LRDP EIR Addendum for Bowles Hall Residential

Transcription

ADDENDUM to the
UC BERKELEY 2020 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
for
BOWLES HALL RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE PROJECT
PROJECT LOCATION:
UC BERKELEY ADJACENT BLOCKS NORTH
COUNTY:
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PROGRAM EIR:
UC BERKELEY 2020 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN EIR, CERTIFIED BY THE
REGENTS JANUARY 2005, SCH #2003082131; AS UPDATED BY LRDP
AMENDMENT #1 TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE AND ACCOMPANYING
ADDENDUM #5 TO THE 2020 LRDP EIR
SCH #2003082131
March 2015
Real Estate Division | Physical & Environmental Planning
300 A&E Building
Berkeley CA 94720-1382
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
ADDENDUM | BOWLES HALL RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE
I. INTRODUCTION
Contents of this section:
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
PROCESS TO DATE
PROPOSED ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUMMARY
PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Planned to accomplish goals and objectives of the UC Berkeley 2020 Long Range Development Plan, the Bowles
Hall Residential College project is also planned to meet several project-specific objectives:
1.
Renovate historic Bowles Hall to meet the requirements of current building fire and life-safety code and the
University’s Seismic Safety and Sustainable Practices policies, while adhering to relevant provisions of the AlquistPriolo Act limiting investment to fifty percent of the value of the property.
2.
Provide upgraded facilities without increasing University of California debt to the full extent feasible.
3.
Ensure design is guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and by a Historic Resource Survey,
subsequent HRS update and historic landscape report, completed for Bowles Hall. The HRS includes a
comprehensive evaluation of the historic significance of each exterior and interior element of the building. In
general, modifications to the building should be limited to spaces assessed as ‘contributing’ or ‘non-contributing’.
4.
Remediate hazardous building materials commonly found in older buildings.
5.
Achieve a balance that ensures disabled students and staff at the Residential College are provided equal
access to important spaces, while maintaining important historic character to the full feasible extent.
6.
Re-establish Bowles Hall as a residential college. Establish Bowles Hall as a residential college open to any
UC Berkeley student, without regard to gender.
7.
Implement policies of the 2020 LRDP, including among others:
•
City Environs policies of the 2020 LRDP: Plan projects to respect and enhance the character,
livability, and cultural vitality of the city environs. Use municipal plans and policies to inform capital
projects in the city environs. Prioritize space on the adjacent blocks for museums, research, cultural and
service programs that require campus park proximity.
•
Stewardship policies: Plan every new project to represent the optimal investment of land and capital
in the future of the campus. Plan every project as a model of resource conservation and environmental
stewardship. Maintain and enhance the image of the campus, and preserve our historic legacy of landscape
Page 1
published 3.19.15
and architecture. Plan every new project to respect and enhance the character, livability and cultural vitality
of our City Environs.
•
Access policies: Ensure the University provides full access to users at all levels of mobility.
•
Sustainability policies: Optimize the use, and adaptive reuse, of existing facilities; plan, operate, and
construct the project to support achievement of campus greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
PROPOSED ACTION
The University of California, Berkeley would approve a 45 year ground lease with the Bowles Hall Foundation (an
established 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation) for the renovation and management of a 55,000 square foot student
housing residence on the Berkeley campus, at the existing Bowles Hall. Construction, operation and maintenance of
the facility, including requirements to adhere to campus policies and standards pertaining to student residential
operations, would be controlled by the terms of the ground lease. In particular, the ground lease would establish
milestones for design review, govern plan check and inspection of the project, and establish guidelines pertaining to
rents charged, review of operating and capital budgets and reserves requirements. The Foundation, working with its
developer/property manager, would be responsible for all aspects of the construction and operation of the project
within this oversight framework.
Bowles Hall was built in 1928 in memory of Mary McNear Bowles’ husband, Philip Ernest Bowles, former
University Regent. The building was the first public university-owned residence hall on campus. Designed by George
W. Kelham in the Collegiate Gothic style, the building was designated as a landmark for the City of Berkeley in 1988
(#120) and is also listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
The project would comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to
the fullest extent feasible. The building exterior will be restored including the repair of windows, the restoration of
exterior concrete, and roofing upgrades and repair. In addition, major public historic interior spaces will be preserved
and renovated. Code upgrades, seismic retrofit and renovation are incorporated into the scope of work; fire
sprinklers will be added.
Bowles Hall is a reinforced concrete building on eight levels, organized around a central courtyard with two flanking
wings that step down the hillside towards the campus. The exterior is composed primarily of architecturally exposed
board formed concrete with painted steel sash casement windows. The numerous steeply pitched roofs are clad in
rectangular terracotta tiles with a distinctive mottled color. The non-structural walls are primarily unreinforced
hollow clay tile, which has been encapsulated over the years for seismic reasons. The central public spaces of the
dining room, library/lounge, and Hart Library addition retain their historic fabric.
The rehabilitation of Bowles Hall involves the complete renovation and upgrade of the historic building. The
renovation work will demolish the majority of the interior hollow clay tile partition walls while new walls will be
located to provide single and double occupancy rooms with private restrooms shared by a maximum of 4 students.
Important to life at Bowles Hall, the dining room will be restored to its original use and a complete commercial
kitchen will allow for communal cooking. At the west end of the building, a new kitchen addition will replace the
Page 2
published 3.19.15
existing wood-framed structure. Study rooms will be located throughout the building along with other key features
including a new game room and a private Resident Director’s apartment.
The existing building has no accessibility features for the mobility impaired. In response, the existing entry at the
third floor west lobby will become a second front door, and a new elevator will provide access to as many different
levels as possible. Due to the steep slope of the site, access from the street to the door will be through vehicular
transportation only.
The project would result in the net loss of between 6 and 8 parking spaces available for campus permit parking at the
Bowles Lot which currently provides approximately 70 spaces for faculty/staff permit holders (personal
conversation, P&T, 3.4.15; also UC Berkeley Parking and Transportation google map of parking lots/garages
downloaded 3.4.15). Six spaces would be dedicated to Bowles Hall staff, including disabled parking and drop off
(no parking would be dedicated to student resident use). In recent years Bowles Hall has been programmed as
dedicated freshman housing; by switching to a program model encouraging students to live in Bowles throughout
their undergraduate career, the project would also reduce the availability of beds for freshman in the campus housing
supply.
The Foundation’s vision statement for the project calls for enabling student members to achieve their maximum
academic potential through academic and career counseling and coaching; informal interaction with faculty and
alumni; and a residential environment conducive to high personal performance. The program provides a full range of
domestic and community amenities to encourage four-year tenure of residents.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SUMMARY
An Environmental Assessment has been prepared in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and University
of California Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA, to determine the appropriate level of environmental
review for the Bowles Hall Residential College project.
The UC Berkeley 2020 LRDP EIR indicated that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP would be examined to
determine whether subsequent project–specific environmental documents are required. The 2020 LRDP EIR states:
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines state that subsequent projects should be examined in light of the programlevel EIR to determine whether subsequent project-specific environmental documents must be prepared. If no
new significant effects would occur, all significant effects have been adequately addressed, and no new mitigation
measures would be required, subsequent projects within the scope of the 2020 LRDP could rely on the
environmental analysis presented in the program-level EIR, and no subsequent environmental documents would
be required; otherwise, project-specific environmental documents must be prepared (2020 LRDP EIR Vol I page
1-2).
The use of the 2020 LRDP EIR in project review was also specifically addressed in the first Thematic Response to
comments received on the 2020 LRDP Draft EIR (2020 LRDP EIR Vol 3a, page 11.1-1). There, the document
reiterated the text quoted above, and explained:
Page 3
published 3.19.15
Projects subsequently proposed must be examined for consistency with the program as described in the 2020
LRDP and with the environmental impact analysis contained in the 2020 LRDP EIR; if new environmental
impacts would occur, or if new mitigation measures would be required, an additional environmental document
would be prepared.
In accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and the University of California
Procedures for Implementation of CEQA, this Environmental Assessment was prepared to evaluate the proposed
Project in contrast to anticipated development described and analyzed in the 2020 LRDP EIR. The Environmental
Assessment concludes the Project would not cause any new significant environmental effect not considered in the
2020 LRDP EIR, nor increase the severity of any impact previously found significant in the 2020 LRDP EIR; that no
new information of substantial importance, which was not known at the time the 2020 LRDP EIR was certified, has
become available; that the circumstances under which the Project will be undertaken have not changed to involve
new significant environmental effects or substantially increased severity in environmental effects; and thus the
University has determined that an Addendum to the 2020 LRDP EIR is appropriate for the Project, itself in the form
of the following Environmental Assessment.
Copies of this Addendum are available for review during normal operating hours at the offices of Real Estate
Division, Physical and Environmental Planning offices, 3rd floor A&E Building on the UC Berkeley campus; and
online at realestate.berkeley.edu. The 2020 LRDP and the 2020 LRDP Environmental Impact Report (SCH
#2003082131) are available online at lrdp.berkeley.edu; LRDP Amendment #1 and Addendum #5 to the 2020
LRDP EIR addressing Climate Change are available online at tinyurl.com/UCBclimate.
This Addendum was initially published on March 19, 2015 to the UC Berkeley Real Estate division website
(realestate.berkeley.edu). Notice of the availability of the Addendum for review was sent to UC Berkeley’s CEQA
notice list serv, a community mailing list, requesting comments by end of the day Friday April 3.
The project may also be eligible for a CEQA exemption, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15331,
restoration and rehabilitation for historic structures; nonetheless, the campus proceeded with this Addendum.
PROJECT-RELATED APPROVALS
This document analyzes and documents the impacts of the proposed project and all discretionary and ministerial
actions associated with the project. Consistent with Sections 15050 and 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the
University of California is designated as Lead Agency and would use this Addendum in assessing the effects of the
actions detailed above. The Addendum, and any comments received upon it, would be considered prior to any
decision to approve the project. The University anticipates that the UC Berkeley Chancellor would have the
authority to approve the project, under delegated approvals, and that consideration would take place in late April,
2015.
Responsible agencies are those agencies that may have discretionary approval over one or more actions involved with
the development of a proposed project. The campus consults with the City of Berkeley for projects located in the
City Environs; however, the City does not have discretionary approval over any aspect of the project.
Page 4
published 3.19.15
DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document is organized for easy use and reference. To help the reader locate information of particular interest,
the following table of contents is provided.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PLAN AND POLICY CONTEXT
2020 LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – IMPACT SUMMARY AND PROJECTRELATED ANALYSIS
V.
2020 LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONTINUING BEST PRACTICES
INCORPORATED INTO PROJECT AS PROPOSED
VI.
PROJECT GRAPHICS
Appendix A: University of California Policy – Sustainable Practices
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION
SITE PLAN DESCRIPTION
LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
ALQUIST PRIOLO COMPLIANCE
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY
ACCESS AND PARKING
DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
CONSTRUCTION
LRDP EIR MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO PROJECT AS PROPOSED
PROJECT LOCATION
UC Berkeley is located in the City of Berkeley, approximately ten miles east of San Francisco. See Figure 1, Regional
Location. Interstate 80, Highway 13, Highway 24, and Interstate 580 provide regional vehicular access to the campus.
Regional transit access is provided by Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit
(AC Transit).
The project site is east of the central Campus Park, east of Gayley Road, and north of Rimway Road. Bowles Hall is
uphill from and overlooks the Maxwell Family Field and Parking Structure, and is north of the California Memorial
Stadium. There are no major streets directly serving the building; however a surface parking lot north and to the
Page 5
published 3.19.15
rear of Bowles Hall is available for loading and unloading related to Bowles Hall, and generally serves campus permit
holders; on performance days this lot is heavily used for staging of the Hearst Greek Theatre at 2001 Gayley Road.
The UC Berkeley LRDP identified the area east of Gayley Road and north of Rimway Road as the City Environs,
Adjacent Blocks North (see LRDP Figure 1); the site is east of the Central Campus Park.
SITE PLAN DESCRIPTION
The site plan for the project is shown in Figure 2.
Spatial organization
Sited on the slope of the East Bay hills, Bowles Hall is a front-facing building that uses its elevated position to
present a gracious façade to the campus below. Arriving at the site via the entry stairs, the pedestrian is in an inferior
position to the building amplifying the perception of its grandeur. The sloped lawn at the front of the building rises
25’ with original retaining walls at its top and bottom; with a slope of 2.6:1 it is a visually prominent tilted plane. A
flight of stairs leading from a retaining wall at Stadium Rimway curves gracefully from below the west wing (see
Figure 3, originally page 6 of HRS, proscribing naming conventions for building elements) to the central main
entrance.
Being U-shaped, Bowles Hall defines a small quad, the main courtyard, at level-three through which the visitor passes
before arriving at the main front door. This courtyard has a semi-private feeling by virtue of its elevated position at
the top of nine flights of stairs, and cannot be seen from the street. The courtyard features a flagstone walkway
which leads to an entry arcade (Mathews, Bowles Hall Historic Resource Survey, 1999). The main courtyard lies at
elevation 428 feet, and is a lawn-covered, level area crossed by a 10’-wide, crazy-paved stone walkway from the top
of the main stairs, leading to the brick semi-circular steps that take the visitor up to the loggia of the building entry.
Bowles Hall was sited to conform to the shape of the hill. The National Register nomination for Bowles notes that it
was intentionally sited consistent with John Galen Howard’s campus plan; further noting that the decision to design
the building in the Collegiate Gothic style allowed architect Kelham to “mould the building into its surroundings” on
the steep incline of Charter Hill.
Eucalyptus trees separate Bowles from the Greek Theatre to the north. To the northwest of the building, a steeply
graded parking lot was added in 1930. The area includes a wood-framed trash enclosure on the northwest side of the
building, and a high voltage, fenced, electrical enclosure immediately downslope from it.
Behind the building, a narrow red brick patio with a red brick barbecue has been located before the ascent of Charter
Hill; a utility enclosure housing the domestic and irrigation connections is fenced with chain link and lath located on
the east side of the east wing. To the northeast of Bowles Hall is a small basketball court and a walkway that leads
away from the Game Room door.
Circulation
The primary existing circulation at Bowles Hall is via the entry stairs connecting Stadium Rimway with the front
entry to the building. A desire line path, now paved, runs generally with the contours around the south side of the
west wing that links the steep parking area with the entry stairs. North of the building, another pedestrian path leads
Page 6
published 3.19.15
from the steep parking area and leads down into the brick dining patio in the rear of the building. At the east and
northeast edges an unpaved pedestrian route leads to secondary entries at the rear lounge space, east wing, and south
around the east wing. Pedestrians can access the half basketball court from this location.
Figure 4 shows the revised site plan for the building, including new stairs near the rear façade of the west wing,
connecting the new lobby to an existing path above Gayley Road. A new paved egress path is also proposed
providing paved surface exiting from lounge, study rooms, and new internal exit stair, around the perimeter of the
east wing.
A current project in the vicinity would replace the sidewalk on the north side of Rim Way from the Bowles parking
lot entrance to intersection of Rim Way and Gridiron Way (part of storm line replacement project.)
Bicycle access would be from Gayley Road and Rim Way – both campus bicycle facilities – via the Bowles parking
lot. The project would provide bike parking for 24 residents and visitors, in ground-mounted U-racks, near the
bottom of the site (adjacent to the 1st floor) and near the top of the site (adjacent to Dining Patio and Hart Library)
(BHF Team, March 2015).
Vehicle access
Parking at the existing Bowles Lot is somewhat difficult due to steep grades of the site. None of the existing parking
is dedicated to use by Bowles Hall (personal communication, S. Wilmot and M. Gayles, March 2015). The project
will replace one accessible and five permit-only parking spaces in the lot with six new spaces in a graded lot near the
west lobby entrance of the building. Two of the six new spaces will be accessible. All spaces dedicated to Bowles
are expected to be reserved for faculty and staff of the building (BHF team, March 4, 2015).
A variety of suppliers would be expected to make deliveries to the Bowles Hall kitchen, with food service trucks
arriving regularly, perhaps daily (BHF team, March 4, 2015).
LANDSCAPE DESCRIPTION
The site is bounded on the southeast by Stadium Rimway; the most-clearly defined edge. On the west and northwest
sides, the site is approximately defined by the steep asphalt drive and parking area that serves both Bowles Hall and
the Greek Theatre. On the north and northeast edge, the slope rises steeply leaving approximately 15’ to 30’ of
usable outdoor space on this side of the building. The east side is the shortest edge and has a relatively level area
where students can walk to a half basketball court 70 feet to the southeast.
The basketball court is a level area set into the steep slope and is enclosed by woodland. This space serves the
residents of Bowles Hall and would not be altered by the project.
The site is not fenced from its neighboring structures, California Memorial Stadium and the Greek Theatre. There is
no historic or formal boundary to the property.
The landscape around Bowles Hall can be divided into two themes: the first consists of the more formal front lawn
and shrubs supporting the processional experience up the front stair, and the second includes the natural
Page 7
published 3.19.15
surrounding landscape and heritage trees. Both of these environments will be rehabilitated and preserved, with
minimal alteration.
The 2020 LRDP Campus Park Design Guidelines identify Bowles Hall as lying within the Hill Woodlands zone
characterized by the forested backdrop (see 2020 LRDP, Figure 12). In October 2010, Barrie D. Coate and
Associates prepared an arboricultural report titled “Survey of Trees at the Greek Theatre, UC Berkeley” (job number
09- 10-104a) that included the neighboring Bowles Hall property. Barrie Coate’s tree report informed planning for
the project; also, an Historic Landscape Assessment was completed for Bowles by PGA Design in February 2015, to
further inform planning for the project.
The proposed landscape plan for the Bowles project provides for protection of the historic plantings as identified in
the Historic Landscape Assessment (2015) specifically the signature Irish Yews that line the main stair, the upslope
evergreen backdrop to the building, and the predominantly native plantings that are in the immediate vicinity of the
north and northeast sides of the building. Additionally, the planting design enhances the existing plantings by
replacing and rejuvenating shrubbery around the main courtyard and on the broader expanses of slope north of the
entry stairs. These are the primary landscape spaces on the property. The formal plantings to be preserved and/or
rehabilitated include the 12 formal columnar Irish Yews that flank the entry stair. Irish Yews would be added to
corners of the main courtyard where they are missing completing the bilateral symmetry of the planting of the main
courtyard. Paired, sheared yew shrubs at the top of the entry stairs would be retained, and new hedges defining the
edges of the main courtyard would be included in the planting plan.
On the north and northwest sides additional new predominantly native shrubs would be added to better define and
enclose the brick patio, to define circulation routes and to screen utility enclosures. The new layout of the parking
area at the north side of the building is separated from the building by planting. The planter nearest the main
accessible door to the building is designed to be level with the parking area, has its building sides lined with hedges
and infilled with perennials to echo the formal main entry on the south side of this wing.
The new proposed addition (replacing an existing addition) does involve the removal of two trees identified in the
arborist report to be retained: an Oak and a Cypress. All other landscape work complies with the arborist report,
including the preservation of trees and the removal of nuisance or diseased trees. In total, the project would remove
43 trees (the majority of these are Pittosporum measuring less than 10” dbh that are likely volunteers, not intentional
plantings) and plant 31 new trees. The two largest trees to be removed are a 31" dbh Pinus radiata (Monteterey Pine)
and a 20" dbh Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood Acacia).
The project landscape architect has walked the site with the Campus Landscape Architect to review trees to protect,
prune, and remove, and to discuss planting concepts. The preliminary plant list has been reviewed by the CLA. The
input received to date from the CLA has been incorporated.
BUILDING DESCRIPTION
Bowles Hall is a U-shaped concrete building built into a steep hillside. Although the building has a total of eight
stories, the wings of the building step down the hill so that not more than five stories occur above any ground floor.
Page 8
published 3.19.15
The building is composed of three wings, north, east, and west. Each wing is approximately 36 feet wide. Overall
plan dimensions are 200 feet by 160 feet. The total building height, measured from the toe of the slope to the highest
roof, is 81’-6.” The floor heights are typically 10 feet. The north wing, where the third floor is at grade, is the tallest
portion of the building at 61’-6”. The roof is a steeply sloped concrete slab with clay tile roofing. This slope begins at
the seventh level floor line, or sixth floor at the lower wings, and is penetrated by dormers and gabled exterior walls.
The eighth floor, or seventh floor at the lower wings, is an attic space truncated by the steep roof and is not used for
