addendum #1 to the uc berkeley 2014 richmond bay … · approval over any aspect of the project. uc...

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

ADDENDUM | NRLF PHASE IV | PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 1, 2018

1

ADDENDUM #1 TO THE UC BERKELEY 2014 RICHMOND BAY CAMPUS LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for

UC NORTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY PHASE IV BUILDING

PROJECT LOCATION: RICHMOND FIELD STATION (FORMERLY “RICHMOND BAY CAMPUS”)

COUNTY: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CA

PROGRAM EIR: RICHMOND BAY CAMPUS 2014 LONG RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINAL EIR, CERTIFIED BY THE REGENTS MAY 2014 SCH #2013012007

February 1, 2018 Capital Strategies - Physical and Environmental Planning 300 A&E Building University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-1382



2

I. PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project title: UC Northern Regional Library Facility Phase IV building

2. Lead agency name and address:

The Regents of the University of California 1111 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607

3. Contact person and phone number:

Kira Stoll Principal Planner UC Berkeley Physical and Environmental Planning 510-642-0074 [email protected]

4. Project location:

University of California, Berkeley, Richmond Field Station (previously named Richmond Bay Campus)

5. Project sponsor’s name and address: See #2 & #3 above

6. Custodian of the administrative record for this project: See #2 & #3 above

7. Identification of all applicable LRDP and prior environmental documents: Richmond Bay Campus, 2014 Long Range Development Plan Final EIR. Certified by the UC Regents on May 14, 2014 (State Clearinghouse No. 2013012007)



3

II. INTRODUCTION Background

The Northern Regional Library Facility (NRLF) at the University of California (UC) Berkeley’s Richmond Bay Campus (RBC), now called the Richmond Field Station (RFS) (hereafter referred to as RBC/RFS) is one of two Regional Library Facilities that provide books, journals, maps and other material storage and access services for the 10 UC campus libraries. Both the Northern Regional Library Facility and Southern Regional Library Facility are reaching capacity and expansion of the northern facility has been deemed necessary. The University Librarians of the ten University of California campuses and the Executive Director of the California Digital Library propose to add a fourth phase expansion to the Northern Regional Library Facility (NRLF Phase IV). The proposed NRLF IV expansion project responds to the need for storage for new and archival library collections as well as changing space needs in UC campus libraries.

The NRLF Phase IV is a storage addition to the existing three phases of the NRLF at UC Berkeley’s RBC/RSF. Phase IV will provide 10 years of needed new storage capacity for low-use library materials of research value in the most cost effective, economical manner for the libraries of the UC. Developing new space is required; it is expected that the existing space will be full November 2018.

The NRLF complex is located on the northern edge of the RBC/RFS and the Phase IV storage building will be sited west of the Phase II and south of the Phase III buildings. Please see Figure 2, below. The proposed Phase IV will be approximately 26,600 gross square feet and add capacity for an additional 3.1 million print materials, meeting the deposit needs of all ten campus libraries for ten years, from approximately 2020 to 2030.

Purpose of the Addendum

This Addendum is intended to serve the following purpose. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15162, this document analyzes the potential environmental effects that could result from construction and operation of the NRLF Phase IV proposed project to determine, under the criteria of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, whether any proposed changes to the project or changes in circumstances under which the proposed project would be implemented could cause any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not previously examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR. If no new significant or substantially more severe impacts would occur, and no new mitigation measures would be required, CEQA Section 15162 provides that the proposed project can be approved by the Regents (or its designee) of the University of California without preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.



4

Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR could be used by the lead agency if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR have occurred. For the reasons set forth herein, the environmental analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed project falls within the standards set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 for the preparation of an addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR. The proposed project was identified and evaluated in the 2014 programmatic EIR for the Richmond Bay Campus, which anticipated up to 350,000 gross square feet of new space to expand the NRLF in multiple phases by 2050 (2014 LRDP EIR Vol 1 p. 2-3). This NRLF Phase IV project is an addition to an existing complex of buildings and represents the initial phase of expansion of the NRLF under the 2014 EIR; the NRLF Phase IV building will be approximately 26,600 gross square feet, well under the allowable expansion envelope identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR.

This Addendum determines that the proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects that were not examined in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Based on this the University of California has determined that an Addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR is appropriate for the proposed project. Program level mitigation measures that were identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR and that would be applicable to the proposed project would be implemented and enforced as part of the project approval. Those mitigation measures are identified Section V and Section VI of this document, and will be included in a project mitigation monitoring and reporting program.

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 acting as Lead Agency and will use this Addendum in assessing the effects of the actions detailed below. The campus consults with the City of Richmond; however, the City does not have discretionary approval over any aspect of the project. UC Berkeley and the RBC/RFS is part of the University of California, a constitutionally created entity of the State of California, with “full powers of organization and government” (Cal. Const. Art. IX, Section 9). As a constitutionally created State entity, the University is not subject to municipal regulations of surrounding local governments, such as the City of Richmond General Plan or land use ordinances, for uses on property owned or controlled by the University that are in furtherance of the University’s education purposes. Although there is no formal mechanism for joint planning or the exchange of ideas, UC Berkeley may consider, for coordination purposes, aspects of local plans and policies for the communities surrounding the campus when it is appropriate and feasible, but it is not bound by those plans and policies in its planning efforts.



5

The NRLF is managed by the UC Berkeley campus on behalf of the University of California. The proposed NRLF Phase IV Expansion was submitted to the UC Berkeley Capital Planning Committee and approved to proceed in August 2017. UC Berkeley will deliver the proposed project. The proposed NRLF Phase IV project was submitted to the Regents and approved for preliminary plan funding in September 2017. A request for full budget approval for this project will be submitted as part of the 2018-19 Budget for State Capital Outlay to be presented to the Regents in March 2018. If approved, construction funds would be available in fiscal year 2018-2019 following passage of the State Budget Act. Approval of design pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act will be requested for Regent action in March 2018.

Organization of the Addendum

This document is organized into the following sections:

I. PROJECT INFORMATION: provides summary of proposed project administration. II. INTRODUCTION: provides background, a summary of the environmental review, and

proposed project approvals. III. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: provides overview of the location, site,

objectives, program, building, landscape, sustainability, planning context, and schedule.

IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2014 LRDP: identifies the best practices and policies that guide the proposed project.

V. DETERMINATION: indicates what, if any, additional environmental documentation is required for the proposed project.

VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES: briefly summarizes under each topic area the conclusion of the earlier environmental analysis, including reference to the applicable mitigation measures and how, if applicable the proposed project will respond.

III. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

Project Location

The approximately 134-acre RBC/RFS site is located at 1301 South 46th Street in the South Shoreline area of the City of Richmond, approximately 5 miles northwest of the UC Berkeley campus. The RBC/RFS site is composed of two University-owned parcels. One parcel is 109.8 acres and is composed of 96.8 acres of uplands and 13 acres of the Western Stege Marsh and a transition area. The other parcel is 24.0-acre developed property along Regatta Boulevard immediately west of the RBC/RFS upland area. The University owns two additional parcels in Richmond that comprise tidal lands and open San Francisco Bay waters.

