lower sproul report

December 4th
, 2013 LOWER SPROUL MULLEN
page 2
FULFILLING
OUR
PROMISE OF SUSTAINABILITY
Executive Summary
The 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
page 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
page 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 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
Figure 1 Lower Sproul Plaza Program

December 4th
page 5
(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, 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;
2
(Mullen 2013)

December 4th
page 6
• 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
-
 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%
3
(UC Berkeley 2010)
4
(UCOP 2013)

December 4th
page 7
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
page 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 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
Figure 3 Public Transportation Servicing Program Area

December 4th
page 9
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 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

December 4th
page 10
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 Issues
Economic 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.
Sustainable Design Elements of the Lower Sproul Project
Figure 4 Master Plan Sustainability Elements Diagram

December 4th
page 11
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
page 12
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,
• “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

December 4th
page 13
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.
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.
7
(CATER 2010)

December 4th
page 14
Figure 6 PaveGen Kinetic flooring

December 4th
page 15
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
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

December 4th
page 16
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
page 17
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
page 18
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 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

December 4th
page 19
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
page 20
Works Cited

December 4th
page 21
 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
 Moore Ruble Yudell Architects and Planners. "Student Community Center Project Program." December
2010. https://docs.google.com/viewer?
a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dG9tZWxpb3RmaXNjaC5jb218bG93ZXItc3Byb3VsfGd4OjM0Y2ZhODk4MGUxNzg3Nm
U (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
 —. Climate Action Parnership. 2013. http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/calcap/ (accessed November
15, 2013).
 —. "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).

December 4th
page 22
 UCOP. "Sustainability policy." sustainabilty.universityofcalifornia.edu. September 5, 2013. (accessed
November 30, 2013).
Appendix
Appendix A
Appendix B

December 4th
page 23

December 4th
page 24
Appendix C

December 4th
page 25
Appendix D

December 4th
page 26

December 4th
page 27
Recommended Alternates
Alt. Description ROM
Utilize P193/P30
Completion Fund Utilize TI Allowance Alternates
A
Card Keys - Reduce number of card keys by 68 (those which
were added between the 50% CD and 95% CD documents. $ (280,000) $ (280,000)
B
Pauley Ballroom - Remove this room from the full scope of
work. $ (930,000) $ (930,000)
C Room 10 Practice and Performance space, shell only $ (70,000) $ (70,000)
E
Delete remaining digital signage allowance (this should have
been reduced to $150K during VE) $ (150,000) $ (150,000)
F P11 - Replace motor controls in Cesar Chavez $ (500,000) $ (500,000)
G
P21.1 & P21.2 - Delete energy management dashboards at
MLK only (Eshleman needs them for LEED credit) $ (60,000) $ (60,000)
H
Elevator #3 at MLK - Remove all components of the elevator
cab and machine, leave structural and exterior shaft finishes in
the scope. $ (450,000) $ (200,000)
I
P32 - Pauley catering kitchen, remove all upgrades in this area
from the scope. $ (110,000) $ (110,000)
J P41 - Tilden room door replacement, remove scope $ (75,000) $ (75,000)
K
P56 - Art Walls in MLK and Eshleman, plywood backing,
upgraded lighting, picture rail removed from scope. $ (93,600) $ (93,600)
L PV Panel array on Eshleman - Leave the roughin in the scope. $ (32,000) $ (32,000)
M Delete all greywater piping from the project $ (70,000) $ (70,000)
N
Elevator #7 - Service to NE corner of MLK Third stop is P30
item $ (350,000) $ (350,000)
O P49 Remove planters and landscaping including site furnishings $ (55,000) $ (55,000)
Total Value of Alternates: $ (3,225,600) $ (1,210,000) $ (550,000) $ (1,215,600)

lower sproul report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to lower sproul report

Similar to lower sproul report (20)

lower sproul report