student living quarters. Building features include false chimneys and a turret above the intersection of the west and
north wings. The west branch of the Hayward earthquake fault runs directly under the Hart Library and the
northeast corner of the main building (William Lettis & Associates 2007, Rutherford & Chekene 2008; Bowles Hall
Feasibility Study Final Draft 2011).
The project will undertake the complete renovation and upgrade of the historic building to current building code
standards and improving its ability to withstand earthquakes. With the exception of a new 2,147 gross square foot
addition that replaces an existing addition, no substantial changes are being proposed to the exterior of Bowles Hall.
The proposed minor exterior alterations are listed below:
•
Three skylights are proposed to be added to the west wing attic spaces. These would be
small in size, and located on the side of the roof away from the primary façade.
•
A single concrete buttress is proposed to be added to the rear side of the north wing at the
Dining Room as a seismic improvement, and a concrete shear wall added between two pilasters in
the same location. The buttress and shear wall are to be located on a secondary façade, and are
largely hidden by an existing steel canopy in that location.
•
Three existing steel canopies located at secondary entrances on the east and west wing are
proposed for removal. These canopies were added as part of a 1970s renovation, and are noncontributing.
•
Four steel grates located above the original balustrade at the main loggia are proposed for
removal. These were added as part of the 1970s renovation and are non-contributing.
•
Pipe rails at a number of areas around the building that were likely installed as a protection
from falling roof tiles are proposed for removal as the repair of the roof included in the project
scope will eliminate their necessity. These are non-contributing elements, and their removal will
have a positive effect on the historic integrity of the design.
•
A fire escape located on the east façade of the east wing is proposed for removal, to be
replaced by a new interior stair. It does not appear on the original drawings, but appears to have
been constructed early in the history of construction. It is not mentioned in either the Historic
Resource Survey or the historic nomination form, so no level of significance has been ascribed.
The renovation work will demolish all of the interior hollow clay tile partition walls. New interior walls will be
located to provide single and double occupancy residence rooms with private restrooms shared by a maximum of
four students. Common facilities such as lounges, study rooms, laundry rooms and support spaces will be added. The
project will create a new 1,200 square foot Resident Director’s apartment within the building. In several locations,
metal canopy roofs were added in the 1970s. The project proposes to demolish these roofs at the first floor of the
Page 9
published 3.19.15
west wing and the third floor of the east wing, but retain the canopy roof at the Dining Room Terrace since it serves
the useful purpose of providing protected outdoor dining space. In addition, decorative but historically inappropriate
railings were added above the existing guardrail along the Entry Arcade: these will be removed and the adjacent grade
changed so that 42 inch guardrails will no longer be required.
A 2,147 square foot addition will be constructed to the west of the existing building to accommodate the full cooking
kitchen, new utilities and additional recreation space. The addition incorporates kitchen, maintenance, and utility
spaces on the first floor and a game room and lounge on the second floor. A replacement addition is proposed that
is larger in size than the existing kitchen addition. The new addition will replace the existing functions of
supplemental kitchen space, and building maintenance room. This structure will also include a trash room (replacing
an existing nearby shed, and outdoor garbage bins). More significantly, the addition will have a second floor
comprised of a management office and a Game Room for the students. The existing addition is 790 SF in a single
story, and the proposed replacement addition is 2,147 SF total with a 1682 SF footprint.
Interior alterations would be extensive. The most significant changes are to the residential wings that house the
living quarters, which would be reconfigured:
•
The original double loaded corridors that serve the bedroom wings are proposed to be
demolished, along with the bedrooms and the toilet rooms. The corridor walls had been
significantly altered in the 1970s renovation and had lost a significant amount of integrity. The
corridor walls are to be replaced with new walls in the original locations, so the original corridor will
be spatially maintained.
•
The suites that are served by the corridors are proposed to be demolished and replaced
with individual bedrooms. The bedrooms are rated Significant.
•
The toilet rooms are proposed to be demolished and replaced with shared bathrooms
between the new rooms.
•
A new stair is proposed to be added at the south end of the east wing to replace an existing
fire escape. The stair will be entirely constructed within the space of an original bedroom, so no
alteration will be made to the corridor or other areas.
•
A total of five new fire doors are proposed to be added at the stairs located at the south end
of the west wing. The doors occur at the end of the corridors, and do not have a substantial effect
on the corridor configuration.
Additional interior areas that are proposed to be altered include the following:
•
Two bedrooms and the associated bathroom, corridor and stairs located on the fourth floor
near the Kitchen are proposed to be demolished to accommodate a new Lobby. These bedrooms
and the associated toilet and corridor rooms maintain the original finishes, doors and fixtures that
have been lost throughout the other residential wings.
Page 10
published 3.19.15
•
A half-flight of stairs connecting the two levels of the third floor will be constructed at the
west end of the Dining Room. The stair will be located in an asymmetrical half-bay, and will not
alter the structural rhythm or any significant design features of the Dining Room.
•
The Dungeon or Game Room that was constructed in an originally unexcavated portion of
the building is proposed to be reconfigured to be used as a study area. The room was last used as a
gym, and no original finishes remain.
•
The kitchen is proposed to be entirely reconfigured, and expanded into the adjacent storage
area. The kitchen had been modified when it was converted from table service to cafeteria style
service.
•
The original elevator is proposed to be replaced with a new larger elevator that will
accommodate gurneys as recommended by the current code for new construction.
Table 1 summarizes the changes to the historic fabric.
Page 11
published 3.19.15
TABLE 1
BOWLES HALL RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE – ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT, IMPACT UPON HISTORIC FABRIC
Interior elements – Finding in original documents, revised findings 2015, proposed treatment in project
Element
Double loaded
corridors in residential
wings
Original
Finding
Significant –
although
altered
Revised
Finding
Contributing
Toilet rooms in
residential wings
Significant/
Contributory
Contributing
Two staff bedrooms
and baths, corridor
and stairs on 4th floor
near kitchen
(Bedrooms 422, 423 &
Bath)
Hart Library
Very
Significant
Significant
Contributing
Fitness
Room/Dungeon/
Game Room
Level 5, 6 and 7
Storage (Attics)
Level 1 Apartment
Rationale
Proposed treatment in project
Loss of integrity – width of
corridors altered, noncontributory doors added,
addition of metal surrounds to
original door trims
Loss of integrity – minimal
historic tile; no original tile at
shower stalls; new fixtures
Rooms not architecturally
significant; not an element of
program that made Bowles
historically significant
All interior hollow clay tile partition walls
demolished. Corridors demolished,
replaced with new walls in original
locations.
Significant
Added during period of
significance; retains most
elements and finishes
NonContributing;
important in
Nomination
Not reviewed
Contributing
Due to prominent mention in
Nomination
The existing floor will be removed and
replaced with a mat slab foundation for the
purpose of seismic upgrade. This work will
not be visible after the slab is replaced. The
interior finishes will be preserved.
Reconfigured to study area; no alteration to
original features.
Significant
Original in unaltered condition
Three skylights added at west wing.
Not reviewed
Contributing
Original space, significantly
altered
This apartment will be eliminated and the
space reconfigured into 2 student rooms.
Space will be maintained.
Demolished, replaced with shared
bathrooms between new rooms.
Demolished to accommodate new added
west lobby.
Page 12
UC Berkeley Physical and Environmental Planning, Real Estate Division -- jklm
TABLE 1
BOWLES HALL RESIDENTIAL COLLEGE – ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT, IMPACT UPON HISTORIC FABRIC
Exterior elements – Finding in original documents, revised findings 2015
Element
Hart Library exterior
elevation
Kitchen Storage
Addition
Northeast Corner of
Main Building
Original
Finding
Contributing
Revised
Finding
Significant
Non
contributing
Not reviewed
Contributing
Non
Contributing
Rationale
Constructed during period of
significance; compatible in
materials and design
Seems to have been constructed
during period of significance
Exposed by construction of new
site retaining walls in 2003
No change proposed, beyond cleaning the
concrete and patching as necessary.
Demolished to accommodate new wood
frame addition of 2,147 square feet.
A new paved footpath will provide
improved egress from the Lounge and
Study room. Otherwise, no change.
Historic elements altered by project, significance finding in original not revised
Element
Dining Room Interior
Finding in HRS
Very Significant
Dining Room Exterior
Not described
Bedroom suites served by corridors
Significant
Elevator
Significant
Kitchen
Significant
New half flight of stairs, located in asymmetrical half-bay,
added to connect two levels of third floor.
Concrete pilaster added to rear side of north wing; concrete
shear wall added btwn two pilasters. Hidden by existing steel
canopy.
Demolished. Suite configuration eliminated, replaced with
individual bedrooms. One bedroom replaced with new stair
(south end of east wing).
Original elevator would be replaced with a new larger elevator
that will accommodate gurneys as recommended by code.
Reconfigured and expanded; however had been previously
modified when converted from table service to cafeteria.
Page 13
UC Berkeley Physical and Environmental Planning, Real Estate Division -- jklm
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
A comparison between the existing program at Bowles Hall, and the proposed program, is summarized in the table
below.
TABLE 2 BOWLES PROGRAM, EXISTING AND PROPOSED (SOURCE: BHF TEAM, FEB AND MARCH, 2015)
Program element
Existing at Bowles Hall, 2014
Proposed at Bowles Hall, 2016
1
Number of beds
~204
~190-192
2
Gender
All male
Coed
3
Food Service
½ mile away unpaved path,
Foothill Dining
On site, contracted by building
operator, subject to UC Policy
on Sustainable Practices
4
Assignable square feet,
group use
3175 (includes Dining, Lounge
and Hart Library)
5009 (Includes Dining,
Lounge, Hart Library, Game
Room/Lounge, Study Lounges
on floors 3, 6 and 7)
5
Assignable square feet,
bedroom use
29,621 (includes bathrooms)
29,240 (includes bathrooms)
6
Number of parking
spaces: residents/staff
None
Up to 6 staff spaces (two
disabled)
7
Services provided by
campus
All except fire protection
Police, water, sewage,
electricity, building inspection,
health and safety, sanitation,
refuse and recycling.
Electricity and water meters
will be installed to monitor use,
and project would be
connected to a campus
dashboard system, in
accordance with campus
standards.
8
Services provided by
Bowles Hall Foundation
None
Internet, paratransit option,
PG&E natural gas
9
Services provided by City
of Berkeley/local agency
Fire protection
Fire protection
Page 14
published 3.19.15
10
Special events
none
Maybe: BHF Relevant
events, conferences (summer
only)
11
Faculty in residence
none
2
12
On site career counseling
none
Full (Private, not affiliated with
University)
13
On site academic
counseling
none
Full (Private, not affiliated with
University)
14
Civic self-governed
none
Social, judicial, enrichment
15
Building Code compliant
no
Yes, with allowances for state
historic building code. These
include non-compliant
handrails and/or railings, and
narrow windows.
16
ADA compliant
no
Improved, with allowances for
state historic building code,
described further below.
17
Seismic compliant
no
Yes; project structural review
at campus Seismic Review
Committee March 11, 2015
18
Maintenance current
no
yes
`9
Resident privacy
low, suites are primarily quads,
w/o attached bathrooms
high, all suites singles or
doubles, all w/ attached
bathrooms
20
Group study areas
few
many
21
Sound mitigation between
rooms
low
high (rebuilt walls will be
acoustically rated, with sound
insulation)
22
Mix of classes
98% freshmen
All 4 classes, ~ evenly
distributed
Page 15
published 3.19.15
23
On site seminars
none
many
24
Bicycle parking
??
24
Program review and University oversight
According to the item prepared for the UC Regents’ consideration of ground lease business terms in March, 2014,
the Divisional Council of the Academic Senate supports the renovation and repurposing of Bowles Hall. Ongoing
Senate participation in Bowles Hall governance would be implemented through the “College Master” – a tenured
Berkeley faculty member living on the premises. The College Master would serve as the chief academic officer of the
college, as well as liaison to the campus administration. As a member of the Bowles Council, the College Master
would participate in policy formulation and financial management. The College Master would also be the ‘public
face’ of Bowles Hall, hosting events, interacting with parents and alumni, and engaging other faculty in the life of the
college.
Other academic-related staffing at the Bowles Hall Residential College would include a Resident Dean - typically, a
Berkeley lecturer with a doctorate and security of employment - who would advise and counsel the students, monitor
their academic progress, regularly participate in the communal life of the college, and manage students’ personal or
academic crises. Graduate Student Resident Tutors would be assigned to and reside in designated sections of the
college. The Tutors would counsel students in their respective sections, including notifying and working with the
Resident Dean on academic or behavioral challenges. Intellectual diversity, disciplinary breadth, community
experience, and gender balance would be key parameters in the selection of the Tutors.
The UC Berkeley Academic Senate and its standing committees have agreed to periodically review the Bowles Hall
program. Construction, operation and maintenance of facility, including requirements to adhere to campus policies
and standards pertaining to student residential operations, would be controlled by the terms of the ground lease. In
particular, the ground lease would establish milestones for design review, govern plan check and inspection of the
project, and establish guidelines pertaining to rents charged, review of operating and capital budgets and reserves
requirements. The Foundation, working with its developer/property manager, would be responsible for all aspects
of the construction and operation of the project within this oversight framework.
Program access
The building was constructed originally in 1927, before the ADA was written, and did not include consideration for
users or visitors with mobility constraints or other physical disabilities. The location of the building, on a very steep
slope, presents a significant obstacle to providing full ADA compliance. Existing special service loops for disabled
access will be examined; if necessary, the BHF would provide a golf cart to facilitate vehicular movement of visitors
from the public way up to the proposed new West Lobby entrance, given the infeasibility of ramped access.
The proposed West Lobby Entry, together with a new split-stop elevator, will provide wheelchair access to most
portions of the building. (Due to the original design of the building, which steps down the hillsides and has nonstacking floor plates, there is no possible location for an elevator that would provide full building access.) The West
Lobby Entry exterior will include a new rain cover, new accessible parking, and an accessible loading area. Inside the
Page 16
published 3.19.15
building, the West Lobby will include new (accessible) mailboxes, elevator access, two new accessible toilets, and
direct access to a residential wing.
The new two-sided elevator provides wheelchair access to the split-level third floor, including the primary public
spaces (Dining Room, Lounge, and Library), as well as to floors 3-7 and the new Addition (including Game Room).
All elevator-served levels will provide accessibility per CBC Chapter 11B. Ten percent of residential sleeping rooms
and their bathrooms will be fully accessible per code, and all other sleeping rooms will be along an accessible path of
travel and offer visit-ability.
Some spaces in the building will remain inaccessible to wheelchair users. These include the 1937 Hart Library
addition (which is up three stair risers from the Lobby), the 1st and 2nd floors (which are very small floors only
containing sleeping rooms), portions of the 3rd and 4th floors (only accessible by stairs, and only containing sleeping
rooms). The Hart Library programmatic functions are duplicated in the historic Lounge, and there are two other
Study Lounges (3rd and 7th floors) on accessible paths as well (BHF team, February 2015).
SUSTAINABLE DESIGN
The University’s Policy on Sustainable Practices (reprinted as Appendix A), last updated November, 2013, requires
building renovations that replace over 50% of all non-shell areas (interior walls, doors, floor coverings and ceiling
systems) outperform CBC Title 24, by 20%, and achieve a US Green Building Council minimum rating of LEED
Silver
certification
(see
page
6
of
26,
discussion
of
building
renovations,
at
http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/3100155/Sustainable%20Practices). In accordance with the Policy, the project will
register for Savings by Design.
The focus of the project is on improving sustainability of the existing building through highly efficient MEP systems.
The existing building shell will be supplemented with additional wall insulation; however, existing windows and
structure are to remain in place.
Occupancy monitoring will be used to reduce lighting and HVAC energy usable by shutting off lights and fancoils,
and reducing bathroom exhaust and outside air supply fan flows during unoccupied times. Technologies used to
achieve this include occupancy sensors, variable volume and temperature building heating and ventilating systems,
and service water heating circulating loop flow control.
Despite expanding the number of bathrooms in the building, and despite reintroducing kitchen use, the project
expects to reduce water use in the building by 46%. While the fixture count will go up with private bathrooms, the
demand will be reduced as there are actually somewhat fewer student residents. Furthermore the fixtures will be
low-flow, and significantly reduced water consumption overall is anticipated (BHF Team, Feb and March 2015).
Food service at Bowles Hall is expected to be comport to recycling, zero waste and food service policies of the UC
Sustainable Practices policy.
ALQUIST PRIOLO COMPLIANCE
Page 17
published 3.19.15
The renovation of Bowles Hall is subject to the provisions of the Alquist Priolo Act of 1972.
“The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act” of 1972 (Public Resources Code sections 2621-2630) was enacted by
the Legislature and signed into law by then Governor Ronald Reagan in response to the San Fernando earthquake of
1971. The Act is intended to “provide the citizens of California with increased safety and to minimize the loss of life
during and immediately following earthquakes by facilitating seismic retrofitting to strengthen buildings, including
historical buildings, against ground shaking”. The Act, among other provisions, provides human occupancy load
guidance, zoning code provisions, and real estate disclosure requirements.
The Bowles Hall structure sits upon portions of the active Hayward earthquake fault. Traces of the fault have been
mapped to be under the northeast corner of the building as well as under the adjacent Hart Library in the back of the
building. Section 2621.7 (c) of the Code states that the provisions of this chapter shall not apply to structures to be
renovated “if” the renovation cost does not exceed 50% of the value of the structure. For the purposes of this
project, the “value of the structure” is defined as the cost to replace the structure with a current code compliant
building on the same site.
The renovation of Bowles Hall will comply with this provision. Once the construction cost is confirmed, it will be
compared to the “replacement” cost estimate to ensure that the “50%” requirement is met (Bowles Hall Foundation,
John Baker, January 2015).
The project was reviewed with the campus Seismic Review Committee at their meeting of March 11, 2015. The
committee expressed that the project still needed to resolve the means of securing the roof tiles as the roof is
repaired or replaced.
PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY
As
described
in
the
2013-2023
Capital
Financial
Plan
(http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/regmeet/nov13/gb2attach.pdf) the Berkeley campus has four strategic
goals for capital investment: Leverage campus funds with external funds to maximize their impact; Require each
project budget to cover its entire useful life; Commit to sustained investment in capital renewal of buildings and
infrastructure; and Utilize private sector partnerships to reduce cost and risk. The financial plan acknowledged that
renovation of historic Bowles Hall would be undertaken through private-sector partnership. In March, 2014, the UC
Regents approved the business terms for the ground lease of Bowles to the Bowles Hall Foundation.
The project benefits UC Berkeley because renovation of historic Bowles Hall will be undertaken by the Foundation.
The Foundation shall pay all fees and costs associated with renovation, ownership and operation of Bowles Hall.
The campus has been unable to fund the required investment: housing is an auxiliary use, and development costs are
paid from housing revenues with no state support. The campus goal of keeping student costs low has limited
funding for renewal programs.
The project has some impact on campus programs, by reducing the availability of beds for freshman, eliminating six
parking spaces for permit holders.
Page 18
published 3.19.15
ACCESS AND PARKING
Currently the parking area between Bowles Hall and the Greek Theatre has parking for campus permit holders. On
event days at the Hearst Greek Theatre, the entire lot is dedicated to performance-related uses. No spaces are
dedicated to Bowles Hall. There are also no parking spaces dedicated to disabled student permit holders at Foothill
or Stern (personal conversation, RSSP, 3.4.15), although disabled students who need parking can be accommodated
there (Wilmot, 3.16.15). The project would result in the net loss of between 6 and 8 spaces from campus permit
parking at the Bowles Lot which currently includes approximately 70 spaces for faculty/staff permit holders
(personal conversation, P&T, 3.4.15; also UC Berkeley Parking and Transportation google map of parking
lots/garages downloaded 3.4.15). Up to six spaces would be dedicated to Bowles Hall staff and residents, including
disabled parking and drop off.
DRAINAGE AND UTILITIES
Electrical load for the building will accommodate inclusion of a modern commercial kitchen. That increase is the
reason for a new electrical transformer replacing the existing. Lighting will also increase (although the fixtures will be
high efficiency and overall power for lighting may be less). Student rooms will be provided with two fixtures, and
egress lighting in the corridors and along exterior pathways will be improved to meet code. There is an increased
quantity of receptacles in the building as well, reflecting the higher demand for receptacles by students today.
Nonetheless, given new design standards for electrical, energy use may be substantially lower than existing.
Project has completed a post construction water balance worksheet and the project is not expected to contribute new
runoff at the site (BHF Team, March 6 2015). The project is not anticipating significant increase in storm water
discharge.
The commercial kitchen will make use of low-flow fixtures and appliances, and the student bathrooms will also have
very low fixture flow rates. Sanitary Sewer – Project is using the existing laterals and capacity is estimated to be
sufficient for sanitary sewers. Water and sprinkler water services are connecting to the existing campus medium
pressure system.
The project will make use of “smart” meters with data connection, for the purpose of providing data on utility usage
to the campus.
Overall, campus infrastructure capacity at the site is considered to be good. Fire flow data provided by fire
department indicates sufficient water pressure. The building will be served by the new Gayley Road water main
being installed this spring.
CONSTRUCTION
The majority of the work will be conducted within the building envelope helping to control noise and vibration.
Select structural demolition for seismic retrofit will require drilling of micropiles exterior to the building
