TABLE OF CONTENTS. Item Binder Plan Set Sheet # PREFACE: CITY OF BERKELEY SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST

Transcription

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Item Binder Plan Set Sheet # PREFACE: CITY OF BERKELEY SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST X I. REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS A. Zoning Project Application Form X B. Fees X C. Applicant Statement X D. Neighbor Pre Application Contact X E. Pre Application Poster X F. Site Photographs X G2.7 G2.8 II. REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS INVOLVING CONSTRUCTION A. Plans General Requirements All Sheets B. Site Plan A0.0 C. Floor Plans A1.0 A1.13, A4.0, A4.1, A4.3 D. Building Elevations A3.0 A3.4, A4.2, A4.4 E. Hazardous Waste and Substances statement X F. Tabulation Form X G1.2 III. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS A. Studies, Plans and Graphics 1. Boundary/Topographic Survey G2.0 G Conceptual Grading Plan C1.0 C Parking Survey See III.C. (TIA) 4. Photo Simulations (Photo Montage) G5.0 G Section Drawings A3.5, A4.1, A Story Poles X 7. Shadow Study A5.0 A Street Strip Elevations G6.0 G6.4 B. Projects Subject to Affordable Housing Requirements 1. Housing Affordability Statement X 2.a. Density Bonus Eligibility Statement N/A 2.b. Requests for Incentives or Concessions N/A C. Environmental Documents 1. Arborist Report X 2. Phase 1 Assessment X (Intro, Summary) 1 3. Seismic Hazard Investigation X 4. Traffic Impact Analysis X 5. Creek Information N/A 6. Stormwater Requirements Checklist X 1 Entire Phase 1 Report included on CD of submitted materials.

2 Item Binder Plan Set Sheet # 7. State General Construction Permit X Statement 8. Historic Resource Evaluation X D. Green Building Requirements 1. Green Building Checklist X A6.0 A Energy Efficiency Analysis N/A 3. Berkeley Water Efficient and Bay Friendly X L3.0 Landscape Requirements E. Structural Information 1. Structural and Pest Report N/A F. Additional Materials 1. Area of Potential Effects (APE) Statement N/A 2. Zoning Use Questionnaire X 3. Design Review Submittal X 4. Structural Alterations Permit N/A

3 Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: I. ZONING PROJECT SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Effective January 15, 2015 For: Administrative Use Permits Use Permits Variances Modification of any of the above Pre-Applications NOTE TO APPLICANTS: Effective November 4, 2013, all application materials must be submitted electronically and in hard copy. For details, please review page 2 of this document. This document is intended to provide submittal requirements for most zoning applications. However, additional materials may be required for some applications, depending on the nature of the proposed project. In such cases, the project planner will request this information within 30 days of application submittal. Additional materials may also be required in order to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). All application materials become the property of the City of Berkeley and are subject to public review. You are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of all application materials. Incorrect or incomplete information may result in delay or denial of your application. All application materials must be clear and legible. Faxes, poor reproductions, and cluttered or confusing drawings will not be accepted. How to determine what information is required for YOUR application: For each requirement listed in this document, staff has identified the types of projects the requirement applies to. For example, all of the items listed in Section I are required for all projects, while surveys (Item III.A.1) are only required for new main buildings or expansion of existing buildings within two feet of required setback lines. This document is a companion to the Zoning Project Application Form (Item I.A). We suggest you first complete that form, answering yes or no to each question on pages 2 and 3. For each yes answer, note the requirement indicated in the righthand column, and find the corresponding section of this document for a more detailed description of the requirement. For certain requirements, this document provides hyperlinks to required forms or guidelines with further instructions. All required forms and guidelines are available on the Frequently Requested Forms page at:

4 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 2 of 2 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 Electronic Submissions Submit all application materials in both paper and electronic format 1, according to the requirements stated below. The purpose of these requirements is to: Allow application materials to be more easily posted and reviewed online using the City s new permit database ( Accela Citizen Access ). Reduce City staff expenses from having to scan application materials. Prepare customers for future on-line application submittal. Reduce electronic files to manageable sizes. Requirements: Submission Format: All files must be submitted in PDF format on CD (not via or on USB drive). Electronic documents (i.e., created using a computer program such as Microsoft Word, Excel, or AutoCAD) and digital photographs shall be converted to Adobe PDF format using Save As PDF or Print As PDF commands. Non-electronic (e.g., typewritten or handwritten) documents shall be converted to PDF format by scanning. Resolution: Text documents: 100 to 150 DPI/PPI. (If converting electronic document to PDF, use standard setting in Adobe Acrobat, or 144 DPI setting in Cute PDF Writer.) Plans, photos, and other graphics: 300 DPI/PPI. (To reduce file size, disable editing capabilities, flatten all layers 2, and use Reduced Size PDF function when available.) Total Size: If total size of all PDFs is 20 MB or less, combine all documents into a single PDF file. If total size exceeds 20 MB, combine documents from Section I (e.g., application form, applicant statement, pre-application poster) into a single PDF, and submit all other documents as separate PDFs. If you do not have access to software which allows multiple PDFs to be combined (e.g., Adobe Acrobat Pro), submit individual PDF files and City staff will combine them. 1 For large documents (e.g. Phase I or geotech reports), but not including plans, the project planner may waive the requirement for a paper copy, on a case-by-case basis. Please consult with planner. 2 Flattening the files means the individual layers that often comprise large architectural and engineering plan sets are reduced down to one layer. As a result, the PDF file becomes much smaller and therefore more easily managed. For more information on PDF flattening, please visit

5 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 3 of 3 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 I. Required For All Projects Submitted? A. Zoning Project Application Form Form available online at: 0Appl%20Form_ pdf B. Fees Submit required fees to the cashier in the Permit Service Center Fee schedule available online at: (1).pdf C. Applicant Statement Submit a written statement (on separate 8½" x 11" paper) that briefly describes the proposed project and how it satisfies the findings required by the Zoning Ordinance. For applications to modify a prior permit, described the proposed changes from the approved project. D. Neighbor Pre-Application Contact Required for any residential project in the Residential Districts: Submit signatures of abutting & confronting residential neighbors (owners and occupants) on a table on the first page of the plan set. Guidelines available online at: hbors_signatures_instructions.pdf Required for Projects of Community or Neighborhood Interest 3 : Prior to application submittal, the applicant must: (1) obtain from the Land Use Planning Division a list of all property owners, residents, and neighborhood organizations within 300 feet of the project site, (2) invite those on the list to at least one neighborhood meeting to review the project plans and discuss any questions or concerns, and (3) hold the meeting and keep a record of attendance and topics discussed. Submit evidence of mailed invitations, attendance list, and meeting notes. Other major non-residential projects are strongly encouraged, but not required, to follow this procedure. 3 Projects of Community or Neighborhood Interest: 1) Any project in a Residential District that would create 6 or more bedrooms on a parcel within ½ mile of the UC Campus (or the area confined by Grant Avenue on the west, Derby Street on the south, and Rose Street on the north); and 2) Any project in a non-residential district that involves three or more stories, a Density Bonus under Section of California State Law, a Floor Area Ratio > 2.00, or more than 10,000 square feet gross floor area. G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

6 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 4 of 4 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 I. Required For All Projects Submitted? E. Pre-Application Poster Submit a color photo of the pre-application poster installed at the front of the site in according with the following guidelines. Guidelines available online at: AppSignInstructions.pdf. Sample signs available online at: Small projects: AppSignSample_SmallProjects.pdf Large projects: AppSignSample_LargeProjects.pdf F. Site Photographs Submit one set of exterior photos, as follows: Mount or copy photos on 8½" x 11" sheets with captions or a key giving the location of each photo. Provide adequate photos to show entire project site and all adjacent buildings. Where possible, take wide-angle shots showing project site and adjacent buildings together. Grayscale preferred. II. Required For All Projects Involving Construction (New Structures, Additions, Demolition, Exterior Alterations, and Changes of Use) A. Plans General Requirements 1. All plans must include: Name of person preparing plans (licensed architect required for certain projects, see Item 3 below) Dates of preparation and revision Project address Scale (see Item 2 below for minimum scales) North arrow Legend describing all symbols and notations Building Code Construction and Occupancy Types Tabulation form (see Item II.F) G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

7 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 5 of 5 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 II. Required For All Projects Involving Construction (New Structures, Additions, Demolition, Exterior Alterations, and Changes of Use) Submitted? 2. Number of Plan Sets / Minimum Scale (Hard Copies): Two (2) sets at 11 x 17 or 12 x 18. Must meet minimum scale of 1/16 for site plan and 1/8 for all other drawings. If site or building is too large to fit on sheets at minimum scale, provide one (1) additional larger set meeting minimum scale. One (1) reduced set at 8½ x 11 (minimum scale not required). For Use Permit applications only, fifteen (15) additional 11 x 17 or 12 x 18 sets must be submitted at least two weeks prior to the hearing, or as requested by the project planner. Additional plan sets may be required by the project planner, if necessary to facilitate project review. 3. Architect or Engineer Required for Certain Projects B. Site Plan Plans that require preparation by a licensed California architect or engineer under the California Architects Practice Act shall bear the architect or engineer s stamp and signature on each sheet. Projects requiring an architect or engineer include construction, alteration, improvement or repair of (1) any non-residential or mixed-use building; (2) any residential building or group of buildings over 4 units; (3) any residential building over 2 stories or not of wood frame construction; and (4) any garage or other residential accessory structure over 2 stories. This requirement may be waived for projects involving only minor alterations or repairs; consult with a planner. For further information, visit Required for all projects, unless waived by planner. Must show the following: Property lines, with lot dimensions Building footprint(s), dimensions, required setbacks, and projections such as eaves, balconies and bays. Show all buildings, including garages, sheds, etc. Use shading, hatching or other appropriate method to indicate proposed additions. Any portions of neighboring buildings within 20 feet of property lines. Driveways and parking spaces with dimensions, location of handicapped parking spaces, bicycle racks, and security gates. Fences and retaining walls (indicate height), decks, patios, hot tubs, and other similar features. Significant natural features such as trees (indicate species, trunk diameter and drip line), creeks (indicate banks or culvert outline), and prominent landforms. Example available online at: n_samples.pdf G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

8 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 6 of 6 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 II. Required For All Projects Involving Construction (New Structures, Additions, Demolition, Exterior Alterations, and Changes of Use) Submitted? C. Floor Plans Required for all projects with interior changes. Must show the following: All floors, including mezzanines, basements, and attics. Uses of all rooms (existing and proposed), per the California Building Code. For changes to existing buildings, provide separate plans for existing and proposed conditions, or if changes are limited, used dashed lines for demolished features and solid lines for new features. D. Building Elevations Required for projects with exterior changes. Must show the following: Depict all exterior features and openings, including finishes and materials. Indicate average building height (as defined in Zoning Ordinance; see link below), finished floor elevations, and grade. For projects in H District, indicate maximum building height also. Where appropriate, show adjacent features such as fences, landscaping, and other buildings and property lines. A diagram showing how height is calculated under the Zoning Ordinance is available online at: _Height_Instructions.pdf E. Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement Required for all projects (including residential). Available online at: Hazardous%20Waste%20and%20Substances%20Statement.pdf F. Tabulation Form Required for all projects except commercial changes of use (unless determined necessary by the project planner). Incorporate the form into plan set (on cover sheet, if possible). An example is available online at: G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

9 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 7 of 7 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) A. Studies, Plans, and Graphics: 1. Boundary/Topographic Survey Required / Submitted? Required for: Any new main building Expansions of a building footprint or the creation of accessory building/structures less than two feet from, or within, a required setback Other projects as determined necessary by the planner. Submit a survey meeting the following requirements: Wet-stamped and signed by a licensed California surveyor or appropriately licensed civil engineer. 4 Minimum scale of 1/10 = 1. Shows all property lines, curb and sidewalk, spot elevations, existing structures, and setbacks to all property lines. For projects in the H District, survey must be no more than than five years old and must show contour lines with minimum 5-foot intervals. 2. Conceptual Grading Plan Required for projects with more than 50 cubic yards of cut and/or fill, or as determined necessary by the project planner. Submit a grading plan meeting the following requirements: Prepared by a licensed surveyor, architect or engineer Provides estimated quantities and locations of cut and fill Shows existing and final elevations 3. Parking Survey Required for projects requesting a waiver of any off-street parking required under the Zoning Ordinance, or as determined necessary by the project planner. Requirement may be waived for very small parking waivers on a caseby-case basis. Guidelines available online at: ingsurveyinstructions.pdf. Also consult Office of Transportation at ( ) for further information. 4 Classification must be specified. Check with project planner. G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

10 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 8 of 8 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 4. Photo Simulations (Photo Montage) Required / Submitted? Required for Large Scale Development Projects. 5 Submit photos of the site before and after project, from at least four angles that demonstrate maximum impact on views from surrounding properties. Guidelines available online at: hoto_simulation_instructions.pdf 5. Section Drawings Required for: New main buildings in the H District Additions exceeding 14 feet in average height in the H District Other projects as determined necessary by the project planner For projects that are otherwise subject to this requirement, the project planner may waive the requirement if he or she determines that no significant view or bulk/massing impacts would occur. Submit: Drawings that show adjacent uphill or downhill buildings where views may be affected. Minimum scale is 1/8" = 1. Show existing and proposed grades. 6. Story Poles Required as noted above for Section Drawings. Submit photos of erected story poles from multiple angles, in order to show potential impacts to neighbors views. Poles must generally be erected prior to application submittal, in order to allow neighbors to provide input on view impacts; however, poles may be erected later if approved by the project planner. 5 Large Scale Development Project: Any project in a non-residential district that proposes any of the following: (1) three or more stories, (2) a Density Bonus under Section of California State Law, (3) a Floor Area Ratio > 2.00, or (4) at least 10,000 square feet gross floor area. G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

11 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 9 of 9 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 7. Shadow Study Required / Submitted? Required for: 1. New main buildings 2. Additions exceeding 14 feet in average height on sites adjacent a residential use 3. Other projects as determined necessary by the project planner. For projects that are otherwise subject to this requirement, the project planner may waive the requirement if he or she determines that no significant view or bulk/massing impacts would occur. Submit a shadow study that meets the requirements listed in the Shadow Study Instructions, available online at: 8. Street Strip Elevation Required for any new buildings (except accessory buildings) Submit: show street elevations of existing parcel and proposed project; include at least two (2) parcels on either side of the subject parcel on single sheet. Minimum scale is 1/8 = 1. B. Projects Subject to Affordable Housing Requirements: 1.a Housing Affordability Statement Required for any project creating: 1. Five (5) or more dwelling or live/work units 2. Additional condominium units, resulting in five (5) or more condominium units built after 1986 on the site. Submit a written statement describing the following: How the project complies with the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee Ordinance (rental projects) or the Berkeley Inclusionary Ordinance (condo or live/work projects) Level of affordability that will be provided and/or fee that will be paid Number and location of any affordable units, and Size and amenities (bedrooms, bathrooms, parking facilities) of affordable units G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

12 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 10 of 10 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, b Applicant Anti-Discriminatory Housing Policies Required for any project creating: 1. Five (5) or more dwelling or live/work units 2. Additional condominium units, resulting in five (5) or more condominium units built after 1986 on the site. Submit a written statement answering the following questions and provide the requested documentation, if applicable: 1. Does the applicant or sponsor, including the applicant or sponsor s parent company, subsidiary, or any other business or entity with an ownership share of at least 30% of the applicant s company, engage in the business of developing real estate, owning properties, or leasing or selling individual dwelling units in states or jurisdictions outside of California? 2. If the answer to (1) is yes, in which states? 3. If the answer to (1) is yes, does the applicant or sponsor, as defined in (1), have policies in individual states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and/or gender expression in the sale, lease, or financing of any dwelling units enforced on every property in the state or states where the applicant or sponsor has an ownership or financial interest? 4. If the answer to (1) is yes, does the applicant or sponsor, as defined in (1), have a national policy that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the sale, lease, or financing of any dwelling units enforced on every property in the United States where the applicant or sponsor has an ownership or financial interest in property? 5. If the answer to (3) or (4) is yes, please provide a copy of that policy or policies as part of the application to the Planning Department. The Planning Department shall not accept an application as complete unless the applicant answers the application questions identified above. The Planning Department s processing of and recommendations or determinations regarding an application shall be unaffected by the applicant s answers to the questions presented. G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

13 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 11 of 11 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 2. (a) Density Bonus Eligibility Statement Required / Submitted? Required for projects requesting a density bonus under Government Code Section Submit: A written statement with the following information: a. Number of base project units b. Number of affordable units and level of affordability c. Percent density bonus requested and allowed under Section d. Waivers or modifications of development standards necessary to accommodate density bonus (e.g., increased height or FAR, reduced setbacks or parking, etc.) e. Explanation of why each waiver or modification is needed to accommodate density bonus. Schematic plans showing a base project that complies with all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements, without any additional Use Permits to waive or modify development standards. (b) Request for Incentives or Concessions Required for projects requesting incentives or concessions under Government Code Section Submit a written statement with the following information: Description of incentives/concessions being requested in addition to (or instead of) waivers or modifications necessary to accommodate density bonus. Financial pro forma statement, as directed by staff, demonstrating that the requested incentives/concessions are necessary to cover the cost of the affordable units. C. Environmental Documents: 1. Arborist Report Required for projects involving any construction activity (including paving, storage of materials, and parking of vehicles) within the drip line of a Coast Live Oak (quercus agrifolia) tree with a circumference of at least 18 inches at 4 feet above the ground (or at least 26 inches aggregate circumference for a multistemmed tree). Submit a report by a certified arborist assessing the project s impacts on the tree(s) and recommending preservation measures both during and after construction, as applicable. Arborist must be approved by City Forester prior to preparing report. Guidelines available online at: aktree_ordinance_and_diagram.pdf G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

14 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 12 of 12 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 2. Phase I or II Assessment Required / Submitted? Required for projects: Involving substantial excavation in non-residential zoning districts On sites with a history of soil and/or groundwater contamination (see Item II.E) Within the Toxic Management Division's Environmental Management Area (EMA map shown at the Permit Service Center and on the City s Website Contact Toxics Management Division (510) for further details. 3. Seismic Hazard Investigation Required for all projects in seismic hazard zones shown on the Environmental Constraints Map 6, except: (1) single-family, wood- or steel-frame dwellings not exceeding two stories (as defined by the State Hazards Mapping Act), and (2) additions not exceeding 50 percent of existing floor area or building value. Submit: Geotechnical report satisfying the requirements of Special Publication (for landslide and liquefaction zones) and/or California Geological Survey Note 49 8 (for fault zones). Deposit of $1,500 for peer review of report (additional funds may be required for more complicated projects). 4. Traffic Impact Analysis Required for: Projects creating 10 or more dwelling units, 5,000 square feet of more of gross floor area, or 25 peak hour or more vehicle trips (based on ITE trip generation rates) Other projects as determined necessary by the project planner and traffic engineer. Contact Traffic Engineering Division ( ) to determine required scope of study. 6 Available in Permit Service Center or at 7 Available at 8 Available at G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

15 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 13 of 13 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 5. Creek Information Required / Submitted? Required for any project within 40 feet of the centerline of an open creek (or 25 feet for culverted creeks) that is protected under BMC Chapter Note: This requirement applies even if a protected creek has not yet been identified by the City. Submit: a. Topographical survey with two-foot contour intervals showing creek centerline and existing and proposed development. b. A report by a licensed engineer or geologist with expertise in hydrology or slope stability, which demonstrates that the project will not: 1. Create, exacerbate, or prevent the abatement of erosion and bank destabilization problems 2. Increase stormwater runoff into the creek 3. Degrade water quality from construction activities (i.e., increased sedimentation and particulates from disturbed soils, pollution from motor oil, or other toxics and trash) 4. Eliminate or degrade significant in-stream or riparian corridor habitat 5. Prevent establishing stable banks and/or a headwall at a culvert intake or outflow, or otherwise impede or complicate access to a culvert for maintenance or repair. For culverted creeks, please contact Taylor Lancelot in Public Works for additional requirements. Guidelines available online at: 0C%205%20Creeks.pdf 6. Stormwater Requirements Checklist Required for all projects creating or replacing 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface, including single-family dwellings. Includes new buildings, additions, and alterations to existing roofs that affect drainage, but does not include routine maintenance and re-surfacing of existing impervious surfaces. Guidelines available online at: verview_ pdf 7. State General Construction Permit Required for projects disturbing one acre or more of soil (or less than one acre if part of a larger development plan that disturbs one acre or more). Submit a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted for the State General Construction Permit. A copy of the project s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must also be submitted prior to building permit issuance. Further information available at: G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

16 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 14 of 14 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 8. Historical Resource Evaluation Required / Submitted? Required for Demolition/Substantial Change of building > 40 years old. Submit: State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms. Evaluation(s) to include references to development history documentation (including but not limited to photographs, building permits, Sanborn maps, and directory listings); completed by a qualified historian, architectural historian or historic architect; Guidelines available online at: D. Green Building Requirements 1. Green Building Checklist Required for projects: Adding one or more new dwelling units Creating or renovating 10,000 sq. ft. or more of non-residential floor area Submit electronic copy of completed Green Building Checklist indicating project s green measures and update throughout construction. Select checklist applicable to your project at: Residential: Non-residential: Guidelines available online at: %20Green%20Building%20Requirements.pdf 2. Energy Efficiency Analysis (Savings By Design) Required for projects creating or renovating 10,000 square feet of nonresidential floor area. A. Apply for Savings by Design incentives and design assistance at: B. Submit one of the following, signed by a representative from Savings by Design: Whole Building Energy Analysis: SavingsbyDesign_Whole%20Building.doc Systems Energy Analysis: SavingsbyDesign_Systems.doc Guidelines available online at: %20III.D%20Green%20Building%20Requirements.pdf G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

