The result is a disciplined, repeatable approach that reconciles the application of a standardized formula to the creation of highly individualized structures with little room for cookie-cutter design.

"Campus buildings are unique in the sense that they house individual programs, with each structure designed for a very specific use," observes Laura Goldstein, project manager with the Department of Project Management at Stanford University Lands and Buildings. "Instead of being a prescriptive solution, Stanford's Sustainability Guidelines (SSG) are process-driven, focused on decision-making. It is a little harder to measure outcomes this way, but our hope is that we will create a better match for each type of project we undertake."

Project Delivery Process Assures Rigor

Sustainability is especially important at Stanford because of its location: bucolic, tree-studded farmland occupying more than 8,000 acres in an otherwise congested suburban corridor along San Francisco Bay. The high costs attached to development in the region make campus housing a desirable option for undergraduates, graduate students, and faculty alike. In fact, the General Use Plan hammered out with local municipalities stipulates a linkage between campus housing and new facilities, to the tune of 600 residential units for every 500,000 sf of new growth.

In addition, the University assesses each project a fee of $85 for every one of the two million square feet approved for development over the next 10 years. Most of the assessment goes to internal mitigations such as parking garages and the free campus-wide shuttle system, with the balance destined to the county's below-market rate housing fund.

With such a premium attached to new construction, in 2001 the University's Land and Buildings group spelled out a formal Project Delivery Process (PDP) to inject rigor into building development throughout the nine phases of planning, design, and construction. The PDP identifies key decision points and matches process phases with requisite approval levels and budget controls. In graphic form it resembles an EKG read-out, prompting Land & Buildings personnel to call it "the heartbeat," an apt description for the working tool that serves as a roadmap for implementing projects in the Stanford Capital Plan, according to Jack Cleary, director of the Department of Project Management.

The PDP roadmap incorporates the study of sustainability strategies in five targeted categories (site design and planning, energy use, water management, materials/resources and waste, and indoor environment quality) in the early phases of the project timeline. All cost analysis and decision-making are completed at the end of schematic design, a critical point for project budgets.

"We spend a lot of time in the schematic design phase because that is when our budgets are set," says Cleary. "Then, after we have final approval from the Board of Trustees we begin construction. There is no turning back. This is really critical for us. We use this management tool on every project that rolls out of our capital plan."

Right-Sizing

Operating on the premise that the most sustainable building is the one that doesn't get built, Stanford spends a lot of time making sure that the facilities in the project pipeline are the "right" ones—in terms of size, function, and alignment with overall University goals.

"Our capital plan is really important in discussions about sustainability, because it aligns the project requests with the University's priorities, both on the basis of academic need and funding," Cleary explains. "Part of our job is to balance financial resources with available space inventory."

Once the decision is made to move forward with a building, Cleary's department conducts a space audit with the Capital Planning Department to track incremental growth and to confirm that existing building inventory is optimally used. Then three backfill options—vacant space turned over to the Provost, demolition, or growth—are all explored, with the ultimate disposition requiring Provost approval before the project delivery process begins.

"The $85-per-sf fee is an inhibitor to making a building bigger than it needs to be," says Cleary. "Our capital planning process actually right-sizes the building."

Bringing It All Together

Responding to campus-wide interest, Stanford in 2002 established an environmental stewardship committee comprised of students, faculty, and staff to explore sustainability issues. The group's findings shaped the recommendations for implementing sustainability in the building process that were ultimately grafted onto the finalized PDP to become the Stanford Sustainability Guidelines.

"The SSG allow us to take strategies and criteria and integrate them into our design and construction process," notes Cleary.

Another prong of the sustainability initiative is life cycle cost analysis, currently in draft form.

"Our goal is to establish a library of information to avoid reinventing the wheel with every new project," explains Cleary. "For instance, we know chilled water just about always pays off in the life cycle. Steam never does, but there may be reasons to use steam on a project, either because it optimizes the use of our cogeneration plant or because the science needs it as part of the program."

All this effort comes together in the PDP "heartbeat," which pinpoints where in the early phases of a project the strategies, options and trade-offs, and life cycle cost analyses relating to the five sustainability categories should be addressed. All SSG decisions are made by the end of schematic design, refined during design development, and then implemented during construction.

The last step, measurement and verification, is still a work in progress.

"This is a part we need to get a better handle on across the University," says Cleary. "It's important to get feedback on the strategies for future projects."

SSG vs. LEED

According to Cleary, one obvious question that crops up is why the university opted to establish its own sustainability guidelines rather than adhere to the LEED™ (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Green Building Rating System.

The central rationale behind the Stanford-specific path relates to the fact that the customized PDP allows Land & Buildings to do what is best for the university community, while LEED's more generic standards might not always apply or reflect practices already implemented.

Several campus-wide initiatives—for example, a stormwater management plan and a transportation scheme that includes both a free shuttle and subsidized train fare for staff and faculty—do not accrue points for individual buildings in the LEED process. Nor does LEED have a mechanism to recognize the school's recently completed capital planning process.

"We don't get a point for that, and yet it is a significant sustainability accomplishment," Cleary remarks.

The price tag of a LEED submittal is also an issue, he points out, citing an estimated cost of $80,000 to $100,000 for the documentation necessary to certify an 88,000-sf classroom building.

"We think that the money could be spent on other programs and other sustainable features," he comments.

Other aspects of construction at Stanford, such as centralized utilities, the recycling of asphalt paving, and campus-wide refuse recycling, are not directly addressed in the LEED requirements.

"We have a lot of really good design processes and operational and maintenance practices that are not considered in a LEED certification," states Cleary.

This conclusion was reached after an internal effort comparing LEED categories to University criteria, whether current practice, likely project features (proximity to a shuttle stop, the addition of bike parking), or challenges such as reducing building energy loads 30 percent below state code, which already represents advanced environmental standards.

"Our cursory review indicates that if you follow our guidelines you are going to get to at least a LEED-certified building, with few program tradeoffs," he says. "In addition, 80 percent of our project management staff have become LEED accredited on their own initiative to understand the process and equivalencies."

An Ongoing Process

Looking ahead, Cleary acknowledges that the SSG represent an ongoing process, with more gains yet to be realized. On the agenda with refining feedback techniques to improve measurement and verification are tasks such as merging stand-alone PDP and SSG documentation into a single, unified volume and educating the university community not just about environmental standards like LEED criteria for buildings, but also about the role sustainability plays in the overall scheme of campus decisions.

"Our stakeholders need to understand the importance of tradeoffs," he says. "Sustainability is just one facet of a project, and should be considered as no more or less important than other aspects. It is a part of that all-inclusive circle of what goes into a program in a building."

By Nicole Zaro Stahl

We welcome your Questions and Comments

Copyright 2008 Tradeline Inc.
All Rights Reserved
ISSN: 1096-4894