(approximately one week duration) and jackhammers to remove concrete. Demolition of interior walls will require
hand held power equipment with disposal to exterior dumpsters for haul off. Some site work will be required for
Page 19
published 3.19.15
utility improvements, paving and select fill requiring backhoes and similar. Construction of new interior walls and
finishes will be limited to hand held power equipment.
Renovation of Bowles Hall would ideally be performed within the academic cycle from June 2015 to August 2016.
The schedule requires work to be executed as quickly and efficiently as possible to meet the desired occupancy date.
The construction schedule must be closely coordinated with programming at the Hearst Greek Theatre, which
already has an established schedule and uses the parking area north of Bowles intensively before, during and
immediately after shows. Other projects in the vicinity are not anticipated. However given schedule constraints
some weekend and/or evening construction may be necessary. In accordance with the 2020 LRDP EIR provisions,
the project would control construction-related noise to the extent reasonable and feasible.
The project has set a minimum goal of meeting the 50% diversion rate and will aim for 75%. Interior demolition will
likely produce steel reinforcement and clean concrete that may be crushed for reuse offsite. The project will work
with debris haulers to segregate recyclables such as lumber, paper and gypsum drywall from the new construction
debris. The project will retain and refurbish select existing materials with historic designations.
As with any campus project, demolition and construction would result in noise and vibration. Construction of the
project would also require excavation shoring and temporary structural and excavation. Commonly major
construction operations are coordinated to help reduce impacts in the vicinity and on campus. When timelines are
more established, the contractor would coordinate with both the city and the University to limit overlap of work that
requires, for example, intensive trucking. Construction work may require temporary sidewalk or parking lane
closures; however, these temporary changes would be coordinated with the City of Berkeley and follow campus
continuing best practices. Consistent with the campus’ Continuing Best Practices, the campus construction traffic
management plan would describe standards and protocols to protect bicyclists and pedestrians to the extent feasible
and provide a point of contact on campus for construction related complaints.
LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MEASURES
INCORPORATED INTO PROJECT
As planned and proposed, the project (and therefore, this project description) incorporates measures and best
practices established in the programmatic environmental impact report for the UC Berkeley 2020 Long Range
Development Plan. Please see Part V, below.
III. PLAN AND POLICY CONTEXT
CONSISTENCY WITH THE UC BERKELEY 2020 LRDP (2005)
CONSISTENCY WITH THE UC BERKELEY 2020 LRDP EIR (2005)
CONSISTENCY WITH THE UC BERKELEY PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK (2009)
Page 20
published 3.19.15
CONSISTENCY WITH THE UC BERKELEY 2020 LRDP (2005)
The project is proposed as partial implementation of the UC Berkeley 2020 Long Range Development Plan (2020
LRDP). Adopted by the Regents in January 2005, the 2020 LRDP describes both the scope and nature of
development proposed to meet the goals of the University through academic year 2020-2021, including projections
of growth in both campus headcount and campus space during this timeframe. The 2020 LRDP also prescribes a
comprehensive set of principles, policies, and guidelines to inform the location, scale and design of individual capital
projects.
The 2020 LRDP distinguishes between the 180 acre Campus Park; the Hill Campus consisting of roughly 1000 acres
east of the Campus Park; and the City Environs, defined as blocks adjacent to campus, other Berkeley sites, and the
2020 LRDP housing zone. The proposed project is located within the City Environs, Adjacent Blocks North (2020
LRDP EIR, Volume 1, page 3.1-60). The proposed project is also within the 2020 LRDP Housing Zone (2020
LRDP EIR Volume 1, page 3.1-26). The LRDP notes that the site is within the “Hill Woodlands”, which provide a
“unique rustic character” to student residences east of Gayley Road (2020 LRDP EIR, Volume 1, page 3.1-65). The
proposed project would not alter the hill woodlands character of the Bowles Hall surrounds.
Because the proposed project is renovation of an existing building, neither the Location Guidelines of the 2020
LRDP, nor elements of the City Environs Framework pertaining to design, provide special guidance to the project.
The proposed project is renovation of an existing housing facility, and not net addition of academic and support
space, it does not impact space envelopes outlined in the 2020 LRDP (2020 LRDP EIR Volume 1, page 3.1-22).
The following 2020 LRDP Objectives are particularly relevant to the proposed project:
Provide the space, technology and infrastructure we require to excel in education, research, and
public service.
The proposed project would provide upgraded and updated seismically safe space in a new program aimed at
providing excellent support for University students.
Provide the housing, access, and services we require to support a vital intellectual community and
promote full engagement in campus life.
The proposed project is intended to provide a lively and engaging residential college environment, to support
intellectual community and campus engagement. The proposed project does not, however, expand the supply of
student housing in areas targeted by the LRDP (see 2020 LRDP EIR, Volume 1, page 3.1-25). By reprogramming
the facility to integrate all classes rather than freshmen, the project may make it somewhat harder to meet goals of
the Strategic Academic Plan to provide two years of university housing to entering freshmen who desire it. The
University is looking to expand the supply of freshmen housing near campus in other ways (see the Request for
Qualifications for the Development of Student Housing at the Stiles Parking Lot Site, published February 23, 2015 at
http://realestate.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/stiles_developer_rfq_0.pdf) Campus leaders are fully informed
about the trends in parking lost to development proposals, and the impact of the project on freshman housing. The
Page 21
published 3.19.15
Bowles Hall Residential College supports a vital intellectual community at Bowles Hall, promotes full engagement of
students housed at Bowles in campus life, and will restore an historic property important to the history of UC
Berkeley.
Plan every new project to represent the optimal investment of land and capital in the future of the
campus.
The LRDP notes that both land and capital are scarce at UC Berkeley, and investment decisions must consider the
long term best interest of the campus as a whole. The decision to lease Bowles Hall to a non-profit foundation
committed to its renovation and successful operation assists the University by augmenting University resources for
capital improvements.
Plan every new project as a model of resource conservation and environmental stewardship.
Policies under this objective include incorporating sustainable design principles into capital investment decisions;
designing new campus buildings to a standard equivalent to LEED 2.1. UC Berkeley 2020 LRDP Addendum #5,
incorporated herein by reference, describes the many activities the campus undertakes to reduce resource
consumption. All University construction is subject to the Policy on Sustainable Practices
(http://www.ucop.edu/facil/sustain/) which include green building design practices. The project would be designed
to meet LEED Silver standards for existing buildings.
Maintain and enhance the image and experience of the campus, and preserve our historic legacy of
landscape and architecture.
The project would address this policy by preserving and updating an architecturally significant and visually prominent
resource, while restoring and refreshing its historic landscape.
Plan every new project to respect and enhance the character, livability, and cultural vitality of our
city environs.
The project is renovation of an existing resource, important as a cultural resource to the City of Berkeley as
evidenced by its local landmark status. Its renovation and continued renewed operation respects and enhances the
cultural vitality of the Adjacent Blocks North in the City environs. The investment also improves the accessibility of
the resource, enhancing the livability of Bowles Hall for a broader population.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE UC BERKELEY 2020 LRDP EIR (2005)
The 2020 LRDP Environmental Impact Report (SCH #2003082131), certified by The Regents of the University of
California in January 2005, provides a comprehensive program-level analysis of the 2020 LRDP, and its potential
impacts on the environment, in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. The 2020 LRDP EIR prescribes Continuing Best Practices and Mitigation Measures for all projects
Page 22
published 3.19.15
implemented under the 2020 LRDP. Please see Part VI, below of this document for a list of Best Practices and
Mitigation Measures incorporated into the project as proposed.
The UC Berkeley Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project on February 19, 2015. The DRC had some
concerns with the design of the new west lobby entrance design, and the façade material of the addition, suggesting
that the proposed stucco exterior was undesirable, and that the canopy at the new west entrance should be more
practical; these concerns being addressed by the project team.
The DRC discussed the fact that the exterior
accessible pathway should be carefully designed, so that it does not feel overwhelmingly like an entry through a
parking lot. The interior accessible pathway from the west entrance and elevator requires awkward turning
movement to gain access to various levels, a concern of the committee; the team described looking at various
solutions, none better than that proposed. Also of concern were the changes to the configuration of the bedrooms,
as discussed in the Cultural Resources analysis, below.
Relevant Continuing Best Practices in the 2020 LRDP EIR include the following requirements for all projects
located in the ‘City Environs’:
UC Berkeley would make informational presentations on all major projects in the City Environs in Berkeley to
the Berkeley Planning Commission and, if relevant, the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission for
comment prior to schematic design review by the UC Berkeley Design Review Committee … Whenever a
project in the City Environs is under consideration by the UC Berkeley DRC, a staff representative designated by
the city in which it is located would be invited to attend and comment on the project. (Continuing Best Practice
AES-1-e)
This provision has evolved over time so that for projects in the city environs, UC Berkeley makes presentations to
the City of Berkeley Design Review Committee and, if relevant, the City of Berkeley Landmark Preservation
Commission (LPC), and presentations to the Planning Commission upon request. Since the proposed project is
renovation of an existing building, it was presented only to the Landmarks Preservation Commission at their meeting
of March 5, 2015. One commission member also expressed interest in alternative finishes for the addition; generally
the LPC was supportive of the project.
As of publication, the design team is examining design alternatives for the west entrance, to be reviewed with UC
Berkeley prior to completion.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK (2009)
The UC Berkeley Physical Design Framework, accepted by the Regents in Nov 2009, includes principles for both
land use and architecture, built upon on the policies and guidelines in the 2020 Long Range Development Plan.
Within the zone classifications of the Physical Design Framework (PDF), the project site is considered the
“Piedmont” rather than the Adjacent Blocks North or City Environs. The PDF notes “While the balance of the City
Environs are comprised of relatively flat city blocks, the Piedmont lies at the base of the eastbay hills, and features
both sloping terrain and a rustic woodland landscape.”
Page 23
published 3.19.15
The PDF noted that major renovations were anticipated at Bowles Hall (PDF p. 12). The PDF notes “The future
renovations of Bowles and Stern residence halls…do not anticipate any significant changes to site or design: the
design concerns primarily involve historic integrity, and the campus will address these concerns in the projectspecific historic evaluations, guidelines and design reviews required by the 2020 LRDP” (PDF p. 20). The project
has proceeded in precisely this manner. Please also see Table 1, above, describing changes to the historic fabric of
Bowles Hall.
IV. 2020 LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT – IMPACT SUMMARY AND PROJECTRELATED ANALYSIS
AESTHETICS
The 2020 LRDP FEIR concluded that projects implemented as part of the 2020 LRDP at UC Berkeley would not
result in new significant aesthetic impacts (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.1-15 to 4.1-19); nor would the 2020 LRDP
make a cumulatively considerable contribution to adverse aesthetic impacts (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.1-22 to 4.124).
The project is renovation of an existing building, and would not impact scenic vistas.
Project lighting is being designed to include shields and other devices to minimize light spillage and atmospheric light
pollution, and reflective surfaces would be minimized, as prescribed in the 2020 LRDP EIR (Mitigations AES-3a,
AES-3b).
The project is expected to improve the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings by renovating the
building exterior and restoring the landscape. The new proposed addition (replacing an existing addition) does
involve the removal of two trees identified in the arborist report to be retained: an Oak and a Cypress. All other
landscape work complies with the arborist report, including the preservation of trees and the removal of nuisance or
diseased trees. In total, the project would remove 43 trees (the majority of these are Pittosporum measuring less
than 10” dbh that are likely volunteers, not intentional plantings) and plant 31 new trees. The two largest trees to be
removed are a 31" dbh Pinus radiata (Monteterey Pine) and a 20" dbh Acacia melanoxylon (Blackwood Acacia).
Page 24
published 3.19.15
Since certification of the 2020 LRDP FEIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2020 LRDP or to the
circumstances surrounding the 2020 LRDP with respect to aesthetic issues that were not adequately analyzed and, as
necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. The proposed project would not alter the findings of the
2020 LRDP EIR with regard to Aesthetics.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, in combination with other
foreseeable projects, would result in visual changes. The project is not a considerable contribution to any
degradation of the visual character of the campus and environs, nor does it adversely affect scenic vistas, as examined
in the 2020 LRDP EIR (2020 LRDP EIR p. 4.1-22).
AIR QUALITY
The 2020 LRDP FEIR concluded that projects implemented as part of the 2020 LRDP, guided by compliance with
local regulations, campus policies and programs to reduce emissions and risk of toxic air contaminant releases, and
incorporating existing best practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures would, with one exception, not
result in new significant air quality impacts (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1 p. 4.2-20 to 4.2-26). As the one exception, the
2020 LRDP FEIR conservatively estimated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s (BAAQMD) Clean
Air Plan did not include an increment for growth at UC Berkeley, and found that campus growth overall may not
comply with the Clean Air Plan, and may result in a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment pollutants
that conflicts with the Clean Air Plan (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1).
In May of 2012, the BAAQMD published updated Air Quality Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality
Act. UC Berkeley implements basic construction-related mitigation measures substantially similar to those
recommended by BAAQMD (BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines page 8-3).
No new wet laboratory space is included in the project.
Bowles Hall contains various existing materials that must be abated or encapsulated per the applicable EPA and
OSHA regulations. These include lead paints applied to window frames and sills as well as asbestos containing
materials which include ceramic tile adhesive, floor tile and window putty. Other potential contaminates include lead
oakum, fire doors, thermal systems insulation ('TSI'). The work shall be performed in advance of demolition with
the appropriate containment protocols in use, per the 2020 LRDP EIR.
The action proposed herein would not result in new air quality impacts not previously considered; would not
contribute to significant environmental impacts previously identified in the 2020 LRDP FEIR, and would not result
in those impacts being more severe than as described in the 2020 LRDP FEIR. No additional mitigation measures
have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified impact, and no additional analysis is required.
The construction of the project would generate some temporary increase in construction-related emissions; however,
the project would incorporate LRDP Mitigation Measure AIR-4a and AIR 4b and LRDP Continuing Best Practices
Mitigation Measure AIR-4a and AIR-4b to control construction-related emissions and not violate air quality
standards (Consistent with 2020 LRDP Impact AIR-4). Overall project construction of Bowles Hall as proposed
Page 25
published 3.19.15
would take 14 months and is anticipated to begin in summer of 2015. Construction operations are coordinated to
help reduce impacts in the vicinity and on campus.
Implementation of the 2020 LRDP would not impede or conflict with the emissions reductions targets and strategies
prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32, given the provisions of the 2020 LRDP and campus best practices.
The proposed project would not alter these findings. Since certification of the 2020 LRDP FEIR, the key change to
circumstances surrounding the 2020 LRDP is a beneficial one: namely, in November 2013 UC Berkeley announced
that it has met its carbon reduction targets (see http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/11/12/two-years-early-ucberkeley-meets-its-carbon-reduction-target/); and a new goal of carbon neutrality has been set
(http://www.ucop.edu/initiatives/carbon-neutrality-initiative.html). There have been no substantial changes to the
2020 LRDP and no significant adverse changes to the circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with
respect to air quality that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is
available.
The 2020 LRDP EIR found traffic associated with development under the 2020 LRDP would not contribute to a
cumulatively considerable increase in or expose receptors to substantial CO concentrations. Using measured CO
concentrations associated with peak hour vehicle volumes for the intersection of Mission Boulevard and Jackson
Street/Foothill Boulevard in Hayward as a ‘worst-case’ comparable in the same air basin as the campus, the 2020
LRDP EIR found changes at local intersections resulting from implementation of the 2020 LRDP would not result
in significant impacts.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, in combination with other
foreseeable projects, may result in a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment pollutants that conflicts
with the Clean Air Plan (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1 p. 4.2-31) and could contribute to a cumulatively considerable
increase in toxic air contaminants, primarily from diesel particulate matter, from stationary and area sources (2020
LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.2-33). The renovation of Bowles Hall would not be a significant source of pollutants, TACs
or diesel particulate matter. Construction -- including minor demolition -- activities required to implement the 2020
LRDP would be controlled by best management practices in accordance with air district guidance and the proposed
project would not result in cumulatively considerable air quality impacts related to construction.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The 2020 LRDP FEIR concluded that projects implemented as part of the 2020 LRDP, incorporating existing best
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant impacts upon biological
resources (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.3-22 to 4.3-30). The proposed project would not change this conclusion.
The proposed project, including renovation and operation of the Bowles Hall Residential College, would not result in
new or more severe impacts than analyzed in the 2020 LRDP FEIR, nor contribute to cumulatively significant
adverse effects upon biological resources. The project would comply with all relevant biology mitigation measures
from the 2020 LRDP EIR. The 2020 LRDP EIR found that the Adjacent Blocks, including the Project site, ‘occur in
urbanized areas with little or no remaining natural vegetation and limited wildlife habitat values. No sensitive natural
communities, special status species, wetlands or important wildlife movement corridors occur in these zones’ (2020
Page 26
published 3.19.15
LRDP EIR Vol 1, 4.3-18 to 4.3-19). A pre-construction nesting survey would be completed prior to construction,
consistent with LRDP Mitigation Measure BIO-1-a.
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to biological resources that were not adequately
analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, incorporating biology best
practices and mitigation measures, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would not have a significant
adverse effect on special-status species or sensitive natural communities, jurisdictional wetlands, wildlife corridors
and movement opportunities, or wildlife nursery sites (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.3-35-4.3-37). The proposed
project would not alter these conclusions.
CLIMATE CHANGE
The 2020 LRDP was amended to reference the campus climate action plan, a stringent campus greenhouse gas
reduction strategy, in July, 2009, and the 2020 LRDP EIR was amended to consider how implementation of the 2020
LRDP impacts climate change / greenhouse gas emissions. Implementation of the 2020 LRDP would not impede or
conflict with the emissions reductions targets and strategies prescribed in or developed to implement AB 32, given
the provisions of the 2020 LRDP and campus best practices (2020 LRDP EIR Addendum #5, page 45). As noted
above, the key change to circumstances surrounding the 2020 LRDP with regard to greenhouse gases is a beneficial
one: namely, in November 2013 UC Berkeley announced that it has met its carbon reduction targets (see
http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/11/12/two-years-early-uc-berkeley-meets-its-carbon-reduction-target/); and a
new goal of carbon neutrality has been set (http://www.ucop.edu/initiatives/carbon-neutrality-initiative.html).
As part of the LRDP EIR addendum #5 prepared in accordance with CEQA to consider the LRDP climate change
amendment, construction period (including demolition) emissions for UC Berkeley were calculated, assuming 1
million gross square feet of new space under development, or 45.9 acres under construction at UC Berkeley over a
twelve-month period. Modeling shows that annual CO2 emissions of 1,264 metric tons results from construction
activities of this scale. For comparison, emissions associated with campus water consumption were 1,955 metric tons
of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2007. Construction at the project site would be well within the one million square
feet of new space under development analyzed in the 2020 LRDP EIR and 2020 LRDP EIR Addendum #5.
The project would not be a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. The project is a renovation project; further it
is planned and would be managed to comply with the University Policy on Sustainable Practices, and incorporates
best practices and specific design elements outlined in Section II as partial implementation, including reuse of
recycling of construction materials, use of operable windows, low flow toilets, and commissioning of building
systems. Further, the project implements the 2020 LRDP as amended and would not generate greenhouse gas
emissions in a manner that significantly impacts the environment. Lead agencies, including municipalities, counties,
and universities, have adopted climate action plans in an effort to meet state mandated greenhouse gas reduction
targets through comprehensive efforts. Where the focus of CEQA is commonly on the physical impact of a single
Page 27
published 3.19.15
new development proposal, ongoing pre-existing operations are often the greatest contributors of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR determined that the impact of implementation of the 2020 LRDP, with
incorporation of all best practices and implementation of UC Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan, on cumulative climate
change would be less than significant. (2020 LRDP EIR Addendum #5, page 55). The proposed project would not
alter these conclusions.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
In the 2020 LRDP EIR, the numerous historical resources located within the geographic scope of the 2020 LRDP
