case study cieloazul jan2009

7/30/2019 Case Study CieloAzul Jan2009

1/13

J ulie Walleisa and Caryn Grosse prepared this case study on behalf of Dekker/Perich/Sabatini and using information provided byRio Rancho Public Schools, Bridgers +Paxton, David Bend, and Bradbury Stamm.

Copyright 2008 by Dekker/Perich/Sabatini. To order copies, contact D/P/S at (505) 761-9700. No part of this publication maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission ofDekker/Perich/Sabatini. USGBC has been granted permission to post and reproduce this case.

Cielo Azul Elementary School

Rio Rancho, NM

Project Overview

Cielo Azul Elementary School is a new 85,000sf school built for Rio Rancho Public Schools (RRPS). It

opened in Fall 2008 to serve 800 students in grades K-5 in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Cielo Azul is a

publicly funded project, with funds provided through both RRPS and the New Mexico Public Schools

Capital Outlay Council (PSCOC). The school was designed and constructed using the traditional design,

bid, build method in which a general contractor is selected through an open bid based on lowest price

after construction documents are complete.

While this school was intended to achieve LEED certification from the start, the true beginning of the

projects story is tied to three other elementary schools in the same district. In 2005, 2 elementary schools


2/13

Dekker/Perich/Sabatini Cielo Azul LEED Case Study

Page 2 of 13

known as Stapleton Elementary and Maggie Cordova Elementary opened in Rio Rancho. This was the

start of a number of prototype schools: the original design created for Stapleton was adapted to the site of

Cordova Elementary. The schools were bid together and built concurrently by the same general

contractor. These first two schools were designed responsibly to meet current codes, but did not

incorporate any true sustainable features and did not pursue LEED certification.

In early 2007, design began on 2 additional prototype elementary schools (Sandia Vista and Cielo Azul)

based on the Stapleton design. As prototypes, the projects had a compressed schedule for creation of

construction documents which allowed for little variation from the original design. Some changes were

required in order to address changes in building code (from 1997 UBC to 2003 IBC), changes in state

adequacy standards for public schools, need for 9 additional classrooms, and different site conditions. In

addition to this, RRPS directed the team to incorporate sustainable features as feasible and pursue LEED

certification, at the Certified or possibly Silver level. Both schools pursued certification under LEED for

New Construction (LEED-NC) rather than LEED for Schools (LEED-S), because LEED-S was still beingballoted at the time the schools were registered with USGBC.

Design began in J anuary 2007, and construction spanned from October 2007 to September 2008. Cielo

Azul is anticipating LEED Silver certification in late 2008 or early 2009.

Environmental Goals

The design effort focused on incorporating meaningful sustainable features within the constraints of the

prototype schedule and budget. The main priorities within LEED are to achieve significant reductions in

energy and water use, and emphasize indoor environmental quality. Additional goals determined duringdesign, which formed part of the Owners Program Requirements, included:

y The aesthetic of the building exterior should relate simultaneously to the natural environment

of the land and the high-tech imagery of the industries which helped to create Rio Rancho.

Thus the building uses a combination of natural materials like split-face concrete masonry

walls and stucco to relate to the environment, while introducing metals, glass and fabricated

canopy elements in accent locations such as the entrance to create a high-tech image.

y The building floor-plate should remain narrow to encourage daylighting.

y Energy efficiency should be maximized through envelope and systems design, as feasible

within the project budget.

y As part of the goal to create a great learning environment for students, the building should

provide sufficient and well-controlled daylighting, flexible lighting, and views to the

surrounding landscape and playgrounds. Faculty/staff are able to control their own

environment through features such as operable windows, temperature controls, and suitable

window coverings. Interior finishes should be low-emitting.


3/13


Page 3 of 13

y All building systems should be of appropriate quality and maintenance requirements for a

school.

y The building management system should be tied to a central interface that provides for

system simulation, monitoring, trending, set-point and sequence modification. A separate

display should indicate real time energy consumption.

Owner and Occupancy

The building is owned by Rio Rancho Public Schools, and will operate on the typical 9 month school year

schedule. The school will be occupied by approximately 800 students in grades K-5 and 100 faculty/staff.

The basic design of the single-story school consists of a central zone housing shared functions such as

administration, cafeteria, and gymnasium, with 2 wings of classroom spaces. The design of the project

has evolved from the previous prototypes to reflect differences in the site, input from administrators,

teachers, parents, and community members, lessons learned from the previous two schools, and the

desire to achieve LEED certification.

