Greenest Church in the UU Universe CommitteeDraft Report 3/16/2014

Greenest Church Committee MembersMark NeuCollins, Sally Hartman, Deb Schoelerman, Kirk Cheyney, Peter Thorne.

Dear Reader,We have opted to include both our report and supporting materials (as footnotes and appendices) in this document. We feel that these supporting materials might be of interest in order to establish the basis for statements we make in the report. The main body of the report runs through page 6, and of these, the first two sections (pages 2-4) are probably of the greatest interest to the Facilities Task Force.

Table of Contents

Introduction: Factors in evaluating the sustainability of the 3 options..........................2Preliminary observation..........................................................................................................................................2Embodied Carbon.......................................................................................................................................................2Considerations Beyond the Building..................................................................................................................2Cost of Green Building..............................................................................................................................................2Green Building Certification..................................................................................................................................3Recommendations......................................................................................................................................................3

Green Building: Pros, Cons, Possibilities and Constraints in each of the proposed options.........................................................................................................................3Option 1: Repurposing an existing structure.................................................................................................3Option 2: Tearing down and rebuilding at 10 S. Gilbert Street..............................................................4Option 3: Buying land and building new..........................................................................................................4

The experience of other UU churches...........................................................................5

Green Technology Options...........................................................................................5

Appendix A: Energy Cost of Transportation Analysis for Option 2 and Option 3............7

Appendix B: Meeting With Martha Norbeck of C-Wise Consulting................................9C-Wise follow up report...........................................................................................................................................9Greenest Church Subcommittee Notes on Martha Norbeck visit.......................................................11

Appendix C: Summary of LEED Sustainable Sites Criteria............................................13

1

Introduction: Factors in evaluating the sustainability of the 3 options

Preliminary observationToday we are face-to-face with an unprecedented climate crisis. Atmospheric carbon is currently at a level not seen since before the dawn of man.1 2 We are beginning to glimpse the unfathomable climate disruption that the greenhouse effect of this atmospheric carbon will produce. It is the great challenge of our generation to change our behavior appropriately in order to leave the world inhabitable for future generations. The two largest sources of atmospheric carbon are our buildings and our transportation system,3 so that is where we need to begin. The choices we make about building a new church will make a difference.

Embodied CarbonThe carbon used in production of materials and construction of a building is known as embodied carbon. Because the carbon has already been embodied in existing buildings, in the overall picture of sustainability, the greenest church is one that has already been built.4 The embodied carbon of a typical building is equivalent to 10 to 20 years of operational carbon.

Considerations Beyond the Building

Land useThere is a strong negative correlation between the total energy consumption of a city and its overall urban density, i.e. higher density cities use less energy.5 Low-density, dispersed cities are unsustainable as they are automobile dependent. Sustainable development strives to conserve existing natural areas, maintain species habitat and restore damaged areas.

Energy cost of TransportationBecause transportation is a large contributor to overall carbon emissions, the energy cost of transportation of any location should be considered. Two ways to reduce this energy cost are to locate in a dense urban areas and/or to locate near existing public transportation lines (a problem for us on Sundays).

ResilienceWe are facing a future that will force us to be adaptable and resilient in the face of climate disruption. Prioritizing self-reliance and "the local" over "the imported" helps to build resilience. 6 Local sources of energy, community partnerships, and fossil-fuel-free transportation options fit in with this model of resilience.

Cost of Green BuildingWhen viewed as a single bottom line, building sustainably adds to the cost of a building. Martha Norbeck, a respected green architect who has worked in the Iowa City area for 14 years, estimates the increased up-front cost of Green Building ranges from 3% to 8% (see Appendix B) The single bottom line, however, is short

2

sighted and does not take into account external social and environmental factors. When these factors are considered, green building turns out to be far less expensive than the alternative. Additionally state or federal granting programs and incentives from utility companies for building green can lessen the up-front cost.

Life Cycle Cost AnalysisA simple way of justifying the extra up-front cost of green building is with Life Cycle Cost Analysis (payback period). Over a 50 year life-span, even with very conservative estimates of future energy costs, green building offers a considerable return on investment.7 In the book by Gregory Kats,8 "Greening Our Built World: costs, benefits and strategies,"9 the author calculates that if energy prices rise at only 2% per year (i.e., at the rate of inflation), then the present value of 20 years of energy savings in green buildings is more than twice the typical green premium.

Intangible BenefitsLife cycle cost analysis is sufficient to justify the cost of green building, but says nothing about the added value of green building. This value comes from providing a model of leadership by living our UU principles of "respect for the interdependent web of all existence," stewardship of the earth, and social justice.

