 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
As one of the world's great research universities, UC Berkeley has a special obligation to serve as a model of how creative design can both minimize resource consumption and enhance environmental quality. Each new capital investment at UC Berkeley has the potential to advance the state of the art in responsible, sustainable design, and thereby contribute to our mission of public service.
|
|
Download & Print
|
|
Strategic Goals 
Capital investment shall embody the principles of responsible, sustainable design, including:
- preserving and restoring the integrity and biodiversity of natural systems.
- minimizing energy use in travel to and within the campus.
- minimizing building energy use and peak energy demand.
- minimizing water use and maximizing on-site conservation and reuse.
- minimizing the use of nonrenewable energy and material resources.
- optimizing the use, and adaptive reuse, of existing facilities.
- accommodating growth on infill sites served by existing infrastructure.
- maximizing the productive life of new facilities through durable, flexible design.
- creating environments that enhance human health, comfort, and performance.
These principles shall be achieved by:
- addressing the principles of sustainable design in the analysis of alternate solutions
- ensuring this analysis reflects the true net life cycle costs of those alternate solutions, including known future costs.
- ensuring every new project is shaped by design and performance guidelines that incorporate the principles of sustainable design.
The goals for sustainable design are not separate and discrete. On the contrary, they are interdependent, and require an holistic approach to design. Window size and placement, for example, affects both thermal performance and lighting requirements: whether the windows are sealed or operable affects both thermal performance and air quality. Therefore, while standard criteria can be very useful as a framework for analysis, sustainable design ultimately depends on the collaborative efforts of a multidisciplinary project team. This holistic approach is particularly critical during the feasibility phase of the approval process, where alternatives are evaluated and the optimal solution is defined.
Policy 10.1
Address the principles of sustainable design in the range of options analyzed at the feasibility phase.
Policy 1.1 requires the campus to consider a range of alternate solutions at the feasibility phase of the approval process. The scope of this analysis shall include alternate strategies to address the goals of sustainable design. For example, while our objective for every future campus project should be to achieve at least the equivalent of base level LEED certification (policy 10.4), certain projects may have the potential to achieve a higher level. On the other hand, for some other projects even the base level may not be feasible.
Policy 10.2
Base the options analysis on the life cycle cost of alternate solutions, including the discounted cost of future expenditures.
Sustainable design also depends on analyses based on true life-cycle costs. While the best environmental solutions often have a lower life-cycle cost, their initial capital cost is often greater. For example, building systems that are more efficient and more durable also tend to be more expensive, but they also consume less energy, require less maintenance, and have longer useful lives. Policy 1.2 requires the campus to evaluate alternate design solutions based on their life cycle costs, including the discounted costs of future expenditures: the policy is repeated here because it is critical to an effective program of sustainable design.
Moreover, it is also essential to consider initial capital cost in the context of the building as a whole, since an upgrade in one system can sometimes reduce the cost of others. For example, investing in a high-performance window system may reduce the required capacity, and thus the capital as well as the operating cost, of the HVAC system.
Policy 10.3
Ensure each new project conforms to the criteria prescribed in the Design Guidelines.
While the feasibility of some sustainable design features depends on the particular characteristics of the project, many have little or no cost: for example, orienting and configuring building volumes and composing building facades to optimize energy performance. The Design Guidelines include several such provisions, which shall be incorporated into the design of every campus project.
Policy 10.4
Utilize the LEED Green Building System to rate each new building which is subject to the project approvals process.
Establish the base level of LEED certification as the objective for each new building, but strive for higher levels where feasible.
Many institutions have adopted the LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design) system as their reference standard for sustainable design: the University of Oregon, for example, requires all new construction projects to achieve the equivalent of base level LEED certification. Other institutions have taken a more customized approach: the Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide, for example, draws upon the LEED system and other sources to create guidelines that reflect the priorities of the Minnesota region as well as general principles of sustainable design.
The LEED system offers a reference standard that is well established and well supported by the design industry. It is also generic: it does not address particular building types or physical environments. As a research university, with a wide range of laboratories and other specialized buildings, UC Berkeley may be best served in the long run by a set of performance guidelines more specific to our unique facility inventory and our temperate, semi-arid climate.
However, given the intensive pace of new construction and renovation on the Berkeley campus, it is imperative that the Berkeley campus begin now to incorporate the principles of sustainable design into every new project. The LEED system is our best option today, and the campus should adopt it as an interim reference standard while we simultaneously investigate a more customized approach.
Initiative 10.5
Based on the campus experience with the LEED system, consider refinements to better address the specific characteristics of the facility inventory and the physical environment at UC Berkeley.
|
|
|
|
Health & Construction
The seismic improvements program, in combination with other capital investments to renew the facility inventory and accommodate new academic programs, has led to an unprecedented volume of construction on the campus. While these concerns had previously been addressed on a project by project basis, the scope of the current effort requires a campuswide strategy for the resolution and future prevention of such impacts.
Initiative 10.6
Implement a campuswide strategy to minimize the health impacts of construction.
The campus Health & Construction Work Group is presently preparing a set of guidelines for how such impacts should be averted or, if unavoidable, how they should be mitigated. The guidelines will address:
- relocation of building occupants during construction, including mitigations to be undertaken when relocation space is not available,
- construction practices to minimize health-related impacts,
- improved communications to both affected occupants and the campus at large, and
- health-promoting features to consider for inclusion in new construction and renovation projects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
