goals 1, 2,

3, 4, 8, and 9 have all been either been cut or diminished due to a value

engineering process that viewed sustainable design as an amenity to be cut away

when the project faced a $8 million dollar deficit. This reduction in half of the

original goals of the program to address sustainability has massive impacts on the

air pollutants, water reduction, and energy inefficiencies in newly proposed

program; however, most of the cut design elements do not affect the points

needed for LEED Certification. The inevitable financial restrictions on the

construction of the project were magnified by the prioritization of certification, over

sustainability.


MULLENpage 13

Figure 5 Master Plan Sustainability Goals

LEED Certification is contingent on points gained through a score card of a 110

possible points, based on 7 categories; sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy

and atmosphere, material and resources, Indoor environmental quality, innovation,

and regional priority. MLK student union will gain an estimated silver ranking with

53 points earned and Eshleman Hall with a Gold Ranking of 66 points. Although

neither of the buildings even completes 65% of the possible points, they will be

granted LEED Certification, gaining publicity and even grants for the construction

and future programming of the project. The University policy and capital

improvements rely so heavily on the US Green Building’s Council (USGBC) and

their LEED Certification, the sustainability section of their Long Range

Development Plan for 2020, merely cites LEED,


MULLENpage 14

• “Design new buildings to a standard equivalent to LEED 2.1 Certification.

Design new laboratory buildings to a standard equivalent to LEED 2.1 Certification

and Labs 21 Environmental Performance criteria.”

The reliance on the USGBC’s Certification process is not only limiting, it may

be misleading and exploitative of a growing interest in development “going

green.” While green development becomes a booming business, many companies

and developers “win tax breaks and grants, charge higher rents, exceed local

building restrictions and get expedited permitting by certifying them as "green"

under a system that often rewards minor, low-cost steps that have little or no

proven environmental benefit.” The USA Today Review, found that developers

usually take the easiest and cheapest points, not necessarily those with the

greatest impact. Some buildings even used more energy than their conventional

non-certified counterparts. Furthermore, LEED Certification is not granted on

actual energy usage, but rather projected. Many buildings with projected energy

savings operated with far fewer savings than predicted, but their LEED

certifications are not affected. In an NPR interview earlier this year, Henry Gifford

and energy expert stated that, “LEED certification has never depended on actual

energy use, and it's not going to. You can use as much energy as you want and

report it and keep your plaque.”7 Overall, the LEED Certification process have

allowed projects to prioritize fiscal solvency over environmental impact, all the

while claiming leadership in environmental design.

7 (CATER 2010)


MULLENpage 15

Recommendations My key recommendations for fulfilling the promise of a sustainable student union

are based on innovation, and visibility, core elements of the master’s plan original

commitment to sustainable design.

i Kinetic Floors- A innovative and visible new flooring harnesses the

kinetic energy of foot traffic into local energy appliances, using the motion

around it to create sustainable energy outputs. The flooring is compatible

with high-footfall urban environments, and could be install throughout the

Lower Sproul Plaza where students and community members access public

transportation, office buildings, and retail and food markets 24/7. Kinetic

flooring offers a tangible, and visible way for people to engage with

renewable energy generation and participate actively in sustainability.


MULLENpage 16

Figure 6 PaveGen Kinetic flooring


MULLENpage 17

Kinetic floors have already been installed in train stations, office buildings,

and public plazas across the US and Europe. Although the cost is the initial

factor, durability and energy returns would make these installments an

investment for the future of Lower Sproul, and ultimately the University’s

energy efficiency goals. Production by multiple companies would allow

competitive bidding process, and allow for maintenance contracts for the life

of the flooring. The visible nature of the sustainability would also ensure

public support of the costs in the future whereas less visible design elements

would not be able to garner as much support.

ii Grey water piping systems-the usage of greywater piping to reuse water

within buildings, and create a closed-water system would reduce water

usage up to 30%.

Figure 7 Grey Water Piping System


MULLENpage 18

Although not as visible as the kinetic floors, grey water piping is a unique way to

reuse water from the building, either for irrigation or flushing toilets (figure 7).

Water is treated according to the organic, solid, and microbial content of the water,

and quality tested before it is filtered and redistributed throughout the building.

While grey water piping must be run concurrent to the piping already in place to

deliver sewage and water, the benefit in water recycling in a commercial building

could dramatically reduce operating costs. The residents of the building could

participate in the water reduction through signage and notices about the water

recycling program, thus acting as an educational component as well.


MULLENpage 19

ii Living Walls (Green Walls)- is an indoor or outdoor vertical garden

that is self-sufficient and receives its water and nutrients from the wall itself.8

Living walls have an aesthetic appeal, but can dampen sound, improve

indoor air quality from the plants photosynthesis, and cut energy usage by

20% by cutting temperatures.9

Figure 8 Indoor Media Green Wall

This innovative, and very visible sustainable design is not only striking, but can

also filter grey water, such as in the proposal above, but absorbing dissolved

nutrients in filtration.

