Berkeley Lab (LBNL) Campus Master Plan

BERKELEY LAB CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

BERKELEY LAB CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

NOVEMBER 2023

FOREWORD

From Ernest Lawrence’s earliest collaboration with architect Arthur Brown to construct the 184-inch Cyclotron’s domed tower, Berkeley Lab has proven adept at constructing excellent research buildings. And that has been a necessity. Almost all of the science conducted on the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory site has taken place in the Lab’s specialized indoor spaces: labs, shops, computing rooms, offices, high bays, even caves and tunnels. Berkeley Lab has a well-established process for designing and executing top-notch buildings.

This Campus Master Plan is not another study about buildings. It is an exploration of the spaces between the buildings. While planned and aspirational new facilities play a leading role in this study, they share the stage with paths and roads, social spaces, landscaping, and subsurface utilities. Picnic benches are considered along with wet-lab benches. A researcher’s needs as a scientist are respected as are their needs as a complete and individual person.

Berkeley Lab buildings have largely been developed with an eye towards the needs of the moment. This Plan takes a long view—20+ years—and explores how facilities can best fit and function together on the Lab’s challenging site. Moreover, the Plan aims for an even loftier goal: transforming Berkeley Lab into a place befitting a University of California campus.

To achieve the look and feel of a UC campus, the Lab site must develop a sense of cohesion and style that resonates throughout. A person entering the Lab for the first time should know without being told that they have arrived at a distinct and special place. From anywhere outdoors, they should be able to sense that they are not only on a campus, but the Berkeley Lab campus. Self-navigation should be achievable if not intuitive. People should be moved by the experiences of wandering our grounds: appreciation for the full array of amenities; awe at the natural surroundings and breathtaking vistas; wonder at the grand scientific buildings and history. Clever use of campus art, social spaces, and recreational opportunities should be evident in every direction. The campus centerpiece is envisioned to be a community-oriented quadrangle of dramatic, terraced courtyards; interlacing, accessible paths; and a sweeping amphitheater framed by new multipurpose buildings.

The Plan is organized by chapters in two volumes. Chapters 2 and 3 provide Plan consideration of the Lab’s existing foundation and principles. Chapter 4 is the Plan scope, which outlines major future development. In Chapters 5-11 the Plan unfolds through various lenses: utility infrastructure, circulation, social spaces, landscape and the like, culminating in the envisioned future layout of the Lab’s eight development clusters.

This Campus Master Plan is aspirational and advisory. It gives Lab leadership and planners a common starting place for designing and seeking funding for individual buildings and projects. It will feed into a process of further planning, including a Physical Design Framework and a new Long-Range Development Plan. This is a living document that will be continually updated over time.

Upon reviewing the Plan, a reader’s first questions may be: Is this plan realistic? How can we possibly fund this vision? This Plan is our chance as a community to paint a picture of the place we aspire to become. The first step is to agree on a target and to aim high. We will hit in some areas and may fall short in others, but the campus will undoubtedly be a better place for this process. The next step is for us all to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

The Campus Planning Department enthusiastically welcomes the Lab community to provide feedback and help shape the Plan’s next iterations. Thank you for taking the time to read through these pages and share in the evolution of our Berkeley Lab campus.

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 ORGANIZATION AND MISSION

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab, the Laboratory, the Lab, LBNL) is a multi-program scientific research campus in Berkeley, California. The Laboratory is managed by the University of California and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science.

Berkeley Lab conducts unclassified research to deliver scientific solutions to challenges of national and international significance that are beyond the capabilities of most university and private-sector research institutions. The primary mission of LBNL is to:

• Perform leading multidisciplinary research in six primary scientific areas: biosciences, computing sciences, earth and environmental sciences, energy sciences, energy technologies, and physical sciences.

• Develop and operate advanced experimental facilities serving research investigators worldwide.

• Educate and train future generations of scientists and engineers to sustain national science and technology excellence and competitiveness.

• Transfer knowledge and technological innovation and foster productive relationships among Berkeley Lab research programs, universities, and industry.

1.2 CAMPUS

The main Berkeley Lab campus (the campus) is on land owned by the Regents of the University of California (UC). The campus is immediately east and upslope from the UC

Berkeley campus. It straddles the cities of Berkeley and Oakland in Alameda County within the San Francisco Bay Area’s East Bay region (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Berkeley Lab maintains additional research space on the UC Berkeley campus, as well as leased laboratory, office, and support facilities elsewhere, most notably in the cities of Berkeley and Emeryville. Off-site facilities are not included in the scope of the Campus Master Plan.

The 202-acre Berkeley Lab campus site is within the lowerto mid-elevation range of the Berkeley and Oakland hills (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). Campus elevations range from approximately 450 feet at the lower west to approximately 1,100 feet at the upper east. The hillside topography includes a natural pattern of radiating ridges, knolls, valleys, and creeks.

The Berkeley Lab campus is bordered by: single-family residences to the north; UC Berkeley institutional research facilities and open space to the east; singlefamily residences, UC Berkeley recreation facilities, and Strawberry Canyon open space to the south; and the UC Berkeley main campus and multi-unit residential developments to the west.

Over the past 85 years, Berkeley Lab campus development has occurred in clusters on its natural terraces between hillsides and valleys connected by curvilinear roads (see Figure 1.5: Existing Cluster Diagram). Most of the campus’s major older buildings are purpose-built, large-scale, and industrial in character. Newer buildings constructed in the last 20 years tend to be flexible laboratory and office facilities of a modern architectural character.

The campus has spectacular panoramic views across Berkeley to the San Francisco Bay and beyond. The overall aesthetic experience of the informally built environment, rugged hillside terrain, dramatic natural landscape, and panoramic views is a unique and characterizing aspect of the Berkeley Lab campus.

FIGURE 1.1

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA

BERKELEY

The campus is accessed by three controlled vehicular entrances: 1) the Blackberry Gate—the Lab’s main entrance—accessible via Cyclotron Road in Berkeley, 2) the Strawberry Gate, accessible via Centennial Drive through Strawberry Canyon, and 3) the Grizzly Peak Gate, accessible via Centennial Drive. LBNL is a fenced and secured site.

1.3 VALUE OF

MASTER PLANNING

A master plan is a document and policy guide designed to help a community create a vision of what it wants to look like in the future.

The Berkeley Lab Campus Master Plan (CMP, the Plan) provides a forum by which the Lab may express its long-term aspirational vision for its physical campus, including its buildings, roadways, pathways, open space, and utility infrastructure. The Plan addresses a full array of campus issues and design elements in an integrated and coordinated way. The CMP provides a road map toward achieving orderly growth and modernization while providing for the Lab community’s varied needs. The Plan’s overarching aim is to guide the Lab site’s transformation into a fully realized campus with a distinct sense of place befitting the University of California.

This Plan integrates issues and provides guidance at multiple scales. It provides organizing concepts for the whole campus so that it becomes more functional and coherent, and it identifies issues and recommendations unique to specific clusters. The CMP touches on the full spectrum of Lab activities: research, supporting services, social interaction, recreation, transportation and parking, and community life, as well as critical themes of intellectual exchange, social interaction, human wellness, sustainability, and resilience.

FIGURE 1.2

1.4 MASTER PLANNING PROCESS

While sponsored by the United States Department of Energy (DOE), Berkeley Lab has been managed by the University of California (UC) in various forms since its founding as the UC Berkeley Radiation Laboratory in 1931. Under UC’s management agreement with DOE, Berkeley Lab has dual status as both a federal National Laboratory as well as a University of California campus. As a standalone UC campus, Berkeley Lab answers to the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) and operates under many UC campus requirements.

UCOP requires that each UC campus maintain and operate within the parameters of a Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP). In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and University policy, each LRDP must be accompanied by a programmatic LRDP Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In addition, UCOP strongly encourages each campus to maintain a Physical Design Framework (PhDF). Critical to the formation of these planning documents is a campuswide master plan.

While a key stakeholder in all Berkeley Lab long-range planning, the DOE is not normally an approval authority in UC-directed campus planning processes.

CAMPUS MASSING STUDY

A campus massing study is an exploratory planning exercise for internal campus use. It examines a campus’s physical environment for capacity to sustain maximum reasonable development. The campus massing study is not an actionable plan subject to CEQA review.

CAMPUS AERIAL PHOTO

FIGURE 1.3

FIGURE

2021 Massing Study: As a first step in the CMP process, a Berkeley Lab campus massing study was completed in 2021. The 2021 Massing Study presented a hypothetical 50+-year buildout scheme of the Berkeley Lab campus. This study tests the Lab’s capacity for development without scaling development assumptions to the actual demand for new space. The Massing Study explored the design potential of all parts of the Lab and provided a suite of options from which could evolve a more refined—and restrained—Master Plan.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

A Campus Master Plan is a comprehensive planning document for internal campus use. It offers advisory, concept-level guidance to inform campus development for a 20-year period or more. The CMP considers a campus’s site, building, and infrastructure development elements. The CMP is not an actionable plan subject to CEQA review.

2023 Campus Planning: After several years of background preparation, the Campus Master Plan effort was officially launched in January 2022 and this first CMP issued in November 2023. As a living document, the CMP will be continually evaluated and updated by the Campus Planning Department. A key driver for the Plan was recognition that a new Long-Range Development Plan was needed, and that it should be based on a visionary and in-depth planning process best captured by a master plan. Contributing drivers were the Lab’s vision of transformation to a fully realized UC campus and the significant changes in work planning and space needs resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.

The campus is heavily infrastructure-dependent but continues to operate on much of the original infrastructure systems that were developed over the decades. The

CMP includes a high degree of infrastructure planning documentation needed to properly support campus development over the next 20 years.

PHYSICAL DESIGN FRAMEWORK

A Physical Design Framework Plan (PhDF) is a UC-specific planning document that may stand alone or be paired with an LRDP or CMP; it is for internal campus use. Whereas the CMP is a high-level site planning guide, the PhDF includes more detailed design standards to guide site, landscape, and building implementation. The PhDF can address detailed elements such as materials, finishes, color, plant palette, and sustainable design standards. The PhDF is not an actionable plan subject to CEQA review.

2025 Physical Design Framework: The initial campus Physical Design Framework (PhDF) is expected to be completed in 2025 as a companion document to the Campus Master Plan. The PhDF augments the CMP with more detailed guidance for site development, building design, landscape design, wayfinding and other signage, and other campus design considerations.

LONG-RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

A Long-Range Development Plan (LRDP) is a high-level planning document that governs UC campus development over 10- to 20-year increments. The LRDP articulates aggregate development parameters: campuswide projections for population, built-space, and parking along with growth and development goals and policies. The

LRDP is approved by the UC Regents, and all individual campus projects must conform to active campus LRDPs. A UC campus LRDP is an actionable plan and is subject to CEQA review and public scrutiny.

The LRDP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) provides review and documentation of the environmental impacts that could occur from full LRDP development, as required by state law and UC policy. The LRDP EIR provides the UC Regents with full cognizance of the environmental consequences of their LRDP approval decisions. The LRDP EIR also informs and allows for public interaction with the CEQA planning process. As with LRDPs, future projects and campus development must fall within the parameters defined and analyzed under an applicable LRDP EIR.

2006 LRDP and EIR: Berkeley Lab’s current LRDP and LRDP EIR were approved and certified by the UC Regents in July 2007. No sitewide Master Plan or Physical Design Framework was prepared at that time. As a result, the 2006 LRDP provides an envelope for future growth, but with little vision. As the 2006 LRDP and EIR approach 20 years and are scheduled for updating, Berkeley Lab seeks to articulate a stronger and more defined future direction for its campus.

2025 LRDP and EIR: A LRDP update (expected for UC Regents consideration in 2025) will be developed from the CMP and based on the same planning principles and concepts. The LRDP EIR will be prepared to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the draft LRDP. The draft LRDP and the LRDP Draft EIR will be circulated to the public for review and comment (expected to be in late 2024). Following public review and comment, these documents along with CEQA Findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be submitted for UC Regents consideration and LRDP adoption and LRDP EIR certification.

1.5

EXISTING CLUSTER DIAGRAM

FIGURE

WESTERN CAMPUS | Northeast-Facing View

Source: Berkeley Lab

FOUNDATION CAMPUS PLANNING FOUNDATION 02

This chapter identifies existing physical realities that have shaped Berkeley Lab’s historic and ongoing development. These physical realities must be acknowledged and addressed as foundational to the campus planning process.

2.1 SETTING

The Lab’s natural setting—its terrain and topography, watercourses and drainages, and vegetation and landscape types—sets the frame in which the Laboratory has grown and developed over many decades. These natural factors and development history shape the conditions by which continuing development must adapt to existing conditions. Within this frame has emerged the Lab’s physical organization—its twisting roads and paths and its building clusters.

After 85 years of development, the Berkeley Lab campus has few readily available options for new building sites. Moreover, the Lab has committed to limiting new development to already-disturbed areas wherever practicable. Infill development and demolition of substandard buildings is needed to provide for most next-generation buildings. Future development will likely be complicated by increasing regulatory requirements and demolition and remediation issues. The CMP is the comprehensive planning document for considering such issues. The Campus Master Plan must work within the parameters set by the Lab’s natural setting and the legacy of its historic development.

2.2 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

An understanding of the Lab’s rich history provides insight into the campus’s current physical layout. Berkeley Lab originated as a single building on the UC Berkeley campus—the “Rad Lab”—in the 1930s. Under the direction of Ernest O. Lawrence, the Rad Lab outgrew the confines of the crowded campus when an enormous accelerator— the 184-inch Cyclotron—was pursued. This cyclotron, its encasing structure (Building 6), and a few small support buildings were developed in the early 1940s on Charter Hill above Berkeley. This modest outpost grew over the decades to become the 202-acre, cluster-centered Berkeley Lab campus of today. For a decade-by-decade history of this development, please refer to Chapter 10.5, Vol 1 Appendix: Berkeley Lab Development History.

BERKELEY LAB SITE CIRCA 1930 | Source: Berkeley Lab

2.3 ORGANIZING

CONCEPTS

The Campus Master Plan must respond to fundamental conditions that serve as campus organizing concepts: topography, landscape, clusters, and connectivity. Moving forward, those conditions represent the key challenges and opportunities for continued campus modernization and development.

TOPOGRAPHY

The Lab is remarkable for its rugged hilly terrain and complex topography. Perched on the slopes that offer sweeping San Francisco Bay Area views, the campus has evolved to take advantage of its relatively few flat, developable areas. Two-thirds of the campus remains undeveloped largely due to steep grade, slope stability, and riparian habitat. Roadways weave to conform to

the landform, generally running with the grade to avoid steep inclines and drops. Poor sight lines coupled with opportunistic building and roadway siting has resulted in the Lab campus’s irregular form and makes user orientation difficult.

Due to the terrain and steep elevation changes, the locations of stairs and ramps—and especially building elevators—play an outsized role in campus life. The terrain helps define the campus as a particular place—a constant reminder of the Lab’s position within the Bay Area’s geography.

The Campus Master Plan must meet the challenges of topography and use them to best advantage. Building elevators and stairs should be accessible to main pedestrian paths wherever practical to mitigate elevation changes. The Lab’s unique views should be accentuated by careful siting of buildings and landscape features. Terrain should be used to help define and sharpen cluster identity.

LANDSCAPE

The campus natural landscape is characteristic of Northern California and features several landscape types. Much of the Lab features oak savannah habitat, which is defined by open grasslands punctuated by single or small clusters of coast live oaks. Coastal redwood woodlands are found along the lower-lying and east-facing slopes at the edge of Strawberry Canyon, while oak and bay tree riparian woodlands follow the campus’s creeks and drainage tributaries. Chaparral—areas that are chiefly scrub and brush—are common habitat at the campus’s eastern end.

Over the years, human intervention has fractured the original site ecology. Dense groves of blue gum eucalyptus were cultivated throughout the University’s hill areas along with mixed conifers. Many of these non-native tree species have created ecological imbalances and pose heightened fire hazards. The Lab’s vegetation management program works to address these hazards through thinning invasive trees and restoring native habitat.

The campus tends to drain in two directions. In its western half, surface water drains southwesterly into the north fork of Strawberry Creek, which exits the campus as a perennial stream west of the Blackberry Parking Lot. Along the Lab’s lower south-facing slopes, surface water drains toward the main branch of Strawberry Creek. Jurisdictional waters and their associated riparian habitat are highly regulated and can limit development options and campus operational activities.

The Campus Master Plan should seek to strengthen and simplify the landscape framework by preserving its critical components while encouraging the removal of invasive exotics, especially where they present pronounced fire risk. The Plan must respect the Lab’s stewardship role in protecting and promoting surface waters and riparian habitat. Development should be sited away from sensitive areas and green field sites. The Plan should seek opportunities for pairing development with features designed to enhance and even celebrate stormwater quality management through use of swales, rain gardens, and subsurface detention systems.

CLUSTERS

Berkeley Lab’s historical development has grouped buildings on the campus’s most developable surfaces— its plateaus. Over the decades, these loose building assemblies have been defined as the Lab’s eight clusters (see Figure 1.5). Within each cluster, attempts have been made to arrange buildings, access, and equipment to address research, engineering, and support service needs. Each cluster more or less serves a common research or support area. But while functions may be related, cluster visual identity is often obscured by an eclectic mix of building styles, landscape treatments, and mechanical equipment. The social function of each cluster is often similarly hampered by a shortage of space for gatherings, informal interactions, and other social activity.

The Campus Master Plan is an opportunity to guide Lab modernization while leveraging improvements to cluster social and visual identity. Social spaces should be created and expanded to encourage intellectual and personal interactions. Such spaces should be where people naturally converge, for example, near building entrances and shuttle stops. Courtyards—the spaces between buildings—connect paths and entrances and spatially define open space in ways that make it more recognizable and inviting. Cluster identity can also be strengthened using a landscape palette that draws upon and reinforces the character established by each cluster’s natural surroundings.

CONNECTIONS

Campus access and navigation is complicated and traversing the Lab on foot can be physically challenging. The circulation network has grown incrementally over time and has been profoundly shaped by the campus’s topography. Most roads and paths follow irregular routes with poor sight lines; consequently, the campus lacks an intuitive and efficient vehicle circulation system. Pedestrian routes are further encumbered by the site’s steep slopes that make for circuitous routes and ubiquitous stairways or, in the case of the east side of campus, a half-mile walk. Walking is further impeded where paths may feel less safe, such as alongside the curbless shoulders of many campus roads. The Lab’s extensive shuttle system provides reliable options for users needing to span long distances or during inclement weather, but shuttle users can feel constrained by fixed routes and waiting times.

The Campus Master Plan must build connectivity across all transportation modes. Pedestrian movement, wayfinding, and placemaking should be prioritized. A major, accessible, and contiguous east-west pedestrian route is vital for improving campus navigation. Smoothing out circulation for better disability access is an especially vexing challenge. Bicycling across the campus should be made safer with protected routes that provides separation from auto traffic. New mobility hubs would make shuttle connections more efficient. Consolidated parking in a centrally convenient location would be an improvement over dispersed, small lots.

PURPOSE PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES

The Campus Master Plan is driven by a vision based on the Lab’s long-held values and principles.

3.1 VISION

The Berkeley Lab site should be a cohesive, fully realized University of California campus.

The Master Plan articulates a path forward to achieve this vision while upholding the Lab as a world-class scientific institution. The CMP provides for orderly and aspirational campus development emphasizing highly functional and resilient research facilities, intellectual achievement, team collaboration, and personal well-being.

3.2 PRINCIPLES

To attain the vision, five overarching planning principles are intended to inform development decision-making and the formulation of this Campus Master Plan. Each principle responds to key Lab values.

PRINCIPLE A FACILITIES FUNCTION AND FLEXIBILITY

The campus should facilitate the Lab’s mission and scientific excellence.

The CMP is first and foremost a planning tool to support Berkeley Lab’s scientific mission. Accordingly, the CMP should: plan for highperforming, cutting-edge facilities to support Lab activities and research programs; optimize the use of resources by revitalizing existing infrastructure and leveraging existing investments; design facilities in ways that can readily adjust to changing needs, demands, conditions, and opportunities.

PRINCIPLE B COLLABORATION AND WELL-BEING

The campus should support and inspire Berkeley Lab’s people.

Intellectual exchange and interdisciplinary collaboration are cornerstones of Berkeley Lab’s scientific process. Accordingly, the CMP should: support gatherings and interpersonal interactions at various sizes and levels of formality, both indoor and outdoor, with thoughtfully designed facilities and landscaping; enhance work environment, productivity, and culture through dining and social spaces, recreational facilities, and attractive outdoor environments that attend to physical and emotional well-being and help attract and retain world-class staff and researchers; provide a planning blueprint for a diverse and inclusive campus that supports a dynamic, welcoming, and accessible community.

PRINCIPLE C

CAMPUS COHERENCE

The campus should exhibit a strong sense of place and community.

The CMP is the primary planning vehicle for achieving a strong, authentic sense of campus “place” as well as a more coherent campus—one with improved physical connection and more recognizable organization. Accordingly, the CMP should: promote a stronger sense of Lab identity by embracing its utilitarian design and by enhancing awareness of its distinct location, natural settings, landforms, and built environment; reinforce the Lab’s clustered development pattern to accentuate unique site conditions and to gather research and support functions into cohesive units; establish a community-centric, memorable, and highly functional central area with enhanced open space framed by buildings and landscape features.

PRINCIPLE D MULTIMODALITY AND WALKABILITY

The campus should be fully accessible and navigable.

Berkeley Lab aspires to improved mobility across all transportation modes, especially prioritizing pedestrian access. Accordingly, the CMP should: enhance connectivity within the campus and with off-site destinations via shuttle, bicycle, car, micromobility devices, and on foot; strengthen campus pedestrian connections by filling network gaps, increasing pedestrian safety, and enhancing walking environments; create a barrier-free campus by expanding the network of accessible paths, such as through use of building elevators and ramps to traverse steep slopes; improve site navigation and user orientation through building and path placement, signage, visual cueing, and other wayfinding means.

PRINCIPLE E SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCY

The campus should promote sustainability, resilience, and stewardship.

The campus strives for energy efficiency, optimized material use, alternative transportation modes, and minimal intrusion into the natural environment. Accordingly, the CMP should: promote environmental resources stewardship; reflect sustainability goals and values through building modernization, building orientation and design elements, cluster layouts, and circulatory alignments; expand electrical infrastructure and building heating plants. Incorporate green design to reduce energy, water, and material consumption; meet federal net-zero building requirements and facilitate a transition to net-zero greenhouse gas operational emissions; reduce reliance on traditional, single-occupant automobiles for commuting and on- and off-site business travel; encourage remote working for staff; increase fleet electrification; move toward a more pedestrianfriendly campus.

3.3 OBJECTIVES

CMP objectives identify specific actions by which Plan principles and overall vision might be realized. Objectives also inform Lab leadership and planners as to areas that might warrant further planning exploration. The Lab is not committed to act on any specific objectives.

CMP chapters 5 through 8 and 11 are dedicated to various physical campus aspects. At the beginning of each chapter section, current conditions and planning issues are described. General CMP guidance follows on how to modernize, alter, or otherwise address the conditions.

Finally, objectives are laid out to translate topical guidance into specific actions or measures. Objectives are specific to the issues raised in each section, but they also conform to the overarching CMP principles in this chapter. A complete tabulation is included in Chapter 10.3, Vol 1 Appendix: Principles and Objectives Overview.

CENTRAL CAMPUS | South-Facing View

Source: Berkeley Lab

DEVELOPMENT CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 04

The CMP scope or program is the growth and change parameters articulated in this chapter.

These growth parameters pertain to building space, utility infrastructure, population, parking, and design. Berkeley Lab devised these parameters in part to activate the CMP and LRDP processes. Planning assumptions are based on current conditions, historic trends, funding patterns, post-pandemic future-of-work projections, and Lab needs. Taken together, these assumptions and parameters comprise the Campus Master Plan’s primary scope of development. The development scope, in turn, drives the CMP’s planning frameworks in later chapters.

Campus development plan view diagrams and other illustrative graphics appear throughout the CMP. These include three-dimensional renderings depicting “snapshot” campus views under full Plan development.

4.1 BUILT SPACE

This Campus Master Plan development program is based on the Lab’s current long-range building space projections. This section presents those projections as building demolition and development over the next 20+ years. Data representing current conditions are assumed 2025 campus projections.

CURRENT CONDITIONS

The Berkeley Lab Campus currently holds ~170 useable building facilities—approximately 90 buildings, 20 trailers, and 60 storage containers—totaling ~2,154,000 gross square feet (GSF) (see Figures 4.1: Prospective Building Demolition and 4.5: Existing Campus Development; also Chapter 10.4, Vol 1 Appendix: Berkeley Lab Existing Building List). The buildings range in size and function from small, unoccupied utility sheds to major laboratory/ office facilities that accommodate hundreds of occupants. For the purposes of this Plan, two major buildings under construction are included as part of the existing building inventory: the BioEPIC building (planned for 2024 completion), and the Seismic Safety & Modernization (SSM) building (planned for late 2026 completion). Both of these buildings are approved, funded, and within 2006 LRDP space parameters.

All Berkeley Lab campus buildings are evaluated under the University of California Seismic Performance Rating (SPR) system. Under UC policy, sufficiently poor SPR ratings can trigger remedial actions, including requirements for seismic retrofit. In more extreme cases, the policy prescribes that a building be vacated until seismic deficiencies are addressed. Many existing Lab campus buildings are considered obsolete due to age, general condition, and/or a poor seismic safety rating per the UC SPR system.

BUILDING DEMOLITION

Due chiefly to obsolescence related to seismic deficiencies, 41 campus buildings totaling ~280,500 GSF are planned for demolition during the CMP’s 20+ -year outlook. This building demolition program would reduce Berkeley Lab campus built-space to ~1,874,000 GSF.

See Table 4.1: Building Demolition List, and Figure 4.1: Planned Building Demolition, for descriptions and locations of buildings identified for demolition. Some of the identified

BUILDING DEMOLITION LIST

Building

Building 55A 1,568

Building 65A

Building 70

Building 54A

Building 46A 5,565

Building 46B 1,239

Building 46D

Building 17 2,237

Building 71A 4,109

Building 71C,D 6,076

Building 58 10,327

Building 58A 14,218

Building 6W 5,000

Building 47 6,154 Charter Hill

Building 7W 5,000

Building 27 3,299

Building 53 6,947

Building 53B 520

Building 61

75B 4,670

Building 83 6,894

Building 83A

Building 31A

Building 62A 1,237

TABLE 4.1

• Building Demolition

PROSPECTIVE BUILDING DEMOLITION

FIGURE 4.1

buildings are unoccupied, minimally used, or small in scale. The demolition process for such structures would be relatively unencumbered and straightforward. The majority of buildings identified for demolition are large sized and currently in use. Demolition of these buildings would require a longer and more complicated process involving staff and research equipment relocation and possible site remediation. The CMP is responsive to this need for longterm planning strategies for major demolition projects.

As the campus lacks readily available development sites, and given that the Lab strongly discourages greenfield development, building demolition is a critical element in the CMP development strategy. Building demolition creates the opportunity for next-generation building sites, which are necessary for all new CMP buildings.

BUILDING DEVELOPMENT

The CMP assumes development of 17 new or modified facilities totaling 563,000 GSF, as follows:

• 5 major research buildings

• 1 general purpose building to house research, office, and campus service functions

• 3 research support buildings

• 4 additions to existing research facilities

• 2 small modular computing buildings.

• 2 building renovations to enhance support functions.

New buildings and building additions are described in detail in Table 4.2: Planned New Buildings, and their approximate future locations are depicted in Figures 4.2: New Buildings and Site Development and 4.6: Prospective Campus Development. Building floor areas and locations are approximate, consistent with the CMP’s conceptual scope. Detailed building designs and program occupancy would be the subject of future planning.

As with demolition, new development would occur in the campus’s cluster areas. Focusing future development in cluster areas makes more efficient use of land and infrastructure and provides opportunities to develop associated paths and social spaces.

• Blackberry Cluster: Renovation of existing shelled space in the Building 59 North High Performance Computing Bay could accommodate long-term needs for expanded mid-range high performance research computer servers and low-range institutional computer servers.

• Central Commons Cluster: One new building (~40,000-GSF Flex Building) could accommodate research laboratories and offices—including swing and surge space—and campus support services facilities, such as a new Lab Directorate and/or a fitness center. The SSM Building, which would provide cafeteria, conference, health, and administrative functions, is under construction and assumed as part of existing built-space inventory.

• Bayview Cluster: Three new buildings could accommodate bioscience and other wet-lab scientific research: a ~123,000-GSF BioGEM Building, a ~60,000-GSF Bayview 4 Building, and a ~50,000GSF Bayview 5 Building. One ~6,000-GSF modular buildings could house mid-range high performance and low-range institutional computer servers located at the Blackberry Pit Parking lot. BioEPIC is under construction and assumed as part of the existing built-space inventory.

• Northside Cluster: Two Building 71 Complex additions could accommodate future linear accelerator space. A ~3,000-GSF Building 71 expansion could accommodate a future laseraccelerator cave space. A two-level, ~24,000 GSF addition north of Building 71 could accommodate

a larger future laser-accelerator cave facility. One ~6,000 GSF modular building at the location of the demolished Building 71 modular facilities could house mid-range high performance and low-range institutional computer servers.

• Charter Hill Cluster: Three new buildings could accommodate materials science research, chemistry research, and ALS support functions: a ~75,000-GSF Advanced Materials Discovery Building (AMDB), a ~75,000-GSF Chemical Sciences Building (CSB), a ~20,000-GSF ALS Support Facility, along with a new Modular Utility Plant. The AMDB and CSB include basement levels to accommodate potential ALS beamline extensions. One new building could

PROSPECTIVE NEW BUILDINGS

accommodate engineering laboratories, shops, and offices to support accelerator and engineering functions in the Building 71 Complex and Building 6: a ~70,000-GSF Accelerator & Engineering Support (A&E) Building.

• Support Services Cluster: The renovation of an existing wing of Building 69 could accommodate a new Central Chemical Receiving Facility.

• Redwood Cluster: A ~7,000-GSF addition to the Building 72 National Center for Electron Microscopy could accommodate next generation electron microscopes. A ~4,000-GSF shared high-bay facility adjacent to Building 62 could provide much-needed support space.

Central Commons Plazas

Accelerator & Engineering Support Building

ALS Support Facility

Central Parking Lot

Modular General Purpose Computing Facility

Centralized High-Bay Facility

NEW BUILDINGS AND SITE DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 4.2

DEMOLITION-DEVELOPMENT BALANCE

Anticipated construction and building expansion would offset demolition over the same period by approximately a 2:1 ratio. Prospective new buildings, discussed below, would add a combined 563,000 GSF to the campus. Factoring in the ~280,500 GSF demolition reductions, resulting campus built-space would be approximately ~2,436,000 GSF. This would be a net building space increase of ~282,500 GSF and an increase of roughly 13 percent.

The following Table 4.4 illustrates the primary demolition sequences required to support prospective new CMP built space.

4.2 UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE

This Campus Master Plan development program incorporates the Lab’s current long-range utility infrastructure planning. Most notably, this includes the Linear Assets Modernization Program (LAMP). The CMP further develops utility infrastructure planning to accommodate aspirational future growth and development envisioned in this Plan.

In general, the Lab has a robust network of utilities that includes electrical, natural gas, compressed air, liquid nitrogen, sanitary sewer, domestic and fire water, storm drain, chilled and hot water, tower water, low conductivity water, cathodic protection, and communications systems. Much of the Lab’s infrastructure was built over 50 years

ago and is nearing the end of its useful life. Ad hoc campus development led to many inefficient routings and generally unconsolidated utility networks.

CMP Chapter 11: Utilities considers the campus’s current and future infrastructure needs, including needs for current system maintenance or upgrades. The Utility Infrastructure Framework incorporates previous infrastructure assessment reports and in-progress infrastructure projects.

4.3 POPULATION

This Campus Master Plan development program is based on the Lab’s current long-range population projection: over the next 20 years, campus Adjusted Daily Population is projected to stabilize at or below 4,200 after reaching a high of 4,500 in 2019 and a pandemic-related low of below 1,000 in 2020.

Berkeley Lab’s population is challenging to define and track under any single paradigm. The number of people on the campus at any time are a combination of full- and part-time staff, students, visiting researchers, guests, subcontractors, and others. Population levels tend to fluctuate with the seasons, days of the week, and even time of day as the Lab operates around the clock.

For campus planning purposes, Lab campus population is expressed as Adjusted Daily Population (ADP), a function of Lab staff combined with a fraction of registered guests. Lab campus planning efforts rely on the ADP formulation for tracking daily onsite population levels. For various other purposes—including consideration of off-campus workers—the Lab defines and tracks its population and staff in other ways. These additional methods include use of human resources records, gate counts, head counts, and the aggregation of building occupant capacities. For

BUILT SPACE PROGRAM

47, 58, and 58A

6W and 7W

example, total Berkeley Lab staff count as of July 2023 was ~3,890 full-time-equivalent (FTE) employees. Based on aggregated office and workstation seat counts, the campus’s occupant capacity is currently ~3,870 staff.

Berkeley Lab ADP level is subject to parameters approved by the UC Regents in the campus Long-Range Development Plan and EIR. The current LRDP and EIR project campus ADP of 4,650 (under certain conditions, the ADP could reach 5,000). The campus’s ADP had grown to about 4,500 and building space occupancy was high until the COVID-19 Pandemic began in 2020. During the height of the pandemic, the Lab campus was largely depopulated and ADP dipped well below 1,000. Berkeley Lab implemented robust remote-working protocols in order to keep operations running smoothly. In the post-pandemic era, the Lab intends to continue a hybrid model where a large percentage of staff may work part- or full-time remotely (usually from home), while others essential to onsite functions would commute to the campus.

As of July 2023, the campus ADP was consistently between 2,000 and 2,500, and it is expected to continue to grow and stabilize between 3,000 and 3,500 during the 20-year term of the next LRDP. To allow flexibility and to account for a potentially unforeseeable future, the next LRDP is expected to set its campus population parameter as high as 4,200 ADP.