were divided into two separate categories: Primary Historical Resources and Secondary Historical Resources. Primary
Historical Resources include those listed on the California Register of Historical Resources. Secondary Historical
Resources include resources listed on local registers, as well as resources listed on the state Inventory. Secondary
Historical Resources are presumed significant unless a preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Historic
resources covered here include buildings, sites (which include landscapes), structures (such as bridges), and objects
(such as Founders' Rock). Bowles Hall is a primary historical resource.
On March 11, 2015, the project was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office according to their review
process, for consideration and comment and in accordance with campus best practices (CBP-CUL-2-a).
The 2020 LRDP FEIR noted that under certain circumstances, projects developed under the 2020 LRDP could
cause substantial adverse changes in the significance of historical resources, which would remain a significant and
unavoidable impact despite recordation of the resource (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.4-55).
The proposed project is expected to preserve the historic and National Register status of Bowles Hall, while
demolishing some significant historic fabric identified in the 1999 Historic Resource Survey and the 2015 Update.
Of particular concern as analyzed by the UC Berkeley Design Review Committee would be changes to the
configuration of bedrooms. The project would implement LRDP Mitigation Measure CUL-3, requiring recordation
of the resource to archival standards prior to demolition or alteration.
The project is renovation of an existing building, with minimal new construction to expand the kitchen addition.
Archaeological materials would not be anticipated at the project site; nonetheless, contractors would be notified that
they are required to watch for potential archaeological artifacts and to notify UC Berkeley if any are found, in
accordance with best practices. See 2020 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures and Best Practices incorporated into the
project, item CUL-4-a through c.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, incorporating cultural
resource best practices and mitigation measures, in combination with other foreseeable projects, could contribute to
the cumulative reduction and/or degradation of the resource base of historical or archaeological resources, a
significant and unavoidable impact (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.4-61). The proposed project would not alter these
conclusions.
Page 28
published 3.19.15
GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND SOILS
The Hart Library addition to Bowles Hall is located upon the Hayward Fault. Subsurface information and seismic
hazard related to fault displacement is documented in the report “Fault Displacement Hazard Analysis, Bowles Hall,
University of California, Berkeley” by William Lettis & Associates, dated October 2007. Seismic hazard from ground
shaking is based on a campus study by URS Corporation. Geotechnical study for engineering recommendations
related to foundations and retaining walls is being conducted by Rutherford + Chekene Consulting Engineers and
will be documented in a geotechnical report for the project.
Prior to the 2007 report that identified potential for seismic hazard from fault displacement, Bowles Hall had been
rated GOOD according to the UC Seismic Policy. Seismic retrofit work performed in 2009 addressed seismic hazard
from fault displacement by building retaining walls behind the building and a concrete mat foundation in a portion of
the building (weight room) in the zone of potential fault displacement. The current project will complete the
previously-recommended retrofit work for fault displacement by building a concrete mat foundation in the other
portion of the building (library) that is also in the zone of potential fault displacement. The current project also
includes seismic retrofit work to improve resistance to seismic shaking, including mitigating existing discontinuous
walls.
The expected seismic rating for the building post-project is III according to the current UC Seismic Safety Policy
(comparable to “GOOD” according to the rating nomenclature used in previous editions of the policy).
In accordance with CBP GEO-1-f, even though not a UC operated building, Bowles Hall will be required to have a
Building Coordinator who prepares building response plans and coordinates education and planning for all building
occupants.
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to geology, seismicity and soils that were not
adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, incorporating geology,
seismicity and soils best practices and mitigation measures, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would
have less than significant impacts due to fault rupture, seismic ground shaking or ground failure, landslides, soil
erosion, or risk due to expansive soils or unstable soils or geologic units (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.5-23-24). The
proposed project would not alter these conclusions.
GREENHOUSE GASES
See discussion under Climate Change, above.
Page 29
published 3.19.15
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant hazardous materials related
impacts (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1 p. 4.6-20 to 4.6-35).
The proposed project entails renovation and operation of an existing building. The project therefore would not
create a new significant hazard not analyzed in the 2020 LRDP FEIR, and would not result in more severe significant
impacts than analyzed in the 2020 LRDP FEIR. Since certification of the 2020 LRDP FEIR, there have been no
substantial changes to the 2020 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to
hazardous materials that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is
available. No additional mitigation measures have been identified that would further lessen any previously identified
impact, and no additional analysis is required.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, incorporating hazardous
materials best practices and mitigation measures, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would not
significantly increase hazards to the public or the environment associated with the use and transport of hazardous
materials and the generation of hazardous waste (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.6-33). The proposed project would
not alter these conclusions.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Despite expanding the number of bathrooms in the building, and despite reintroducing kitchen use, the project
expects to reduce water use in the building by 46%. While the fixture count will go up with private bathrooms, the
demand will be reduced as the resident count is lower. Furthermore the fixtures will be low-flow, and significantly
reduced water consumption overall is anticipated (BHF Team, Feb and March 2015). On the landscape side of the
stormwater discussion, pavements that are currently porous (stone at main courtyard, brick at brick patio) remain
porous paving, vegetated areas remain vegetated. A preliminary post construction water balance calculator
completed for the project determined that stormwater requirements had been met.
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant impacts upon hydrology
and water quality (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.7-24 to 4.7-35) Since certification of the 2020 LRDP FEIR, there have
been no substantial changes to the 2020 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with
respect to hydrology and water quality that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new
information is available.
The proposed project would incorporate applicable LRDP mitigation measures and best practices and it would be
subject to review by the campus department of Environment, Health and Safety to ensure construction practices
reduce groundwater or dewatering impacts. As designed, runoff from new hardscape would be filtered to reduce
Page 30
published 3.19.15
pollutant loading in accordance with regulatory standards. The proposed project would not alter 2020 LRDP FEIR
conclusions with respect to hydrology and water quality. No additional mitigation measures have been identified that
would further lessen the previously identified impacts, and no additional analysis is required.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, incorporating hydrology best
practices and mitigation measures, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would not significantly increase
surface runoff, wastewater discharge, would not substantially lower the groundwater table, would not violate existing
surface water quality standards or wastewater discharge requirements, would not substantially contribute sediments
or pollutants to storm water runoff, would not contribute a cumulatively considerable amount to exceedances of the
capacity of stormwater drainage systems, and would not contribute a cumulatively considerable amount to
impedances or redirection of flows within the 100 year flood hazard area (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.7-33-35). The
proposed project would not alter these conclusions.
LAND USE
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant land use impacts (2020
LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.8-15 to 4.8-21). The project extends an existing land use and does not alter any land use
assumption about the project site as identified in the 2020 LRDP.
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to land use that were not adequately analyzed and,
as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. No additional mitigation measures have been identified
that would further lessen the previously identified impact, and no additional analysis is required.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP would not conflict with local
land use regulations such that a significant cumulative incompatibility is created with adjacent land uses, nor conflict
with applicable policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact (2020 LRDP
FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.8-20). The project would not alter these conclusions.
NOISE
The 2020 LRDP FEIR concluded that projects implemented as part of the 2020 LRDP, even with incorporation of
existing best practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, could result in significant noise impacts resulting
from demolition and construction activities (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.9-16 to 4.9-25). Prior to commencement of
noisy construction, UC Berkeley posts construction notices, and would contact project neighbors to provide them
with construction information prior to start of construction, implementing 2020 LRDP Continuing Best Practice
NOI-4-b.
As described in the Project Description, the proposed project would renovate an existing building for continuing use;
also the focus of demolition and construction work would be interior to the building envelope, reducing construction
Page 31
published 3.19.15
noise. However, given the constrained construction schedule, some evening and weekend construction work may
be necessary. The 2020 LRDP Draft EIR recognized that construction and demolition activities would occur within
the 2020 LRDP in proximity to residential and commercial land uses. Construction planned at Bowles may
intermittently result in noise levels exceeding limits set forth in the Berkeley Noise Ordinance. Implementation of
Continuing Best Practices NOI-4-a, NOI-4-b, and LRDP Mitigation Measure NOI-4 would control constructionrelated noise to the extent that is reasonable and feasible. The schedule for construction and demolition activities
generating noise in the community would, to the extent possible, reflect the Berkeley Noise Ordinance provisions.
Truck traffic is assumed to use major roadways. The siting of staging and laydown areas would consider minimizing
noise as stipulated in Continuing Best Practice NOI-4-b. Even after implementation of these continuing best
practices and mitigation measures, the noise impact from construction is potentially significant and unavoidable, as
noted in the 2020 LRDP FEIR.
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to noise that were not adequately analyzed and, as
necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. No additional mitigation measures have been identified
that would further lessen the previously identified impact, and no additional analysis is required.
Cumulatively, the 2020 LRDP EIR generally noted that projects implementing the 2020 LRDP, incorporating noise
best practices and mitigation measures, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would not result in a
substantial permanent, temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels, or expose people to or generate
excessive ground-borne vibration or ground borne noise levels (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.9-24). The 2020 LRDP
EIR noted that implementation of the 2020 LRDP would expose people to noise levels in excess of established
standards by way of construction noise, a significant and unavoidable impact (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.6-24).
The project would not alter these conclusions.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant impacts related to
population and housing (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1 p. 4.10-10 to 4.10-19). While the project may make it more
difficult for UC Berkeley to meet its goal of housing for all campus freshmen who desire it (because the building will
now house a mix of students), the campus is also expecting to construct additional housing in accordance with
LRDP provisions. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than analyzed in the 2020
LRDP FEIR. The proposal does not add population to the campus and involves renovation of existing housing.
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to population and housing that were not
adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. No additional mitigation
measures have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified impacts, and no additional analysis
is required.
Page 32
published 3.19.15
The 2020 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 2020 LRDP in combination with other reasonably
foreseeable projects would induce population growth in the Bay Area, but the contribution of the 2020 LRDP would
not be cumulatively considerable (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.10-19). The proposed project would not alter this
conclusion.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Police services for campus properties are primarily provided by the University of California Police Department
(UCPD). In May of 2005 the Chancellor and the Mayor of the City of Berkeley signed an agreement earmarking
$600,000 annually in campus funds to the City of Berkeley to support emergency and fire protection. UC Berkeley
directly employs fire marshals who are responsible for fire prevention activities, including fire and life safety
inspections of campus buildings for code compliance, fire and evacuation drills, and development of self-help
educational materials.
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant impacts upon public
services (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.11-11 to 4.11-15; 4.11-10; 4.11-26 to 4.11-28; 4.11-32 to 4.11-33). The proposed
project does not alter assumptions of the 2020 LRDP with regard to recreational facilities, emergency access and
emergency services demand, or schools. The proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts than
analyzed in the 2020 LRDP FEIR.
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to public services that were not adequately
analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. No additional mitigation measures have
been identified that would further lessen the previously identified impacts, and no additional analysis is required.
The 2020 LRDP EIR concluded that implementation of the 2020 LRDP would not contribute to cumulatively
significant adverse public services effects related to construction of public service facilities, deterioration of
recreation facilities, exposure to risk of fires, interference with emergency response and evacuation, or emergency
access constraints (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.11-32 to 33). The proposed project would not alter this conclusion.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
The proposed project is renovation of an existing building for an existing use, with no notable change to traffic or
transportation at the site or vicinity. Up to six existing campus parking spaces would be reconfigured and assigned to
the project, resulting in a net reduction in campus parking supply. The addition of food service at the site restores a
previous use, and would result in some food delivery vehicles.
As noted in the 2020 LRDP EIR (see page F.1-8 and F.1-9 in Volume 2) the primary factor for estimating vehicle
trip generation is an anticipated increase in population, but the number of parking spaces provided also contributes
to the overall project trip generation studied. The 2020 LRDP FEIR concluded that projects implemented as part of
Page 33
published 3.19.15
the 2020 LRDP, incorporating existing best practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would as a whole
result in some significant impacts upon traffic and transportation, specifically upon indicated intersections and
roadways, due to increases in population and parking supply (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.12-48 to 4.12-54; Vol. 2
Section F). The proposed project does not include a significant employee population; therefore, no vehicle or
parking impacts are anticipated specific to the project. Furthermore, the project would have approximately 10 fewer
beds than the existing Bowles Hall housing program; therefore, there is not expected to be a substantial change in the
number of person trips regardless of transportation mode (walk, bicycle, transit, etc.) to and from the housing
program.
Consistent with the 2020 LRDP FEIR, the project would incorporate a number of mitigation measures to reduce the
potential impacts of construction traffic (See 2020 LRDP EIR Mitigation Measures TRA-3a to 3d).
No additional mitigation measures have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified impacts,
and no additional analysis is required.
Since certification of the 2020 LRDP FEIR, additional parking supply and demand studies have been completed that
could alter some of the parking assumptions in the 2020 LRDP; however, at this time, there have been no substantial
changes to the 2020 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to
transportation that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no other new information is
available. No additional mitigation measures have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified
impact, and no additional analysis is required.
The 2020 LRDP EIR concluded that cumulative construction-related traffic and parking may exacerbate parking
capacity concerns, congestion conditions or create unsafe conditions for pedestrians or bicyclists, but with on-going
implementation of best practices and mitigation measures by all agencies, construction-related traffic impacts would
not be significant (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.12-59). The proposed project would not alter the cumulative impact
conclusions of the 2020 LRDP FEIR.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The project is expected to make use of existing systems serving the project site, including electrical, water and sewer.
In 1990 the City of Berkeley agreed to upgrade its sewer system as required to serve development proposed by the
1990 LRDP. UC Berkeley paid more than $3 million to the city to support these improvements. As further support
of this effort, in May of 2005 the UC Berkeley Chancellor and the mayor of the City of Berkeley signed an agreement
earmarking $200,000 annually in campus funds to the City of Berkeley to support sewer and storm drain
infrastructure projects. The project does not contribute to the total net new academic and support program space
anticipated under the 2020 LRDP EIR.
The project is designed to exceed Title 24 energy conservation requirements by 20 percent and incorporates energy
efficient design elements. Construction-related best practices would guide the construction management plan
Page 34
published 3.19.15
including truck routing to reduce truck trips. In addition, to meet campus recycling goals, the project would provide
sufficient space and equipment to promote recycling.
practices and 2020 LRDP FEIR mitigation measures, would not result in new significant utilities and service systems
impacts (2020 LRDP FEIR Vol. 1, 4.13-5, 4.13-10 to 4.13-12, 4.13-15 to 4.13-16, 4.13-18, 4.13-21 to 4.13-22, 4.13-25
to 4.13-28).
circumstances surrounding 2020 LRDP development with respect to utilities and service systems that were not
adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. No additional mitigation
measures have been identified that would further lessen the previously identified impacts, and no additional analysis
is required.
Based on the foregoing, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts not
previously addressed in the 2020 LRDP EIR; none of the circumstances that would require preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR under CEQA exists.
The 2020 LRDP EIR evaluated whether the 2020 LRDP, in combination with other University and non-University
projects, would result in cumulative impacts on utilities and service systems, concluding that the potential need for
new or altered conveyance systems for wastewater or stormwater would not have significant impacts (2020 LRDP
FEIR Vol 1 p. 4.13-28). The proposed project would not alter the cumulative impact conclusions of the 2020 LRDP
FEIR.
V. 2020 LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONTINUING BEST PRACTICES
INCORPORATED INTO PROJECT AS PROPOSED
Aesthetics
Continuing Best Practice AES-1-b: Major new campus projects would continue to be reviewed at each stage of
design by the UC Berkeley Design Review Committee. The provisions of the 2020 LRDP, as well as project specific
design guidelines prepared for each such project, would guide these reviews.
Continuing Best Practice AES-1-e: UC Berkeley would make informational presentations of all major projects in
the City Environs in Berkeley to the Berkeley Planning Commission and, if relevant, the Berkeley Landmarks
Preservation Commission for comment prior to schematic design review by the UC Berkeley Design Review
Committee. Major projects in the City Environs in Oakland would similarly be presented to the Oakland Planning
Commission and, if relevant, to the Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Whenever a project in the
City Environs is under consideration by the UC Berkeley DRC, a staff representative designated by the city in which
it is located would be invited to attend and comment on the project.
Page 35
published 3.19.15
Continuing Best Practice AES-1-f: Each individual project built in the City Environs under the 2020 LRDP would
be assessed to determine whether it could pose potential significant aesthetic impacts not anticipated in the 2020
LRDP, and if so, the project would be subject to further evaluation under CEQA.
LRDP Mitigation Measure AES-3-a: Lighting for new development projects would be designed to include shields
and cut-offs that minimize light spillage onto unintended surfaces, and to minimize atmospheric light pollution. The
only exception to this principle would be in those areas within the Campus Park where such features would be
incompatible with the visual and/or historic character of the area.
LRDP Mitigation Measure AES-3-b: As part of the design review procedures described in the above Continuing
Best Practices, light and glare would be given specific consideration, and measures incorporated into the project
design to minimize both. In general, exterior surfaces would not be reflective: architectural screens and shading
devices are preferable to reflective glass.
Air Quality
Continuing Best Practice AIR-4-a: UC Berkeley shall continue to include in all construction contracts the
measures specified below to reduce fugitive dust impacts:
All disturbed areas, including quarry product piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction
purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using tarps, water, (non-toxic) chemical
stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover.
All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions
using water or (nontoxic) chemical stabilizer/suppressant.
When quarry product or trash materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, or at least two
feet of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained.
Continuing Best Practice AIR-4-b: UC Berkeley shall continue to implement the following control C W measure
to reduce emissions of diesel particulate matter and ozone precursors from construction equipment exhaust:
•Minimize idling time when construction equipment is not in use.
LRDP Mitigation Measure AIR-4-a: In addition, UC Berkeley shall include in all construction contracts the
measures specified below to reduce fugitive dust impacts, including but not limited to the following:
All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities
shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by presoaking.
When demolishing buildings, water shall be applied to all exterior surfaces of the building for dust
suppression.
All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from paved areas of
construction sites and from adjacent public streets as necessary. See also CBP HYD 1-b.
Page 36
published 3.19.15
