Attendees

• Sean Parker

• Walt Kanzler

• Josh Dean

• Ken Hall

• Spencer Lee

• Leanne Kao

• Selina Yip

• Harley Crace

• Colin Moynihan

Recommendations from group online survey and meeting discussion

• Move forward with Gold minimum recommendations for all projects above $5M.

...

• • Any circumstances that prevent Gold from being met, provide a justification letter for Silver.

-O+M to be mentioned in policy, with requirements of project teams going through LEED scorecard (with or without certification).

...

-Bi-annual survey of completed projects, include students; may use ARC system?

Full Discussion

• Incorporation of Operations & Maintenance in Policy

  • O+M quite broad (in practices); considering costs with relation to situations on campus, it may be more worthwhile to focus more on initial design and leave O+M maintenance to current practices (i.e. Green Labs)

  • Worthwhile to look at broad metrics and see how they add up to meet our goals

    • Generally good to have some specifications on what has to be done in O+M in order to keep a sustainably designed building sustainable through its working lifetime

• Interval for policy updates

  • Every 5 years likely the best choice; UCOP looks every year as well, and determines whether an update needs to be considered

• Should LEED Gold be the minimum?

  • Could be a 2-tier system where capital projects in particular are given LEED Gold requirement

  • Smaller projects with more constrained budgets should be given more leeway

  • UCOP: LEED Silver is minimum, but should strive for Gold; must give some justification as to why Gold was not attainable, changing the mindset of only needing to get to LEED Silver vs. actually striving for Gold

  • Need to set boundaries for what makes Gold “too expensive” and who makes that justification

    • Can at least give data on what constraints projects experience in shooting towards greater sustainability

    • Will have Clark’s information on their portfolio with regards to higher-education buildings, and their cost/LEED certification

• Types of projects to meet minimum

  • Should stakeholders be engaged with regards to what their goals are on sustainability?

  • Healthcare-type projects would get some leeway for their stricter building standards

  • Anything below $5 million as of now don’t have many requirements on them; we must determine if that group of projects moves the dial enough towards campus goals

    • Can use LEED rating systems to find best practices for those smaller building projects to implement

      • Can create a matrix of points or codes on the LEED scorecard for projects at different levels to meet, with reference to the Harvard standards

    • O+M gets costly because desired renovations don’t get the same kick-off funding as new construction projects

    • Harley Crace has a project manager with an extensive LEED background who can consider things with regards to UCSD projects; Walt will be working with Michelle and Steve to talk on specific goals to report to VC Matthews

  • Maybe acute care facilities are exempt, but clinic should be able to meet LEED standards

• Incorporating recommendations other than LEED

  • Seems to be majority vote for WELL, with LBC as a close second

  • Perhaps we introduce the other building standards in pilots, and then implement them into policy after department and their project managers have grown more comfortable with them

    • LBC is factually harder to achieve, in perspective to cost and regulations; maybe we mix in specific petals to consider for best practices

  • WELL may be good for spotlight projects, where FitWel may work well for dorms

    • Since FitWel is not 3rd-party verified, it may be harder to implement

• Concerns to Address

  • Budget has more of a balancing piece; cost is more focused on raw cost

  • Consider: Google and Microsoft have their own red-lists for materials; on our end, maybe we focus on specific materials and practice towards durability in operations

    • How do we incorporate materials/practices without impacting schedule and cost?

  • FM currently has a Master Spec that does a good job outlining what materials project designers can use; any designs made outside the Master Spec must follow up with FM

  • UC San Diego seems to be shifting towards market rate model, which will affect the various departments; however, whatever extra costs incurred will be invested back into the campus for any tech needed to keep the campus up to date or cutting edge

  • More advanced building systems are growing to be harder to maintain; need to make intelligent decisions and consider what extra training or outside resources will be necessary for maintenance (such things incur extra costs)

• Other recommendations

  • Need a solid piece, like a program schedule with milestones, to make sure these guidelines are being followed

  • Must consider what resources we have to provide more efforts necessary to implement practices which will be written into the guidelines

  • Having a more concrete group to follow -up with the policy and contact stakeholders (should have a larger team working on Sustainability)

    • Current plan is to revamp advisory committee for sustainability on campus, a network of sustainability managers from different departments on Campus

• Evaluating the success of a completed project

  • Biggest split between who should lead the evaluation: students (such as in a LEED class), or a bi-annual department-level survey

    • Arc from LEED seems to be a good resource for surveying building performance, may be a worthwhile way to incorporate student participation

Things to look into

• UCSD’s cost analysis of pursuing O+M certification, and the cost in relation to focusing more on initial building design

• General cost differentials between LEED Silver, LEED Gold, and LEED Platinum

• Arc as a way to survey building performance