4.4 PARKING

This Campus Master Plan development program is based on the Lab’s current long-range parking projection: over the next 20+ years, campus parking for staff and businessrelated automobiles is expected to be served by the current level of approximately 1,600 or fewer parking spaces.

Total net parking at Berkeley Lab would remain generally unchanged or would decrease modestly, but with a goal that parking efficiency and quality should increase. No multi-story parking garage facilities are foreseeable for the campus.

Campus parking space quantity is a parameter set in the UC Regent-approved LRDP and LRDP EIR. Parking planning and management fall under the Lab’s Transportation and Parking Demand Office, which also oversees the Lab’s Transportation Demand Management program. Under the 2006 LRDP, the campus may maintain up to 2,800 parking spaces.

The campus currently maintains ~1,600 existing surface parking spaces in mostly medium- to small-sized parking lots. Parking space availability is typically limited during standard weekly work hours. While parking is free of cost, it is restricted during business hours to staff and registered guests with parking badges. Campus parking supply has diminished over recent years as parking spaces— particularly temporary parking—has been replaced by new building sites, laydown and storage areas, and other uses.

(See Figure 5.4 and Table 5.1)

4.5 DESIGN

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN

This Campus Master Plan development program is faithful to the Lab’s sustainability and resilience values and current planning. LBNL’s Sustainable Berkeley Lab (SBL) Program guides implementation of federal, state, UC, and LBNL sustainability requirements and goals in Lab operations and building design. Such requirements and goals are built into the foundation of this CMP.

Among the targets to be addressed or incorporated into the Plan are building design features: new buildings should be oriented along an east-west axis to manage solar exposure. Gas-powered building heating plants should be electrified with access to carbon-free electricity, and waste heat should be utilized where possible. The campus should modernize buildings and infrastructure to reduce life-cycle costs.

The Lab is transitioning towards net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in operations. The Plan should help the campus meet federal net-zero building requirements, provide for energy efficient electrified buildings, and facilitate a transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in operations by or before 2045.

The CMP must also support sustainable transportation. The campus should provide alternative transportation modes and centralize electric vehicle charging facilities to support fleet electrification and staff vehicle charging. The Plan should help reduce reliance on traditional, single-occupant automobiles for commuting and on- and off-site business travel. Remote working should be encouraged and fleet electrification increased. The campus should move toward a more pedestrian-friendly campus with improved access to alternative transportation modes.

The Plan must also help the campus achieve energy efficiency, optimized material use, and minimal intrusion into the natural environment. It should emphasize resource stewardship through minimizing impacts to ecosystems,

THE BLACKBERRY “PIT” PARKING LOT | Source: WRT

watersheds, and other environmental systems to which the Lab is connected, and incorporate green design to reduce energy, water, and material consumption. Further information on foundational precepts to this CMP is available in SBL’s 2023 Net-Zero Vision and Roadmap (2023).

BUILDING FLOORPLATE & LABORATORY MODULE PLANNING

New CMP buildings would be designed in detail at the time they are proposed. Even so, the rough footprints, envelopes, and scale of the CMP’s posited new buildings are informed by a basic understanding of floorplate and lab module planning. New buildings would typically follow a generalized floor-plate and laboratory module scheme developed under the master planning process. To demonstrate the full range of building configuration options and sizes, the CMP refers to a series of prototypical floor plate diagrams that were developed in the 2021 Campus Massing Study for 1) laboratory-office, 2) office, and 3) high bay-shop-office facilities. The highly-flexible floorplate diagrams are based on forward-looking laboratory planning principles, lab modules, flexibility, interdisciplinary science, and team collaboration. Two examples are shown in Figures 4.3: End-to-End Plan Concept and 4.4: Side-toSide Plan Concept.

END-TO-END PLAN CONCEPT

FIGURE 4.3

OBJECTIVES

DEVELOPMENT

Objective 4.1.1: Use the Campus Master Plan as a guide for building design and site planning decisions.

Apply Campus Master Plan objectives whenever new construction or other campus improvements are proposed. To the extent practical, locate new buildings as described in Figure 4.2. Leverage development projects and project funding to assist with associated CMP improvements, such as support buildings, infrastructure, landscaping, and pedestrian and other transportation projects. Refer to a Lab Physical Design Framework for more detailed development guidance.

Objective 4.1.2: Design buildings, related facilities, and infrastructure for optimal function and performance.

Plan for a campus that meet the CMP’s principle of facilitating a setting that fosters scientific excellence. Buildings, facilities, and infrastructure should be highquality, durable, sustainable, accessible, economical, and cost-efficient.

Objective 4.1.3: Locate new buildings within established cluster areas and away from natural constraints.

Address topographical constraints in early stages of site design and planning. Strive to consolidate development within established cluster boundaries except where construction adjacent to a cluster helps to achieve a

specific campus objective. Reuse previously developed sites wherever possible.

Objective 4.1.4: Orient buildings along an east-west axis.

While meeting programmatic needs, orient buildings along an east-west axis to minimize costs for controlling solar exposure—a key strategy to reduce energy consumption and mechanical system costs.

Objective 4.1.5: Follow sustainable construction practices.

Build new and retrofit facilities that optimize energy, water, and material consumption in accordance with Laboratory policy on sustainable construction, found in the Requirements and Policy Manual. These policies ensure compliance with University of California and federal new and retrofit construction requirements.

Objective 4.1.6: Consider utilizing waste heat.

Identify planning opportunities to co-locate sources of waste heat with thermal loads. Distributed computing centers, if pursued, offer a primary opportunity to utilize waste heat.

Objective 4.1.7: Plan for a net-zero transition.

Plan for a transition to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in operations by no later than 2045. This transition will involve expansion of electrical infrastructure to support the retrofit electrification of gas-powered heating plants along with development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure and onsite solar development detailed in the following two objectives. Recognize that electrified systems may occupy alternate footprints from the systems they

replace. Continue to support use of shuttle buses and other alternatives to the personal automobile.

Objective 4.1.8: Facilitate a transition to electric vehicles.

Plan for a significant EV charging facility in the Northside Cluster along with EV charging clusters distributed across the campus to support a full transition to electric vehicles within the campus commute population and the federal requirement to fully electrify fleet. Co-locating electricity vehicle chargers is a key strategy to lower EV charging installation costs.

Objective 4.1.9: Develop on-site solar generation.

Preserve an option for a single large on-site solar array in the Northside Cluster. Maximize new construction roof space for photovoltaic development. Recognize that a key resilience strategy is matching solar generation and energy storage to small but critical loads to address the potential for diesel fuel supply restrictions during hazard events. This onsite solar strategy would complement procurement of renewable electricity at scale.

EXISTING CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 4.5

PROSPECTIVE CAMPUS DEVELOPMENT

FIGURE 4.6

UPPER BENCH, CHICKEN CREEK AREA | South-Facing View

Source: Berkeley Lab

CIRCULATION CIRCULATION AND MOBILITY FRAMEWORK

5.1 VEHICLES, PARKING, AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Access and Arrival

Berkeley Lab is set off and fenced from nearby urban development, and access is controlled to maintain a secure campus. On the campus west side via Cyclotron Road, Blackberry Gate controls ingress as the main campus entrance, which is staffed around the clock. On the east side, secondary access is provided via the Strawberry and Grizzly Peak Gates along Centennial Drive. Lab access is limited to Lab staff and authorized visitors; parking passes are issued on a more limited basis. Blackberry Gate provides the principal point of Berkeley Lab arrival. Campus destinations thereafter are dispersed, and no centralized arrival points exist save a modest shuttle hub and badging office at Building 65.

Road Network

On the Lab’s campus, primary roadways follow hillside contours to provide access to each cluster (see Figure 5.1: Vehicular Circulation). Major roads are named after each of the Lab’s Nobel laureates, and road names are subject to revision and subdivision as new Nobel Prizes are awarded.

The road network has no formal hierarchy based on size or location. In this Plan, the sequence of roadways comprising Cyclotron- Chu-Smoot-Lawrence-Bertozzi Roads is the principal cross-campus connector between Blackberry Gate to the west and Strawberry Gate to the east (see Figure 5.2: Principal Vehicle Corridors). The Cyclotron-ChuSmoot-Lawrence sequence—the Western Corridor— connects the Blackberry Gate to the Central Commons.

The Calvin-Bertozzi-Lawrence sequence—the Lawrence Corridor—connects the east canyon area and Strawberry Gate to the Central Commons. The McMillan-DoudnaLawrence sequence—the Northern Corridor—connects the Grizzly Peak Gate to the Central Commons.

Primary roads have two travel lanes (one lane in each direction) of similar width across the Lab, except for at the Blackberry and Strawberry entry gates. While primary road travel lanes are of consistent width, road shoulders may be narrow or be nonexistent. Secondary access roads are often narrower, such as along a one-way road in the Support Services Cluster.

Parking

Parking spaces are dispersed across the Lab where space is available, as topographic constraints leave little area for large surface parking lots in spite of considerable

demand. Parking demand has been met, in part, by ad hoc parking arrangements. Campus ad hoc parking spaces are functional but sometimes inconsistent with common standards. For example, the Lab uses tandem end-to-end parking that requires two motorists to coordinate their work schedules, as well as perpendicular parking along roads that requires motorists to back out into traffic upon departure. Parallel parking on steep inclines presents additional challenge to many drivers. Furthermore, parallel and perpendicular parking in some roadside locations force pedestrians to walk along unprotected routes between parked cars and traffic.

From the perspective of the campus as a whole, parking availability is often more a convenience issue than one of supply. At most times there is available campus parking, but it may be difficult to find and not near desired locations. Peak-hours parking demand can be greater than the number of available campus spaces. In response, the Lab’s ongoing Transportation Demand Management program aims to further reduce parking demand. Nevertheless, parking supply remains a long-term issue among Lab drivers. The availability of parking can factor into the Lab’s ability to host events and attract and retain staff.

Service and Emergency Vehicles

Service vehicles support facilities throughout the campus, and service bays or docks are integrated with most research and large support buildings. Service and delivery vehicles regularly supply materials and attend to maintenance and operational needs. More occasionally, vehicles transport large equipment and structural components for construction projects and scientific research.

BERKELEY LAB ACCESS FROM CYCLOTRON ROAD |

Source: Berkeley Lab

5.1

VEHICULAR CIRCULATION

FIGURE

PRINCIPAL VEHICLE CORRIDORS

FIGURE 5.2

Emergency vehicles must navigate all parts of the campus and stage closely to Lab buildings for firefighting and emergency purposes. Emergency vehicle access is paramount to campus safety.

Roadside parking and outdoor equipment can constrain large-vehicle circulation and pose safety hazards. Tight or hairpin turns on the campus road network can impede safe turning movements—especially for larger vehicles. This is most notable on Cyclotron Road’s curve and at the Doudna-McMillan Road and Glaser-Lawrence Road intersections.

Transportation Demand Management

The Lab’s Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program supports a range of car-free commute options for its employees and guests. Berkeley Lab coordinates vanpools and carpools. The Lab’s shuttle bus system connects the campus to the downtown Berkeley BART station, UC Berkeley campus, and adjacent areas. The shuttle buses accommodate bicycles, a feature most widely used on uphill routes. Bicycle commuters can take advantage of sporadically placed lockers and showers. Many people opt to walk to and from the campus, especially if they are affiliated with UC Berkeley. Use of TDM measures allows the Lab to devote less land to parking.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The Campus Master Plan considers all of the Lab’s transportation modes, including personal vehicles, shuttle buses, bicycles, and pedestrian travel. The Plan takes a balanced approach towards vehicle access, parking, and alternative modes and relies on the use of “complete streets” principles. Complete streets are designed for safe and agreeable movement by users of all transportation

modes, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Under the CMP, roadway carriageways (road lanes intended for primary vehicle use) would remain effectively unchanged for vehicles, except for attempts to address insufficient turning geometries. Adjacent roadside shoulders and parking, on the other hand, would be repurposed to create protected paths for pedestrians and micromobility vehicles, such as electric scooters and bicycles.

The Campus Master Plan attends to motorists’ arrival experience. The design and flow of the campus’s three entry gates are considered along with the smooth transit of arrivals from gates to the Central Commons transit center and Central Parking Lot. The Western, Northern, and Lawrence Corridors would be enhanced and reinforced as conduits of multimodal travel.

The prospective demolition of Buildings 46, 46A, 47, 58, and 58A would allow creation a large Central Parking Lot to make campus arrival and parking more convenient (see Figure 5.3). The Central Parking Lot would mitigate the loss of parking elsewhere at about a one-to-one ratio. Furthermore, the central lot would provide high-quality spaces a short walk from the campus’s major population centers, including the Central Commons and Charter Hill, Bayview, Northside, and Blackberry Clusters. The Central Parking Lot would feature a shuttle stop and multimodal transportation access. Plentiful EV hookups could be assisted by an extensive array of overhead solar panels would generate renewable electrical power and provide shade. With a consolidated lot, drivers could avoid the frustrating and environmentally unsound—and unsafe—practice of having to traverse the Lab’s smaller lots searching for available spaces, especially during peak hours.

HAIRPIN TURN AT GLASER-LAWRENCE ROAD INTERSECTION | Source: Berkeley Lab

OBJECTIVES

VEHICLES & PARKING

Objective 5.1.1: Maintain adequate roadway, driveway, and service area geometries.

Maintain and continue to improve the Lab’s vehicular network, as described in Figure 5.1: Vehicular Circulation. Maintain existing 2-way roadway widths, about 22 feet in most locations, while providing adequate space for active transportation improvements as described in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. Address roadway geometries that may impede larger vehicles, such as hairpin turns at the intersections of Doudna/McMillan Roads and Glaser/ Lawrence Roads. To maximize site area available for active transportation facilities and planned social spaces, consider the minimum maneuvering requirements of the specific vehicle types needing access. Consider emergency vehicle and shuttle access early on in project site planning.

Objective 5.1.2: Improve vehicle gate experience for motorists.

Consider the design of the Lab’s main gates from the perspective of queuing lanes, security check flow, gatehouse functions, and improved wayfinding signage and landscaping. Coordinate gate, roadway, and campus identity improvements.

Objective 5.1.3: Provide adequate parking while managing its use.

Under the direction of the Lab’s Transportation & Parking Demand Office, continue campus parking management, such as to compensate for potential parking displacement with strategically placed new parking opportunities and personal vehicle alternatives (see Figure 5.4: Principal

Parking Lots). Continually assess and upgrade Berkeley Lab’s active commitment to personal vehicle reduction and alternative transportation modes, such as to regularly review and update the Lab’s Transportation Demand Management program. Continue to seek ways to minimize traffic on and off the campus, reduce vehicle emissions, and manage parking demand.

Objective 5.1.4: Create a large multi-purpose Central Parking Lot near the Central Commons.

Create a Central Parking lot that would use land vacated by the demolition of Buildings 46, 46A, 47, 58, and 58A. Include disabled access parking and ample EV hook-ups for electric vehicles. Consider the installation of overhead PV panels that would create shade and shelter for cars and pedestrians. Create safe pedestrian walking zones that connect to the campus’s pedestrian and shuttle bus network, with clear signage and way-finding guidance (see Section 5.2 Shuttle Buses and Mobility Hubs).

Objective 5.1.5: Improve the usability of the east canyon Parking Lot U-5.

Increase the capacity, safety, and ease of use of Strawberry Cluster’s U-5 parking lot. Consider design improvements that make multimodal transfer to campus’ shuttle buses more convenient. Explore opportunities to expand this lot with space reclaimed from the completed Centennial Bridge relocation project.

Objective 5.1.6: Continue to reduce reliance on personal automobiles and parking.

Maintain the Lab’s TDM program, while continuing to incorporate new practices. The TDM program should be managed and monitored by the Lab’s transportation and parking manager.

PRINCIPAL PARKING AREAS: PRESENT & FUTURE

PRINCIPAL PARKING LOTS

FIGURE 5.3

CENTRAL PARKING LOT

FIGURE 5.4

5.2 SHUTTLE BUSES AND MOBILITY HUBS MOBILITY HUBS

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Shuttle Buses

Berkeley Lab’s shuttle bus system connects the campus to outside destinations including the Downtown Berkeley, North Berkeley, Rockridge, and MacArthur BART Stations, UC Berkeley campus, and some off-site leased spaces. All shuttle buses accommodate bicycles, a popular feature, particularly on uphill routes.

Lab shuttle buses are widely used to support campus commuting. Many more Lab users rely on shuttles for internal campus circulation. Shuttle routes and scheduling intervals are designed such that all campus destinations should be reached in under ten minutes. Shuttle routes are regularly evaluated and subject to revision by the Lab’s Transportation & Parking Demand Office (see Figure 5.5).

Mobility Hubs

Mobility hubs are places where multiple transportation modes converge. For example, they can be connection points between commuter parking and shuttle buses or scooter share, or where shuttle users can access carsharing to get to an off-campus meeting. Wellfunctioning mobility hubs are in highly accessible and visible locations, and they facilitate a seamless transfer experience for users. They also offer users wayfinding information and other amenities. The campus features no formal mobility hubs but is constructing a transit center in the Central Commons (expected completion 2024). Mobility hubs can promote a healthier Lab environment. Co-locating complementary uses such as a dining service,

co-working spaces, or a plaza can boost mobility hub use and help activate social spaces and morale. By offering sustainable transportation choices, mobility hubs reduce personal vehicle use and associated emissions.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The Campus Master Plan emphasizes alternative modes of transportation over private vehicle use, in which the Lab’s shuttle system plays a vital role. The CMP supports the Lab’s continued emphasis of shuttle bus services. Shuttle bus routes may change but shuttle stop locations typically don’t. Historic shuttle stop locations are the basis for the mobility hubs indicated in Figure 5.5. Mobility hubs integrated with shuttle bus stops throughout the campus would provide multiple mobility options, such as scooter or bike share, and wayfinding information. Mobility hubs should optimally be distributed throughout the campus such that they are within convenient walking distance for everyone. The CMP offers guidance as to the array of services and amenities that could be provided.

A greater array of mobility services would be provided to complement campus transportation nodes. As part of the Central Commons, a new transit center will become a transfer point between onsite shuttle buses and those that arrive from off-campus locations. It will also connect shuttle riders directly to the Pedestrian Spine as described in Section 5.3. The nearby Central Parking Lot in the Northside Cluster could provide convenient park & ride access from personal vehicles, to the campus shuttle network and would be, for many visitors, a point of first arrival and campus orientation.

The campus could feature a second park & ride mobility hub in the Strawberry Cluster to service movement from personal vehicles to shuttle buses in the campus’s east canyon area. Park & ride mobility hubs are optimal for electric vehicle charging stations and to provide designated parking for car share facilities like Zipcar.

Mobility Hubs are places where multiple modes of transportation come together to offer users a range of mobility choices along with the option of creating a social hub by co-locating complimentary uses like plazas, dining, co-working spaces, etc.

Transit Center

Ride

Single transfer point between shuttle buses, such as from off-campus to on-campus routes, centrally located adjacent to the Central Commons and SSM Building, energizing the central social space of the campus.

Adjacent to the Central Parking Lot and U-5 Lot (Strawberry Cluster), Park & Ride Hubs help persons who arrive by car transfer to other modes.

Localized mobility hubs serve all campus Clusters with convenient access to shuttle buses and other mobility options.

Source: Berkeley Lab

Source: Berkeley Lab

CAMPUS SHUTTLE WITH BIKE CARRIER

EXISTING TRANSIT SHELTER

Park &

Local Hub

5.5

HUBS AND TYPICAL SHUTTLE ROUTES

FIGURE

OBJECTIVES

SHUTTLES & MOBILITY HUBS

Objective 5.2.1: Continually improve the Lab’s shuttle bus service and facilities.

Continue to support shuttle services and innovations. Create a shuttle-based transit center as part of the Central Commons. Create additional mobility hubs in convenient park & ride locations where motorists could transfer to or from shuttle buses. Locate park & ride mobility hubs adjacent to the future Central Parking Lot and near Strawberry Gate and the U-5 parking lot.

Objective 5.2.2: Integrate and outfit mobility hubs at key locations along shuttle bus and transit routes.

Create mobility hubs near shuttle bus stops in approximate locations shown in Figure 5.5 and as practical near social spaces. Distribute mobility hubs throughout the campus for convenient local access to and from all buildings. Establish high-volume mobility hubs at the planned transit center in the Central Commons, adjacent to the Central Parking Lot in the Northside Cluster, and near the U-5 parking lot in the Strawberry Cluster.

Program mobility hubs using Table 5.2: Potential Mobility Hub Services as a guide. Tailor mobility hub offerings to needs and opportunities of each site, with the greatest range of services at the transit center and to accompany principal park & ride opportunities. Consider the design of mobility hubs as part of the campus’s wayfinding network (see Section 6.5: Navigation and Wayfinding).

POTENTIAL MOBILITY HUB SERVICES

• Real time info • Wayfinding Map

• Wi-Fi Connectivity

• Pedestrian Safety Improvements

TABLE 5.2

5.3 PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Pedestrian Network

The Lab’s pedestrian network connects people and facilities campuswide. Paired with the shuttle system, most buildings are accessible with only a short walk. The network facilitates intellectual exchange and community access to the campus’ social spaces and its built and natural environments.

Early campus development was spartan and rarely included sidewalks or other pedestrian accommodations aside from hillside stairs to shorten key routes. As the campus population grew, so did the need for a safer, clearer, more inviting pedestrian network.

Today’s campus pedestrian network faces several challenges. Walking distances can be daunting; the campus is almost a mile from its east to west ends with elevations changes of over 500 feet. Circuitous paths add to that distance, even with the use of stairs.

Pedestrian Safety and Experience

Many pedestrian routes exist only as paint on asphalt and are not well protected from moving vehicles by way of curb, bollard, or landscape strip (see Figure 5.6: Existing Roadside Pedestrian Paths). In places, paths seem to disappear altogether as they pass around parked cars and through parking lots, loading areas, and open spaces.

Pedestrians may feel vulnerable at some crosswalks, particularly at mid-block crossings in the downhill direction of steep, curving roads.

The quality of pedestrian infrastructure presents another challenge. Paved paths and wooden stairways—usually rustic to begin with—are often many decades old and in rough condition. Other factors that influence the pedestrian experience include sidewalk widths, lighting, shade, railing design, and landscaping. In some places, routes traverse locations that may feel isolated and uninviting.

Arrival and Navigation

Pedestrian arrival at Berkeley Lab is primarily from the UC Berkeley campus via the Blackberry Gate. Access on foot is challenging and involves steep climbs on stairs and uneven concrete surfaces. Gate access for pedestrians without badges can involve an awkward check-in process that includes stepping into traffic lanes. Signage announcing Berkeley Lab arrival and subsequent wayfinding is minimal.

On campus, wayfinding is undermined by complex terrain and a general lack of sight lines. Steep slopes, trees, and buildings obstruct direct views of destinations, and visual landmarks, such as the Building 6 dome, are rare. It can be difficult to gain spatial bearings and navigate, or to determine the shortest route between destinations.

Pathways often offer little indication as to destinations, as most paths look equally spare and utilitarian. Wayfinding signage is generally directed towards motorists.

AGING PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE

Source: WRT

UNPROTECTED PEDESTRIAN ROUTE

Source: WRT

EXISTING ROADSIDE PEDESTRIAN PATHS

FIGURE 5.6

PEDESTRIAN FRAMEWORK

FIGURE 5.7

Accessibility

Campus pedestrian accommodations for those with wheelchairs or limited mobility are spare, often a consequence of steep slopes, antiquated infrastructure, and the Lab’s utilitarian origins. Most of the Lab was developed prior to enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990, and some exterior routes do not conform to ADA standards. Better accessibility exists where flatter terrain has been created or building elevators can be used to bridge elevation changes.

While some ADA exceptions apply to the Lab campus, Berkeley Lab values accessibility and barrier-free design. This is embodied in the Lab Director’s vision statement emphasizing Berkeley Lab’s culture of inclusion.

Recreational Walking and Hiking

The Lab campus open spaces and the surrounding UC Berkeley Hill Campus to the north, east, and south provide varied opportunities for recreational walking and hiking. While such trails on the UC Berkeley campus are typically open to the public, the Lab campus is fenced with controlled access at its gates. Paths and sidewalks cut through the Lab’s built environment, while other trails offer secluded trekking through various habitats, including oak and redwood woodlands. A wide variety of trees, plants, and wildlife can be observed. Spectacular panoramic views are available to the south and west. Steep inclines and stairways offer challenging terrain for the exercise-minded.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The Campus Master Plan envisions a safe and enjoyable pedestrian experience and provides guidance on specific campus improvements. The Plan emphasizes pedestrian circulation to support Lab operations, promote healthy

routines, improve safety, extend barrier-free environments, and enhance the Lab’s sense of place and community.

Walking efficiency on the campus would be greatly enhanced by a Pedestrian Spine that connects east to west—and prominently through the Central Commons—in a way that is safe, convenient, recognizable, and attractive (see Figure 5.7: Pedestrian Framework). Branches from the Pedestrian Spine would extend to each campus cluster.

Further pedestrian enhancements would be made adjacent to development projects or after the primary network is completed.

The campus can become a more pedestrian friendly place if key routes are better marked and made more recognizable. Such a system would organize around the principal east-west Pedestrian Spine and its secondary branching paths to each cluster.

This CMP also promotes accessibility—in its broadest forms and for the most diverse range of needs—in future Lab campus development. The location of paths and buildings (and their elevators) would be brought together within an integrated system to make the campus accessible or barrier free for persons of all abilities.

The CMP recognizes and enhances such opportunities for recreational walking, hiking, and exercising. One intriguing development would be to adapt new utility corridor caps (which would be wide, flat, cement surfaces) to pedestrian use. Doing so would, among other things, create a dramatic nature trail through the rugged natural terrain below the Central Commons Cluster, and connect the Blackberry Cluster with the Lawrence Corridor. Existing resources, such as the Building 73 service road, would be adapted as a dual-use nature hiking trail. The potential for an inviting and connected recreation network is discussed in Section 6.4: Recreation Network.

Improving the Lab’s pedestrian network would require prioritization among the many areas that warrant investment (see Figure 5.8: Circulation Cross Sections with Key Map). High-priority pedestrian safety and accessibility projects could be opportunities to leverage other pedestrian network improvements. Individual development projects may create further opportunities for connectivity investment.

5.8

CIRCULATION CROSS SECTIONS WITH KEY MAP (1 OF 2)

FIGURE

Section Locations

5.8

CIRCULATION CROSS SECTIONS WITH KEY MAP (2 OF

FIGURE

OBJECTIVES

PEDESTRIAN NETWORK

Objective 5.3.1: Improve the campus pedestrian network to support and promote walking.

Provide continuous, appropriately sized, well-lighted, landscaped, and easy to navigate pedestrian paths as indicated in Figure 5.7. These paths include: 1) the eastwest Pedestrian Spine extending from Blackberry Gate to Strawberry Cluster, 2) secondary paths that connect the Pedestrian Spine to each cluster, and 3) other paths shown to complete the network. Use Figure 5.8 for design guidance. Leverage building, infrastructure, social space, and recreation projects, where possible.

Objective 5.3.2: Enhance campuswide pedestrian safety.

Perform a pedestrian safety audit and prioritize safety improvements in problematic locations. Reference, as appropriate, the preliminary assessment depicted in Figure 5.6. Reconfigure paths to separate or distinguish from parking lots, roadside parking, loading docks, and mechanical areas. Provide separation or safety enhancements to unprotected pedestrian paths along roadside shoulders through use of curbs, bollards, and landscaped separations. Consider low-cost interventions to protect pedestrians in vulnerable but less-traveled locations, such as bollards and reflective edge-of-lane markers. Consider crosswalk improvements, especially on

steep downhill grades and where sight lines are limited, such as by reducing crossing distances, or by adding pavement striping, traffic mirrors, or pedestrian-activated blinker lights. Review the Blackberry Gate and other entry gate procedures to improve safety for unbadged pedestrians.

Objective 5.3.3: Improve pedestrian wayfinding and navigation.

Improve campus pedestrian wayfinding and navigation by establishing prominent and distinct identities to the Pedestrian Spine, the secondary paths to clusters, as well as to tertiary paths. Develop a palette for lighting, stairs, furnishings, and other path features with a focus on pedestrian network legibility. Consider wayfinding, social space, and landscape character objectives in the design of paths (see Chapter 6, Human-Scale Design).

Objective 5.3.4: Improve campus barrier-free or reduced-barrier pedestrian movement.

Expand the campus pedestrian network available for barrier-free or reduced-barrier pedestrian movement, particularly along the campus’s Pedestrian Spine and secondary paths and in the Central Commons. Wherever practicable, maintain accessible paths by using ramps and building elevators to traverse steep slopes. Make accessibility an integral part of site and building design, considering how all users can navigate along a shared approach to buildings and other destinations. Eliminate or reduce uneven paved surfaces along pedestrian paths, especially the Pedestrian Spine. Make reasonable accommodations where conditions limit expansion of a barrier-free network.

Objective 5.3.5: Establish a distinctive, attractive, orderly pedestrian arrival experience.

Establish a distinctive, attractive, orderly pedestrian arrival experience at all Lab gates, but particularly at the Blackberry Gate entrance, for both Lab staff and visitors. Consider off-site enhancements that would improve pedestrian connectivity to UC Berkeley and the City of Berkeley.

PEDESTRIAN FRAMEWORK CENTRAL CAMPUS

5.4 BICYCLE AND MICROMOBILITY NETWORK

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Bicycle Use

Despite the steep hillsides in and around the Lab, many staff opt to commute and/or travel on the campus by bike. Cyclotron Road’s (up to 14-percent) incline presents a challenge, particularly for bicycling workers at the beginning of their workday. Bicycle rack-equipped shuttles help many such commuters gain Lab entry, while Cyclotron’s downhill grades are more inviting for those riding out. In its current configuration, Cyclotron Road has inadequate space for a bike lane according to a 2014 study by CMA Engineering, but its lanes have signage to communicate shared use by bicyclists and motorists.

On campus, the Western Corridor to the Central Commons climbs at about a 10-percent grade. Bike lanes have been created in the uphill direction on Chu and Smoot Roads, while downhill lanes are shared: bicycles can readily reach the Lab’s 15-mph speed limit on downhill grades. During the work day, intra-campus bicycling is relatively low. Walking and shuttle buses provide adequate alternatives on the hilly campus.

Notably, the BioEPIC project in the Bayview Cluster plans to build the first segment of a bicycle lane along Alvarez Road to create a safer and more inviting route for cyclists.

Bicycle Parking

Campus bicycle parking is located sporadically, with inconsistent availability of bike racks near building entrances and no historically consistent bike rack type, although a standard has been recently developed. Few bicycle parking spaces are covered to provide shelter from the elements. Some campus buildings offer lockers and shower facilities for bicyclist use.

Other Micromobility Vehicles

In recent years, worldwide use of micromobility devices— particularly electric or power-assisted types using new technologies—has proliferated. Along with bicycles, campus micromobility vehicles include e-bikes, scooters, wheelchairs, and Lab-owned golf cart-style electric vehicles called “GEM” carts. The Lab does not currently allow certain other micromobility vehicles, such as segways, for safety reasons. A trial electric scooter sharing program was begun in summer 2023. A vendor provided the leased, seated scooters, but parking stations and other improvements were not provided.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The Campus Master Plan recognizes that intra-campus bicycle and other micromobility vehicle use can reduce travel times, reliance on cars, and parking demand (see Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.10: Bicycle and Micromobility Network). Micromobility vehicles typically produce little or no direct emissions. Use of people-powered micromobility devices can enhance fitness and boost morale.

The CMP identifies targeted improvements to support micromobility use, particularly as bicycle commuting and

intra-campus riding may increase as electric bicycles and bike amenities become more available.

Dedicated bike lanes—particularly in uphill directions— should be provided in strategic locations including on Cyclotron and Alvarez Roads. Uphill bike lanes and downhill shared lanes along the Northern Corridor should be considered. A new multimodal route should be devised along the relatively flat Lawrence Corridor. This would help bridge the gap between the east and central/west campus with greater convenience and options than under current conditions. Along most of the Lawrence Corridor, the multi-use path should capitalize on cement surfaces and site preparation opportunities created by Linear Assets Modernization Project (LAMP) or similar improvements.

An east-west multimodal route along the Lawrence Corridor connecting the east canyon area to the Central Commons and Central Parking Lot would expand the potential for campuswide park & ride arrangements. Commuters entering the Lab’s main gates could park nearby and board shuttle buses or use electric scooters or other micromobility devices to reach interior Lab destinations (see Section 5.2).

SHARED BIKE LANES ON CAMPUS Source: Berkeley Lab

Class I bikeways

Class II bikeways

Class III bikeways

Class IV bikeways

Bike paths or shared-use pedestrian/bike paths; off-road.

Bike lanes with bicycle rights-of-way, usually designated with painted striping; on-road.

Bike routes, announced by signage but not striped, where road space is shared between bicycles and motor vehicles; on-road.

Separated bikeways kept apart from vehicular traffic by physical barriers, grade separation, etc.; typically on-road.

FIGURE

OBJECTIVES

MICROMOBILITY NETWORK

Objective 5.4.1: Improve and extend campus bicycle/micromobility network.

Improve and extend campus bicycle/micromobility network, including as indicated in Figure 5.5. Using Figure 5.10 as a guide, consider:

• Cyclotron Road—uphill bike lane with existing downhill shared lane,

• Alvarez Road—uphill bike lane with downhill shared lane, or two-way path along east (building) side,

• Lawrence Road between Smoot Road and Transit Center—uphill bike lane with downhill shared lane,

• Lawrence Corridor—see CMP Mobility Objective 5.4.2, and

• Northern Corridor—uphill bike lane with downhill shared lane.

Time studies and design improvements to be concurrent with or in advance of related development projects, such as LAMP and new buildings in the Bayview and Central Commons Clusters.