The RBC/RFS property is bounded on the west by a Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) service station, on the north/northwest by Regatta Boulevard, on the northeast by Meade Street, on the east by South 46th Street, and on the south by the San Francisco Bay. I-580 is parallel to Meade Street along the northeastern RBC site boundary. Land uses surrounding the RBC site include



6

industrial/office uses, a major interstate freeway, and low-/medium-density residential neighborhoods. Regatta Boulevard, along the RBC site northern/northwestern boundary, is adjacent to a railroad spur and a business complex developed with one- to two-story buildings. Bio-Rad Laboratories, a private research equipment manufacturing company, is located immediately west of the RBC site. The adjacent property to the east is the location of former chemical production operations previously owned by several entities, including Stauffer and Zeneca, and is currently owned by Cherokee Simeon Venture I, LLC. The Marina Bay residential neighborhood, across Meeker Slough, and southwest of the RBC/RFS site, consists of a mix of multi- and single-family residences. Low- and medium-density residential uses are also located across I-580, north of the RBC site Meade Street boundary.

FIGURE 1 - Regional Site Map showing UC Berkeley campus and UC Richmond Field Station



7

FIGURE 2 - UC Richmond Field Station, Location of NRLF

Site Description

The existing NRLF structure consists of three prior phases which opened in 1983, 1990, and 2005. The proposed NRLF Phase IV expansion was included in the 2014 LRDP EIR and will add a fourth shelving area and a small staff work processing area. The proposed project will be approximately 26,600 gross square feet (GSF). NRLF Phase IV will be built immediately west of Phase II and south of Phase III. Figure 3 shows the illustrative development scenario from the 2014 LRDP, showing the expansion of the NRLF. Figure 4 shows the site plan.

Richmond Field Station

Existing NRLF complex



8

FIGURE 3 – Location of NRLF Expansion – 2014 RCB LRDP

FIGURE 4 – Location of NRLF Phase IV



9

Need for the project and UC project approval1

The proposed expansion would extend the capacity of this facility to meet systemwide needs through 2030. The proposed project will directly serve campus library needs through storage of and access to valuable collections and by enabling campus libraries to use on-campus library space in new ways and for new services. UC Libraries have a long-standing commitment to collaboration in support of campus and UC goals. The ten-campus library systems, a division within the UC Office of the President, collaborate closely to build shared collections and services, lower the cost of library services at each campus, magnify the impact of library resources through widespread sharing, and lead innovative research and learning services. The University’s library and archival collections are fundamental building blocks for UC’s education, research, and public service mission. Taken together, the library collections comprise the largest academic library in the world and contribute significantly to the world’s record of scholarship as well as its cultural and historical materials record. This collection is sustained in part through the utilization of shared Regional Library Facilities (RLFs) that provide preservation-quality storage and access services for 13.8 million of the 40 million volumes systemwide. The RLFs lower local library costs while simultaneously increasing access to, and preservation of, UC’s unique library collections.

With continued collection growth, however, the NRLF, located at the RBC/RFS, will reach capacity in 2018 and the Southern Regional Library Facility, located at UC Los Angeles, will reach capacity between 2021 and 2022, based on current deposit rates. The proposed project will add capacity for an additional 3.1 million print materials at the NRLF, meeting the deposit needs of all ten campus libraries for ten years, from approximately 2020 to 2030.

The NRLF Phase IV project was recommended by both the UC Systemwide Library and Scholarly Information Advisory Committee and the University Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication, a faculty committee of the systemwide University Academic Senate. The UC Office of the Provost recommended that the Council of University Librarians bring forward a plan for solutions to the imminent capacity issue. The Council proposed a design and feasibility study, approved by the Office of the President in March 2016 and completed in April 2017. The Council of Chancellors and Council of Vice Chancellors unanimously recommended moving forward with the NRLF Phase IV project at their meeting on April 5, 2017. Project Objectives

The major driver behind the expansion of NRLF is to meet existing and future campus library storage needs, and in doing so, to allow campus libraries to save on local costs, build shared collections, support long-term preservation of materials, and utilize valuable core campus space in other ways. The need for continued expansion of the NRLF has been an understood programmatic need for some time and was anticipated and included as part of the 2014 LRDP.

1 Source for this section: UC Regents Discussion Item, July 12, 2017 meeting.



10

The mission of the Northern and Southern Regional Library Facilities is to house, preserve, and provide access to UC’s unique and valued collections. The facilities provide environmentally-controlled space to house and preserve print materials including books, journals, maps, and other paper documents. Separate areas are kept at a lower temperature and humidity to preserve other media, including microfilm, microfiche, and phonograph albums. Staff manage the intake of deposits from UC campus libraries and provide fast and efficient retrieval services for requested materials. This system of storage collectively saves the University of California $23.4 million annually through the efficiencies gained when collection-housing and operational costs are shared across the UC system. The UC libraries increasingly purchase digital resources. However, there is still a strong demand in the academy for print resources, especially for foreign language materials as well as materials in the arts, humanities, and historical (rare or special collections) areas. The demand for information in print and other non-digital formats is connected to sound pedagogy, scholarship, availability, and long-term preservation needs. Increasing reliance on digital resources is slowing the rate of growth of print resources but will not entirely halt it. Another contributing factor is that libraries at each campus are being pressed to move more of their existing collections off campus to free up library space for other mission-critical priorities, including the creation of teaching, collaborative, and cross-disciplinary spaces. The result is that even as the UC libraries work to build a collection to serve the scholarship of UC, they are facing a space and collections storage crisis at the campus level that must be addressed. A 2012 survey of five-year collection growth in UC libraries indicated that they collectively anticipated the need to store 300,000 volumes annually in the RLFs, for a total of 1.7 million volumes by 2017. The projected collection need from 2012 has proven to be accurate. This need is a combination of new acquisitions and freeing up space on campus for other uses. Given scholarship and publishing trends, as well as the expanding need for space on campuses, the UC libraries anticipate that the need for storage will continue at this rate for the next ten years.

Both NRLF and SRLF are facing space crises, with NRLF set to reach capacity by 2018 and SRLF set to reach capacity between 2021 and 2022 at the current deposit rate. With NRLF filling in 2018, five UC campuses – Berkeley, Davis, Merced, San Francisco, and Santa Cruz – will be unable to deposit materials at NRLF. Los Angeles, Irvine, Riverside, San Diego and Santa Barbara will face this same challenge at SRLF just four years later. The SRLF cannot be expanded because of site issues. This physical limitation, as well as the ongoing need for storage beyond the projected fill dates of the RLFs, has led to the proposed expansion of capacity at the NRLF location. New capacity for an additional 3.1 million volumes will meet the space demands for all ten UC campuses through 2030.

Project program overview, siting and building description

The purpose of the NRLF is to house, preserve, and provide access to less-used material of research and educational value for the University of California.



11

The NRLF has two main processing functions: • To accept and process deposits from libraries, and • To provide for efficient and timely retrieval and delivery of material requested for use.