17 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 15 of 15 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 3. Berkeley Water Efficient and Bay Friendly Landscape Requirements Required / Submitted? Required for projects with 2,500 square feet or greater of new or renovated irrigated area. These projects shall comply with water efficiency and planting best practices specified in the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Section 31 Water Service Regulation for Outdoor Water Use, and all applicable measures in the Bay Friendly Basics checklist. Submit the following: Outdoor water use section of EBMUD Section 31 Water Service Regulations Checklist. For more information, visit: Bay Friendly Basics Checklist. For more information, visit: Guidelines available online at: D%20Green%20Building%20Requirements.pdf E. Structural Information 1. Structural and Pest Report Required for projects removing 25% or more of a main building s exterior wall and roof framing (including in-kind replacement of existing framing), except projects already requesting a Use Permit for demolition. (For non-wood-framed buildings, contact staff for further instructions.) Submit a report by an independent, fully credentialed pest control operator that evaluates whether, in the operator s opinion, retention of structural elements not proposed for removal is actually feasible. This evaluation exceeds State requirements for pest reports in that it requires removal of exterior siding and/or interior drywall/plaster in order to allow examination of structural elements proposed to be retained. F. Additional Materials 1. Area of Potential Effects (APE) Statement Required for projects seeking federal funds (either directly or through the City of Berkeley Housing Trust Fund). Submit a statement identifying the project s Area of Potential Effects as defined in federal regulations (36 CFR Part 800). Contact Housing Department at for further information and requirements. G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

18 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 16 of 16 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 III. Additional Requirements (Required As Noted Below) 2. Zoning Use Questionnaire Required / Submitted? Required for projects establishing a new business or creating a new commercial space with the tenant/operator already selected. Submit: Zoning Use Questionnaire Available online at: tionnaire.pdf 3. Design Review Submittal Required for: Projects with exterior changes in non-residential districts Non-residential projects in R-3, R-4, R-S and R-SMU Districts Other projects as required by the Zoning Officer Submit separate Design Review application, per the Design Review Submittal Requirements. [Work with assigned planner.] 4. Structural Alterations Permit (Landmarks) Submittal Required for exterior alterations to designated City Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and structures within a Historic District (or interior alterations to such structures if publicly owned). Submit separate Structural Alteration Permit application, per the Structural Alteration Permit & Design Review Submittal Requirements. [Work with assigned planner.] G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

19 Zoning Projects Application Submittal Requirements Page 17 of 17 City of Berkeley Planning & Development Dept. Effective January 15, 2015 IV. List of Required Forms & Guidelines See also the City s Website, which includes a copy of all required forms and the Guidelines listed below. I.A I.C. I.E. I.F. II.B. II.D. II.E. II.F. Zoning Project Application Form Fee Schedule Neighbor Signature Instruction Pre-Application Posters Instructions Site Plan Samples Building Height Instructions Hazardous Waste and Substances Statement Tabulation Form III.A.3 Parking Survey Guidelines III.A.4 Photo Simulations (Photo Montage) Guidelines III.A.7 Shadow Study Guidelines III.C.1 Oak Tree Guidelines III.C.5 Conformance with Creeks Ordinance, BMC III.C.6 Stormwater Requirements Checklist III.C.7 State General Construction Permit III.D Green Building Requirements III.F.2 Zoning Use Questionnaire G:\LANDUSE\Forms & Instructions\Land Use Planning Forms\WORD Files\FORMS_All\Zoning Project Submittal Requirements_ docx

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32 I. Required for All Projects B. Fees City staff has indicated that each affected parcel in this application should have its own entitlement application, except where the project proposes to merge parcels. This proposal includes three sets of parcels: 17 contiguous parcels proposed to be merged at 2369 Le Conte Avenue and two satellite parcels at 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue. Table 1 on the following page identifies the discretionary permits required for each parcel (or merged parcel). Table 2 builds on this information to estimate the fees by permit type. Given the complexity of the proposal and range of discretionary permits required, we have done our best to prepare an accurate fee estimate based on our conversations with City staff and staff s responses. We respectfully request that you accept our pre printed check in the amount of $52,533. During the course of your review, if you determine an alternate amount for the fee total, we will pay any balance due.

33 Mather Berkeley Permits, by Parcel (6/14/2016) PERMITS OTHER 2369 Le Conte 2317 Le Conte 2479 Le Conte (17 Contiguous Parcels) Total Permit Type R-3 R-4 R-3 R-4 Use Permit (Public Hearing) Use Permit, Public Hearing for Community Care Facilities/Homes subject to R-3 Standards (23D ) Use Permit (Public Hearing) Use Permit, Public Hearing for Community Care Facilities/Homes subject to R-4 Standards (23D ) Use Permit (Public Hearing) Use Permit, Public Hearing for Nursing Homes subject to R-3 Standards (23D ) 1 1 Use Permit (Public Hearing) Use Permit for Demolition Administrative Use Permit Administrative Use Permit for Roof Top Equipment (23E C) Administrative Use Permit Administrative Use Permit to increase the building height in a Hillside Overlay District (23E B) 1 1 Variance to increase the lot coverage in the R-3 and R-4 Zoning Districts (23B ) Total Design Review - Committee Level Landmarks Preservation Committee (Demolition Referral) EIR 1 1 Dedicated Project Manager = Primary permit/process 1 = Secondary permit

34 Mather Berkeley Estimated Fees, by Permit Type (6/14/2016) PERMITS ADDITIONAL FEES Item Notes Fee Quantity Subtotal Tier 2 Use Permit (public Includes 24 hours of review time, additional staff time billed hearing = UPPH) at $207/hour $6,043 3 $18,129 Additional UPPH $414 per additional Use Permit $414 5 $2,070 Tier 1 Administrative Use Permit (AUP) Initial fee includes 24 hours of staff work and then will require a retainer deposit $2,948 3 $8,844 Additional AUP $414 per additional AUP $414 1 $414 Tier 1 Variance fee One variance necessary for each of the two zoning district lot coverage standards $2,087 3 $6,261 Design Review - Committee Level Initial fee includes 25 hours of City staff time plus $180 per hour of additional staff time $4,550 3 $13,650 Demolition Referral to LPC Required at time of application $1,055 3 $3,165 EIR fee Will be billed later - Consultant cost + $180/hour staff time Dedicated Project Manager Will be billed later - Expedited consultant cost + $180/hour Initial Submittal Total: $ 52,533

35 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Mather LifeWays (MLW), d/b/a MMB CA, LLC, and Pacific School of Religion (PSR) are pleased to present this application for a Life Plan Community 1 to be located at 2369, 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue in Berkeley, CA. The Life Plan Community is a lifestyle option where people age 60+ can enjoy an active, engaged lifestyle, with a plan in place that supports aging well. The applicant has spent the past two years studying the site and developing a proposed plan that is contextually sensitive to its surroundings, will provide a much needed housing option, and will generate substantial economic and public benefits for the City of Berkeley and its community members. COMMUNITY DESIGN OVERVIEW The Northside neighborhood is unique in that unlike other Berkeley subdivisions the streets are laid out along the contours of the hills. MLW has carefully designed the proposed community to respond to the natural grade and the unique context of the site. The proposed design draws on the architecture of the neighborhood, natural topography of the site, existing oak trees, landscape and amenities, and uses Walter Ratcliff Jr. s original sketches (see Description of Proposed Community, Section I.B., Page 8) as inspiration for the site s layout, including dual courtyards, a pedestrian path through the campus, and a covered passageway to Arch Street. PROPOSED COMMUNITY PROGRAM MLW proposes to develop a senior living community for people 60+ that offers a continuum of living options within one setting. PSR will maintain its presence on the site, consolidating its campus operations into Holbrook Hall, and share certain spaces (including new dining, classroom/assembly space, and outdoor spaces) with the Life Plan Community. The proposal includes the following components: 265 residential living units for older adults age 60+ Figure 1: Birds eye rendering looking to the southwest 3 residential living units for PSR Visiting Scholars 12 memory support suites 1 A Life Plan Community provides a full continuum of living options, enabling older adults to age (live) in place, having planned ahead to access additional services and care if ever needed.

36 2 36 skilled nursing suites 276 parking spaces (270 below grade, valet assisted parking spaces) for vehicles driven by residents, staff, and guests of the community; valet assistance is provided to permit the safe use of parking stackers in the garage which will minimize excavation and facilitate an efficient below grade garage in lieu of surface parking The proposed program also includes: Amenities, including fitness and wellness spaces, multi purpose rooms, and other gathering places and usable outdoor spaces Hospitality services, including dining, housekeeping, interior and exterior maintenance, shuttle transportation service, and 24 hour concierge Lifelong learning programs, including those developed in partnership with PSR, and those that focus on the six dimensions of wellness, including physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, social, and vocational wellness The proposed Life Plan Community will be a prototype for a new generation of senior living communities that is an integral part of a larger community, enabling the City of Berkeley to continue to benefit from the wisdom and contributions of older adults. BERKELEY COMMUNITY BENEFITS The applicant proposes to provide the following community benefits over and above the City s Code requirements: Strengthen PSR s ability to fulfill its mission in a more economically sustainable form Provide an opportunity for older Berkeley residents to remain in Berkeley and parents of Berkeley residents to live near their children Preserve heritage structures and amenities, including Holbrook Hall, a Bernard Maybeck designed home, existing stairs on Arch Street, and mature coast live oak and redwood trees Seek LEED Gold or equivalent certification with energy efficient materials and appliances, green roofs, photovoltaic panels, and a climate appropriate and water efficient landscape, that emphasizes native plants and trees Generate property taxes and City sales tax revenue through the regular purchase of goods and services, and generate turnover of single family homes occupied by older adults relocating to the Life Plan Community, thereby creating both short term transfer tax and long term Proposition 13 reassessment tax revenue for the City of Berkeley Create 185 full time equivalent hospitality and health care positions, including management jobs Improve the 5 way intersection at Scenic Avenue, Ridge Road, and Le Conte Avenue by creating a roundabout Enhance connectivity, with streetscape improvements along Arch and Virginia Streets and enhance safety through burial of utilities along the west side of Le Conte Avenue

37 3 Expand neighborhood on street parking by removing existing curb cuts and accommodating the Life Plan Community s parking needs below grade Information about the community and the proposal is also available at the following website: APPLICATION STATEMENT ORGANIZATION The applicant statement that follows is organized into three sections: 1. Introduction: seniors housing needs assessment findings and description of the applicants and development team 2. Description of the Proposed Community: the site, proposed design, project description, and neighborhood setting 3. Land Use & Required Findings: discretionary permits requested, Zoning Ordinance and General Plan compliance, required findings, and environmental/ceqa topics

38 INTRODUCTION I. MEETING BERKELEY S EVOLVING NEEDS A. Needs Assessment Findings Mather LifeWays commissioned a comprehensive, third party telephone survey of older adults in June 2014 to determine interest in a market rate senior living community and desired locations. The results from the survey of 564 respondents indicated a strong interest in a Life Plan Community in Berkeley. (Survey results had a maximum margin of error of 3 percent at a 95 percent confidence level). Key findings of the market survey included the following: 59 percent of local respondents are interested in living in a Life Plan Community in Berkeley 91 percent of local respondents expressed a desire to move to a Life Plan Community on Holy Hill (Holy Hill was the most desired location among four locations tested, including the Gourmet Ghetto, 4th Street, and Downtown Berkeley) 69 percent of local respondents prefer a full continuum of living options, i.e., residential living units, assisted living, memory support, and skilled nursing, versus just independent living / assisted living Nearly two thirds (64 percent) of local respondents were more likely to move if the community is sponsored by a non profit organization (as is Mather LifeWays) vs. 10 percent more likely to move if the community is operated by a for profit company B. Limited Senior Housing Options in Berkeley The proposed Life Plan Community will add to the existing supply of housing in the City, serving a vastly underserved market in terms of market rate seniors housing options. Currently, there are 12 senior apartment buildings (829 units) in Berkeley that provide units for older adults who meet income eligibility requirements. There are no market rate independent living communities and no communities that provide continuum of living options. (The Berkshire, a market rate community that primarily offers assisted living and memory care, is being converted into memory care and Berkeley Springs Manor, formerly St. Rafael s Home, provides assisted living.) There are five skilled nursing facilities in Berkeley. As a result, older adults must leave Berkeley if seeking a market rate independent living or continuum of living community. (The closest options are Life Plan Communities in Oakland, totaling approximately 1,051 units, all of which are at least 45 years old.) C. Life Plan Communities Life Plan Communities are complex undertakings involving multiple industry sectors, including real estate, hospitality, health care, and insurance, thus requiring economies of scale to be 1) affordable, 2) economically viable, and 3) provide the level of services and amenities expected by today s older adults. Life Plan Communities are consequently larger than typical independent living communities, which do not provide the full continuum of living options that are critical for older adults to be able to age (live) in place.

39 5 The proposed community is smaller than existing Life Plan Communities in the East Bay, with the exception of one community that was built 50+ years ago. II. THE APPLICANT A. Pacific School of Religion Pacific School of Religion is a progressive, multidenominational seminary and center for social justice that prepares theologically and spiritually rooted leaders to work for the well being of all. Since its founding 150 years ago (1866), PSR has been on the cutting edge of emerging movements for change in the Christian tradition, representing an early voice for the equality of women, resisting racial prejudice and war, and advocating for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. PSR connects with diverse faith and learning communities throughout the world through the work of its more than 3,000 alumni. PSR is the oldest seminary west of the Mississippi (it has been part of Berkeley since 1901) and is one of the largest members of the Graduate Theological Union (GTU), an inter religious consortium of seminaries, centers, and institutes located in Berkeley. B. Mather LifeWays Mather LifeWays will develop and operate the proposed Life Plan Community. A non denominational, not for profit organization founded 75 years ago (1941), MLW s mission is to enhance the lives of older adults by creating Ways to Age Well. Headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, MLW seeks to enhance communities as great places for older adults to live, work, learn, contribute, and play. Mather LifeWays communities facilitate aging in place by offering a full continuum of services and care and focusing on a self directed resident experience informed by a whole person wellness model, including emotional, intellectual, physical, social, spiritual, and vocational health. Mather LifeWays communities provide significant opportunities for resident engagement and lifelong learning and provide a broad array of onsite service and continuum of living options, amenities, and programming. Mather LifeWays Institute on Aging has provided education programs to more than 100 senior living / senior services providers in California and has collaborated with UC Berkeley on applied research projects. MLW has been recognized by California s Archstone Foundation for Excellence in Program Innovation for development of an emergency preparedness program, and the California Wellness Foundation noted MLW s Café Plus model as one of the top 10 national examples in taking creative action to serve older adults. MLW principals have significant experience in developing and managing Life Plan Communities in California. Coincidentally, the Mather Redwood Grove at the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden was dedicated in honor of Stephen Mather, known as the Founder of the National Park Service, who was a cousin of Alonzo Mather, the Founder of MLW.

40 6 III. DEVELOPMENT TEAM The project team includes the following organizations and core consultants: Co Applicant Co Applicant Architect (New Construction) Architect (Orrin Kip McMurray House Adaptive Reuse) Landscape Architect Arborist Civil Engineer Historic Resources Consultant Traffic/Transportation Consultant Planning Consultant Mather LifeWays 1603 Orrington Avenue, Suite 1800 Evanston, IL Pacific School of Religion 1798 Scenic Avenue Berkeley, CA Solomon Cordwell Buenz ( SCB ) 255 California Street, 3rd Floor San Francisco, CA Architectural Resources Group Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107 San Francisco, CA PGAdesign th Street Oakland, CA Tree Management Experts 3109 Sacramento Street San Francisco, CA Sandis 636 9th Street Oakland, CA architecture + history San Francisco, CA Fehr & Peers 2201 Broadway, Suite 400 Oakland, CA Rhoades Planning Group 1611 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94612

41 7 Land Use Counsel Reuben, Junius & Rose LLP One Bush Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94104

42 8 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED COMMUNITY I. SITE, SETTING, & EXISTING USES The existing site context affords rich opportunities to balance preservation of heritage structures, dramatic topography, and mature trees, while addressing two important issues: PSR s financial sustainability in a time of great transition in higher education and Berkeley s need for market rate senior housing. The applicant s response to the site is deferential to and complementary of existing conditions. The proposal is designed around preservation of coast live oak and redwood trees, natural hillside topography, and an existing path with views of San Francisco Bay at the stairs on Arch Street. Together, these conditions create an intimate context by uniting the site and providing trees and vegetation to maintain neighbors privacy. A. Site Parcels The site comprises the main site (2369 Le Conte Avenue) and two non contiguous satellite parcels (2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue), together, comprising 6+ acres. The main site is approximately 5.75 acres and is comprised of 16 contiguous parcels. In relation to the main site, the satellite parcels are located to the east (2479 Le Conte Avenue) and to the south (2317 Le Conte Avenue). B. Design Precedents: Ratcliff and Maybeck The proposed site plan and associated features are significantly influenced by two important Berkeley architectural figures: Walter Ratcliff, Jr. and Bernard Maybeck. The applicant s site plan is inspired by Walter Ratcliff, Jr. s dual courtyard master plan. The proposed community maintains the originally intended and currently existing function of the site as an academic and residential campus: self contained, while simultaneously porous and connected to the larger neighborhood. The design proposes a new structure in a similar location as was originally drawn and proposed, remaining deferential to Holbrook Hall, the quad, and the unique topography and existing landscape. Additionally, the proposed site plan celebrates and integrates Bernard Maybeck s design vision for a building as part of the landscape, integrating Figure 2: Project site Figure 3: Quad

43 9 structures into the sloping topography and woodland landscape, such that homes and institutions weave into the urban fabric of the neighborhood. Ratcliff s original plan for PSR s campus included two quadrangles surrounded by buildings designed in the Gothic Revival/Collegiate Gothic styles, with the eastern quad buildings programmed for religious and academic uses and the western quad flanked by residential buildings. Figure 4: Walter Ratcliff, Jr. original sketches for PSR Campus As is the case with many architectural concept drawings, Ratcliff s vision was never fully realized. The façade materials of the Gothic Revival and Collegiate Gothic styles are natural stone and brick, and one could assume that the intent was to use that vocabulary throughout the campus not just in Holbrook Hall. After completion of this campus centerpiece, the pace of development slowed, with subsequent buildings departing significantly from Ratcliff s original vision. The proposed community brings this vision full circle. The applicant was also inspired by planning principles embraced by Bernard Maybeck, who designed a home for Orrin Kip McMurray, that is adjacent to the main site at 2357 Le Conte Avenue. Maybeck developed a number of beliefs in how people and land should relate to each other, most notably, the primacy of the landscape geology, flora, and fauna were not subdued by architecture so much as enhanced by architecture. His principles have been particularly important in the development of Berkeley s Hillside communities. 2 The applicant has Figure 5: Bernard Maybeck designed home 2 Yesenia Checa, Historical Architect, Street Stories: Oakland accessed January 16, 2016,

44 10 embraced the existing landscape relative to location of and orientation of building footprints. C. Existing Uses PSR currently has a number of buildings on the site that are underutilized and are proposed to be replaced. Approximately 140,000 square feet of gross floor area are proposed for demolition across all three sites. Table 1 identifies the addresses and structures proposed for replacement as well as heritage structures proposed for retention. The accompanying historical background report provides research and study relating to the original master plan prepared by Walter Ratcliff, Jr., and the individual structures listed below, providing context for the design approach for the proposed community. PSR will consolidate its operations into Holbrook Hall and will continue to operate as an educational institution with the same or similar number of students, faculty and staff. As of 2016, there are 13 rostered faculty plus a number of adjunct faculty, 33 full time and part time staff, and approximately 200 full time and part time students. Currently, PSR s campus buildings total 145,000 sq. feet. Following consolidation, PSR will operate in a space totaling 32,685 sq. feet. PSR does not propose to increase, expand, or change its use; therefore, this proposal does not trigger modification of existing permits pursuant to BMC Section 23B Although not part of this application, PSR anticipates submitting a building permit application to modify the interior program of the building in order to better utilize the space. Policy LU 1 Community Character within the General Plan notes that a continuing need exists to maintain, improve, adapt and where necessary, replace existing development to meet changing circumstances. This proposal does just that: the applicant seeks to replace existing development on PSR s campus to meet its changing circumstances, and improve housing options for Berkeley older adults, a segment of the population that continues to grow in size.

45 11 Table 1: Existing Structures on the Site, by Retention and Proposed Future Use Existing Structures Holbrook Hall 1798 Scenic Ave. PSR administration / Bade Museum Address Current Use Retained? Proposed Use Yes Consolidation of all PSR programming Dining Hall 1807 Arch St. PSR dining No N/A Chapel 1807 Arch St. PSR worship / assembly No N/A (to be incorporated into Holbrook Hall) Benton Hall 1807 Arch St. PSR housing No N/A McMurray House 2357 Le Conte Ave. PSR housing Yes Residential living unit (Maybeck) Anderson Hall 1815 Arch St. PSR housing No N/A Existing Stairs 1807 Arch St. Privately owned / public access Yes Privately owned / public access Mudd Hall 1798 Scenic Ave. PSR classrooms No N/A Virginia Housing 2322/2324 Virginia St. PSR housing No N/A Virginia Housing Virginia St. PSR housing No N/A Virginia Housing Virginia St. PSR housing No N/A Virginia Housing Virginia St. PSR housing No N/A Virginia Housing 2366 Virginia St. PSR housing No N/A Virginia Housing Virginia St. PSR housing No N/A Scenic Housing 1730 Scenic Ave. PSR housing No N/A Le Conte Housing 2317 Le Conte Ave. PSR housing No N/A Le Conte Housing 2357 Le Conte Ave. PSR housing No N/A Le Conte Housing Le Conte Ave. PSR housing No N/A Le Conte Housing 2479 Le Conte Ave. PSR housing No N/A A privately owned home at 2306 Virginia Street is adjacent to the proposed Virginia Street units. These proposed units have been set back from this home to provide continued access to light and air, and maintain privacy. At the request of the homeowner, no windows have been placed on the west facing wall that is adjacent to this home. Additionally, a redwood grove is proposed to the west of this home to provide additional light, air, and privacy.