Floor Plan


4/13


Page 4 of 13

LEED Scorecard

The design team was directed to achieve LEED Certification, and target Silver certification, if feasible.

The scorecard below shows the credits submitted as part of the application:


5/13


Page 5 of 13


6/13


Page 6 of 13

Team and Process

Dekker/Perich/Sabatini designed the building (as well as the previous prototypes) and is managing the

LEED certification process. Bridgers +Paxton provided mechanical, electrical, and plumbing engineering,

and Huitt Zollars provided civil engineering services. LEED issues were discussed with the team from the

beginning of the process and closely monitored during construction. A LEED credit matrix was regularly

updated and distributed amongst the team during the design phases to communicate about LEED action

items and the overall LEED credit status.

Primary Design Team:

ArchitectDekker/Perich/Sabatini

InteriorsDekker/Perich/Sabatini

LandscapeDekker/Perich/Sabatini

Structural EngineerDekker/Perich/Sabatini

LEED ManagerDekker/Perich/Sabatini

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing EngineerBridgers +Paxton

Civil EngineerHuitt Zollars

Primary Construction Team:

General ContractorBradbury Stamm

Mechanical ContractorAshcraft Mechanical

Electrical ContractorTheco

Commissioning AgentWHPacific

Site Strategies

An erosion and sedimentation control plan was implemented that included both the construction activities

described in the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the permanent site and landscape features.

During construction, silt fences were installed around the property and check dams provided along

roadside swales to provide regular trapping points for localized runoff during construction. Diversion

swales and berms were constructed and maintained to divert flows through the check dams. The site was

stabilized with regular watering and compaction. Permanent measures included seeding disturbed areas

of the site and providing vegetation along the perimeter of the project, providing curbs, gutters and

stormwater sewer system for stormwater drainage Together, these procedures help to prevent erosion

and reduce negative impacts on water and air quality.

Some of the LEED credits for siting strategies were not achievable due to the location of the site in Rio

Rancho. The site is not a brownfield, is not in an area of high density development, and does not have


7/13


Page 7 of 13

access to public transportation. The project is located within biking distance of several residential areas,

so bike racks and showers/changing rooms were provided. Parking was restricted to the amount required

by state standards for public schools, and preferred parking was provided for carpools and low-emitting

vehicles.

A large amount of vegetated open space, equal to nearly 5 times the building footprint, was provided to

provide habitat and achieve the credit for maximizing open space as well as an innovation credit for

exemplary performance. The buildings entire roof is a highly reflective roof membrane that limits heat

gain. The roof is a fully adhered Carlisle Sure Weld thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) membrane roof with a

solar reflectance index (SRI) of 110.

The site was designed to capture water into 3 drainage basins to reduce site runoff rate and quantity.

The largest drainage basin occurs at the athletic fields; recurring storm flows will assist in turf irrigation. In

addition to reducing stormwater quantity, the ponds will also provide stormwater quality control byallowing sediments to settle out.


8/13


Page 8 of 13

Water Strategies

The site and landscaping was designed to reduce water consumption by 83% through a variety of

methods. The planting plan utilizes a regionally appropriate plant palette while providing shade areas

where the school children will be active. The plant palette extensively uses low water plant material that

will also withstand the extreme winds on the site. A biological soil amendment was used in all planting

beds. Revegetative seeding, which will not require irrigation, is being applied to the whole site to help

mitigate construction disturbances.

Inside the building, low-flow plumbing fixtures were installed to reduce water use by 44%. The following

fixtures were used:

Fixture Usage

Dual-flush toilets 1.1/1.6 gpf

Waterless urinals 0.0 gpf

Low-flow showers 1.8 gpmLow-flow, sensored lavatories 0.5 gpm

Low-flow kitchen sinks 1.8 gpm

Energy Strategies

This school was designed to use 31% less energy than a baseline building, based on modeling

comparisons using ASHRAE 90.1 standards and Trane Trace software. Energy efficiency begins with the

building envelope, and continues through the selected mechanical systems. The exterior design uses the

same juxtaposition of natural materials like split-face concrete masonry walls and metal and glass

storefront panels and canopies as the original prototype schools. However, changes were made to thedesign of the wall and roof assemblies to increase thermal performance to R-24 and R-38, respectively

through use of continuous insulation and thermal breaks. The originally selected glazing was upgraded to

a higher performing low-e insulated glass unit with an improved Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC), and

windows remain shaded by horizontal overhangs as designed in the original prototypes.