Green Building CertificationGreen Certification does not cost much in the overall budget of a large-scale project such as this. Certification forces accountability and ensures that green principles will be maintained in the face of inevitable budget and time pressures. Attaining green certification produces a tangible symbol of our commitment to UU principles.10 11

RecommendationsIn terms of sustainable building, all of the proposed directions are "workable," but each has merits and drawbacks. In keeping with democratic processes, our committee has opted not to make specific recommendations, but enumerate these pros and cons for due consideration.

Green Building: Pros, Cons, Possibilities and Constraints in each of the proposed options

Option 1: Re-purposing an existing structureBecause of the issue of embodied carbon, the greenest option of the three directions being considered is re-purposing an existing structure and bringing it up to modern green standards. Although the costs involved in purchasing and re-purposing an existing structure would be entirely dependent upon the specific building, it is not necessarily the least expensive choice. Thus potential cost savings should probably not be the leading motivator for choosing to do this.

3

Some of the factors that would contribute to an analysis of the sustainability of this choice would include the following: a)location b)available resources c)amount of work required to convert it into a structure that would fulfill our needs.

Option 2: Tearing down and rebuilding at 10 S. Gilbert Street12

This option is feasible and has the potential to be the second greenest choice (depending upon details). There are a number of factors to consider with this option1) Location is significant:

Lowest transportation energy cost for current congregation members13

Development in dense urban area is the most carbon-efficient A centralized location adds to climate change resilience A downtown location is within walking distance of the free lunch program,

crisis center and other agencies that support our mission of social justice Ample solar energy is a resource at this location.

2) Concerns about location can be addressed: Designing the building with an outdoor roof area would be both energy

efficient, and offer a green-space for the RE Program.o Doing so would also help to alleviate urban stormwater runoff.

Additional parking could be included beneath the structure, which would also raise critical infrastructure above the flood plain

While geothermal is probably not a possibility, there are a number of more recent technologies that can step in and fill this gap.

Because of the development potential of this site by others, the carbon cost of demolition does not need to be included in the green equation -- this will be incurred in either case

Option 3: Buying land and building newBecause this option starts with a "blank piece of paper" it has a great deal of appeal. Both options 2 and option 3 have the potential for green design optimization in the LEED categories of:

Water use Energy & atmosphere Materials & resources Indoor environment

Beyond the potential for green building within these categories, Option 3 has the additional possibilities of:

ample green space rain gardens and catchment ponds, depending upon site:

o potential for geothermal heating and coolingo potential for wind energy generation

From a sustainability perspective, however, Option 3 has some challenges: Fails to meet standards in the categories of two green building specifications:

o LEED category of "Sustainable Sites"14

4

o Living Building Challenge "Sites Petal" (which includes Limits To Growth, Urban Agriculture, Habitat Exchange, Car Free Living)15

Additionally the sustainability advantages listed for dense urban location of Option 2 are lost in Option 3

With our current congregation, buying land and building new has the highest transportation energy cost (it is unknown how the congregation might change due to a new location).

The experience of other UU churchesUU Ministry for the earth inspires and guides environmental action by congregations and individual UUs. Rising energy costs have made going green an easier decision, but many congregations are already committed to that path for ethical reasons. “They want to do the right thing even if it costs a little more." (UU World, 2008)16

Three Midwest UU churches stand out in their efforts to be green. The DuPage UU Church in Naperville, IL has done the following to be green: landscape with native plants, using concrete and recycled carpet for flooring, temperature control that involves fans and windows that open automatically, LED lighting, passive solar design, a rain garden, and woodwork made from trees cut for their addition. The White Bear UU Church near Minneapolis, utilized these same innovations, and in addition has installed solar panels, built a parking lot that is rain permeable and established remote parking lot with shuttles. Possibly the most literally green church is the Duluth, MN, UU Church who built a new building several years ago. Plants are the centerpiece of their church, which includes a green roof, an atrium of plants and trees, and a rain garden. In addition, this church has selected building materials with low volatile organic compounds, underground parking, recycled materials in the kitchen, tank-less water heaters, and energy efficient windows.

Other churches that have and are making the decision to “be green” when they remodel or build include Lincoln, NE, Mt. Vernon Unitarian Church, VA, Fresno, CA, UU Fellowship of Wayne County, OH, Salt Lake City, UT, Madison, WI, UU Church at Adelphi, MD. This of course is just a sample of churches that are making the decision to “build sustainably” when building or remodeling.