46 12 D. Site Plan Guiding Principles and Place Making A central tenet of the design for the proposed community is integrating the Life Plan Community with the existing PSR campus. PSR s campus has provided open space and mid block access through the very large area bounded by Le Conte and Scenic Avenues, and Virginia and Arch Streets, and is enjoyed by GTU constituents and neighbors. The proposed design seeks to continue this good neighbor policy and will retain the pedestrian pathway from the main entry at Le Conte and Scenic Avenues to Arch Street. Holbrook Hall and the quad will remain the focal points of the PSR campus and the path through the quad (from Arch Street to Le Conte Avenue) will be maintained and enhanced. Additionally, a café for use by residents and PSR faculty, staff, and students will provide increased activation of the space. The proposed community will be constructed primarily on the south and west sides of the quad, with additional elements to be constructed downhill and to the north of the quad. The new main Figure 6: Site Plan Guiding Principles structure will mirror the geometry of Holbrook Hall, and while intentionally not competing with its prominence, will subtly echo its design through its massing, architectural details, and materials. The quad will be the central interaction zone for the proposed community and PSR, thereby integrating the school with the Life Plan Community. Additionally, neighbors can continue to walk their dogs, go for a stroll, throw a Frisbee or football, or take part in a morning Tai Chi sessions on the quad, which will remain open to the public. Meanwhile, the community s parking will be accommodated below grade. Whereas the existing PSR residences on Virginia Street with their raised front stoops, second floor entrances, garage openings fronting the street, and curb cuts tend not to relate to the pedestrian scale of the street, the proposed redevelopment of this frontage better integrates with the street at the pedestrian level. Placement of the new community footprint follows the complex hillside topography and is planned around significant stands of existing mature trees, including large coast live oaks. Walks and terraces create transition spaces between the structures and the surrounding urban forest. Open spaces around the structures will preserve and enhance existing woodlands, including mature coast live oak and redwood trees, while other spaces are designed as more intimate courtyards, thereby

47 13 providing transitional spaces between the public streets and sidewalks, and private residences. Green roofs serve as a fifth façade and beautify the view of the roofs for the hillside homes above the site, supporting the control and treatment of storm water runoff, and integrating the buildings with the surrounding urban forest. Integrated connectivity with the community at large is a key design principle of the proposed community, with the applicant improving the streetscape and pedestrian experience along various edges of the property. Included in the community plans are the following proposed pedestrian connection improvements: Figure 7: Habitat Garden Enhancement of the pedestrian experience entering the quad from the west through new landscaping, repair of the existing hillside stairs which are in need of renovation, and ongoing maintenance of the right of way retaining wall. In addition, an aesthetically inviting entrance to the quad will accentuate and improve the pedestrian approach from the west. Improvement to the entrance to the quad from the east through development of a European style plaza with added landscaping. Development of a visual landmark at the corner of Virginia and Arch Streets via a grove of redwood trees. The applicant will develop this corner as green space to continue the forested edge of the site along Figure 8: Entrance to the quad Arch Street. The proposed redwood grove will provide an aesthetically pleasing element as part of the pedestrian experience at this corner, and will provide a transition between the proposed senior living community, adjacent residence, and residences across the street. E. Urban Form and Massing The design responds to the context of the site, taking into account the character of the natural (topography, woodlands, etc.) and built (the PSR quad, GTU, other nearby institutions, and existing homes) environment that comprises the neighborhood. The main structure responds to the character and materials of Holbrook Hall, where PSR will consolidate its operations. Figure 9: Birds eye rendering looking to the southwest

48 14 The design has a transitional character with a classical base/middle/top organization, rendered with a contemporary sensibility. The lowest levels will be clad in cast stone with pilasters on the quad in tribute to Holbrook Hall. The middle stories will be covered in limestone stucco, which is the most prevalent material in the neighborhood, while the top level is an attic story, clad in metal shingles sympathetic to the color to Holbrook s slate roof. There will be subtle variation in forms and colors on the quad, Le Conte Avenue, Scenic Avenue, and Arch Street, which relate to various façades in the immediate environment. The Virginia Street façades are inspired by architecture in the neighborhood that has a predominately Mediterranean Revival character, along with a mix of other styles. The proposed façades blend Mediterranean and transitional styles with a familiar material vocabulary of limestone stucco and clay tile roofs. The design features accents of copper colored cladding with a mixture of rectangular and roundtop windows in varying sizes. The massing of the residential living units is sensitive to the rhythm of the single and multi family homes across the street. Likewise, the designs for the satellite parcels mimic the massing of the existing buildings to be redeveloped, featuring a more contemporary style. i. Main Site Residential Living Units The main portion of the community is broken up into three primary wings that frame the quad and then step down the hill. To the south of the main portion of the community, the McMurray house designed by Bernard Maybeck, is enclosed in a grove of mature trees. At the quad, two vertical stone clad wings extend toward Holbrook Hall, echoing Holbrook s east and west wings and creating a double quad open space in homage to the original Ratcliff master plan. A stone clad tower element, also inspired by Ratcliff s design, marks the pass through to the existing stairs on Arch Street. This opening forms a bridge between the wings of the main structure, breaks up the massing, and provides a pedestrian path bisecting the site, establishing both a physical and visual connection through the quad to Arch Street. The fenestration components include pairs of windows at bedrooms, with rectangular projecting bay windows and larger expanses of glass at living spaces, some with Juliet balconies. Windows are clear, high performance, and double glazed with dark brown sash and frames as found throughout Berkeley. The main structure is composed using a classical Figure 10: Quad base/middle/top architectural organization. The base of each part of the community is clad with one of three tones of masonry. The middle of each structure is a coordinating limestone stucco. The top is distinguished by a contrasting attic story that serves to make the topmost level(s) recede into the background and blend with the sky above. This design reduces the

49 15 apparent height and massing of the composition; as result, the floors below read as the main building mass. ii. Virginia Street The proposed Virginia Street residential living units respond to the varied styles and scale of the existing Virginia Street neighborhood with its mixture of 2 to 3 story single family and multi family residential units, with a mix of traditional styles from Mediterranean (dominant) to Tudor and Craftsman (secondary). Accordingly, the Virginia Street massing is articulated as series of townhomes in Mediterranean and transitional styles. The design of the Life Centre (part of the continuum of living options provided) anchors the corner of the proposed community at Virginia Street and Scenic Avenue, maintaining the residential character and 3 story townhome rhythm and massing of the proposed Virginia Street residences. Variations in the depth of the façade and window bays create visual interest. A darker limestone stucco establishes the base and corner of the structure, while a lighter limestone stucco on the upper stories creates a visual lightness at the top. Figure 11: Virginia Street iii. Satellite Parcels The satellite parcels propose very similar massing as to what Figure 12: Corner of Scenic Avenue & Virginia Street exists today, replacing 3 story buildings with 3 story buildings. The site plans allow for similar front setbacks as neighborhood properties, provide front stoops to convey the residential nature of the structures, and provide variations in roof lines and façade depths. F. Setbacks Given the size of the PSR property and configuration of the existing and proposed structures, the site s setbacks do not fit neatly within the Berkeley Municipal Code s definitions of front, rear, and side setbacks, as is the case for most sites that exceed one half acre. The large size of the PSR site allows for more creative and useful provision of open spaces than would be possible on a typical residential lot. Figure 13: 2317 Le Conte Avenue As a result, the project team met with City Planning staff to determine how to define setbacks on the site. Staff recommended that the application treat the Le Conte Avenue, Scenic Avenue, and Arch Street frontages as front yards, since these streets represent the primary frontages of the proposed project. For Virginia Street, staff recommended that the project consider this frontage as the side yard. This is appropriate for several reasons. First, historically, development on this street has had setbacks of 0 to 13

50 16 feet less than the 15 foot requirement for a front yard setback. Second, the project proposes townhome style homes and articulation that complements the existing development on the north side of the street. Third, Virginia Street is proposed to be a secondary pedestrian entrance since it primarily provides access to the Virginia Street residences. Lastly, given that, as a condition of approval, the project would consolidate the main site into one lot, there are no rear setbacks on the main site. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Proposed Program The proposed community will include the following components: 265 residential living units for older adults (with assisted living services available) 3 residential living units for PSR Visiting Scholars 12 memory support suites 36 skilled nursing suites Amenity spaces, including dining, fitness and wellness spaces, multi purpose, and other gathering and outdoor spaces Hospitality services include: dining, housekeeping, interior and exterior maintenance, shuttle transportation service, and 24 hour concierge Lifelong learning programs that focus on the six dimensions of wellness, including physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual, social, and vocational wellness 270 below grade parking spaces for use by residents, staff, and guests of the Life Plan Community (276 total spaces including satellite site parking). The garage will be valet assisted to facilitate easy access for residents. Residents will arrive on foot or by vehicle at the corner Figure 14: Life Plan Community Porte Cochere of Le Conte Avenue and Scenic Avenue. The entrance will be an at grade porte cochere, as shown on plan sheet G4.3. Truck loading for bobtail (box) trucks and waste haulers, will occur within the parking structure and will be accessed from an entrance on Le Conte Avenue (south of the intersection of Le Conte Avenue, Ridge Road, and Scenic Avenue), versus truck loading that currently occurs at that intersection Parking for emergency vehicles will be facilitated by the use of a no parking zone on Scenic Avenue As a Life Plan Community, the proposed community will provide a transitional use between the residential and institutional uses in the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed community will be complementary to and synergistic with PSR and the GTU:

51 17 Shared PSR dining and classroom / assembly space will be provided within the Life Plan Community, as well as dedicated apartments for PSR visiting faculty Residents may wish to participate in PSR s educational offerings or contribute to the school s programming and community outreach PSR and GTU faculty may be interested in offering programs for residents and staff of the community PSR and GTU students and alumni may be interested in opportunities to work at the community in management, social work, or other disciplines Residents may make donations / bequests, strengthening the financial position of these institutions and enhancing their ability to fulfill their missions Table 2: Development Program for 2369 Le Conte Avenue (Parcel 1A R 4 Zone) Existing to Proposed Proposed Characteristic Existing Remain New Total Lot Area (sq. ft.) Total 191, ,032 10,657* 201,689 Residential Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) n/a 2, , ,903 Residential Amenity (gr. sq. ft.) n/a n/a 45,899 45,899 Other Common Area: Circ., Mail (gr. sq. ft.) n/a n/a 35,365 35,365 Total Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) per Zoning Ord.** 136,396 37, , ,040 Dwelling Units (PSR student & faculty housing) Group Living Accommodations Residential Living Units Memory Support Suites *Includes Arch Street ROW dedication **Does not include parking area or common area above first floor Table 3: Development Program for 2369 Le Conte Avenue (Parcel 1B R 3 Zone) Existing to Proposed Proposed Characteristic Existing Remain New Total Lot Area (sq. ft.) Total 47,469 47,469 1,046* 48,515 Total Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) Residential 25, ,003 63,003 Dwelling Units (student & faculty housing) Residential Living Units Skilled Nursing Suites *Includes Arch Street ROW dedication Table 4: Development Program for the Satellite Parcels (2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue) Characteristic 2317 Le Conte Avenue (Parcel 2: R 3 Zone) Existing to be Redeveloped Proposed/ Total 2479 Le Conte Avenue (Parcel 3: R 4 Zone) Existing to be Redeveloped Proposed/ Total Lot Area (sq. ft.) Total 5,366 5,366 7,019 7,019 Total Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) Residential 7,000 7,412 8,400 7,236 Dwelling Units (student & faculty housing) Residential Living Units

52 18 Table 5: Development Program Summary Characteristic Existing to Proposed Proposed Existing Remain New Total Lot Area (sq. ft.) Total 250, ,886 11, ,589 Total Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) per Zoning Ord. 176,900 37, , ,264 Dwelling Units (PSR visiting faculty apartments) Group Living Accommodation Residential Living Units Memory Support Suites Skilled Nursing Suites B. Architectural Design and Materials The architectural design and materials of the Life Plan Community are informed by the Bay Area architectural tradition, which is characterized by varied yet compatible styles, notably Mediterranean and Craftsman architecture. In deference to Holbrook Hall and the Maybeck tradition, stone elements have been introduced at the base of the structures and to highlight the wings mirroring Holbrook Hall. Examples that demonstrate the unique character of the Bay Area style, including structures with limestone stucco or masonry cladding and dark window sash and frames, are provided on plan sheets G3.1 G3.6. Figure 15: Holbrook Hall i. Main Site Residential Living Units The simplicity of design around the quad allows the ornamented Gothic Revival style of Holbrook Hall to maintain its preeminence, while the new structure reflects Holbrook s material palette of stone, masonry, metal shingles, and metal windows. The main structure of the new community, like Holbrook Hall, is classically influenced in its design; each façade features an arrangement of materials and details that create a distinct base, middle, and top. The first story base material is a mixture of smooth and rusticated cast stone capped with a belt course. Along the quad, the base is articulated with pilasters in reference to Holbrook Hall s buttresses. The middle of each building element is finished in limestone stucco in a variety of tones to create contrast and articulation, particularly along Arch Street and Le Conte Avenue where the community steps down the hill. Another horizontal belt course, typically at the top of the fourth floor, separates middle from the top. Along the quad, this belt course pays homage to the peak of the west gable of Holbrook Hall. The top level, or at some locations, top two levels, as the structure steps down the hillside, is clad in metal shingles, creating an attic story or, in effect, a vertical mansard. The metal shingles echo the texture and tone of the slate gable roofs on Holbrook Hall.

53 19 The variation in colors and materials is illustrated and described on Sheet G3.1. The color and material palette conveys the shift from warm browns and greys within the quad (complementing Holbrook Hall), to light colored limestone stucco along Le Conte Avenue and Arch Street (accenting proposed brick toned masonry), to mossy gray greens along the oak and redwood woodland facing façades on Le Conte Avenue and Arch Street. ii. Virginia Street Residential Living Units The Virginia Street residential units shift the design and palette of materials to a mixture of Mediterranean and transitional styles, which is found in existing homes and institutions in the surrounding neighborhood. The compositional motifs include arched windows, rafter end detailing, and changes in plane between the various parts of the buildings. These units feature clay tile roof elements, wood trellises, and two colors of warm white and brown limestone stucco. Copper color trim surrounds the articulated bay windows of the transitional elements. Figure 16: Virginia Street The corner of the proposed community at Virginia Street and Scenic Avenue, complements the character of the proposed Virginia Street residences, with variations in color and detailing. iv. Satellite Parcels The design of the satellite parcels reflects from the eclectic mix of architectural styles and materials found in the surrounding neighborhood. In this varied, infill context, the material palette transforms to a mix of dry laid masonry, dark metal, wood soffits, and light limestone stucco. These materials convey texture and contrast, emblematic of the mix of more formal institutional buildings and the residential character of the surrounding uses. At 2317 Le Conte Avenue, the design integrates into the sloping street and sidewalk at two grade levels, with a front stoop and at grade pedestrian entry. With parking located on the main site, a landscaped setback next to the sidewalk and ground level windows, the design provides a porous connection to the neighborhood. At 2479 Le Conte Avenue, the masonry base relates to the proposed design of the main site and acknowledges the key material in the surrounding institutional uses. A large projecting window bay conveys the residential character of the structure. Figure 17: 2317 Le Conte Avenue Figure 18: 2479 Le Conte Avenue

54 20 C. Landscape Design The landscape design seeks to bring back the living with nature ethos of the Hillside Club by applying it to a contemporary setting. The landscape design sets the proposed structures back from the street and envelopes much of the site in a natural woodland planting. Existing mature oaks and redwoods, both on the interior and exterior of the site, will be preserved, and the site s ecological capabilities will be expanded by adding even more oaks and redwoods, along with an understory of native plants, bird houses, bird baths, and butterfly gardens. The design provides many varied outdoor spaces to enable residents to be more connected and attuned to the nature of the urban forest and natural landscape of the hillside. Community access will be expanded. The open space design seeks to heighten and enhance the site s rich assets, including the oak woodland; Holbrook Hall; the quad, and existing stairs on Arch Street. Not only will the enriched spaces serve the Life Plan Community and PSR, but they are also planned as a destination space for Berkeley residents and visitors, resulting in multi generational users who are socially intertwined. The public will have access to the quad on a path through the site to the refurbished stairs on Arch Street. New amenities will invite and encourage neighbors to visit and feel welcomed, ultimately creating a multi generational public user experience. i. Entry: Le Conte/Scenic/Ridge Intersection As it currently exists, the intersection at Le Conte and Scenic Avenues and Ridge Road poses safety concerns for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The intersection currently provides poor sight lines for drivers navigating steep grades toward the intersection. To address these issues, the applicant proposes to construct a roundabout at the intersection to better manage traffic, improve visibility, and shorten/simplify crosswalks. In addition, organizing the challenging intersection will create a space for a California Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) tree that will act as a focal point for the neighborhood. The roundabout will also provide convenient at grade access to the quad entry plaza, providing a flat/level arrival and departure area (important to ensure accessibility for older adults). ii. Entry Plaza An accessible entry plaza is important to older adults and will reflect the dynamic nature of its educational setting. Rather than a traditional poured surface driveway with a curb (which would present obstacles to residents and individuals with mobility limitations), the proposed curb less plaza design offers a transitional open space between the quad and the main building entry. It will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, as well as those who are being dropped off or picked up. European in style, the plaza will be comprised of specialty pavement that will guide pedestrians and drivers appropriately. The pedestrian and vehicular experience is also separated with light Figure 19: Entry Plaza

55 21 bollards that will guide, slow drivers, and enhance accessibility. The plaza will have a landscaped border on the north by the pedestrian entry. iii. Public Green This space includes a promenade, a public green (quad), café patio, and two smaller, intimate, thematic gardens as shown on plan sheet L2.1, which is described in more detail below: Promenade: This pedestrian path bisects the quad and connects Le Conte Avenue with Arch Street via the existing stairs on Arch Street. A promontory lookout will be placed at the top of the steps providing opportunities for residents and neighbors to enjoy Bay views. The existing fountain s lion head crest and stairs will be repaired. The Quadrangle Lawn ( The quad ): As the central main space on the site, the quad will link Holbrook Hall and the Life Plan Community, and welcome the neighborhood to the site. For pedestrian safety, the applicant proposes to remove the concrete steps that exit midblock onto Arch Street. Figure 20: Quad The quad will include a circular walk that skirts the outside edge of the open space, connecting the front entries of PSR and the Life Plan Community. This walk is flanked by outdoor seating, and is bisected by the promenade. A large central lawn will combine with the perimeter walls to form Figure 21: Cafe Patio an amphitheater, providing an opportunity for outdoor activities. The space will permit the continued organic use of the quad for informal gathering and recreation, or as a site for outdoor activities such as Tai Chi. Café Patio: The café patio can be accessed from the quad by residents of the proposed community and PSR. It will be a place where residents and PSR students, faculty, and staff can enjoy a meal and socialize. Thematic Gardens: The western half of the quad is separated by the west wing of Holbrook Hall and a complementary wing of the Life Plan Community, to form two thematic gardens: o The contemplative garden, on the north side, will have an intimate feel and will contain a meditative labyrinth, with shaded seating made of warm, natural materials. Figure 22: Labyrinth and Social Engagement Garden

56 22 o In contrast, the social engagement garden, on the south side, will have animated elements, such as a water feature to attract wildlife; bird feeders, circular seating, tables and chairs. Both gardens will be connected to the promenade with a looping path. iv. Woodland Gardens A tree deck will wrap around a significant existing native Oak on the north side of the site. The arborist and landscape architect have worked together to develop a layout to not impact the tree roots. A habitat garden on the southern edge of the site will offer a quiet, shady garden that will be set amidst existing oaks and newly planted shade trees. The landscape architect intends to boost the biodiversity of this area through planting an understory that will attract small, pleasant wildlife. The garden will be accessed by residents of the Life Plan Community via a woodland path that connects with Le Conte Avenue. v. Native Woodland Figure 23: Habitat Garden The project architect, landscape architect, and arborist worked closely together to develop a building footprint that has been designed around the existing oaks and topography of the site. Much of the landscape on the exterior edges of the site will be retained as native woodland. Existing mature oaks and redwoods will be preserved, and invasive, non native species will be removed and replaced with compatible understory species. The proposed plan preserves 74% of the 174 existing trees and increases the number of trees on the site to 255. Figure 24: Oak Woodland Oak Woodland: Woodlands will flank the site on multiple sides on the west, from Virginia Street, down Arch Street to the south; and on the east, along the southern portion of Le Conte Avenue along the Maybeck home. Woodlands will provide a natural shaded setting for those walking along the street and for those entering the site via the existing stairs on Arch Street. Redwood Groves: The redwood grove on Scenic Avenue adjacent to Holbrook Hall will be maintained, and a signature redwood tree is proposed for a new roundabout to create synergy between this grove and the public right Figure 25: Redwood Groves