Following the addition of materials to, or the removal of materials from, the surface of outdoor storage
piles, said piles shall be effectively stabilized of fugitive dust emissions by utilizing sufficient water or by
covering.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Water blasting shall be used in lieu of dry sand blasting wherever feasible.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with
slopes over one percent.
To the extent feasible, limit area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activity at any one
time.
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
LRDP Mitigation Measure AIR-4-b: UC Berkeley shall implement the following control measures to reduce
emissions of diesel particulate matter and ozone precursors from construction equipment exhaust:
To the extent that equipment is available and cost effective, UC Berkeley shall require contractors to use
alternatives to diesel fuel, retrofit existing engines in construction equipment and employ diesel particulate
matter exhaust filtration devices.
To the extent practicable, manage operation of heavy-duty equipment to reduce emissions, including the use
of particulate traps.
Continuing Best Practice AIR-5: UC Berkeley will continue to implement transportation control measures such as
supporting voluntary trip-reduction programs, ridesharing, and implementing improvements to bicycle facilities.
Biological Resources
LRDP Mitigation Measure BIO-1-a: UC Berkeley will, to the full feasible extent, avoid the disturbance or removal
of nests of raptors and other special-status bird species when in active use. A pre-construction nesting survey for
loggerhead shrike or raptors, covering a 100 yard perimeter of the project site, would be conducted during the
months of March through July prior to commencement of any project that may impact suitable nesting habitat on
the Campus Park and Hill Campus. The survey would be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 30 days
prior to initiation of disturbance to potential nesting habitat. In the Hill Campus, surveys would be conducted for
new construction projects involving removal of trees and other natural vegetation. In the Campus Park, surveys
would be conducted for construction projects involving removal of mature trees within 100 feet of a Natural Area,
Strawberry Creek, and the Hill Campus. If any of these species are found within the survey area, grading and
construction in the area would not commence, or would continue only after the nests are protected by an adequate
setback approved by a qualified biologist. To the full feasible extent, the nest location would be preserved, and
alteration would only be allowed if a qualified biologist verifies that birds have either not begun egg-laying and
incubation, or that the juveniles from those nests are foraging independently and capable of survival. A pre-
Page 37
published 3.19.15
construction survey is not required if construction activities commence during the non-nesting season (August
through February).
LRDP Mitigation Measure BIO-1-b: UC Berkeley will, to the full feasible extent, avoid the remote potential for
direct mortality of special-status bats and destruction of maternal roosts. A pre-construction roosting survey for
special-status bat species, covering the project site and any affected buildings, would be conducted during the
months of March through August prior to commencement of any project that may impact suitable maternal roosting
habitat on the Campus Park and Hill Campus. The survey would be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than
30 days prior to initiation of disturbance to potential roosting habitat. In the Hill Campus, surveys would be
conducted for new construction projects prior to grading, vegetation removal, and remodel or demolition of
buildings with isolated attics and other suitable roosting habitat. In the Campus Park, surveys would be conducted
for construction projects prior to remodel or demolition of buildings with isolated attics. If any maternal roosts are
detected during the months of March through August, construction activities would not commence, or would
continue only after the roost is protected by an adequate setback approved by a qualified biologist. To the full
feasible extent, the maternal roost location would be preserved, and alteration would only be allowed if a qualified
biologist verifies that bats have completed rearing young, that the juveniles are foraging independently and capable of
survival, and bats have been subsequently passively excluded from the roost location. A pre-construction survey is
not required if construction activities commence outside the maternal roosting season (September through
February).
Continuing Best Practice BIO-1-a: UC Berkeley will continue to implement the Campus Specimen Tree Program
to reduce adverse effects to specimen trees and flora. Replacement landscaping will be provided where specimen
resources are adversely affected, either through salvage and relocation of existing trees and shrubs or through new
plantings of the same genetic strain, as directed by the Campus Landscape Architect.
Continuing Best Practice BIO-1-b: Implementation of the 2020 LRDP, particularly the Campus Park Guidelines,
as well as the Landscape Master Plan and project-specific design guidelines, would provide for stewardship of
existing landscaping, and use of replacement and expanded tree and shrub plantings to preserve and enhance the
Campus Park landscape. Coast live oak and other native plantings would continue to be used in future landscaping,
serving to partially replace any trees lost as a result of projects implemented under the 2020 LRDP.
Climate Change
Continuing Best Practice CLI-1: UC Berkeley would continue to implement provisions of the UC Policy on
Sustainable Practices including, but not limited to: Green Building Design; Clean Energy Standards; Climate
Protection Practices; Sustainable Transportation Practices; Sustainable Operations; Recycling and Waste
Management; and Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Practices.
Continuing Best Practice CLI-2: UC Berkeley would continue to implement energy conservation measures (such
as energy-efficient lighting and microprocessor-controlled HVAC equipment) to reduce the demand for electricity
and natural gas. The energy conservation measures may be subject to modification as new technologies are
developed or if current technologies become obsolete through replacement.
Page 38
published 3.19.15
Cultural Resources
Continuing Best Practice CUL-1: In the event that paleontological resource evidence or a unique geological
feature is identified during project planning or construction, the work would stop immediately and the find would be
protected until its significance can be determined by a qualified paleontologist or geologist. If the resource is
determined to be a “unique resource,” a mitigation plan would be formulated and implemented to appropriately
protect the significance of the resource by preservation, documentation, and/or removal, prior to recommencing
activities.
Continuing Best Practice CUL-2-a: If a project could cause a substantial adverse change in features that convey
the significance of a primary or secondary resource, an Historic Structures Assessment (HSA) would be prepared.
Recommendations of the HSA made in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards would be
implemented, in consultation with the UC Berkeley Design Review Committee and the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO), such that the integrity of the significant resource is preserved and protected. Copies of all reports
would be filed in the University Archives/Bancroft Library.
LRDP MM CUL-3: If, in furtherance of the educational mission of the University, a project would require the
demolition of a primary or secondary resource, or the alteration of such a resource in a manner not in conformance
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, the resource would be recorded to archival standards prior to its
demolition or alteration.
Continuing Best Practice CUL-4-a: For projects with the potential to cause adverse changes in the significance of
historical resources, UC Berkeley would make informational presentations of all major projects in the City Environs
in Berkeley to the Berkeley Planning Commission and the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission for
comment prior to schematic design review by the UC Berkeley Design Review Committee. Such projects in the City
Environs in Oakland would similarly be presented to the Oakland Planning Commission and the Oakland
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
In the event resources are determined to be present at a project site, the following actions would be implemented as
appropriate to the resource and the proposed disturbance:
• UC Berkeley shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct a subsurface investigation of the project site, to
ascertain the extent of the deposit of any buried archaeological materials relative to the project’s area of potential
effects. The archaeologist would prepare a site record and file it with the California Historical Resource Information
System (CHRIS)
• If the resource extends into the project’s area of potential effects, the resource would be evaluated by a qualified
archaeologist. UC Berkeley as lead agency would consider this evaluation in determining whether the resource
qualifies as a historical resource or a unique archaeological resource under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines section
15064.5. If the resource does not qualify, or if no resource is present within the project area of potential effects, this
would be noted in the environmental document and no further mitigation is required unless there is a discovery
during construction (see below)
Page 39
published 3.19.15
• If a resource within the project area of potential effect is determined to qualify as an historical resource or a unique
archaeological resource in accordance with CEQA, UC Berkeley shall consult with a qualified archaeologist to
mitigate the effect through data recovery if appropriate to the resource, or to consider means of avoiding or reducing
ground disturbance within the site boundaries, including minor modifications of building footprint, landscape
modification, the placement of protective fill, the establishment of a preservation easement, or other means that
would permit avoidance or substantial preservation in place of the resource. If further data recovery, avoidance or
substantial preservation in place is not feasible, UC Berkeley shall implement LRDP Mitigation Measure CUL-5. A
written report of the results of investigations would be prepared by a qualified archaeologist and filed with the
University Archives/ Bancroft Library and the Northwest Information Center (NIC).
LRDP Mitigation Measure CUL-4-b: If a resource is discovered during construction (whether or not an
archaeologist is present), all soil disturbing work within 35 feet of the find shall cease. UC Berkeley shall contact a
qualified archaeologist to provide and implement a plan for survey, subsurface investigation as needed to define the
deposit, and assessment of the remainder of the site within the project area to determine whether the resource is
significant and would be affected by the project, as outlined in Continuing Best Practice CUL-3-a. UC Berkeley
would implement the recommendations of the archaeologist. (Supersedes NEQSS Mitigation Measures 1990 LRDP
4.3-1, SODA 4.3-1)
Continuing Best Practice CUL-4-b: In the event human or suspected human remains are discovered, UC Berkeley
would notify the County Coroner who would determine whether the remains are subject to his or her authority. The
Coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission if the remains are Native American. UC Berkeley
would comply with the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.5(d) regarding identification and involvement of the Native American Most Likely Descendant and with the
provisions of the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to ensure that the remains and
any associated artifacts recovered are repatriated to the appropriate group, if requested. (Supersedes NEQSS
Mitigation Measures 1990 LRDP 4.3-2, SODA 4.3-2)
Continuing Best Practice CUL-4-c: Prior to disturbing the soil, contractors shall be notified that they are required
to watch for potential archaeological sites and artifacts and to notify UC Berkeley if any are found. In the event of a
find, UC Berkeley shall implement LRDP Mitigation Measure CUL-4-b.
LRDP Mitigation Measure CUL-5: If, in furtherance of the educational mission of the University, a project would
require damage to or demolition of a significant archaeological resource, a qualified archaeologist shall, in
consultation with UC Berkeley:
Prepare a research design and archaeological data recovery plan that would attempt to capture those categories of
data for which the site is significant, and implement the data recovery plan prior to or during development of the
site.
Perform appropriate technical analyses, prepare a full written report and file it with the appropriate information
center and provide for the permanent curation of recovered materials.
Page 40
published 3.19.15
Geology, Seismicity and Soils
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-a: UC Berkeley will continue to comply with the CBC and the University Policy on
Seismic Safety.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-b: Site-specific geotechnical studies will be conducted under the supervision of a
California Registered Engineering Geologist or licensed geotechnical engineer and UC Berkeley will incorporate
recommendations for geotechnical hazard prevention and abatement into project design.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-c: The Seismic Review Committee (SRC) shall continue to review all seismic and
structural engineering design for new and renovated existing buildings on campus and ensure that it conforms to the
California Building Code and the University Policy on Seismic Safety.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-d: UC Berkeley shall continue to use site-specific seismic ground motion
specifications developed for analysis and design of campus projects. The information provides much greater detail
than conventional codes and is used for performance-based analyses.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-f: Through the Office of Emergency Preparedness, UC Berkeley will continue to
implement programs and projects in emergency planning, training, response, and recovery. Each campus building
housing Berkeley students, faculty and staff has a Building Coordinator who prepares building response plans and
coordinates education and planning for all building occupants.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-g: As stipulated in the University Policy on Seismic Safety, the design parameters for
specific site peak acceleration and structural reinforcement will be determined by the geotechnical and structural
engineer for each new or rehabilitation project proposed under the 2020 LRDP. The acceptable level of actual
damage that could be sustained by specific structures would be calculated based on geotechnical information
obtained at the specific building site.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-1-i: The site-specific geotechnical studies conducted under GEO-1-b will include
an assessment of landslide hazard, including seismic vibration and other factors contributing to slope stability.
Continuing Best Practice GEO-2: Campus construction projects with potential to cause erosion or sediment loss,
or discharge of other pollutants, would include the campus Stormwater Pollution Prevention Specification. This
specification includes by reference the “Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control” of the Association
of Bay Area Governments and requires that each large and exterior project develop an Erosion Control Plan.
Hazardous Materials
Continuing Best Practice HAZ-4: UC Berkeley shall continue to perform site histories and due diligence
assessments of all sites where ground-disturbing construction is proposed, to assess the potential for soil and
groundwater contamination resulting from past or current site land uses at the site or in the vicinity. The
investigation will include review of regulatory records, historical maps and other historical documents, and inspection
of current site conditions. UC Berkeley would act to protect the health and safety of workers or others potentially
exposed should hazardous site conditions be found.
Page 41
published 3.19.15
Continuing Best Practice HAZ-5: UC Berkeley shall continue to perform hazardous materials surveys prior to
capital projects in existing campus buildings. The campus shall continue to comply with federal, state, and local
regulations governing the abatement and handling of hazardous building materials and each project shall address this
requirement in all construction.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Continuing Best Practice HYD-1-a: During the plan check review process and construction phase monitoring,
UC Berkeley (EH&S) will verify that the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements and BMPs.
Continuing Best Practice HYD-1-b: UC Berkeley shall continue implementing an urban runoff management
program containing BMPs as published in the Strawberry Creek Management Plan, and as developed through the
campus municipal Stormwater Management Plan completed for its pending Phase II MS4 NPDES permit. UC
Berkeley will continue to comply with the NPDES stormwater permitting requirements by implementing
construction and post construction control measures and BMPs required by project-specific SWPPPs and, upon its
approval, by the Phase II SWMP to control pollution. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans would be prepared as
required by the appropriate regulatory agencies including the Regional Water Quality Control Board and where
applicable, according to the UC Berkeley Stormwater Pollution Prevention Specification to prevent discharge of
pollutants and to minimize sedimentation resulting from construction and the transport of soils by construction
vehicles. (Supersedes NEQSS Mitigation Measures SODA 4.8-3a-d)
Continuing Best Practice HYD-1-c: UC Berkeley shall maintain a campus-wide educational program regarding
safe use and disposal of facilities maintenance chemicals and laboratory chemicals, to prevent discharge of these
pollutants to Strawberry Creek and the campus storm drains. (Supersedes NEQSS Mitigation Measure 1990 LRDP
4.8-4b)
Continuing Best Practice HYD-1-d: UC Berkeley shall continue to implement the campus Drain Disposal Policy
and Drain Disposal Guidelines which provide inspection, training, and oversight on use of the drains for chemical
disposal for academic and research laboratories as well as shops and physical plant operations, to prevent harm to the
sanitary sewer system. (Supersedes NEQSS Mitigation Measure HYDRO 2)
Continuing Best Practice HYD-2-a: In addition to Hydrology Continuing Best Practices 1-a and 1-b above, UC
Berkeley will continue to review each development project, to determine whether project runoff would increase
pollutant loading. If it is determined that pollutant loading could lead to a violation of the Basin Plan, UC Berkeley
would design and implement the necessary improvements to treat stormwater. Such improvements could include
grassy swales, detention ponds, continuous centrifugal system units, catch basin oil filters, disconnected downspouts
and stormwater planter boxes.
Continuing Best Practice HYD-2-c: Landscaped areas of development sites shall be designed to absorb runoff
from rooftops and walkways. The Campus Landscape Architect shall ensure that open or porous paving systems be
included in project designs wherever feasible, to minimize impervious surfaces and absorb runoff.
Page 42
published 3.19.15
Continuing Best Practice HYD-2-d: UC Berkeley shall continue to develop and implement the recommendations
of the Strawberry Creek Management Plan and its updates, and construct improvements as appropriate. These
recommendations include, but shall not be limited to, minimization of the amount of land exposed at any one time
during construction as feasible; use of temporary vegetation or mulch to stabilize critical areas where construction
staging activities must be carried out prior to permanent cover of exposed lands; installation of permanent vegetation
and erosion control structures as soon as practical; protection and retention of natural vegetation; and
implementation of post-construction structural and non-structural water quality control techniques.
Continuing Best Practice HYD-3: In addition to Hydrology Continuing Best Practices 1-a, 1-b, 2-a and 2-c above,
UC Berkeley will continue to review each development project, to determine whether rainwater infiltration to
groundwater is affected. If it is determined that existing infiltration rates would be adversely affected, UC Berkeley
would design and implement the necessary improvements to retain and infiltrate stormwater. Such improvements
could include retention basins to collect and retain runoff, grassy swales, infiltration galleries, planter boxes,
permeable pavement, or other retention methods. The goal of the improvement should be to ensure that there is no
net decrease in the amount of water recharged to groundwater that serves as freshwater replenishment to Strawberry
Creek. The improvement should maintain the volume of flows and times of concentration from any given site at predevelopment conditions.
Continuing Best Practice HYD-4-b: For 2020 LRDP projects in the City Environs (excluding the Campus Park or
Hill Campus) improvements would be coordinated with the City Public Works Department.
Land Use
Continuing Best Practice LU-2-b: UC Berkeley would make informational presentations of all major projects in
the City Environs in Berkeley to the Berkeley Planning Commission and, if relevant, the Berkeley Landmarks
Preservation Commission for comment prior to schematic design review by the UC Berkeley Design Review
Committee. Major projects in the City Environs in Oakland would similarly be presented to the Oakland Planning
Commission and, if relevant, to the Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board. Whenever a project in the
City Environs is under consideration by the UC Berkeley DRC, a staff representative designated by the city in which
it is located would be invited to attend and comment on the project.
Noise
Continuing Best Practice NOI-2: Mechanical equipment selection and building design shielding would be used, as
appropriate, so that noise levels from future building operations would not exceed the City of Berkeley Noise
Ordinance limits for commercial areas or residential zones as measured on any commercial or residential property in
the area surrounding a project proposed to implement the 2020 LRDP. Controls that would typically be incorporated
to attain this outcome include selection of quiet equipment, sound attenuators on fans, sound attenuator packages
for cooling towers and emergency generators, acoustical screen walls, and equipment enclosures. (Supersedes
NEQSS Mitigation Measure SODA 4.6-1, SODA 4.6-2a, SODA 4.6-2b; NEQSS NOISE-2)
Continuing Best Practice NOI-4-a: The following measures would be included in all construction projects:
Page 43
published 3.19.15
Construction activities will be limited to a schedule that minimizes disruption to uses surrounding the
project site as much as possible. Construction outside the Campus Park area will be scheduled within the
allowable construction hours designated in the noise ordinance of the local jurisdiction to the full feasible
extent, and exceptions will be avoided except where necessary.
As feasible, construction equipment will be required to be muffled or controlled.
The intensity of potential noise sources will be reduced where feasible by selection of quieter equipment (e.g.
gas or electric equipment instead of diesel powered, low noise air compressors).
Functions such as concrete mixing and equipment repair will be performed off-site whenever possible.
For projects requiring pile driving:
With approval of the project structural engineer, pile holes will be pre-drilled to minimize the
number of impacts necessary to seat the pile.
Pile driving will be scheduled to have the least impact on nearby sensitive receptors.
Pile drivers with the best available noise control technology will be used. For example, pile driving
noise control may be achieved by shrouding the pile hammer point of impact, by placing resilient
padding directly on top of the pile cap, and/or by reducing exhaust noise with a sound-absorbing
muffler.
Alternatives to impact hammers, such as oscillating or rotating pile installation systems, will be used
where possible.
LRDP Mitigation Measure NOI-3: The University would comply with building standards that reduce noise
impacts to residents of University housing to the full extent feasible; additionally, any housing built in areas where
noise exposure levels exceed 60 Ldn would incorporate design features to minimize noise exposures to occupants.
Continuing Best Practice NOI-4-b: UC Berkeley will continue to precede all new construction projects with
community outreach and notification, with the purpose of ensuring that the mutual needs of the particular
construction project and of those impacted by construction noise are met, to the extent feasible.
LRDP Mitigation Measure NOI-5: The following measures will be implemented to mitigate construction
vibration:
UC Berkeley will conduct a pre-construction survey prior to the start of pile driving. The survey will address
susceptibility ratings of structures, proximity of sensitive receivers and equipment/operations, and
surrounding soil conditions. This survey will document existing conditions as a baseline for determining
changes subsequent to pile driving.