The processing activities include transport from depositing libraries, inspecting for damage and infestation, cleaning, sorting items into shelving size categories, applying a unique barcode number to each item, creating or updating catalog records, and shelving. The proposed project will feature a small staff work area and high-bay storage facility to store paper materials (e.g. books, journals, maps, and manuscript collections). This arrangement is known as the “High Bay Storage System” (HBSS). To reach high shelves, operators will use motorized person-aboard lifts. This extension will store the 3.1 million print volumes in 30’ tall, 36” deep shelving, with volumes sorted by size for maximum density. The HBSS allows for very dense storage of materials, and is accomplished by using tall, one-story stacks, sorting the materials into 11 sizes (by height and depth), placing them in sized archival cardboard trays, and shelving them two or three deep on 36” deep by 53” wide shelves. The archival trays provide better support for the materials and make shelving and retrieving easier than the current practice of shelving materials two deep directly on the shelves. Equipment required for the HBSS includes person-aboard lifts and recharging stations plus custom book carts that ride the person-aboard lifts. The acid-free archival cardboard trays will require pallets and wire racks for storage. FIGURE 5: Example Photographs of HBSS System

Photo A: In a HBSS items are stored in boxes and trays in tightly grouped sizes and then stored on high shelving. This approach maximizes the available storage space. Photo B: Storage and retrieval in this type of facility is completed via a person-lift specially equipped to serve library materials.

Photograph A Photograph B



12

Building Description and Site: The existing NRLF structure consists of three prior phases which opened in 1983, 1990, and 2005 and which hold 2.9 million, 2.5 million, and 2.4 million volumes respectively for a total of approximately 7.8 million volumes. The existing three building shelving areas are accessed via a main spine corridor that separates the temperature and humidity-controlled stacks from the staff and user services areas. In addition, there is a staff area to process deposits and requests for materials, and a user services area that includes a public reading room. The NRLF Phase IV expansion will add a fourth shelving area and a small staff work processing area. The proposed project will be approximately 26,600 gross square feet. It is planned that NRLF Phase IV will be built immediately west of Phase II and south of Phase III, continuing the NRLF’s main spine corridor and building on the modular design approach set out in previous phases of NRLF. This design allows for future phases to extend the modular framework, with future potential capacity for two additional phases. See Figure 4 above for a schematic of the complex siting. Figure 6 below provides images shows the existing views of the current NRLF facility complex from different directions on the site. FIGURE 6: Existing Views of NRLF, Detailed Project Program, April 2017



13

NRLF Phase IV will be integrated with the existing complex. The NRLF phase IV building is not exposed to the public facing areas of the building complex. Phase IV is an opportunity to unify the NRLF complex composition. Exterior design of Phase IV will take cues from existing phases and will not introduce new elements, colors, or materials. The building exterior will consist of industrial corrugated steel siding painted non-reflective off-white, beige or brick red. If there are any appurtenances, they will be sheltered from view. Exterior lighting will be wall mounted and dark sky compliant. An emergency turn-around will be added to an existing service road on the south edge of the NRLF complex. The following renderings show the proposed layout and exterior design of the NRLF Phase IV project in relation to the existing buildings in the complex. This is the Phase IV perspective facing southeast. FIGURE 7: Grey Building, Rendering of Phase IV, Detailed Project Program, April 2017

Landscape Description

A RBC/RFS Physical Design Framework (PDF) was developed to guide the site development and provide best practices. The Physical Design Framework articulates in more detail the vision for the physical form of the campus and serves as a foundation for the specific planning and design of future projects. The PDF augments the design guidance presented in 2014 LRDP. The NRLF Phase IV project is in the area designated in the 2014 RBC/RFS PDF as the grasslands neighborhood that includes the remnant coastal terrace prairie (see PDF 4.12: Ecological Neighborhoods). The existing NRLF and the proposed Phase IV development are situated immediately adjacent to an important occurrence of remnant coastal terrace prairie known as Big Meadow. Big Meadow has been evaluated and described in several previous technical reports prepared for the RBC/RFS. The Richmond Bay Campus Coastal Terrace Prairie



14

Management Plan (2014 LRDP EIR, Appendix G) was prepared in order to provide guidelines for protecting and restoring coastal prairie resources at the RBC/RFS in accordance with the goals of the University’s 2014 LRDP EIR and the associated mitigation requirements. The Management Plan identifies Big Meadow as one of the core coastal prairie areas at the RBC/RFS that is to be protected, enhanced, and monitored. The 2014 LRDP EIR designates the majority of Big Meadow as a natural open space. In addition to the grasslands, the natural open space adjacent to the proposed project has other biological resources of interest including seasonal wetlands and provides primary habitat such as nesting and foraging, and secondary habitat such as movement corridors. These habitats support small mammals and a relatively large number of bird species including some special status species. A portion of these species nest at the RBC/RFS, while others nest elsewhere and forage on the site or are seasonal during migrations in spring and fall. To the east of the existing NRLF complex, not in the natural open space designated area, is a non-native eucalyptus tree grove that includes a monarch butterfly roosting area. Figure 4-8 in the 2014 LRDP EIR provides a depiction of these biological areas. The 2014 LRDP EIR states that wildlife species are not expected to be found in any consistent numbers within the developed areas. The proposed building site itself is not in the natural open space designated area and the footprint of the building will be on a disturbed area partially bounded by a dirt roadway. FIGURE 8: Natural Open Space per 2014 LRDP EIR and Proposed NRLF Expansion, Detailed Project Program, April 2017



15

The previous studies of Big Meadow referenced above as well as the more recent Detailed Project Program for the NRLF Phase IV (images shown above) depict the location of the coastal prairie and its boundaries with respect to existing and proposed development. The 2014 LRDP calls for a 25 foot buffer zone (LRDP p. 4.4) between development and coastal terrace grasslands. Since the coastal prairie boundary lines established above were developed by qualitative methods and in order to more precisely determine the limits of the coastal prairie within Big Meadow, and its location relative to the proposed Phase IV NRLF footprint, a detailed survey of the northeastern edge of Big Meadow was performed. Conducted in May 2017, the survey included both a qualitative assessment and quantitative vegetation sampling with the primary objective of refining the location of the edge of the coastal prairie. The May 2017 survey supplements previous studies and supports LRDP mitigation measure BIO-5d of the EIR. The survey identified a small portion of grasslands in the buffer zone that will need to be mitigated. This will be done in accordance with Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan (2014 LRDP EIR, Appendix G) and will establish a new grasslands restoration area on the site. The percentage of impervious surfaces is anticipated to increase slightly over existing conditions. However, in accordance with the 2014 LRDP and programmatic EIR, the project will utilize permeable pavement to the extent feasible and will mitigate runoff to predevelopment levels through a bioswale. Small areas of wetland could be present on the RBC/RSF site and most of the site has not yet been delineated. Ponded water has been observed in annual grassland habitat for extended periods throughout the rainy season and may constitute potentially jurisdictional seasonal wetlands (2014 LRDP EIR 4-60). A biologist will be brought on during the detailed design phase to determine if there are any wetland mitigations required following the 2014 LRDP EIR mitigation program. Dark Sky compliant lighting design will be used to minimize disturbance in the surrounding natural areas. The proposed project landscape will be minimal but where employed it will be ecologically-sensitive and follow the established guidance of the Richmond Bay Campus Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan, Appendix G of the 2014 LRDP EIR.



16

Sustainable design

Sustainable design has been included in the planning of the NRLF Phase IV. The project will comply with the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices. The project will adopt the principles of energy efficiency and sustainability to the fullest extent possible. Additionally, The RBC/RFS is included in UC Berkeley’s climate and sustainability goals and planning documents. The proposed project is currently targeting LEED Silver certification and energy standards specified as requirements of the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices. The proposed project will strive for LEED Gold as called for by the 2014 LRDP policies but since this a storage building and is energy intensive due to required strict temperature and humidity control, LEED Gold may not be achievable. The proposed project will incorporate of a number of green building strategies, including:

• Will have separate energy systems from the other NRLF buildings; this will provide opportunity for energy efficient mechanical systems.