57 23 of way. Additionally, a redwood grove located at the corner of Virginia Street and Arch Street will provide a park like edge to the proposed community that will be visually appealing for neighbors. vi. Virginia and Le Conte Streetscapes Designed to include plantings and provide storm water retention, these streetscapes tie into the existing character and scale of Virginia Street and Le Conte Avenue. The landscape offerings have been selected to be aesthetically pleasing to pedestrians and create an inviting urban droughttolerant green environment. At 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue, on grade plantings will enhance the architectural character of the residential units and be thematically consistent with the landscape scale of the street and similar specimens from the main site. vii. Roof Level Spaces Figure 26: Virginia Street The roof will serve as a fifth façade, providing an attractively designed rooftop for those who may be able to see the community from the Berkeley Hills. Roof areas will be attractive, usable, and energyefficient, and will include resident lounge spaces, gardens, green roof areas, and solar panels. Amenity Terrace: A spacious terrace and lounge will be accessed from the first floor, providing residents and guests with a casual and relaxing outdoor space to socialize and enjoy the outdoors. Features include a fire pit, planted trellis and dining and lounge furnishings for residents and guests. Community Gardens: Levels 3 and 4 will feature waist high garden plots, as well as herb/vegetable planters for use by a community Executive Chef in preparing healthy, organic food for residents. Residents could develop a relationship with a local school to provide an inter generational, sustainable, urban gardening project. Small Roof Terraces: Additional roof terraces are located on the main structure, Virginia Street structure, and at 2317 Le Conte Avenue. D. Sustainability Measures The proposed community exhibits multiple characteristics of exemplary sustainability and green building practices. Specifically, the community includes streetscape improvements and enhancements to existing public spaces, vehicular and pedestrian improvements, transportation demand management measures, efficient building design and other environmental benefits, some of which are quantified in LEED checklists as shown on plan sheets A Site wide measures include: Erosion Control The proposed community limits the amount of grading needed by working with existing topography conditions to the greatest extent possible. For example, as shown on plan sheet

58 24 A1.3, the applicant proposes use of parking stackers on one level, limiting site earthwork and disturbance. Storm Water Management The proposed community will meet or exceed City and regional storm water requirements. The proposed community will implement storm water quality and quantity best practices and low impact systems aimed at slowing runoff and reducing pollution, including flow of sediment and nutrients into streams and the Bay. Storm water quality features will include minimizing impervious surfaces, maximizing infiltration, and filtering storm water runoff by draining impervious surfaces to bio retention facilities (primarily flow through planters) and self retaining areas, prior to being conveyed offsite. Sustainable Landscaping The proposed design includes extensive sustainable landscaping, contributing to storm water management objectives. These contributions also significantly reduce heat islands, improve air quality, and provide critical shading to open spaces. Additionally, the community will be designed to conform to requirements of California's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, 2015 version (WELO), as well as East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) requirements for outdoor water use. The design will also conform to current Bay Friendly landscape guidelines. Biodiversity The design seeks to re activate the ecology of the site. With the oak trees and nutrientrich soils as a foundation, the addition of careful pruning and a diverse and drought tolerant understory, the site biodiversity will be heightened. Open Space Open space is provided via a series of perimeter open spaces, roof decks and terraces, and several interior courtyards. These open spaces allow both active and passive spaces for residents to enjoy, but also provide air quality and storm water management benefits. Including balconies, patios, and rooftop terraces, more than 120,000 square feet or 48.9 percent of the main site is open space. Daylight Views from Amenities Spaces and Residential Living Units The community orientation and space planning allow access to light, air, and views to the outdoors from residential living units and regularly occupied amenity spaces, enhancing overall resident comfort and wellbeing, and reducing energy consumption through improved solar access. Transportation Demand Management Measures (See section E) Sustainable construction initiatives include: Construction Waste The proposed community will target diverting approximately 75 percent of construction waste from landfills through recycling and salvaging of materials. Typical recycled and salvageable materials shall include, but not be limited to the following: concrete, wood, glass, and metal. Storage and Collection of Recyclables To facilitate reduction of waste disposed of in landfills, the proposed community will provide easily accessible, dedicated areas for collection and storage of materials for recycling, including dual sort chutes and below grade dumpsters. Materials to be recycled will include paper, corrugated cardboard, glass, plastics, and metals.

59 25 Indoor Air Quality Management during Construction In order to benefit the health of construction workers, as well as the eventual occupants, the proposed community will implement an Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan following industry best practices. Additional Best Practices The proposed community will endeavor to follow sustainable best practices where possible, including the following measures: o o o o On site tower cranes (to the extent needed) will have electric or diesel motors, with industry standard pollution control devices Construction trucks on or near the site, will utilize industry standard, diesel idling control measures Stockpiles on site will be handled in accordance with best practices Dust mitigation measures will be followed according to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards Sustainable building initiatives to include: No Smoking Buildings The community will be designated non smoking to prevent exposure of residents and staff to tobacco smoke. This will also be a policy enforced during the construction phase. Water Use Reduction The community will satisfy 100 percent of its irrigation needs through onsite storm water reuse and will have a 30 percent water reduction target for indoor water use (EBMUD has a 20 percent water reduction goal). Through the use of low flow fixtures, potable water use is targeted to be reduced by a minimum of 50 percent compared to code mandated reductions. Moreover, on average, older adults use less water than younger people (42% of Gen X utilization, per California State University, Fullerton, Center for Demographic Research, 2004). Sustainable Building Materials In conformance with LEED V4, the project will approach resource conservation of materials in two ways: 1) utilize whole building life cycle assessments in determining what materials and components to specify and install, and 2) choosing materials with environmental product disclosures. Part of the complex Life Cycle Assessment and Environmental Product Disclosure analysis considers recycled content and regional sourcing of materials. Material examples that are recyclable or contain recycled or sustainable contents may include but are not limited to steel, drywall, insulation, ceiling tiles, concrete, and flooring. Energy Conservation Conformance to Building Code standards and utilization of best practices will minimize the amount of energy needed for the heat, ventilation, hot water, electrical distribution, and lighting systems contained in the structures. This will be accomplished through high efficiency heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) units, energy efficient lighting including LEDs, window glazing, envelope structure and insulation, occupancy sensors, and Energy Star appliances in residential living units. The community will feature digital control of HVAC systems and lighting will include motion sensors and timers in all regularly occupied amenity spaces. Non Ozone Depleting Refrigerants The proposed community is anticipated to reduce the environmental impact of HVAC units by using non ozone depleting refrigerants.

60 26 Solar Access The importance of solar access ranges from the health benefits of sunlight due to production of Vitamin D to reduction of heart disease per recent research. With regard to the built environment, solar access is essential to enhance the ability to generate green power on site with photovoltaic panels and the production of solar hot water with solar thermal panels. Low Emitting Materials & Finishes To reduce the quantity of indoor air contaminants that are odorous, irritating, and/or harmful to the comfort and wellbeing of installers and residents, the community will utilize low emitting materials and finishes. Examples may include paint, coatings, adhesives, and sealants. Air Quality & Ventilation To enhance indoor air quality, thus contributing to the comfort and wellbeing of residents, indoor air quality performance will meet or exceed ventilation rates prescribed in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) standards. Green Roofs & Rainwater Reuse Green roofs will retain water, provide insulation, and absorb rather than reflect solar radiation. Approximately 26,000 square feet of green roofs will be provided as shown on plan sheets L High Performance Systems The proposed community plans to utilize high performance mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP) systems to conserve energy and maintain high quality interior air and lighting. E. Transportation Improvements and TDM Measures The improvements and measures noted below will serve to enhance the pedestrian experience for PSR, residents of the proposed community, and neighbors. In creating an inviting, safe and strong sense of place, the need for an automobile is minimized, thereby reducing impacts on the environment. The proposed development will include a number of measures designed to promote effective and safe vehicular and pedestrian access and connections to public transit services including AC Transit and BART. Vehicular Circulation Senior living communities generate limited vehicular traffic, with low vehicle usage rates and traffic spread throughout the day. Thus, the proposed community is not expected to negatively impact local traffic patterns. The community will provide below grade parking and loading, and will add approximately 8 on street parking spaces on Virginia Street. At the same time, four spaces will be removed on Le Conte Avenue to accommodate safe movement in and out of the driveway. A net gain of four to six on street spaces is anticipated. Pedestrian Safety As part of a comprehensive intersection improvement at Scenic Avenue, Le Conte Avenue, and Ridge Road, the applicant proposes to improve the safety of the pedestrian experience by proposing a new roundabout and crosswalk network, as shown on plan sheet C4.0. The proposed improvements will address a confusing condition of five intersecting Figure 27: Roundabout

61 27 streets by installing a solution that provides more predictable and controlled movements. Public sidewalks abutting the main site will be replaced. Bicycle Commuting & Recreational Use The community will accommodate the secure storage of bicycles. Shuttle Additionally, the proposed community will offer shuttle service for residents to such places as grocery stores, shopping, and cultural / entertainment attractions. The shuttle will facilitate resident transportation needs and reduce individual vehicular trips. MLW will also explore whether the community can be a shuttle stop for UC Berkeley. Unbundled Parking Fees The applicant will charge separate monthly fees for onsite resident parking, thereby providing a financial incentive to reduce vehicle ownership and utilize public transportation. Easy Pass (AC Transit Passes) The applicant will offer a transit pass to each of the community s employees, consistent with the City s standard condition of approval. Electric Charging Stations / Spaces 2 electric vehicle charging stations will be provided, with opportunity for future expansion for up to 10 charging stations. Information/Transit Kiosk The applicant will provide transportation information and materials related to public transportation options for residents. F. Community Benefits The applicant will provide the following community benefits: Strengthening a Local Institution: The proposed Life Plan Community will enable PSR, Berkeley s oldest theological seminary, to continue to fulfill its mission in a more economically sustainable form. Retain Berkeley s Older Adults: The community will provide an opportunity for Berkeley residents (or the parents of residents) who desire to live in a Life Plan Community to remain/live in Berkeley, an option that does not exist. It also enables the City to continue to be enriched by the knowledge and experience of its older and longtime residents. Payment of Property Taxes: To support the City of Berkeley, MLW has made the decision to place the property on the tax rolls and pay full property taxes, which will be a significant benefit to the City. With the site currently off the tax rolls, and older adult housing being a low impact use of services such as schools, payment of property taxes will enhance the city s financial wellbeing. Transfer Tax and Incremental Property Tax Revenue: Two thirds of residents of owner occupied homes in Berkeley are 55 or older. As such, during the initial fill up period, the community is expected to generate significant transfer tax revenue from the sale of homes by Berkeley residents relocating to the Life Plan Community. Additionally, Berkeley is anticipated to generate a substantial long term increase in property tax revenue due to Proposition 13, from the sale and reassessment of Berkeley residents existing homes. The tax increment will continue to grow annually as additional homes are transferred to new owners. At the same time, the community will have no direct impact on the Berkeley Unified School District s facilities and costs.

62 28 Celebration of Site Heritage / Contextual Design: Fulfilling General Plan policies regarding preservation, a Bernard Maybeck designed home will be maintained, the quad and existing stairs on Arch Street will be enhanced, and mature coast live oak and redwood trees will be preserved. Additionally, approval of the Life Plan Community permits PSR to retain its presence in Berkeley within Walter Ratcliff, Jr. designed Holbrook Hall, at a scale and in a manner that is more appropriate and fiscally responsible in fulfilling its mission. Improvement of a Complicated Intersection: The applicant proposes to improve the 5 way intersection at Scenic Avenue, Ridge Road, and Le Conte Avenue with a landscaped roundabout and new crosswalk network to improve vehicle and bicycle mobility and enhance pedestrian safety. Maintenance / Enhancement of Right of Way Along Arch Street: The applicant proposes to maintain and enhance the right of way along Arch Street, including a large retaining wall a significant contribution to what would otherwise require City funds to maintain. This will include installation and ongoing maintenance of enhanced landscaping. Sustainable Design: The applicant proposes to utilize high quality, energy efficient materials and appliances and install green roofs, photovoltaic panels, and a climate appropriate plant palette. The community will reduce water use in the quad turf areas by 50 percent (versus standard efficiency systems) through the use of highly efficient irrigation and will satisfy 100 percent of its irrigation needs, after a two year establishment period, through the selection of drought tolerant plants and onsite storm water capture. Through these and additional measures, the applicant seeks to achieve LEED Gold certification or equivalent via measures that are appropriate for the site, use, and climate (see sheets A ). Public Access to the Quad: Although the main site is private property, the applicant proposes to maintain public access to the quad. The proposed community will provide enhanced landscaping, retain mature coast live oak and redwood trees, and establish a cohesive landscape plan, with a new promontory to enjoy views from the top of the existing stairs on Arch Street. Utility Undergrounding: The proposed community will bury the existing overhead wires on the site along Le Conte Avenue, enhancing safety, expanding clear sky views, and reducing the visual clutter of the streetscape. Undergrounding will provide a significant aesthetic benefit to the Le Conte neighbors at no cost to them. Employment Opportunities: The proposed community will generate significant construction jobs and approximately 185 full time equivalent hospitality and health care jobs, including management jobs. This is a significant opportunity for job development compared to a multi family residential project that creates few ongoing jobs. Local Business Support: Residents, guests, and staff will patronize local businesses and are anticipated to generate significant City sales tax revenue annually. Additionally, MLW is expected to purchase significant goods and services annually to operate the community, including food, supplies, and contract services.

63 29 Provide Below Grade Parking and Loading: The community will provide below grade parking and loading. Ingress and egress to the parking structure will occur on Le Conte, minimizing vehicular traffic circling the neighborhood looking for parking. Below grade parking will enable at grade spaces to remain available for community member use. The garage will provide valet assisted service to facilitate easy access for residents. Expand Neighborhood On Street Parking: The proposed community will rebuild the sidewalk and curbs on the south side of Virginia Street, remove existing curb cuts no longer needed, and add back approximately eight on street parking spaces. Intergenerational Campus Experience: The co location of PSR and MLW provides a unique opportunity to provide intergenerational interaction opportunities for PSR students, faculty, and staff; older adults of the Life Plan Community; and the community at large. G. Project Phasing The applicant intends to construct the community in several phases to accommodate site construction logistics: Phase 1 Approximately 226 residential living units, 3 residential living units for PSR Visiting Scholars, and 12 memory support suites R4(H) Phase 2 27 residential living units along Virginia Street R3(H) and 12 residential living units on satellite parcels R3(H) and R4(H) Phase 3 36 skilled nursing suites at Virginia Street and Scenic Avenue R3(H) III. COMMUNITY CONTEXT AND SURROUNDING USES The proposed community will integrate into a neighborhood characterized by respected institutions and desirable homes. This location provides opportunities for continuing education, cultural enrichment, intellectual and creative engagement, and intergenerational interaction by providing easy pedestrian access to Berkeley services, amenities, attractions, and offerings. A. Surrounding Uses The neighborhood is home to nine religious schools, eight religious institutions, two churches, the University of California at Berkeley, and several other institutions: Founded by ecumenical pioneers in 1962, the Graduate Theological Union (GTU) is the largest graduate program in interreligious studies and most diverse partnership of seminaries and graduate schools in the United States. The mission of the GTU is to educate men and women for vocations of ministry and scholarship; equip leaders for a future of diverse religions and cultures; teach patterns of faith which nurture justice and peace; and serve as an educational and theological resource for local communities, the nation, and the world. Total enrollment at the GTU is approximately 1,150 students with more than 300 full time doctoral or master s degree students. The GTU has 100+ fulltime faculty members.

64 30 Other nearby institutional uses include The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, The Institute of Salesian Studies (affiliate of the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology), Zaytuna College, New Bridge Foundation (a drug and alcohol treatment center), Berkeley Student Cooperative/Casa Zimbabwe, The Berk on Arch (student housing), the Orthodox Institute, Montessori Family School, and the University of California Berkeley Center for New Music and Audio Technology. Across Hearst Avenue, the University of California Berkeley represents the largest and oldest public research university in California and is widely considered one of finest public universities in the world. Table 6 summarizes adjacent uses and their zoning districts. Table 6: Adjacent Uses Main Site 2369 Le Conte Ave. Satellite Parcel 2317 Le Conte Ave. Satellite Parcel 2479 Le Conte Ave. Direction Use Zoning Use Zoning Use Zoning North East South West Single and Multiple Family Residential Institutional and Residential Multiple Family Residential Single and Multi Family Residential and Institutional (1) R 3H Institutional R 3H Multiple Family Residential R 4H R 3H R 1H Institutional Multiple Family Residential Multiple Family Residential Multiple Family Residential R 3H R 3H Institutional R 4H R 3H Institutional R 4H R 3H Institutional R 4H 1 The University of California Berkeley Center for New Music and Audio Technology is located at 1750 Arch Street. B. Neighborhood Setting and Context The site is within a 10 minute walk of Downtown cultural, arts, entertainment, and dining venues and less than 5 minutes from restaurants and shopping on Euclid Street and Shattuck Avenue. The site has a Walkscore of 91 out of 100, which is described as a Walker s Paradise and very bike able (per Walkscore.com). Residents will be able to walk down a gentle slope to access merchants on Shattuck (via Virginia Street) or Euclid, and access lower Le Conte Avenue near UC Berkeley via a pedestrian entrance at the southern end of the site. Additionally, the site is close to transit, including several AC Transit bus lines and BART, and the community will provide shuttle transportation service. The neighborhood s architectural character is as diverse as the uses, with a variety of building heights and mix of architectural styles: To the south of the main site, near the corner of Le Conte Avenue, Arch Street, and Hearst Avenue, the area is characterized by larger, high density, 3 to 4 story, multi unit buildings in an eclectic mix of styles.

65 31 East of the site are both 2 and 3 story residential uses and institutional uses, most notably Ratcliffdesigned brick buildings on the Zaytuna College and Church Divinity School of the Pacific campuses, in English Country and Gothic Revival styles. The west side of Arch Street includes single and multi family buildings of 2 to 3 stories, typically characterized by brick garden walls at the sidewalk, interspersed with garage doors and driveways. The parkway and front yards on both sides of the street feature mature trees that shade Arch Street and screen the structures on each side from the other. On the north side of Virginia Street, single and multi family homes range from 1.5 to 3.5 stories, with the first floor frequently given over to garage doors and steps to entrances above. Parkway trees are fewer than Arch Street, so the rhythm of the entries and bay windows at living spaces is more apparent than it is on Arch Street. Most of the façades are light colored limestone stucco and some feature clay tile roof elements. The architecture reflects an eclectic mix of influences, including traditional styles, from Mediterranean (dominant) to Tudor and Craftsman (secondary). The proposed community will improve neighborhood safety by: Constructing and maintaining a high quality Life Plan Community Constructing a traffic circle and new pedestrian crosswalk network at the intersection of Scenic, Le Conte, and Ridge Burying existing overhead utility wires on the property along Le Conte Maintaining the retaining wall on Arch (with the proposed community assuming long term maintenance costs) Eliminating numerous curb cuts Eliminating cut through traffic from Scenic to Arch Street Maintaining a 24/7 presence on campus Providing an increased street level presence along Virginia Street

66 LAND USE & REQUIRED FINDINGS This section describes the Zoning and General Plan designations and requirements relevant to the site of the proposed community. It also identifies the discretionary permits the applicant is seeking, and the necessary findings to approve such discretionary permits. I. PERMITS REQUESTED/REQUIRED The following discretionary permits are requested as part of this application: A. Use Permit (Public Hearing) a. Community Care Facilities/Homes subject to R 3 Standards (23D ) b. Community Care Facilities/Homes subject to R 4 Standards (23D ) c. Nursing Homes subject to R 3 Standards (23D ) d. Demolition B. Administrative Use Permit a. Increased building height and number of stories in a Hillside Overlay District (23E B) b. Roof Top Equipment (23E C) C. Variance a. Lot coverage in the R 3 and R 4 Zoning Districts (23B ) D. Design Review In R 4 District (23D ) Special Provisions a. Commercial and mixed use projects shall be subject to Design Review as set forth in Chapters 23E.08 and 23E.12. (Ord NS 4 (part), 1999) E. Parcel Merger Consolidation of contiguous parcels (21.52) II. ZONING ORDINANCE A. Zoning Designations and Proposed Uses The site is located primarily within the R 4H Multi Family Residential District, with portions located in the R 3H Multiple Family Residential District. The Hillside Overlay District also encompasses the site. Multiple Per the Zoning Ordinance, the R 4 Zoning District encourages development of relatively high density residential areas, providing housing for persons who desire both convenience of location and a reasonable amount of usable open space; protects adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and Figure 28: Zoning District Designations

67 33 air; permits the construction of residential structures to provide housing opportunities for transient or seasonal residents; and permits the construction of institutional and office uses when not detrimental to the immediate neighborhood, i.e., within 1 2 blocks. The proposed uses are a Community Care Facility/Home and Nursing Home, which are permitted uses in the R 4 and R 3 zones. Community Care Facilities are licensed by the California Department of Social Services and may include residential living units with full kitchens and baths. (In comparison, Senior Congregate Housing does not require licensure by the state and is a group living arrangement with shared cooking facilities and may include shared bathroom facilities). The R 3 Zoning District has similar purposes as the R 4 District, and permits the construction of specialized care and treatment facilities such as Community Care Facilities / Homes and Nursing Homes, which are proposed herein. The Hillside Overlay District implements policies regarding hillside development, protecting the character of Berkeley s Hill Districts and immediate environs; giving reasonable protection to views while allowing appropriate development of all property; and allowing modifications in standard yard and height requirements when justified because of steep topography, irregular lot pattern, unusual street conditions, or other special aspects of the Hillside District area. B. Development Standards & Requirements The tables on the following pages delineate the existing, proposed, permitted or required improvements, and physical standards related to each of the three sites that make up this application. Note that zoning compliance with respect to height is in accordance with meetings and discussions with City of Berkeley planning staff.