UC Berkeley will establish a vibration checklist for determining whether or not vibration is an issue for a
particular project.
Page 44
published 3.19.15
Prior to conducting vibration-causing construction, UC Berkeley will evaluate whether alternative methods
are available, such as:
▪
Using an alternative to impact pile driving such as vibratory pile drivers or oscillating or rotating pile
installation methods.
▪
Jetting or partial jetting of piles into place using a water injection at the tip of the pile.
If vibration monitoring is deemed necessary, the number, type, and location of vibration sensors would be
determined by UC Berkeley.
(Supersedes NEQSS Mitigation Measure 1990 LRDP 4.6-1a, 1b and 1c; SODA 4.6-2a through k; NEQSS
NOISE-1; NEQSS NOISE-3b)
Public Services
Continuing Best Practice PUB-2.3: UC Berkeley would continue its partnership with LBNL, ACFD, and the City
of Berkeley to ensure adequate fire and emergency service levels to the campus and UC facilities. This partnership
shall include consultation on the adequacy of emergency access routes to all new University buildings.
LRDP Mitigation Measure PUB-2.4-a: In order to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles when
construction projects would result in temporary lane or roadway closures, campus project management staff would
consult with the UCPD, campus EH&S, the BFD and ACFD to evaluate alternative travel routes and temporary lane
or roadway closures prior to the start of construction activity. UC Berkeley would ensure the selected alternative
travel routes are not impeded by UC Berkeley activities.
LRDP Mitigation Measure PUB-2.4-b: To the extent feasible, the University would maintain at least one
unobstructed lane in both directions on campus roadways at all times, including during construction. At any time
only a single lane is available due to construction-related road closures, the University would provide a temporary
traffic signal, signal carriers (i.e. flagpersons), or other appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions. If
construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway, UC Berkeley would provide signage indicating
alternative routes. In the case of Centennial Drive, any complete road closure would be limited to brief interruptions
of traffic required by construction operations.
Transportation and Traffic
Continuing Best Practice TRA-1-b: UC Berkeley will continue to do strategic bicycle access planning. Issues
addressed include bicycle access, circulation and amenities with the goal of increasing bicycle commuting and safety.
Planning considers issues such as bicycle access to the campus from adjacent streets and public transit; bicycle,
vehicle, and pedestrian interaction; bicycle parking; bicycle safety; incentive programs; education and enforcement;
campus bicycle routes; and amenities such as showers. The scoping and budgeting of individual projects will include
consideration of improvements to bicycle access.
Page 45
published 3.19.15
Continuing Best Practice TRA-2: The following housing and transportation policies will be continued:
•Except for disabled students, students living in UC Berkeley housing would only be eligible for a daytime
student fee lot permit or residence hall parking based upon demonstrated need, which could include medical,
employment, academic and other criteria.
•An educational and informational program for students on commute alternatives would be expanded to
include all new housing sites.
Continuing Best Practice TRA-3-a: Early in construction period planning UC Berkeley shall meet with the
contractor for each construction project to describe and establish best practices for reducing construction-period
impacts on circulation and parking in the vicinity of the project site.
Continuing Best Practice TRA-3-b: For each construction project, UC Berkeley will require the prime contractor
to prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan which will include the following elements:
Proposed truck routes to be used, consistent with the City truck route map.
Construction hours, including limits on the number of truck trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak traffic
periods (7:00 – 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.), if conditions demonstrate the need.
Proposed employee parking plan (number of spaces and planned locations).
Proposed construction equipment and materials staging areas, demonstrating minimal conflicts with
circulation patterns.
Expected traffic detours needed, planned duration of each, and traffic control plans for each.
Continuing Best Practice TRA-3-c: UC Berkeley will manage project schedules to minimize the overlap of
excavation or other heavy truck activity periods that have the potential to combine impacts on traffic loads and street
system capacity, to the extent feasible.
Continuing Best Practice TRA-5: The University shall continue to work to coordinate local transit services as new
academic buildings, parking facilities, and campus housing are completed, in order to accommodate changing
demand locations or added demand.
Utilities and Service Systems
Continuing Best Practice USS-1.1: For campus development that increases water demand, UC Berkeley would
continue to evaluate the size of existing distribution lines as well as pressure of the specific feed affected by
development on a project-by-project basis, and necessary improvements would be incorporated into the scope of
work for each project to maintain current service and performance levels. The design of the water distribution
system, including fire flow, for new buildings would be coordinated among UC Berkeley staff, EBMUD, and the
Berkeley Fire Department.
Page 46
published 3.19.15
Continuing Best Practice USS-2.1-a: UC Berkeley will promote and expand the central energy management
system (EMS), to tie building water meters into the system for flow monitoring.
Continuing Best Practice USS-2.1-b: UC Berkeley will analyze water and sewer systems on a project-by-project
basis to determine specific capacity considerations in the planning of any project proposed under the 2020 LRDP.
Continuing Best Practice USS-2.1-c: UC Berkeley will continue and expand programs retrofitting plumbing in
high-occupancy buildings, and seek funding for these programs from EBMUD or other outside agencies as
appropriate.
Continuing Best Practice USS-2.1-d: UC Berkeley will continue to incorporate specific water conservation
measures into project design to reduce water consumption and wastewater generation. This could include the use of
special air-flow aerators, water-saving shower heads, flush cycle reducers, low-volume toilets, weather based or
evapotranspiration irrigation controllers, drip irrigation systems, the use of drought resistant plantings in landscaped
areas, and collaboration with EBMUD to explore suitable uses of recycled water.
Continuing Best Practice USS-3.1: UC Berkeley shall continue to manage runoff into storm drain systems such
that the aggregate effect of projects implementing the 2020 LRDP is no net increase in runoff over existing
conditions.
Continuing Best Practice USS-5.1: UC Berkeley would continue to implement a solid waste reduction and
recycling program designed to reduce the total quantity of campus solid waste that is disposed of in landfills during
implementation of the 2020 LRDP.
Continuing Best Practice USS-5.2: In accordance with the Regents-adopted green building policy and the policies
of the 2020 LRDP, the University would develop a method to quantify solid waste diversion. Contractors working
for the University would be required under their contracts to report their solid waste diversion according to the
University’s waste management reporting requirements.
LRDP Mitigation Measure USS-5.2: Contractors on future UC Berkeley projects implemented under the 2020
LRDP will be required to recycle or salvage at least 50% of construction, demolition, or land clearing waste.
Calculations may be done by weight or volume, but must be consistent throughout.
Page 47
published 3.19.15
VI. PROJECT GRAPHICS
Figure 1. Regional Location
Page 48
published 3.19.15
Figure 2. Project Location
Page 49
published 3.19.15
Figure 3. Bowles naming conventions (from 1999 HRS)
Page 50
published 3.19.15
Figure 4. Bowles Hall Residential College site plan (March 2015)
Page 51
published 3.19.15
Remaining Figures: Graphic package reviewed at City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission
March 2015
Page 52
published 3.19.15
BOWLES HALL
City of Berkeley: Landmarks Preservation Comission
March 2015
1
Summary
Context
Main Plan Historical Addition
Common
Sleeping
Bathroom
City of Berkeley: Landmarks Preservation Commision
BOWLES HALL
Historical and Proposed Areas
2
FA
UL
TL
IN E
434' - 9"
ADDITION ABOVE
(2)
(N) CONCRETE
BUTTRESS - S.S.D.
(2)
UP
(N) ACCESSIBLE PATIO
(2)
433' - 0"
New bicycle lane for access to new
bicycle storage.
MEMORABILIA
MERCHANDISE
DISPLAY IN EXISTING
MAILBOX LOCATION
(3)
SHAFT
ABOVE
DRYER VENT
STAIR #1
(2)
433' - 0"
433' - 0"
433' - 0"
(N) STAIR #8
433' - 0"
433' - 0"
(2)
429' - 6"
(2)
(N) 120 MAIL SLOTS
(2)
430' - 0"
STAIR #11
430' - 0"
DN
432' - 6"
UP
STAIR #6
(2)
STAIR #5
INFILL (E) DOOR
(N) ARCADE
(N) CANOPY AT
ACCESSIBLE ENTRY
(N) EXIT DOOR
DESK
BELOW
UP
(2)
(2)
New access path to new boiler room
and water heater room
Education Realty Trust, Inc.
BOWLES HALL RESIDENTIAL
COLLEGE RENOVATION
REVISED SITEWORK
Context
1.
DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF STUD
(F.O.S.), FACE OF POST (F.O.P.), OR
CENTERLINE OF PARTY WALLS (C.L.), TYPICAL,
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED (U.O.N.). VERIFY
ALL DIMENSIONS.
2.
(N) INTERIOR WALLS ARE TO BE 3-5/8"
METAL STUDS, TYPICAL, U.O.N. AS SHOWN AT
PARTY, BEARING, SHEAR, AND PLUMBING
WALLS.
3.
SEE ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS, A4
SERIES SHEETS, FOR DETAILED
INFORMATION ON DIMENSIONS,
CONSTRUCTION, DOORS, WINDOWS, ETC.
4.
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO BE FIRERATED PER THE PROJECT DATA ON THE G.X
SHEETS AND ASSEMBLIES, SHEETS A9.X.
5.
THIS BUILDING TO BE FIRE
SPRINKLERED PER THE GENERAL NOTES.
6.
PROVIDE PLATES, SILLS, SLEEPERS,
COLUMNS, GIRDERS, ETC. PER CBC
SECTIONS 2306.4, 2306.5 AND 2306.6.
7.
FOR DETAIL LOCATION OF
FLOOR/CEILING AND ROOF/CEILING
ASSEMBLIES, SEE SHEETS A3.X.
8.
FOR DETAIL LOCATION OF WALL
ASSEMBLY TYPES, SEE BUILDING AND UNIT
FLOOR PLANS, SHEETS A2.X AND A4.X.
10.
FOR WALL, FLOOR, FLOOR/CEILING,
AND ROOF/CEILING ASSEMBLY TYPES, SEE
SHEETS A9.X.
11.
SEE ROOF PLAN GENERAL NOTES FOR
ATTIC VENTILATION AND ACCESS NOTES.
12.
PROVIDE 2-HOUR ENCLOSURE AT
STAIRS 1, 2, 3, AND 4. PROVIDE 1-HOUR
ENCLOSURE AT STAIR 5. NOTE STAIR 1 TO
REMAIN OPEN AT 3RD FLOOR LEVEL.
13.
ELEVATOR TO BE OTIS GEN2, 4000#
CAPACITY WITH FRONT AND REAR DOORS
FOR SPLIT-LEVEL SERVICE. PROVIDE NEW
CONCRETE SHART AND PIT, SEE
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS.
14.
REFER TO INTERIOR PRESERVATION
DRAWINGS FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC
INTERIOR SPACES, INCLUDING THE LOBBY,
THE LOUNGE, THE DINING ROOM, AND THE
HART LIBRARY.
REVISED ADDITION
Existing dining patio to be re-paved
Summary
FLOOR PLAN GENERAL NOTES
REVISED WORK COLOR LEGEND
UP
STAMP:
S
A R
C
E D
H
I
C
I A
L I
N
R
A
T
O F
F
O
DATE
10/20/14
12/23/14
12/23/14
DESK
BELOW
DESK
BELOW
Existing paved driveway for service
vehicles to access electrical
transformer/generator; to be
repaved.
I
C A L
NO. ISSUE
100% SD SET
100% DD SET
75% CD
BID PERMIT SET
STAIR #13
C T
RENEWAL DATE
12/31/2014
E
New stairs
E
CURTIS CATON
C-22606
S T
DESK
BELOW
T
E
N
ACCESSIBLE UNITS ON THIS FLOOR
0
MOBILITY UNITS
0
COMMUNICATION UNITS
0
MOBILITY/COMMUNICATION UNITS
New egress path
providing paved surface
exiting
from lounge,
LEGEND
study rooms, and new
internal exit stair.
1004
JOB NUMBER:
DRAWN BY:
(E) CONCRETE COLUMN
VA/TR
CHECKED BY:
(E) WALL
Existing paved walkway in disrepair;
to be repaved
(N) STRUCTURAL CONCRETE
As indicated
THIRD FLOOR PLAN
(N) FLOOR
0' 2' 4'
SHEET:
8'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
12/23/2014
SCALE:
TITLE:
(N) WALL
(N) SOFFIT
TBD
DATE:
BOWLES HALL
Third Floor Plan
16'
A2.03
Preliminary - Not for Construction
3
Summary
Context
BOWLES HALL
1943 Service Addition — Existing
4
Summary
Context
BOWLES HALL
West Lobby Entrance — Existing
5
Summary
3. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS AND INTERIOR
RATED CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL. EXT
TO BE 2-HR. RATED CONSTRUCTION AS
III-A SPRINKLERED BUILDINGS. SEE SH
ASSEMBLIES.
4. ALL NEW STAIRS TO COMPLY WITH C
EXIT STAIRS TO BE 48" MINIMUM IN WID
BE MAXIMUM 7 INCHES, AND STAIR TRE
MINIMUM.
5. PASSENGER ELEVATOR TO COMPLY
VERIFY PIT DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH W
MANUFACTURER PRIOR TO CONSTRUC
6. INTERIOR STAIR DOORS TO BE 90-MI
ELECTROMAGNETIC HOLD-OPEN DEVIC
REVISED ADDITION
Context
7. ALL ACCESSIBLE UNIT ENTRIES TO H
AUTOMATIC DOOR OPERATORS.
8. EXISTING HISTORIC DOORS TO BE P
PROVIDED WITH NEW HARDWARE.
REVISED SITEWORK
9. PROVIDE SHEET VINYLE FLOORING W
UNIT BATHROOMS, TYPICAL.
(N) MAINTENANCE
ACCESS PATH
10. AT ACCESSIBLE BATHROOMS WITH
PROVIDE CEMENT MORTAR BED UNDE
PROVIDE MORTAR BED UNDER CARPE
ROOMS IMMEDIATELY ACCESSED FRO
ADDITION ABOVE
11. PROVIDE 1-PIECE SHOWER AND/OR
ALL SLEEPING ROOM BATHROOMS.
(2)
(2)
12. MECHANICAL SHAFT AT BATHROOM
RATED, TYPICAL, WITH SUBDUCTS FOR
EXHAUST (NO FSD).
(2)
(2)
13. PROVIDE MINIMUM STC-50 1-HOUR
CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN SLEEPING R
SHARED BATHROOMS AND SLEEPING R
CORRIDOR WALLS. COMMUNICATING D
RATED WITH NO CLOSER; CORRIDOR D
RATED WITH CLOSER.
(N) RAMP TO (E)
PATIO
(2)
DN
BOILER ROOM
14. DOOR OPENING TO BE FRAMED 4" F
U.O.N.
DISHWASHING
365
(3)
E
KITCHEN
WATER
HEATERS
UP
DN
TC
(2)
KITCHEN
364
(N) ROLL DOWN
SECURITY GATE
WC
377
ARCH ABOVE
ROLL DOWN FIRE
CURTAIN IN DROP
CEILING ABOVE
FLOOR MATERIAL
TRANSITION
DN
(2)
FIRE DOORS (45
MIN) WITH CLOSER
TRASH/RECYCLE
ROOM
(2)
A1a
KITCHEN PREP
AND STORAGE
E
KITCHEN
PREP AND
STORAGE
355
(2)
120 MAIL SLOTS, 12 PARCEL BOXES
(ACCESSIBLE REACH RANGE SHOWN DASHED)
SEE SHEET A5.02
LINE OF
WALL ABOVE
NEW
HANDRAIL
A1a
A1a
STAIR 3
S33
(2)
ARCADE
DN
P2
A2a
P2
F2
B1
TRASH/
RECYCLING
3 WEST
351
F2
BOWLES HALL
S2
B1
A2a
1-P
A2a
306
CORRIDOR 3
WEST 2
C3W2
B1
F2
F2
Enlarged Floor Plan - Level 3 Quadrant B
Enlarged Plan Level 3 — West Lobby Entry and Replacement Addition
1/4" = 1'-0"
1
6
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
Summary
3. ALL EXTERIOR WALLS AND INTERIOR
RATED CONSTRUCTION, TYPICAL. EXT
TO BE 2-HR. RATED CONSTRUCTION A
III-A SPRINKLERED BUILDINGS. SEE SH
ASSEMBLIES.
4. ALL NEW STAIRS TO COMPLY WITH C
EXIT STAIRS TO BE 48" MINIMUM IN WI
BE MAXIMUM 7 INCHES, AND STAIR TR
MINIMUM.
REVISED ADDITION
5. PASSENGER ELEVATOR TO COMPLY
VERIFY PIT DIMENSIONS AND DEPTH W
MANUFACTURER PRIOR TO CONSTRU
REVISED SITEWORK
6. INTERIOR STAIR DOORS TO BE 90-M
ELECTROMAGNETIC HOLD-OPEN DEVI
Context
7. ALL ACCESSIBLE UNIT ENTRIES TO H
AUTOMATIC DOOR OPERATORS.
8. EXISTING HISTORIC DOORS TO BE P
PROVIDED WITH NEW HARDWARE.
9. PROVIDE SHEET VINYLE FLOORING
UNIT BATHROOMS, TYPICAL.
441' - 0"
10. AT ACCESSIBLE BATHROOMS WITH
PROVIDE CEMENT MORTAR BED UNDE
PROVIDE MORTAR BED UNDER CARPE
ROOMS IMMEDIATELY ACCESSED FRO
BIKE STORAGE
11. PROVIDE 1-PIECE SHOWER AND/OR
ALL SLEEPING ROOM BATHROOMS.
12. MECHANICAL SHAFT AT BATHROOM
RATED, TYPICAL, WITH SUBDUCTS FO
EXHAUST (NO FSD).
439' - 6"
13. PROVIDE MINIMUM STC-50 1-HOUR
CONSTRUCTION BETWEEN SLEEPING
SHARED BATHROOMS AND SLEEPING
CORRIDOR WALLS. COMMUNICATING D
RATED WITH NO CLOSER; CORRIDOR
RATED WITH CLOSER.
MAINTENANCE
ROOM
14. DOOR OPENING TO BE FRAMED 4"
U.O.N.
DN
TC
OFFICE
WC
452
A1
GAME LOUNGE
UPPER LOBBY
443' - 0"
UPPER
LOBBY
458
(N) STAIR #9
UP
440' - 0"
NEW
HANDRAIL
A2a
STAIR 3
S34
S2
P2
(N) WALL OVER
(E) PARAPET
P1
F2
P1
S2
F2
A2a
2-P
405
F2
CORRIDOR 4
WEST 2
C4W2
1-P
406
B1
F2
B1
F2
BOWLES HALL
Enlarged Floor Plan - Level 4 Quadrant B
Enlarged Plan Level 4 — Replacement Addition
1/4" = 1'-0"
1
7
2-STORY REPLACEMENT BUILDING ADDITION
4
5
2-STORY EXISTING STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
CONCRETE ARCADE
ALUMINIUM
STOREFRONT
ALUMINIUM
STOREFRONT
(N) ADDITION OVER ORIGINAL 1-STORY
STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
DECORATIVE LIGHT
FIXTURE, TYP.
REVISED ADDITION
NEW PAVING AT
PARKING
REVISED SITEWORK
KITCHEN
SERVICE
TRASH
ROOM
(N) PERGOLA IN FRONT OF
ORIGINAL STRUCTURE TO REMAIN
REPLACEMENT BUILDING ADDITION
SOUTH ELEVATION - ADDITION
1/4" = 1'-0"
F
E
D.2
D.1
D
C
3
1
2
1
GAME
ROOM
BOARDFORMED
CONCRETE
Context
(N) METAL CANOPY
PAINTED STUCCO
EXTERIOR
Education Realty Trust, Inc.
STAMP:
S
E D
A R
C
H
I
C
I A
L I
N
A
R
S T
RENEWAL DATE
12/31/2014
T
E
O F
PAINTED STUCCO
I
C A L
NO. ISSUE
100% SD SET
100% DD SET
75% CD
BID PERMIT SET
GAME ROOM BEYOND
METAL ENCLOSURE
AND GATE
C T
CURTIS CATON
C-22606
REPLACEMENT BUILDING ADDITION
BOARDFORMED CONCRETE
BASE
E
ALUMINIUM STOREFRONT
T
E
N
3
BOWLES HALL RESIDENTIAL
COLLEGE RENOVATION
2
Summary
1
1. ALL LEVELS ARE TO TOP OF CONCRETE
SUBFLOOR, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. REVEALS, EXPANSION JOINTS AND CONTROL
JOINTS ARE CONTINUOUS AT JOGS IN WALL,
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
3. AREAS OF CEMENT PLASTER TO BE
ENCLOSED BY CEMENT PLASTER CONTROL
JOINTS AND SHALL BE 100 SF OF SURFACE
AREA OR LESS, TYPICAL.
4. FOR DOOR AND WINDOW TYPES AND SIZES,
SEE SCHEDULES AND LEGENDS ON A9.X AND
A9.X.
5. HISTORIC STEEL WINDOWS TO BE REPAIRED
IN PLACE. REFER TO EXTERIOR PRESERVATION
REPORT, APPENDIX XX IN PROJECT MANUAL.
6. EXTERIOR CONCRETE TO BE CLEANED AND
ALL CRACKS AND SPALLING TO BE REPAIRED.
REFER TO EXTERIOR PRESERVATION REPORT.
7. CLAY TILE ROOF SHINGLES TO BE
TEMPORARILY REMOVED AND DRILLED TO
RECEIVE WIRE FASTENER. PREPARE CONCRETE
DECK AND PROVIDE MEMBRANE ROOFING
SYSTEM; REINSTALL TILES (OR PROVIDE NEW
CUSTOM TILE TO MATCH ORIGINAL). REFER TO
EXTERIOR PRESERVATION REPORT, APPENDIX
XX IN PROJECT MANUAL.
8. EXISTING GUTTERS AND RAIN WATER
LEADERS TO BE REUSED WHERE POSSIBLE AND
REPLACED AS NECESSARY. REFER TO
EXTERIOR PRESERVATION REPORT.
9. PROVIDE LOUVERS AT EXISTING ATTIC
WINDOW OPENINGS FOR CONNECTION TO HVAC
SYSTEM, SEE MEP DRAWINGS.
10. PROVIDE NEW STEEL BRACED FRAME AT
EXTERIOR WALL, REFER TO STRUCTURAL
DRAWINGS.
11. CLEAN, REPAIR, AND REPAINT EXISTING
STEEL CANOPY AT DINING ROOM PATIO.
PROVIDE NEW LIGHTING, SEE MEP. DRAWINGS.
13. REMOVE EXISTING STEEL CANOPIES AT
EXISTING EGRESS DOORS 151a AND 375a.
F
O
DATE
10/20/14
12/23/14
12/23/14
MANAGEMENT OFFICE
GAME ROOM
SECURE BICYCLE STORAGE
SECURE BICYCLE
STORAGE
WATER
HEATER ROOM
1004
JOB NUMBER:
DRAWN BY:
HS
CHECKED BY:
TRASH ROOM
TBD
DATE:
12/23/2014
SCALE:
As indicated
TITLE:
ENLARGED ELEVATIONS ADDITION STRUCTURE
SHEET:
WEST ELEVATION - ADDITION
1/4" = 1'-0"
BOWLES HALL
2
NORTH ELEVATION - ADDITION
1/4" = 1'-0"
Enlarged Elevations— Replacement Addition
A3.10
3
Preliminary - Not for Construction
8
E
D
C
Summary
F
2
A8.01
Context
3
A8.01
GAME
ROOM 4
WEST
455
LEVEL 5
450' - 0"
MAINTENANCE
ROOM
460
BIKE
STORAGE
461
LEVEL 4 (UPPER)
443' - 0"
LEVEL 4
440' - 0"
TRASH/RECYCLE
362
(N) LOADING DOCK
LEVEL 3 (UPPER)
433' - 0"
LEVEL 3
430' - 0"
Addition Section B
1/4" = 1'-0"
2
1
2
A8.01
3
A8.02
2
A8.02
3
4
5
5.1
2
5.2
1
A8.02
LEVEL 6
460' - 0"
CHECK THE EXTENT OF
EXISTING STRUCTURE
NEW STAIR
8" CMU WALL
TRASH/
RECYCLING
5 WEST
552
(N) 24"x16" BEAM
BEYOND
LEVEL 5
450' - 0"
(N) SHOTCRETE WALL
(E) CONCRETE PARAPET
UPPER
LOBBY
458
6' - 8"
GAME
ROOM 4
WEST
455
LEVEL 4 (UPPER)
443' - 0"
LEVEL 4
440' - 0"
TRASH/RECYCLE
362
KITCHEN
PREP AND
STORAGE
359
KITCHEN
PREP AND
STORAGE
355
LEVEL 3 (UPPER)
433' - 0"
LEVEL 3
430' - 0"
Addition Section A
1/4" = 1'-0"
BOWLES HALL
Enlarged Sections— Replacement Addition
1
9
Summary
Context
BOWLES HALL
Replacement Addtion
10
Summary
Context
BOWLES HALL
West Entry
11
Summary
Context
Replacement Addition
Main accessible entry
New parking spaces, two accessible
New bicycle parking
Kitchen workroom and storage
Student Activity Lounge, accessible
South Facade
New parking at west lobby
Arcade entry connection to west lobby
BOWLES HALL
New pathways to west lobby
12
Summary
Context
Secure bicycle parking
West view of Replacement Addition
Replacement Addition South Facade
BOWLES HALL
13
Summary
Context
BOWLES HALL
14
Bowles Hall Residential College -- March 2015
UC Berkeley LRDP EIR Addendum -- Appendix A
University of California – Policy
Sustainable Practices
Responsible Officer: EVP - Business Operations
Responsible Office: CR - Budget & Capital Resources
Issuance Date: 7/1/2004
Effective Date: 11/18/2013
Scope:
All campuses, Medical Centers, and the Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory
Contact: Matthew StClair
Email: [email protected]
Phone #: (510) 287-3897
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
Policy Summary
Definitions
Policy Text
Compliance / Responsibilities
Procedures
Related Information
Revision History
I.
POLICY SUMMARY
The Sustainable Practices Policy (“Policy”) establishes goals in nine areas of
sustainable practices: green building, clean energy, transportation, climate protection,
sustainable operations, waste reduction and recycling, environmentally preferable
purchasing, sustainable foodservice and sustainable water systems.
II.
DEFINITIONS
Adjusted Patient Day: Inpatient Days x (Gross Patient Revenue/Inpatient Revenue)
where Gross Patient Revenue is Outpatient Revenue + Newborn Revenue + Inpatient
Revenue.
1
Appendix A
Bowles Hall Residential College Addendum
UC Berkeley - March, 2015
Climate Neutrality: in the context of this policy, climate neutrality means that the
University will have a net zero impact on the Earth’s climate, and that it will be achieved
by minimizing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as much as possible and using carbon
offsets or other measures to mitigate the remaining GHG emissions.
CBC: California Building Code, Title 24 portion of the California Code of Regulations
Domestic Water: Potable and non-potable water provided for domestic indoor (e.g.,
toilets, urinals, showers, and faucets) and outdoor (e.g., landscape irrigation) use.
Environmentally preferable products: designation for those products whose
manufacture, use, and disposal results in relatively less environmental harm than
comparable products.
Gross Square Foot: Pursuant to the definition in the Facilities Inventory Guide1, gross
square footage is the Outside Gross Area, or OGSF50, and equals the sum of Basic
Gross Area (the sum of all areas, finished and unfinished, on all floors of an enclosed
structure, for all stories or areas which have floor surfaces) + 50% Covered Unenclosed
Gross Area (the sum of all covered or roofed areas of a building located outside of the
enclosed structure). OGSF50 is also known as “California Gross.”
Industrial Water: Water provided for specific industrial applications such as heating,
cooling, or lubricating equipment.
LEEDTM: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. LEED is a registered
trademark of the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC). This trademark applies to all
occurrences of LEED in this document. LEED is a green building rating system
developed and administered by the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council. The four
levels of LEED certification, from lowest to highest, are Certified, Silver, Gold, and
Platinum. LEED has several rating systems. This policy refers to the following rating
systems:
LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) for renovation projects;
LEED for Existing Buildings: Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EBOM) for
the ongoing operational and maintenance practices in buildings; and,
LEED for New Construction (LEED-NC) for new buildings and major
renovations of existing buildings.
Location: As used in this Policy, means any or all campuses, medical centers, and the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory as referred to in the “Scope” above.
Municipal Solid Waste: Garbage, refuse, sludges, and other discarded solid materials
resulting from residential activities, and industrial and commercial operations which are
1
Facilities Inventory Guide, Attachment 8, Appendix C, pages 13-15.
Appendix A
2 of 26
legally accepted in CalRecycle permitted landfills. Municipal Solid Waste does not
include any regulated hazardous/universal waste or medical waste.
Post-Consumer Waste (PCW): waste produced by the end-user of a product. Post
consumer waste is differentiated from pre-consumer waste, which refers to waste
produced in the manufacture of a product.
Potable Water: Water that meets state water quality standards for human consumption.
Reclaimed or Recycled Water: Wastewater treated with the intention of reuse,
including:
Direct Potable Reuse: Treated wastewater reused for human consumption
Indirect Potable Reuse: Treated wastewater blended with groundwater or
other water sources reused as potable or non-potable water.
Non-Potable Reuse: Treated wastewater reused for purposes other than
human consumption, such as irrigation, fire suppression, and industrial
processes.
Renewable power: energy generated from inexhaustible sources, such as the sun or
wind, or from sources that can quickly be replenished, such as biomass. For the
purposes of this policy, an energy source is renewable if it has been designated as such
by the California Energy Commission
(http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/FAQs/01REandRPSeligibility.htm).
Savings by Design: an energy efficiency program offered by California’s four investorowned utility companies and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Savings By
Design provides design assistance, energy analysis, life-cycle costing, and financial
incentives for new construction and major renovation projects. The Savings By Design
program is also known as the Non-Residential New Construction Program.
Sterilized Water: Water that has been cleaned to remove, deactivate, or kill
microorganisms present that may be harmful to humans; primarily used in medical
facilities and research.
Stormwater: Water that originates during precipitation events.
Strategic sourcing: a process designed to maximize the purchasing power of large,