8 (Green Over Grey 2009)9 (Green Over Grey 2009)


MULLENpage 20

Figure 9 Green Wall Diagram

The Green wall, among it’s many benefits, also qualifies for 2 LEED credits directly,

and can help contribute up to an additional 30 points. Some green walls are not

recommended for areas with seismic activity, and implementation and upkeep with

green walls can be time consuming, the impact both on the indoor quality of space

and environmental sustainability make this a functional and beautiful addition to

the Lower Sproul Program.

Conclusion

By including living walls, in corridors and indoor common spaces, installing

greywater piping system, and outdoor kinetic flooring, I believe the culture and

usage of the lower Sproul space would dramatically be affected. Integration with

the greywater piping system would create a comprehensive sustainable program

that would display not just accreditation from a USGBC, but display true leadership

is environmental design. When designing the next generation of sustainable

buildings and spaces, we must remember to create spaces that are innovative, not


MULLENpage 21

adhering to a prescribed standard. In “Climate Change: what we know, and what

we need to know” the Royal Society states, “Climate change will not be effectively

managed until individuals and communities recognize that their behavior can

make a difference.” By creating spaces in which the resident can actively interact

with sustainability, is the only way in which they will be forced to address their

actions and impact. The Lower Sproul Redevelopment Project should seek to be a

true leader in sustainable design by integrating its residents into the space, and

challenging the status quo. By doing so it not only creates an environmentally

sustainable space, but one that also sustains the people who use it.


MULLENpage 22


MULLENpage 23

Works Cited AC Transit. Bus Stops Bancroft Way. january 3, 2013.

http://www.actransit.org/2013/01/03/bus-stop-moves-along-bancroft-way-in-berkeley/ (accessed November 15, 2013).

B. Jefferson, A. Palmer, P. Jeffrey, R. Stuetz and S. Judd. courses.washington.edu. 2004. http://courses.washington.edu/onsite/Graywater%20characteristics%20paper%202004.pdf (accessed November 30, 2013).

Berkeley, UC. "Lower Sproul Budget." Lower Sproul. April 2013. https://lowersproul.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/LS%20Budget%20Part%201.pdf (accessed 11 5, 2013).

Capital Projects. "Long Range Development Plan 2020." cp.berkeley.edu. January 2005. http://www.cp.berkeley.edu/LRDP_2020.pdf (accessed November 30, 2013).

CATER, FRANKLYN. Critics Say LEED Program Doesn't Fufill Promises. September 8, 2010. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129727547 (accessed November 30, 2013).

CEQA. "California Enviromental Qaulity Act." regents.universityofcalifornia.edu. November 2011. http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov11/gb3attach8.pdf (accessed November 30, 2013).

Christopher Schnaars, Hannah Morgan. In US Building Industry, is it too easy to be green? june 13, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/24/green-building-leed-certification/1650517/ (accessed November 20, 2013).

Green Over Grey. greenovergrey.com. 2009. http://greenovergrey.com/living-walls/overview.php (accessed November 30, 2013).

Green Over grey. LEED Credits. 2009. http://greenovergrey.com/green-wall-benefits/leed-credits.php (accessed November 30, 2013).

Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners. "Student Community Center Project Program." December 2010. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dG9tZWxpb3RmaXNjaC5jb218bG93ZXItc3Byb3VsfGd4OjM0Y2ZhODk4MGUxNzg3NmU (accessed November 15, 2013).

Mullen, Briana. "Transforming Cal's Campus." dailycal.org. February 19, 2013. http://www.dailycal.org/2013/02/19/transforming-cals-campus/ (accessed November 10, 2013).

PaveGen. 2013. http://www.pavegen.com/permanent (accessed November 30th, 2013). UC Berkeley. "Bears Referendum." Lowersproul.berkeley.edu. April 2010.

http://lowersproul.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/BEARS-Referendum.pdf (accessed November 12, 2013).

—. "Bears Referendum." Lowersproul.berkeley.edu. April 2010. http://lowersproul.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/BEARS-Referendum.pdf (accessed November 12, 2013).

—. Campus Sustainabilty Plan. 2013. http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/os/pages/plan/index.shtml (accessed November 15, 2013).

—. Climate Action Parnership. 2013. http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/calcap/ (accessed November 15, 2013).


MULLENpage 24

—. "Master Plan Feasibilty Study." lowersproul.berkeley.edu. 2009. https://lowersproul.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/Student%20Community%20Center%20%20Master%20Plan%20%26%20Feasibility%20Study.pdf (accessed November 10, 2013).

—. "Project Information." Lowersproul.berkeley.edu. April 2013. https://lowersproul.berkeley.edu/project-information (accessed November 10, 2013).

—. Strawberry Creek. 2006. http://strawberrycreek.berkeley.edu/index.html (accessed Novenber 15, 2013).

UCOP. "Sustainability policy." sustainabilty.universityofcalifornia.edu. September 5, 2013. (accessed November 30, 2013).

Appendix

Appendix A


MULLENpage 25

Appendix B


MULLENpage 26


MULLENpage 27

Appendix C


MULLENpage 28


MULLENpage 29

Appendix D

lower sproul report

Documents