The original prototype school design was based on simple rooftop mechanical units with overhead duct

distribution and constant air volume. Due to the accelerated design schedule, these basic conditions of

rooftop units and overhead distribution needed to form the basis of design. However, the system was

upgraded to high efficiency packaged rooftop units with constant volume rooftop direct expansion cooling

with natural gas furnace. These supply all spaces except the electrical and data equipment rooms, which

are served by ductless split systems. The systems serving occupied areas have economizer controls and

demand-controlled ventilation for additional energy efficiency. A commissioning agent was hired to

provide fundamental commissioning services for this school and other schools under construction in the

district.


9/13


Page 9 of 13

Occupancy sensors were used in classrooms to turn off lighting when the rooms are unoccupied. Multi-

level manual switching was also provided so that occupants can adjust lighting as necessary for the time

of day and task at hand. Cafeteria and gymnasium use multi-ballasted compact fluorescent hi-bay fixtures

with multi-level manual switching so that light levels can be adjusted throughout the day, or for special

events.

Material Strategies

Recycling played a large role in the design and construction of the building. Construction waste

requirements were included in the project specification, and the contractor submitted a Construction

Waste Management Plan prior to the start of construction. Over 73% of construction waste materials were

reused or recycled rather than disposed of in a landfill. This translates to almost 563 tons of materials

diverted from landfill.

A target list of recycled and regional materials was developed during Design Development, and refined

during the Construction Documents phase. Key materials that contributed to these credits included:

Material Supplier Recycled Content RegionalManufacture

RegionalExtraction

Aluminumstorefront/curtainwall

Tubelite 10% pc, 65% pi No No

Concrete La Farge 20% cementreplaced with flyashCCBC

Yes Yes

Structural steel Various Varies No No

Metal studs Dietrich 24.6% pc, 6.6% pi No No

CMU Utility BlockCompany

None Yes Yes

Gypsum board AmericanGypsum

6% pi Yes Yes

Acoustic ceilingpanels

USG Varies No No

The use of renewable materials and certified wood was not pursued on this project.


10/13


Page 10 of 13

Indoor Environmental Quality Strategies

The individual rooftop units utilize CO2 sensors for ventilation monitoring. If the CO2 level rises above

600 ppm, alarms will sound. For units serving multiple spaces, field installed airflow measuring devices

monitor fresh air intake to the zone.

The contractor implemented a Construction IAQ Management Plan that included a number of proven

strategies for protecting the HVAC system and porous materials from contamination, ensuring proper

housekeeping and ventilation procedures, and generally protecting indoor air quality. The contractor also

conducted a flushout by introducing fresh outside air to the school via the mechanical systems. Part of the

flushout was conducted after construction was completed and before students began occupancy, with the

remained conducted during occupancy.

Construction photos showing how the ductwork and materials were protected from contamination

Low-emitting materials were specified and used throughout the project. The contractors did a great job of

buying and using the correct products, which included Kwal paints, Interface carpet, Marshfield doors,

SkyBlend particleboard, and a variety of compliant adhesives and sealants. To further protect indoor air

quality, entry walk off mats were provided at the building entries, and the janitors closets were exhausted

in compliance with LEED guidelines.

The faade of the building incorporates the natural look of block punctuated with the high tech look of

aluminum and glass. In order to maintain the construction budget, a very regular and comparatively less

expensive design aesthetic was utilized for the exterior walls of the classroom wings, and the use of

accent materials and other design elements was focused around the more public entry areas. The

majority of the exterior walls are load-bearing concrete masonry units (CMU), with accent areas of glass

and aluminum storefront system at office areas. The length of the classroom wings are broken down and

made more interesting by stepping in the wall at the window areas of each classroom, and changing to a

glass and aluminum storefront system with metal panel fascias above the windows in these recesses.

The color palette is intended to be subtle and sophisticated overall, with a small amount of stronger color

used in accent areas only.


11/13


Page 11 of 13

Operable windows Curtain wall Recessed windows with shades

Innovation and Design Process

The project team anticipates two innovation credits for exemplary performance, based on the

achievement of 44% water use reduction, and maximizing open space by providing nearly 5 times the

required open space. Two additional innovation credits include an educational program to demonstrate

the green features of the building to the occupants and public, and a green housekeeping program.