decentralized organizations, such as the University of California, by consolidating and
leveraging common purchases.
Sustainable Water Systems: Water systems or processes that maximize water use
conservation or efficiency, optimize water resource management, protect resources in
the context of the local watershed, and enhance economic, social and environmental
sustainability while meeting operational objectives.
Appendix A
3 of 26
Wastewater: Water that is discharged from domestic, industrial, or other use.
TDM: Transportation Demand Management. TDM is the application of strategies and
policies to reduce travel demand (specifically that of single-occupancy private vehicles).
TDM programs may include: car sharing (car share), carpools (rideshare), vanpools,
bus pools, shuttles, transit, bicycle circulation systems, pedestrian circulation systems,
emergency rides home, telecommuting, flexible schedules, parking management
(amount, access, fees), etc.
USGBC: U.S. Green Building Council. The USGBC is a membership-based non-profit
organization dedicated to sustainable building design and construction, and is the
developer of the LEED building rating system.
Weighted Campus User: (1 × number of on-campus residents) + (0.75 × number of
non-residential or commuter full-time students, faculty, and staff members) + (0.5 ×
number of non-residential or commuter part-time students, faculty, and staff members)
as defined by Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education
(AASHE). When using Weighted Campus User, state whether fall-quarter/semester
headcount, three quarter/two semester average headcount, or another measure was
used in the Weighted Campus User calculation. This calculation applies only to
campuses and not to medical centers or LBNL.
Watershed: In the context of this policy, a watershed is the area of land that drains to a
common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland, aquifer, bay, or ocean.
Water systems: Natural and/or human made systems that provide water to and support
the functions of watersheds and/or human communities.
Zero waste: For the purposes of measuring compliance with UC’s zero waste goal,
locations need to meet or exceed 95% diversion of municipal solid waste. Ultimately,
UC’s zero waste goal strives for the elimination of all materials sent to the landfill by
2020.
Appendix A
4 of 26
III.
POLICY TEXT
The University of California (“University”) is committed to responsible stewardship of
resources and to demonstrating leadership in sustainable business practices. The
University’s locations should be living laboratories for sustainability, contributing to the
research and educational mission of the University, consistent with available funding
and safe operational practices. Policy goals are presented below in nine areas of
sustainable practices.
A.
Green Building Design
New Buildings
1. All new building projects, other than acute care facilities, shall be designed,
constructed, and commissioned to outperform the CBC energy-efficiency
standards by at least 20%. The University will strive to design, construct, and
commission buildings that outperform CBC energy efficiency standards by 30%
or more, whenever possible within the constraints of program needs and
standard budget parameters.
2. Standards for energy efficiency for acute care facilities will be developed in
consultation with campuses and medical centers.
3. All new buildings (except acute care facilities) will achieve a USGBC LEED
“Silver” certification at a minimum. All new buildings (except acute care
facilities)will strive to achieve certification at a USGBC LEED “Gold” rating or
higher, whenever possible within the constraints of program needs and standard
budget parameters.
4. The University of California will design, construct, and commission new
laboratory buildings to achieve a minimum of LEED- “Silver” certification as well
as meeting at least the prerequisites of the Laboratories for the 21st Century
(Labs21) Environmental Performance Criteria (EPC)2. Laboratory spaces in new
buildings also shall meet at least the prerequisites of Labs21 EPC. Design,
construction, and commissioning processes shall strive to optimize the energy
efficiency of systems not addressed by the CBC energy efficiency standards.
5. All new building projects will achieve at least two points within the available
credits in LEED-NC’s Water Efficiency category.
2
Labs21 is a voluntary partnership program that offers training and resources to support the design and
operation of high-performance laboratories. Labs21 is co-sponsored by the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The Labs21 Environmental Performance Criteria (EPC) is a rating system that consists of prerequisites and
credits in several laboratory-specific areas, including laboratory equipment water use, chemical management,
and ventilation. Labs21 EPC is designed as a complement to LEED.
Appendix A
5 of 26
Building Renovations
6. Renovation of buildings that require 100% replacement of mechanical, electrical
and plumbing systems and replacement of over 50% of all non-shell areas
(interior walls, doors, floor coverings and ceiling systems) shall at a minimum
comply with III.A.3 or III.A.4, above. Such projects shall outperform CBC Title
24, Part 6, currently in effect, by 20%.
7. Renovation projects with a project cost of $5 million or greater (CCCI 5000) that
do not fall under item III.A.6. shall at a minimum achieve a LEED-CI Certified
rating and register with the utilities’ Savings by Design program, if eligible.
B.
Clean Energy
1. The University will reduce consumption of non-renewable energy by using a
portfolio approach that includes a combination of energy efficiency projects, the
incorporation of local renewable power measures for existing and new facilities,
green power purchases from the electrical grid, and other energy measures with
equivalent demonstrable effect on the environment and reduction in fossil fuel
usage.
2. The University will provide up to 10 megawatts of on-site renewable power by
2014.
3. The University will use energy efficiency retrofit projects to reduce system-wide
growth-adjusted energy consumption by 10% or more by 2014 from the year
2000 base consumption level.
C.
Climate Protection
Each campus will develop a long-term strategy for voluntarily meeting the State
of California’s goal for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020, pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. For
purposes of this section, campuses shall include their medical centers for all
goals. As an intermediate target, each campus shall pursue the goal of reducing
GHG emissions to 2000 levels by 2014. Campuses will aim to achieve climate
neutrality as soon as possible after achieving the 2014 and 2020 reduction
targets. GHG emissions reduction goals pertain to emissions of the six Kyoto
greenhouse gasses3 originating from all sources specified in the American
College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. These goals will be
pursued while maintaining the research and education mission of the University.
3
The six greenhouse gasses identified in the Kyoto Protocol are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur
hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons.
Appendix A
6 of 26
D.
Sustainable Transportation
1. Each location will develop GHG emission reduction goals for transportation,
including the emission categories of fleet, commute, and business travel, and
report annually on progress toward achieving the goals.
2. Location fleets shall implement practicable and cost-effective measures
including, but not necessarily limited to, the purchase of the cleanest and most
efficient vehicles and replacement tires, the use of alternative fuels, and other
sustainability measures.
3. The University will pursue the expansion of Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) programs and projects to reduce the environmental impacts from
commuting. In conjunction with this effort, locations will engage in advocacy
efforts with local transit districts to improve routes to better serve student and
staff ridership.
4. To the extent practicable, locations will develop a business-case analysis for any
proposed parking structure projects.
E.
Sustainable Building Operations for Campuses
1. Each campus will submit for certification one pilot building at a LEED-EBOM
“Certified” level or higher.
2. Each campus shall register a master site to certify campus-wide LEED-EBOM
credits and prerequisites to streamline the certification of multiple buildings
through the LEED-EBOM rating system by July 1, 2014. Each campus shall
certify their campus-wide credits as soon as possible after the master site has
been registered.
3. Each campus shall seek to certify as many buildings as possible through the
LEED-EBOM rating system, within budgetary constraints and eligibility
limitations.
F. Recycling and Waste Management
1. The University prioritizes waste reduction in the following order: reduce, reuse,
and then recycle.
2. The University’s goal for diverting municipal solid waste from landfills is as
follows:
50% by June 30, 2008
75% by June 30, 2012
Appendix A
7 of 26
Ultimate goal of zero waste4 by 2020
G.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing
1. Environmentally preferable purchasing underlies and enables all other areas of
sustainable practice in this Policy. Therefore, the University will maximize its
procurement of environmentally preferable products and services.
2. The University will use its purchasing power to target environmentally preferable
products and services for volume-discounted pricing to make them costcompetitive with conventional products and services.
3. For products and services without available environmentally preferable
alternatives, the University will work with its existing and potential suppliers and
leverage the University’s purchasing power and market presence to develop
sustainable choices.
4. The University will integrate sustainability requirements into its practices for
competitive bidding in materiel and services procurement, allowing for suppliers
that meet these requirements to earn additional evaluation points.
5. Packaging for all products procured by the University should be designed,
produced, and managed in an environmentally sustainable manner. The
University shall seek products that have take-back programs, as appropriate.
6. When requested, suppliers citing environmentally preferable purchasing claims
shall provide proper certification or detailed information on environmental claims,
including benefits, durability, and take-back, reuse, and recyclable properties.
Additionally, suppliers are responsible for providing proof of University of
California-accepted third-party certification based upon the requirements of the
University’s Procurement Services Department located in the Office of the
President.
7. The goal of this section G shall be applied within the constraints of research
needs and budgetary requirements and in compliance with applicable rules,
regulations and laws.
H.
Sustainable Foodservices
1. Campus and Medical Center Foodservice Operations
Campuses and Medical Centers shall develop sustainability goals and initiatives
in each of the four categories of sustainable foodservice practices listed below.
a. Food Procurement
4
The University is in the process of developing implementation procedures for achieving zero waste, including a
working definition of zero waste.
Appendix A
8 of 26
Each campus and Medical Center foodservice operation shall strive to
procure 20% sustainable food products by the year 2020, while maintaining
accessibility and affordability for all students and Medical Center foodservice
patrons.
b. Education
Each campus and Medical Center shall provide patrons with access to
educational materials that will help support their food choices.
c. Engagement With External Stakeholders
Campus and Medical Center departments, organizations, groups, and
individuals shall engage in activities with their surrounding communities that
support common goals regarding sustainable food systems.
d. Sustainable Operations
Campus and Medical Center foodservice operations shall strive to earn thirdparty “green business” certifications for sustainable dining operations.
2. Retail Foodservice Operations:
a. Retail foodservice tenants will strive to meet the policies in III.H.1.a-d. above.
Given the constraints faced by nationally-branded franchises that must
purchase food through corporate contracts, location departments managing
retail foodservice tenants will have the option of meeting III.H.1.a. (procuring
20% of all sustainable food products by the year 2020) by aggregating the
purchases of all retail entities under the jurisdiction of a single operational unit
on location.
b. Locations will include Section H of this Policy in lease language as new
leases and contracts are negotiated or existing leases are renewed. However,
locations will also work with tenants to advance sustainable foodservice
practices as much as possible within the timeframe of current leases.
Sustainable Water Systems5
I.
With the overall intent of achieving sustainable water systems and demonstrating
leadership in the area of sustainable water systems, the University has set the
following goals applicable to all locations:
1. In line with the State of California’s law establishing a goal to reduce per capita
potable water consumption by 20%6, each location will strive to reduce potable
water consumption adjusted for population growth by 20% by the year 2020. This
5
Related sections: Green Building Design policy III.A. 5, Green Building Design procedure V.A.4, and Sustainable
Purchasing procedures V.G.10.e, V.G.15, V.G.16, and V.G.17.
6
For more information on this goal, see http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/hot_topics/20x2020/
Appendix A
9 of 26
target will be re-evaluated and recommendations for adjustments will be made as
necessary by the Sustainable Water Systems Working Group. Locations that
have already achieved this target are encouraged to set more stringent goals to
further reduce potable water consumption.
2. Each location will develop and maintain a Water Action Plan that identifies long
term strategies for achieving sustainable water systems.
IV.
COMPLIANCE / RESPONSIBILITIES
A.
Implementation of the Policy
The Executive Vice President-Business Operations is the Responsible Officer for
this policy.
The UC Sustainability Steering Committee, which is chaired by the Executive Vice
President-Business Operations, provides oversight for all aspects of the policy.
B.
Revisions to the Policy
The President is the approver of this Policy and has the authority to approve or
delegate the approval of revisions to the Policy.
The systemwide Working Group corresponding to each section of the Policy
recommends Policy revisions to the UC Sustainability Steering Committee and
Executive Vice President-Business Operations. Proposed policy revisions accepted
by the UC Sustainability Steering Committee and the Executive Vice PresidentBusiness Operations shall then be recommended to the President for approval or to
the appropriate delegated authority, as stated above.
The Sustainable Practices Policy will be reviewed, at a minimum, once every three
years with the intent of developing and strengthening implementation provisions
and assessing the influence of the policy on existing facilities and operations, new
capital projects, plant operating costs, fleet and transportation services, and
accessibility, mobility, and livability. The University will provide for ongoing active
participation of students, faculty, administrators, and external representatives in
further development and implementation of this Policy.
C.
Compliance with the Policy
Chancellors and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Director are responsible
for implementation of the Policy in the context of individual building projects, facilities
operations, etc. An assessment of location achievements with regard to the Policy is
Appendix A
10 of 26
detailed in an annual report to the Regents. The internal audit department may
conduct periodic audits to assess compliance with this policy.
(www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/reports.html).
D.
Reporting
On an annual basis, the President will report to the Regents’ Committee on Grounds
and Buildings on the University’s sustainability efforts in each area of the Policy.
V.
PROCEDURES
A. Green Building Design
New Buildings
1. Projects will utilize the versions of the CBC energy efficiency standards and of
LEED-NC that are in effect at the time of first submittal of "Preliminary Plans"
(design development drawings and outline specifications) as defined in the State
Administrative Manual.7
2. All new buildings and complete renovations (as defined in III.A.6) will register
with the Savings By Design program in order to document compliance with the
requirement to outperform CBC energy efficiency standards by at least 20%.
3. All privatized development projects on Regents’ land where the project is to be
used for a programmatic or auxiliary purpose (i.e., a University-related purpose)
must comply with the requirements in section III.A. of this Policy. Locations may
decide if projects built on Regents’ land pursuant to a ground lease by a private,
institutional or government entity (“Lessee”) for the Lessee’s own use (whether in
support the University’s mission or to generate income for the University) must
also abide by section III.A. The Policy shall also apply to build-to-suit buildings to
be used for University-related purposes on land not owned by the Regents. The
provisions of this subsection apply regardless of the business relationship
between the parties (i.e., whether a gift, acquisition, ground lease and/or lease).
4. Locations are encouraged to coordinate with local water districts in efforts to
conserve water and to meet reduced water use goals of the local districts.
5. Further study will be conducted before a similar sustainable design policy for new
acute care facilities is adopted.
7
The State Administrative Manual (SAM) (http://sam.dgs.ca.gov/TOC/default.htm) is a reference source for
statewide policies, procedures, regulations and information developed and issued by authoring agencies such as
the Governor's Office, Department of General Services (DGS), Department of Finance (DOF), and Department of
Personnel Administration.
Appendix A
11 of 26
Building Renovations
6. At budget approval, all renovation projects should include a listing of sustainable
measures under consideration.
7. For all improvement projects in spaces leased or licensed by the Regents to be
used for University-related purposes for a term of greater than 12 months,
locations shall strive to comply with the Policy requirements in III.A.6 and III.A.7,
as appropriate.
General/Miscellaneous
8. The University will develop a program for sharing best practices.
9. The University will incorporate the requirements of sections III.A. and V.A. into
existing training programs, with the aim of promoting and maintaining the goals of
the Policy.
10. Any proposed exception from section III.A of the Policy may be requested
administratively from the Associate Vice President for Capital Resources
Management during preparation of the Project Planning Guide (PPG). Any
exception proposed after approval of the PPG will be treated as a scope change
and processed in accordance with standard University procedures.
11. Projects for new buildings applying for an exception from section III.A.3 of this
Policy should strive to achieve a USGBC LEED “Certified” rating. New building
and renovation projects that are unable to achieve a USGBC LEED “Certified”
rating shall submit a request for an exception with a LEED scorecard and
supporting documentation to the Associate Vice President for Capital Resources
Management, showing the credits that the project would achieve.
12. The University planning and design process will include explicit consideration of
lifecycle cost along with other factors in the project planning and design process,
recognizing the importance of long-term operations and maintenance in the
performance of University facilities.
13. The University will work closely with the USGBC, Labs21, the Department of
Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, state government, and other
organizations to facilitate the improvement of evaluation methodologies to
address University requirements.
B. Clean Energy
1. Each location will determine the appropriate mix of measures to be adopted
within its clean energy portfolio. The capacity to adopt these measures is driven
by technological and economic factors and each location will need to reevaluate
its mix of energy measures on a regular basis.
Appendix A
12 of 26
2. To achieve its renewable power goal, the University will continuously evaluate
energy technology improvements for cost and technical efficiency.
3. The University will develop and implement a strategic plan for implementing
energy efficiency projects for existing buildings and infrastructure.
4. The University will research possible funding sources and financing alternatives
for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and clean energy projects that will
enable locations to most economically address their energy needs consistent
with Policy goals.
5. If available, the University will evaluate the marketing of emissions credits as a
means to bridge the cost-feasibility gap for renewable power projects.
C.
Climate Protection
1. Each campus will pursue individual membership with The Climate Registry
(TCR)8. Campuses shall include their medical centers in their membership.
2. The Climate Change Working Group (under the UC Sustainability Steering
Committee) will develop protocols to allow for growth adjustment and
normalization of data and accurate reporting procedures. The Climate Change
Working Group will monitor progress toward reaching the stated goals for GHG
reduction, and will evaluate suggestions for programs to reach these goals.
3. Each campus will complete a GHG emissions inventory annually. Campuses
shall include their medical centers in the annual inventory. To comply with TCR
and American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment
requirements9, inventories should contain emissions of the six Kyoto greenhouse
gasses from sources including: direct and indirect emissions outlined in the
ACUPCC implementation guide and TCR general reporting protocol; air travel
paid for by or through the institution; and commuting to and from campus on a
day-to-day basis by students, faculty, and staff. All UC campuses will report their
updated emissions inventories through the ACUPCC on-line reporting tool at
least biennially. Campuses must verify all emissions inventories through TCR,
but campuses may either pursue verification annually (for the previous year’s
emissions inventory) or biennially (for the emissions inventories from the
previous two years).
4. Each campus will complete a biennial update of its action plan for reducing
emissions to 2000 levels by 2014, 1990 levels by 2020, and becoming climate
neutral as soon as possible. Campuses shall include their medical centers in the
action plan.
8
The Climate Registry (http://www.theclimateregistry.org/) is a nonprofit collaboration among North American
states, provinces, territories and Native Sovereign Nations that sets consistent and transparent standards to
calculate, verify and publicly report greenhouse gas emissions into a single registry.
9
ACUPCC requirements are outlined at http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/about/commitment.
Appendix A
13 of 26
D.
Sustainable Transportation
1. With the goal of measuring fuel consumption reductions for their vehicular fleets,
locations will collect and report fuel consumption annually to the Office of the
President.
2. Each location will implement a pre-tax transit pass program to facilitate the
purchase of transit passes by University employees, or will establish a universal
access transit pass program for employees.
3. Locations are encouraged to collect data on Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) of
commuters. AVR is defined as the number of trips to campus divided by the
number of automobiles used for those trips (AVR = trips/# automobiles). AVR
data may be used to: set goals for reduction of fuel consumption; develop maps
of distance “zones” surrounding the location in conjunction with transportation
mode split data; and model each zone’s proportionate share of various
commuting modes (e.g., percentage of bicycle or single-occupancy vehicle trips
within 0-2 miles from the central location core).
4. The University has made a written request to major automobile manufacturers
expressing both the University’s commitment to work with industry to provide
vehicle and fuel choice, and the expectation that industry will provide these
choices to the fullest extent possible.
5. Optional mechanisms for reducing transportation emissions:
a. Mechanisms for reducing fleet emissions include:
i.
replacing vehicles with low or no emission vehicles
ii.
rightsizing fleets (determining the appropriate fleet size, revising
business practices to reduce need for travel)
iii.
reducing fleet fuel consumption
iv.
reducing fleet vehicle miles traveled
v.
increasing use of fuels with lower GHG emissions.
b. Mechanisms for reducing commute emissions include:
i.
constructing additional on-campus housing
ii.
expanding Transportation Demand Management programs: car share,
carpool (rideshare), vanpool, bus pool, shuttles, transit, bicycle
circulation system, pedestrian circulation system, emergency rides
home, telecommuting, flexible schedules, parking management, etc.
c. Mechanisms for reducing business air travel emissions include:
i.
remote conferencing, such as teleconferencing, videoconferencing,
and web conferencing.
Appendix A
14 of 26
6. The University will work with regulatory agencies and other entities (e.g., regional