Green Technology OptionsA great number of Green Technologies exist that would be applicable for all three of the options being considered. Committee Member Kirk Cheyney has compiled an impressive list of these. While outside the scope of this report, once a direction is decided upon this information will be invaluable. You can peruse this report here: http://bit.ly/1ibKnOH

5

Footnotes

6

Appendix A: Energy Cost of Transportation Analysis for Option 2 and Option 3

7

8

Appendix B: Meeting With Martha Norbeck of C-Wise Consulting

C-Wise follow up report

Follow-up notes to discussion with Unitarian Universalist Greenest Church Subcommittee

February 24, 2014

Resilience – as defined by the Transition Town movement. Fundamental to the Transition Town movement is the notion of resilience. It is defined in The Transition Handbook as "the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks." (54) In other words, resilience does not mean putting a fence around one's community, refusing to allow anything in or out. It means "being more prepared for a leaner future, more self-reliant, and prioritizing the local over the imported." (55)http://www.transitionus.org/

Relocalization – as defined by the Transition Town movement. Relocalization is a strategy to build societies based on the local production of food, energy and goods, and the local development of currency, governance and culture. The main goals of relocalization are to increase community energy security, to strengthen local economies, and to improve environmental conditions and social equity. The relocalization strategy developed in response to the environmental, social, political and economic impacts of global over-reliance on cheap energy.

Living Building ChallengeLocation - I think it would be very helpful for your group to review the Living Building Challenge goals. While certification is likely out of reach, the principles are excellent and worthy of extended consideration. The Site petal strongly reinforces my comments about the ecological downsides of developing on the fringe.

Equity, Beauty, Health and the Living Building Challenge – I think these petals align well with the Unitarian principles – these can be pursued in any location.

9

(The overview handbook is attached)

Cost and repurposing an existing structure: I emphatically stated this would not be cheaper than building from scratch. I may have overstated this. It is possible that you could have lower costs with repurposing. It’s impossible to say without having a specific site to discuss. Take this more of a caution – it can be quite a shock to discover how expensive repurposing is. I would advise against making the potential of cost savings a leading motivation for repurposing.

Renovation vs New – the carbon story: Repurposing would yield a lower embodied footprint compared to new construction. Two references.

This one is in regards to houses. Residential vs Commercial buildings have quite different profiles, but I like this article because it’s easy to understand. ‘Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from new homes fall into two distinct sources: "embodied" CO2 given off during the housebuilding process, and "operational" CO2 given off from normal energy use in the house once it is occupied. The new homes each gave off 50 tons of embodied CO2. The refurbished homes each gave off 15 tons.’http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/the-carbon-footprint-of-a-renovation-vs-new-construction.html

The above graph is from a study of commercial buildings. It’s much harder to digest. The gist is 10 years of operations = embodied energy of building materials, but if you read the study, it notes that the more efficient the building is, the more years of operations it takes to offset the embodied energy. http://www.gglo.com/insight/embodiedcarbon.aspx

LEED for Existing BuildingsGreen initiatives to consider regardless of outcome which are based on the LEED for Existing Buildings and Operations system.

Alternative Transportation – which involves a survey of existing behavior, a campaign to promote alternatives and a post campaign survey.

Green Cleaning Solid Waste Management Policy – which includes tracking volumes Green Purchasing – of disposables, like paper towels and durable goods, like

computers

10

Green Space and downtownThe city is considering revamping the intersection of Gilbert and Iowa as part of the Downtown Iowa City plan. Would the city consider other options here that could benefit the church? Edible perennials? A permeable plaza with a pergola? Post comments on: www.inspiredowntownic.com

Greenest Church Subcommittee Notes on Martha Norbeck visitFebruary 24, 2014Greenest Church in the UU Universe Committee

The Greenest Church Sub committee invited architect Martha Norbeck from C-Wise Design and Consulting Services to visit with us. We invited her to educate our committee about building or repurposing another building with sustainability in mind. Martha has been an architect for 14 years in the Iowa City area. One of her projects includes the new North Central Junior High building.We met with her on February 24th. Those in attendance were Mark Neucollins, Sally Hartman, Jill Stephenson, Deb Schoelerman, Kirk Cheney and Russ Lenth.

Martha introduced herself and shared some of her background. Then she asked us several questions – several regarding our mission and vision – what kind of building do we need? What do we want to be able to do from the building? How large of building do we want? We responded with possible day care, preschool for the community, renting office space to community groups, overflow sleeping for Shelter House in the winter. Martha spoke about changes to the way buildings, towns and cities are being designed for a future with a challenging climate in mind. This is called “Resiliency,” as defined by the Transition Town Movement. “Resiliency” is the “capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change, so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks. (Also, see Jane Jacobs’ notes on “the Life and Death of Great American Cities). The optimal trend would be to avoid sprawl and maintain dense urban spaces for working and living. Staying downtown would support this trend because 10 South Gilbert is centrally located. Martha added that high density is good and that our location would be advantageous for providing services to people in the neighborhood. If our mission includes serving low-income population, we are close to the Rec Center, the Crisis Center, 1105, the Crowded Closet and other human service organizations.We are also close to the library, stores, etc.