Objective 5.4.2: Create a protected bicycle/ micromobility route along the Lawrence Corridor.

Extend a protected bicycle/multimodal path along the Lawrence Corridor to connect the Strawberry Gate and east canyon mobility hub with the Central Commons transit center and Central Parking Lot mobility hub. Where possible, co-locate the path with planned utility extensions

along the Lawrence Corridor so as to take advantage of utility cement caps and to reduce grading costs.

Objective 5.4.3: Implement, where feasible, electric scooter- and electric bike-share programs.

Explore the potential for electric scooter and/or electric bike share programs. Incorporate scooter/bike-share facilities into mobility hubs adjacent to the future Central Parking Lot, the future Central Commons transit center, and the east canyon mobility hub.

Objective 5.4.4: Include bicycle parking and building facilities that support bicycle use.

Locate bicycle parking—particularly sheltered parking— close to existing and new building entrances and shuttle stops, where practicable. Strive to incorporate convenient lockers and showers into new buildings.

Objective 5.4.5: Ensure shuttle bus service adequately supports bicyclists.

Continue to provide sufficient route service and ample bicycle rack space on shuttle buses to encourage bicycle ridership. Bicycle rack space should ordinarily meet or exceed peak demand. Continually monitor demand through real-time surveys, driver observation, etc. while encouraging expanded use via advertising and robust TDM programs.

30 BIKE PARKING | Source: Berkeley Lab

BUILDING

HUMAN-SCALE DESIGN DESIGNING FOR PEOPLE

The Berkeley Lab campus has always been a functional place dedicated to researchfocused facilities. Much less attention has been paid to how the campus serves the needs of its people. This Master Plan addresses “human- scale” factors, including physical, social, recreational, emotional, and aesthetic needs of Lab workers, while benefiting its scientific mission.

Intellectual and social interactions form a cornerstone for scientific endeavor, particularly at Berkeley Lab, the home of collaborative team science. The arrangement and design of buildings, open space, and circulation can significantly influence social interaction and community building. The health and emotional disposition of workers can have a direct bearing on their productivity, inspiration, and passion.

6.1 BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Campus Cohesion

As described throughout this CMP, the Berkeley Lab site lacks cohesion—the sense that each campus piece is congruent with and connected to the whole. This is attributable to the campus’s 85-year history of ad hoc and utilitarian development, as well as to its disjointed topography. Utilitarian buildings and hardscapes of varying styles were added where convenient without much regard to the whole of the campus. Landscape is similarly the result of arbitrary planting decisions or the array of opportunistic surroundings—native or invasive. Poor sight lines and circuitous paths further detract from cohesion.

Building and Site Design

Building orientation and design can affect major campus functions as well as human-scale mindset and activities. When building entrances are oriented toward pedestrian paths and social spaces, the campus can feel more inviting and vibrant to users. New development offers an opportunity to strengthen the pedestrian network across the Berkeley Lab campus to be more connected and pedestrian friendly.

Buildings play an important role in establishing the character of the campus and each cluster. The Lab has a design tradition where form follows function. Most buildings have simple massing and are free from ornamentation. Materials are strong and durable. Equipment remains in plain sight.

Campus building design choices reflect site topography and climate. In a few cases, campus architectural design communicates something more. Most notable is the original Building 6 with its iconic dome designed by Architect Arthur Brown for the 184-inch Cyclotron. This building, which stands today in modified form and serves as the Lab’s landmark feature, is an example of utilitarian and civic iconography. It was placed by Brown on the highly visible promontory overlooking Berkeley as a monument marking the eastern terminus of Brown’s axial campus concept for UC Berkeley. Less formal is the pronounced, dramatic cantilever of Building 67, the Molecular Foundry. This overhanging element has been echoed in more subtle ways by the recently constructed Building 91, the Integrative Genomics Building.

The Lab’s commitment to sustainability is also expressed in building design. Green building is realized not only through materials and building systems, but also solar orientation and building design. A notable example is Building 91 (IGB), which was thoughtfully sited and designed specifically to minimize heating and cooling loads as well as glare.

CAMPUS MASTER

PLAN

Campus Cohesion

Beyond planning for new facilities and infrastructure, an overarching CMP aim is to recognize Berkeley Lab not simply as a research site, but as a university campus commensurate with UC’s world-class system. The foundation for achieving this aim is instilling a strong sense of campus cohesion. Under the CMP and a forthcoming Physical Design Framework, cohesive building styles and hardscape treatments can be selected and applied to define clusters and the overall campus spaces. Similarly, landscape choices such as accent trees can define clusters and pathways. Materials, colors, signage, and other devices can be used to this end; key sight lines can be opened up; the distinctive Pedestrian Spine and other wayfinding

conveniences can connect clusters and other spaces with strong visual cues.

Development projects can bring about the pedestrian network, open space, landscaping, and other improvements that might not otherwise occur. New buildings can add interest and activate paths and social spaces. The act of place-making must look beyond the single project and consider how a multi-purpose space could be shaped and activated.

Building and Site Design

The Campus Master Plan emphasizes building design and placement to improve functionality at both sitewide as well as human scale. Design aims to effectuate and integrate activities through infill, intensification, and the reuse of underutilized sites. Building design and orientation should consolidate complementary programs and activities, conserve energy and resources, and optimize operations and functions. Design would also be used to improve the conditions, conveniences, and contentment of the Lab’s community of users and would welcome guests as a memorable place.

The Campus Master Plan encourages the continuation of architecture that is authentic to the Lab’s mission, while simultaneously contributing to a more coherent sense of place. A more memorable campus can be realized by imbuing LBNL’s functional sensibility with hints of both scientific inspiration and civic stature. Along the edges of buildings, exterior colonnades can resonate with traditions of civic architecture while sheltering pedestrians from rain. Deep eaves and overhangs can shade building windows as they evoke Bay Area stylistic traditions. Cantilevers on multi-story building entrances can offer strong architectural statements and semi-sheltered nodes for gathering while simultaneously providing greater building area on smaller footprints.

BUILDING 67: THE MOLECULAR FOUNDRY

Source: Berkeley Lab

THE ICONIC BUILDING 6 DOME | Source: Berkeley Lab

BUILDING FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION

Source: WRT

UTILITARIAN AND AD HOC BUILDING DESIGN

Source: Berkeley Lab

OBJECTIVES

BUILDING SITING AND DESIGN

Objective 6.1.1: Plan development to contribute to a more coherent and engaging campus.

Plan development sites, buildings, roads, paths, landscapes, and other facilities with thematic styles, materials, colors, signage, and connections to contribute to a more coherent and engaging campus. Consolidate and integrate functions where practical through building, landscape, and social space planning. Execute comprehensive and integrated planning vision posed in CMP.

Objective 6.1.2: Encourage a campus architectural vocabulary that is functional, uplifting, and consistent.

Prepare and continually update a Physical Design Framework (PhDF), as recommended by the University of California. The PhDF should serve as the campus’s master design guidelines with regard to architectural design and character, color palette, materials, and a wide range of fixtures and amenities. Use recognizable campus features—such as courtyards, quadrangles, wide stairs, and potentially colonnades, and loggias—while maintaining a substantial modern expression with simple forms, for example, glass, and metal panels. Architecture with deeply recessed windows and measures to deflect sunlight

(e.g., brise soleil) provide visual interest while mitigating excessive solar gain.

Objective 6.1.3: Optimize and coordinate new building entrances and pedestrian paths.

Wherever possible, orient building fronts and entrances toward the principal network of paths identified in Figure 5.7: Pedestrian Framework, and/or towards social spaces noted in Figure 6.1: Social Space Framework. Use architectural elements such as large doors, glass-enclosed lobbies, and deep overhangs or canopies to express principal building entrance locations.

Objective 6.1.4: Use new construction to bridge substantial pedestrian elevation changes.

Wherever practical, design new buildings to assist pedestrians with substantial elevation changes, for example, by locating pedestrian paths near building entrances with elevator lobbies, and by attaching stairs to building exteriors. Consider signage and architectural devices to communicate a building’s vertical circulation access such as glass lobby walls that reveal stairwells. This is especially important for areas with high pedestrian foot traffic, for example, along the Pedestrian Spine.

Objective 6.1.5: Integrate and optimize emergency and service vehicle access in building design.

Coordinate with Lab emergency services planners early in the design process to optimize emergency vehicle access. Where practical, locate loading and service areas away from principal pedestrian paths and social spaces. Consider ways to minimize locations where service access

and driveways cross pedestrian paths. Consider pedestrian safety where service access and driveways need to cross pedestrian paths.

Objective 6.1.6: Minimize views of roof- and ground-mounted equipment.

Minimize views of HVAC and building utility equipment from main paths and common spaces. As appropriate, draw attention to equipment that is an expression of a building’s scientific purpose. Avoid materials that rust or age poorly. Use visual screening and place equipment strategically to shield unsightly views from building entrances and pedestrian pathways. Unsightly views would include dumpsters and refuse, ad hoc stockpiles and collections of equipment, storage containers, and large parked vehicles.

CREATING A COHERENT CAMPUS WITH WALKABLE CONNECTIONS | Source: Berkeley Lab 2021 Massing Study

6.2 SOCIAL SPACES

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Berkeley Lab values the opportunities for intellectual and collaborative exchange afforded by campus social spaces. Happenstance interaction between researchers has long been a cornerstone of the Lab’s team science concept. Informal personal connections can build relationships and contribute to a sense of community. Examples of such campus spaces include the Cafeteria, the Building 6 entry courtyard, picturesque Seaborg Glen, and pockets of outdoor seating around various campus buildings.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Under the CMP, the Lab would improve the quality and distribution of its social spaces throughout the campus. Social spaces would be designed to contribute to particular buildings and outdoor locales, to the unique identity of each cluster, and to the overall campus character. Under the Plan, social spaces are not a one-size-fits- all proposition. They may offer places to sit, gather, and recreate. They may be places of quiet contemplation or intense interaction. The same social spaces can be of dual purpose, serving business needs in one instance and recreational needs in another.

Social spaces should occur in locations where people naturally converge, such as near building entrances, dining areas, and shuttle stops. Courtyards and partly framed social spaces would be activity centers and impart identity to nearly every cluster (Northside and Support Services Clusters are exceptions where central, building-framed social spaces would not be available). Centrally located social spaces would offer areas for outdoor dining, informal gathering, and recreation.

Each social space should respond to topography and its surrounding context. Social spaces can be designed to draw attention to the campus’s unique views and native landscapes. Focus may also be drawn to interesting campus architectural and cultivated landscape elements. While flatter areas are natural candidates for peopleoriented space, steep terrain presents interesting opportunities, such as cascading terraces and elevated platforms that project horizontally to create overlooks from upper slopes and plateaus.

The Plan builds on the Lab’s tradition of constructing overlooks at key hillside locations offering short-range views of natural landscape and panoramic long-range views. Such spaces can extend from the edge of welltraveled pedestrian paths and are typically railing-wrapped platforms supported by posts. Stairs may be added to access spaces underneath. Optimal locations for these “pause points” are illustrated in Figure 6.1: Social Space Framework. Interpretive signage should be used to direct attention to key views, history, or natural features.

For the suggested overlook social spaces along the Lawrence Corridor, there are natural bluffs or plateaus below that could be accessed by platform stairs. These bluffs would provide opportunities for rustic sitting or picnicking areas secluded from the road noise and development above. Additional overlook platforms are contemplated for scenic locations in the Northside, Bayview, Blackberry, and Redwood Clusters.

For all such constructed platforms and pause points, multiple uses should be considered. In particular, the Plan encourages outfitting these spaces for use as outdoor popup offices. Providing such pleasant office space along the Lawrence Corridor would help bridge the campus’s long distances, for example, by creating midway meet-up points between east canyon and more centrally located workers.

Berkeley Lab’s primary social space would be the Central Commons, a long aspired-to “heart of the Lab.” The Central Commons would offer myriad indoor and outdoor social spaces, with an expansive dining center, conference center, and auditorium framing a dramatic amphitheater, plaza, performance stage, and other outdoor amenities. The Central Commons complex is expected to create a thriving multi-purpose destination and would be programmed and designed to convey a strong sense of place and community.

BUILDING 6 COURTYARD | Source: Berkeley Lab

SOCIAL SPACE FRAMEWORK

FIGURE 6.1

OBJECTIVES SOCIAL SPACES

Objective 6.2.1: Populate the campus with a distributed and diverse array of high-quality social spaces.

As illustrated in Figure 6.1: Social Space Framework, design, program, and activate social spaces with a range of offerings that satisfy the Lab population’s varied needs and interests. Design spaces to be interesting and welcoming, and to take advantage of surrounding conditions, including topography, views, foot traffic, and functions. Distribute social spaces to be easily accessible to every workplace and near shuttle stops and well-traveled footpaths. Locate principal building entrances to face into social spaces wherever possible. Provide at least one significant social space in each cluster, optimally in a central location.

• The Central Commons: Program spaces to serve the entire Laboratory, including visitors and conference attendees. Central Commons social spaces should be oriented towards the largest gatherings of people, both indoors and outdoors. Social spaces should support activities such as all-hands meetings, conferences, parties, performances, special events (food trucks, farmer’s markets, etc.) and formal and informal dining. Outdoor lighting, electrical power and A/V hookup, and a variety of seating and accessibility options should be available in these social spaces.

Section 8.3: Central Commons provides a more complete description.

• Cluster-Serving Social Space: In every cluster,

provide space for small gatherings and amenities, like places to grill food, sit and dine in groups, or engage in passive recreation (e.g., reading, board games).

Chapter 8: Clusters, describes features associated with each cluster. Take advantage of small, underused spaces in high-traffic areas to create pockets of seating or small-group interaction. For example, adjacent to windows in building lobbies, on spacious stairwell landing platforms, or near particularly scenic junctions of pedestrian paths.

• Overlooks: Enhance existing and create additional overlooks at key locations along hillsides, particularly in parts of the Lab that have fewer social amenities.

As illustrated in Figure 6.1: Social Space Framework, optimal locations would include pause points along the Lawrence Corridor and in scenic locations in the Northside, Bayview, Blackberry, and Redwood Clusters. Where desirable plateaus exist below overlooks—especially along Lawrence Road— consider adding stairway connections.

• Retreat: Create a destination retreat that takes advantage of the remote east canyon hill area. The retreat could be programmed and used for recreation, informal meetings, and social events. Outfit with rustic furnishings, overhead shelter (e.g., pergola), and solarpowered lighting. Consider how to provide optimal access to the retreat area by persons of all abilities.

PROSPECTIVE CAMPUS OVERLOOKS

REGIONAL VIEWPOINTS OF INTEREST

VIEWPOINT DIRECTIONS FROM BERKELEY LAB CAMPUS

Objective 6.2.2: Design social spaces with consideration to surrounding context and cluster identity.

Where possible, spatially frame social spaces with buildings and trees. Position paths and open spaces to take advantage of significant views, as identified in Figures 6.3: Direction of Major Views. On hillsides, consider stepped courtyards or terraces. For each cluster, use specific flowering trees and other landscape accents, and apply plant and hardscape palette based on nearby landscape influences. Consider art or large science artifacts, particularly if it relates to and accentuates each cluster’s identity. Illuminate social spaces in ways that are inviting, while not distracting from the campus’s dramatic views.

Objective 6.2.3: Provide social space outfitted for outdoor office use and work space.

Where practical, outfit overlook, pause-point, or other outdoor social space platforms with overhead cover, lighting, electrical power—at minimum from overhead solar panels, wi-fi or hard-wired internet connections—and seating and convertible horizontal surfaces to support meetings and deskwork. Providing such office space along the Lawrence Corridor would help bridge the long distance between the eastern and western portions of the campus.

FIGURE 6.3

6.3 CAMPUS ART AND EXPRESSION

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Campus art is beneficial not only because it entertains and stimulates viewers and passersby, but because it provides a positive outlet for a community’s creativity. Art can be used to effectively communicate scientific concepts as well as ideals upheld by the Lab, DOE, and the University. Artistic expression often has a close kinship with science, and the Lab community boasts a high degree of musicians, performers, studio artists, and those who appreciate such media. Examples of art installations at the current campus include the dynamic Helix sculpture at Building 91 (IGB) and privately commissioned oil paintings that brighten the concrete halls of Building 71. In addition, the Lab boasts several music and dance-oriented staff clubs that periodically perform at Lab events. The presence of art in its various forms throughout the campus serves to entertain, inspire, and uplift the Lab’s workforce.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Under the Plan, artistic expression and ideas would be supported through use of social space. Art installations, including sculpture, murals, paintings, and the like, would be encouraged in both indoor and outdoor spaces where they may be widely appreciated. Viewers would be prompted to stop, observe, mingle, and discuss. Moreover, the campus would benefit from having noteworthy art installations in key locations frequented by visitors. Art installations with high visual impact could become popular photo-op locations where guests and groups might congregate and have their pictures taken.

The Central Commons is the optimal candidate for large, signature art installations, particularly sculpture, murals, or decorative pavement or tiles. In addition, each cluster would benefit and reinforce its unique identity and personality by featuring at least one art installation. Art installations could also be used to enhance and enliven places that might seem otherwise uninviting. Large pieces of scientific equipment that would otherwise be discarded might be repurposed to become visually interesting artifacts and direct expression of the Lab as a place.

Performance art would be encouraged at the Lab through thoughtfully planned social space. The Central Commons would feature opportunities for a range of venues. The envisioned amphitheater and stage would support performances, from small to large. Plazas at the lower and upper levels would maintain flexibly programmable space that could be set up and used in a variety of ways. Other spaces are available for performance art—including dance and music club practices—such as the Building 50B lower rooftop, the Strawberry recreation area, and various courtyards throughout the future Lab campus.

HELIX SCULPTURE OUTSIDE BUILDING 91 | Source: Berkeley Lab

OBJECTIVES

CAMPUS ART

Objective 6.3.1: Provide policy framework that supports campus art and artistic expression.

Develop policies and programs for encouraging art in social spaces at the Lab campus. Define and provide guidelines for selecting appropriate art and siting installations, including for interior building walls and spaces. Campus support and accommodation should be prioritized for artistic expression that relates to science, that uplifts, and/or that supports the Lab’s history, purpose, and ideals.

Objective 6.3.2: Provide social space that supports campus art installations and cluster identity.

Design indoor and outdoor social spaces for placement of artworks and art installations, including sculpture, painting, photography, murals, etc. Provide space in each cluster for a signature art piece that reflects, reinforces, or helps establish cluster identity. Consider each cluster’s principal courtyard or plaza as an opportunity for artistic cluster branding, such as by use of distinctive mosaics and paving tiles and patterns, including playful and interactive installations like labyrinth or maze patterns (see Recreation Objective 6.4.3 below). Consider the Central Commons as the optimal candidate for large, signature art installations, particularly sculpture, murals, or decorative pavement

or tiles. Explore opportunities for signature “photoop” installations that would please visitors and provide a branding opportunity for Berkeley Lab, for example, via social media. Consider the use of large, retired scientific apparatus for repurposing as art or visual media installations.

Objective 6.3.3: Support campus artistic expression and performance art with appropriate space.

Support performance throughout the campus including demonstrations of spoken word, theater, film, music, and dance with properly outfitted space. Prepare a stage adequate for large performances to audiences viewing from the amphitheater and/or the Central Plaza. Provide electrical power and audio-visual capabilities to the amphitheater stage and, as reasonable, overhead shelter.

6.4 RECREATION NETWORK

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Campus recreation facilities should encourage healthy lifestyles and contribute to the well-being and contentment of the Lab community. A robust recreation network can also help attract and retain staff, particularly in the Bay Area’s competitive labor market.

Currently, the Lab provides few if any dedicated recreational facilities. Individual staff have created some ad hoc set-ups, such as by moving ping pong tables under building eaves or into underused rooms. Recreational clubs stressing physical activity abound, including multiple martial arts, yoga, music, and dance clubs, as well as informal stretching and exercise groups. Typically, such active recreational groups meet indoors in makeshift space, such as in building lobbies and conference rooms. The campus has only one large, building space optimized for indoor recreational uses: Building 76 Room 235, a conference room with hardwood floors and moveable, stackable furniture. This room is in heavy demand by competing club activities but is naturally prioritized for business use. Other groups, like a hula-hoop club, typically meet in outdoor spaces like parking lots, weather permitting. Some physically active clubs necessarily use off-site facilities, such as tennis, swimming, softball, bicycling, and hiking clubs. Clubs requiring on-site equipment storage—necessary for certain activities such as martial arts and yoga (heavy mats, punching bags, foam blocks, etc.) and music (instruments and A/V equipment)—

struggle to have even minimal storage needs met. At one time, a parcourse area was built into the hillside above Building 46, but it fell into disrepair and was abandoned decades ago.

Active recreational activities best suited to the Lab are hiking, walking, running, and to a lesser degree, bicycling.

The Lab’s varied pathways and roads offer a stimulating range of challenges, from flat plateaus to rigorously steep climbs and exterior staircases, along with spectacular views and a range of interesting microclimates and habitats. But even here, the Lab’s often narrow roads, truck and shuttle traffic, and disjointed and unprotected pedestrian pathways can diminish the experience.

Passive recreational activities—those not requiring much facilitation beyond sitting space or gathering areas—include the Lab’s many cultural clubs and social organizations. Some of these groups find sufficient accommodation within the Lab’s existing conference room network. Even so, equipment storage and conveniently located meeting locations can be a challenge. Overarching business needs may bump a club from a scheduled conference room at a moment’s notice.

Occasionally, the Lab hosts social and cultural events that are open to broad participation, such as club fairs and demonstrations, musical and dance performances, cultural celebrations, health and safety events, farmer’s market and flea market sales events, holiday parties, and the Lab’s annual Run-Around event. Before the Cafeteria was demolished, such events were often centered in the main dining room or outdoors in the adjacent parking lot or courtyard. The Lab’s two large auditoriums often host lectures, training presentations, or special event films. These existing facilities are often less than adequate in terms of space, availability, distribution, and amenities.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Under the Plan, the Lab would seek ways to increase the variety, quality, quantity, and distribution of recreational spaces and opportunities across the campus. These would include team and solo sports activity spaces, exercise facilities, club activity and storage space, passive recreation, and improvements to the walking/hiking, running, and biking trail system.

The CMP identifies improvements to the campus trail system for hiking, running, and bicycling. Increased railing and sidewalk separation from roadways would protect pedestrians from adjacent vehicle traffic. Dedicated bicycle and pedestrian trails could be substantially expanded wherever opportunities arise. Such opportunities include planned LAMP utility corridor improvements that cap utility trenches with surfaces that could support pedestrian/ bicycle pathways, as indicated in Figure 6.4: Recreational Network. Most notably, this would include a new trail through undeveloped terrain below the new SSM Building connecting Lawrence and Perlmutter Roads. In addition, bicycle lane improvements are identified for the steep inbound lane of Cyclotron Road.

A trail network could take advantage of campus natural areas, such as the upper east canyon “barrow pit” area, the Blackberry Canyon riparian area, and the aforementioned LAMP trail spanning below the SSM Building. The Building 73 service road could be improved for dual use as a nature trail, as would be the upper east canyon fire road extending from Calvin Road. Nature trails and scenic paths could be accompanied by interpretive signage to educate users with information on available views, history, and local ecosystems. Trails would be evaluated for suitability as pedestrian-only or shared with bicycling. As with all campus spaces, Lab trails would continue to be accessible only to the on-site population.

FIGURE 6.4

As posited in Sections 5.3: Pedestrian Network and 5.4: Bicycle and Micromobility Network, the Lab would further improve the general pedestrian and bicycling experience by making paths safer and more navigable and by increasing bicycle parking and employee shower facilities.

Team and solo sports activities such as basketball, volleyball, pickleball, and/or badminton may be realized in multi-use hard-surface areas as part of the new recreation areas in the Strawberry and Bayview Clusters. Lawn sports like frisbee, cornhole, and croquet might be achieved on softscape surfaces (lawns, soft ground cover, or artificial turf). Such suitable softscape may be included on the Central Commons, Charter Hill’s landscaped terraces, or the envisioned parcourse.

Dedicated exercise space featuring resistance and cardio equipment could be provided by a fitness center, potentially located in the Central Commons Flex Building, and on the new Northside Cluster par course. Clubs featuring physical activity and exercise groups could additionally use space in the Central Commons (such as the lower plaza area, Flex Building fitness center, and the SSM Building multi-use conference spaces). Such activities could also occur on the Building 50B lower rooftop and the Strawberry recreation and Bayview recreation areas.

Recreational activities featuring performance, such as music, dance, theater, or spoken word, would have several courtyard and social space options in various clusters, but most notably the Central Common’s amphitheater stage and lower plaza.

Passive recreational activities, such as reading, writing, sketching, and playing board games, could take place in a wide variety of social space seating areas throughout the campus. Among these could be a large-scale chess board pattern crafted into the Central Commons or another courtyard space, which would provide an opportunity for audience-engaging, large-scale chess matches (or similar

games) with large novelty pieces. Similarly, courtyards, plazas, and other major pedestrian thoroughfares could be outfitted with tile or pavement patterns that stimulate thought and activity. Labyrinths, mazes, mosaic patterns, and other devices that playfully engage pedestrians could easily and with little investment brighten up an otherwise mundane paved space. Providing such features around the campus would help reinforce individualized cluster identities.

ILLUSTRATIVE NATURE TRAIL

FIGURE 6.5

OBJECTIVES RECREATION

Objective 6.4.1: Establish a robust, varied campuswide recreation network.

As illustrated in Figure 6.4: Recreation Network, establish a comprehensive recreational network that increases the variety, quality, quantity, and distribution of recreational spaces and opportunities across the campus. The recreation network would comprise facilities, spaces, and an improved trail system. It would support a variety of active and passive recreational activities, including: sports, fitness, and exercise; physical disciplines like martial arts, yoga, and dance; performance, entertainment, cultural expression, and spectator activities; walking, hiking, running, and bicycling activities; and passive and smallgroup leisure activities like board-gaming, socializing, reading, and meditating. The recreation network would serve Lab clubs and organizations as well as individuals. The recreation network would be integrated through planning and coordinated with the Lab’s Employee Activity Association.

Objective 6.4.2: Invest in and develop key campus recreational facilities.

Endeavor to create new distinctive, major recreational facilities throughout the campus, including:

• Fitness Center – Create a sheltered space housing cardio and resistance training equipment, a multipurpose group exercise floor, mats and equipment storage space, and locker rooms/shower facilities. This could be staged in the Flex Building or a dedicated pop-up building space served by utilities and good pedestrian and bicycle access.

• Parcourse – Create an outdoor space or spaces featuring weather-resistant, simple apparatuses and workout stations surrounded by turf or appropriate softscape surface and connected to pedestrian and bicycle trails. This is envisioned in the Northside Cluster.

• Amphitheater, Stage, and Plaza – Create a largecapacity amphitheater would facilitate outdoor performances and speaking venues. The lower Central Plaza would provide ample open hardscape space for a variety of recreational and business uses, including food trucks, farmer’s markets, club activities, conference events, and general gatherings. A raised stage between the amphitheater and lower plaza could showcase speakers, theatrical, dance, and musical performances. For example, a concert performed on the stage could be viewed from the amphitheater and danced to in the Plaza. See Section 8.3 for specific Central Commons features.

• Building 50B Lower Rooftop Take advantage of this underused, spacious, flat surface that boasts scenic views and is adjacent to the Pedestrian Spine near the campus main entrance. With modest improvements, activate this space for a variety of recreational activities involving outdoor exercise, group activities, and gathering.

• Multi-Use Sport Areas: Create a dedicated outdoor hard-topped surfaces outfitted for multiple uses by inclusion of basketball hoop(s), posts for netting (e.g., volleyball, pickleball, badminton), and painted court lines. Such spaces could also be used for group exercise and activities. Nearby bench or bleacher spectator seating is encouraged. This should be featured in the Strawberry Cluster recreation area as well as the Bayview Cluster main courtyard.

Source: WRT

EXAMPLE OF PARCOURSE FOR OUTDOOR FITNESS

Source: ASPECT Studios

EXAMPLE OF PARCOURSE TRAIL

Source: Sync Recovery Community

CENTRAL COMMONS AMPHITHEATER AND LOWER PLAZA

Objective 6.4.3: Leverage campus facilities for dual-purpose recreational opportunities.

Where appropriate open space and/or social space is available, seek opportunities for dual-use recreational adaptation, particularly when little or no investment is needed to adapt space for this purpose. Examples include:

• SSM Building Conference Center: The lower floor of the SSM Building will feature a conference center with a large open lobby and three adjoining conference rooms with retractable walls that can create a very large open space, and panoramic bay window views. Avail this space (when not in business use) for large group exercise, music and cultural club meeting uses, etc.

• SSM Building Cafeteria: The SSM Building will feature spacious indoor and outdoor seating (dining) areas. Avail this space during non-dining hours for recreation that requires—or can work around—table seating. Examples include Lab Toastmasters club, cultural clubs, scientific societies, etc.

• Co-Located Nature Trails: As otherwise mentioned, use wide, flat utility corridor surfaces from LAMP or other projects to co-locate new pedestrian and micro-mobility trails. This would be especially useful in otherwise undeveloped, scenic areas for nature walks. Similarly adapt and co-locate little-used roads through natural areas—such as the Building 73 service road or the upper east canyon fire road—for such purposes. Evaluate for pedestrian-only and shared bicycling use.

• Courtyard Attractions – Design or make minor modifications to plaza and courtyard spaces to support passive, novel activities that stimulate, engage, and entertain users. Use such innovations to help establish individual cluster identities and to

create community focus in the Central Commons. Consider playful treatments of surface tiles and pavement including labyrinths, mazes, underfoot mosaics, and other engaging patterns. Create lifesized gameboard(s) using tile patterns and supply large-scale game pieces (all-weather, easily moveable pieces that could be stored neatly nearby) convenient to spectator seating.

• Other: Avail new and existing building lobbies, courtyards, and social spaces throughout the campus for dual-use recreational purposes. Provide lighting and phone chargers–with overhead solar panels where practicable–in key outdoor locations. Ensure that comfortable seating for both individuals and groups are widely available. Consider providing repositories for books, magazines, or even game boards in the new cafeteria or other passive recreation seating locations.

Objective 6.4.4: Improve and expand the campus trail system.

Improve and expand the campus trail system for hiking, running, and bicycling recreational uses. Extend trail opportunities throughout the campus and bring trail opportunities through or near each cluster. Improve existing sidewalks and pedestrian paths with smoother paving, separation from vehicle traffic, and wayfinding signage. Wherever possible, adapt LAMP and utility corridor improvements to co-locate new and expanded pedestrian and multi-use trails. Identify and develop different walking paths and loops that feature various recreational themes or benefits, including nature walks, sightseeing and viewshed trails, and exercise trails of varying intensity. Provide interpretive signage and include connections to on-line information. Provide support to trail users in the form of improved bicycle racks and showers/ locker rooms around the campus, as described in Section 5.4, Bicycle and Micromobility Network.

EXAMPLE OF OUTDOOR COURTYARD SEATING

Source: Streetlife.com

EXAMPLE OF OUTDOOR COURTYARD WORK SPACES

Source: Bruce Damonte

6.5 NAVIGATION AND WAYFINDING

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Berkeley Lab campus wayfinding can be exceedingly difficult for first-time visitors. The campus layout can be challenging even for experienced staff when seeking destinations outside of their usual work routine. This is attributable to an ad hoc development history and complex terrain that features winding roads, frequent elevation changes, obstructed sightlines, and the absence of distinctive visual landmarks.

The challenge created by the physical environment is compounded because buildings don’t have street addresses, and building numbers reflect historical factors rather than geolocation. Sequential building numbers often do not indicate physical adjacency. On the contrary, many sequentially numbered buildings are located at opposite ends of the campus (see Figure 6.6: Dispersed Pattern of Sequential Building Numbers). There is no simple solution to the campus building numbering problem, in large part because a complete numbering system revamp is impractical.

Inconsistency in building references creates yet another complication for signage and wayfinding. While all Lab buildings are numbered, many are also identified by given names—typically to indicate a function or a donor. For example, Building 59 is alternately referred to as Shyh Wang Hall, the NERSC building, the Computational Research and Theory building, and CRT.

Furthermore, campus roads are not arranged in a grid or recognizable pattern, but are shaped by the contours of the undulating hills and canyons. Major streets are

conventionally named after Nobel laureates. As new prize winners are announced, Lab roads must be further subdivided and renamed. Some other streets don’t have street signs and their names are unknown to the general Lab population, like “R” Road, and the Building 73 service road.

In short, campus wayfinding signage is incomplete and lacks an intuitive orienting concept. Although greatly improved over the past few decades, signage alone is not adequate to smooth out the many challenges to the wayfinding experience.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The Campus Master Plan incorporates new wayfinding, building numbering, and signage strategies that are recently underway as part of a Campus Planning Department effort. The campus would be divided into a series of six geographic zones (see Figure 6.8: Proposed Wayfinding Zones). The color-coded zones would correspond to the Lab’s revised Emergency Response Zones. The zone numbers and colors would be consistently displayed in all signage, creating a coordinated wayfinding and orientation system. Organizing the site by zones would break the complexity down into more easily absorbed pieces and provide a conceptual framework for understanding the underlying topography.

A new three-digit building numbering system would correspond to each zone and be applied to all new buildings and parking lots constructed therein. Existing buildings would retain their current two-digit numbers but would be more easily locatable by added zone identity. As much as practical, intra-zone adjacency would be honored by the assignment of new, consecutive building numbers. This system would continuously improve campus wayfinding as older buildings are replaced with newer buildings and as the Lab population internalizes the new

zoning concept. Visitors should more easily find individual buildings using maps, signs, and markers keyed to the color-coded zones and integrated building numbers.

The CMP supports making important vehicle and pedestrian circulation routes more intuitive by changing the way the Lab community perceives them. Naming and reinforcing principal east-west routes like the Lawrence Corridor and the Pedestrian Spine with its cluster offshoots would create a more easily understandable circulation network. With an understandable geographic campus scheme coupled with navigation zones, better building numbering, and improved signage, campus orientation and wayfinding should become more intuitive for Lab staff and visitors alike.