transit agencies, air quality management districts) to speed the development,
approval, and implementation of programs and technologies that support the
goals of sustainable transportation as related to the increased use of biodiesel or
other alternative fuel sources. This includes working with State agencies to
facilitate the purchase and use of Low Emission Vehicles (LEV), Zero-Emission
Vehicles (ZEV), and alternative fuel vehicles by the locations, and to find
solutions for increasing the availability of an affordable supply.
7. The University will develop a mechanism for ongoing involvement of
undergraduate and graduate students in efforts toward achieving sustainable
transportation. The means may include, but are not limited to, undergraduate and
graduate internships and/or scholarships for relevant conference attendance.
E.
Sustainable Building Operations for Campuses
1. The University will incorporate the Sustainable Building Operations policy
requirements into existing facilities-related training programs, with the aim of
promoting and maintaining the goals of the Policy.
2. The University will work closely with the USGBC to address the needs and
concerns of campuses in the further development of USGBC programs, including
the LEED-EBOM rating system and the USGBC’s “Application Guide for Multiple
Buildings and On-Campus Buildings.”
3. Locations will use the LEED-EBOM certification process to advance the
University’s educational and research mission by using the buildings as living,
learning laboratories.
F.
Recycling and Waste Management
1. The University will voluntarily comply with Chapter 18.5, the “State Agency
Integrated Waste Management Plan,” in California Public Resources Code
Section 40196.3.
2. Waste reduction and recycling shall be prioritized in seeking LEED credits for
LEED-NC, LEED-CI, and LEED-EBOM projects.
3. The University will seek to research funding sources for financing waste
reduction projects.
4. Locations are to update their waste diversion plans (formerly called integrated
waste management plans) by 2012 to evaluate their progress towards the 2012
and 2020 targets, their waste reduction and regional recycling options, campus
and medical center specific challenges and articulate their plan to reach the 2020
zero waste target. Campuses with medical centers are to include chapters or
otherwise include their medical centers in the waste diversion plan.
Appendix A
15 of 26
5. Exceptions will be considered for entities which represent less than 1% of the
overall campus solid waste tonnage.
6. Reduction, reuse, recycling and composting are the primary methods to be
counted toward the municipal solid waste diversion from landfill goals. The goal
is to strive for the highest form of resource recovery methods and the best use of
the materials. The hierarchy for resource recovery is as follows:
a. Source reduction: The reduction of waste is the highest form of
resource recovery as it eliminates the products from being
manufactured or transported in the first place.
b. Reuse: Reuse materials in their original form (e.g. use lumber for
lumber, mugs instead of single use cups, reuse course readers in
subsequent classes. These methods maintain the embodied energy in
each material. )
c. Composting and recycling: Composting is the recycling of organics
such as animal waste, bedding, greenwaste and foodwaste into
compost and mulch. Recycling refers to the conversion of waste into
basic materials so they can be made back into new products.
d. The methods of reusing and recycling waste vary and will evolve over
time as technologies improve. The Solid Waste and Recycling Working
Group – comprising waste and recycling professionals from each
location – will continue to evaluate recycling methods and recommend
their appropriateness for counting toward diversion goals.
G.
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP)
Sustainable Economy
1. The University seeks to compare the total cost of ownership when evaluating
the cost of goods and services for the selection of suppliers. The total cost of
ownership includes the initial purchase price and all other initial costs, including
installation, freight, taxes and fees where applicable, operating cost,
maintenance cost, warranty cost, collection, and end-of-life disposal or recycling
costs.
2. “Cradle to cradle” is the University’s preferred purchasing standard. It is defined
as accountable, responsible, and environmentally preferable supply chain
management from material extraction, production, marketing, sale, use,
disposal, collection, re-use and the web of closed loop cycles and processes.
3. The University will complete the transition of all locations toward electronic and
paperless e-procurement systems, and will use web-based catalogs, punch-out,
and other electronic programs.
Appendix A
16 of 26
4. The University will incorporate the credit requirements set forth by LEED-NC,
LEED-CI, and LEED-EBOM into product and service sourcing and procurement
when applicable.
5. The University will use its purchasing power and prominence to advance the
development of sustainable technologies and products by pressing markets to
continually lower resource use in the manufacturing and distribution processes
and increase productivity of their plants, warehouses, and distribution methods.
6. Each Commodity Team working on a specific RFI, RFQ, or RFP for products will
determine the appropriate sustainability requirements to be included in these
documents. Additionally, the Commodity Team will decide if and how many
Quality Points utilized in the Total Cost per Quality Point bid evaluation
methodology will be allocated to sustainability requirements.
Sustainability and the Supply Chain
7. The University will require all strategically sourced suppliers to present their
organization’s continuous improvement with the development of sustainable
products and operational practices in the Procurement Services/Strategic
Sourcing Quarterly Business Reviews.
8. The University will require all strategically sourced suppliers, and eventually all
suppliers, to report annually on the qualitative aspects of their business
operations and to report quarterly on the sales of products, which will result in
the quantitative measurement of their EPP business with UC.
9. When requested, suppliers citing EPP claims shall provide proper certification or
detailed information on environmental claims, including benefits, durability, and
recyclability properties.
10. The University will recognize recycled content and the following third-party
certifications and ratings for the purpose of calculating the percentage of
sustainable products that the University purchases:
Appendix A
a.
ENERGY STAR ® - Energy Star is a standard for energy efficient
consumer products administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy.
b.
EPEAT ® - The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool is a
method for consumers to evaluate the effect of a product on the
environment. It ranks products as gold, silver or bronze based on a set
of environmental performance criteria. It is managed by the Green
Electronics Council.
c.
GREENGUARD ® - The GREENGUARD Environmental Institute
certifies products and materials for low chemical emissions.
17 of 26
d.
Green Seal ® - A Green Seal Certification Mark on a product means
that it has gone through a stringent process to show that it has less
impact on the environment and human health.
e.
WaterSense® - WaterSense is a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
program designed to encourage water efficiency in the United States
through the use of a special label on consumer products.
11. Standards for packaging materials and their appropriate reuse or disposal will
be outlined in all RFIs, RFQs, and RFPs requiring potential bidders to document
their standards and practices for packaging materials, including materials
contained in the boxes of shipped products to protect goods, as well as the
boxes and cartons themselves. Suppliers who have reusable tote programs
should make these programs available to the University.
12. The University will specify that all packing materials abide by at least one, and
preferably all, of the criteria listed below:
a.
Made from 100% post-consumer recycled materials and be recyclable or
reusable
b.
Non-toxic
c.
Biodegradable
d.
Produced with the minimum amount of resources and sized as small as
possible, while still maintaining product protection during shipping; where
feasible, packaging materials should be eliminated.
13. The University will use established programs or work with its suppliers to
establish end-of-life reuse, recycling, or “take-back” programs at no extra cost to
the University, and in compliance with federal, state, and local laws, and
University environmental standards regarding waste disposal. The University
may use other disposition methods, consistent with University Policy BUS-38,
Disposition of Excess Property and Transfer of University-Owned Property10, or
other appropriate University policies. When documentation is required to comply
with federal, State, and local laws or University policy, this shall be incorporated
into the end-of-life program.
14. In the case of usable products for which there is neither a need to redeploy on
the location, nor a supplier take-back program, the University will use other
disposal methods, including sale through the Excess and Salvage units,
donation (if allowed under BUS-38, Disposition of Excess Material and Transfer
of University-owned Material), or existing location-designated programs.
10
http://policy.ucop.edu/doc/3220479
Appendix A
18 of 26
Energy and Water
15. For product categories where ENERGY STAR®-rated or WaterSense® certified
products are available, the University will focus its procurement efforts only on
products with an ENERGY STAR® rating or WaterSense® certification,
consistent with the needs of University researchers, faculty, and staff.
16. The University will use its Strategic Sourcing Program to negotiate better pricing
and inclusion in the University’s market basket for products that are certified
through the US EPA’s ENERGY STAR® and WaterSense® programs.
17. The University will engage with the ENERGY STAR® and WaterSense®
programs to continually press the market for greater energy and water
efficiency for the products and services regularly purchased by the University.
18. For all electronic equipment, the supplier will deliver the items to the University
with energy efficiency and conservation features enabled and locations will
work to ensure that features remain enabled.
Paper
19. The University will phase out the use of virgin paper and adopt a minimum
standard of 30% Post Consumer Waste (PCW) recycled content paper to be
used in all office equipment (e.g., multi-function devices, copiers, printers, and
fax machines).
20. University Procurement Services will use its Strategic Sourcing Program to
negotiate better pricing for commodities with recycled content compared to
commodities without recycled content, where such opportunities exist.
21. Through the Strategic Sourcing Program, University Procurement Services will
develop language and specifications for RFIs, RFQs, and RFPs stating that
recycled content product offerings be required where they exist.
22. Suppliers are discouraged from bringing hard copies of presentations to
Quarterly Business Reviews. Suppliers are encouraged to present all
information in electronic format that is easily transferable to University staff.
23. Suppliers and consultants are encouraged to print RFIs, RFQs, RFPs, Price
Schedule Agreements, and required reports on a minimum of 30% PCW
recycled content paper, using narrow margins and both sides of the page.
These documents shall be clearly marked to indicate that they are printed on
recycled content paper.
Electronics Equipment
24. All desktop computers, laptops, and computer monitors purchased by the
University are required to have achieved a minimum Bronze-level registration or
higher under the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool
(EPEAT®), where applicable.
Appendix A
19 of 26
25. Preference will be given for electronics products that have achieved EPEAT ®
Silver or EPEAT® Gold registration. The registration criteria and a list of all
registered equipment are provided at http://www.epeat.net.
26. All recyclers of the University’s electronic equipment must be e-Steward certified
by the Basel Action Network (BAN) (www.ban.org). In cases where the
University has established take-back programs with a manufacturer, the
University will encourage the manufacturer to become a BAN-certified eSteward Enterprise (http://e-stewards.org/recycle-responsibly/enterprises/).
H.
Sustainable Foodservices
Campuses and Medical Centers
1. Campus and Medical Center foodservice operations subject to this Policy shall
include both self-operated and contract-operated foodservices.
2. In the context of this Policy, sustainable food is defined as food and beverage
purchases that meet one or more of the criteria listed below, which are reviewed
annually by the UC Sustainable Foodservices Working Group (under the UC
Sustainability Steering Committee).
i. Locally Grown11
ii. Locally Raised, Handled, and Distributed
iii. Fair Trade Certified12
iv. Domestic Fair Trade Certified
v. Shade-Grown or Bird Friendly Coffee
vi. Rainforest Alliance Certified
vii. Food Alliance Certified
viii. USDA Organic
ix. AGA Grassfed
x. Grass-finished/100% Grassfed
xi. Certified Humane Raised & Handled
xii. American Humane Certified
xiii. Animal Welfare Approved
xiv. Global Animal Partnership (steps III, IV, V)
xv. Cage-free
11
Resulting from regional constraints, campus definitions of “Locally Grown” and “Locally Raised, Handled, and
Distributed” may vary; however, “Locally Grown” and “Locally Raised, Handled, and Distributed” distances shall
not exceed 500 miles.
12
Fair Trade Certified products must be third party certified by one of the following: IMO Fair For Life,
Fairtrade International (FLO), Fair Trade USA.
Appendix A
20 of 26
xvi. Protected Harvest Certified
xvii. Marine Stewardship Council
xviii. Seafood Watch Guide “Best Choices” or “Good Alternatives”
xix. Farm/business is a cooperative or has profit sharing with all employees
xx. Farm/business social responsibility policy includes (1) union or prevailing
wages, (2) transportation and/or housing support, and (3) health care
benefits
xxi. Other practices or certified processes as determined by the location and
brought to the Sustainable Foodservices Working Group for review and
possible addition in future Policy updates.
3. With the goal of achieving 20% sustainable food purchases, all Food Service
Operations should track and report annually the percentage of total annual food
budget spent on sustainable food.
4. If cost effective, each campus and Medical Center will certify one facility through
a third-party green business certification program through one of the following:
(1) city or county’s “green business” program, (2) Green Seal’s Restaurants and
Food Services Operations certification program, or (3) the Green Restaurant
Association certification program.
5. Campuses, Medical Centers, and retail foodservice operations will provide an
annual progress report on these goals. Annual reports should include the
individual campus and Medical Center's goals as well as the progress and
timelines for the programs being implemented to reach those goals.
6. Campuses and Medical Centers are encouraged to form a campus-level
foodservices sustainability working group to facilitate the campus goal setting
and implementation process.
7. The stakeholders who are involved with the implementation of the Sustainable
Foodservice section of this Policy will participate in a system-wide working group
to meet, network and to discuss their goals, best practices, and impediments to
implementation.
8. Campuses and Medical Centers are encouraged to implement training programs
for all foodservice staff on sustainable foodservice operations, as well as, where
applicable, on sustainable food products being served to patrons, so that staff
can effectively communicate with the patrons about the sustainable food options.
9. Campuses and Medical Centers are encouraged to participate in intercollegiate
and national programs that raise awareness on dietary health, wellness and
sustainability (e.g. the MyPyramid.gov Corporate Challenge and the Real Food
Challenge).
Appendix A
21 of 26
10. Campuses and Medical Centers are encouraged to develop health and wellness
standards for food service operators, including eliminating the use of trans-fat oils
or products made with trans-fat.
11. Campuses and Medical Centers are encouraged to undertake additional
initiatives that encourage healthy and sustainable food services operations.
Examples include tray-less dining, beef-less or meat-less days, and preservative
minimization programs.
I.
Sustainable Water Systems
Reporting Methods
1. Explicitly identify the geographic and operational areas comprising the scope of
location water usage (e.g., the campus as defined by its Long Range
Development Plan boundary, excluding third-party operated facilities).
2. Locations with medical centers may choose to report medical center data and
progress toward the target separately from the main campus and may select a
different baseline than the main campus.
3. All locations shall report water usage in a tabular format using the following
methods:
a. Measure per capita water consumption by Weighted Campus User (WCU) for
main campuses and Adjusted Patient Day (APD) for medical centers. If
necessary, WCU and APD may be combined using the following calculation:
[(APD/360)* 1.5] + WCU;
13
b.
Potable water usage for a baseline period selected by the location that is
three consecutive fiscal years between FY 1995/96 and FY 2009/10:
i. Total location potable water usage, in gallons, for each of the three
years comprising the baseline period,
ii. WCU, or APD, for each of the three years comprising the baseline
period
iii. Baseline Potable Water Usage: calculate the baseline metric as
follows: Step 1: Divide each years’ total water use in gallons by that
years’ WCU or APD population. Step 2: Average the three
gallons/population calculations to derive the Baseline Potable Water
Usage for the location,
iv. Multiply the Baseline Potable Water Usage figure by 0.80 to derive the
location 2020 Potable Water Usage Target, and
v. Unless impracticable, provide average gallons of potable water usage
per baseline year per gross square foot of location built space for
which potable water consumption is being reported, mirroring (c)above;
c.
Potable water usage for the most recent fiscal year13:
An average of the three most current fiscal years is allowed but not required.
Appendix A
22 of 26
i.
If using an average of the three most current fiscal years, which is
allowed but not required, follow the method described above for
deriving the baseline, but substitute the three most current fiscal years
for the three baseline years,
ii. If using only the most recent fiscal year, and not an average, list in the
table the following:
1. Total location potable water usage, in gallons, for the most recent
fiscal year,
2. WCU or APD for the most recent fiscal year,
3. Divide the gallons by the WCU or APD to derive the Current
Potable Water Usage; and
iii. If feasible, provide average gallons of potable water usage per gross
square feet for either the three most current fiscal years, if that is the
method adopted, or for the single most current fiscal year, again using
the methodology described above;
d.
Total location non-potable water usage, in gallons, for the most recent fiscal
year.
e.
Report, or estimate if metered data is not available, water usage in the
following use categories at a minimum: buildings, landscape, and central
plant including cooling towers, identifying the quantities of potable and nonpotable used for these purposes;
Reporting Schedule
4. Each location will prepare a Water Action Plan as specified below and submit it to
the Office of the President by December 2013. Each location will share its draft
plan with the Working Group by July 2013 in order to ensure collaboration on
development of final plans.
5. Beginning the following year, each location will provide an annual progress report
on implementing its Water Action Plan to include progress on its water usage
reduction.
Water Action Plans
6. Each Water Action Plan and the water conservation and water efficiency
strategies it contains will take into account relevant regional conditions and
regulatory requirements, will recognize historical progress, and will acknowledge
current location best practices being implemented.
7. Each Water Action Plan will include a section on Water Usage and Reduction
Strategies that:
Appendix A
23 of 26
a. Describes the applicable types of water comprising water systems, including
but not limited to potable water, non-potable water, industrial water, sterilized
water, reclaimed water, stormwater, and wastewater;
b. Reports water usage in accordance with the methods set forth in these
procedures;
c. Considers setting more stringent potable water reduction goals if the location
has already achieved a 20% below baseline reduction in per capital potable
water consumption;
d. Outlines location-specific strategies for achieving the target for reduced
potable water consumption;
e. Encourages implementation of innovative water-efficient technologies as part
of capital projects and renovations (e.g., installation of WaterSense certified
fixtures and appliances, graywater reuse, rainwater harvesting, and
watershed restoration);
f. Addresses use of non-potable water sources, and how those sources factor
into overall sustainable water systems strategy;
g. Analyzes the identified water use reduction strategies using a full cost
approach by considering:
i. Projected costs and savings of the identified water use strategies,
ii. Indirect costs and savings associated with reduced energy
consumption due to the energy use embodied in water use,
iii. Savings associated with reduced or avoided infrastructure costs,
and
iv. Other avoided costs; and
h. Sets a timeline for the strategies being implemented to reach the water usage
reduction target.
8. Each Water Action Plan will include a section on Stormwater Management
developed in conjunction with the location stormwater regulatory specialist that:
a. Addresses stormwater management from a watershed perspective in a
location-wide, comprehensive way that recognizes stormwater as a resource
and aims to protect and restore the integrity of the local watershed(s);
b. References the location’s best management practices for preventing
stormwater pollution from activities that have the potential to pollute the
watershed (e.g., construction; trenching; storage of outdoor equipment,
materials, and waste; landscaping maintenance; outdoor cleaning practices;
vehicle parking);
Appendix A
24 of 26
c. Encourages stormwater quality elements such as appropriate source control,
site design (low impact development), and stormwater treatment measures to
be considered during the planning stages of projects in order to most
efficiently incorporate measures to protect stormwater quality;
d. If feasible, cites relevant and current location stormwater-related plans and
permits in an appendix or reference list accompanying the Water Action Plan;
and
e. Includes, to the extent feasible, full cost evaluation of stormwater
management initiatives similar to the approach in the Water Usage and
Reduction Strategies section above.
9. Each location Water Action Plan will include a section on Education and Outreach
that:
a. Presents potential opportunities to serve as a living laboratory for sustainable
water projects;
b. Supports efforts of students, faculty and staff to implement sustainable water
systems on campuses and other locations;
c. Identifies opportunities for pilot projects that illustrate the University’s
commitment to sustainable water practices through teaching, research, and
service; and
d. Identifies opportunities for new practices that could create behavior change
with regard to water use and watershed management.
VI.
RELATED INFORMATION
UC Sustainability Website: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/
Annual progress reports to The Regents:
www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/reports.html
UC Code of Conduct for Trademark Licensees:
http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/coordrev/policy/1-05-00code.html
Appendix A
25 of 26
VIII. REVISION HISTORY
The Regents approved sustainability policy principles in July 2003
(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/sustainability/documents/regpolicy.pdf).
June 2004: President formally issued the “Presidential Policy on Green Building
Design and Clean Energy Standards.” This policy was subsequently renamed the
Policy on Sustainable Practices
January 2006: Policy expanded to include transportation and climate protection
March 2007: Policy expanded to include sustainable operations, waste reduction,
and environmentally preferable purchasing; renovations guidelines added to green
building section, climate protection section refined
September 2009: Policy expanded to include sustainable foodservice
July 2011: Policy revised to update the following sections: green building design,
climate protection practices, sustainable operations, environmentally preferable
purchasing, and sustainable foodservice practices.
Appendix A
26 of 26

LRDP EIR Addendum for Bowles Hall Residential

Transcription

Similar documents

Asst.US.Treasury Secretary Phillip Swagel Speaks on

Berkeley Global Campus at Richmond Bay (Project 18246B)

Bay Area Water in a Changing Climate

La Sabatera, Moraira - Elite International Real Estate

Fiat Lux! by Emil Ems

Teaching World History at College Level: orias.berkeley.edu June 5

November 6, 2014 5:30pm – 9:00pm (Dinner served at 5pm)

FICTION and How to get FILTHY RICH in RISING ASIA

Working on the Front Lines of the State Prof. Michael Musheno

Poszukiwanie partnerów do projektów w Programie Horyzont 2020