68 34 Table 7: Zoning Standards for Parcel 1A Main Site (R 4H) Standard (BMC Section 23D.40) Existing Proposed Total Lot Coverage (%) (Corner Lots) 32.2% 48.2% 4 6 Stories: 40% Building Setbacks (Ft.) Building Height Permitted/Required Front Rear n/a n/a at 4 th story 19 at 5 th story 21 at 6 th story Side at 3 rd story 8 at 4 th story 10 at 5 th story 12 at 6 th story Street Side n/a 6 8 at 2 nd story 10 at 3 rd story 12 at 4 th story 14 at 5 th story 15 at 6 th story Building Separation at 2 nd story 16 at 3 rd story 20 at 4 th story 24 at 5 th story 28 at 6 th story Average (ft.) or up to 65 with AUP Maximum Stories 5 6 3, or up to 6 with AUP Usable Open Space Total (sq. ft.) 106, ,921 Public Open Space Passageway and Outdoor Dining (sq. ft.) Parking n/a n/a 45,800 sq. ft. (226 residential living units plus 3 residential living units for PSR Visiting Scholars at 200 sq. ft./unit) 149 Per Table 23D : Community Care Facility 1 space per 2 employees; Resident parking provided at 25% of 1 space per 1000 square feet of residential area per Section 23D C See Traffic Impact Analysis for Details 3 Existing separation between Mudd Hall and Holbrook Hall proposed separation at same location.

69 35 Table 8: Zoning Standards for Parcel 1B Main Site (R 3H) Standard (BMC Section 23D.36) Existing Proposed Total Permitted/Required Lot Coverage (%) (Corner Lots) 40.8% 49.5% 3 Stories: 45% Front Rear 6 50 n/a 15 Building Setbacks Street Side n/a Side at 3 rd story Building Height Average (ft.) or (per H Overlay) higher with AUP Stories or (per H Overlay) higher with AUP Usable Open Space Total (sq. ft.) 14,003 21,343 N/A Parking 21 (Included in Table 7) 26 Per Table 23D : Community Care Facility 1 space per 2 employees; Resident parking provided at 25% of 1 space per 1000 square feet of residential area; Nursing Home = 1 per 5 residents, plus 1 per 3 employees per Section 23D C See Traffic Impact Analysis for Details Table 9: Zoning Standards for 2479 Le Conte Avenue Satellite Parcel (R 4H) Proposed Standard (BMC Section 23D.40) Existing Permitted/Required Total Lot Coverage (%) (Interior & Through Lots) 60.2% 49.9% 3 Stories: 40% Front Building Setbacks (Ft.) Rear Side W: 2 6 E: at 3 rd story Building Height Average (ft.) or up to 65 with UP Maximum Stories 3 3 3, or up to 6 with UP Usable Open Space Total (sq. ft.) 806 1,773 N/A Parking Per Table 23D : Community Care Facility 1 space per 2 employees; Resident parking provided at 25% of 1 space per 1000 square feet of residential area per Section 23D C See Traffic Impact Analysis for Details

70 36 Table 10: Zoning Standards for 2317 Le Conte Avenue Satellite Parcel (R 3H) Standard (BMC Section 23D.36) Existing Proposed Total Permitted/Required Lot Coverage (%) (Interior & Through Lots) 46.4% 49.9% 3 Stories: 40% Building Setbacks Building Height Front Rear Side S: 8 N: at 3 rd story Average (ft.) or (per H Overlay) higher with AUP Stories or (per H Overlay) higher with AUP Usable Open Space Total (sq. ft.) 1,626 1,555 N/A Parking 4 (Included in Table 7) 2 Per Table 23D : Community Care Facility 1 space per 2 employees; Resident parking provided at 25% of 1 space per 1000 square feet of residential area per Section 23D C See Traffic Impact Analysis for Details III. GENERAL PLAN The proposed community fulfills many goals and policies of the General Plan, the most salient of which are discussed below. Most central, the community will achieve the City s Housing Element Policies to expand senior housing options and housing for people with disabilities (Policies H 17 and H 18, respectively). With one quarter of Berkeley residents age 55 and better (approximately 30,000 people), the proposed community will provide a much needed housing option. In addition to the housing and services provided, Life Plan Communities focus on whole person wellness, providing opportunities for social, physical, spiritual, intellectual, vocational, and emotional engagement that may not be available to older adults in a traditional single family or multi family living environment. While there are 12 senior apartment buildings (829 units) in Berkeley that provide affordable units for older adults who meet income eligibility requirements, there are no Life Plan Communities in Berkeley, forcing long time residents to move to other municipalities if they desire a residential continuum of living community. The proposed community will enable Berkeley s older adults to continue to live near family and friends, remaining active and engaged in their community. The proposed community will be designed to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines and California Title 24 Disabled Access Regulations, which will support the policy goal of increasing housing throughout Berkeley that is accessible or adaptable. The applicant is committed to the principles of universal design and intends to incorporate features in residential living units that will facilitate the conversion to fully accessible units for residents, as needed. These features will facilitate aging in place.

71 37 The proposed community also fulfills Land Use Policy LU 3 which encourages infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. The architecture of the proposed community is designed to be contextually sensitive, drawing inspiration from Berkeley hillside communities, with structures that are integrated into the sloping topography and woodland landscape. The design creates no material detriment to neighboring residential or institutional uses, which are screened by the very woodland landscape from which the proposal draws its inspiration. Neighboring homes along Arch Street face away from the proposed community, with designs intended to capture light and views of the Bay, downhill to the west. Along Virginia Street, proposed massing and height have been designed to fit the context of existing single and multi family residences. The proposed community also achieves Urban Design Policies UD 17 and UD 18 by relating design elements to the surrounding area, while also creating contrast and cohesiveness in the neighborhood. The architecture of the proposed community draws inspiration from familiar Berkeley materials such as limestone stucco and clay tile roofs, and is massed to create a cohesive appearance with adjacent residential development. Consistent with Policies OS 6 and OS 8, the proposed community will create new open space opportunities, most prominently improving the quad to expand recreation and cultural activities. A small amphitheater will be created in the area between the Life Plan Community and Holbrook Hall creating a casual venue for outdoor activities. Other open space features will include a meditative garden and labyrinth, and a social engagement garden. Additionally, the rooftop gardens will provide an opportunity to grow fresh organic produce. As part of the restoration of the existing stairs on Arch Street, a new promontory will be created, providing views of the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge. IV. REQUIRED FINDINGS Two components of the proposed community application require relief from zoning requirements, through the approval of use permits and/or variances: An Administrative Use Permit for the Hillside Overlay designation, which allows up to 6 stories in the R 4 District; and A variance to exceed lot coverage in the R 3 and R 4 Zoning Districts. All findings required for the discretionary permits listed at the beginning of this chapter are discussed in the section below: A. Findings for Issuance of Use Permits in the R 3H and R 4H Districts i. Proposed Community Care Facility and Nursing Uses As required by the finding requirements listed in Sections 23D (Use Permit in R 3 Zoning District), 23D (Use Permit in R 4 Zoning District), and 23E (Use Permit in the Hillside Overlay), the Zoning Ordinance authorizes approval of Use Permits upon finding that: the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use, or construction of a building, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood or be

72 38 detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City. The proposed community will cause no detriment nor injury to persons residing or working in the area, to adjacent properties, or to the surrounding area. It will enhance the value of adjacent properties and the general welfare of the neighborhood and the City of Berkeley. The proposed community enables PSR to optimize use of its site to ensure its continued financial stability and ability to fulfill its mission while remaining on Holy Hill, in Berkeley, as it has since The proposed project will share dining, classroom, and assembly space with PSR; reinforcing the synergies of the two uses and operational economies not achievable through a simple real estate transaction. At the same time, the Life Plan Community meets significant demand for a type of senior living community that is not currently available in Berkeley, serving an underserved market in terms of market rate seniors housing options. Currently, there are 12 senior apartment buildings (829 units) in Berkeley that provide units for older adults who meet income eligibility requirements. There are no market rate independent living communities and no communities that provide continuum of living options. As a result, older adults must leave Berkeley if seeking a market rate independent living or continuum of living community. The proposed community represents infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood. The site plan is inspired by Bernard Maybeck s vision for Berkeley Hillside Communities, where structures are integrated into the sloping topography and woodland landscape. The proposed community is compatible with neighboring land uses, which are both residential and institutional in nature. In particular, the proposed community will provide a use that is complementary and synergistic with the existing use of the site and the surrounding neighborhood, representing an appropriate transitional use between the GTU to the east, UC Berkeley to the south, and the predominantly single and multi family uses to the west and north. The proposed community will maintain and rehabilitate heritage structures (the Maybeck designed home and the existing stairs on Arch Street), and maintain and protect mature coast live oak and redwood trees. It will improve streetscapes and streets for pedestrians by removing curb cuts, installing a roundabout at a complicated 5 way intersection, enhancing a pedestrian route through the large site to improve connectivity with the neighborhood, burying utilities along the site on Le Conte Avenue, and addressing deferred maintenance. ii. Views, Light, and Air The proposed community will not create material detriment to adjacent residences relative to views, or access to light and air.

73 39 Views from the Site The community will protect and enhance a publicly accessible view from the top of the existing stairs on Arch Street from a new promontory to be added as part of the restoration of the stairs. The promontory will provide views of the Bay, the Golden Gate Bridge, San Francisco, and the Marin headlands. The promontory will be located at a break in the oak woodland as part of a 23 8 to front yard setback between the proposed community and retaining wall along Arch Street. Views of the Site The proposed community will be largely screened from public streets and neighboring land uses by groves of mature trees that surround the site. This is common throughout the neighborhood where multi story buildings, curving streets, and mature trees form the streetscape. Key view corridors are described below: o o o o o o While the grade falls steeply from the top of the hill down to Hearst Avenue to the south, there are limited views of the proposed community from the corner of Hearst Avenue, Arch Street, and Le Conte Avenue (refer to the photo simulation on plan sheet G5.3). A new redwood grove will be planted at the corner of Arch and Virginia Streets to replace an existing 3 story PSR building, providing landscaped open space adjacent to the neighbor at 2306 Virginia Street and softening the view of the community from the corner of Arch and Virginia Streets (refer to the photo simulation on plan sheet G5.0). New parkway trees will be planted along Le Figure 29: Redwood Groves Conte, Scenic, and Virginia to fill in gaps in the existing rhythm of parkway trees (refer to the photo simulation on plan sheet G5.1). The most prominent view of the community will be from or near the proposed roundabout where the entry drop off will share street frontage with Holbrook Hall and institutional uses to the east (refer to the photo simulation on plan sheet G5.2). The proposed residential living units to be constructed on the satellite parcels will also blend in with the existing streetscape (refer to the renderings of 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue on plan sheets G and photo simulations on plan sheets G ). Views uphill from Arch Street will reveal views of the community in a limited fashion due to heavy tree cover to the north and south of the existing stairs on Arch Street. Due to a steep drop off of the PSR property along Arch Street and the requisite retaining wall, the appearance of the community through and between the trees will be minimal. Further, the homes across from the site to the west are designed to have their primary façades and views downhill to the west, away from the property. Views to the east from these homes and

74 40 buildings include a high retaining wall and mature trees on a 23 8 to deep front yard above (refer to photo simulation on sheet G4.4). Views of the Berkeley Hills As described above, the steep topography and deep wooded Arch Street setback, (both existing and proposed) do not allow for views of the Berkeley Hills from Arch Street in the existing condition. Views of the Bay Views of the Bay from the Berkeley Hills will not be impacted. The grade slopes away from the property more gently to the east before ascending steeply into the Berkeley Hills. Once perched upon the hillsides, views of the proposed community (to the extent they exist) represent a mere change in detail to the foreground below, providing no obstruction of the panorama to the west. Shadow Study Under existing conditions, given the size and scale of the existing PSR buildings and the tall mature trees on the site, there are some shadows cast on adjacent properties. However, the configuration of both the existing and proposed site plans on the main site, with deep setbacks along the Arch Street frontage, results in limited shadows cast on neighboring properties. As part of the design process, the project team utilized shadow modeling to help refine the articulation and massing of the proposed structures to reduce potential impacts on neighboring properties and public and quasi public spaces. As illustrated by the shadow studies on plan sheets A5.0 through 5.27., the redevelopment of the site does not generally or detrimentally change the shadows that are currently cast on adjacent structures. In particular, the proposed 3 story Virginia Street units replace existing 2 to 3 story structures and do not cast new shadows onto the south facing homes across the street, on the north side of Virginia Street. Likewise, development on the interior of the site is set back from street and adjacent uses and does not significantly alter neighbor shadows beyond existing conditions. Similarly, Figure 30: Shadow Study, December 3:00pm proposed development of the two satellite parcels replaces 3 story buildings with 3 story buildings with similar footprints thereby producing no material change to the shadows that are cast. iii. Integration with Adjacent Neighbors This section explores potential impacts on health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare, including noise, shadows / light, views, traffic, and parking. The proposed structures will have no detrimental impact on the adjacent residences.

75 41 Main Site New development on the main site is contained within a single block, with abutting neighbors limited to the following properties (the location relative to the subject site is shown in parentheses): PSR (Applicant) (Interior): As previously described, the proposed site plan seeks to highlight PSR s Holbrook Hall, by providing separations between it and new structures, fulfilling the quad vision of the original Ratcliff plan, and drawing from its buttressed stone façade, arched metal windows, slate roof, and shape of its building footprint. No detrimental impacts with respect to access to light or the prominence of this building are anticipated. Institute of Salesian Studies at 1831 Arch Street (South): Owned by the Institute of Salesian Studies, an affiliate of a GTU member, this property features a three story structure, immediately south of PSR s Anderson Hall. New landscaping and a pedestrian path will provide improved views from the north facing windows looking onto the proposed Life Plan Community. The existing PSR building to the north, including the two level parking garage, will be removed and replaced with a new structure at a similar height, massing, and side yard setback, but with more ground level architectural detail and visual interest. As a result, no detrimental impacts are anticipated. Institute of Salesian Studies at 2321 Le Conte Avenue (South): Also owned by the Institute of Salesian Studies, this property features a four story structure, immediately south of the Maybeck designed house on the main site. Since the exterior of the Maybeck designed home, will not be materially altered and the trees surrounding the home will remain. There will be no material change and no detrimental impacts to this property. Single Family Home at 2306 Virginia Street (North/West): Located near the northwest corner of the main site, fronting onto Virginia Street, this site is a privately owned, 2 story, single family home. Currently, this home is surrounded by 3 story, PSR multi family residences to the east, west and south. There will be no detrimental impact to this home due to the proposed project. With the removal of the 3 story buildings located at 1717 and 1729 Arch Street, this home will enjoy increased access to sun, light, air, and views. o o o No new development is proposed to the west, at the corner of Arch and Virginia, where the building at 1717 Arch is currently located. The setback to the east is proposed to increase from 0 feet to 6 feet. There will be no windows on the 2 3 story west façade of the new structure facing this home to provide privacy for this homeowner. Behind the home to the south, the existing 3 story structure, its driveway and parking area will be removed. The parking area will be replaced by a landscaped courtyard with a woodland tree deck. New 3 story construction to the south will be set back 18 feet from the rear property line compared with the existing nearly zero setback at the rear of 1729 Arch Street.

76 42 o Finally, visitors to this home will have access to parking spaces that will be added back to Virginia Street. The redevelopment of the two satellite parcels replaces 3 story PSR dormitories with 3 story residential structures, with similar, or smaller, massing. Specifically, 7 apartments at 2317 Le Conte Avenue will be replaced with 6 units, and 10 apartments at 2479 Le Conte Avenue will be replaced with 6 units. Satellite Parcel at 2317 Le Conte Avenue Institute of Salesian Studies at 2321 Le Conte Avenue (North): The property is owned by the Institute of Salesian Studies, an affiliate of a GTU member. Several windows face south toward the proposed 3 story residential structure. Since the massing of the proposed structure is similar to what exists today, no detrimental impacts to views, light, and air are anticipated. In fact, the applicant proposes to bury overhead utility wires on Le Conte Avenue, which will improve street views for the Institute. No detrimental impacts will occur. Student Residence Hall at 2311 Le Conte (South): A 3 story residence hall (primarily occupied by UC Berkeley students) faces Hearst Avenue, with stairs leading to the building entrance accessed from both Arch Street and Le Conte Avenue. The side yard setback of the proposed structure will decrease approximately 2, but approximately 18 6 will remain between the buildings (equal to or greater than what is required). The shadow study shows no material change or detrimental impacts due the proposed community at this location. Multi Family, Residential Building at 1849 Arch Street (West): This 3 story structure is set back from the street, so that the bulk of the building is situated at the rear of the site. The redevelopment of 2317 Le Conte proposes to increase the existing non conforming setback from 11' 8" to 15', improving access to light and air at the back of the property. In addition, a substantial grove of existing trees along the rear property line will continue to screen each structure from the other and cast shadows on both buildings. As such, there are no detrimental impacts due the proposed community for this neighbor. Satellite Parcel at 2317 Le Conte Avenue GTU Administration Building at 2479 Le Conte Avenue (West): The property consists of administrative offices in a 2 ½ story building. Upper story windows (second story and above) face the site. The proposed structure will be a more attractive architectural design than what currently exists. The side yard setback for the proposed structure is proposed to increase from 2' 6" to 6', while the overall massing and height will remain consistent with existing conditions. The proposed community will cause no detrimental impacts to this neighbor. Zaytuna College Administration Building at 1712 Euclid (West): This owner is currently allowed to utilize a shared access parking arrangement via the subject parcel. The setback distance on the east side of 2479 Le Conte Avenue is proposed to decrease from 9' 10" to 6'. Given that there are

77 43 no residential uses on the Zaytuna site, a driveway and surface parking will allow for adequate building separation, and similar massing is proposed, no detrimental impacts are anticipated. Multi Family Building at 2472 Virginia Street (Rear): This satellite parcel is 2 stories. The rear setback of the proposed structure will increase from 0 to 32 4, allowing this neighbor to enjoy substantially improved access to light, air, and sky views. As such, this neighbor will suffer no detrimental impacts as a result of the proposed community. iv. Parking and Traffic The proposed community is not expected to present parking or traffic impacts, given lower vehicle utilization rates by older adults, staggered start times for employees, and the provision of parking for residents, employees, and visitors in a below grade structure. Moreover, a proposed comprehensive transportation management program will include a shuttle service for residents, reducing traffic and parking demand, while providing convenient, sustainable transportation options for residents. These outcomes align with the City s Climate Action Plan and the goals expressed in SB 375, the State of California law that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Parking for 2317 Le Conte Avenue will be accommodated below grade on the main site and parking for 2479 Le Conte Avenue will be provided on site with surface parking. Approximately eight parking spaces will be added along Virginia Street due to elimination of curb cuts. v. Noise/Quiet Operation of the community is not anticipated to result in noise levels that change noticeably compared to existing conditions. Older adults do not represent a substantial noise source. Additionally, high quality building materials/insulation, and the screening and location of mechanical equipment will further mitigate potential noise. Elimination of the above grade parking structure and road behind the singlefamily home at 2306 Virginia will result in a reduction in noise for this neighbor. vi. Policy and Zoning Objectives Lastly, the proposed community supports the policies and objectives of the Housing Element and General Plan. It increases housing options for older adults, including persons 60+ with disabilities, in a medium (R 3) to high density (R 4) setting that efficiently utilizes land, water, and energy resources. It provides high quality housing developed by a long term owner operator with a proven track record of attractive and well maintained properties that become part of and an asset to the greater community. As a result, the proposed community will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. Furthermore, the community is consistent with the purposes of the R 3 and R 4 districts to provide specialized care and treatment services, such as those proposed, when such uses are not detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.

78 44 B. Administrative Use Permit to Increase Building Height in a Hillside Overlay District (BMC 23E B) An Administrative Use Permit can be granted when a finding is made that a height modification or a yard reduction is consistent with the purposes of the H District, as specified below: Purpose A: Implement the Master Plan s policies regarding Hillside Development The Master Plan specified in these findings refers to the 1977 Berkeley Master Plan, the predecessor to the City s current (2002) General Plan. Policies from both documents, which relate specifically to views, are described below to acknowledge the original intentions regarding hillside development when the Hillside Overlay was adopted in 1999, as well as General Plan policies in place today. i. Views of the Site Views of the site are currently limited from surrounding properties as the site sits at the top of a hill and is surrounded by groves of tall, mature trees. The irregular street grid and existing 2, 3, and 4 story buildings in the neighborhood also reduce visibility of the site and the proposed community. The proposed community is set back from the street at least 15 feet at front yards along Le Conte and Scenic Avenues in the R 4 district on Parcel 1A and retains existing mature coast live oaks and redwoods to create a physical buffer that further reinforces these setbacks, resulting in no detrimental impact to views, light and air. The proposed community will bury existing overhead wires on the site along Le Conte Avenue, further expanding clear sky views from the street and significantly improving the neighborhood aesthetically, at no cost to neighbors. Along Arch Street, setbacks measure 23 8 to 89 10, in deference to existing woodland areas and natural grade changes, which provide a wide transition between the proposed community and the surrounding neighborhood, while protecting open sky views from public streets. As result, the community will not obstruct neighboring properties access to light or air supporting a finding of no detriment. ii. Views of the Bay and Hills To the east, across Scenic Avenue, the topography remains relatively flat before sloping downward further toward Euclid Avenue to the east. As such there are no existing views of the Bay until the Berkeley Hills are reached more than a half mile to the northeast, at which point the site becomes part of the foreground with no material impact on views of the Bay. As described above, the existing topography along Arch Street prevents views to the Berkeley Hills to the east. As with the existing condition, the proposed project will not obstruct significant views, such as those of the Bay or Berkeley Hills, as envisioned in the current General Plan (Policy UD 31), and the 1977 Master Plan (Open Space Policy 3.22). The proposed community will not detrimentally impact views.