OBJECTIVES

CAMPUS NAVIGATION

Objective 6.5.1: Improve campus wayfinding experience through site and facility design.

As part of siting and design of all new Lab structures and spaces, consider wayfinding and relation to established and future planned travel routes. Make navigation and travel between facilities more direct and intuitive through the location and orientation of new paths, building entrances, and parking areas.

Objective 6.5.2: Evaluate and restructure campus organization and identification systems.

Devise and implement a new zone-based campus overlay (see Figure 6.8: Wayfinding Zones). Strive to contain whole clusters within each geographic zone, while recognizing that multiple clusters may reside within the same zone. Assign parking lots and all new building numbers to correspond with the zoning system (for example, all new Zone 3 buildings should fall within the 300-numbering series). Strive to indicate intra-zone building adjacency through use of sequential building numbers. For optimal record keeping and to avoid confusion, continue Lab practice of avoiding recycled building numbers even when previous buildings were demolished and removed.

Objective 6.5.3: Improve campus signage design and distribution.

Design and install wayfinding signs that are related to defined zones, zone numbers, and zone colors (see Figure 6.7: Building Wayfinding Signage). Develop sign designs for varied purposes, including for aiding drivers and

pedestrians, and for identifying buildings and destinations. Emphasize signage and potentially other path markers (surface paint, color schemes, flags/banners, electronic devices, etc.) for critical routes, including Western, Northern, and Lawrence Corridors, Pedestrian Spine and spine-cluster offshoots, etc. Include the SES emergency management program building logo in building signs as appropriate.

Objective 6.5.4: Make principal circulation features more identifiable and intuitive.

Promote major circulation concepts that simplify navigation and wayfinding; support with mapping and signage. Principal vehicle paths follow the Western, Northern, and Lawrence Corridors to the campus center. Principal pedestrian and micro-mobility paths should follow the east-west Pedestrian Spine that connects Blackberry and Strawberry Gates to the Central Commons; secondary pathways should extend from the Spine to each cluster. Tie mapping to color-coded zone scheme. By simplifying the overarching campus roadway scheme and with signage support, make campus navigation more intuitive to drivers and pedestrians.

Existing Building Number Signage

• Two sizes

• Three color schemes (architectural palette)

• Outer ring indicates face of building with primary entrance

Future Building Number Signage

• Three sizes

• Zone number call-out

• Zone-based color-coding (six colors)

• Integrated S.A.F.E. symbol (as applicable)

BUILDING WAYFINDING SIGNAGE

FIGURE 6.7

WAYFINDING ZONES

FIGURE 6.8

LANDSCAPE 07 LANDSCAPE AND NATURAL SETTING FRAMEWORK

Berkeley Lab’s campus is distinguished by the rugged natural beauty of its landform and diverse biological habitats. Much of the riparian network and plant life have been influenced or replaced wholesale by centuries of human intervention. To create a more coherent campus, plant and stormwater maintenance can reinforce the site’s native landscape while adding distinct accents to developed areas such as the research clusters and principal travel routes. To aesthetically knit the campus together, the Landscape Framework also calls attention to the placement and character of common site features, such as hardscapes and platforms, stairs and landings, lighting, and furnishings. These topics shall be explored in more detail in the Physical Design Framework but are addressed at the conceptual level in this Plan.

7.1 LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Landscape Planning Framework

Berkeley Lab campus vegetative landscape planning focuses on two main landscape types: natural landscape, which occurs without Lab intervention and generally populates the campus’s undeveloped areas, and cultivated landscape, which is designed, planted, and maintained by the Lab and typically populates campus developed areas. Both landscape types may feature native and non-native plants. The CMP addresses and tailors objectives to both of these landscape types.

Plants and Plant Habitat

Undeveloped campus areas retain landscape characteristics of East Bay Area ecology and feature several California native and non-native plant and habitat types (see Figure 7.1: Existing Landscape Characteristics). Much of the Lab features oak savannah habitat—open grasslands and scrub areas punctuated by small clusters of coast live oaks. Coastal redwood woodlands or forests (as defined by their density) are found along the lower-lying and east- facing slopes at the edge of Strawberry Canyon and are characterized by dense growth in cool, moist conditions. Oak and bay tree riparian woodlands (which often include other species such as willow and large-leaf maple) follow the campus’s creeks and drainage tributaries. Chaparral, which are areas that are chiefly scrub and bushes, are common habitat at the campus’s dryer eastern end.

Over the years, the Lab’s development intervened in the natural landscape and intensified historic fracturing of the

original site ecology. Dense groves of blue gum eucalyptus were planted throughout the University’s hill areas along with mixed conifers. Many of these non-native tree species have created ecological imbalances or pose heightened fire hazards. Local plants and most understory in general don’t thrive under eucalyptus canopy. With the dearth of native understory came the loss of habitat for native wildlife. The Lab’s vegetation management program seeks to address wildfire hazards through thinning invasive trees and restoring native habitat. Especially since the 1990s, the Lab annually thins and removes eucalyptus and non-native pine trees, but typically in modest numbers each year.

Ornamental landscaping has been introduced in and around development areas throughout the Lab’s history. These plantings have been ad hoc and not tied to any particular scheme. In recent years, the Lab has instituted a sustainability policy that restricts irrigation with a few exceptions. The Lab also developed a Vegetation Management Guide that promotes landscaping with native or native-compatible, drought-tolerant, fire-resistant plants that must be set back from development at prescribed distances.

Certain campus landscapes carry historic or cultural significance. These include the Canary Island pine grove near Chicken Creek, a visually prominent cluster planted for agricultural research purposes by UC Berkeley in the early 20th Century. The sequoia redwood grove standing near Building 33 is a small cluster of massive conifers that is dwindling in number due to drought conditions. The Kennedy Trees are three Canary Island pines planted by President John F. Kennedy in front of Bldg. 88 during a site visit during the 1960s. The cork oak grove is a scattering of picturesque cork oaks standing southeast of the Guest House. In some Lab spaces, volunteers have created and tend to small plantings such as a succulent garden in the Building 91 (IGB) side yard. During the 2010s, staff at Building 67 (the Molecular Foundry) endeavored to create a vegetable garden. The Lab is currently considering

policies governing and largely discouraging ad hoc plantings by staff.

Surface Waters and Stormwater

Campus surface waters—including waters that collect during rainstorms—tend to drain in two directions. In its western half, surface water drains southwesterly into the north fork of Strawberry Creek. The North Fork is channeled through below-grade storm drains that pass beneath the Bayview cluster and resurface below the Blackberry Parking Lot. Along the Lab’s south-facing slopes, surface water drains mainly via intermittent and ephemeral streams toward the main branch of Strawberry Creek. The Lab’s two main perennial streams are Chicken Creek, which daylights below Building 31, and the North Fork of Strawberry. Perennial and some intermittent streams may feature vegetation and riparian habitat that do not exist elsewhere in the campus’s relatively dry environment.

In general, the Lab’s creeks have been modified, channelized, and intermittently undergrounded the closer they are to Lab development. Hydraugers, open drain pipes rammed horizontally into the hillsides to drain excess groundwater, are positioned throughout the campus. In places with heavy outflow, hydraugers have created or intensified affected surface water patterns.

Vegetation Removal

The Lab’s ongoing vegetation management program addresses wildland fire hazards through thinning invasive and highly flammable trees, clearing leaf litter and vegetation, and restoring native habitat. This includes removal of invasive eucalyptus and pine trees and treatment of stumps to prevent resprouting. The ongoing program also prescribes ladder fuel and invasive understory removal through mechanical means and grazing maintenance.

EXISTING LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS

FIGURE 7.1

An LBNL Non-Native Tree Stand Assessment Study (2021) identifies and assesses all campus non-native tree stands and provides a protocol for prioritizing trees for removal. In 2023, the Lab is working with UC Berkeley and Cal Fire to implement fuel management measures in three areas of the campus. These measures include tree removal and thinning—particularly around Cyclotron Road—as well as tree limb removal and the clearing of brush, leaf litter, and understory.

Sustainable Landscaping Practices

Berkeley Lab’s natural and cultivated landscapes are managed for sustainability as well as safety and aesthetics. Sustainable management encourages passive methods such as grazing combined with targeted ground crew maintenance. In accordance with the Lab’s Sustainability Standards for Operations policy, limited drip irrigation is permitted only for purposes of plant establishment and preservation, and selective hand watering can be applied only to save critical landscape like the sequoia redwood tree grove, which would otherwise die off due to drought stress.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The CMP’s Landscape Framework supports the Lab’s ongoing vegetation management strategy. It would remove invasive and particularly hazardous vegetation and restore desirable native habitat, all in a sustainable and durable manner. Doing so can also provide a landscape identity that is distinctive, biologically sound, and authentic to its surroundings.

The campus’s natural landscape is largely derived from the region’s native oak savannah ecology that remains intact in many of the campus’s outlying areas. The habitat types that comprise the campus’s prevailing oak savannah native ecology and that would be strengthened under the Plan are: oak/bay woodland, annual grassland, coastal scrub/

chaparral. Redwood forest exists in the campus’ southeast portion and extends down into Strawberry Canyon. The current, general disposition of these habitat types is shown in Figure 7.1: Existing Landscape Characteristics.

Under the Plan, each cluster and the campus’s developed areas would be populated with cultivated landscaping consisting of native and non-native plants that are sustainable, compatible, and aesthetically and functionally appropriate. Cultivated landscape should be drought tolerant and able to establish after a short drip-irrigation period pursuant to the Lab’s sustainability policy. Plants and trees should be biologically as well as physically compatible with their surroundings. For example, they should be resistant to local diseases. Pollinatorfriendly, root-intrusive plants should not be planted near underground utilities, and plants that drop heavy leaf litter, excessive or sticky pollens should not be adjacent to sidewalks or parking lots.

Cultivated plants should be visually pleasing as well as aesthetically functional, such as by providing shade and visual screening. Consistent with the Lab’s Vegetation Management Guide, cultivated landscaping would observe all fire- and safety-related setbacks to buildings and roads.

The CMP looks to common themes and landscape materials to tie the built campus together. It would also use landscape to differentiate, distinguish, and speak to the character or personality of each cluster where practical. In addition, four promoted habitat types (oak-bay woodland, grassland, chaparral, and redwood forest) would influence the landscape palettes of clusters to blend the developed areas smoothly with their existing surroundings.

Cluster identities may be further accentuated with flowering tree species unique to each cluster. Such flowering trees could be typical of understory or forest edge species, but all would be drought-tolerant and selected for their distinctive form and aesthetic characteristics.

LANDSCAPE AND WILDLIFE

Source: Berkeley Lab, WRT

Figure 7.2: Landscape Framework Map depicts cluster landscape influences.

Figure 7.3: Landscape Framework Concept illustrates how landscape influences and accent trees can strengthen cluster identities. Such landscape strategies would accentuate a sense of place as well for high-visibility

locations near Blackberry Gate or the Central Commons. To implement the Landscape Framework, a more detailed approach shall be defined in the Physical Design Framework.

CAMPUS

FIGURE 7.2

LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK MAP

OBJECTIVES

LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK

Objective 7.1.1: Develop and implement campuswide landscape planning that promotes CMP vision.

Develop and implement campuswide landscape planning that promotes safety, sustainability, environmental compatibility, and a coherent campus identity. Campuswide landscape planning shall incorporate and tie together guidance and recommendations provided in relevant resources such as Berkeley Lab’s Vegetation Management Guide, Non-Native Tree Stand Assessment Study, and Sustainability Standards for Operations policy. Landscape planning would promote safety, such as through removal of hazardous trees and the avoidance of placing incompatible trees near walkways; sustainability, such as through use of drought-tolerant trees and limited irrigation; environmental compatibility, such as through use of natives that thrive in specific micro-climates and that are consonant with existing habitats, native wildlife and pollinators; and aesthetic, such as through use of trees for visual screening and selection of visually pleasing species. Design guidance would be established in the campus Physical Design Framework.

Objective 7.1.2: Develop and implement a campuswide natural landscape improvement program.

Develop and enhance a landscape identity that is distinctive, biologically sound, and authentic to its ecological context and surroundings. It should reflect or complement the region’s dominant native oak savannah

ecology and draw from four key habitat constituents: oakbay woodland, annual grassland, coastal scrub-chapparal, and redwood forest. Removal of non-native invasives and transitioning to a native framework should be planned and executed with the aid of resource specialists. Ongoing landscape management for native landscape zones should be minimal and passive wherever possible. For example, grazing and passive removal methods should be employed following the Lab Vegetation Management Guide. Propagation of native oak trees could use campus-sourced acorns.

Objective

7.1.3: Develop and implement a campuswide cultivated landscape planning program.

Develop and implement a cultivated landscape planning framework that is sustainable, compatible, and aesthetically and functionally appropriate. Cultivated landscape should be drought tolerant, quick to establish, low maintenance, and compatible with nearby infrastructure and human uses (e.g., avoid leaf litter and root intrusion issues). Plants should be pleasing to the eye as well as aesthetically functional, such as by providing shade and visual screening.

Cultivated landscape should in part use common themes and materials to tie the built campus together and establish a campus identity. At the same time, it should differentiate each cluster where practicable and speak to the character or personality of each cluster. The CMP posits that cluster differentiation can be achieved through use of distinct, designated flowering accent trees (see Figure 7.3), especially in social spaces and along principal paths. In addition, to integrate the campus built and natural environments, the outer areas of clusters should seek to draw in elements from surrounding native habitats,

most notably from oak-bay woodland, annual grassland, coastal scrub-chapparal, and redwood forest constituents. Particular attention should be paid to landscaping in key developed areas, such as the Blackberry Gate, the Central Commons, and the entry sequences that connect them both along the roadway (Western Corridor) and pedestrian pathway (Pedestrian Spine).

Objective 7.1.4:

Remove hazardous and incompatible vegetation from the campus.

Prioritize on-going efforts to thin invasive and highly flammable trees, clear leaf litter and invasive ladderfuel vegetation, and restore native fire-resistant habitat, particularly as practiced under the Lab’s Vegetation Management Program and as recommended in the LBNL Vegetation Management Guide. In particular, remove invasive eucalyptus and pine trees and treat stumps to prevent resprouting. Use grazing and mechanical methods to remove invasive understory. Create fire breaks and clear escape routes along Cyclotron Road and near Lab gates. Identify and remove trees that are dead or dying, diseased, infested, or overly crowded so as to affect surrounding tree stand health, or that pose risks of falling on people or property.

Objective

7.1.5: After campus site disturbances and/or vegetation removals, restore affected areas in accordance with established landscape planning programs.

Apply restoration best practices to disturbed areas (e.g., demolition, excavation, or vegetation removal areas) as appropriate to avoid current or future erosion, biological resources impacts, or aesthetic impacts. Follow applicable guidance provided by Lab subject matter experts and the LBNL Vegetation Management Guide. Remove or chip large plant material unless logs/material are useful

for repurposing. Use hydroseeding, hydro-mulching, silt fencing, straw wattle, and other established stormwater control methods. Replant with native, drought-tolerant, fireresistant trees that are appropriate to the surroundings and in accordance with CMP landscape planning frameworks. Follow expert guidance for successional landscaping scheme to successfully transition restoration areas towards targeted habitat types. Apply a fire-safe landscape palette (predominantly succulents) along the perimeter of building walls in accordance with the LBNL Vegetation Management Guide.

FIGURE 7.3

LANDSCAPE FRAMEWORK CONCEPT

CENTRAL CAMPUS VIEW | South-Facing View

Source: Berkeley Lab

CLUSTERS CAMPUS CLUSTER FRAMEWORK

The Lab campus development has organically grouped into plateaus due to the scarcity of flat terrain and the necessity for roadways and utility infrastructure. These building groupings—or “clusters”—share functional and research themes as well as common facilities and amenities. Eight such clusters have been formally recognized by the Lab. Six clusters focus around research activities: the Blackberry, Bayview, Northside, Charter Hill, Redwood, and Strawberry Clusters. Two clusters tend to overall Lab functions: the Support Services Cluster, and the Central Commons. The Campus Master Plan (CMP) provides guidance to reinforce the unique identity and functionality of each cluster while integrating clusters together within a campuswide context. Each cluster would become more recognizable by drawing attention to its unique features and amenities.

8.1 SHARED THEMES

The Lab’s eight clusters occupy the campus’s prime buildable space. As the Lab emphasizes redevelopment of disturbed areas over intrusion into new greenfield spaces, the CMP concentrates future development in the existing clusters. This chapter addresses conditions and opportunities associated with each individual cluster. Prior chapters refer to some cluster features as related to campuswide networks, for which many are crossreferenced in this chapter to avoid duplication. Related building, infrastructure, and demolition issues and objectives are detailed in CMP Chapter 4: Development and in Chapter 11: Utilities. Chapter 5: Circulation, addresses cluster-related pedestrian and micro-mobility connectivity. Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design relates to cluster design and development through several different lenses, including Section 6.1: Building and Site Design, Section 6.2: Social Spaces, Section 6.3: Campus Art and Expression, Section 6.4: Recreational Network, and Section 6.5: Navigation and Wayfinding. Chapter 7: Landscape, provides general guidance to integrate a sense of surrounding natural landscapes in clusters, and ways to accentuate each cluster’s identity.

Cluster illustrations appearing in this chapter suggest possible features and their arrangement. They are intended as broad guidance, such as to support site planning and investment decisions. The cluster plans are conceptual and not a substitute for project-specific design.

Objective 8.1.1: Prepare a Campus Physical Design Framework to support CMP cluster vision.

Prepare a Campus Physical Design Framework (PhDF) to support implementation of CMP cluster vision by providing in-depth guidance for future development and improvements. PhDF shall include functional and aesthetic cluster design concepts. Functional considerations include buildings, circulation, open space, grading, etc. Aesthetic considerations include architectural styles, plant and color palettes, hard- and soft-landscape materials, art installations, etc. Consider developing schematiclevel design plans for subareas of particular importance, particularly where site and future development conditions would be complex.

Objective 8.1.2: Integrate cluster-based pedestrian network improvements with new construction.

Leverage new development to make pedestrian network improvements, such as to provide protected paths and enhance the pedestrian experience. Where steep topography limits barrier-free pedestrian circulation, position new buildings to enable vertical circulation via elevators. As clusters undergo development, emphasize improvements to the Pedestrian Spine and secondary pathways as described in Chapter 5: Circulation.

Objective 8.1.3: Design cluster social spaces opportunistically and with purpose.

Create social spaces near shuttle bus stops and at the convergence of pedestrian paths and building entrances. Program social spaces to provide informal seating and places for social gathering, along with recreation and other activities that complement a particular location. Design cluster social spaces to be distinctive, such as to frame each space with buildings and flowering trees, and to take advantage of vistas.

Objective 8.1.4: Reinforce cluster identity through landscape design.

As planned tree removal/revegetation plans and development projects take place, reinforce and accentuate each cluster’s adjacent native landscape types. Implement landscape improvements described in Chapter 7: Landscape, wherever development and infrastructure improvements are made. Further develop landscape designs, palettes, and plant selections in the Physical Design Framework.

8.1

FUTURE CLUSTER DIAGRAM

FIGURE

8.2 BLACKBERRY CLUSTER

Under the Campus Master Plan, a revitalized Lab entrance would be accompanied by improvements to key roads, pedestrian paths and stairways, social spaces, wayfinding, and landscaping. Character themes of welcoming, identity, and formality would accompany transformation of the Blackberry Cluster into the unmistakable front door and grand entryway of the campus. See Figure 8.2: Blackberry Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

The Blackberry Cluster hosts the Lab’s main entrance and its headquarters—the Laboratory Directorate. Although it includes deep investments in computer sciences and physics, the cluster emphasizes no single research area. It occupies upper and lower terraces on a steep westfacing slope with panoramic views overlooking the city of Berkeley and UC Berkeley. South of the Blackberry Cluster, steep slopes feature eucalyptus and oak woodlands, chaparral scrubland, and grasslands. Within the Blackberry Cluster, development has been heavily graded and terraced. Buildings and retaining walls hold back the hillside. Spaces between buildings can be especially steep.

As the Lab’s main entrance, Blackberry Gate sets the first impression of the campus for most people. Cyclotron Road ascends steeply from the east and winds through a hairpin turn. After the gate, Cyclotron becomes Chu Road and continues northward onto the campus. Credentials must be

presented at the gatehouse for entry.

Most people arrive at the Lab by personal vehicle or via the Lab’s shuttle bus system. Smaller numbers arrive by bicycle or on foot. Berkeley Lab’s shuttle bus system connects the Laboratory to the UC Berkeley campus, the downtown Berkeley BART station, and other destinations including off-site leased spaces in Berkeley and Emeryville.

For drivers, the entry sequence from Cyclotron Road through Blackberry Gate and towards the center of the Lab campus plays an important role in shaping impressions and forming Berkeley Lab’s aesthetic identity. Bay vistas and surrounding woodlands share space with an ad hoc assortment of buildings, equipment, signage, and fencing. The visually lackluster gate experience and the looming overhead presence of Building 59 signal Lab arrival. The entry experience fails to deliver an impression that one has entered a campus of historic scientific consequence.

Some people arrive at the Lab on foot. Such trips typically originate on the UC Berkeley campus or from parking lots off of Cyclotron Road. The footpaths and staircases to the Lab are steep and unaccompanied by amenities, lookouts, or places to sit and rest. Asphalt walkway surfaces are rough and uneven. An aging chain link fence flanks Blackberry Gate, where pedestrians without badges must cross a traffic lane to reach the gatehouse for check in.

Once on campus, the westward views from northbound Chu Road provide panoramic scenes of Berkeley, the Bay, and the San Francisco skyline interrupted by eucalyptus

screening trees in the foreground. The uphill view eastward is dominated by Building 59, the massive computing facility that cuts into the steeply ascending hillside. The Western Corridor road sequence ahead—a series of roads named for Nobel Laureates Chu, Smoot, and Lawrence—connects Blackberry Gate and the center of campus. Drivers following this Western Corridor may be confused by a serpentine road alignment and an absence of wayfinding signage or other visual cues.

Pedestrian routes through the Blackberry Cluster can be unwelcoming. Following the Western Corridor roadways on foot requires a long and circuitous climb. Pedestrian route signage offering better choices is nonexistent. Knowledgeable pedestrians typically shortcut to the Commons or interior campus destinations by first ascending a steep staircase alongside Building 59’s northern face. From there, a short detour along a service road and a nondescript stairway network leads to arrival near the Commons and the Building 50 Complex main entrance.

A third common Blackberry Gate entry sequence is by shuttle. Passengers arrive at the Blackberry Cluster’s Building 65 parking lot, where they disembark and transfer to intra-campus shuttles or begin their walk climbing eastward along Chu Road. Many knowledgeable shuttle users cross Chu Road and enter the Building 50 Complex at its lowest level, where they ride an interior elevator to the fourth floor and resume their pedestrian journey at a conveniently higher elevation.

ESA, ETA, EESA

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

8.2

FIGURE

BLACKBERRY

A large platform is expected to be constructed north of Building 59 to hold mechanical air-cooling units. This platform would occupy a visually prominent location for anyone entering or exiting the Lab via Blackberry Gate and introduce a stark industrial element into the cluster.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Building 50 includes a large (230-seat) auditorium that is not connected to nearby conference support space. Social spaces in the Blackberry Cluster include scattered picnic tables on a Building 59 northeast patio, on the Building 50C rooftop, and in a few other Building 50 Complex locations. The 50B lower rooftop provides long-range scenic views and a large, flat location, but it is currently unused and occupied with abandoned building material.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Blackberry Cluster features no common architectural style. Building 59 is a simple, clean-lined geometric volume with an exterior skin composed of glass, metal panels, and metal lattice that shades the building—treatments similar to other more recent Lab buildings. Building 59 offers exterior stairways and an exterior catwalk that improve the campus’s pedestrian network. Exterior circulation elements like stairways are clearly expressed as additions to the principal volume.

The Building 50 Complex is an example of 20th-century brutalism with its stark concrete masses and deeply set window openings—a style that contrasts with more recent and elegantly expressed buildings. Other cluster buildings are utilitarian, such as the simple-formed Building 65 Cluster, and Building 88, a heavy-walled accelerator facility seated on a deep terrace below Chu Road.

Landscape features in the Blackberry Cluster are unremarkable, except for the dense pocket of riparian woodlands to the north and dispersed remnants of oak woodlands south and east. A grove of tall blue gum eucalyptus trees provides intermittent visual screening of Lab development along the western sides of Cyclotron and Chu Roads; many of these trees are scheduled for removal as they pose a wildfire escape hazard if burning trees were to fall across the road.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

The CMP envisions an improved entry experience with better signage, wayfinding, landscaping, and pedestrian access to the Central Commons. Campus navigation in general would be improved as key driving and walking routes would become more recognizably landscaped and better marked from the Lab’s main entrance. Circulation and wayfinding improvements along the east-west Pedestrian Spine and Western Corridor roadway would markedly enhance the experience of entering and accessing the interior campus.

Beginning with Blackberry Gate, the Pedestrian Spine’s western terminus, pedestrians could enjoy an improved and clearly demarked set of pathways to reach the campus center. The route would be punctuated by new adjacent social and gathering spaces. A new stairway would provide a direct connection along the Pedestrian Spine to the improved Central Commons.

The Campus Master Plan would redefine cluster organization as the demolished Building 70 footprint would be realigned into the Central Commons Cluster.

BUILDING 50 CLUSTER AND BUILDING 59 | South-Facing View. Source: Berkeley Lab

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Under the Plan, an array of potential new social and gathering spaces are identified. The Building 50 Auditorium would enjoy adjacency to the newly improved gathering space on the Building 50B lower rooftop that could support auditorium events. The Building 50B lower rooftop would be outfitted for versatile use as social, recreational, or outdoor meeting space, either on an ad hoc basis or for some dedicated future purpose. The lower Blackberry Cluster would acquire convenient access to new Central Commons amenities via improved Northside Cluster stairways or by way of Building 50 Complex elevators.

An overlook platform constructed on the west side of Chu Road and across from the Building 59 exterior stairwell (where there is currently a crosswalk connection) could provide a signature spot for interaction that enjoys the signature Blackberry Canyon view. The CMP prescribes large-scale stairway landings and other pause points for physical relief and social interaction along the long and arduous pedestrian paths up Cyclotron and through the Blackberry Cluster.

The Blackberry Cluster would also feature a new nature trail—appropriate for hiking, jogging, and possibly bicycling—accessible from the south end of Perlmutter Road. The trail would pass through steep woodlands below the new Seismic Safety and Modernization (SSM) Building. The trail would be located on top of planned utility trenching to deliver the trail with little additional investment (see Section 6.4: Recreation Network). Linking the Blackberry Cluster with the Lawrence Corridor, the nature

trail would open up one of the campus’s most rugged and scenic natural areas to pedestrian exploration.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Architectural and landscape improvements would transform the Blackberry Gate into the unmistakable front door and grand entryway of the campus. Architectural and design themes would focus on welcoming, identity, and formality.

The large platform with air-cooling units north of Building 59 would be visually screened by a surrounded wall composed of vertical louvers. This screening wall would be outfitted with prominent Berkeley Lab identity signage and lighting. It would be the centerpiece of a new entrance experience that announcing a visitor’s arrival at Berkeley Lab. This signage, if carefully designed and executed, could become the most important piece of campus iconography after the Building 6 dome.

The Blackberry Gate and gatehouse, social space on the Building 50B lower rooftop, the Chu Road overlook, new stairways, and improved pedestrian paths are all opportunities for fresh design and architectural enhancements to support Blackberry Cluster themes. The surrounding fence should be refreshed or replaced where in disrepair to modernize and brighten the entry experience.

With the expected near-term removal of the tall eucalyptus screening trees lining Cyclotron and Chu Roads, restoration should include extension of the surrounding

oak-bay woodlands into the hillside. Future landscape improvements should conform to Chapter 7: Landscape. Blackberry Cluster accent trees, potentially the desert willow, should be used as a forest edge tree or to more formally to mark important edges and cluster locations. Landscaping should be used to assist wayfinding by lining the Western Corridor roadway, which originates in the Blackberry Cluster.

Source: Berkeley Lab

BLACKBERRY CLUSTER FROM BERKELEY | East-Facing View.

OBJECTIVES

BLACKBERRY CLUSTER

Dedicated Blackberry Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.2.1: Enhance the Berkeley Lab arrival experience at the Blackberry Gate entrance.

Attend to the area’s visual character commensurate with arrival at an important place. Design Berkeley Lab identity signage and lighting at the Building 59 ACHE platform screening wall with attention to detail. Implement planned gatehouse improvements, including reconfiguration to ensure pedestrian safety with respect to traffic lanes. Replace aged or deteriorated chain link fencing, preferably with metal bar fencing designed to not distract from bay views. Update lighting and signage along the entry gate and Chu Road.

Objective 8.2.2: Establish effective entryway wayfinding for motorists and bicyclists.

Improve signage as well as lighting, landscaping, and bicycle lanes to enhance the driver and bicycle entry experience and sense of arrival. Direct guests and visitors efficiently to the Central Commons and Central Parking Lot; use signage, color schemes, lighting, and landscaping

to make following the Western Corridor to the Commons simple and intuitive.

Objective 8.2.3: Enhance pedestrian paths, wayfinding, and overall walking experience.

Improve signage as well as lighting, landscaping, footpaths, and stairways to enhance the pedestrian entry experience and sense of arrival. Funnel guests and visitors efficiently to the Central Commons; use signage, color schemes, lighting, and landscaping to make following the east-west Pedestrian Spine to the Commons simple and intuitive. Explore options for leveraging Building 59 elevator for badged pedestrians (particularly those with physical challenges) to gain top-level elevation; continue to offer the Building 50 Complex elevators for this purpose even after the principal shuttle stop moves to the Commons. Correct cracked and uneven paths that may be constructed of asphalt or other material.

Objective 8.2.4: Widen Cyclotron Road and implement other bicycle access and safety improvements.

Widen Cyclotron Road and work with Lab Civil Engineering staff to design safety improvements—particularly at the hairpin curve—to enhance access, safety, and the overall experience for cyclists entering and exiting the Blackberry Gate. In addition to road-widening, explore lighting, reflectors, road separation features, signage, etc. Aid drivers in negotiating safely around slow uphill bicyclists as

well as large-vehicle drivers in safely managing the hairpin curve without threatening oncoming traffic.

Objective 8.2.5: Create new and enhance existing cluster social spaces.

Remove abandoned material and make minor enhancements to Building 50B lower rooftop to allow for light business gathering, social uses, or recreation. Uses may be determined based on future needs. Create a terrace platform and overlook on the west side of Chu Road across from Building 59. Expand landings on long stairways to incorporate seating opportunities, especially along the steep pedestrian climb to the Lab entrance and the Pedestrian Spine.

Objective 8.2.6: Improve Blackberry Cluster landscape, particularly to enhance the entry experience.

Landscape along Western Corridor in a distinct and continuous manner—particularly along outside edges where the road curves, using Blackberry Cluster’s accent tree. Consider using the desert willow (or a similarly dedicated accent tree, as appropriate). Consider landscaping areas at the base of Building 59 in a manner that celebrates the principal arrival point.

In consultation with landscaping experts, restore cluster areas where screening trees are removed for fuel reduction purposes. Consider extending the adjacent oak-bay woodland landscape palette into the Blackberry Cluster. Use landscape to both transition the Blackberry Cluster from its more natural surroundings, but also to help mark the cluster as an important space and a place of arrival.

CMP PROGRAM

Central Campus Area (Lab

Zone 1)

8.3 CENTRAL COMMONS CLUSTER

Under the Campus Master Plan, the expanded Central Commons would dramatically transform into the Lab’s campus centerpiece. A new cafeteria/conference center and multi-purpose lab/office building would frame a dramatic multi-terraced quadrangle featuring an amphitheater and multiple plazas designed to accommodate a wide range of activities. See Figure 8.3: Central Commons Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Tbd

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

The Central Commons area is considered the geographic and functional “heart of the Lab,” and houses facilities for dining, gathering, parking, transit, and lodging. The Commons occupies a westward sloping plane between the Blackberry Cluster and Charter Hill. It is a junction between Blackberry, Bayview, Northside, and Charter Hill Clusters and the nexus intersecting the Western, Northern, and Lawrence Corridors. Featuring a large parking lot and a major shuttle stop, the Commons is a convenient point of convergence for several pedestrian footpaths. Building 54 (the Cafeteria) is currently undergoing demolition for future replacement by the Seismic Safety and Modernization (SSM) Building and an accompanying centralized transit hub.

The Central Commons is a minimal expression of what a campus center should be. Its buildings and hardscapes are outdated and undersized for large events. Its geographic focal point is a parking lot. The Cafeteria entrance had been sandwiched between views of its dumpster-lined loading dock and the chemical storage tanks and loading docks of nearby Buildings 70 and 70A. Building 54 conferencing facilities were antiquated and undersized. The remaining outdoor patio and its accompanying

performance/speaker’s stage are modest and minimalist. Pedestrian travel to the Commons involves steep climbs or drops from surrounding clusters.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Building 54’s historic layout illustrates issues common to current Lab design. The Cafeteria and its environs had long been the social hub for campus dining, gathering, conferencing, and celebration. Its indoor dining area was spacious and afforded panoramic views to diners. A later building addition—Perseverance Hall—adjoined two moderately large conference rooms to the Cafeteria, although access was prosaically offered through the food service area. A spacious but rather spartan outdoor patio continues to feature picnic tables on a compressed gravel surface. A nearby wooden-plank stage provides a rustic forum for speakers and performances.