• No parking is added by the proposed project, and with only a handful of employees there will be no traffic impacts.

• Design zero or net-zero increase in stormwater runoff. • High performance building envelope. • Efficient LED lighting systems on the interior and exterior. • Limiting night sky light pollution from site lighting. • Low-flow bathroom fixtures. • No additional landscaping requiring watering will be included. • Selection of materials to support good indoor air quality. • Construction waste management and recycling. • Surrounding natural spaces will be protected during construction.

Additional concepts being studied include: • Building control systems for verification and saving energy. • Registration with PG&E Savings by Design program.

LRDP Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Measures incorporated into project

As planned and proposed, the project incorporates all the relevant mitigation measures and best practices established in the programmatic Environmental Impact Report for the UC Berkeley RBC 2014 Long Range Development Plan. See Section VI below. Milestone Schedule

• Design and CEQA approval in March 2018 • Working drawings and contracting by March 2019 • Construction period: March 2019 - August 2020 • Open for Business: September 2020



17

IV. CONSISTENCY WITH 2014 LRDP

The NRLF Phase IV is proposed as partial implementation of the 2014 Long Range Development Plan. Adopted by the Regents in May 2014, the 2014 LRDP describes both the scope and nature of development proposed to meet the goals of the University through a 40-year planning period, including projections of growth in both campus headcount and campus space during this timeframe. The 2014 LRDP also prescribes a comprehensive set of principles, policies, and guidelines to inform the location, scale and design of individual capital projects.

• The proposed project has been reviewed by the campus Design Review Committee in February 2017.

• The proposed project is undergoing the required seismic peer review in February 2018 during the schematic design process. Additional seismic peer review will be done later in the process as required by policy.

• The proposed project is the first project to be developed under the 2014 LRDP EIR.

• The proposed project was identified and evaluated in the 2014 programmatic EIR, which included up to 350,000 gross square feet of new space to expand the NRLF in multiple phases (EIR Page 2-3). This NRLF Phase IV project is an addition to an existing complex of building and represents the initial of expansion of the NRLF under the EIR; the NRLF Phase IV building will be approximately 26,600 gross square feet, well under the allowable expansion envelope.

• The proposed project was identified and evaluated in the 2014 LRDP and programmatic EIR, which anticipated growth of population over the 40-year planning period of the 2014 LRDP to increase by 9,700 (EIR Page 2-3). This NRLF Phase IV project will add less than 0.10% new population to the RBC/RFS.

Applicable LRDP Policies The following describes how the project is consistent with applicable 2014 LRDP policies:

• Land Use Policy 4 (p. 4.12 of the 2014 LRDP): concentrate development to preserve future capacity while maintaining natural areas.

o The proposed project was included in the 2014 LRDP EIR and is sited directly adjacent to the earlier three phases of the NRLF, and will support the preservation of the natural area of the Big Meadow.

• Open Space and Landscape Policy 1 (p. 4.29 of the 2014 LRDP): The landscape of the

Richmond Bay Campus, its unique location at the edge of San Francisco Bay, and the



18

coastal prairie grasslands will be protected and featured in the daily experience of the campus. − Establish buffers, setbacks, and procedures to review new plantings in order to protect

and enhance coastal plant communities and wildlife habitat on the site. − Refer to the site’s natural features and employ ecologically-sensitive native plantings

in the site’s landscape design.

o The proposed project establishes a 25 buffer zone (LRDP p. 4.4) between the project site and the coastal grassland prairie of the Big Meadow. As part of the project’s mitigation a new native coastal prairie plant restoration site will be established and will be an enhancement to the current plant community.

o The proposed project landscape will be minimal but where employed it will be ecologically-sensitive and follow the established guidance of the Richmond Bay Campus Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan, Appendix G of the 2014 LRDP EIR.

• Open Space and Landscape Policy 3 (p. 4.29 of the 2014 LRDP): Sustainability, new

landscapes will be consistent with “Bay-Friendly” design.

o The proposed project landscaping will be minimal and will not rely on irrigation from potable water after the initial establishment. Native species will be prioritized and supportive of the local ecosystems.

• Sustainability Policy 5 (p. 4.38 of the 2014 LRDP): Energy and climate, pursue energy

efficiency targets and renewable energy use consistent with leading-edge best practices in mitigating climate change.

− Pursue grid power from 100% renewable sources where available at a reasonable cost. − Prepare a Climate Action Plan to guide development and operations and publicly report

greenhouse gas emissions using standard protocols.

o The proposed project will be served by 100% clean utility electricity from the UC Office of the President by the building opening in 2020. Over time this source will become 100% renewable.

o The RBC/RFS is included in the UC Berkeley 2025 Carbon Neutrality Planning Framework and RBC/RFS greenhouse gas emissions are reported annually using standard protocols.

• Sustainability Policy 6 (p. 4.39 of the 2014 LRDP): Green buildings, new construction projects exceeding $5 million dollars will target certification of LEED Gold at a minimum. Buildings will be designed to comply with the UC Sustainable Practices Policy and the Berkeley Campus Sustainability Plan.

o The proposed project is currently targeting LEED Silver certification, a requirement



19

of the UC Policy on Sustainable Practices. The proposed project will strive for LEED Gold as called for by the 2014 LRDP policies but since this a storage building and is energy intensive due to required strict temperature and humidity control, LEED Gold may not be achievable. The proposed project will incorporate a number of green building strategies described in the previous section.

Related Best Practices The RBC/RFS Physical Design Framework has been developed to guide the site and project design and provide best practices. The following best practices from this framework have been considered for the NRLF IV project.

• Building Design Guidelines: The proposed project is an addition to a complex of existing library buildings for material management and storage. The design of the proposed project is intended to integrate with the complex and not introduce new building design elements. The proposed project will apply primary colors for prominent walls and colors that reference the existing natural context. Roof equipment will not be visible and solar ready design for the roof is under consideration.

• Open Space and Landscape Guidelines: o Planting and other site features would be designed to evoke the ecological zone

of each neighborhood. The proposed project falls into the grasslands neighborhood and as such the natural open space grasslands will be managed in accordance with the Richmond Bay Campus Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan.

o Planting guidelines follow the management plan which includes the use of exclusively native or non-invasive species in the buffer zone between the project site and the Big Meadow.

o New trees will be utilized to reduce the visibility and scale of the proposed project. o Stormwater management will be integrated in the site landscape design. o The need for irrigation will be minimized.

• Site Material Guidelines:

o As feasible the proposed project will utilize pervious pavement materials in the buffer zone adjacent to the Big Meadow. Paving materials will need also to support emergency vehicle access.

o Landscape lighting will conform to international Dark Sky Association or like standards and minimize light intrusion into the natural open space adjacent to the site. Lighting fixtures will be derived from materials and finishes that can withstand the marine environment.