79 45 iii. Views from the Site Also, in support of Policy UD 31, new structures are designed to enhance publically accessible existing vistas, such as the experience of views, light, and open space from the top of the existing stairs on Arch Street. The existing cross campus pathway and existing stairs at Arch Street which provide access to the promontory, will be restored and improved. Purpose B: Protect the character of Berkeley s Hill Districts and their immediate environs The existing Hillside District encompassing and surrounding the site is a diverse mix of housing types and institutional uses characterized by pedestrian scaled streets, mature trees, shadows and filtered light, and undulating topography. The predominantly residential uses to the north and west of the site are typically 2 to 3 story buildings on moderately sized sites (generally 4,000 to 8,000 square feet) that are occupied as single or multi family residences. Retail uses (on Euclid Avenue) and 3 to 4 story apartment buildings on larger lots, are located to the south and east of the site. Residential architectural styles include flatroof houses, Bay Area shingle style homes, and Mission Revival homes with red tile roofs. Structures east and south of the site (UC Berkeley) are characterized by larger buildings utilizing brick, stone, and concrete materials. The proposed community will include durable and sustainable materials and will be maintained by Mather LifeWays, the operator of the proposed Life Plan Community, which has an outstanding reputation for providing high quality services and well maintained communities. The materials utilized, including metal and masonry draw on the same materials that are used by Holbrook Hall and surrounding neighborhood structures. The proposed architecture utilizes ground floor recesses, projecting window bays, changes in roof levels and building height, deep balconies, and narrower Juliet balconies to create variety and visual interest at street level. This articulation complements the architecture of the surrounding residential neighborhood, and breaks up the façade. The massing and height of the proposed community responds to the massing of the surrounding neighborhood. A portion of the proposed community is located in a medium density (R 3) residential area, which targets approximately 20 to 40 dwelling units per acre (25 residential living units per acre are proposed along the R 3 portion of the site on Virginia Street). The bulk of the site is located in a highdensity (R 4) residential area, which targets approximately 40 to 100 dwelling units per net acre (49 residential living units per acre are proposed in the R 4 portion of the site). To the west, existing single and multi family structures enjoy a deep buffer to the site as these uses are separated by a street, an existing retaining wall, large stands of mature trees, and a deep setback. The community steps down to 3 stories along Virginia Street and Le Conte Avenue. The footprint of the proposed structure along the quad maintains the existing pedestrian entrance at Scenic Avenue / Le Conte Avenue, while providing improved access and landscaping. As a result, the proposed community emulates the original vision of the Ratcliff master plan.

80 46 By redesigning the frontage along Virginia Street, the community will remove the many curb cuts along this street. Rebuilding the curbs will improve the cohesiveness of the streetscape, improve the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists from conflicts with vehicles, and add approximately eight on street parking spaces for the public. This frontage also takes architectural cues from the north side of Virginia Street and the greater neighborhood, drawing inspiration from nearby homes with large projecting window bays, tiled roofs, and protected entries. With doors and windows on the first floor, the design adds transparency and visual interest at the street level. The proposed community protects and highlights heritage structures on the site. It retains the Bernard Maybeck designed home fronting Le Conte Avenue and the existing stairs on Arch Street. Lastly, the design includes a garden to complement the environment surrounding the Maybeck home, and maintains the intent of the master plan for the quad, while upgrading the landscaping to provide amenities and gardens; repairs steps; expands the redwood groves, and provides drought tolerant plantings. As a result, the proposed community protects and enhances the woodland quality of this hillside residential neighborhood. Purpose C: Give reasonable protection to views yet allow appropriate development of all property As described in the findings for purpose statements A and B above, due the natural topography and location of the proposed community, irregular street grid, and intentional setbacks and massing, the proposed community will have limited effects (if any) on private views from adjacent homes and public views from streets (and will enhance views in some instances, due to more attractive and better maintained structures). Since the site is surrounded by an urban forest of mature tree canopies, the proposed community does not obstruct or materially change views of the Bay or Berkeley Hills. To the east, where existing Hillside development sits above the proposed community s elevation, views of the Bay will be protected, with the proposed community representing a negligible change to the foreground of views from properties above. From the south, the development is likewise not anticipated to alter views, given the steep topography, existing development, and tall mature trees, which currently do not allow for views beyond Holy Hill. From the west an area characterized by lower elevations than the site mature trees, the existing retaining wall, and topography that rises steeply, already obstruct views of the hills. The proposed community will not materially alter these views from the west. While the proposed community will not substantively change views of the Bay or hills, the proposed community may be seen from certain vantage points. However, the combination of mature trees, the existing retaining wall, and large setbacks along Arch Street will only allow glimpses of the community from points along Arch Street. Additionally, the minimum 23 8 to setback and retention of mature trees along the west elevation, creates a buffer that reduces the view angles, thereby protecting open sky views from points below and preventing significant shadows from being cast on adjacent properties.

81 47 As further detailed in response to purpose statement D below, the siting and architectural design of the proposed community, including the deep setbacks and variety in the massing and building heights, enable a development that is appropriately scaled to its site and designed for the surrounding neighborhood. Lastly, the proposed Life Plan Community is a use that is synergistic with that of PSR and the greater Berkeley community, each known for its inclusiveness. Purpose D: Allow modifications in standard yard and height requirements when justified because of steep topography, irregular lot pattern, unusual street conditions, or other special aspects of the Hillside District area The existing site is uniquely characterized by: Steep topography Large lot size and an irregular lot pattern Unusual street conditions and steep and narrow streets Single land owner Mature and protected trees The presence of heritage structures that will be retained The presence of the above characteristics, creates a unique opportunity to develop a Life Plan Community at this location. The steep slope from the top of Holy Hill to the west that necessitated the Arch Street retaining wall, caused eastbound Le Conte Avenue to be redirected southward toward Hearst and the Ridge Road right of way to be vacated between Scenic Avenue and Arch Street. The interruption in the street grid and subsequent acquisition of smaller adjacent parcels by a single owner, PSR, resulted in the creation of the main site, a unique, contiguous parcel comprising 5.74 acres (250,204 square feet). By comparison, most lots in the surrounding area, tend to be rectangular 4,000 to 8,000 square foot lots, accessed by a rectangular grid of streets, which typically do not require modifications to development standards. As a result, the site has opportunities, as well as constraints in implementation of the R 3 and R 4 development standards, compared to the more typical sites for which these standards were written. An Administrative Use Permit is needed to provide the necessary program area. The proposed design has gone through much iteration to come up with the design presented here. The original design concept included 275 residential units in six to eight story buildings in the R 4H District. Based on feedback from stakeholders, the applicant sought to reduce the size of the community, while still maintaining project feasibility. The applicant reduced the number of residential living units to 265 and eliminated suites designated exclusively for assisted living and now proposes to provide that service to residents in their own residential living units. In order to mitigate shadow impacts and maintain a scale sympathetic to Holbrook Hall, the height is limited to five stories along the quad. Limiting the height to five stories at the quad ensures that there is no material reduction in light or air to neighboring properties. To maintain necessary program area, lot

82 48 coverage was increased as height was decreased and residential living units were placed on two satellite parcels to reduce massing on the main site. The site is steep, with a 50 foot difference in height from the low point to the high point and a maximum slope of 17 to 18 percent. The steep topography creates an opportunity to concentrate massing on the flatter interior portions of the site where little can be seen from adjacent streets. While this does not result in the most efficient building from a program and interior circulation perspective, with the allowance of additional building height, the proposed design better meets public policy goals to preserve light, air, and privacy. In order to preserve mature coast live oaks a key guiding principle of the proposed design site plan options were constrained by the location of specimen coast live oaks throughout the site. The proposed site plan utilized these existing mature trees to guide the site plan, setbacks, and architectural form (such as recesses and building articulation). As a result, the applicant requests an increase in building height and number of stories. In order to retain the quad and heritage structures on the site another key guiding principle of the proposal the site plan has been formulated to preserve and respect Holbrook Hall and the Maybeckdesigned home. These two buildings cover roughly nine percent of the R 4 portion of the main site. Although retention of these structures reduces building area available for newer, more efficient structures, their retention is essential to the PSR / Mather LifeWays partnership and the beauty of the site. As a result, additional building height and stories are proposed on the R 4H portion of the site to best accommodate the proposed building area. C. Variance Findings to Increase Lot Coverage (BMC 23B ) The Zoning Adjustments Board may approve a Variance application, either as submitted or modified, if it makes the following findings: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same District As described in the preceding findings regarding the Hillside Overlay, there are several unique site conditions that contribute to satisfying this finding, including the presence of: o o o o o o Heritage structures Mature trees Large lot size Steep topography Odd angle lot and street configuration Single ownership

83 49 These site conditions stand in contrast to the typical rectilinear sites on the surrounding blocks as shown in the parcel map above. The development proposal does not request the full 65 feet/6 stories allowed (with an Administrative Use Permit) across the entire R 4H designated portion of the site. Instead, the design capitalizes on the unique characteristics of the site to propose a site plan that is conducive to the site topography, lot size, and preservation elements. Table 11: Lot Coverage Variance Request Summary Address/Parcel Proposed Permitted 2369 Le Conte Avenue (R 4H) 48.2% 40.0% 2369 Le Conte Avenue (R 3H) 49.5% 45.0% 2317 Le Conte Avenue (R 3H) 49.9% 40.0% 2479 Le Conte Avenue (R 4H) 49.9% 40.0% The proposed plan is strongly influenced by the quality of the heritage structures on the site, and a desire to support preservation of these structures, consistent with City policy and neighborhood preservation goals. Specifically, the proposed community highlights the prominence of Holbrook Hall, and retains the Maybeck designed home and existing stairs on Arch Street. At the same time, the opportunity to retain these structures results in a challenge related to lot coverage. In order to balance preservation and limiting height to 5 stories/55 feet on the quad, while allowing for the applicant to use the property to meet programmatic requirements, the applicant seeks relief from lot coverage requirements. Limiting the height to five stories at the quad ensures that there is no material reduction in light or air to neighboring properties. The applicant requests a variance of less than 10 percent, as summarized in the table at right. Proposed lot coverage on the main site in the R 4 District is 48.2 percent, requiring an 8.2 percent variance less than the lot coverage of Holbrook Hall and the Maybeck designed home. By comparison, Holbrook Hall and the Maybeck design home were not present on the site, the program areas of both the Life Plan Community and Pacific School of Religion could be accommodated on the main site in more efficiently massed structures (excluding the satellite parcels) without the need for a variance. The retention of Holbrook Hall, existing stairs on Arch Street, mature oak and redwood groves, and Maybeck designed home; and limiting the height of the proposed community at the quad to five stories, requires the use of the satellite parcels and the requested lot coverage variance in order to meet the program areas of the Life Plan Community and PSR. The community represents four sided architecture, with the rear of the buildings forming the publicly accessible quad. As a result, the intent of lot coverage requirements to preserve access to light and air for sites and their adjacent neighbors is addressed by conforming setbacks along Virginia Street, Scenic Avenue, and Le Conte Avenue, deep setbacks along Arch Street and the resulting rear yard quad and pedestrian route that likewise provides sunlight and air to the interior of the site.

84 50 The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the subject property s owner For PSR, the site as currently programmed, is no longer appropriate for its needs changes in delivery of education and programming have resulted in excess capacity; being over invested in property threatens PSR s long term financial sustainability. PSR s buildings are estimated to be an average of 50 years old and have deferred maintenance. To rectify this, PSR has selected a Life Plan Community partner to share the site that has synergistic and complementary space needs. PSR and the Life Plan Community will share open spaces, as well as dining, classroom, and assembly space, providing a unique opportunity for PSR to create a more economically sustainable operating model. PSR is in the process of consolidating its functions, to address the operational challenges and substantial financial responsibilities of operating a large campus. In consolidating its space needs and collaborating with the Life Plan Community, PSR will achieve significant efficiencies in managing annual operating expenses/costs of managing and operating its campus and adjacent residential buildings. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or the construction of a building, structure or addition thereof, to be approved will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood; and that the granting of the variance will promote the municipal health, welfare and safety and benefit the City as a whole. The proposed community provides an opportunity for: a high quality Life Plan Community to be provided in Berkeley, meeting significant local demand, and achieving City Plan goals; rehabilitation and ongoing maintenance of heritage structures; enhanced maintenance of mature coast live oak and redwood trees; improvements in streetscapes; improvement of a complicated intersection; ongoing maintenance of a retaining wall located in the right of way; enhancement of the site through the creation of additional elements of the original Ratcliff master plan; improvement along Le Conte Avenue site frontage through burial of utilities; and the planned use of materials inspired by neighborhood architectural design. Additionally, the proposed community does not create material detriment to adjacent residences relative to views or access to light and air, does not present parking or traffic impacts, nor does it represent a substantial source of noise. As a result, the proposed community will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the neighborhood or the City as a whole. See additional detail in Findings for Issuance and Denial and Conditions (BMC 23E ) above. Any other variance findings required by the Section of the Ordinance applicable to that particular Variance No other variance findings are applicable to the proposed community.

85 51 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES (CEQA) This proposed community is anticipated to require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Key items covered in the EIR are anticipated to include: A. Traffic Frequency of driving will be significantly lower for residents of the Life Plan Community versus that of residential construction for the general population. Additionally, employee arrivals and departures will be staggered throughout the day, thereby mitigating peak hour traffic. Moreover, the proposed community will include a variety of transportation demand management measures, including a shuttle service for residents and transit passes for employees. No significant and unavoidable impacts are expected. B. Historic Resources This project CEQA analysis will evaluate buildings on or adjacent to the site of the proposed community that are more than 40 years old. The site does not contain any buildings on local, State, or Federal Historic Registries. The applicant proposes to retain the existing stairs on Arch Street and a Bernard Maybeckdesigned home. Additionally, PSR will consolidate its operations in Walter Ratcliff, Jr. designed Holbrook Hall. The proposed site plan is inspired by Walter Ratcliff s original vision for the campus, including two quadrangles and residential units along Arch Street in locations similar to Ratcliff s plan. The applicant researched other buildings on the site and does not believe than any rise to the level of being considered a historic resource consistent with the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. With the exception of Holbrook Hall, there are much better examples of buildings designed by Ratcliff, many of which are already designated historic resources, when compared with buildings on the site. Additionally, other buildings are not reflective of Ratcliff s original campus plan. Additionally, the proposed plan retains an important heritage organization in Berkeley PSR, the oldest theological seminary west of the Mississippi. The history and preservation of PSR as a Berkeley theological institution since 1901 and center for social justice is at the heart of this proposal, as is the retention of Berkeley s older adults. It is not anticipated that the proposed community will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. C. Hydrology The proposed community will include a comprehensive storm water management program such that runoff water will be both captured on site, and filtered prior to being released off site, without exceeding the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. D. Geology This analysis will review existing soils and topography, and proposed grading to determine the potential for substantial adverse effects related to landslides, seismic activity, erosion, and related geologic hazards. No significant impacts that cannot be mitigated are anticipated.

86 52 E. Construction Short term construction impacts related to traffic, dust, and noise, will be managed and mitigated to the extent feasible in compliance with all applicable codes and standards of practice.

87 I. Required for All Projects D. Neighbor Pre Application Contact The Mather in Berkeley Neighborhood meeting Mudd Hall 1798 Scenic Ave., Berkeley, CA The MMB CA, LLC project team held a meeting on August 23, 2016 to give neighbors and other interested community groups an introduction to the proposed development. The meeting was conducted on the campus of Pacific School of Religion in Mudd Hall from 6:00 to 7:30 PM. The Applicants and project team members, representing their respective disciplines (architect, landscape architect, civil engineer, traffic and parking consultant and land use consultant), presented materials and answered questions regarding the project design. The project team structured the meeting to include interactive stations with architectural plans, elevations and renderings, landscape plans, civil engineering and traffic plans. The project stations also included information and materials regarding the contextual design approach adopted by the applicant and project team, in addition to proposed project s extensive public benefits. Approximately 65 people attended the meeting. Topics discussed during plenary and one on one conversations included: Process for City permit process, environmental review, and communication with community Impacts on traffic/transportation, student housing and noise during construction PSR s enrollment, space needs, and motivations for the proposed partnership Project details regarding the community s size, number of units, building height, cost, transportation/vehicle trips, LEED status, impact fees and taxes Requests for details about how to sign up to live in the community The neighborhood meeting was held in accordance with requirement I.D. of the City of Berkeley Zoning Application submittal requirements. In advance of the meeting, the Applicant distributed approximately 1,200 invitations to the owners and occupants of the surrounding properties located within 300 feet of the proposed project located at 2369, 2317, and 2479 Le Conte Avenue. In addition, community, neighborhood, and civic groups, and local businesses were sent invitations to the meeting. The meeting flyer, evidence of mailing, and sign in sheets are attached to this summary.

88 Exhibit A Evidence of Mailing of Community Notice I. Required for All Projects

89 I. Required for All Projects

90

91 Exhibit B List of Attendees I. Required for All Projects

92 I. Required for All Projects

93 I. Required for All Projects

94 I. Required for All Projects

95 I. Required for All Projects

96 Proposed Senior Living Community 2369 Le Conte Ave Proposed development of a Life Plan Community for people age 60+ on a site shared with Pacific School of Religion. Parking to be located below grade. Applicant Information: MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather LifeWays) & Pacific School of Religion c/o Rhoades Planning Group info@rhoadesplanninggroup.com For more information, check the Planning Department web page or call Public Notices:

97 Proposed Senior Living Community 2479 Le Conte Ave Proposed development of a Life Plan Community for people age 60+ on a site shared with Pacific School of Religion. Parking to be provided on site. Applicant Information: MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather LifeWays) & Pacific School of Religion c/o Rhoades Planning Group info@rhoadesplanninggroup.com For more information, check the Planning Department web page or call Public Notices:

98 Proposed Senior Living Community 2317 Le Conte Ave Proposed development of a Life Plan Community for people age 60+ on a site shared with Pacific School of Religion. Parking to be located below grade at 2369 Le Conte Avenue. Applicant Information: MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather LifeWays) & Pacific School of Religion c/o Rhoades Planning Group info@rhoadesplanninggroup.com For more information, check the Planning Department web page or call Public Notices:

99 , 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue

100 : Looking east along Virginia Street (main site at right and residences at left). 2: Looking south along Arch Street with Virginia Street and main site at left. 3: Looking west along Virginia Street with main site at left. 2369, 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue

101 : Looking south along Scenic Avenue with main site at right (Holbrook Hall in background) and residences and Zaytuna College at left. 5: Looking north along Scenic Avenue with main site at left (Holbrook Hall in background) and Zaytuna College at right. 2369, 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue 6: Looking south along Scenic Avenue with chapel at right.

102 7 7: Maybeck House at center set back from street, with multi family and institutional uses at left and right, respectively. 8 8: Left image 2317 Le Conte Avenue satellite parcel with multi family housing at left; Right image satellite parcel with institutional use at right. 2369, 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue

103 : Looking uphill (north) along Arch Street, with multi family and institutional uses in the foreground and the main site (Anderson Hall) in background right obscured by trees. 9 10: Looking downhill (south) along Arch Street, with the retaining wall and main site (Benton Hall) at left obscured by trees and residential uses at right. 2369, 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue 11: Looking north along Arch Street, with the retaining wall and main site at right and residential uses obscured by trees at left.

104 : 2479 Le Conte Avenue satellite parcel at right; institutional use at left. 13: 2479 Le Conte Avenue satellite parcel at left; institutional use at right. 2369, 2317 and 2479 Le Conte Avenue

105 II. Required for All Projects Involving Construction A. Plans General Requirements Generally, refer to Applicant Plan Set for all general plans.

106 II. Required for All Projects Involving Construction B. Site Plans Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets A0.0 for site plan.

107 II. Required for All Projects Involving Construction C. Floor Plans Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets A1.0 A1.13, A4.0, A4.1, and A4.3 for all floor plans.

108 II. Required for All Projects Involving Construction D. Building Elevations Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets A3.0 A3.4, A4.2, and A4.4 for all elevations.