A LEED accredited professional was involved with the project at every stage. Her involvement in the

project included:

- Initial feasibility discussions using the LEED scorecard

- Design feedback and evaluation of alternative systems, strategies, and materials throughout the

design process

- Coordination with the engineers and consultants

- Specification of LEED products and methods

- Review of LEED submittals and management of LEED documentation

Project Cost

The construction of nearly identical schools pursuing LEED certification, which were based on previous

non-LEED prototypes, presented a unique opportunity for an apples-to-apples study of the costs and

benefits of green/LEED school construction. USGBC expressed interest in studying these projects, and

helped the design team connect with a Masters student at J ohns Hopkins University. David Bend studiedthe school projects and wrote about them for his masters thesis for the Environmental Science and Policy

degree program.

The conclusion of this study was that the green features added approximately 1.3% to the cost of

construction, but would pay back within about 2 years due to direct energy and water savings. David

Bend used information provided by RRPS, Dekker/Perich/Sabatini, and Bradbury Stamm, as well as


12/13


Page 12 of 13

interviews with key team members and broader industry data, to reach these conclusions. The study

compared the construction costs per square foot of the new and older schools, to normalize for the

differences in building size. While the construction cost of the new schools are higher than the existing

non-LEED schools, several contributing factors needed to be considered in order to isolate the green

premium. Costs were adjusted to account for escalation in construction costs between the construction of

the original prototypes and the new schools, and to normalize for the differences in site preparation costs

due to differing site conditions, which is unrelated to the projects green features. With these factors

accounted for, the average cost per square foot for the non-LEED prototypes was $160.22, compared to

$162.31 for the new LEED-registered schools. These represents a 1.3% green premium for the new

schools, lower than the 2% green premium often cited in national studies.

In reality, the green premium may be even lower, due to a couple of additional factors which impacted

construction cost but could not be reliably isolated from other costs. The two new schools are being

constructed on an expedited schedule, which may have increased construction cost. And, the locally-adopted building code was changed from the Uniform Building Code used for the original prototypes to

the International Building code for the new schools, which resulted in a significant increase in the number

of required plumbing fixtures for the new schools.

Energy and water savings projections were based on actual usage from the existing schools, and energy

models and water calculations for the new schools provided by the design team. Cost comparisions

showed the following potential savings:

Stapleton Cordova Sandia Vista Cielo Azul Savings

Electricity $0.92/sf $0.84/sf $0.34/sf $0.33/sf $0.54/sf/yrGas $0.38/sf $0.31/sf $0.01/sf $0.01/sf $0.30/sf/yr

Water 8.6g/sf 8.6g/sf 6g/sf 6g/sf $0.03/sf/yr

These potential savings from the high performance features of the new schools total $0.87/sf/yr, or

approximately $73,500 per school annually. This would result in a payback period of just over 2 years for

the green premium.

Lessons Learned

Since the LEED certification process is still new to many contractors in New Mexico, it is important for the

LEED manager to ensure that the contractor is not only tracking construction waste from the beginning,

but looking at the trends to see if project goals will be met. Although a Construction Waste Management

plan was developed at the beginning of construction, and reports were generated every month, these

reports did not provide a cumulative total of waste diversion rates to date. When the numbers were tallied

into a single tracking spreadsheet near the end of construction, the project team became aware that goal


13/13


Page 13 of 13

of recycling at least 75% of the construction waste was unattainable, and that achievement of even the

50% level might be in jeopardy.

Also, the inclusion of Division 2 costs when calculating the default material value can have a dramatic

impact from one project to the next. As mentioned in the introduction, this project was one of two schools

based on the same prototype. While the buildings are virtually identical, the required sitework was quite

different, resulting in nearly a million dollars of additional costs for Cielo Azul. This difference resulted in

significantly lower percentages of recycled content and regional materials for Cielo Azul than for Sandia

Vista, even though the material specifications were the same.

Learning More

RRPS, Dekker/Perich/Sabatini, and USGBC intend to continue learning from these projects over the

coming years. RRPS intends to track actual water and energy use and operating costs to continue the

analysis of cost and payback. They also plan to track human-impact measures such as teacherabsenteeism and turnover, student absenteeism and performance, and student health and behavior. Data

will be collected from all 4 schools for analysis.

For more information on the project, or to arrange a tour of the building or find out if additional data is

available, please contact:

Dekker/Perich/Sabatini

7601 J efferson NE, Suite 100

Albuquerque, NM 87109(505) 761-9700

or visithttp://www.dpsdesign.org