Conferences and large workshops have drawn upon the combined resources of Building 54, the Building 50 Auditorium, and the nearby Guest House (Building 23), though pedestrian connections between those facilities are made through parking lots and circuitous paths. Lab-wide events have often relied on Building 54 or the outdoor patio, including for speakers, performances, musical events, and holiday parties. These facilities have been adequate for many large gatherings but could not accommodate attendance by more than a small fraction of the total campus population.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The Central Commons heart of the Lab character is undermined by its layout. Pedestrian access from the west is through the Building 70A loading dock; arrival from the

east is announced by a large parking lot. Northern and southern approaches are through the parking lot or via an unceremoniously tucked-away staircase. Buildings are largely utilitarian and do not work together in terms of orientation and entrance alignment. The Guest House is a notable exception with a modern and breezy appearance. A variety of ornamental trees populate the parking lot and outdoor patio areas. Oak and eucalyptus woodland and grassland populate the slopes to the south.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

The Central Commons would realize its potential to be the social and intellectual heart of the Lab and become a more complete focal point for events, large and small. It would increase and intensify its offerings of services and amenities, and it would impart a true campus experience to every Lab community member and visitor alike. As currently underway, Building 54 would be replaced by the new SSM cafeteria and conference building and transit hub. A new multi-purpose lab/office building (Flex Building) would stand across from SSM and help frame the new outdoor open space. This open space would be dramatically transformed by an upper plaza, an amphitheater stepping down to a performance stage, and to a large lower plaza designed for flexible use. These open spaces would be accompanied by various social and recreational amenities. A key segment of the new east-west Pedestrian Spine would bisect the Commons, and a new pedestrian nature trail would pass through the steep woodlands below. The character of the new Central Commons would be one of engagement, community, and vitality.

CENTRAL COMMONS

CLUSTER VISION

FIGURE 8.3

CENTRAL COMMONS AMPHITHEATER AND LOWER PLAZA I Northeast-Facing View

TRAVERSING CAMPUS TOPOGRAPHY

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

The Central Commons would integrate several buildings and open spaces to create a vibrant district and distinct recognizable sense of place. A new landscaped transit center would be ground zero for Lab arrival. Most visitors and Lab shuttle users would take their first step onto campus grounds at this transit hub. They would be greeted by the dynamic Commons quadrangle (described below) and unfolding bay vista. Next to the transit center, a small flat plaza could be edged by lawn or similar usable softscape for informal gathering and sitting. Loading and service activities would be located away from the social spaces while allowing sufficient space for trucks to maneuver.

The Central Commons and transit center would provide a nexus for key campus roadways and pedestrian routes. Along with the Central Parking Lot that is part of the Northside Cluster, the Commons would be the terminus for the Lab’s Western, Northern, and Lawrence Corridors. It would likewise provide the most active segment of the east-west Pedestrian Spine and transform the walking experience across the middle of the campus.

Under the Plan, central campus accessibility would be greatly improved. The Flex Building (along with the A&E Building in the Charter Hill Cluster) would be positioned alongside the Pedestrian Spine to provide interior elevator access. With these elevators, pedestrians could eliminate most of the 120-foot climb from the lower campus Commons to Charter Hill. In the opposite direction, the Pedestrian Spine would pass near the Building 50 Complex, where interior elevators could deliver pedestrians to the level of Building 59’s top-floor elevators. (See Figure 8.4: Traversing Campus Topography)

The transit hub would unload shuttle passengers a few

steps away from the new SSM Building, which will function as the campus’s welcoming center. The SSM Building’s upper floor will be a cafeteria featuring a large, all-electric kitchen and spacious (325-seat total) indoor and exterior patio dining areas with spectacular panoramic views. The lower floor will feature a 700-person conference center with various sized meeting rooms and amenities enjoying similar westward views. The three largest conference rooms will be connected by retractable walls, providing ample space with flexible size options. Also on the lower floor will be a badging office for visitors, human resources offices, and a well-equipped wellness center/clinic.

The Flex Building would be a multi-story facility offering a variety of potential functions. It would provide labs and offices, either as permanently assigned or as surge space to accommodate temporarily displaced staff. It would be an excellent candidate for a new Lab administrative headquarters, or Directorate, which currently resides in a remote recess of aging Building 50A. It would be an optimal location for a new Lab fitness center, where locker rooms and shower facilities could support cardio and weight equipment areas and a group exercise floor. The Flex Building location and position would be important to framing the Central Commons layout and providing pedestrian elevator assistance.

The Central Commons layout further takes advantage of existing visitor and conferencing amenities, as it includes the Guest House at its eastern end and is adjacent to the Building 50 Auditorium to the west. Accordingly, the Central Commons could smoothly host large and small events alike. In addition to the up to 700-person capacity of the SSM Building conference center, the adjacent Building 50 Auditorium seats 230 people, and the envisioned Central Commons Amphitheater would seat approximately 300 people, with ample standing-room audience capacity

on the Central Plaza side of the stage.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The highlight of the Central Commons would be its large, wedge-shaped quadrangle framed by adjacent buildings and composed of several social spaces supporting a variety of experiences. The quadrangle would flow dynamically as it conformed to the local terrain. It would cascade downward from the transit center and small upper plaza over a series of stepped terraces, each offering distinct views and different types of social engagement. Ramps and terraces would descend to an amphitheater that would cascade, in turn, to a raised platform stage. The raised stage would stand at the east edge of, and would be serviceable to, a large lower plaza. Stairs would line both sides of the amphitheater and converge near the stage.

The lower plaza would share elevation and adjacency with the Building 50 Auditorium, where the Pedestrian Spine would exit the Commons into the Blackberry Cluster. The plaza would also share space with an adjoining multipurpose service road wrapping around to the Building 70A and SSM Building service areas. Accordingly, the lower plaza could provide multi-purpose utility with vehicleaccessible space for food trucks, the blood mobile, and event staging. At the same time, it would offer passive space for gatherings, social and recreational activities, and even emergency assembly.

Recreation and health would be well served in the new Central Commons. Besides the SSM Building wellness center and a Flex Building fitness center, the Commons would support passive and active recreation—including the Lab’s many employee club activities—in its Central Plaza, upper plazas, and in the Conference Center’s spacious interiors. A new nature trail appropriate for hiking, jogging, and possibly bicycling would pass downhill of the SSM Building.

CENTRAL COMMONS CONNECTION BETWEEN BLACKBERRY, BAYVIEW, AND CHARTER HILL CLUSTERS I Northeast-Facing View

Architectural and Landscape Character

The Central Commons would represent the most dramatic architectural transformation under the CMP. It would evolve from a large parking lot with various aging, bunker-style buildings on its periphery to a vibrant, people-oriented space centering on outdoor amenities, scenic vistas, and community-serving buildings.

SSM Building construction has begun at the time of this writing. Its emphasis on glass, metal panels, and deep recesses fits within the larger palette of 21st-century buildings. The Flex Building offers an opportunity to combine a modern aesthetic with elements associated with academic campuses, like colonnades and spacious entrances. Such features could communicate the cluster’s civic purpose as well as facilitate the adjoining Pedestrian Spine. The SSM and Flex buildings in particular would be positioned to help frame the wedge-shaped quadrangle and amphitheater, to direct pedestrian flow, and to funnel views towards the west-facing scenic vista.

The Central Commons design character would be set in large part by its hardscapes and softscapes, as their quality would contribute to and ennoble the Lab’s identity. As the campus’s most important social gathering space, the Central Commons landscape would be strongly influenced by adjacent oak-bay woodlands south of the SSM Building and north of the Flex Building along Smoot Road. The yellow-flowering bailey acacia tree could be a choice to accent important paths, view corridors, and social spaces.

THE CENTRAL COMMONS AND PEDESTRIAN SPINE FROM CHARTER HILL I West-Facing View

OBJECTIVES

CENTRAL COMMONS CLUSTER

Dedicated Central Commons Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.3.1: Create a modernized Central Commons that focuses on visitors and campuswide community needs.

The Central Commons should include visitor arrival services, large-scale conference and dining facilities, pedestrian and transit functions, gathering and performance spaces, health and recreation opportunities, lodging facilities, and a variety of social spaces. Use the new SSM and Flex Buildings to frame the Central Commons quadrangle. Align and size utilities to accommodate envisioned Commons design. Facilitate Building 70 demolition in sequence with Commons improvements. Construct and outfit interior Commons landscape and amenities. Emphasize and support shuttlebased transit center.

Objective 8.3.2: Develop an integrated series of outdoor spaces as the Central Commons Cluster centerpiece.

Express the Central Commons as a unified quadrangle that stitches together buildings, pedestrian corridors, plazas, and other open spaces. Offer outdoor gathering, assembly, social, campus art, and recreational opportunities at a Lab-wide scale. Design with the landform to connect the Commons’ spaces seamlessly and optimize its potential. Feature a large amphitheater, stage, and plazas. Integrate with Pedestrian

Spine and intra-cluster pathways. Emphasize flexibility for a variety of potential uses and users.

Objective 8.3.3: Promote Central Commons pedestrian access and utility.

Make the Central Commons a showcase for overcoming the campus’s long-standing pedestrian accessibility and navigational challenges. Provide convenient building elevator assistance along the Pedestrian Spine to negate elevation changes. Open sight lines along the Pedestrian Spine to create clear and intuitive wayfinding across the Commons to bridge upper Blackberry to Charter Hill Clusters. Provide reasonably direct and barrier-free access to and between building entrances and other Commons destinations, including to the transit hub.

Objective 8.3.4: Celebrate views and sightlines available from the Commons.

Take advantage of bay views from along the Pedestrian Spine and wherever else practical from indoor and outdoor spaces. Create open sight lines looking uphill and eastward to the Building 6 dome and downhill to the scenic vistas to the west and south.

Objective 8.3.5: Emphasize civic importance of the Central Commons through design and treatment.

Develop and apply color and landscape palettes, building and hardscape styles, outdoor furnishings, and signage and décor commensurate with the Central Commons’ status as the heart of the Lab. This may include traditional civic building elements such as colonnades. Implement a commemorative “Nobel Walk” originating at or traversing the Commons. Avoid loading docks, refuse dumpsters, and service areas in plain sight to the Common’s main open space. Communicate style and materials choices through Physical Design Framework.

Objective 8.3.6: Develop and implement integrated cluster landscape scheme.

In consultation with experts and as to be further developed in the Physical Design Framework, evaluate and develop landscape plans that reinforce cluster identity and enhance connection to campus landscape types. Emulate oak-bay woodlands at the periphery of the Central Commons, along Smoot Road, and below the lower plaza. Consider an accent tree such as yellow-flowering bailey acacia to highlight important paths, view corridors, and social space boundaries.

CENTRAL COMMONS LOWER PLAZA I East-Facing View

CMP PROGRAM

8.4 BAYVIEW CLUSTER

Northwest Campus Area (Lab Zone 2)

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

Under the Campus Master Plan, Bayview Lot modernization would be completed with three additional lab/office buildings and a nearby, small modular computing facility. Major landscape and pedestrian path improvements would complement the Bayview Cluster transformation. See Figure 8.5: Bayview Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

The Bayview Cluster is spread among three terraces of differing elevations. The principal plateau space is the expansive Bayview Lot area formerly occupied by the Lab’s Bevatron accelerator complex. The Bayview Lot is the campus’s prime building space and forms a gently northwest trending arc bounded along its west by Alvarez Road. After demolition of the Bevatron Complex in the early 2000s, the Bayview Lot has been undergoing modernization anchored by the Integrative Genomics Building (IGB) and modular utility plant (MUP) at its southeast end, to be followed by Building 92 (BioEPIC). Further west and at a higher elevation, Buildings 90 and 90X and a pair of associated trailers comprise the Building 90 Complex on the Lab’s northwesternmost terrace. A third terrace known as the Blackberry Pit resides at a much lower elevation, west of the Bayview Lot and surrounded by steep slopes, retaining walls, and dense vegetation. The “Pit” holds a large parking lot connected by a switchback driveway to Alvarez Road.

Direct access to the Bayview Lot, the Building 90 Complex, and the Blackberry Pit are all available from Alverez Road. While Bayview circulation is concentrated on Alvarez Road and its connection to the Chu Road traffic circle, Bayview

is also circumscribed by a counterclockwise backdoor loop. From the traffic circle the loop climbs Smoot and Doudna Roads, turns west onto one-way Chamberlain Road, and descends to the Building 90 Complex parking lot. Alverez Road completes the loop back to the traffic circle.

Pedestrian travel is most convenient along Alverez where sidewalks along the road’s east edge have been constructed by the IGB and BioEPIC projects. Pedestrian access to both the Building 90 Complex and the Blackberry Pit from Alverez Road involves steep climbs via several flights of outdoor stairways.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Opportunities for social interaction and gathering are informal and distributed inconsistently throughout the Bayview Cluster. Building 91 features several well-designed gathering areas, including a picnic area in an eastern side yard, a generously proportioned lounge and outdoor patio on its third floor, and a large sheltered space beneath its entrance overhang. Building 90 includes a small assortment of picnic tables underneath its building eaves, on its fourth-floor rooftop patio, and in a rustic natural area west of its parking lot. Cluster upper-story patios offer long-range scenic views.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The Bayview Cluster is an eclectic mix of old and new construction. At its southeast end are Buildings 91 and 92, both modern-style lab/office buildings with metal, concrete, and glass facades featuring overhangs and asymmetrical articulations. Filling out the Bayview lot are antiquated

utilitarian buildings. Building 90 is notable for the enormous steel buttresses spaced along its exterior to provide seismic support. Building 90X is a one-of-a-kind row of small building envelopes. These unoccupied structures are platforms for testing building materials and systems. One structure sits on a large, surface-level disk that can rotate to provide various solar exposures.

The North Fork of Strawberry Creek runs beneath the Bayview Lot and daylights as a perennial stream immediately west of the Blackberry Pit parking lot. West of the Pit, the stream is accompanied by lush riparian woodlands. Two tributaries feeding the North Fork originate uphill from the cluster but are culverted below grade as they approach the Bayview Lot. The Bayview Lot itself is completely paved but rimmed by a mix of grasses and screening trees. The Building 90 Complex is drier and surrounded by grassland, oak-bay woodland, mixed conifers, and eucalyptus.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Under the Campus Master Plan, Buildings 55, 60, 63, and 64 would be removed to make way for the Bayview Lot’s complete modernization. New construction would follow northwesterly along the plateau’s arc and the Building 91 (IGB) anchor point. BioEPIC is currently under construction with completion expected in 2024. A third Biosciences lab/office building—BioGEM—is envisioned to occupy the next adjacent space and would reinforce the Bayview Lot’s strong biosciences presence. Envisioned fourth and fifth lab/office buildings (programming to be determined) would fill out the remaining Bayview Lot area. Building

FIGURE 8.5 BAYVIEW CLUSTER VISION

fronts and paths along Alvarez Road would be afforded dramatic views of San Francisco Bay, as topography slopes downward to the west. No new buildings are envisioned for the Bayview Cluster’s upper and lower plateaus save for a modest and unoccupied Modular Computing Facility in the Blackberry Pit.

Under the Plan, the Alvarez Road arc would become a stronger Bayview Lot organizing feature, as it would delineate a continuous series of buildings and possible accent trees. The arcing building fronts would be visible from all points along Alvarez Road. The Road’s eastern edge would define adjacent pedestrian and bike paths providing access to the nearby building fronts and entrances.

A direct pedestrian connection between the Bayview Cluster and the Central Commons would be accomplished by stairways and a Smoot Road crossing. This connection would access the Central Plaza below the future Flex Building. Sloping terrain and sight lines limited by the curving roadway require that this pathway segment be considered carefully.

A currently unused, sloping service road along the north side of the Bayview Lot and connecting to Smoot/Doudna Road would be improved and used as a pedestrian trail between the Bayview Cluster and the Central Parking Lot. The trail would land at a future courtyard between BioGEM and Bayview Building 4. If feasible, a staircase would be added near the trail midpoint to access the IGB and BioEPIC buildings directly below. This would significantly

An elevator in Bayview Building 5 would bridge the steep elevation change between the Bayview Lot and Building 90 Complex plateau. To accomplish this, Bayview Building 5 would need to be built into the hillside or be accompanied by a short pedestrian bridge at its upper level.

reduce the walking distance between these buildings and the Central Parking Lot.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Bayview Cluster social spaces would be provided in front of and between new Bayview Lot buildings. The cluster’s principal space could be a prominent courtyard between BioGEM and Bayview Building 4. This social space would be large enough to feature a basketball half-court and co-located recreation features, along with places for sitting and social gathering. This courtyard would be connected north and south to the adjacent buildings, east to the Central Parking Lot trail, and west to the Alvarez Road pedestrian path. To enable this courtyard, building loading and service areas would need to be rear-facing.

Outdoor seating or other social space could include focal points that draw on the North Fork of Strawberry Creek

tributaries. These focal points could be an oak-bay rain garden between BioGEM and Bayview Building 4 and a bio-retention swale between BioGEM and BioEPIC and/or between Bayview Buildings 4 and 5.

Upper-floor terraces that extend from the upper floors of new buildings would serve as important social spaces and should be oriented towards the Bay. In addition, BioEPIC is designed to feature a landscaped forecourt at its entrance. This concept should be extended to Bayview Buildings 4 and 5, where the objective is to make front-entrance social space connections between “Alvarez arc” pathways and Bayview Lot buildings. Two new overlook platforms would round out social space opportunities in the Bayview Cluster.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The BioEPIC building sets an apt precedent for future Bayview Lot development. This modern-style building features a front façade framing a deep entrance recess. The portal-like massing of the front facade communicates a sense of entry facing Alvarez and provides protection from the afternoon sun. A balcony terrace is inserted within the frame and points towards the bay view.

To be further explored in the Physical Design Framework, the Bayview Cluster would feature an accent tree that can accentuate and frame the Alvarez arc and the cluster’s principal social space. The Bayview Cluster could reinforce a sense of connection to its adjacent oak-bay woodland and annual grasslands.

Adjacent to Bayview 5, a tributary to Strawberry Creek might be daylighted, or a naturalized swale might capture rainwater and be aligned as if it were a creek extension. As mentioned above, bio-swales and rain gardens provide passive stormwater and water quality management as well as an enjoyable open space atmosphere.

BAYVIEW CLUSTER | Northeast-Facing View. Source: Berkeley Lab

BIOGEM COURTYARD WITH RECREATION AND RAIN GARDEN I Southeast-Facing View

OBJECTIVES

BAYVIEW CLUSTER

Dedicated Bayview Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.4.1: Continue to modernize the Bayview Lot with an integrated series of research buildings.

Demolish outdated facilities and construct additional lab/ office buildings to fully realize the Bayview Lot’s building potential. Buildings should be designed to optimize footprints, share utilities and service areas, take advantage of views, and provide amenities. Extend building fronts and entrances to frame the edge of the Alvarez arc. Identify consistent or complementary façade elements that can further accentuate a unified appearance. Locate loading areas and service access away from building entrances and Alvarez Road.

Objective 8.4.2: Develop a comprehensive pedestrian network that enhances Bayview Cluster connectivity and accessibility.

Extend pedestrian and bicycle paths along the east edge of the Alvarez arc, with connections to buildings and common areas. Provide Bayview Building 5 elevator and pedestrian bridge connection between Bayview Lot and Building 90 Complex plateaus. Improve stair access down to the Blackberry Parking Lot and up to Smoot Road and the Central Commons. Provide a painted crosswalk on Smoot

Road and, as appropriate, signage and flashers to enhance pedestrian safety.

Objective 8.4.3: Provide the Bayview Cluster with convenient pedestrian access to the Central Parking Lot.

Develop the existing rear service road between Bayview Lot and Doudna Road as a direct pedestrian shortcut to the Central Parking Lot. The pedestrian shortcut should land between BioGEM and Bayview Building 4 and directly to the prospective main cluster courtyard. To better serve users of Buildings 91 (IGB) and 92 (BioEPIC), extend a stairwell from the pedestrian shortcut to the rear area of Building 91, if feasible. Provide a painted crosswalk on Doudna Road and, as appropriate, signage and flashers to enhance pedestrian safety.

Objective 8.4.4: Create new and enhance existing Bayview Cluster social and recreational spaces.

Develop a courtyard between BioGEM and Bayview Building 4 that would include seating, gathering space, and a multi-use surface for recreation, such as a basketball halfcourt. Connect principal building entrances to courtyard, and face entrances into the courtyard if possible. Create scenic overlook platform near Building 56A to showcase scenic short- and long-range views, and design the overlooks so that employees can work and meet outdoors. Improve and update outdoor seating facilities around Building 90.

Objective 8.4.5: Integrate naturalized drainage features for environmental and social benefits.

Consider extending the surface courses of the two North Fork of Strawberry Creek tributaries into spaces between Bayview Lot Buildings: between Building 92 (BioEPIC) and BioGEM, and between BioGEM and Bayview Building 4. If daylighting creeks is not feasible, consider aligning bio-swale extensions into these locations. Integrate bioretention swales and/or rain gardens into Bayview spaces to capture stormwater and improve stormwater quality. Take advantage of these picturesque features with nearby seating.

Objective 8.4.6: Design and implement Bayview Cluster landscape improvements.

In consultation with experts and as to be further developed in the Physical Design Framework, develop landscape plans that reinforce the Bayview Cluster character by using an oak-bay woodland landscape palette, as appropriate. Identify and feature an accent tree to highlight important paths, view corridors, and the social space boundaries. Design and develop distinctive landscape bio-swale and rain garden features that provide pedestrian or social space focal points along with environmental benefits.

ALVAREZ ARC APPROACH TO BIOEPIC AND BIOGEM I North-Facing View

8.5 NORTHSIDE CLUSTER

Under the Campus Master Plan, Building 71 would be bolstered with multiple new accelerator facilities. The Cluster would become a campuswide destination with new centralized parking and employee parcourse recreation facilities. See Figure 8.6: Northside Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

The Northside Cluster occupies two primary terraces respectively occupied by the Building 71 and Building 46 Complexes. The Building 71 Complex includes Buildings 71, 71A, and 71B. Across Chamberlain Road are an assortment of trailers and small 71-series support buildings. The Building 71 Complex is used by the Lab’s Accelerator Technology and Applied Physics (ATAP) Area; it includes the Berkeley Lab Laser Accelerator center (BELLA). Program space in Building 71 is constrained, particularly modern space outfitted for accelerator installation. Other structures on this Northside Cluster upper terrace are Building 71T (the User Test Facility), and several small support and storage buildings along with a 200,000-gallon water tank. Southeast and at a lower elevation, the Building 46 Complex includes Engineering Buildings 46, 46A, and 46B. Adjacent and further south is Building 47, which supports the ATAP program.

The cluster is seated around the intersection of Doudna, Chamberlain, and McMillan Roads. It forms part of the Northern Corridor connecting Grizzly Gate with central parking and the Commons. A one-way driveway loops clockwise around the back of Building 71 connecting

Chamberlain and McMillian Roads. Pedestrians traversing the Northside Cluster have few options but to follow sidewalks along the main roadways.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Northside Cluster social space opportunities are few. They include the whimsically named Seaborg Glen, an oak-bay woodland glade adjacent east of Building 71. A pair of solitary picnic tables are positioned among the Building 71 Complex trailers to access the scenic westward vistas. The Building 71 interior is adorned with framed oil paintings and a grand piano, efforts by the late and celebrated accelerator scientist Al Ghiorso to create uplift and stimulating social interaction among the drab concrete caves. His unrealized vision included using the building for after-hour lectures and musical recitals.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The Northside Cluster is characterized by rugged terrain and an austere built environment. Buildings are industrial in appearance, rectilinear in shape, and feature few windows or adornments. Building 46 is a flat, metal-sided box that presents visual clutter along its surprising length. Building 71’s exterior with its massive, horizontal concrete walls and recessed slit windows conveys the thick accelerator shielding walls and “caves” within. Containers, equipment, and vintage trailers are laid out in haphazard patterns. There is little cultivated landscape, save the picturesque olive trees lining the west side of Doudna Road. The cluster’s surrounding natural landscape is strongly

influenced by its adjacent oak-bay and grassland habitats. Charter Hill lies to the southeast.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Under the CMP, the Northside Cluster would be transformed through the planned demolition of substandard buildings and repurposing of land. Demolition would remove the Building 46 Complex (Buildings 46, 46A, and 46B), Building 47, and all but one of the Building 71-series trailers: only the User Test Facility (Building 71T) and a restroom trailer (Building 71Q) would remain. Vacating these areas would provide a virtual blank canvas for transformation.

Building 71 would be expanded to include additional accelerator cave space with BELLA program functionality. In addition, a new tunnel structure would be constructed into the grassy hillside north and upslope from Building 71. This ~24,000-GSF structure would provide chamber and cave space for linear accelerator installation and research. A new ~6,000-GSF General Purpose Computing (GPC) facility would replace the 71-series trailers. This facility would help augment and modernize the campus’s IT systems.

A large, open-air parcourse exercise area is envisioned on a bluff carved into the hillside terrain above and parallel to the Central Parking Lot. This recreational area would be served by direct pedestrian connections to McMillan Road on its northern end and the Pedestrian Spine and the Charter Hill Cluster on its southern end. A stairway would

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

lead down to the Central Parking Lot, and a pedestrian trail would meander along the slope to the Northside social space terrace and Building 71 Complex.

Planned Building 46 Complex demolition would yield a large centrally located site for the Central Parking Lot. The Lot would contain approximately 250 parking spaces and would offset the CMP’s parking losses elsewhere. Most notably, it would recover the 90 or so spaces displaced by the Central Commons transformation. The Central Parking Lot would provide walkable convenience to the Northside, Bayview, Charter Hill, and Central Commons Clusters. The lot’s shuttle bus service and mobility hub would make its parking function useful to all other parts of the campus. At its southern end, the Central Parking Lot would provide access to the Accelerator and Engineering Support (A&E) Building loading area.

The Central Parking Lot would reside near the convergence of the Western, Northern, and Lawrence Corridors. Pedestrian access would be aided by the A&E Building at the Lot’s southern edge: building elevators would take pedestrians four levels up to the Charter Hill Cluster and Pedestrian Spine.

An improved sidewalk along Doudna Road sheltered by decorative trees or overhead solar PV panel canopies would provide connectivity between the Northside Cluster and areas south. Another path would lead to the Central Commons along the Pedestrian Spine, which continues west to the Blackberry Cluster. A trail and stairs would provide shortcut connections to the Bayview Cluster. An uphill walk along McMillan Road would lead pedestrians to the Support Services Cluster.

Parking lot shuttle and mobility hub facilities would allow seamless park & ride transfer between personal vehicles and a variety of intra-campus options, including shuttle

FIGURE 8.6

CENTRAL PARKING SITE | Northwest-Facing View. Source: Berkeley Lab

bus, e-vehicles, bicycle, or walking. The Central Parking Lot shuttle bus and mobility hub would be adjacent to Doudna Road and at the intersection of pedestrian paths extending in multiple directions.

Numerous electric vehicle (EV) charging stations would be installed at the Central Parking Lot, which could take advantage of economies of scale to reduce per station costs. Arrays of overhead photovoltaic panels would provide shade and shelter to cars and people alike. This expansive lot would be the largest and most practical campus site to generate electricity. The parking lot should be designed mindful of stormwater collection and surface runoff quality issues. Opportunities for subsurface stormwater collection and treatment features would be explored.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The grand open space amenity of the Northside Cluster would be the parcourse. This attractive, expansive area would offer prime panoramic views and adjacency to the Pedestrian Spine and Central Parking Lot. Various types of outdoor equipment and exercise stations would be connected by paths through the softscape. Exercise structures or equipment would tend to be rustic, durable, versatile, and simple in design and function. Flat, open space with softscape beneath would offer appropriate terrain for group exercise activities—as well as for lounging and socializing.

Other social spaces opportunities may be realized in the Northside Cluster. A potential social space terrace (specific use to be determined) resides just north of the future Central Parking Lot. The terrace occupies the hairpin turn crotch intersecting Doudna and McMillan Roads, where limited width would make parking impractical. Farther

west and immediately south of the new General Purpose Computing facility, an overlook platform with expansive bay views could be constructed above a rock outcropping. Removal of the 71-series trailers would open up gathering space with excellent long-distance views on the remainder of the bluff overlooking the Bayview Lot; the GPC facility would occupy only a portion of this space.

By gathering parking functions into one place, the Central Parking Lot itself could become an unintended social space, as employees, and guests would necessarily be funneled together at the beginnings and endings of work days. For this reason, the presence of overhead canopies (trees and PV panels), attractive landscape, and spaces along the edges (stairways, improved walkways, etc.) should be designed with attention and care.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Under the CMP, Northside Cluster visual character would still be anchored by its dominant feature: Building 71. Occupying the focal point at the cluster’s highest plateau, Building 71’s massive walls and brutalistic architectural style would continue to stand over the convergence of the three main cluster roads. However, Building 71’s surroundings would transform profoundly. Views would open up where once stood the aging and visually cluttered Building 46 Complex. The disorder of the 71-series trailers would be replaced by a modern, clean-line computing facility and open space. The parcourse would refresh and enliven an area currently occupied by antique facilities and unused open space. Signature accent trees could be planted along Doudna Road to soften parking lot views, offer shade to pedestrians, and to signal arrival into the cluster.

OBJECTIVES

NORTHSIDE CLUSTER

Dedicated Northside Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.5.1: Modernize and improve Northside Cluster functionality.

Demolish substandard buildings and prepare and grade sites for new development. Modernize and expand utilities as appropriate for future growth and development. Construction program should include Building 71 expansion, new accelerator structures north of Building 71, and a new General Purpose Computing facility.

Objective 8.5.2: Construct and equip the Central Parking Lot to serve the entire campus.

Construct and equip the Central Parking Lot to serve the mobility needs of the entire campus and help meet the Lab’s commitment to sustainability and resiliency. The Central Parking Lot should maximize use of demolished Building 46 Complex space for parking and to largely offset parking losses in the central and west campus. Integrate fully accessible shuttle service and mobility hub functions designed to encourage use. Provide adequate access to A&E Building (Charter Hill Cluster) loading dock facilities

and emergency vehicles. Design clear, highly accessible pedestrian connections to surrounding destinations, including to adjacent clusters and the parcourse, and especially to the Pedestrian Spine and Charter Hill via the A&E Building elevators.

Electric Vehicle charging stations should be designed and provided in coordination with Sustainable Berkeley Lab program. Overhead photovoltaic panels should be used to the maximum extent practical for electricity production and for shade and shelter. Opportunities to collect, treat, manage, and otherwise direct or reuse stormwater should be explored and integrated into Central Parking Lot design.

Objective 8.5.3: Address constricted Cluster roadways.

Use opportunity of redeveloping Central Parking Lot plateau to explore reforming the tight, uphill turn from Doudna to McMillan Roads to benefit general traffic flow, large and emergency vehicle turning, and pedestrian and motorist safety. Similarly, use Building 71 cave expansion as opportunity to widen or reform constricted Chamberlain Road as it passes Building 71’s southwest corner. Act on findings as feasible.

Objective 8.5.4: Develop a major recreation parcourse facility.

As described herein, develop a fully sized and equipped parcourse to serve the entire campus. Optimize and equip available space for a variety of uses that benefit and encourage users of all abilities and fitness goals. Select appropriate softscape material (may include combination of lawn, artificial turf, bark, play surfacing, etc.) around exercise stations. If space available, provide an open space soft-scaped area that could support group activities needing a soft or low-impact surface (martial arts, Tai Chi,

calisthenics/boot camp, etc.).

Objective 8.5.5: Develop and improve Northside Cluster social spaces.

Develop local-serving social and recreational amenities, including a reconfigured terrace at the northern tip of the Central Parking Lot (where extension of the parking lot would not be practical). This terrace could be programmed in a variety of ways for social gathering, sitting, or other purposes. Construct an overlook platform at the rock outcropping immediately south of the new General Purpose Computing facility; consider outfitting for outdoor pop-up office use. Consider the new open space with longdistance views created by the 71-series trailer demolitions for picnic benches or similar uses.

Objective 8.5.6: Design and implement Northside Cluster landscape improvements.

Use cultivated landscape features, such as accent trees along Doudna Road and near Building 71, to introduce attractive natural elements, to screen or soften Central Parking Lot views, and to reinforce Northside Cluster identity. Integrate landscape with attention to safety and maintenance (e.g., avoid creating slippery conditions on the steep Doudna Road sidewalks and blocking PV panels with leaf litter or tree canopies). On the cluster outskirts and as opportunities present, emulate surrounding annual grasslands and oak-bay woodland. The Northside Cluster’s accent tree might be the soft pink-flowered chitalpa. Specific plans and plant choices to be developed with expert consultation and documented in the Physical Design Framework.

8.6 CHARTER HILL CLUSTER

Under the Campus Master Plan, the Lab’s antiquated Old Town area would be transformed into an integrated group of modern research buildings bisected by a pedestrian corridor and a series of courtyard terraces. New buildings would focus around and leverage beamline function from the rejuvenated ALS-U facility. See Figure 8.7: Charter Hill Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Charter Hill, affectionately known as Old Town, is the birthplace of the current Berkeley Lab campus. The original Building 6 domed structure was constructed around 1940 for the 184-Inch Cyclotron, as the accelerator was too large for the original “Rad Lab” on the UC Berkeley campus. Around Building 6 sprung the Old Town support buildings, most of which have been remediated and removed in recent years to make way for Charter Hill modernization. These cleared areas are now largely flat terraces occupied by parking, storage, and other temporary uses.

The east end of Charter Hill and its highest terrace is occupied by recently constructed lab/office Buildings 30 (Chu Hall) and 33 (General Purpose Laboratory). Stepping downward and to the west are the sequoia redwood grove, the “R” service road, and Building 6W, a temporary tentframed storage structure on an otherwise empty terrace. Segre Road sections off the next landform, which is composed of two terraces of different elevations connected by a steep driveway. The higher terrace parallels McMillan Road and holds Buildings 17, 23, and 53. The lower terrace

is dominated by Building 6 and its multi-purpose courtyard to the west. Surrounding Building 6 and at yet lower elevations are Buildings 2, 15, 34, 35, 37, 58, 58A, and 80.

