lower sproul report
TRANSCRIPT
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.
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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)
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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,
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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)
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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)
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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.
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 11
Sustainable Design Elements of the Lower Sproul Project
Figure 4 Master Plan Sustainability Elements Diagram
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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.
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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,
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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)
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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.
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 16
Figure 6 PaveGen Kinetic flooring
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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.
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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)
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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.
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 22
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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).
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
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
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 25
Appendix B
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 26
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 27
Appendix C
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 28
December 4th, 2013 LOWER SPROUL
MULLENpage 29
Appendix D