20

V. DETERMINATION The evaluation found in this Addendum and detailed below in Section VI, found that the UC Berkeley NRLF Phase IV project at the Richmond Bay Campus/Richmond Field Station would not result in any new or substantially more severe significant environmental impacts than those identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The proposed project would not require new mitigation measures or result in mitigation measures that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2014 LRDP EIR and adopted by the Regents in May 2014. The 2014 LRDP EIR found that LRDP proposals at the RBC/RFS, which includes the proposed NRLF Phase IV project, would have less than or no significant impacts on the environment in regard to Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Population and Housing; Public Services and Recreation. The 2014 LRDP EIR found that LRDP proposals at the RBC/RFS, which includes the proposed NRLF Phase IV project, would have less than significant impacts on the environment, with project-level mitigation incorporated in regard to Aesthetics; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Land Use and Planning; Noise; and, Utilities, Service Systems and Energy. The 2014 LRDP EIR found that LRDP proposals at the RBC/RFS, which includes the proposed NRLF Phase IV project, would result in potentially significant impacts, at substantial build-out, related to Air Quality; Cultural Resources; Greenhouse Gas Emissions; and, Transportation and Traffic. There are no mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. As such, these impacts are Significant and Unavoidable. The Northern Regional Library Facility Phase IV, though, as the first project to be developed under the 2014 LRDP EIR and consisting of less than 30,000 gsf and minimal population growth, does not trigger mitigations required for Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation and Traffic. Additionally, several historic buildings considered Cultural Resources to which there could be significant and unavoidable impacts, are not impacted by the NRLF phase IV project. Need for Addendum This Addendum was prepared to discuss any new information, changes to the proposed project or circumstances under which the proposed project would be implemented that may affect the prior environmental analysis prepared for the 2014 LRDP EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) discusses the use of a program EIR with later activities, and states that “if the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calls for the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration if certain conditions have been met. These conditions include:



21

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise or reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or Negative Declaration; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

UC Berkeley has evaluated the proposed project relative to the above conditions and determined that based on the CEQA guidelines section 15162 a subsequent or supplemental EIR or Negative Declaration need not be prepared because:

• Since the 2014 LRDP EIR was certified for up to 4,350,000 gross square feet of additional space and since certification no new projects have been proposed or constructed at the Richmond Bay Campus/Richmond Field station by UC Berkeley (EIR Page 2-3);

• The proposed project was identified and evaluated in the 2014 programmatic EIR, which included up to 350,000 gross square feet of new space to expand the NRLF in multiple phases (EIR Page 2-3). This NRLF Phase IV project is an addition to an existing complex of building and represents the initial of expansion of the NRLF under the EIR; the NRLF Phase IV building will be approximately 26,600 gross square feet, well under the allowable expansion envelope. No new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects would occur.



22

• The proposed project was identified and evaluated in the 2014 programmatic EIR, which

anticipated growth of population over the 40-year planning period of the 2014 LRDP to increase by 9,700 (EIR Page 2-3). This NRLF Phase IV project will add less than 0.10% new population to the RBC/RFS.

• The evaluation of environmental effects concludes the proposed Project would not cause any new significant environmental effect not considered in the 2014 LRDP EIR, nor increase the severity of any impact previously found significant in the 2014 LRDP EIR; that no new information of substantial importance, which was not known at the time the 2014 LRDP EIR was certified, has become available; that the circumstances under which the proposed Project will be undertaken have not changed to involve new significant environmental effects or substantially increased severity in environmental effects;

Based on the above UC Berkeley has determined that an Addendum to the 2014 LRDP EIR is appropriate for the proposed Project, itself in the form of the following evaluation of environmental effects. This Addendum was initially published on February 1, 2018 to the UC Berkeley Capital Strategies division website, https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu, with an invitation to comment by 5pm on February 15, 2018. Notice of the availability of the Addendum for review was sent to UC Berkeley’s Planning and CEQA notice list serve and the Richmond Bay community list serve.

https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/



23

VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND APPLICABLE RBC LRDP EIR MITIGATION MEASURES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PRACTICES

AESTHETICS AND VISUAL QUALITY The proposed project would not alter the findings of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Aesthetics and Visual Quality. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to aesthetic issues that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Aesthetic impacts. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project will comply with Aesthetic mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE AES-1: The University shall develop and implement a Physical Design Framework that protects the visual quality of both the on- and off- campus environments through provisions that address building scale, materials, and color schemes. The Physical Design Framework shall include best management practices and procedures for avoiding or minimizing aesthetic nuisances in demolition, construction, and operational phases of the project. Design review processes for planning of new buildings and development shall be clearly articulated and followed throughout the life of the project. Increased RBC scale and density would be addressed in a number of ways through the Physical Design Framework and subsequent plans: buildings would be restricted in height and height zones would further restrict heights in certain locations. Building facades would be broken up by architectural and design features so as to minimize the appearance of mass and bulk. Reflective material would be restricted, which, would minimize the appearance of the new buildings particularly at greater distances. Trees and other landscaping features would be used to further break up, obscure, or minimize RBC development. Aesthetically objectionable appurtenances such as stacks, machinery, tanks, and HVAC systems on top of buildings would be

• A Physical Design Framework for the RBC was adopted in May 2014.

• A design review processes following the Physical Design Framework will be followed through the life of the project. NRLF Phase IV will be integrated with the existing three buildings in the complex. Like the other building phases design will be driven by function, program and by the requirements of library material storage systems. The NRLF phase IV building is not exposed to the public facing areas of the building complex. The UC Berkeley Design Review Committee reviewed the Detailed Project Program exterior design in February 2017. Input included: Phase IV is an opportunity to unify the NRLF complex composition. Design of Phase IV will take cues from existing phases and will not



24

sheltered from view wherever practical. Demolition debris and long-term construction supplies and equipment would be stored such that – to the extent practicable – they would not be visually intrusive from off-site viewpoints.

introduce new elements, colors, or materials. The building exterior will consist of industrial corrugated steel siding painted off-white, beige or brick red and manage reflectivity. The proposed project need only return to the Design Review Committee for additional review if there is a significant design change, though that is not anticipated.

• The proposed project will adhere to height, mass and bulk, material specifications, and shelter any appurtenances from view per the Physical Design Framework.

• The proposed project will include minimal landscaping. If landscaping is used it will be native to integrate with the open space adjacent to it, and require no additional watering after establishment.

• Demolition and construction supplies and equipment will be stored in a manner that reduces visual intrusion from off-site viewpoints.

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PRACTICE AES-3a: Lighting for new development projects could be designed to include shields and cut-offs that minimize light spill onto unintended surfaces and minimize atmospheric light pollution.

• Lighting design will minimize light spill onto the natural area adjacent to the proposed project.

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PRACTICE AES-3b: To reduce off-site lighting impacts, lighting at the campus could be restricted to areas where it would be required for safety, security, and operation. Exterior lights could be hooded, and lights could be directed on-site so significant light or glare would be minimized. For areas where lighting is not required for normal operation, safety, or security, switched lighting circuits could be provided, allowing these areas to remain dark at most times, minimizing the amount of lighting potentially visible off- site. In parking lots, lights could be equipped with

• Lighting at the site is restricted to areas required for safety, security and operations. An emergency vehicle turn-around will be included as part of this project. Lighting deemed necessary for emergency access will be included with sensitivity to glare.

• Exterior lighting will be wall mounted dark sky compliant and



25

motion sensors that reduce the lights to half of their brightness when no motion is detected.

switched lighting circuits employed where possible.

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PRACTICE AES-3c: As part of the design review procedures, light and glare could be given specific consideration, and measures could be 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.

• The building will have minimal windows and glass as it is a light and temperature controlled library material storage facility.