The Lab Fire Station and Security and Emergency Services (SES) Buildings are southeast of Building 6 along Lawrence Road. A tall radio tower is seated south of Building 33 while a meteorological tower sits between Buildings 27 and 53.

Charter Hill is accessed from the north at three inlets along McMillan Road: from west to east, they are Segre Road (entering adjacent to Building 17), Road “R” (between Buildings 6W and 30) and Road “V” (between Buildings 26 and 30). Segre Road spans the full cluster north to south and connects McMillan and Lawrence Roads. From the south, McMillan Road feeds a curving driveway to Building 6, 15, 80, and 2 service areas and parking. Pedestrian access is along the same roads, as well as through the Building 30 and 33 courtyard from the east and via a long, ascending staircase outside of Building 58 from the west.

Charter Hill rises precipitously from the Central Commons. Pedestrians traveling eastward are faced with lengthy exterior stairways or circuitous roads to access Charter Hill. Many opt instead to use Building 2 elevators to make the four-story climb to the Building 6 level. Similar elevator access is provided by Buildings 15 and 80, but not as conveniently to most pedestrians.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The Building 6 multi-purpose courtyard connects pedestrians to the Building 6 main entrance and the Building 2 and 80 upper entrances. The terrace offers gathering space and seating with scenic views. It is often

used for luncheons, poster sessions, and conference activities. The courtyard between Buildings 30 and 33, along with a picnic table area near the sequoia redwood grove, provides outdoor social and gathering space in upper Charter Hill. Another picnic table area with tanbark softscape resides on the bluff immediately northwest of Building 17.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Building 6 is the campus’s most recognizable feature. The building’s placement on the highly visible promontory overlooking Berkeley was intended to mark the eastern terminus of UC Berkeley’s axial campus concept. Designed by Architect Arthur Brown in the late 1930s to house the 184-Inch Cyclotron, the outer structure was heavily modified and repurposed for the ALS; Nevertheless, the iconic dome remains intact and stands out as the Lab’s signature landmark. Building 6’s original design befitted Brown’s trademark stripped-down classical style and problem-solving approach to architecture. The result was an example of utilitarian and civic iconography. The early Old Town buildings constructed around Building 6, however, were squat, boxy, and unremarkably utilitarian.

Building 2 presents a stylistic contrast with the Charter Hill buildings that came before and after. Cut into the slope and with a complex exterior form, the building achieves façade symmetries between its cascading horizontal stepped floors, vertical corner turrets, and quarter-round rooftop bulkheads. Its warm terra cotta skin stands in contrast to surrounding metal- and concrete-clad buildings.

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

FIGURE 8.7

CHARTER HILL CLUSTER

Building 15 and later Buildings 30 and 33 present the more typical Berkeley Lab modern style with clean lines, metal and glass facades, cold grey and blue hues, and overhanging upper floors.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Under the CMP, Buildings 6W, 17, 27, 53, 58, and 58A would be demolished, and a collection of modern research buildings would rise from the empty terraces north and east of Building 6.

Adjacent and northeast of Building 6, a grouping of energy sciences focused buildings would be constructed primarily on the terrace bounded by Segre and “R” Roads. The Advanced Materials Discovery Building (AMDB) would occupy the southernmost position and for logistical reasons should be constructed first. The Chemical Sciences Building (CSB)—a four-story lab/office structure similar to AMDB—would follow. A modular utility plant supporting these new facilities would occupy the northernmost position. Across Segre Road and wedged between Building 6 and the CSB would be a smaller structure: the ALS Support Facility. Proximity to the ALS would be a key siting driver for these new buildings. This adjacency, and the necessary planning needed to avoid creation of obstacles, would allow ALS beamline extensions to cross from Building 6 below Segre Road and into AMDB, CSB, and ALS Support Facility. Nonemergency vehicle traffic on Segre Road would likely be prohibited to avoid vibration interference with the underlying beamlines.

A third major lab/office facility—the Accelerator and Engineering Support (A&E) Building, would provide much needed space for the Lab’s Physical Sciences Area

divisions. In particular, it would provide for engineering staff displaced by Building 46’s demolition, and it would be rightly positioned between Buildings 6 and 71 for convenient access to both. The A&E Building would occupy the current location of seismically deficient Buildings 58 and 58A.

Charter Hill circulation would be strengthened and reinforced by the cluster layout. Ample parking would be available in the adjacent Central Parking Lot with direct elevator and stairway access to Charter Hill. Vehicle access for service, drop-off, and limited parking would be available throughout the cluster via existing “R” and “V” Roads and the northern half of Segre Road. Vehicle access (except emergency vehicles) would be restricted from the southern half of Segre Road.

Pedestrian Spine users would manage approximately 100 vertical feet of the ~120-foot climb from Central Commons to Charter Hill by leveraging Flex Building and A&E Building elevators. Buildings 2, 15, and 80 elevators would remain viable pedestrian options. In addition, Lab staff and delivery services using the Central Parking Lot could manage the four-story climb to Charter Hill via A&E Building elevators. An exterior stairway between the Central Commons and Charter Hill could be designed into the side of the A&E Building.

A pedestrian corridor would bisect the entire cluster on its east-west axis, entering from the Central Commons near Building 2 and exiting on McMillan Road east of Building 30 (see Figure 8.8: Charter Hill Pedestrian Circulation). The campus’s east-west Pedestrian Spine would coincide with the western half of this cluster corridor, but these overlapping routes would diverge near the cluster midpoint, where the Pedestrian Spine would veer south on Segre to the Lawrence Corridor.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The principal organizing concept would be a series of cascading, terraced courtyards framed by key buildings and connected by the cluster’s pedestrian corridor. Not only would these spaces provide efficient pedestrian access between Charter Hill buildings, but they would encourage the collaborative business and social interaction so valued by Berkeley Lab.

Most notable would be the terraces between Buildings 30 and 33, between AMDB and CSB, and between Building 6 and the A&E Building, as well as the existing Building 6 terrace courtyard. Connections between courtyard terraces at different elevations would be enabled by wide, short flights of stairs, gently sloped paths, and adjacent building elevators.

The sequoia redwood grove, its natural lawn, and its adjoining outdoor seating/dining area would be reinforced and enhanced, including by measures to ensure tree health. The existing Building 6 terrace courtyard would be updated and refreshed.

A new plaza would be developed between entrances to Building 6, the A&E Building, and the ALS Support Facility. Multiple paths, including the Pedestrian Spine and cluster corridor, would converge in and activate this location. Pedestrian Spine stairs from this ALS Plaza would access the corridor continuing through the cluster’s upper courtyards. The ALS Plaza would be accessible to loading and service vehicles, though pedestrian safety would be maintained using such shared streets strategies as signage, bollards, rumble strips, paving patterns, and other mixed-use cues.

CHARTER HILL OVERVIEW I Northeast-Facing view

Building 15 and 80 users would continue to have direct internal access to Building 6 and the existing Building 6 terrace courtyard. Cluster interior amenities would be a short walk away. Occupants of Buildings 45 and 48—the Fire Station and emergency services personnel—would enjoy easy access to the cluster center as Segre Road would be closed to through traffic and improved as a pedestrian portal. With their ongoing fitness requirements, the emergency services personnel would be well served by Segre Road’s direct access to the new parcourse adjoining the cluster’s north side. An overlook platform with panoramic views would be positioned across Lawrence Road from Building 45 for added social and outdoor office use.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Charter Hill would represent the CMP’s most marked cluster character change, evolving from the bygone era buildings and rough hardscape transitions of Old Town, through the remediation and demolition era of recent years, to a modern and well-organized research hub. If Central Commons represents the heart of the Lab’s social and community life, Charter Hill may best represent the campus’s business-oriented downtown. Essential to any redevelopment of Charter Hill is respect and preservation

of the Building 6 dome as a structure and as a landmark. From key offsite vantages, the dome silhouette should stand proud and not be blocked in the foreground or obscured in the background by competing structures.

Architectural style of Charter Hill’s new buildings should likely follow the trend of other modern multi-story campus construction. As described above with Buildings 30, 33, and 80, this style embraces clean geometric lines, metal and glass facades, cold grey and blue hues, and overhanging upper floors. Building 30’s playful use of windows to break up an otherwise plain façade should be an inspiration for spicing up other function-forward structures. Elements of creativity in Berkeley Lab building design should not be cost-prohibitive and should conform to the Lab’s conservative DOE-funding model.

The Idaho locust tree already exists successfully in this cluster and might be an optimal accent tree moving forward. Its distinctive pink flowering character could be used more extensively to mark important pathways and open spaces. In general, green landscape should be used in interior courtyard spaces as practical to provide visual and elemental relief from barren swaths of horizontal and vertical concrete and metal. The sequoia redwood grove would continue to be the cluster’s most notable landscape feature.

CHARTER HILL PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

FIGURE 8.8

STEPPED COURTYARDS BETWEEN AMDB AND CSB I Southwest-Facing View

OBJECTIVES

CHARTER HILL CLUSTER

Dedicated Charter Hill Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.6.1: Modernize and improve Charter Hill Cluster functionality.

Demolish substandard buildings and prepare and grade sites for new development. Modernize and expand utilities as appropriate for future growth and development. Integrate vehicular and pedestrian paths for optimal cluster-wide access. Build in a modern, efficient, and engaging style that emphasizes cluster identity. Style to be defined in Berkeley Lab Physical Design Framework.

New buildings should include multi-story lab/office structures serving various energy and physical science programs: include the Advanced Materials Discovery Building, Chemical Sciences Building, Accelerator and Engineering Support Building, ALS Support Facility, and a dedicated Modular Utility Plant. Provide (to maximum extent feasible) adequate and appropriate replacement space to offset demolitions of Buildings 46, 58, 58A, 70, among others. Site and program new buildings with regard to program adjacencies and synergies.

Objective 8.6.2: Optimize proximity of new structures to the Advanced Light Source facility.

Avoid using space surrounding Building 6 for uses that do not benefit from ALS co-location. Site and configure the A&E, AMDB, CSB, and ALS Support (ALS/S) facilities to best take advantage of ALS proximity. To the extent possible, extend subsurface ALS beam lines from Building 6 to new adjacent facilities. Restrict vehicle traffic on Segre Road as necessary to facilitate extended beam line operations.

Objective 8.6.3: Configure Charter Hill buildings and layout for optimal pedestrian access.

Develop a highly accessible pedestrian corridor that spans the cluster along its full east-west axis. Orient all new cluster buildings such that their entrances open on to the pedestrian corridor and shared courtyards and terraces. Overlap the Charter Hill pedestrian corridor with the campus’s Pedestrian Spine (where appropriate) to strengthen both routes and minimize landscape development effort. Site and configure the A&E Building to provide convenient elevator service from both the Pedestrian Spine and the Central Parking Lot to the Charter Hill Cluster. Connect the ALS entrance plaza and the AMDB/CSB courtyard (across Segre Road) with outdoor stairs between Building 6 and the ALS Support Facility. Promote access along cluster pedestrian corridor elevation changes through wide, short stairway flights, gently sloped paths, and building elevators and internal stairwells. Emphasize signage, landscape design, and sight lines to promote intuitive wayfinding.

Objective 8.6.4: Enhance opportunities for cluster social interaction, gatherings, and recreation.

Organize Charter Hill Cluster around series of cascading, terraced courtyards and open spaces framed by key buildings and connected along the cluster’s pedestrian corridor and relevant segment of the campus’s Pedestrian Spine. Encourage collegial business and social interaction through design and outfitting of outdoor social space and interior building lobbies and common areas. Showcase the courtyard terraces between Buildings 30 and 33, and between AMDB and CSB. Between Building 6 and the A&E Building, create a pedestrian-oriented plaza that also permits loading and service following shared streets principles.

Across Lawrence Road from Building 45, provide an overlook platform as social space with outdoor office capability. Emphasize Segre Road linkage as part of the Pedestrian Spine and as a conduit to the nearby recreational parcourse.

Objective 8.6.5: Maintain the Building 6 dome as the campus’s signature landmark.

Respect and preserve the Building 6 dome as a structure and as a landmark. Locate buildings and limit their height so dome views are not blocked in the foreground or obscured in the background by competing structures, wherever practicable.

Objective 8.6.6: Preserve and enhance the sequoia redwood grove.

Preserve and enhance the sequoia redwood grove, which should continue to be the cluster’s most notable landscape feature. Every effort should be taken to preserve the remaining trees, which are dying off due to drought stress. Continue to engage arborists for advice and apply directed irrigation as necessary. Maintain the green landscape in the grove area. Encourage social/recreational use of grove space.

Objective 8.6.7: Design and implement Charter Hill Cluster landscape improvements.

Use cultivated landscape features and accent trees—such as Idaho locust trees—to mark important pathways, define social spaces, and create a cluster identity. Provide relief from heavy hardscape development and shade with green landscape, particularly in building courtyards. Integrate landscape with attention to safety and maintenance issues (e.g., avoid creating slippery conditions on pathways or fouling air intake equipment. Develop specific plans and plant choices as part of a Physical Design Framework. On the cluster outskirts and as opportunities present, emulate surrounding native landscape: along the south side of Charter Hill incorporate a landscape palette influenced by oak-bay woodland farther south, by annual grasslands and oak-bay woodland.

PLAZA CONNECTING ALS TO AMDB AND CSB I East-Facing View

8.7 SUPPORT SERVICES CLUSTER CMP PROGRAM

Under the Campus Master Plan, incremental demolition, renovation, circulation, and social space improvements would realize a more integrated, engaging, and functional Support Services Cluster. See Figure 8.9: Support Services Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Support services are non-research functions that attend to the campus and its people. They include facilities maintenance, safety, security, and labor functions. They also include office-based specialties like human resources, financial, administrative, and planning services. These latter groups are situated throughout the campus and even occupy off-site leased space. Operations groups requiring equipment, vehicles, or hands-on physical work are largely consolidated in or around the Support Services Cluster.

The cluster occupies a collection of east-west-trending plateaus—three major tiers—stepping down in elevation from north to south. Two of the tiers are composed of multiple terraces. The cluster plateaus are served by three east-west roadways: McMillan, Glaser, and Lawrence. These roads are connected along the cluster’s western edge by the north-south-oriented Clauser Road. Pedestrians typically use cluster sidewalks available on most of the main roads, in addition to a steep switchback staircase that connects Lawrence Road to the center of Glaser Road. A one-way driveway or shared street

servicing Building 78 and the rear of Building 76 is lined with parking and storage. This looping driveway is often used by pedestrians to avoid the steeper elevation changes they would otherwise encounter on the parallel segment of McMillan. A steep hairpin turn near Building 48 redirects westbound Lawrence Road traffic onto eastbound Glaser. This switchback provides poor visibility and a stressful turning climb as part of that maneuver. Drivers must also be mindful of pedestrians who may cross against traffic to save themselves a more circuitous walk to Clauser Road.

The northernmost and highest tier holds the Grizzly Peak Gate, which connects the Lab to upper Centennial Drive. The tier contains the Lab’s Building 69 shipping and receiving functions and EH&S Buildings 75, 75A, and 75B. The Lab’s rigging equipment (cranes, lifts, etc.) are stored in a section of the ample parking area. A 200,000-gallon water supply tank and other mechanical equipment occupy plateau edges. Stepping down in elevation to the west is a terrace holding the Lab’s main Facilities operations in Buildings 76 and 76L, with additional EH&S space in Building 78. These buildings hold offices, shops, maintenance, and storage areas. Across McMillan Road on the eastern outskirts of Charter Hill is Building 26, a seismically deficient facility holding a health services clinic and additional EH&S office functions.

Further south and at lower elevation is a middle tier accessed by Glaser Road. It holds Building 77—a largescale engineering facility that fabricates scientific apparatus—and associated smaller structures such as 77A,

77E, and 77H. The other major installation on this plateau is the Grizzly Peak substation, a large electrical yard which receives the Lab’s high voltage power from PG&E utility towers and steps it down for distribution into the campus electrical grid.

Below Lawrence Road is the third and lowest cluster tier: a series of small terraces that cascade down the slope to the Lab’s southern perimeter. This area is known colloquially as Chicken Creek after the perennial stream that defines its western edge. The Chicken Creek area serves as the Lab’s corporation yard and holds numerous storage containers, minor out-buildings, and shuttle bus and large-vehicle parking. Its centerpiece is Building 31—the Barn— a mixed-use, rustic structure housing custodial and crafts services. The most notable Chicken Creek outdoor feature is the series of three hardscrabble terraces called “benches” carved into the lower slope and connected by a rough switchback road. The benches provide storage and laydown space for multiple uses such as container storage and shuttle bus parking.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The Support Services Cluster has little in the way of dedicated social space. The upper tier includes scattered picnic tables under awnings, including at the Building 76 east and west ends. Building 76 holds one of the Lab’s principal multi-use conference rooms that, besides for business use, is particularly well suited for club activities, celebrations, and group exercise. The one-way driveway

(Lab Zones 4 and 5)

Bldg 26*

Bldg 31

* Under CMP, Bldg 26 will be considered part of Charter Hill Cluster

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

between Buildings 76 and 78 provides a makeshift courtyard of sorts, as slow-moving vehicles and regular foot traffic create opportunities for happenstance meetings and social churning.

The cluster’s middle tier features a similar one-way route (Glaser Road) between Buildings 77 and 77A that provides space for mingling and interaction among the sparse and slow-moving vehicle traffic. More notable is the wooden overlook platform that juts out over the steep, south-facing slope. This overlook and the surrounding open space area provides picnic seating and striking Strawberry Canyon views.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Buildings in the cluster are among the campus’s most utilitarian. Aging, metal-sided facilities adorned with mechanical appurtenances are often surrounded by containers, dumpsters, equipment, and utility vehicles. Building 76’s roof is distinctive for its parallel series of undulating ridges and eaves.

The Support Service Cluster’s character is influenced by surrounding annual grasslands and stands of tall blue-gum eucalyptus trees. Chicken Creek runs southward from near

FIGURE 8.9

Building 31 through a dense thicket of riparian woodland. A distinctive grove of Canary Island pine trees—part of a long past UC agricultural project—occupies a bluff east of Chicken Creek. Oak-bay woodlands lie south of the cluster.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Under the Plan, the three-tier Social Services Cluster layout and programming would remain largely intact. General relationships between the tiers and circulation patterns would be maintained. In all cluster locations, opportunities for incrementally improving layout and internal parking and circulation flow will exist during the CMP term. Areas for special attention include the large paved areas surrounding Buildings 69 and 75, and the similarly expansive paved areas near Building 31 and the Chicken Creek benches.

Building 75B, an approximately 4,700-GSF EH&S office building, would be demolished. This would open up additional upper terrace space for parking, storage, or social uses, or for a small building to be determined as needs arise. With the Building 75B space vacated, a pedestrian-friendly direct linkage between the Building 76 and Building 75 terraces could be established via a short stairwell climbing northeastward from the Building 76 rear driveway.

A centralized Chemical Receiving Facility would be constructed within the renovated envelope of Building 69, adjacent to the Lab’s shipping and receiving docks. This facility would safely receive, handle, and distribute laboratory chemicals shipped to the campus. Building 26, which is seismically deficient, would likely undergo renovation and reuse for purposes to be determined as needs arise.

On the middle tier, Grizzly Peak substation and Building 77

and 77A have been or are currently undergoing renovations and expansions. These facilities will be well-suited to meet future campus needs under the CMP program. Lower tier facilities, including the Chicken Creek benches, would continue to be maintained and upgraded as needed to serve the developing campus.

General campus improvements, including to roads, pedestrian paths, and wayfinding, would distribute benefits to the Support Services Cluster. Better wayfinding and signage would particularly benefit the Building 69 shipping and receiving function, as delivery truck drivers are often stymied in their attempts to find Building 69 from Blackberry Gate. A stairway leading from Lawrence Road to the bottom of Clauser Road would shorten walking trips and enhance safety by allowing pedestrians to avoid the challenging hairpin turn area near Building 48.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Cluster improvements could include a new scenic overlook extending from a pedestrian path along Lawrence Road, south of the Grizzly Peak substation. This wooden platform would be outfitted for outdoor office use. It also could include stairs descending to a grassy terrace for passive recreational use downslope of the roadway. The existing wooden overlook platform abutting Glaser Road in front of Building 77 should be reviewed for enhancements— including for outdoor office use—and possible expansion.

Opportunities for refreshed and enhanced outdoor seating should be explored in the lower tier, particularly near Building 31. In the upper tier, removing Building 75B would open up an opportunity for improved social space.

Reconfiguration of the landscaped Building 69 parking island and/or nearby pavement might create a central social space for sitting and dining under the trees.

The Building 76 multi-purpose conference room is currently

in heavy demand by users Lab wide. This resource should become more available to local users for gathering, social, and recreational uses as competing users are drawn to the Lab’s generous Central Commons conference and social amenities. Outdoor picnic seating under Building 76’s eastside awning should be refreshed and enlivened to define it as the cluster’s prime outdoor social space. With a new stairway accessing the Building 75 terrace the corridor between Buildings 76 and 78 should have more foot traffic by operations staff and happenstance business and social interaction should increase.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The character and architectural style of the Support Services Cluster would not markedly change under the CMP, as there would be no new major construction.

Nevertheless, scenic views would be enhanced as the tall eucalyptus trees in the cluster are removed and replaced with lower-profile coast live oaks. Removing Building 75B would open up the area and provide a more direct and safer pedestrian thoroughfare. Awkward stacked parking might be rearranged. Building 77’s main entrance should be considered for better signage and cosmetic design enhancements—such as addition of a large awning and a distinctive color scheme—to announce it as the entryway for guests and visitors. Improved landscape, highlighted by an accent tree such as the native toyon, would upgrade the appearance of the cluster’s otherwise wide swaths of pavement and utilitarian structures. Use of common accent landscape would also help integrate the three dispersed cluster tiers.

BUILDING 77 AND GRIZZLY PEAK SUBSTATION | Southeast-Facing View. Source: Berkeley Lab

OBJECTIVES

SUPPORT SERVICES CLUSTER

Dedicated Support Services Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.7.1: Modernize and improve Support Services Cluster functionality.

Demolish substandard buildings and prepare and grade sites for new development or reuse. Modernize and expand utilities as appropriate for future growth and development. Bank underused building and outdoor paved space for future expansions and development opportunities. For example, use Building 75B demolition as an opportunity to improve pedestrian flow while reserving space for a future installation.

Objective 8.7.2: Ensure that Support Services Cluster best meets changing campus needs.

As the campus develops and grows under the CMP, demand for operational services will change and intensify. On a continual basis, evaluate campus service needs and the ability of Lab Operations facilities and functions to meet them. As needed, redesign spatial layouts and reallocate resources throughout the cluster’s multiple tiers to most effectively produce and deliver services. Maximize efficiency and co-location opportunities. Examples include Building 69 reconfiguration to create the Central Chemical Receiving Facility.

Objective 8.7.3: Enhance circulation and pedestrian flow and safety throughout the Support Services Cluster.

In addition to general road, entry gate, walkway, and wayfinding improvements identified elsewhere in this Plan, evaluate and improve the cluster’s most-used routes wherever appropriate. Consider traffic calming and crosswalk improvements to address poor sightlines on the McMillan Road crossing between Building 26 and Building 76. Study options for improving the poor visibility and tight hairpin turn from Lawrence to Glaser Roads. Remove pedestrians from unprotected path alongside McMillan Road by offering direct stairway from the Building 76 terrace to the Building 75 terrace. Improve pedestrian safety and sidewalk access along Clauser and Glaser Roads. Provide a stairway shortcut from Lawrence to Clauser Roads that bypasses the steep hairpin turn near Building 48.

Objective 8.7.4: Improve and increase opportunities for social cluster and recreational spaces.

Formalize, enhance, and increase social spaces within the Support Services Cluster. Express the space between Buildings 76 and 78 as a shared street, where paving and landscape treatments signal safe and efficient vehiclepedestrian dual use. Especially with the enticement of a short-cut stairway to the Building 75 terrace, this shared street could see increased pedestrian use and more opportunities for social interaction. Enhance, accentuate, and consider enlarging the Building 77 deck overlook, including for outdoor office use. Consider a permanent roof or awning above the overlook deck and for the Building 77

main entrance. Modify the landscaped Building 69 parking island (and/or reuse adjacent pavement space) to create central social space for sitting and dining. Emphasize direct McMillan Road connection to campus parcourse and Central Parking Lot.

Objective 8.7.5: Design and implement Support Services Cluster landscape improvements.

The Support Services cluster should feature simple landscape with an abstracted palette influenced by adjacent annual grasslands and a secondary influence from the oak-bay woodland zone to the south. An accent tree such as the native toyon could be used to provide cluster identity. Integrate landscape with attention to safety and maintenance issues (e.g., avoid creating slippery sidewalk conditions and fouling air intakes with leaf litter). Specific plans and plant choices should be developed in Physical Design Framework.

8.8 REDWOOD CLUSTER

Under the Campus Master Plan, the Redwood Cluster would make significant strides towards modernization and integration. New high-bay and electron microscope program space would be complemented by renovation, circulation, and social space improvements. See Figure 8.10: Redwood Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

The Redwood Cluster defines the campus’ southeast corner and provides a locus for materials sciences and nanoscale exploration. The modest-sized cluster occupies a Strawberry Canyon terrace overlooking southwest-tosoutheast trending slopes. The UC Berkeley Botanical Garden’s dense Mather Redwood Grove shares the cluster’s eastern boundary. Building 73 is a campus outlier seated on a small, virtual island of Lab-managed land that projects into the redwood grove. Building 67—the Molecular Foundry—is a landmark facility both for its nanoscience research and its distinctive cantilevered profile. The adjacent Building 72 houses the National Center for Electron Microscopy (NCEM), a facility featuring some of the world’s most powerful microscopes. Building 66 includes a large auditorium that captures as its backdrop the picturesque Strawberry Canyon vista.

While Building 67 is relatively new—a 21st Century construction—Buildings 62, 66, 72, and 73 are all dated and in need of maintenance and improvements. Building 73 is undergoing a complete renovation that will prepare it for its future computing testbed use. Building 72 is in need of

additional modern space for a new generation of electron microscopes. Properly outfitted high-bay space is also a great need for this and surrounding clusters. Building 62A is a substandard office trailer in the Building 62 parking lot.

Cluster vehicle circulation is complex. Lawrence Road forms the northern cluster boundary. From the west, Lee Road accesses the Redwood Cluster from the Chicken Creek area, looping beneath the Building 67 overhang, through the Building 62 parking lot, and rejoining Lawrence Road where it transitions to Bertozzi Road. Breaking off from Lee Road near the Building 67 service area, the Building 73 service road bends around the campus’ southeastern boundary to reach past a locked gate to Building 73. The main access to Building 73, however, is by way of Centennial Drive, a publicly used road on the UC Berkeley Hill Campus. Building 72 accesses Lawrence Road directly via its own driveway and parking area.

Lawrence and Bertozzi Road sidewalks are the main pedestrian conduits to the cluster, but the cluster’s internal organization is not efficient and presents pedestrian barriers. Buildings 67 and 72 are directly accessible from Lawrence Road, whereas Buildings 62 and 66 entrances are reached from Lee Road near a shuttle stop. A circuitous footpath across steep slopes connects the buildings facing Lawrence Road with the Buildings facing Lee Road. Buildings 62, 66, and 67 are located close to each other, but their entrances are disconnected and oriented in different directions. Building 62, the furthest from Lawrence Road, faces south and toward its rear parking lot. Building 66’s entrance faces east and toward the rear of Building 62.

Building 67 has its fourth-floor entrance facing Lawrence

Road with entrances on each of its other three sides, all at different levels. The eastern approaches to Buildings 66 and 67 are linked by a pedestrian path carved into the slope. However, this shortcut includes stairs and is not wheelchair-accessible.

Building 72 is physically isolated from the remainder of the cluster. It has a separate driveway to Lawrence Road. The only direct connection is via a courtyard space to the southeast that connects with Lawrence Road and the north side of Building 67.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Social space opportunities are few. The key Redwood Cluster social space is the lengthy outdoor terrace constructed along Building 67’s southeast face. It is accessible from the building and outdoor walkways (with stairs) and features: partial shelter, clever use of green landscape, a variety of seating and amenities, and wraparound canyon views. This terrace represents a leap forward in the campus’s social space design. A few picnic tables are scattered throughout the cluster, including on a second-level walkway between Buildings 62 and 66. A rough courtyard space exists in the southeast corner of Building 72.

The cluster is seated in one of the most picturesque campus locations. To the west are grasslands, scattered trees, and open canyon views. On the east is the dense redwood forest. The surrounding road network, including service roads in the Redwood and Support Services Clusters, provides for a variety of walking experiences in relatively secluded areas.

CMP PROGRAM

Southeast Campus Area (Lab Zone 5)

Existing Buildings to Remain

Bldg 62

Bldg 66

Bldg 67

Bldg 72

Bldg 73 CMP Demolition

Bldg 62A CMP Construction

High-Bay Bldg Bldg 72

Architectural and Landscape Character

Building 67 is among the campus’s most visually striking structures with a memorable profile second only to that of Building 6. Its profound rectangular mass projects out of the hillside as if to spill over its moorings towards the canyon below. It suggests movement and drama in the otherwise placid setting. The Molecular Foundry building uses a material palette that is decidedly modern, emphasizing metal panels, glass, and concrete. Entrances and windows are deeply recessed.

Building 72 is an assemblage of horizontal rectangular masses butting up against two vertically aligned blocks. These towers accommodate NCEM’s largest electron microscope bays. Building 73 is a rustic, two-story wooden structure surrounded by a dense thicket of redwood forest. Notably, the entire building was constructed using nonferrous materials and fasteners to avoid electrical fields that might interfere with the research within. Buildings 62 and 66 are bulky concrete and metal-sided buildings harkening an earlier age of functional design.

The Redwood Cluster is seated at the junction of two habitat zones: on the southwest side, the south-facing slopes are primarily semi-arid grasslands stitching together scattered clumps of eucalyptus, coast live oak, and conifer trees. On the cluster’s east and southeast side are a dense,

FIGURE 8.10

REDWOOD CLUSTER VISION

moist coastal redwood forest. The cultivated landscape on the Building 67 terrace features a variety of succulents that respond well to the direct sunlight and scant irrigation.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Demolition and removal of Building 62A would free up Building 62 parking lot space for a stand-alone high-bay facility. This would provide much-needed program support, particularly in the cluster and overall east canyon area. Building 73 is expected to be occupied by the Computing Sciences Area Advanced Quantum Testbeds facility. Building 72 would modernize with a ~7,000-GSF expansion and renovation featuring new electron microscope bays and updated office space. Buildings 62 and 66 would continue to undergo maintenance and minor renovation to maintain viability as program research space.

Vehicle circulation would remain largely unchanged except for reconfiguration of the Building 62 parking lot to make way for the high bay facility. Pedestrian pathways, where practical, should be made more direct and convenient. Barrier free ramp connections and improved intracluster wayfinding would create an improved pedestrian experience.

Building 66 would be well served by an entry ramp or stairs connecting the Lawrence Road parking area to the northfacing walkway and entrance on the building second floor. Building 66 second floor corridors access the auditorium, so a direct outlet on this level would sensibly improve foot traffic in and around the building. A new set of terraces comprising a courtyard set into the wedge-shaped slope between Buildings 66 and 67 would provide a conduit for a barrier-free pathway between the Building 66 second floor and the existing Building 67 second-floor terrace.

Complemented by a new exterior stairwell connecting south to Lee Road, this envisioned courtyard and its largely barrier-free access could become a social and circulatory centerpiece integrating the Redwood Cluster.

A direct pedestrian footpath short cut between the southern corner of the Building 72 Complex and the southwestern entrance to Building 67 could provide connectivity within the cluster and more direct access to the Building 67 main entrance and Lee Road. This would also complete a pedestrian loop around the contiguous cluster.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The steeply sloped open space between Buildings 66 and 67 is the cluster’s geographic center. As mentioned above, this wedge-shaped area could become a two-level terraced courtyard connecting the two buildings along with Lawrence and Lee Roads. These terraced decks would enjoy south-facing exposure and views towards Strawberry Canyon and downtown Oakland. The top-level terrace would be accessible from Lawrence Road and to Building 66’s north-facing entrance. The lower terrace would be activated by foot traffic between Buildings 66 and 67 and from Lee Road. The lower terrace would also serve as a de facto extension of Building 67’s successful secondfloor terrace. The new courtyard should be designed and programmed to address the needs and preferences of Redwood Cluster’s population.

The currently well-used picnic table seating alongside Lee Road east of Building 66 could be replaced and improved by a permanent deck overlook and seating area. The Building 73 service road, a rough and rarely used route that extends through a variety of vegetated habitat, would be added to the Lab’s recreational pedestrian network, specifically as a dual-use nature trail.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The Redwood Cluster would retain its relatively informal character as a loose grouping of eclectic research buildings tucked away in a scenic, rural setting. Demolition and construction would be modest. Nevertheless, as envisioned by the CMP, the cluster would take key steps towards modernization and improvement. New and improved walkways and an interior terraced courtyard between Buildings 66 and 67 would provide a profound and uplifting new look and feel—and interconnectivity—to the cluster center. A new high-bay structure would likely represent its simple utilitarian purpose in the Lab’s clean-line, unadorned style. Building 73 is similarly transitioning from a rustic, well-weathered redwood building to a more modern

exterior treatment. The additions to the already eclectic Building 72 would likely follow an in-kind design style.

Eucalyptus trees towering over the Building 66 parking area would likely be removed and replaced with smaller natives, like coast live oak. Cultivated landscape may draw influences from the surrounding native plant palette, where micro-climates are suitable. Coastal redwoods, for example, should not be attempted on the cluster’s west side where dry soil conditions and direct southern exposures may not create healthy growing conditions. The Redwood Cluster should consider a customized accent tree to adorn paths, social spaces, and the native habitat edges. Such candidate trees should be identified and further developed in the Lab’s Physical Design Framework.

REDWOOD CLUSTER | East-Facing View. Source: Berkeley Lab

OBJECTIVES

REDWOOD CLUSTER

Dedicated Redwood Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape.