109

110 Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: TABULATION FORM Project Address: 2369 Le Conte Avenue ("Parcel 1A") Date: 09/23/2016 MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather Lifeways) and Pacific Applicant s Name: School of Religion Zoning District R-4(H) Please print in ink the following numerical information for your Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit, or Variance application: Permitted/ Existing Proposed Required Units, Parking Spaces & Bedrooms Number of Dwelling Units (#) n/a Number of Parking Spaces (#) Number of Bedrooms (#) (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and R-3 only) Yards and Height Front Yard Setback (Feet) Side Yard Setbacks: (facing property) Left: (Feet) ' 11-14' ' n/a 149 n/a 15' 12' (@ 6th story) Right: (Feet) 11-14' 12' 12' (@ 6th story) Rear Yard Setback (Feet) n/a n/a 19' (@ 5th story) Building Height* (# Stories) w/aup Average* (Feet) 35' (est.) 55-65' 65' w/aup Areas Lot Area Maximum* (Feet) (Square-Feet) 55' (est.) 191,032 65' 201,698 65' w/aup n/a Gross Floor Area* (Square-Feet) Total Area Covered by All Floors 136, ,040 n/a Building Footprint* Total of All Structures (Square-Feet) 61,588 97,248 n/a Lot Coverage* (%) (Footprint/Lot Area) 32.2% 48.2% 40% Useable Open Space* (Square-Feet) Floor Area Ratio* Non-Residential only (Except ES-R) n/a n/a 100,921 n/a n/a n/a *See Definitions Zoning Ordinance Title 23F. Revised: 05/15 g:\forms & instructions\land use planning forms\tabulation_form_05-15.doc Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

111 Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: TABULATION FORM Project Address: 2369 Le Conte Avenue ("Parcel 1B") Date: 09/23/2016 MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather Lifeways) and Pacific Applicant s Name: School of Religion Zoning District R-3(H) Please print in ink the following numerical information for your Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit, or Variance application: Permitted/ Existing Proposed Required Units, Parking Spaces & Bedrooms Number of Dwelling Units (#) n/a Number of Parking Spaces (#) Number of Bedrooms (#) (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and R-3 only) Yards and Height Front Yard Setback (Feet) Side Yard Setbacks: (facing property) Left: (Feet) Rear Yard Setback Right: (Feet) (Feet) '-13' 3'-12' 3'-12' 6'-50' 0 (see Parcel 1C) 39 15' n/a 6'-15' n/a 26 n/a 15' 6' (@ 3rd story) 6' (@ 3rd story) 15' Building Height* (# Stories) Average* (Feet) 35' (est.) 32'9" 35' Areas Lot Area Maximum* (Feet) (Square-Feet) 45' (est.) 47,469 35' 48,515 35' n/a Gross Floor Area* (Square-Feet) Total Area Covered by All Floors 25,104 63,003 n/a Building Footprint* Total of All Structures (Square-Feet) 19,348 24,029 n/a Lot Coverage* (%) (Footprint/Lot Area) 40.8% 49.5% 45% Useable Open Space* (Square-Feet) Floor Area Ratio* Non-Residential only (Except ES-R) n/a n/a 21,343 n/a n/a *See Definitions Zoning Ordinance Title 23F. Revised: 05/15 g:\forms & instructions\land use planning forms\tabulation_form_05-15.doc Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

112 Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: TABULATION FORM Project Address: 2317 Le Conte Avenue Date: 09/23/2016 MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather Lifeways) and Pacific Applicant s Name: School of Religion Zoning District R-3(H) Please print in ink the following numerical information for your Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit, or Variance application: Permitted/ Existing Proposed Required Units, Parking Spaces & Bedrooms Number of Dwelling Units (#) 9 6 n/a Number of Parking Spaces (#) Number of Bedrooms (#) (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and R-3 only) Yards and Height Front Yard Setback (Feet) Side Yard Setbacks: (facing property) Left: (Feet) Rear Yard Setback Right: (Feet) (Feet) 4 7 5' 8' 4'10" 11'8" 0 (see Parcel 1C) 7 15' 6' 6' 15' 2 n/a 15' 6' 6' 15' Building Height* (# Stories) Average* (Feet) 30' (est.) 35' 35' Areas Lot Area Maximum* (Feet) (Square-Feet) 45' (est.) 5,366 35' 5,366 35' n/a Gross Floor Area* (Square-Feet) Total Area Covered by All Floors 7,000 7,412 n/a Building Footprint* Total of All Structures (Square-Feet) 2,490 2,677 n/a Lot Coverage* (%) (Footprint/Lot Area) 46.4% 49.9% 40% (@ 3rd story) Useable Open Space* (Square-Feet) Floor Area Ratio* Non-Residential only (Except ES-R) n/a n/a 1555 n/a n/a n/a *See Definitions Zoning Ordinance Title 23F. Revised: 05/15 g:\forms & instructions\land use planning forms\tabulation_form_05-15.doc Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

113 Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: TABULATION FORM Project Address: 2479 Le Conte Avenue Date: 09/23/2016 MMB CA, LLC (dba Mather Lifeways) and Pacific Applicant s Name: School of Religion Zoning District R-4(H) Please print in ink the following numerical information for your Administrative Use Permit, Use Permit, or Variance application: Permitted/ Existing Proposed Required Units, Parking Spaces & Bedrooms Number of Dwelling Units (#) 10 6 n/a Number of Parking Spaces (#) Number of Bedrooms (#) (R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and R-3 only) Yards and Height Front Yard Setback (Feet) Side Yard Setbacks: (facing property) Left: (Feet) '9" 2'6" ' 6' 2 n/a 15' 6' Right: (Feet) 9'10" 6' 6' Rear Yard Setback (Feet) 0 33'7" 15' Building Height* (# Stories) Average* (Feet) 30' (est.) 33'6" 35' Areas Lot Area Maximum* (Feet) (Square-Feet) 35' (est.) 7,019 33'6" 7,019 35' n/a Gross Floor Area* (Square-Feet) Total Area Covered by All Floors 8,400 7,236 n/a Building Footprint* Total of All Structures (Square-Feet) 4,223 3,502 n/a Lot Coverage* (%) (Footprint/Lot Area) 60.2% 49.9% 40% (@ 3rd story) Useable Open Space* (Square-Feet) Floor Area Ratio* Non-Residential only (Except ES-R) 806 n/a 1773 n/a n/a n/a *See Definitions Zoning Ordinance Title 23F. Revised: 05/15 g:\forms & instructions\land use planning forms\tabulation_form_05-15.doc Land Use Planning, 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: Planning@ci.berkeley.ca.us

114 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 1. Additional Requirements Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets G2.0 G2.4 for Boundary Survey.

115 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 2. Additional Requirements Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets C1.0 C1.4 for Conceptual Grading Plan.

116 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 3. Additional Requirements A parking survey is not required, but however is included in the Transportation Memorandum prepared by Fehr & Peers (See Section III.C.4.)

117 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 4. Additional Requirements Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets G5.0 G5.4 for Photo Simulations (Photo Montage).

118 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 5. Additional Requirements Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets A3.5, A4.1, and A4.5 Section Drawings.

119 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 6. Additional Requirements The City s Building Official has previously indicated that story poles for 5+ story buildings are not feasible. Therefore, we are not proposing to erect them as part of this proposal.

120 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 7. Additional Requirements Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets A5.0 A5.27 for Shadow Studies.

121 III A. Additional Requirements Studies, Plans and Graphics 8. Additional Requirements Refer to Applicant Plan Sheets G6.0 G6.4 for Street Strip Elevations.

122 III. B Additional Requirements Projects Subject to Affordable Housing 1. Applicant s Housing Affordability Statement The proposed community will be licensed as Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) by the Department of Social Services. Under the State of California Statute, licensed residential care facilities for the elderly are not subject to controls on rent imposed by any state or local agency or other local government entity ( ). Further, residents of the community will pay a one time entrance fee (subject to contractual repayment provisions) and monthly service fee under a residency agreement that includes hospitality and care service options consistent with the State of California Continuing Care Contract Statute. Residents will not make monthly rent payments.

123 III. B Additional Requirements Projects Subject to Affordable Housing 2.a. Applicant Statement on Density Bonus The Applicant is not requesting a Density Bonus for this project application.

124 III. B Additional Requirements Projects Subject to Affordable Housing 2.b. Applicant Statement on Incentives or Concessions The Applicant is not requesting any incentives or concessions under Government Code Section in this project application.

125 III C. Additional Requirements Environmental Documents 5. Creek Information No portion of the property that is subject of the zoning application is within 40 feet of the centerline of an open creek that is protected under BMC Chapter

126 Stormwater Requirements Checklist Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP) Stormwater Controls for Development Projects City of Berkeley Public Works Dept. Engineering Division I. Applicability of C.3 and C.6 Stormwater Requirements I.A. Enter Project Data (For C.3 Regulated Projects, data will be reported in the municipality s stormwater Annual Report.) I.A.1 Project Name: I.A.2 Project Address (include cross street): I.A.3 Project APN: I.A.4 Project Watershed: I.A.5 Applicant Name: I.A.6 Applicant Address: I.A.7 Applicant Phone: Applicant Address: I.A.8 Development type: (check all that apply) I.A.9 Project Description 3 : (Also note any past or future phases of the project.) Residential Commercial Industrial Mixed-Use Streets, Roads, etc. Redevelopment as defined by MRP: creating, adding and/or replacing exterior existing impervious surface on a site where past development has occurred 1 Special land use categories as defined by MRP: (1) auto service facilities 2, (2) retail gasoline outlets, (3) restaurants 2, (4) uncovered parking area (stand-alone or part of a larger project) I.A.10 Total Area of Site: acres Total Area of land disturbed during construction (include clearing, grading, excavating and stockpile area: acres. I.B. Is the project a C.3 Regulated Project per MRP Provision C.3.b? I.B.1 Enter the amount of impervious surface 4 created and/or replaced by the project (if the total amount is 5,000 sq.ft. or more): Table of Impervious and Pervious Surfaces a b c d Existing Post-project Pre-Project Impervious New Impervious landscaping Impervious Surface to be Surface to be (sq.ft.), if Type of Impervious Surface Surface (sq.ft.) Replaced 6 (sq.ft.) Created 6 (sq.ft.) applicable Roof area(s) excluding any portion of the roof that is vegetated ( green roof ) Impervious 4 sidewalks, patios, paths, driveways Impervious 4 uncovered parking 5 Streets (public) Streets (private) Totals: Area of Existing Impervious Surface to remain in place Total New Impervious Surface (sum of totals for columns b and c): 1 Roadway projects that replace existing impervious surface are subject to C.3 requirements only if one or more lanes of travel are added. 2 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes are in Section 2.3 of the C.3 Technical Guidance (download at 3 Project description examples: 5-story office building, industrial warehouse, residential with five 4-story buildings for 200 condominiums, etc. 4 Per the MRP, pavement that meets the following definition of pervious pavement is NOT an impervious surface. Pervious pavement is defined as pavement that stores and infiltrates rainfall at a rate equal to immediately surrounding unpaved, landscaped areas, or that stores and infiltrates the rainfall runoff volume described in Provision C.3.d. 5 Uncovered parking includes top level of a parking structure. 6 Replace means to install new impervious surface where existing impervious surface is removed. Create means to install new impervious surface where there is currently no impervious surface. N/A N/A 1 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

127 I.B. Is the project a C.3 Regulated Project per MRP Provision C.3.b? (continued) I.B.2 In Item I.B.1, does the Total New Impervious Surface equal 10,000 sq.ft. or more? If YES, skip to Item I.B.5 and check Yes. If NO, continue to Item I.B.3. I.B.3 Does the Item I.B.1 Total New Impervious Surface equal 5,000 sq.ft. or more, but less than 10,000 sq.ft? If YES, continue to Item I.B.4. If NO, skip to Item I.B.5 and check No. Stormwater Requirements Checklist Yes No NA I.B.4 Is the project a Special Land Use Category per Item I.A.8? For uncovered parking, check YES only if there is 5,000 sq.ft or more uncovered parking. If NO, go to Item I.B.5 and check No. If YES, go to Item I.B.5 and check Yes. I.B.5 Is the project a C.3 Regulated Project? If YES, skip to Item I.B.6; if NO, continue to Item I.C. I.B.6 Does the total amount of Replaced impervious surface equal 50 percent or more of the Pre-Project Impervious Surface? If YES, stormwater treatment requirements apply to the whole site; if NO, these requirements apply only to the impervious surface created and/or replaced. I.C. Projects that are NOT C.3 Regulated Projects If you answered NO to Item I.B.5, or the project creates/replaces less than 5,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface, then the project is NOT a C.3 Regulated Project, and stormwater treatment is not required, BUT the municipality may determine that source controls and site design measures are required. Skip to Section II. I.D. Projects that ARE C.3 Regulated Projects If you answered YES to Item I.B.5, then the project is a C.3 Regulated Project. The project must include appropriate site design measures and source controls AND hydraulically-sized stormwater treatment measures. Hydromodification management may also be required; refer to Section II to make this determination. If final discretionary approval was granted on or after DECEMBER 1, 2011, Low Impact Development (LID) requirements apply, except for Special Projects. See Section II. I.E. Identify C.6 Construction-Phase Stormwater Requirements I.E.1 Does the project disturb 1.0 acre (43,560 sq.ft.) or more of land? (See Item I.A.10). If Yes, obtain coverage under the state s Construction General Permit at Submit to the municipality a copy of your Notice of Intent and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) before a grading or building permit is issued. Yes No I.E.2 Is the site a High Priority Site that disturbs less than 1.0 acre (43,560 sq.ft.) of land? (Municipal staff will make this determination.) High Priority Sites are sites that require a grading permit, are adjacent to a creek, or are otherwise high priority for stormwater protection during construction (see MRP Provision C.6.e.ii(2)) NOTE TO APPLICANT: All projects require appropriate stormwater best management practices (BMPs) during construction. Refer to the Section II to identify appropriate construction BMPs. NOTE TO MUNICIPAL STAFF: If the answer is Yes to either question in Section E, refer this project to construction site inspection staff to be added to their list of projects that require stormwater inspections at least monthly during the wet season (October 1 through April 30). 2 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

128 Stormwater Requirements Checklist II. Implementation of Stormwater Requirements II.A. Complete the appropriate sections for the project. For non-c.3 Regulated Projects, Sections II.B, II.C, and II.D apply. For C.3 Regulated Projects, all sections of Section II apply. II.B. Select Appropriate Site Design Measures Required for C.3 Regulated Projects. Starting December 1, 2012, projects that create and/or replace 2,500-10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface, and standalone single family homes that create/replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious surface, must include one of Site Design Measures a through f. 7 See attached fact sheets for guidance on rain barrels / cisterns, vegetated areas and permeable surfaces. All other projects are encouraged to implement site design measures, which may be required at municipality discretion. Consult with municipal staff about requirements for your project. II.B.1 Is the site design measure included in the project plans? Yes No Plan Sheet No. a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels and use rainwater for irrigation or other non-potable use. b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f. Construct bike lanes, driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. g. Minimize land disturbance and impervious surface (especially parking lots). h. Maximize permeability by clustering development and preserving open space. i. Use micro-detention, including distributed landscape-based detention. j. Protect sensitive areas, including wetland and riparian areas, and minimize changes to the natural topography. k. Self-treating area (see Section 4.1 of the C.3 Technical Guidance) l. Self-retaining area (see Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance) m. Plant or preserve interceptor trees (Section 4.5, C.3 Technical Guidance) 7 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i(6) for non-c.3 Regulated Projects, C.3.c.i(2)(a) for Regulated Projects, C.3.i for projects that create/replace 2,500 to 10,000 sq.ft. of impervious surface and stand-alone single family homes that create/replace 2,500 sq.ft. or more of impervious surface. 3 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

129 Stormwater Requirements Checklist II.C. Select appropriate source controls (Applies to C.3 Regulated Projects; encouraged for other projects. Consult municipal staff. 8 ) Are these features in project? Features that require source control measures Source control measures (Refer to Local Source Control List for detailed requirements) Yes No Yes No Storm Drain Floor Drains Mark on-site inlets with the words No Dumping! Flows to Bay or equivalent. Plumb interior floor drains to sanitary sewer 9 [or prohibit]. Parking garage Plumb interior parking garage floor drains to sanitary sewer. 9 Landscaping Retain existing vegetation as practicable. Select diverse species appropriate to the site. Include plants that are pestand/or disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and/or attract beneficial insects. Minimize use of pesticides and quick-release fertilizers. Use efficient irrigation system; design to minimize runoff. Pool/Spa/Fountain Provide connection to the sanitary sewer to facilitate draining. 9 Food Service Equipment (nonresidential) Refuse Areas Outdoor Process Activities 10 Outdoor Equipment/ Materials Storage Vehicle/ Equipment Cleaning Vehicle/ Equipment Repair and Maintenance Fuel Dispensing Areas Provide sink or other area for equipment cleaning, which is: Connected to a grease interceptor prior to sanitary sewer discharge. 9 Large enough for the largest mat or piece of equipment to be cleaned. Indoors or in an outdoor roofed area designed to prevent stormwater run-on and run-off, and signed to require equipment washing in this area. Provide a roofed and enclosed area for dumpsters, recycling containers, etc., designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff. Connect any drains in or beneath dumpsters, compactors, and tallow bin areas serving food service facilities to the sanitary sewer. 9 Perform process activities either indoors or in roofed outdoor area, designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, and to drain to the sanitary sewer. 9 Cover the area or design to avoid pollutant contact with stormwater runoff. Locate area only on paved and contained areas. Roof storage areas that will contain non-hazardous liquids, drain to sanitary sewer 9, and contain by berms or similar. Roofed, pave and berm wash area to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff, plumb to the sanitary sewer 9, and sign as a designated wash area. Commercial car wash facilities shall discharge to the sanitary sewer. 9 Designate repair/maintenance area indoors, or an outdoors area designed to prevent stormwater run-on and runoff and provide secondary containment. Do not install drains in the secondary containment areas. No floor drains unless pretreated prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. 9 Connect containers or sinks used for parts cleaning to the sanitary sewer. 9 Fueling areas shall have impermeable surface that is a) minimally graded to prevent ponding and b) separated from the rest of the site by a grade break. Canopy shall extend at least 10 ft in each direction from each pump and drain away from fueling area. Loading Docks Cover and/or grade to minimize run-on to and runoff from the loading area. Position downspouts to direct stormwater away from the loading area. Drain water from loading dock areas to the sanitary sewer. 9 Install door skirts between the trailers and the building. Fire Sprinklers Design for discharge of fire sprinkler test water to landscape or sanitary sewer. 9 Miscellaneous Drain or Wash Water Architectural Copper Drain condensate of air conditioning units to landscaping. Large air conditioning units may connect to the sanitary sewer. 9 Roof drains shall drain to unpaved area where practicable. Drain boiler drain lines, roof top equipment, all washwater to sanitary sewer 9. Discharge rinse water to sanitary sewer 9, or collect and dispose properly offsite. See flyer Requirements for Architectural Copper. Is source control measure included in project plans? Plan Sheet No. 8 See MRP Provision C.3.a.i(7) for non-c.3 Regulated Projects and Provision C.3.c.i(1) for C.3 Regulated Projects. 9 Any connection to the sanitary sewer system is subject to sanitary district approval. 10 Businesses that may have outdoor process activities/equipment include machine shops, auto repair, industries with pretreatment facilities. 4 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

130 Stormwater Requirements Checklist II.D. Implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) (Applies to all projects). Yes No Best Management Practice (BMP) Attach the municipality s construction BMP plan sheet to project plans and require contractor to implement the applicable BMPs on the plan sheet. Temporary erosion controls to stabilize all denuded areas until permanent erosion controls are established. Delineate with field markers clearing limits, easements, setbacks, sensitive or critical areas, buffer zones, trees, and drainage courses. Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment controls, include inspection frequency; Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material; Specifications for vegetative cover & mulch, include methods and schedules for planting and fertilization; Provisions for temporary and/or permanent irrigation. Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather. Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering and obtain all necessary permits. Protect all storm drain inlets in vicinity of site using sediment controls such as berms, fiber rolls, or filters. Trap sediment on-site, using BMPs such as sediment basins or traps, earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, check dams, soil blankets or mats, covers for soil stock piles, etc. Divert on-site runoff around exposed areas; divert off-site runoff around the site (e.g., swales and dikes). Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate. Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points. No cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site, except in a designated area where washwater is contained and treated. Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials/wastes properly to prevent contact with stormwater. Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees/subcontractors re: construction BMPs. Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, washwater or sediments, rinse water from architectural copper, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses. PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT C.3 REGULATED PROJECTS STOP HERE! II.E. Feasibility/Infeasibility of Infiltration and Rainwater Harvesting/Use (Applies to C.3 Regulated Projects ONLY) Except for some Special Projects, C.3 Regulated Projects must include low impact development (LID) treatment measures. LID treatment measures are rainwater harvesting, infiltration, evapotranspiration, and biotreatment (landscape-based treatment with special soils). Biotreatment is allowed ONLY if it is infeasible to treat the amount of runoff specified in Provision C.3.d with rainwater harvesting, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Yes No N/A II.E.1 Is this project a Special Project? (See Appendix K of the C.3 Technical Guidance for criteria.) If No, continue to Item II.E.2. If Yes, or if there is potential that the project MAY be a Special Project, complete the Special Projects Worksheet. II.E.2 Infiltration Potential. Based on site-specific soil report 11, do site soils either: a. Have a saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) less than 1.6 inches/hour), or, if the Ksat rate is not available, b. Consist of Type C or D soils? If Yes, infiltration of the C.3.d amount of runoff is infeasible. Continue to II.E.3. If No, complete the Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet. If infiltration of the C.3.d amount of runoff is found to be feasible, skip to II.E.8; if infiltration is found to be infeasible, continue to II.E If no site-specific soil report is available, refer to soil hydraulic conductivity maps in C.3 Technical Guidance Appendix J. 5 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

131 Stormwater Requirements Checklist II.E.3 Recycled Water. Check the box if the project is installing and using a recycled water plumbing system for non-potable water use. The project is installing a recycled water plumbing system, and the installation of a second non-potable water system for harvested rainwater is impractical, and considered infeasible due to cost considerations. If you checked this box, there is no need for further evaluation of rainwater harvesting. Skip to II.E.9. II.E.4 Potential Rainwater Capture Area a. Refer to the Table of Impervious and Pervious Surfaces in Section I, and enter the total square footage of impervious surface that will be replaced and/or created by the project. Sq. ft. b. If I.B.6 indicates that 50% or more of the existing impervious surface will be replaced with new impervious surface, then add any existing impervious surface that will remain in place to the amount in II.E.4.a. Sq. ft. c. Convert the amount in Item II.E.4.b from square feet to acres (divide by 43,560). If II.E.4.b is not applicable, convert the amount in II.E.4.a from square feet to acres. This is the project s Potential Rainwater Capture Area, in acres. Acres II.E.5 Landscape Irrigation: Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting and Use a. Enter area of onsite landscaping. Acres b. Multiply the Potential Rainwater Capture Area (the amount in II.E.4.c) times 2.5. Acres c. Is the amount in II.E.5.a (onsite landscaping) LESS than 2.5 times the size of the amount in II.E.5.b (the product of 2.5 times the size of the Potential Rainwater Capture Area) 12? If Yes, irrigation use of the C.3.d amount of runoff is infeasible. Continue to II.E.6. If No, it may be possible to meet the treatment requirements by directing runoff from impervious areas to self-retaining areas (see Section 4.2 of the C.3 Technical Guidance). If not, refer to Table 11 and the curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report to evaluate feasibility of harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff for irrigation. If that analysis shows that it is feasible to harvest and use the C.3.d amount of runoff, complete Part 5 (Factors Other than Demand) of the Rainwater Harvesting/Use Feasibility Worksheet. Skip to II.E.7. Yes No II.E.6 Indoor Non-Potable Uses: Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting and Use (check the box for the applicable project type, then fill in the requested information and answer the question): 13 a. Residential Project i. Number of dwelling units (total post-project): Units ii. Divide amount in (i) by the amount in II.E.4.c (Potential Rainwater Capture Area): Du/ac iii. Is the amount in (ii) LESS than 100 dwelling units per acre of capture area? Yes No b. Commercial Project i. Floor area (total interior post-project square footage): Sq.ft. ii. Divide amount in (i) by the amount in II.E.4.c (Potential Rainwater Capture Area): Sq.ft./ac iii. Is the amount in (ii) LESS than 70,000 square feet per acre of capture area? Yes No c. School Project i. Floor area (total interior post-project square footage): Sq.ft. ii. Divide amount in (i) by the amount in II.E.4.c (Potential Rainwater Capture Area): Sq.ft./ac iii. Is the amount in (ii) LESS than 21,000 square feet per acre of capture area? Yes No 12 Landscape areas must be contiguous and within the same Drainage Management Area to irrigate with harvested rainwater via gravity flow. 13 Rainwater harvested for indoor use is typically used for toilet/urinal flushing, industrial processes, or other non-potable uses. 6 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