AIR QUALITY The proposed project would not alter the findings of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Air Quality. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to air quality issues that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new information is available. The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Air Quality impacts. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project is not required to comply with Air Quality mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, as this is the first building project to be developed under the 2014 LRDP EIR and mitigations are required once 1,000,000 square feet of building space is developed. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Biological Resources. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Biological Resources 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Biological Resources. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project will comply with the Biological Resources relevant mitigation measures and environmental protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, as follows. As the proposed project is the first development on the site since the adoption of the 2014 LRDP EIR and will add less than 1% of the allowable square footage, the proposed project will not be responsible for implementing a RBC/RFS tree planting plan as specified in Environmental Protection Practice BIO-



26

4. The RBC/RFS does mow areas of non-native species as specified in Environmental Protection Practice BIO-5. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: Avoid construction, demolition, or renovation activities in areas adjacent or nearby to marshland nesting bird habitat during the nesting season (February 1 – August 31) and specify that construction schedules make efforts to further reduce noise and vibration during known nesting periods.

If construction, demolition, or renovation were proposed to occur during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey shall be performed by a qualified biologist up to approximately 7 days prior to work commencing, up to 100 feet beyond the project boundary. If no birds or evidence of birds are found, no further action is required, provided work commences within approximately 1 week of the survey to prevent “take” of individual birds that may have begun nesting after the survey. If nesting birds with eggs or young are observed during the pre-construction surveys, construction, demolition, or renovation in the affected project area shall not commence within 100 feet of the occupied nest until after the young have fledged. Engage in ESA Section 7 or Section 10 consultation (formal or informal, as appropriate) with the USFWS for implementation level LRDP components (depending on whether those components constitute a federal or state action, e.g., approvals or funding) to address any potential impacts on California clapper rail. Develop appropriate measures with USFWS and implement them. Establish a 150-foot-wide temporary “no disturbance” buffer around the wetland/upland boundary of Western Stege Marsh/Meeker Slough when construction occurs during the breeding season (mid-March to July). This buffer would protect and buffer potential California clapper rail habitat and nesting areas during construction by prohibiting entry into this area.

• The proposed project site is a significant distance from the marshland areas of the site, so disturbance during the nesting season in this area of the RBC/RFS will not be of issue.

• The construction phase of the proposed project will occur over the nesting season (February 1 – August 31) and as such, a nesting bird survey will be performed by a qualified biologist up to approximately 7 days prior to work commencing in the areas on and adjacent to the construction site. If evidence is found at that time, the protection practices identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 relevant to the grasslands area of the site will be followed.



27

To prevent take of individuals, as required under the MBTA, ESA, CESA, and California Fish and Game Code, which includes harm and harassment under the ESA, a buffer zone of an appropriate size to prevent substantial adverse effects from construction would be established through consultation with the USFWS. Post interpretative California clapper rail signs in and near Western Stege Marsh/Meeker Slough. Signs should include seasonal use restrictions (e.g., stay on designated trails, pets on leash), to reduce disturbance potential during construction and operations.

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: 2014 LRDP implementation projects shall avoid disturbance to special-status bats’ maternity roosts during the breeding season in accordance with the following procedures for Pre-Construction Special- Status Bat Surveys and Subsequent Actions. No more than 2 weeks prior to commencement of any concrete breaking or similarly noisy construction/demolition activity during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall conduct pre-demolition surveys of all potential special-status bat breeding habitat in the disturbance vicinity. Depending on the survey findings, the following actions shall be taken to avoid potential adverse effects on breeding special-status bats:

1. If active roosts are identified during pre-construction surveys, a no- disturbance buffer shall be created by the qualified bat biologist, in consultation with the CDFW, around active roosts during the breeding season. The size of the buffer shall take into account factors such as: a. Noise and human disturbance levels at the project site and the roost site at the time of the survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction, b. Distance and amount of vegetation or other screening between the project site and the roost, and c. Sensitivity of individual nesting species and the behaviors of the bats. 2. If pre-construction surveys indicate that no roosts

• Noisy construction activity related to the proposed project will occur over the bat breeding season (March 1 – August 31) and as such a special status bat survey will be performed by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to noisy construction work commencing. Depending on survey finding, the appropriate actions as defined Mitigation Measure BIO-3 the will be taken to avoid potential adverse effects.

OR (depending on project timing)

• Pre-construction special status bat

surveys will not be required for the proposed project because noisy demolition or construction will commence during the non-breeding season (September 1 through February 28). While it will continue through the breeding season it is assumed that any bats taking up roosts would be acclimated to project-related activities already under way. Since the project includes no tree removal no survey for roosts in trees will be required.



28

of special-status bats are present, or that roosts are inactive or potential habitat is unoccupied, no further mitigation is required. 3. Pre-construction surveys are not required for demolition or construction scheduled to occur during the non-breeding season (September 1 through February 28). 4. Noisy demolition or construction as described above (or activities producing similar substantial increases in noise and activity levels in the vicinity) commencing during the non-breeding season and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any bats taking up roosts would be acclimated to project-related activities already under way). However, if trees are to be removed during the breeding season, the trees shall be surveyed for roosts prior to their removal, according to the survey and protective action guidelines 1a through 1c, above. 5. Bat roosts initiated during demolition or construction are presumed to be unaffected by the activity, and a buffer is not necessary.

6. Destruction of roosts of special-status bats and overt interference with roosting activities of special-status bats shall be prohibited.

7. The noise control procedures for maximum noise, equipment, and operations identified in Section 4.10, Noise, shall be implemented

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: Mitigation for LRDP-related impacts on grasslands will expand as the campus grows

a) Once the RBC LRDP is approved for implementation, UC Berkeley shall commence initial phase implementation of a Coastal Terrace Prairie Grassland Management Plan that addresses exotics removal, tree and Baccharis (a genus in the Aster family) removal, weed management, programs for native plant stock preservation to aid in preservation and enhancement of the grassland portion of the Natural Open Space area, and the requirement to install monitoring wells in such a manner that causes the least amount of grassland disturbance. See Appendix G for

• UC Berkeley retained Rana Creek Habitat Restoration to perform a detailed survey of the northeastern edge of Big Meadow. This May 2017 survey included both a qualitative assessment as well as quantitative vegetation sampling with the primary objective of refining the location of the edge of the coastal prairie. The July 2017 survey supplements previous studies and responds to the mitigation measure BIO-5 of the EIR. The survey identified a small portion of grasslands in the 25 foot buffer zone that will need to be mitigated. A management



29

the 2014 Richmond Bay Campus Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan. b) As initial projects under the LRDP are implemented, proactive (not passive) measures to improve the quality of the native grasslands in the Natural Open Space area shall be funded and undertaken. This may take the form of support for research and education into effective restoration. Possible fund sources include the UC Berkeley Capital Renewal Program, which assesses a four percent fee on all capital budgets (UC Berkeley 2013).

c) Once a project is proposed that may alter high quality grassland within the Natural Open Space land use zone by constructing minor access roads, structures, or boardwalks, the University shall update its Coastal Terrace Prairie Grassland Management Plan to guide conservation and enhancement efforts, as well as the siting of boardwalks and minor access roads and structures in a resource-sensitive manner. The plan shall include weed management actions, annual monitoring and reporting, and adaptive management sufficient to maintain or improve the quality of the grasslands preserved in the designated Natural Open Space. The effectiveness of the plan shall be continually evaluated and the plan adjusted as needed.

d) Prior to approving any action to develop the Northwest Meadow or to develop on other high, medium, or low quality grasslands outside of the Natural Open Space land use zone, the University shall conduct a site-specific native plant survey. All survey results would be published to the University environmental website for the RBC. The University would apply the results of such surveys to implement a program that would use the native plant stock from such area to aid enhancement and restoration in Natural Open Space grassland areas, and to develop or restore meadow acreage elsewhere. Possible locations include formal landscaped open areas of the RBC, rooftops of buildings at the RBC, demonstration meadows at UC Berkeley or in the city of Richmond that help explain the former extent of regional coastal terrace prairie grasslands.

plan for the proposed project will be prepared in accordance with Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan (2014 LRDP EIR, Appendix G) and as part of the project a new grasslands restoration area on the site will established. A maintenance plan for the restoration site will be initiated to ensure its success. The proposed project will instigate an improvement to the native grasslands overall through this new restoration site.