Objective 8.8.1: Modernize and improve Redwood Cluster functionality.

Demolish substandard Building 62A and prepare site for new high bay development. Modernize and expand utilities as appropriate to accommodate future growth. Construction program should include: 1) Improve and expand high-bay facilities, including a new stand-alone high-bay structure as well as improvements to existing Building 62 high-bay space, as needed; 2) Expand and modernize electron microscope and office space in Building 72; 3) Complete renovations to outfit Building 72 for the Advanced Quantum Testbed program or other uses.

Objective 8.8.2: Enhance circulation and pedestrian flow and safety throughout the Redwood Cluster.

In addition to general road, walkway, and wayfinding improvements identified elsewhere in this Plan, evaluate and improve the cluster’s most-used routes wherever appropriate. Evaluate opportunities for Lee Road signage and wayfinding improvements as well as for addressing traffic safety issues, particularly on the narrow, visibilitylimited segment west of the Building 62 parking lot. Repave and improve the Building 73 service road to serve colocated vehicle and pedestrian uses.

Add a pedestrian connection from Lawrence Road to the Building 66 second-floor entrance using stairs or optimally an accessible ramp; this would provide direct corridor access to the Building 66 auditorium. Leverage potential terrace courtyard improvements to provide barrier-free access between Building 66 and Building 67. Consider providing stairway access from Lee Road north to terraces between Buildings 66 and 67.

Add direct pedestrian footpath between the southern corner of the Building 72 area and Building 67’s southwestern entrance and walkway to Lee Road. Doing so would complete a pedestrian loop around the entire cluster and increase connectivity to the isolated Building 72 Complex.

Objective 8.8.3: Create a major terraced courtyard between Buildings 66 and 67.

Create a multi-tiered courtyard in the wedge-shaped upper slope between Buildings 66 and 67 to improve connectivity and social space between major Redwood Cluster buildings. The courtyard should provide ramp or barrierfree connections between Building 66 and Building 67 second floors (via Building 67’s existing courtyard terrace). Additional courtyard connections should be made north to Lawrence Road and south to Lee Road. The courtyard terraces would pair with the adjoining Building 67 terrace to create a major social space focal point for the entire cluster. With signage, landscaping, and other devices, announce the presence of the courtyard terraces as seen from Lawrence Road.

Objective 8.8.4: Improve and increase opportunities for secondary social cluster and recreational spaces.

In addition to the terraced courtyard space between Buildings 66 and 67, create a permanent decked overlook with views towards Strawberry Canyon and the UC Berkeley Botanical Garden Mather Redwood Grove. Extend the Lab’s recreational trail network to include the south and east edge of Lee Road, and integrate the Building 73 service road as a dual-use nature hiking trail.

Objective 8.8.5: Design and implement Redwood Cluster landscape improvements.

Identify and use an accent tree to be used along the cluster edge and in more formal arrangements to mark important paths and help define social spaces. As landscape improvements opportunities are presented, use a plant palette on the east side of Redwood Cluster that extends the strong influence of the adjacent redwood forest. Use a plant palette on the north and west sides that strengthen a sense of the adjacent annual grassland zone. Specific plans and plant choices would be developed in the Lab’s Physical Design Framework.

CMP PROGRAM

East Campus Area (Lab Zone 6)

Existing Buildings to Remain

Bldg 74

Bldg 84

Bldg 85

Bldg 85B

Bldg 86

EESA

(EH&S)

CMP Construction Demolition

Bldg 83

CMP Construction N/A

8.9 STRAWBERRY CLUSTER

Under the CMP, the Strawberry Cluster would make significant strides in circulation, recreation, and inclusion, particularly with regard to easing the geographic gulf between the Strawberry Cluster and the central/west campus. See Figure 8.11: Strawberry Cluster Vision.

ISSUES AND CONDITIONS

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

Strawberry is the campus’s easternmost cluster and its most remote. It is physically separated from the remainder of the campus by Centennial Drive as well as considerable distance. Sight lines from Strawberry Cluster to the rest of the campus are limited and largely unavailable. The Strawberry Cluster is set in a bowl surrounded mostly be ascending hillsides and a pass looking southwest down into Strawberry Canyon. The adjacent UC Berkeley Botanical Garden its Mather Redwood Grove reside to the south.

The Lawrence Corridor provides access to Strawberry Cluster from the rest of the campus. Bertozzi Road passes eastward under Centennial Drive and transitions to Calvin Road at the Strawberry Gate. Calvin passes the U-5 parking lot as it ascends northeasterly into the cluster. After Buildings 74 and 84, the road bends west and climbs to the gated Hazardous Waste Handling Facility (HWHF). At this juncture, Calvin becomes a two-lane fire road and peels off northward on a steep, S-shaped ascent, where it eventually devolves into a rough, unnamed single-lane road that loops back onto Calvin. Shuttle service is provided around a tight traffic circle at the southwest corner of Building 74. A straight stretch of service road to an equipment laydown

area, accessible only from Centennial Drive, runs along the slope above the HWHF. Centennial Bridge, a newly reconstructed viaduct of Centennial Drive, crosses over Bertozzi Road just southwest of the Strawberry Gate.

Cluster parking is available primarily in the U-5 lot and surrounding Building 74, although roadside parking is available along much of Calvin’s upper reaches. A narrow spit of parking space extends southeast of Building 74. This area holds the long-abandoned Building 74F “Dog Kennels” structure.

Inter-cluster pedestrian and bicycle connection is also via the Lawrence Corridor, a long and at times tedious course. In several segments, a lack of separation with vehicle traffic detracts from the walking experience, along with exposure to the seasonal elements and elevation changes. Internal cluster pedestrian circulation is alongside Calvin Road, although Calvin features an inboard sidewalk as it climbs past the Building 84 bend. There is a flexing network of backdoor stairways and boardwalks serving the area between Buildings 83, 85B, 86, and the U-5 parking lot, none of which is apparent from the roadway.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

Existing social space in the Strawberry Cluster includes a small, formal courtyard between Buildings 74 and 84 that serves as a building entry plaza. This space is landscaped and well-appointed as a social connection. It holds picnic table seating and a balcony view overlooking the Building 84 parking lot and canyon walls beyond. Another courtyard with informal table seating occupies a less pleasant nook on the south side of Building 74.

The network of backdoor paths northeast of Parking Lot U-5 provides picturesque opportunities for pedestrians who can manage the stairs. A hidden clearing with a vertical rock outcropping offers serene picnic seating in a wooded glade just northeast of the parking lot. From there, rough paved paths, wooden boardwalks, and stairways converge and link further uphill with small patios south of Buildings 83 and 85B. The main patio area is privy to woodland views and holds a portable barbecue grill and seating sheltered by a thick oak canopy.

Architectural and Landscape Character

The Strawberry Cluster is an outpost of development against a backdrop of rugged terrain. It features a utilitarian but eclectic mix of building styles. Most of the larger cluster buildings present as stacked collections of straight-line horizontal forms with recessed windows in the predominant campus palette of earth tones, faint pastels, and subtle metallic blues and greys. The notable exception is Building 84, which is vibrant in both form and color scheme. Its front entry façade features a stack of jagged, curvilinear forms reminiscent of the Building 6 entrance. These arcing shapes are echoed on the rooftop mechanical equipment screens, which are curved, overlapping, and called out in a bold aquamarine color. The building is highlighted with horizontal bands of aquamarine and other strong shades of blue. Though tucked behind the plainer Building 74, Building 84 visually stands out in the cluster.

The Strawberry Cluster landscape is influenced by three adjacent habitats—chaparral from the east, oakbay woodland from the north, and annual grasslands

(See Glossary for acronyms & abbreviations.)

FIGURE

from the west. As its buildings tend to be spread out in the otherwise undeveloped area, the natural landscape poses a stronger presence than with most other clusters. Grassland and stands of oak trees surround buildings and interstitial cluster spaces with the exception of Buildings 74 and 84, which occupy a contiguous paved surface, and the Building 85 Complex, which is fenced and encased in heavy pavement to accommodate the work therein. The large retaining wall that defines the outside curve of Calvin Road as it bends past Building 84 is a latticework of concrete with hundreds of exposed soil openings. Thick tufts of desiccated grass stalks and a few hardy bushes sprout from the wall’s interstitial soil spaces.

CAMPUS MASTER PLAN

Cluster Isolation

A key CMP challenge is the isolation and distance that Strawberry Cluster occupants experience when interacting with the larger campus. While campus isolation may be pertinent to other clusters, it is most acute in the Strawberry Cluster and is a focus of this CMP.

As a practical matter, this challenge cannot be completely resolved, but significant progress can be achieved with innovative planning and investment. An east canyon transit hub would provide better shuttle service and micromobility options like e-bikes, scooters, and small electric (e.g., GEM) vehicles. These devices would offer faster and more convenient access to the campus center. Micromobility improvements and pedestrian amenities envisioned along the Lawrence Corridor would further expedite, improve, and increase the enjoyment of the walking and bicycling experience.

Multiple platformed overlooks installed along the Lawrence Corridor and outfitted for outdoor office use would provide reservable midway meeting spaces for Strawberry Cluster

and at-large Lab staff. Providing one-of-a-kind social spaces with Lab-wide appeal like a large recreational center and an upper east canyon retreat would draw more people to the Strawberry Cluster and promote a more balanced two-way relationship.

Terrain, Structures, and Connectivity

With the removal of Building 83, the cluster’s geographic center would open up for reuse. That space should be preserved or banked for a future building outside the vision of this Plan. An optimal interim but long-term use consistent with that banking is the envisioned recreation center, discussed below.

The Calvin Road traffic circle and shuttle bus turn-around would be improved to accommodate an east canyon transit hub. The turn-around is currently tight for large shuttles, and much of the circle is occupied by utilities that limit reconfiguration possibilities. In the near future, smaller shuttle buses with tighter turning radiuses are expected, as described in Chapter 5: Circulation. Nevertheless, opportunities to reduce the circle size and increase the surrounding road space should be explored. The shuttle stop shelter should be repositioned and modernized as appropriate to accommodate an intermodal hub. E-bike or scooter parking along the south side of Building 74 should be considered as part of a program to offer quick and convenient transit opportunities to Strawberry Cluster occupants.

With the replacement and southward realignment of Centennial Bridge and adjacent road segments, the Strawberry Cluster has adopted a swath of newly graded open space. This space presents an opportunity to expand and reconfigure Parking Lot U-5. For example, the parking lot might loop back onto Bertozzi Road with a second driveway that would allow for a more efficient parking space alignment and traffic flow.

STRAWBERRY CLUSTER | Northeast-Facing View. Source: Berkeley Lab

8.12

CANYON RECREATIONAL NODE

FIGURE

Pedestrian pathways connecting Parking Lot U-5 and Buildings 85B and 86 and the envisioned recreation area should be improved and made more accessible, in part by using the newly demolished Building 83 space.

Where practical, and coincidental with on-going Strawberry Gate improvements, the pedestrian experience should be improved with better sidewalks and safer street crossings where Calvin and Bertozzi Roads pass the busy confluence of Strawberry Gate and the U-5 parking lot driveway.

Social, Recreational, and Open Space

The envisioned new recreational node called the Strawberry Recreation Area would occupy the cluster’s geographic and visual center (see Figure 8.12: East Canyon Recreational Node). It would maintain a spacious paintedyet-flexible hardtop surface outfitted to serve multiple uses, such as basketball, volleyball, pickleball, and similar sports, as well as group exercise, club activities, and celebratory events. The recreation center should be designed with input from future Strawberry Cluster and Lab-wide users.

A modest retreat or social space should be considered for the flat area at the top of the Calvin fire road, on or near the graded dirt surface known as the Barrow Pit. A simple rustic pergola-type structure with seating could provide lighting powered by solar panels. Such a space would enjoy unparalleled seclusion in a natural setting with exceptional views even by the campus’s high standards. Access is challenging on foot, but driving and roadside parking would make this spot attainable for everyone.

Improvements to the rough state of the unnamed road extension from Calvin should be considered. This sequence of roads would be formally added to the Lab’s recreational and nature-hiking network.

The picturesque glade featuring a dramatic rock wall outcropping near the U-5 parking lot should be further developed and outfitted for social use. It provides a cool, lush sanctuary near busy roads and nearby dry terrain.

Existing social spaces, including the plaza between Buildings 74 and 84, the deck south of Building 85B, and the nook in the south of Building 74, should be evaluated and treated for improvements.

Architectural and Landscape Character

Under the Plan, the Strawberry Cluster character would change as it became better integrated into the campus, particularly as a park & ride mobility hub and as an outdoor recreation center. Architectural style wouldn’t change as no new buildings would be constructed, but the Building 83 demolition would open up sightlines and the recreation center would offer an uplifting sensibility.

The interstitial spaces within the large retaining wall along the Building 84 bend of Calvin Road could be planted with vibrant, colorful plants suitable for the direct sunlight and dry conditions (e.g., succulents, flowering vines, etc.). This splash of color and life could provide a cluster-defining focal point from both uphill and downhill vantages along Calvin Road. Alternatively, this wall could be decorated with a colorful mural or tile treatment. The eastern redbud should be considered as an accent tree to mark important paths and social spaces.

OBJECTIVES

STRAWBERRY CLUSTER

Dedicated Strawberry Cluster objectives are in addition to applicable discussion and objectives identified in earlier CMP sections, including Chapter 4: Development, Chapter 5: Circulation, Chapter 6: Human-Scale Design, and Chapter 7: Landscape. An overarching aim to reduce isolation and increase connectivity and inclusion between Strawberry Cluster and the campus at large is subsumed into the more targeted objectives below.

Objective 8.9.1: Modernize and improve Strawberry Cluster functionality.

Demolish Building 83 and consider removal of substandard or unused buildings (e.g., 74F) as opportunities arise. Bank Building 83 space for future plans, but use this space during interim for cluster benefit. Explore and consider expansion of U-5 parking lot into space vacated by Centennial Bridge. Consider second U-5 parking lot driveway to Bertozzi Road to realign and improve parking lot spaces and traffic flow. Consider Strawberry Gate enhancements.

Objective 8.9.2: Develop new east canyon multi-modal transit hub.

Create an east campus park-and-ride location by taking advantage of adjacent parking lots (including expanded U-5 parking lot) and Strawberry Gate access. Improve bus turn-around space by expanding roadway and diminishing circle curbs as practical. Relocate and reconstruct shelter. Encourage e-bike, scooter, and/or increased GEM vehicle programs that would use existing or developed parking adjacent to the transit hub. Develop improved wayfinding signage and electronic communications with transit hub users.

Objective 8.9.3: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and within the cluster.

Strengthen pedestrian and bicycle connections between Strawberry Cluster and the larger campus. Extend sidewalks and separated paths and/or demarcate shared roads along the Lawrence Corridor. Adopt better wayfinding and Lawrence Corridor overlooks as places to rest or break up the travel distance.

Improve internal cluster circulation network. Create safer pedestrian crossings on Bertozzi and Calvin Roads near busy driveways (Strawberry Gate, U-5 parking lot, east canyon transit hub). Extend sidewalks along Calvin Road where practical. Simplify, shorten, and provide more ramp access to walkways between U-5 parking lot, the recreation center, and Buildings 85B and 86. Improve upper east canyon fire road at its upper loop.

Objective 8.9.4: Create a multi-use, outdoor recreation center that serves the whole campus.

As described herein, take advantage of vacated Building 83 site to create a spacious hard-topped surface outfitted to serve multiple uses, such as basketball, volleyball, pickleball, and similar sports, as well as group exercise, club activities, and celebratory events. Encourage campuswide use, such as by involving cluster and campus users in guiding the recreation center’s design and offerings. Consider ways to improve existing or provide showers and lockers in a nearby buildings. as needed.

Objective 8.9.5: Expand and improve Strawberry Cluster social spaces.

Improve or refresh the plaza between Buildings 74 and 84. Evaluate the existing nook in the south of Building 74 for improvements. Consider overhead shading elements like pergolas or PV panels to provide shelter from the elements. The picturesque glade featuring a dramatic rock wall outcropping near the U-5 parking lot should be further developed and outfitted for social use. Maintain and enhance the existing social space deck south of Building 85B. Create a modest retreat space at the top of the east canyon fire road, possibly with a rustic pergola-type structure and seating. Lighting and IT connections could be powered by overhead or adjacent solar panels. Consider roadway and grading improvements as practical.

Objective 8.9.6: Revitalize the living wall potential of the Calvin Road retaining wall.

Adapt the retaining wall at the Calvin Road bend near Building 84 into a cluster identity feature or visual centerpiece. Consider prominent sight lines from both downhill and uphill viewpoints. Select and cultivate attractive plants that can survive the location’s dry and hot conditions—such as succulents or drought-tolerant flowering plants or vines. Install the plants throughout the wall and nurture through establishment period. Alternatively, if the retaining wall cannot support plant life sustainably, consider converting space to a signature mural or campus art piece.

Objective 8.9.7: Design and implement Strawberry Cluster general landscape improvements.

Consider the eastern redbud as an accent tree to mark important paths and help define social spaces, such as along Calvin Road and at Strawberry Gate. As opportunities for planting and revegetation are presented, use a chaparral plant palette on the cluster’s east side, an oak-bay woodland palette on the north side, and annual grasslands plant palette on the west side. Specific plans and plant choices to be developed as part of a Physical Design Framework.

Source: Berkeley Lab

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 9

9.1 BERKELEY LAB CONTRIBUTORS

MANAGEMENT TEAM

Jeff Philliber Project Manager; Lead Planner

Stan Tuholski Officer in Charge

Brent Henderson Officer in Charge

Laura Chen Associate in Charge

CAMPUS PLANNING TEAM

Pat Jung Campus Planning, Deputy Project Manager

Lon Freeman Strategic Space & Population Planning

Joanna Eun Strategic Space & Site Planning

Monica Au Real Property/Infrastructure Planning

Alvin Solis Real Property/Infrastructure Planning

John Braithwaite Long-Range and Portfolio Planning

Kelley Toulouse Campus Planning

Bernie Canio Campus Planning

Leana Sossikian Campus Planning

ENGINEERING / UTILITY TEAM

Jocelyn Walker Civil/Structural Engineering; Engineering Lead

Erik Zalkin Civil Engineer/Underground Utilities

Tim Hart Civil/Structural Engineering

Dean Sedlachek Chief of Engineering

Rune Stromsness Telecommunications

Doug Miller Telecommunications

Jeffri Halim Electrical Engineering

Karan Chamsakul Electrical Engineering

Dan Flaherty Electrical Engineering

Oren Reiger Mechanical Engineering

Mike Botello Liquid Helium/Nitrogen Management

Mark Friedrich Controls Engineering

Mark Hurd LAMP/Electrical Design Management

Cezary Jach Electrical Resilience Engineering

SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS

John Elliott Sustainable Berkeley Lab

Deirdre Carter Sustainable Berkeley Lab

Jennifer Tang Government & Community Relations

John Chenowski Transportation & Parking Demand

Ken Kievit

EH&S-Environmental Services

Brendan Mulholland EH&S-Environmental Water Quality

Bernadette Santos EH&S-Air Quality & Environmental Services

Mike Torkelson Fire & Emergency Services Planning

Piper Kujac PMO Construction & Infrastructure

Rick Simpson Procurement & Contracting

Warren Williams Resource Analytics

STAKEHOLDER TEAM

Laboratory Directorate

Biosciences Area

Computing Sciences Area

Earth & Environmental Sciences Area

Energy Sciences Area

Energy Technologies Area

Physical Sciences Area

Operations Divisions

9.2 CONSULTANT TEAM

David Moore Flad Architects

Andrew Cunningham Flad Architects

Stevens Williams Flad Architects

Sokangna Sun Flad Architects

John Gibbs WRT

James Stickley WRT

Matt Taecker WRT

Deeksha Rawat WRT

Ashwin Nambiar WRT

Olivia Xu WRT

Keling Ni WRT

Rohit Tak WRT

Poonam Narkar WRT

John Leys Sherwood Design Engineers

Craig Boman Sherwood Design Engineers

Jon Keim-Shenk Sherwood Design Engineers

Ellie Morris Sherwood Design Engineers

Joanna Pyun Affiliated Engineers, Inc (AEI)

Ron Brown Affiliated Engineers, Inc (AEI)

Arati Sakhalkar Affiliated Engineers, Inc (AEI)

Grant Aikels Affiliated Engineers, Inc (AEI)

Matt Flanders Affiliated Engineers, Inc (AEI)

Garvish Damania Affiliated Engineers, Inc (AEI)

Roland Stern Illustrator

APPENDICES

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, & INITIALISMS

Short Term Full Term

A/V Audio/Visual

A&E Building Accelerator & Engineering Support Building

ADA Americans with Disability Act

ADF Air disconnect, fused

ADP Adjusted Daily Population

AI Artificial Intelligence

ALC Automated Logic Controls

ALS Advanced Light Source

ALS-U Advanced Light Source Upgrade

ALS/S ALS Support Facility

AMDB

Advanced Material Discovery Building

ASHP Air Source heat pump

ATAP Accelerator Technology & Applied Physics Division

BART Bay Area Rapid Transit

BAS Building Automation System

BELLA Berkeley Lab Laser Accelerator

Bio Sci Biosciences Area

BioEPIC Biological and Environmental Program Integration Center

BioGEM Biological Genome Engineering and Manufacturing Facility

Bldg Building

BMP Best Management Practice

BSA Biosciences Area

BSO Berkeley Site Office (DOE)

BTU British Thermal Unit

CA Compressed air

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFM Cubic Feet per Minute

CMP Campus Master Plan, the Plan

Comp Sci Computing Sciences Area

Short Term Full Term

COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic of 2019

CP Cathodic Protection

CRT Computational Research and Theory Building (Building 59)

CSA Computing Sciences Area

CSB Chemical Science Building

DFN Distributed Fiber Node

DOE United States Department of Energy

e-bike Electronic bicycle

e-scooter Electronic scooter

EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utility District

EESA Earth & Environmental Sciences Area

EH&S Environmental, Health & Safety Division

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EISA 438 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Section 438

Energy Sci, ESA Energy Sciences Area

EO Executive Order

EPIC Environmentally Passive Integrated Chamber

ESA Energy Sciences Area

ESnet Energy Sciences Network

ETA Energy Technologies Area

EV Electric vehicle

EWT Entering hot-water temperature

FIMS Facilities Information Management System

FTE Full-time equivalent

FY Fiscal Year

GEM cart Small electric vehicle holding 2 or 4 passengers

GPM Gallons per minute

GSF gross square feet

Short Term Full Term

HILAC Heavy Ion Linear Accelerator

HMI Human-Machine Interface

HPC High-performance computing

HV High voltage

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

HWHF Hazardous Waste Handling Facility

I/O Input/Output

IGB Integrative Genomics Building

IT Information Technology

JGI Joint Genome Institute

kV Kilovolt

kVA Kilovolt amperes

LAMP Linear Assets Modernization Project

LBNL Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

LCW Low Conductivity Water

LF Linear Feet

LHS Lawrence Hall of Science (UCB)

LRDP Long Range Development Plan

LWT Leaving cool water temperature

MBH Thousand BTUs per hour

MF Molecular Foundry

ML Machine learning

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

mph Miles per hour

MSRI Mathematical Sciences Research Institute

MUP Modular Utility Plant

MW Megawatt

NCEM

National Center for Electron Microscopy

Short Term Full Term

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NERSC National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center

NG Natural Gas

OPS Lab Operations

PCC Point of common coupling

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric

PhDF Physical Design Framework

Phys Sci, PSA Physical Sciences Area

PMS Pad-mount switchgear

PSA Physical Sciences Area

PV Photovoltaic

SAFE Safe Area For Emergencies

SBL Sustainable Berkeley Lab

SCADA Supervisory, Control and Data Acquisition

SCFM Standard Cubic Feet per Minute

SPR Seismic Performance Rating

SSI Space Sciences Lab (UCB)

SSM Building Seismic Safety & Modernization

SW Switch Station

TBD To be determined

TDM Transportation Demand Management

Therm A unit of heat equivalent to 100,000 BTU

UC University of California

UC Regents The 26-member board that governs the University of California

UC SPR UC Seismic Performance Rating

UCB University of California, Berkeley

UCOP University of California Office of the President

WAPA Western Area Power Administration

CMP TERMINOLOGY

Term Definition

Alvarez Arc Curving Alvarex Road segment that borders the Bayview Lot

Amphitheater Large, outdoor theater seating that steps down an incline toward a focal point (stage)

Barrow Pit

Bay Area

Beamline

A graded open space area above the eastern terminus of Calvin Road historically used for excess soil storage

Nine-county metropolitan region surrounding the San Francisco Bay

A focused beam of high-intensity light generated by a synchroton accelerator and used for research

Brise soleil Building solar shading system using horizontally or vertically aligned louvers or fins

Brownfield Formerly developed area that may contain legacy contamination

Building 6

The domed, circular building originally housing the 184-inch Cyclotron later modified and expanded to hold the ALS

Cantilever A projecting upper-story building element that is not supported on its projecting end

Centennial Bridge

Central Commons

Central Parking Lot

A UC Berkeley-managed Centennial Drive bridge that crosses over the Lab's Bertozzi Road

The Lab campus' center of community activity and services, including dining and conference services

Envisioned large parking lot that would replace the Building 46 Complex after demolition

Chaparral Scrubby, hardy plant communities composed of evergreen shrubs, bushes, and small trees

Cluster Collection of buildings/development, often with shared focus or function, on developable areas of Lab campus

Cluster Corridor Pedestrian corridor envisioned to bisect the Charter Hill Cluster along its full east-west axis

Colonnade A row of columns supporting a roof or arcade

Corridor, Lawrence Sequence of campus roads leading from Strawberry Gate to the Central Commons

Corridor, Northern Sequence of campus roads leading from Grizzly Peak Gate to the Central Commons

Corridor, Western Sequence of campus roads leading from Blackberry Gate to the Central Commons

Cyclotron Particle accelerator invented and further developed by EO Lawrence

Directorate Organizational division maintaining Laboratory leadership and administration

East Bay Cities and land area on the eastern side of the San Francisco Bay

East canyon area

The easternmost area of the Lab, particularly to the east of the Centennial Bridge undercrossing

FLEXLAB Lab ETA testing facility (Bldg. 90X) for building materials and systems

Term Definition

Flex Building An envisioned multi-purpose research/office building in the Central Commons

Greenfield Undeveloped and/or natural area

Guest House

Heart of the Lab

High Bay

UC-owned lodging facility on the Lab campus

Aspirational expression describing the campus Central Commons

A structure with very tall internal ceiling, one or more cranes, and a heavy drive-in floor used for un/loading, manipulating, and assembling large and heavy equipment

Hydrauger Horizontally aligned drain pipe rammed into Lab hillsides to remove destabilizing ground water

Hydroseeding

A slurry of ground-cover seeds and mulch used to quickly establish vegetation on a disturbed site

Labyrinth A complex, circuitous, tightly nestled pathway designed to amuse or entertain

Landscape, cultivated

Landscape, invasive

Landscape, natural

Vegetation (native and non-native) specifically selected, planted, and often maintained by the Lab, particularly to populate developed areas

Non-native plant species and habitat that are not cultivated by the Lab and that persist through self-propagation

Indigenous plant species and habitat that have evolved and occur naturally in the Berkeley and East Bay region

Loggia A covered but open space running along the side of a building, similar to a porch

Massing Study Hypothetical study of Lab’s capacity for development

Micromobility

Mobility Hub

Transportation involving small, lightweight, people-powered or motor-assisted movement, including walking

A centralized location that integrates various transportation services, such as public transit, bike-sharing, car-sharing, and more, to facilitate seamless and sustainable urban mobility for commuters along with co-location of other complimentary uses like cafes.

Molecular Foundry Lab campus Building 67; a center for nano-scale materials research

Multimodal

Net-Zero

Parcourse

Park & Ride

Parking Lot U-5

Transportation in all forms, including public transit/shuttle bus, automobile, bicycling, and walking.

A balanced state between greenhouse gas emissions and reduction

Outdoor fitness area featuring various exercise stations

Peripheral parking lot transfer centers between personal vehicles to shuttles or micromobility modes

Large parking lot across from the Lab's Strawberry Gate

Term Definition

Pedestrian Spine A major and continuous east-west pedestrian walkway that spans the entire Lab campus

Photo-op installations

Memorable, dramatic, or attractive features that attract picture taking and "selfies," often for posting on social media

Pit parking lot The Blackberry Pit parking lot

Pop-up office

Temporary or make-shift office set-up, typically in a convenient, interesting, or unconventional location

Promontory An outjutting or projecting point of high land

Rad Lab EO Lawrence's 1930s-era original accelerator research space on the UC Berkeley Campus

Recreation, Active Recreation focusing on physical movement, particularly athletic or fitness-related activity

Recreation, Passive Recreation not reliant on physical movement, including spectating and seated activities

Run-Around event

Berkeley Lab's annual community running/walking "race" around the campus followed by festivities

Segway A single-passenger, upright electrical micromobility vehicle

Silt fencing A temporary sediment control device used on construction sites to protect water quality

Straw wattle A rolled erosion control product filled with natural fiber material, or composted material

Synchrotron Later-generation particle accelerator with greater capabilities than cyclotron technology

Tai Chi A gentle martial art and exercise system often practiced in groups

The Lab Berkeley Lab or LBNL

Transit Center/ Transit

Hub

Tree, blue gum

eucalyptus

Tree, Canary Island pine

Tree, coast live oak

Tree, cork oak

Tree, Kennedy Trees

Tree, redwood

A transportation facility where multiple modes of transportation or multiple routes of a transit system converge to facilitate efficient passengers transfer between different routes and modes.

Eucalyptus globulus, the Tasmanian blue gum, is a locally invasive, tall evergreen tree.

Pinus canariensis, a large, evergreen tree, native and endemic to the outer Canary Islands of the Atlantic Ocean.

Quercus agrifolia, the California live oak, or coast live oak, is a highly variable, medium-sized, often evergreen oak tree

Quercus suber is a medium-sized, picturesque oak tree and the primary source of cork for wine bottle stoppers and other cork uses

Three Canary Island pine trees planted by President John F. Kennedy near Building 88 on a visit during the 1960s.

Sequoia sempervirens or coastal redwood is a long-lived evergreen and the world's tallest tree.

Term Definition

Tree, sequoia redwood

UC Regents

User Facility

Sequoiadendron giganteum or the giant sequoia a coniferous tree and the most massive tree on Earth.

The 26-member board that governs the University of California

Unique, resource-intensive, DOE-owned, LBNL research facilities available for use by nonLBNL researchers. Currently these include the ALS, JGI, Molecular Foundry, NERSC, and ESnet.

Vegetation Management Guide A 2021 Lab document providing guidance and background information to support vegetation management planning and implementation

Vegetation Management Plan

An on-going Berkeley Lab strategy to reduce flammable and hazardous, invasive vegetation and replace with native or native-compatible, drought-tolerant, appropriately located vegetation

Wayfinding Navigation of an area by way of signage, design elements, colors, and/or other cues

10.2 INDEX OF OBJECTIVES, FIGURES, AND TABLES

TABLES

Table No. Figure

FIGURES

10.3 PRINCIPLES AND OBJECTIVES OVERVIEW

OBJECTIVE TYPE

At what development phase (planning, construction, operation) would the objective be most pertinent?

• Campus Planning: Objective informs campus-scale, sitewide, or programmatic planning.

• Project Planning: Objective informs planning of specific projects.

• Operations: Objective informs on-going, administrative, and/or operational activities.

OBJECTIVE TIMING

How soon into the 20+ year planning period would objective implementation begin?

• Short-Term: 0-3 years

• Mid-Term: 4-10 years

• Long-Term: 11-20+ years

Does the Objective meet the CMP Vision?

directly

Does the Objective meet the CMP Principles?

• List applicable principles

Objectives

Is the Objective informed by, complemented by, or otherwise related to other CMP Objectives?

• List applicable objectives

10.4 BERKELEY LAB EXISTING BUILDING LIST

72C

10.5 BERKELEY LAB DEVELOPMENT HISTORY

In the 1920s, University of California President Robert Sproul undertook the task of developing UC Berkeley into a major research university. The development of a worldclass Physics Department was an essential element of this effort.

The Berkeley Lab legacy began in the summer of 1928 when Ernest Orlando Lawrence, a promising 27-year-old assistant physics professor at Yale University, was recruited to join the Physics Department at Berkeley. A primary attraction for Lawrence was the promise of an auxiliary connection to the world-class Chemistry Department at Berkeley.

Prior to Lawrence, the traditional practice for physicists, chemists, and biologists was to work only within their own fields. Outside collaboration was rare. Soon after forming the Radiation Laboratory at Berkeley in 1931, Lawrence began recruiting a team of brilliant colleagues from physics, chemistry, engineering, and medicine. This team’s collaborative work would be critical to the Laboratory’s legendary success and launch the era of multidisciplinary, modern science.

1930s

In 1930, Lawrence invented and built a unique 5-inchdiameter particle accelerator device he called a cyclotron. With the cyclotron, Lawrence was able to boost the speed and energy of protons and then cast them toward atomic targets like stones from a slingshot. This was a dramatic leap forward in the efficiency and effectiveness of particle acceleration. The cyclotron made possible the dramatic growth of particle physics as well as chemistry. Lawrence was awarded the 1939 Nobel Prize in physics for his invention and research use of the 5-inch Cyclotron.

Based on the success of the 5-inch Cyclotron, Lawrence and his small research team quickly developed the 11-inch Cyclotron in late 1931. Next came work on the 27-inch

Cyclotron, which required an 80-ton magnet. In August 1931, Lawrence moved his research from Le Conte Hall to the nearby Civil Engineering Testing Laboratory. This new building featured a substantial concrete floor slab strong enough to support the 80-ton magnet. Lawrence renamed this building the Radiation Laboratory, soon known as the Rad Lab.