132 II.E.6 Indoor Non-Potable Uses: Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting and Use (continued) d. Industrial Project Stormwater Requirements Checklist i. Estimated demand for non-potable water (gallons/day): Gal. ii. Is the amount in (i) LESS than 2,400? Yes No If you checked No, refer to the curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report to evaluate feasibility of harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff for industrial use. e. Mixed-Use Residential/Commercial Project 14 Residential Commercial i. Number of residential dwelling units and square footage of commercial floor area: ii. Percentage of total interior post-project floor area serving each activity: % % iii. Prorated Potential Rainwater Capture Area per activity (multiply amount in II.E.4.c by the percentages in [ii]): Acres Acres iv. Prorated project demand per acre of Potential Rainwater Capture Area (divide the amounts in [i] by the amounts in [iii]): Du/ac Sq.ft/ac v. Is the amount in (iv) in the residential column less than 100 dwelling units per acre of capture area, AND is the amount in the commercial column less than 70,000 square feet per acre of capture area? Yes No If you checked Yes for the above question for the applicable project type, rainwater harvesting for indoor use is considered infeasible, unless the project includes one or more buildings that each have an individual roof area of 10,000 sq. ft. or more, in which case further analysis is needed. Complete Sections II.E.5 and II.E.6 of this form for each such building, then continue to II.E.7. If you checked No for the question applicable to the type of project, rainwater harvesting for indoor use may be feasible. Complete the Rainwater Harvesting Feasibility Worksheet, and then continue to II.E.7. Units Sq.ft. II.E.7 Identify and Attach Additional Feasibility Analyses If further analysis is conducted based on results in II.E.1, II.E.2, II.E.5, or II.E.6, indicate the analysis that is conducted and attach the applicable form or other documentation (check all that apply): Special Projects Worksheet (if required in II.E.1) Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet (if required in II.E.2) Rainwater Harvesting and Use Feasibility Worksheet (if required in II.E.5 or II.E.6), completed for: The entire project Individual building(s), if applicable, describe: Evaluation of the feasibility of harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff for irrigation, based on Table 11 and the curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report (if required in II.E.5). Evaluation of the feasibility of harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff for non-potable industrial use, based on the curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report (if required in II.E.6.d). II.E.8 Finding of Infiltration Feasibility/Infeasibility Infiltration of the C.3.d amount of runoff is infeasible if any of the following conditions apply (check all that apply): The Yes box was checked for Item II.E.2. Completion of the Infiltration Feasibility Worksheet resulted in a finding that infiltration of the C.3.d amount of runoff is infeasible. Based on the above evaluation, infiltration of the C.3.d amount of runoff is (check one): Infeasible Feasible 14 For a mixed-use project involving activities other than residential and commercial activities, follow the steps for residential/commercial mixed-use projects. Prorate the Potential Rainwater Capture Area for each activity based on the percentage of the project serving each activity. 7 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

133 Stormwater Requirements Checklist II.E.9 Finding of Rainwater Harvesting and Use Feasibility/Infeasibility Harvesting and use of the C.3.d amount of runoff is infeasible if any of the following apply (check all that apply): The project will have a recycled water system for non-potable use (II.E.3). Only the Yes boxes were checked for Items II.E.5 and II.E.6. Completion of the Rainwater Harvesting and Use Feasibility Worksheet resulted in a finding that harvesting and use of the C.3.d amount of runoff is infeasible. Evaluation of the feasibility of harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff for irrigation, based on Table 11 and the curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report, resulted in a finding of infeasibility. Evaluation of the feasibility of harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff for non-potable industrial use, based on the curves in Appendix F of the LID Feasibility Report, resulted in a finding of infeasibility. Based on the above evaluation, harvesting and using the C.3.d amount of runoff is (check one): Infeasible Feasible II.E.10. Use of Biotreatment If findings of infeasibility are made in both II.E.8 (Infiltration) and II.E.9 (Rainwater Harvesting and Use), then the applicant may use appropriately designed bioretention facilities for compliance with C.3 treatment requirements. Applicants using biotreatment are encouraged to maximize infiltration of stormwater if site conditions allow. Continue to Section II.F on the next page. 8 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

134 II.F. Stormwater Treatment Measures (Applies to C.3 Regulated Projects) II.F.1 Check the applicable box and indicate the treatment measures to be included in the project. Stormwater Requirements Checklist Yes No Is the project a Special Project? If yes, consult with municipal staff about the need to prepare a discussion of the feasibility and infeasibility of 100% LID treatment. Indicate the type of non-lid treatment to be used, the hydraulic sizing method*, and percentage of the amount of runoff specified in Provision C.3.d that is treated: Non-LID Treatment Hydraulic sizing method % of C.3.d amount of runoff treated Media filter Tree well filter Is it infeasible to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using either infiltration or rainwater harvesting/use (see II.E.8 and II.E.9)? If yes, indicate the biotreatment measures to be used, and the hydraulic sizing method: Biotreatment Measures Hydraulic sizing method Bioretention area Flow-through planter Other (specify): Is it feasible to treat the C.3.d amount of runoff using either infiltration or rainwater harvesting/use (see II.E.8 and II.E.9)? If yes, indicate the non-biotreatment LID measures to be used, and hydraulic sizing method: LID Treatment Measure (non-biotreatment) Rainwater harvesting and use Bioinfiltration 15 Infiltration trench Other (specify): Hydraulic sizing method * Hydraulic Sizing Method: Indicate which of the following Provision C.3.d.i hydraulic sizing methods were used: 1. Volume based approaches Refer to Provision C.3.d.i.(1): 1(a) Urban Runoff Quality Management approach, or 1(b) 80% capture approach (recommended volume-based approach). 2. Flow-based approaches Refer to Provision C.3.d.i.(2): 2(a) 10% of 50-year peak flow approach, 2(b) Percentile rainfall intensity approach, or 2(c) 0.2-Inch-per-hour intensity approach (this is recommended flow-based approach AND the basis for the 4% rule of thumb described in Section 5.1 of the C.3 Technical Guidance). 3. Combination hydraulic sizing approach -- Refer to Provision C.3.d.i.(3): If a combination flow and volume design basis was used, indicate which flow-based and volume-based criteria were used. II.G. Is the project a Hydromodification Management 16 (HM) Project? (Complete this section for C.3 Regulated Projects) II.G.1 Does the project create and/or replace 1 acre (43,560 sq. ft.) or more of impervious surface? (Refer to Item I.B.1.) Yes. Continue to Item II.G.2. No. The project is NOT required to incorporate HM measures. Skip to Item II.G.6 and check No. II.G.2 Is the total impervious area increased over the pre-project condition? (Refer to Item I.B.1.) Yes. Continue to Item II.G.3. No. The project is NOT required to incorporate HM measures. Skip to Item II.G.6 and check No. 15 See Section 6.1 of the C.3 Technical Guidance for conditions in which bioretention areas provide bioinfiltration. 16 Hydromodification is the modification of a stream s hydrograph, caused in general by increases in flows and durations that result when land is developed (made more impervious). The effects of hydromodification include, but are not limited to, increased bed and bank erosion, loss of habitat, increased sediment transport and deposition, and increased flooding. Hydromodification management control measures are designed to reduce these effects. 9 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

135 Stormwater Requirements Checklist II.G.3 Is the site located in a tidally influenced/depositional area, or in the extreme eastern portion of the county that is not subject to HM requirements? (See HMP Susceptibility Map in Appendix I of the C.3 Technical Guidance.) Yes. Project is exempt from HM requirements. Attach map indicating project location. Skip to II.G.6 and check No. No. Continue to II.G.4. II.G.4 Is the site located in a high slope zone or special consideration watershed, as shown on the HMP Susceptibility Map? Yes. Project is subject to HM requirements. Attach map indicating project location. Skip to II.G.6 and check Yes. No. Continue to II.G.5. II.G.5 For sites located in a white area on the HMP Susceptibility Map, has an engineer or qualified environmental professional determined that runoff from the project flows only through a hardened channel or enclosed pipe along its entire length before emptying into a waterway in the exempt area? Yes. Project is exempt from HM requirements. Attach signed statement by qualified professional. Go to II.G.6 and check No. No. Project is subject to HM requirements. Attach map indicating project location. Go to Item G.6 and check Yes. II.G.6 Is the project a Hydromodification Management Project? Yes. The project is subject to HM requirements in Provision C.3.g of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. No. The project is EXEMPT from HM requirements. HM requirements are impracticable. (Attach documentation needed to comply with the impracticability provision in MRP Attachment B.) If the project is subject to the HM requirements, incorporate in the project flow duration stormwater control measures designed such that post-project stormwater discharge rates and durations match pre-project discharge rates and durations. The Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM) has been developed to size flow duration controls. See Guidance is provided in Chapter 7 of the C.3 Technical Guidance. II.H Stormwater Treatment Measure and/hm Control Owner or Operator s Information: Name: Address: Phone: Applicant must call for inspection and receive inspection within 45 days of installation of treatment measures and/or hydromodification management controls. Name of applicant completing the form: Signature: Date: III. For Completion By Municipal Staff III.1 Alternative Certification: Was the treatment system sizing and design reviewed by a qualified third-party professional that is not a member of the project team or agency staff? Yes No Name of Reviewer III.2. Confirm Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Submittal: The following questions apply to C.3 Regulated Projects and Hydromodification Management Projects. Yes No N/A III.2.a Was maintenance plan submitted? III.2.b Was maintenance plan approved? III.2.c Was maintenance agreement submitted? (Date executed: ) Attach the executed maintenance agreement as an appendix to this checklist. 10 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

136 III.3 Incorporate HM Controls (if required) Stormwater Requirements Checklist Are the applicable items for HM compliance included in the plan submittal? Yes No NA Documentation for HM Compliance Site plans with pre- and post-project impervious surface areas, surface flow directions of entire site, locations of flow duration controls and site design measures per HM site design requirement Soils report or other site-specific document showing soil types at all parts of site If project uses the Bay Area Hydrology Model (BAHM), a list of model inputs. If project uses custom modeling, a summary of the modeling calculations with corresponding graph showing curve matching (existing, post-project, and post-project with HM controls curves), goodness of fit, and (allowable) low flow rate. If project uses the Impracticability Provision, a listing of all applicable costs and a brief description of the alternative HM project (name, location, date of start up, entity responsible for maintenance). If the project uses alternatives to the default BAHM approach or settings, a written description and rationale. Municipal staff: Refer to the Flow Duration Control Review Worksheet for HM Submittals to review the documentation submitted for HM compliance. III.4 Annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Submittals: For C.3 Regulated Projects and Hydromodification Management Projects, indicate the dates on which the Applicant submitted annual reports for project O&M: III.5 Comments: III.6 Notes: Section I Notes: Section II Notes: Section III Notes: III.7 Project Close-Out: III.7.a III.7.b III.7.c III.7.d Were final Conditions of Approval met? Was initial inspection of the completed treatment/hm measure(s) conducted? (Date of inspection: ) Was maintenance plan submitted? (Date executed: ) Was project information provided to staff responsible for O&M verification inspections? (Date provided to inspection staff: ) Name of staff confirming project is closed out: Signature: Date: Name of O&M staff receiving information: Signature: Date: Appendices Appendix A: O&M Agreement Appendix B: O&M Annual Report Form 11 FINALSeptember 28, 2012

137 Exhibit 1 The Mather in Berkeley Assessor Parcel Numbers Parcel 1A (2369 Le Conte Ave): , , , , , , Parcel 1B (2369 Le Conte Ave): , , , , , , , , , Parcel 2 (2317 Le Conte Ave): Parcel 3 (2479 Le Conte Ave):

138 III C. Additional Requirements Environmental Documents 7. State General Construction Permit Statement The Applicant submits the following statement regarding the requirement to submit a copy of the Notice of Intent for the State General Construction Permit: Once a Notice of Intent (NOI) is on file with the Water Board, it becomes an open project, subject to active Best Management Practices (i.e., erosion control and the requisite record keeping regarding maintenance of said BMP s, storm tracking, pre and post storm inspections, effluent sampling, annual reporting, etc.) If the project does not, for whatever reason, go forward, the owner could potentially have to correct any existing deficiencies in order to get their Notice of Termination (NOT) accepted by the Board. In our opinion, filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the Water Board at this early stage in project planning and approvals places a burden on the Applicant and property owner, and serves no obvious purpose. The Applicant requests the City to allow the requirement to provide the NOI be deferred such that it, like the copy of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), is a condition of building permit issuance.

139 101 Y? N LEED v4 for BD+C: New Construction and Major Renovation Project Checklist 1 Credit Integrative Process 1 Project Name: Date: The Mather in Berkeley - Main Building & Satellite Parcels 22-Aug Location and Transportation Materials and Resources 13 N Credit LEED for Neighborhood Development Location 16 Y Prereq Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required 1 Credit Sensitive Land Protection 1 Y Prereq Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning Required N Credit High Priority Site 2 5 Credit Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction 5 2 Credit Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses 5 1 Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Environmental Product Declarations 2 5 Credit Access to Quality Transit 5 1 Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Materials 2 1 Credit Bicycle Facilities 1 Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Material Ingredients 2 1 Credit Reduced Parking Footprint 1 2 Credit Construction and Demolition Waste Management 2 1 Credit Green Vehicles Indoor Environmental Quality Sustainable Sites 10 Y Prereq Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required Y Prereq Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Y Prereq Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Required 1 Credit Site Assessment 1 2 Credit Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies 2 2 Credit Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat 2 3 Credit Low-Emitting Materials 3 1 Credit Open Space 1 1 Credit Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan 1 3 Credit Rainwater Management 3 2 Credit Indoor Air Quality Assessment 2 2 Credit Heat Island Reduction 2 1 Credit Thermal Comfort 1 1 Credit Light Pollution Reduction 1 2 Credit Interior Lighting 2 3 Credit Daylight Water Efficiency 11 1 Credit Quality Views 1 Y Prereq Outdoor Water Use Reduction Required 1 Credit Acoustic Performance 1 Y Prereq Indoor Water Use Reduction Required Y Prereq Building-Level Water Metering Required Innovation 6 2 Credit Outdoor Water Use Reduction 2? Credit Innovation 5 6 Credit Indoor Water Use Reduction 6 1 Credit LEED Accredited Professional 1 0? N Credit Cooling Tower Water Use 2 1 Credit Water Metering Regional Priority 4 1 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit Energy and Atmosphere 33 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Y Prereq Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Required Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Y Prereq Minimum Energy Performance Required Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Y Prereq Building-Level Energy Metering Required Y Prereq Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required TOTALS Possible Points: Credit Enhanced Commissioning 6 Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to Credit Optimize Energy Performance 18 1 Credit Advanced Energy Metering 1 2 Credit Demand Response 2 1 Credit Renewable Energy Production 3? Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 Note: Preliminary checklist subject to refinement based on additional schematic N Credit Green Power and Carbon Offsets 2 and design development of the main building. ZONING PROJECT APPROVAL CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 09_14_2016 LEED CHECKLIST - MAIN BUILDING & SATELLITE PARCELS The Mather in Berkeley A 6.0

140 102 LEED v4 for BD+C: Healthcare Project Checklist Y? N Y Prereq Integrative Project Planning and Design Required 1 Credit Integrative Process 1 Project Name: Date: The Mather in Berkeley - Life Centre 22-Aug Location and Transportation Materials and Resources 19 N Credit LEED for Neighborhood Development Location 9 Y Prereq Storage and Collection of Recyclables Required 1 Credit Sensitive Land Protection 1 Y Prereq Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning Required N Credit High Priority Site 2 Y Prereq PBT Source Reduction- Mercury Required 1 Credit Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses 1 1 Credit Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction 5 2 Credit Access to Quality Transit 2 1 Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Environmental Product Declarations 2 N Credit Bicycle Facilities 1? Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Materials 2 1 Credit Reduced Parking Footprint 1? Credit Building Product Disclosure and Optimization - Material Ingredients 2 1 Credit Green Vehicles 1 1 Credit PBT Source Reduction- Mercury 1 2 Credit PBT Source Reduction- Lead, Cadmium, and Copper Sustainable Sites 9 2 Credit Furniture and Medical Furnishings 2 Y Prereq Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required N Credit Design for Flexibility 1 Y Prereq Environmental Site Assessment Required 2 Credit Construction and Demolition Waste Management 2 1 Credit Site Assessment 1 N Credit Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat Indoor Environmental Quality 16 1 Credit Open Space 1 Y Prereq Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required 1 Credit Rainwater Management 2 Y Prereq Environmental Tobacco Smoke Control Required 1 Credit Heat Island Reduction 1 2 Credit Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies 2 1 Credit Light Pollution Reduction 1 3 Credit Low-Emitting Materials 3 1 Credit Places of Respite 1 1 Credit Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan 1 1 Credit Direct Exterior Access 1 1 Credit Indoor Air Quality Assessment 2 1 Credit Thermal Comfort Water Efficiency 11 1 Credit Interior Lighting 1 Y Prereq Outdoor Water Use Reduction Required 2 Credit Daylight 2 Y Prereq Indoor Water Use Reduction Required 2 Credit Quality Views 2 Y Prereq Building-Level Water Metering Required 2 Credit Acoustic Performance 2 1 Credit Outdoor Water Use Reduction 1 2 Credit Indoor Water Use Reduction Innovation 6 2 Credit Cooling Tower Water Use 2? Credit Innovation 5 1 Credit Water Metering 1 1 Credit LEED Accredited Professional Energy and Atmosphere Regional Priority 4 Y Prereq Fundamental Commissioning and Verification Required 1 Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Y Prereq Minimum Energy Performance Required Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Y Prereq Building-Level Energy Metering Required Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 Y Prereq Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1 6 Credit Enhanced Commissioning 6 10 Credit Optimize Energy Performance TOTALS Possible Points: Credit Advanced Energy Metering 1 Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110? Credit Demand Response 2? Credit Renewable Energy Production 3 1 Credit Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1 Note: Preliminary checklist subject to refinement based on additional schematic? Credit Green Power and Carbon Offsets 2 and design development of the Life Center building. ZONING PROJECT APPROVAL CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 09_14_2016 LEED CHECKLIST - LIFE CENTRE BUILDING The Mather in Berkeley A 6.1

141 III. D Additional Requirements Green Building Requirements 2. Energy Efficiency Analysis (Savings by Design) The Applicant s program does not include the creation or renovation of non residential floor area and accordingly the Applicant is exempt from this requirement.

142 Bay-Friendly Basics Landscape Checklist This Bay-Friendly Basics Checklist is for all new construction and renovation of landscapes that are 2,500 square feet of irrigated area or greater and require a permit. The Bay-Friendly Basics represents the 9 required practices from the Bay-Friendly Landscape Scorecard. It is considered a minimum set of practices to improve the environmental performance of the landscape. Projects are recommended to to meet all applicable measures on the checklist. For measures that are not applicable or are not in the project's scope of work, check "N/A" and make a note of why the measure does not apply to the project (attach additional sheets if necessary). For electronic copies of this checklist, and other Bay-Friendly Landscaping resources, visit: Project: Mather Berkeley Address: 2369 Le Conte Ave, Berkeley California Date: 04/ Earthwork & Soil Health Yes No N/A Measure & Requirement Documentation Notes 1. Mulch Requirement All soil on site is protected with a minimum of 3 inches of mulch after construction. Recomendation Use recycled or greenwaste mulch instead of landscape fabric. Trees identified for removal are chipped and used on site as mulch, on-site storage space permitting. Submit square footage of planting areas as well as cubic yards required to cover planting areas to a minimum three-inch (3 ) depth. Submit a delivery ticket or receipt of purchased mulch and/or, Submit receipts for sheet mulching materials and/or, (Optional) Submit photos of trees being chipped for mulch (if applicable). We intend to provide provide technical technical documentation as the project progresses. Reference Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines, Practice 4.1; Bay-Friendly Guide to Mulch, available at Provides sources of recycled mulch and proper application of mulch and information on sheet mulching. 2. Amend the Soil with Compost Before Planting Requirement Compost is specified as the soil amendment, at the rates indicated by a soil analysis to bring the soil organic matter content to a minimum of 3.5% by dry weight or 1 inch of compost. If the imported or site soil meets the organic content of 3.5% or more, then the requirement is waived. Recommendation Purchase compost from a producer who participates in the U.S. Composting Council's Standard Testing Assurance(STA) program to ensure quality. Reference Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines, Practice 4.1; Model Bay-Friendly Soil specifications, at U.S. Composting Council Standard Testing Assurance program explanation and list of participating producers can be found at: Submit the site soil or imported topsoil analysis. No soils analysis is required if 1 of compost is used. Submit+H35 compost details from construction documents. Submit the receipt or delivery ticket for the compost, indicating the amount of the compost delivered/purchased. If a waiver is requested based on soil organic matter content or the needs of plant palette, Submit a completed plant palette with species that need little/no soil organic matter identified, and include the source of information on their soil needs OR Submit a soils report that indicates the soil has an organic matter content of 3.5% or greater. We intend provide We intend to technical provide technical documentation as documentation as the project the project progresses. progresses. Version 2.1 December 2011 Page 1 of 4