• The July 2017 survey delineates the required 25 foot buffer zone between the project site and the coastal grassland prairie of the Big Meadow. Construction fencing will be placed to protect the grasslands during construction and signing will be placed to educate those working on the construction site.

• The proposed project does not include the development of access roads, structures or boardwalks in the Big Meadow, and as such does trigger the need for an updated Coastal Terrace Prairie Grassland Management Plan.



30

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6a: 2014 LRDP development projects shall avoid, to the extent feasible, the filling of or discharging to potentially jurisdictional waters. Therefore, during the design phase of any future development project that may affect potentially jurisdictional waters, a preliminary evaluation of the project site shall be made by a qualified biologist to determine if the site is proximate to potentially jurisdictional waters and, if deemed necessary by the biologist, a wetlands delineation shall be prepared and submitted to the USACE for verification. Because the USACE’s preferred mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters is avoidance, to the extent practicable, 2014 LRDP development shall be located to avoid the filling of or discharging to jurisdictional waters.

• An evaluation of the project site is planned to be made by a qualified biologist during the working drawing design phase to determine if the project could impact potentially jurisdictional waters in or near the site. If deemed necessary the delineation will be prepared and submitted to the USACE for verification.

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6b: Any unavoidable loss of jurisdictional waters shall be compensated for through the development and implementation of a project-specific wetland mitigation plan. If a 2014 LRDP development project were to potentially impact jurisdictional waters, impact compensation would be based on the USACE-verified wetlands delineation identified in Mitigation Measure BIO-6a. During the permit application process for specific development projects that would impact jurisdictional waters, the University would consult with the USACE, CDFW, and San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The consultation would be to identify the most appropriate assessment and mitigation methods to adequately address losses to wetland function that could occur from the development projects. A project-specific wetland mitigation plan would be developed prior to project implementation and submitted to permitting agencies for their approval. The plan may include on-site or off-site restoration or creation or purchasing of credits from a wetland mitigation bank. All mitigation work proposed in existing wetlands on- or off-site shall be authorized by applicable permits.

• If it is determined that there are jurisdictional waters on or near the site and there is potential to impact these, the process outlined in this mitigation measure will be followed.

CULTURAL RESOURCES The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Cultural Resources. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Cultural Resources that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary, mitigated, and no new



31

information is available. The proposed project would not alter the findings of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Cultural Resources. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project will comply with the Cultural Resources relevant mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. Mitigation measures CR-2 and CR-3 address historic resources which are not affected by the proposed project. The mitigation measure CR-1 is applicable to the proposed project, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE CUL-1: Prior to any project-related excavation or construction, the University shall adequately survey all relevant disturbance areas for archaeological resources and assess the potential for buried resources based on past land use, site records, and proximity to known resources and landforms. Depending on the resulting level of suspected archaeological sensitivity, archaeological testing shall be done and/or qualified archaeological monitors will be present during ground disturbing activities. Prior to any ground disturbing activities that could disturb potentially existing archaeological resources, the University would prepare a Construction Monitoring and Unanticipated Cultural Resources Discovery Plan to be implemented if an unanticipated discovery is made. If any suspected human bone is found during construction, all work should stop and the Contra Costa County coroner should be notified immediately per State law and the Discovery Plan. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be notified for determination of the most likely descendent and tribal affiliation for disposition. No additional work shall take place near the find until the identified actions have been implemented.

• The proposed project site is adjacent to existing buildings and the proposed site has been disturbed by on-going human-activity. Construction of the adjacent existing NRLF buildings in the area did not result in any archaeological resources found. Based on this it is less likely that cultural resources will be found on site.

• During excavation and construction, if a suspected archaeological resource is revealed, the University will follow the guidance provided by the EIR mitigation measure.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Geology and Soils impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Geology and Soils issues that were not adequately analyzed and, as necessary,



32

mitigated, and no new information is available. The proposed project would not alter the findings of the 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Geology and Soils. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project will comply with Geology and Soils mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-2a: A site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be completed during the design phase of each new building project and prior to construction approval on the RBC site. This investigation shall be conducted by a licensed geotechnical engineer and shall include an evaluation of potential soils hazards and appropriate measures to minimize these hazards. Geotechnical recommendations shall subsequently be incorporated into building design.

• A design-level geotechnical study was conducted during November 2017, with the report expected in February 2018. Any recommendations will be included in the schematic designs. The findings will also inform the on-going design process.

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-2b: Construction under the LRDP shall comply with the Association of Bay Area Government’s Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures, and the California Stormwater Quality Association’s Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook for Construction (CASQA 2003) (or subsequent editions thereof). Construction under the LRDP shall use construction BMPs and standards to control and reduce erosion. These measures could include, but are not limited to, restricting grading to the dry season, protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as erosion control matting and hydroseeding, or other suitable measures.

• Erosion control measures that comply with these mitigation monitoring standards will be employed during construction. Seasonal consideration for grading will be taken into account. If any erosion control is required the guidelines of when and how it should be accomplished will adhere to the RBC Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan Appendix G of the EIR guidance.

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-2c: All LRDP construction projects shall include, as appropriate, revegetation of disturbed areas (including slope stabilization projects) using native shrubs, trees, or grasses.

• Revegetation of disturbed areas will follow the guidelines of the RBC Coastal Terrace Prairie Management Plan Appendix G of the EIR and the subsequent July 2017 grasslands botanical survey prepared for the proposed project.



33

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG) The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of GHG impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to GHG 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to GHG. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project will comply with GHG mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE CLI-1: The University will develop a climate action plan for the RBC site within three years of adoption of the 2014 LRDP or before construction on the first project under the 2014 LRDP commences, whichever comes first. The climate action plan will include campus-wide greenhouse gas reduction measures as well as a suite of project-level greenhouse gas reduction measures that will be incorporated into each building project, as appropriate, during the planning, design and construction of the project. The climate action plan will include target emission rates per service person that are consistent with AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05 emissions targets. The climate action plan will also implement specific control measures and programs to achieve these targets. These control measures and programs will be developed specifically for each project based on its siting and design needs, but they will at minimum address these general topics: • Energy Efficiency: minimize energy consumption to the extent possible through measures such as design guidelines for new buildings that require specific levels of energy efficiency, incentive programs for employees or departments to reduce energy use, programs to track energy use and discover opportunities to reduce waste, and landscaping or other features that provide shade or otherwise help reduce energy use. • Renewable Energy Generation: investigate and develop opportunities for renewable energy generation on campus, whether solar, wind, or other sources.