With the establishment of the Radiation Laboratory, Lawrence’s team grew as they developed still larger cyclotrons. Engineers and chemists were recruited along with physicists. During the decade, the Rad Lab staff grew from five to sixty members and eventually included Edwin McMillan, Luis Alvarez, Glenn Seaborg, Emilio Segrè, Owen Chamberlain, Donald Glaser, and Melvin Calvin, all of whom would also become Nobel Laureates.

The 27-inch Cyclotron was operational by September 1932 and the 37-inch Cyclotron was developed and operational by 1937.

Lawrence was not content to limit Radiation Laboratory research to physics and chemistry. In 1935, he invited his brother John, a physician, to join his research team and explore the use of cyclotron-produced radioisotopes for biomedical research. Other Rad Lab scientists used the cyclotrons for biological research. One such achievement was to develop an in-depth understanding of plant photosynthesis.

The addition of physicians and biologists into the Radiation Laboratory’s scientific mix led to the 1939 construction of a second building: the Crocker Radiation Laboratory. The Crocker Lab was designed to house the 60-inch Cyclotron with a magnet that weighed 220 tons. The use of the 60inch Cyclotron by John Lawrence and his fellow physicians gave rise to modern nuclear medicine, biophysics, and medical imaging research, which further expanded and

THE ORIGINAL RADIATION LABORATORY ON THE UC BERKELEY CAMPUS | Source: Berkeley Lab

ERNEST ORLANDO LAWRENCE | Source: Berkeley Lab

THE ORIGINAL 5-INCH CYCLOTRON | Source: Berkeley Lab

advanced the Rad Lab mission.

For the next leap forward, Lawrence planned the 184inch Cyclotron with a 4,500-ton magnet that required a large and specially designed facility that could not be accommodated on the Berkeley campus. In 1940, construction was begun on a 90-foot-high circular domed building to house the 184-inch Cyclotron. The site was a knoll in the Hills above the Berkeley campus on land owned by the UC Regents. The development of this facility would mark the birth of the Berkeley Lab campus as known today.

The new 184-inch Cyclotron Building was designed by Architect Arthur Brown, who was well regarded for the design of the San Francisco City Hall and Coit Tower. The domed building with a copper-clad cupola was aligned on a visual axis across the Berkeley campus and to the Golden Gate Bridge; it was an immediate East Bay landmark.

The knoll site for the 184-inch Cyclotron was known as Charter Hill. The original domed structure–Building 6–that housed the 184-inch Cyclotron was modified and expanded

Source: Berkeley Lab

in the 1990s to house the Advanced Light Source (ALS).

The ALS is a Synchrotron Accelerator facility that produces intense soft X-rays and extreme ultraviolet light for research purposes. The original dome structure remains today as a prominent visual marker in the Berkeley Hills and the icon of Berkeley Lab.

1940s

In the early 1940s the Radiation Laboratory team temporarily shifted their research and the use of the cyclotrons to support the national effort for WWII. Several important results were quickly achieved including the creation of neptunium and plutonium using the 60-inch Cyclotron. They also made significant improvements to radar in collaboration with the MIT Radiation Laboratory, and to sonar through collaboration with the Navy’s new Anti-Submarine Warfare Unit in San Diego. Edwin McMillan and Glenn Seaborg were awarded Nobel Prizes in 1951 for their discoveries of neptunium and plutonium, respectively.

Atomic particle research by the Radiation Laboratory team to support the war effort advanced quickly and led to the creation of the Oak Ridge, Hanford, and Argonne laboratories, which were dedicated to larger scale plutonium research and production and weapons systems. By 1942, all atomic work was under the direction of the Manhattan Project. Robert Oppenheimer had been appointed to lead further atomic particle research for the war effort at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

With the development of the other laboratories, the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory’s active role in the war effort ended in 1944 and the mission of the Laboratory returned to basic science. While the magnet for the 184-

inch Cyclotron was used for research related to the war effort, the 184-inch Cyclotron itself was not completed and commissioned for use until 1946.

In early 1947, the Manhattan Project ended, and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) inherited its network of laboratories, including Argonne, Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford, and their progenitor: the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory.

Lawrence didn’t wait for the end of the war to plan the Rad Lab’s future. His vision called for the creation of “a paradise of physics” at his laboratory. Lawrence recognized that as a result of the Manhattan Project, a new compact between science and government had been forged and he could now look to the federal government for research funding, primarily from the newly formed AEC. Though the focus of the AEC was on nuclear science, Lawrence’s negotiation skill led to financial support for a broad spectrum of interdisciplinary research and established his legacy as the “Father of Big Science.” From this point on, Big Science would be heavily dependent on government funding.

Lawrence convinced the AEC to provide support for the radiopharmaceuticals research programs led by John Lawrence. The idea was to conduct biomedical research into the use of cyclotron-produced radioisotopes and nuclear radiation for cancer treatment. Following the end of the war, with access to the new 184-inch Cyclotron and backed by AEC funding, the field of modern nuclear medicine was launched.

With carbon-14, a radioactive isotope produced by the 60-inch Cyclotron, scientists had an ideal tracer for biochemical processes. A significant application of carbon-14 was to develop a full understanding of the photosynthesis process. Melvin Calvin was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1961 for the confirmation of photosynthesis.

During the decade a series of modest support buildings were developed on the Charter Hill site.

• Buildings 4, 5, 14, and 16 to the east of Building 6 (these were finally demolished in the late 2010s and early 2020s).

• Buildings 17, 27, and 53 to the north of Building 6 (still extant in the early 2020s).

1950s

Lawrence established a division of the Radiation Laboratory in Livermore, California that was devoted to weapons research so that the Berkeley Lab could maintain a focus on basic research.

For all its successful ventures into disciplines other than particle physics, the Radiation Laboratory of the 1950s remained foremost a physics laboratory, and in the 1950s the biggest prize in physics research was the antiproton. The hunt for the antiproton got off to a slow start because to capture an antiproton, scientists would first have to make one. This required that a beam of protons be accelerated well beyond the capability of the 184-inch Cyclotron.

After the war, research was focused on overcoming the energy limitations of the cyclotron accelerators and a new type of accelerator was developed that applied energy pulses and generated significantly more powerful particle acceleration. This new type of accelerator, which has become the standard instrument of high-energy physics research today, was called a “synchrotron.” The plans for the next big accelerator began in 1948 and construction was completed in January 1954. The new accelerator was christened the “Bevatron.”

BUILDING 6 (184-INCH CYCLOTRON) CONSTRUCTION |

The Bevatron was located on a large site north and below the 184-inch Cyclotron that was created with a significant land grading and fill project. This site is known today as the Bayview Lot at Berkeley Lab.

Using the powerful Bevatron, antiprotons were successfully created in 1955. For leading the discovery of the antiproton, Emilio Segrè and Owen Chamberlain shared the 1959 Nobel Prize in physics, joining Lawrence, McMillan, and

Seaborg as Radiation Laboratory Nobel Laureates. It was a record of institutional achievement without precedent.

Ernest Lawrence died on Aug. 27, 1958, at the age of 57. Just 23 days after his death, the Regents of the University of California voted to rename the Radiation Laboratory as the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. In 1959, the original wood Radiation Laboratory building on the Berkeley campus was demolished. An American genius and giant of science had passed away, and his original laboratory building no longer existed, but for the laboratory that now bore his name there was still much to come.

During the decade Berkeley Lab started to expand beyond Charter Hill with the development of major research laboratory buildings in new parts of the emerging campus that remain in use today. (Cluster names reflect current Campus terminology):

• Materials Science Laboratory Building 70 and Cafeteria Building 54 in the Central Commons Cluster.

• Patient Clinic Building 55 and Laboratory and Shop Building 64 in the Bayview Cluster.

• Linear Accelerator Building 71, Laboratory and Shop Building 46, Office Building 47, and High-Bay and Shops Building 58 in the Northside Cluster.

• Materials Science Laboratory and Accelerator Support Shops Building 80 in the Charter Hill Cluster.

• Office Building 65 in the Blackberry Cluster.

• Building 50, the first Berkeley Lab administrative building, was constructed on a hilltop overlooking the Lab’s main Blackberry Gate entrance in 1959 and remains in use today.

1960s

After the death of Lawrence, Edwin McMillan was appointed as the second director of Berkeley Lab, and he led a significant expansion of the campus through the 1960s with the construction of several major buildings. The Laboratory’s fame was also at its height and hosted a stream of visiting VIPs, among them President John F. Kennedy, Prince Philip, Princess Margaret, and Lord Snowden, as well as numerous distinguished foreign scientists.

Almost all Berkeley Lab funding in these years came from the AEC. President Kennedy named Glenn Seaborg Chairman of the AEC and McMillan instantly became well connected in Washington for funding Berkeley Lab initiatives.

The world’s first chemical laser was invented, and nuclear medicine research continued to thrive under the direction of John Lawrence with imaging its fastest growing field with the invention of the gamma ray camera and the first computed tomography scanners.

In 1968 a number of Berkeley Lab scientists became concerned about the deterioration of the environment. 1970 court decisions soon forced the AEC to take responsibility for the environmental effects of hot water discharged from nuclear power plants and funds became available for an Environmental Research Office at Berkeley Lab. From this beginning, the Environmental Energy Technologies, Earth Sciences, and Accelerator and Fusion Research Divisions were eventually established at Berkeley Lab.

During the decade the Berkeley Lab Campus was expanded significantly with the development of major research laboratory buildings across the Berkeley Lab Campus that remain in use today. (Cluster names reflect current Campus terminology):

• Health Clinic Building and Environment, Health & Safety Office Building 26 in the Charter Hill Cluster.

• Administrative Office Buildings 50A and 50B in the Blackberry Cluster.

• Materials Science Laboratory and High-Bay Building 62 in the Redwood Cluster.

• Shipping & Receiving Building 69 in the Support Services Cluster.

• Materials Science Laboratory Building 70A in the Blackberry Cluster.

• Electron Microscopy Building 72 in the Redwood Cluster.

THE BEVATRON | Source: Berkeley Lab

BERKELEY LAB DIRECTOR MCMILLAN GREETS PRESIDENT JOHN KENNEDY DURING HIS VISIT TO THE LAB IN 1962 | Source: Berkeley Lab

• Biosciences Laboratory Building 74 in the Strawberry Cluster.

• Facilities Office Buildings 76 and 78, and Fabricating Shop Building 77 in the Support Services Cluster.

• 88-inch Cyclotron Building 88 in the Blackberry Cluster.

• DOE Office Building 90 in the Bayview Cluster.

1970s

Director McMillan’s tenure began in the late 1950s and by November 1972, when he announced his retirement, the accomplishments of research teams at Berkeley Lab included unprecedented advances in physics, nuclear chemistry, medicine, materials sciences, physical biosciences, earth sciences, and environmental studies.

Andy Sessler became the third Berkeley Lab director as the 1973 oil embargo started and gas prices soared causing long lines at gas stations. The energy crisis had begun. Sessler, a 44-year-old theoretical physicist, avid backpacker and skier, and who often rode his bike to work, was quick to respond. On his first day in office, Nov. 1, 1973, he established the Energy and Environment Division at Berkeley Lab.

The launch of this program marked a turning point in the history of the Laboratory. The Energy and Environment Division joined the accelerator, physics, nuclear chemistry research, biology, and medical research divisions and broadened the institution into a fully multidisciplinary research institution.

It also meant that improving the world became just as important as understanding it. Sessler viewed the energy crisis and the world’s environmental problems as both a grand challenge for the Laboratory, and one of the reasons for its existence. In a letter to staff dated the same day he became director, he said “No programs of the Laboratory are more important to its future than those in the fields of energy and environment.” He added that “the purpose and motivation for change at Berkeley Lab is singular: to bring us closer to the goal that Berkeley Lab be employed to its fullest in the service of society.”

Two things occurred that allowed that initial letter to grow

into a division. The AEC, which funded Berkeley Lab, was thrust into the environmental research business when it was ordered to conduct environmental studies prior to the construction of nuclear power plants. In October 1973, Egypt attacked Israel, and an Arab oil embargo rattled the nation’s dependence on foreign energy.

Environmental stewardship also rose to the national stage during this time. Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970, confirming a commitment among thousands throughout the U.S. to protect “Spaceship Earth.” This sentiment was echoed in the federal government in the early 1970s, a period in which the Environmental Protection Agency was established, and the Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts were passed.

Federal funding improved and the new Energy and Environment Division prospered. The U.S. was developing a national energy plan and Berkeley Lab was one of the few institutions in the country with the expertise to help.

In 1975 the Center for Building Science was established where a broad range of energy efficiency technologies have been developed, including compact fluorescent lamps and window glass technology to prevent heat gain and loss.

The Berkeley Lab research portfolio was forever changed. From 1973 to 1980, applied science at the Lab grew to become equal in size to basic research, while basic research maintained a constant level. Today, Berkeley Lab is synonymous with energy-efficient appliance standards, innovative lighting technologies, pioneering atmospheric aerosol and indoor air quality studies, energy use analyses, sophisticated batteries, and cleaner combustion technologies.

The boom in applied science yielded new divisions. In 1977, the Energy and Environment Division was split into

two, one for energy and environment research and one for earth sciences, where scientists tackle seismic research, geothermal energy, and the disposal of nuclear waste. Also in 1977, the Lab’s fusion energy research activities were incorporated into the Accelerator and Fusion Research Division.

Berkeley Lab scientists also acted locally. In the 1970s, Berkeley Lab engineers and computer scientists helped develop and install an improved scheduling system that allowed Bay Area Rapid Transit trains to run more efficiently.

As the Berkeley Lab retooled itself to address the nation’s energy problems, so did the federal government. In 1975, the AEC closed when President Ford signed a measure to form the Energy Research and Development Agency, which began oversight of Berkeley Lab and all AEC labs. This agency evolved three years later, when President Carter established the Department of Energy.

THE SUPER HILAC LINEAR ACCELERATOR IN BUILDING 71 | Source: Berkeley Lab

BUILDING 90 | Source: Berkeley Lab

The 1970s saw the creation of the super-heavy ion linear accelerator, or Super HILAC, in Building 71 which could accelerate ions as heavy as uranium. The Super HILAC opened the door to the creation of synthetic elements beyond uranium, also known as transuranium elements. Current generation linear accelerators continue in use today in Building 71.

In 1975, the venerable Bevatron, which was nearing the end of its useful career in high-energy physics, was given a new lease on life by linking it to the Super HILAC. Nuclei began their journey in the Super HILAC and then passed through a transfer line to the Bevatron, where they were accelerated to near the speed of light. Called the Bevalac, its beams were used to study high-energy nuclear reactions from heavy elements. This research field, christened at Berkeley Lab, spawned nuclear science experiments at Geneva’s CERN and Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Bevalac beams were also found to be useful in the treatment of cancer and other diseases as a heavy ion beam was found to destroy tumors without seriously damaging surrounding tissue. In 1976, investigations culminated in an intensive cancer treatment program in collaboration with physicians at UC San Francisco.

In another medical development, Berkeley Lab scientists transformed a 1950s-era scintillation camera, which enables physicians to detect tumors using radioactive isotopes, into modern imaging systems. Gated heart single gamma tomography was developed in 1974, and dynamic, gated Positron Emission Tomography (PET) was developed in 1978. This work led to the highest resolution PET scanner in the world, the 2.6-millimeter-resolution camera built by an Berkeley Lab team in 1986.

Berkeley Lab also acquired two large electron microscopes which helped cement the Laboratory as a leader in

materials sciences. These microscopes have since given way to more advanced microscopes at the National Center for Electron Microscopy established in 1983.

THE BEVALAC LINKING BUILDINGS 71 (SUPERHILAC) AND 54 (BEVATRON) | Source: Berkeley Lab

To foster innovative research, Sessler also started a Director’s Fund, which became the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program. The fund enables the Director to distribute funds from the overhead budget to select research projects. One of these projects led to the 1979 discovery that an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.

The Berkeley Lab research bonanza in both fundamental and applied science translated to growth. From 1973 to 1980, the Berkeley Lab budget increased from $42 million to $142 million annually, and the number of employees increased from 2,000 to 3,000.

The division of the old Radiation Laboratory located in Livermore, California established by Lawrence in the early

1950s and devoted to weapons research, was split off and made a separate laboratory in 1971 as Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.

While Berkeley Lab experienced great program growth through the decade, minimal campus and building development occurred with no major facilities constructed.

1980s

David Shirley was appointed to succeed Sessler as Berkeley Lab Director in 1980, the first chemist to direct the Lab and first Director without a background in accelerators. Berkeley Lab experienced a deep funding reduction in 1981 with President Reagan’s emphasis on defense R&D spending, though funding was quickly reestablished in 1982 with Congressional action.

DOE approved new funding for the Center for Advanced Materials for research tied directly to the most critical needs of U.S. industry in materials science that were blocking technological developments. This funding led to the construction of the Surface Sciences and Catalysis Laboratory, Building 66, and the Advanced Materials Laboratory, Building 2; the first major new buildings constructed at Berkeley Lab in almost 20 years.

The funding also helped launch the Center for X-Ray Optics (CXRO), the first research facility aimed exclusively at an expanse of the electromagnetic spectrum stretching from extreme ultraviolet light to soft (low energy) x-rays called the XUV. Wavelengths of light in the XUV range are ideal for studying and manipulating atoms and molecules at the surfaces of materials, where most chemistry takes place. XUV light is also ideal for studying material properties at nanoscale dimensions.

Spurred by his own scientific interest in the use of XUV light and the success of the CAM initiative funding, Shirley put forth an initiative in 1984 that would become his defining achievement as Director. This initiative proposed the construction of a new electron synchrotron accelerator with a storage ring that would enable the production of XUV radiation with scientific properties never before attained. The new synchrotron, the first big accelerator to be constructed at Berkeley Lab in three decades, was to be called the Advanced Light Source (ALS) and proposed as an expansion of Building 6 with the 184-inch Cyclotron no longer in use.

In 1983, several new programs were launched, the National Center for Electron Microscopy as a DOE National User Facility, the Center for Computational Seismology as a national and international resource on seismic data, and the Neutral Beam Engineering Test Facility for the study of neutralized particle beams used for controlled fusion.

During the Shank years Berkeley Lab became the home of the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet), officially formed in 1986 to manage one of the world’s premier high-speed data communications networks supporting scientific research around the globe. The Lab made breakthroughs in computing connectivity when teams achieved victory after victory in high-performance band-width challenges at supercomputing conferences, moving ever-larger amounts of data in record time.

Berkeley Lab researchers further boosted the institution’s reputation in the biological sciences with significant new findings in the study of cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. In 1987, Berkeley Lab was selected as one of two centers for the massive undertaking of the DOE Human Genome Project. Berkeley Lab also continued to achieve in environmental studies with the first real-time measurements of soot particles cast into the atmosphere

by the burning of coal and oil, and characterizing the risks posed to homes by radon.

The expanding scientific reach of Berkeley Lab was extending to the stars. The concept of a honeycomb array of 36 hexagonal mirror segments that would act in unison as a single light-collecting telescope mirror measuring 400” in diameter was developed and resulted in the construction of the Keck Observatory atop Mauna Kea, Hawaii, at the time the world’s largest optical and infrared telescope.

In 1986, Berkeley Lab Chemist Yuan Lee would share the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his development of “crossed molecular beams” to study chemical reactions.

Shirley stepped down as Lab director in 1989, with the knowledge that the transition to a national multiprogram institution had been completed. Charles Shank was appointed as the fifth Director of Berkeley Lab, the first Director from outside the Lab after a 20-year career at AT&T Bell Laboratories.

During the decade the Berkeley Lab Campus was expanded in a selective manner with the development of a few major research laboratory and administrative buildings across the Berkeley Lab Campus that remain in use today. (Cluster names reflect current Campus terminology):

• Expansion of the Electron Microscopy Building 72 in the Redwood Cluster to the national Center for Electron Microscopy.

• Surface Sciences and Catalysis Laboratory Building 66 in the Redwood Cluster.

• Advanced Materials Laboratory Building 2 in the Charter Hill Cluster.

• Administrative Office Buildings 50C, 50E, and 50F in the Blackberry Cluster.

1990s

Director Shank’s background in private sector science shaped his view that the National Laboratories, and Berkeley Lab in particular, should conduct fundamental research and incubate technologies that could improve the competitiveness of U.S. industry and the quality of people’s lives. Shank also took over at a time when the Berkeley Lab was moving away from its flagship enterprises of basic research in physics and chemistry and further toward biomedicine, materials sciences, and energy efficiency research. This was best embodied in the completion of the Advanced Light Source (ALS) in 1993.

The ALS, a National User Facility that generates intense light for scientific research, was the world’s first thirdgeneration synchrotron light source in its energy range.

Berkeley Lab’s role as a leader in life science research was bolstered in 1992, when scientists discovered a gene that predisposes people to atherosclerosis, the leading cause of heart disease in this country.

Berkeley Lab secured another major National User Facility in 1995 when the DOE Office of Energy Research announced that Berkeley Lab was selected as the site of a new high-performance computing center, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC). NERSC was a contender in the computing power sweepstakes throughout the 1990s. The IBM machine was named “Seaborg” in honor of the Lab’s great chemist was the most powerful unclassified supercomputer in the world at the beginning of the new century. But a year later Japan’s custom-made giant Earth Simulator jumped ahead of general-purpose machines like Seaborg — forcing U.S. computing scientists, with a Berkeley Lab team involved in leading the effort, to rethink the nature of scientific

computing.

In 1995, Berkeley Lab started construction on a new Human Genome Laboratory, Building 84, which was located near Buildings 74 and 83 to form a cluster of life sciences research laboratories adjacent to the Strawberry Gate. The building brought together all the research teams that made up the Berkeley Lab Human Genome Center, now part of the DOE Joint Genome Institute (JGI), a consortium of DOE National Laboratories Lawrence Berkeley, Lawrence Livermore, and Los Alamos, opened in 1997. JGI provided an accelerating flow of genome data, which stimulated advances in systems biology and its close relative, quantitative biology.

BUILDING 2 | Source: Berkeley Lab

BUILDING 84 (HUMAN GENOME LAB) |

Source: Berkeley Lab

Along with these changes in the Lab’s research landscape came a change in the Lab’s name. On June 16, 1995, after receiving approval from the University of California Board of Regents, Berkeley Lab added the word “National” to its name, becoming the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, or Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The change was made to reflect the Laboratory’s commitment to respond to national scientific needs, as well as to project a more distinctive identity to decision-makers in Washington. The name change was also intended to distinguish the Berkeley Lab from two other East Bay science facilities named after Lawrence, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Hall of Science.

Two fields of study gained special prominence during the latter half of Shank’s directorship. In the early 1990s, nanoscience was more science fiction than science. The other field, dark energy, couldn’t be found even in fiction.

But by the late 1990s nanoscience was real, aided at the Berkeley Lab by tools like an electron-beam nanowriter, atomic-force microscopes, scanning tunneling microscopes, and photo-emission electron microscopes at the ALS. Furthermore, record-breaking microscopes at the National Center for Electron Microscopy were able to pick out atoms as small as lithium next to heavy atoms in compound crystal lattices. Soon to come were nanorods, nano-tetrapods, and nano-arrow heads with nanostructures and polymers combined into semiconducting hybrid solar cells.

Future Berkeley Lab Director Steven Chu received the 1997 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work at AT&T Bell Labs.

2000s

Research in areas with the potential to reduce climate impacts and improve environmental resiliency began paying dividends at the beginning of this era and would continue to do so. The Environmental Energy Technologies Division developed advances in energy efficiency that included cool roofs, windows that can alter reflectivity, and economical and safe lighting systems such as a cool fluorescent torchiere.

The Earth Sciences Division led a broad effort to understand the carbon cycle and to find ways of sequestering excess carbon pumped into the atmosphere. By early 2004, the first tests of geological carbon sequestration were scheduled for deep brine aquifers in Texas. Terrestrial carbon studies pointed to the danger from fires, hurricanes, and flooding as the global temperature increased.

Putting the Lab at the leading edge of the emerging nanosciences field, Building 67—the Molecular Foundry—a nationally recognized center for nonoscience research, was constructed in the Redwood Cluster in 2003.

Source: Berkeley Lab

The Life Sciences Division used new biological knowledge to deepen understanding of what was becoming known as “systems biology.” In 2001, working drafts of the human genome were published in Science and Nature; the JGI contributed sequences of human chromosomes 5, 16, and 19.

With the aid of faster computers and more advanced algorithms, studies of gene regulation intensified. Rapid sequencing renewed interest in proteins, including how they are structured and how they work, whether alone or together as “machines” to perform the business of the cell and organism. X-ray crystallography at the ALS plus a range of microscopic techniques revealed structures of the ribosome and proteins at the highest-ever resolutions.

Novel techniques for studying and manipulating cells ranged from optical tweezers to nanocrystal tracers to cell engineering. From research on living cells that grew artificial components on their surfaces, it was a short step to synthetic biology and the founding of the nation’s first Synthetic Biology Department in 2003. Berkeley Lab developed the PhyloChip, a pocket-sized DNA sampler that identifies microbes in air, water, and soil samples; it became a workhorse in public health, medical, and environmental cleanup projects. The PhyloChip helped pinpoint the diseases that kill coral reefs and catalog airborne bacteria over U.S. cities.

Charles Shank retired in 2004 and Nobel Laureate Steven Chu was appointed as the sixth Director of Berkeley Lab. Director Chu was faced with an immediate challenge when for the first time in its history, the Laboratory faced separation from its operator and progenitor, the University of California. Under new procedures established by the DOE, science labs like LBNL would now have to compete their management contracts among all bidders. Chu assembled a team of senior Berkeley Lab managers and

staff and advisers from the UC Office of the President to build the case for continued UC management. In the spring of 2005 DOE granted a unanimous decision to maintain the UC management relationship based on the leadership of Nobel Prize-winning Director Chu and the Laboratory’s extraordinary resources and strong partnerships with UC Berkeley, UC San Francisco, and other institutions.

Additional facilities were leased off site in Berkeley and the adjacent City of Emeryville. Synthetic Biology, distinguished at Berkeley Lab by being the first department of its kind in the country, took on added importance in 2005 when it moved into a large new facility in Emeryville and received a $42.6 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop an affordable, accessible cure for Malaria. This research facility also houses the Joint BioEnergy Institute (JBEI) whose focus is developing advanced biofuels – liquid fuels derived from the solar energy stored in plant biomass that can replace gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels.

Concurrently, the 2000s emerged as a significant period of funding for new facilities to support the many emerging research programs at Berkeley Lab beginning with the Molecular Foundry, a nanoscience user facility in the Redwood Cluster completed in 2004.

The Lab’s reputation for leading edge scientists conducting innovative research kept growing as George Smoot was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 2006 and Saul Perlmutter for Physics in 2008. On another front, a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was won by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with 23 Berkeley Lab contributors for their groundbreaking work. Predictive climate models developed by the Earth Sciences Division and Environmental Energy Technologies Division helped the IPCC alert the world to the reality of humanity’s role

BUILDING 67 (MOLECULAR FOUNDRY) |

in global warming through increasingly accurate scientific reports issued since the IPCC’s founding by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program in 1988.

In 2008 Director Chu was appointed by President Obama to be the Secretary of Energy, the first scientist to hold a Cabinet position. Paul Alivisatos, an internationally recognized authority on nano chemistry, was named as the successor by the UC Regents in January 2009 and became the seventh Director of Berkeley Lab.

2010s

The intensive project planning efforts of the previous decade begin to show tangible results as Berkeley Lab embarks on an unprecedented period of building new scientific research equipment, high performance computing (HPC) facilities, and lab infrastructure to continue world class science. Demolition and removal of aging and obsolete buildings in the Lab’s Old Town provides brownfield sites for new projects in the Charter Hill Cluster. Major science buildings constructed during this decade were creative, but rigorously designed to meet the exacting standards of research space, operational efficiency, and staff usability, with a few also overcoming the Lab’s hilly terrain. Of the construction projects started or completed during this time, several were awarded LEED Gold* certification by the U.S. Green Building Council for achieving a healthy, efficient, and carbon-saving standard during design and construction.

• ALS User Support Building 15* (2011) in the Charter Hill Cluster.

• FLEXLAB Building 90XR (2013) in the Bayview Cluster.

• Chu Hall Building 30* (2015) in the Charter Hill Cluster.

• General Purpose Laboratory Building 33* (2015) in Charter Hill Cluster.

• Shyh Wang Hall / NERSC Building 59* (2015) in the Blackberry Cluster.

• NERSC-8 High Performance Computer system built in Wang Hall (2017).

Near the end of the decade, two more construction projects broke ground at Berkeley Lab:

• NERSC-9 High Performance Computer system upgrade (2018) in the Blackberry Cluster.

• Integrative Genomics Building 91* (2019) in the Bayview Cluster.

The decade included many noteworthy achievements and milestones. ESnet became the first research and education network to deploy a 400 Gbps production network link in 2015. A research consortium led by Berkeley Lab, along with three other national labs, was selected to head a DOE desalination hub to provide secure and affordable water.

The five-year, $100 million investment in the National Alliance for Water Innovation headquartered at Berkeley Lab represents the largest federal investment in water treatment research since the 1950s. In 2015, Berkeley Lab scientists in the Life Sciences Division captured the first detailed microscopy images of ultra-small bacteria that were believed to be the smallest possible life forms. About 150 of these bacteria could fit inside an Escherichia coli cell and more than 150,000 cells could fit onto the tip of a human hair.

The ALS, the Lab’s flagship synchrotron light source facility, readied for an exciting new chapter as it was approved in

2019 to begin an upgrade (ALS-U) to achieve brighter X-ray beams. The improved capabilities of the upgraded ALS will enable transformative science that cannot be performed on any existing or planned light source in the world. This new science includes 3D imaging with nanometer-scale spatial resolution and measurement of spontaneous nanoscale processes with time scales extending from minutes to nanoseconds—all with sensitivity to chemical, electronic, and magnetic properties. Moreover, the beam’s high coherence will enable new classes of optical techniques that will provide the groundbreaking sensitivity and precision needed to detect the faintest traces of elements and subtle electrochemical interactions on the scale of nanometers.

In 2016, Director Alivisatos resigned to become the Provost at UC Berkeley and Michael Witherell was appointed as the eighth Director of Berkeley Lab. The Lab closed the decade by celebrating the 150th anniversary of the periodic table in 2019 and its contribution of 16 elements discovered- more than any other institution.

2020s

The five national user facilities are central to the Berkeley Lab’s research environment and leverage the ability to mount new initiatives quickly and to have immediate impacts on emerging technology challenges. All five facilities answered a call to action becoming involved in the rapid research response to the coronavirus pandemic. Despite the challenges brought by the pandemic, Lab research, operations, and construction moved forward safely and responsibly, including the new BioEPIC research facility and HPC projects. Impressive research advances were made in the areas of quantum information science and technology, artificial intelligence/machine learning for science, energy infrastructure, and biological research.

In 2022, Berkeley Lab successfully completed two computing science upgrade projects: ESnet6 and NERSC-9. These projects were completed despite pandemic-related challenges on several fronts, including staffing, supply chain disruptions, ESnet6’s work in multiple U.S. and international locations.

In 2023, the LBNL-led Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) project publicly released its first batch of data, with nearly 2 million objects for researchers to explore. This international collaboration of scientists derives its data from the Mayall Telescope on Kitt Peak in Arizona. DESI is used to study dark energy, the mysterious force behind the accelerating expansion of our universe, by mapping more than 40 million galaxies, quasars, and stars. When complete, the survey will have gathered data from 35 million galaxies dating back 11 billion years.

The Lab continues to renew its equipment, facilities and infrastructure with several major science equipment and conventional construction projects commencing, including:

BUILDING 59 (SHYH WANG HALL) | Source: Berkeley Lab

• BioEPIC Building 92 (2021) in the Bayview Cluster

• Nanoscale Science Research Centers Recapitalization (2022) instrument installations in Buildings 67, 72 and 72C in the Redwood Cluster.

• ALS-U Building 6 (2022) in the Charter Hill Cluster.

• Seismic Safety and Modernization Building (2023) Cafeteria/Health Services/Conference Rooms in the Blackberry Cluster.

Berkeley Lab continues its legacy of groundbreaking science with Nobel Prizes honoring the work of Jennifer Doudna for Chemistry in 2020, John Clauser for Physics in 2022, and Carolyn Bertozzi for Chemistry in 2022.

RENDERING OF THE SEISMIC SAFETY AND MODERNIZATION BUILDING | Source: Berkeley Lab

2025-2045

Berkeley Lab’s ongoing strategic vision looks to continue delivering scientific breakthroughs over a remarkable range of science with special focus on decarbonization, climate resilience, environmental quality, health, and economic competitiveness. The Lab will continue to specialize in integrative science and technology, leveraging its in-house, world-renowned expertise in materials, chemistry, physics, biology, earth and environmental science, mathematics, and computing. The Lab’s five national user facilities provide Campus capabilities in research computing and data sciences, chemical sciences, materials synthesis and characterization, and genomic science. These user facilities, which are currently used by 14,000 researchers each year, would be periodically upgraded and improved to meet the next generation of scientific challenges.

Partnerships with other national laboratories on a wide range of projects from subatomic physics to quantum information, biomanufacturing, climate science, waterenergy, ecosystem science, and innovative energy technologies, are anticipated to be an enduring source of scientific strength and innovation for the Lab.

Strong relationships will be maintained throughout California, particularly with other UC campuses and in the San Francisco Bay Area region. Berkeley Lab will continue partnering with local industry, educators, and communities to support everything from tech innovation to student STEM activities.

Critical to Berkeley Lab’s ongoing success is continuous replacement of aging, unsafe and obsolete facilities, and utility infrastructure with new and modern upgrades. Pandemic-related changes to work modes has led to a consolidation of office space to support hybrid work and

other revitalization opportunities. Looking forward, the Lab takes a holistic approach in evaluating and planning its campus physical space.

Guided by the Campus Master Plan framework, Berkeley Lab looks to a future Campus that replaces and modernizes its infrastructure while providing a healthy and inspiring environment for Lab staff and visitors. All future development will support the Lab’s commitment to net zero and sustainability goals.