11

Martha shared with us the three main areas of carbon emissions: constructing and maintaining building accounts for between 42% and 48%, transportation from 22% to 28% percent, and finally industry, which provides about the remaining 22%. Our decision to build or rebuild, as well as how it is built or rebuilt, will have different effects on the environment. The “greenest” choice would be to repurpose another building. Reusing and repurposing old buildings and upgrading them saves a lot of carbon, since about 20% the carbon used would be “embodied” already. But she stressed that buying and repurposing a building would probably not save us any money; until we know the specific building, the cost is an unknown.

New buildings are a large carbon drain and have a larger environmental impact when you consider the land used, the animal habitat destroyed, truck traffic, wear and tear of roads, use of new materials, etc. Carbon emissions from new homes come from the “embodied” CO2 produced during construction process itself and then the “operational” CO2 given off during normal energy use. In one study cited, new homes gave off 50 tons of embodied CO2 and refurbished homes each gave off 15 tons. (See Martha’s report for more information.)

Regarding our current location, she said the current location is a good place for solar energy and a good place to use the roof for green space. We probably could not have a geo-thermal system in our current location, but there are newer excellent alternatives to that are just as effective. For example, variable refrigeration flow is a technology that is used in some buildings. A building with several stories could have lower level parking, three floors for church space, a floor or two for other uses – affordable housing? for example. When asked about gardens and green roofs, she replied that a multi-story story building could easily have a rooftop garden and a courtyard atmosphere for weddings.

Sally Hartman questioned whether green building adds a lot to the cost of a building. Martha replied that it depends what you compare it to. Martha estimated 3 to 8% more would be spent on building with green principles. When planning a sustainable building, the general rule is no more than 25% of wall space is devoted to windows.

When asked about salvaging anything from our current buildings, she thought that we could probably reuse the bricks from the Sanctuary but not the Worthley Building due to the fact that older buildings’ bricks can be taken apart one by one, and that newer ones like Worthley, come apart in chunks. If we locate the church in another location, we would need to take into account the carbon foot print of members driving to the site. Moving the church away from downtown would add to members’ and friends’ driving time and fuel consumption and to carbon emissions. But at the same time, we would hopefully increase membership from the surrounding neighborhood.

12

Appendix C: Summary of LEED Sustainable Sites Criteria

Sustainable Sites:

Construction Activity Pollution Prevention(intent: Reduce pollution by controlling soil erosion, waterway sedimentation, and airborne dust generation)

Site Selection(intent: avoid development of innappropriate sites and reduce environmental impact)Don’t develop on:

Prime farmland Undeveloped (Greenfield) less than 5’ above floodplain In an area that serves as habitat for threatened or endangered species Within 100’ of wetlands

Development Density and Community Connectivity(intent: channel development to urban areas, protect greenfields, preserve habitats)

Develop in urban areas that already have infrastructure Within ½ mile radius of a residential zone of 10 units/acre and 10 services Must have pedestrian access

Alternative/Public Transportation(intent: reduce environmental impacts from automobile use)

Within ½ mile of existing or planned (funded) commuter rail light rail subway, or

within ¼ mile of a stop for at least two bus lines Bicycle storage

Parking(intent: reduce pollution and land development for single occupancy vehicles)

Priority parking for LEFE vehicles (5% of parking spots) 3% alternative fuel refill stations Preferred carpool for 5% of spots

Site Development(intent: conserve existing natural areas and restore damaged areas)

Open Space(intent: provide high ratio of open space to development footprint in order to promote biodiversity)

25% more open space than zoning requires.

13

14

1Footnotes Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UxfiiV5NE5A2 http://oceans.mit.edu/featured-stories/5-questions-mits-ron-prinn-400-ppm-threshold3 Architecture 2030: http://www.architecture2030.org/4 Carbon footprint of New Construction vs Renovation: http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/the-carbon-footprint-of-a-renovation-vs-new-construction.html5 Urban Density and Energy Consumption: http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/urbanenergy.html6 Transition Town Movement http://www.transitionus.org/7 Whole Building Design Guide, a program of the National Institute of Building Sciences: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/lcca.php8 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Kats9 Kats, Gregory., Braman, Jon., James, Michael Greening Our Built World: Costs, Benefits, And Strategies. Washington, DC : Island Press, 2010. Print.10 U.S. Green Bulding Council, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification: http://www.usgbc.org/leed11 Living Building Challenge: http://living-future.org/lbc12 Many of the observations in this section are based on a meeting with Martha Norbeck. A copy of her report is included as Appendix B in this document.13 See Energy Cost of Transportation Analysis included as Appendix A of this document14 LEED Sustainable Sites criteria is included as Appendix C15 A copy of the Living Building Challenge 2.1 specification is available from the LBC website: http://living-future.org/lbc16 Article from UU World http://www.uuworld.org/news/articles/117134.shtml