• The UC Berkeley 2025 Carbon Neutrality Planning Framework already includes the RBC/RFS in its emissions projections analysis and emissions reduction strategy.

• Based on the 2016 UC Berkeley greenhouse gas emissions inventory, the current emissions at RBC/RFS per capita is 2.82 MTCO2e. This is under the threshold of significance in the EIR for the timeframe (4.6 MTCO2e/service person/year).

• The UC Policy on Sustainable Practices requires the evaluation of energy consumption and efficiency measures and other sustainability related issues for all new construction projects at the RBC/RFS. The project will be designed to LEED Silver at a minimum and pursue energy efficiency rebates.

• The proposed project will produce an insignificant number of new trips, new vehicles, or waste and therefore mitigation is not required.



34

• Vehicle Trip Minimization: encourage the use of carpools, shuttles, bicycles, or public transportation that provide resources for employees to access and use alternative transportation, and provide infrastructure that allows employees to interact or conduct meetings and business without traveling. • Renewable Fuel Vehicles: encourage or require the use of renewable fuel vehicles such as by providing electric vehicle charging and compressed natural gas fueling stations, purchasing renewable fuel vehicles for the campus fleet, and providing preferential parking or other incentives for drivers using renewable fuel or hybrid vehicles. •Waste Reduction: implement waste reduction, aggressive recycling goals with incentives, composting systems for general buildings and dining areas, guidelines for low waste construction and purchasing, and educational programs.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Hazardous Material impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Hazardous Material 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Hazardous Material. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The operations of the proposed project do not include the use of hazardous materials or hazardous waste materials and as such there are no Hazardous Material mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR that require addressing. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Hydrology and Water Quality impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Hydrology and Water Quality impacts 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Hydrology and Water Quality impacts. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The proposed project is subject to the statewide stormwater general permit and the University will obtain coverage under the Storm Water General Permit and will prepare a SWPPP. The



35

proposed project will implement standard construction BMPs (EIR 4-177). The proposed project by implementing the above measures will comply with the Hydrology and Water Quality impacts environmental practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. LAND USE AND PLANNING The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Land Use and Planning impacts. Although extensive development initiatives have not proceeded as anticipated in the 2014 LRDP, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Land Use and Planning of the NRLF 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Land Use and Planning relevant to the NRLF. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The 2014 LRDP EIR determined there were required mitigation measures or environmental practices for Land Use and Planning; none are applicable to the proposed project. NOISE The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Noise impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Noise 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Noise. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The project will comply with Noise mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1a: Where technically and economically feasible, construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner that the maximum sound levels at the surrounding properties shall not exceed the dBA levels set forth in the Richmond Municipal Code Section 9.52.110.

• As feasible during construction the activity sounds that impact surrounding properties will comply with the Richmond Municipal Code.

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1b: The following measures shall be implemented for all construction equipment in accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Section 9.52.060. Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, shall be used whenever possible. Construction equipment powered by internal

• Where possible quiet construction equipment, combustion engine mufflers will be used.

• Noise-generating stationery construction equipment will be sited as far from residences as practical.



36

combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. Stationery noise-generating construction equipment such as tree grinders and air compressors are to be as far as is practical from existing residences. Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited. Sources of impulsive sound and jack hammers shall not be used on Sundays and holidays, except for emergencies.

• Unnecessary idling of engines will be prohibited.

• Except in emergencies impulsive sound and jackhammers will be prohibited in construction on Sundays and holidays.

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE NOISE-1c: If after implementing NOISE-1a and -1b, construction noise creates a disturbance or results in noise complaints from adjacent property, additional noise reduction strategies shall be evaluated and the necessary practicable technically and economically feasible noise mitigating measures would be implemented, sufficiently to ensure meeting City Noise Ordinance requirements.

• If noise complaints or disturbance are persistent additional noise reduction strategies will be evaluated and implemented.

POPULATION AND HOUSING The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Population and Housing impacts. Although extensive development initiatives have not proceeded as anticipated in the 2014 LRDP, since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Population and Housing 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Population and Housing. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The 2014 LRDP EIR determined there were required mitigation measures or environmental practices for Population and Housing; none are applicable to the proposed project. PUBIC SERVICES AND RECREATION The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Public Services and Recreation impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Public Services and Recreation 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Public Services and Recreation. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The 2014 LRDP EIR determined there were required mitigation measures or environmental practices for Public Services and Recreation; none are applicable to the proposed project.



37

TRANSPORTATION The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Transportation impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Transportation 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Transportation. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The 2014 LRDP EIR determined there were required mitigation measures or environmental practices for Transportation. The project will comply with the Transportation relevant mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. The proposed project will add less than 0.10% new population to the RBC/RFS, generating an insignificant number of new trips, and there are no new expected material delivery trips, and as such mitigation measures TRA-1, TRA-2 and TRA-3 are not applicable. The mitigation measure TRA-7 is applicable to the proposed project, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP MITIGATION MEASURE TRA-7: Prepare a construction traffic management plan for each RBC construction project to reduce construction impacts on traffic and parking. The University shall work with City of Richmond in preparing the plan, which will address: •P roposed truck routes •H ours of construction and limits on number of truck trips during peak commute periods (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) if traffic conditions demonstrate the need to reduce construction traffic so as to avoid causing significant delays. •Parking management plan for construction workers; •Tools to provide safe access for pedestrians, bicyclists, automobiles, and emergency access vehicles. •Identification of alternative routes for temporary closure of streets or paths during construction.

• Prior to construction a traffic management plan that addresses relevant impacts will be prepared in consultation with the City of Richmond.



38

UTILITIES, SERVICE SYSTEMS, AND ENERGY The NRLF IV is an included project in the 2014 LRDP EIR and evaluated within the context of Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy impacts. Since certification of the 2014 LRDP EIR, there have been no substantial changes to the 2014 LRDP or to the circumstances surrounding the 2014 LRDP with respect to Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy impacts 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 2014 LRDP EIR with regard to Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy impacts. There is nothing included in the current design concept or placement of this building project that differs since that evaluation that would require new considerations. The 2014 LRDP EIR determined there were required mitigation measures or environmental practices for Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy impacts. The project will comply with the Utilities, Service Systems, and Energy impacts relevant mitigation measures or environmental best protection practices identified in the 2014 LRDP EIR. As the proposed project will add less than 0.10% new population to the RBC/RFS, and includes only one new toilet/sink an insignificant amount of new wastewater will be generated and as such mitigation measure UTL-4 is not applicable. The environmental protection practice UTL-7 is applicable to the proposed project, as follows. Mitigation Measure or Environmental Protection Practice Project Related Response

LRDP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PRACTICE UTL-7: LBNL and UC Berkeley shall develop and implement a plan to maximize diversion of construction and demolition materials from landfill disposal. The plan would set a goal of a minimum of 75 percent diversion, consistent with the UC Sustainable Practices Policy.

• The proposed project will follow UC Berkeley’s Design Guidelines that require a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of total project demolition and construction waste (by weight) to diverted from the landfill and to strive to divert seventy-five percent (75%).

LRDP EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The complete program can be viewed here: https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/pep_rbc_lrdp_eir_mmrp.pdf

addendum #1 to the uc berkeley 2014 richmond bay … · approval over any aspect of the project. uc...

Documents