Berkeley City Council
January 18, 2023

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-3
Table 4.5-2 2020 Annual Natural Gas Consumption
Energy Type
Alameda County
(Millions of U.S.
therms)
California
(Millions of U.S.
therms)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per
Capita
Consumption
(U.S. therms)
County per
Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Natural Gas 366 12,332 3.0% 220 20
Source: CEC 2022d, DOF 2021
The City is located within PG&E’s natural gas service area, which spans central and northern California (PG&E 2022a). In 2020, PG&E customers consumed a total of 4.5 billion therms of natural gas. Residential users accounted for approximately 42 percent of PG&E’s natural gas consumption.

Industrial and commercials users accounted for another 35 percent and 19 percent, respectively.

The remainder was used for mining, construction, agricultural, and water pump accounts (CEC 2022e). In 2020, Alameda County users accounted for approximately 8 percent of PG&E’s total natural gas consumption across the entire service area. PG&E’s service area is equipped with approximately 6,700 miles of gas transmission pipelines as 42,000 miles of gas distribution pipelines (PG&E 2022b).

The 2020 California Gas Report presents a comprehensive outlook for natural gas requirements and supplies for California through the year 2035. California natural gas demand, statewide and utility- driven, is expected to decrease at a rate of 1 percent per year from 2020 to 2035. The forecast decline is due to a combination of moderate growth in the natural gas vehicle market and across- the-board declines in all other market segments: residential, commercial, electric generation, and industrial markets (CGEU 2020). Residential gas demand is expected to decrease at an annual average rate of 1.7 percent. Demand in the commercial and industrial markets are expected to decrease at an annual rate of 1.5 percent and 0.2 percent, respectively. Stricter codes and standards coupled with more aggressive energy efficiency programs discussed in Section 4.5.2, are making a significant impact on the forecasted load for the residential, commercial, and industrial markets (CGEU 2020).

For the purposes of load-following as well as backstopping intermittent renewable resource generation, gas-fired generation will continue to be the primary technology to meet the ever- growing demand for electric power. However, overall gas demand for electric generation is expected to decline at 1.7 percent per year for the next 15 years due to more efficient power plants, statewide efforts to minimize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through aggressive programs pursuing demand-side reductions, and the acquisition of preferred power generation resources that produce little or no carbon emissions (CGEU 2020). Additional information on PG&E’s gas supplies and capacity can be viewed in the 2020 California Gas Report (PG&E 2015).

Petroleum
Energy consumed by the transportation sector accounts for roughly 39.5 percent of California’s energy demand, amounting to approximately 3,073.3 trillion Btu in 2019 (EIA 2019a). Petroleum- based fuels are used for approximately 98.4 percent of the state’s transportation activity (EIA 2019a). Most gasoline and diesel fuel sold in California for motor vehicles is refined in California to meet state-specific formulations required by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). California’s transportation sector, including on-road and rail transportation, consumed approximately 662 million barrels of petroleum fuels in 2019 (EIA 2021b).

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-4
As shown in Table 4.5-3, approximately 493 million gallons of fuel were consumed in Alameda Cou
nty in 2020, of which approximately 442 million gallons were gasoline and approximately 51 million gallons were diesel fuel (CEC 2021c). Based o
n a 2020 population of 1,663,114 (DOF 2021),
the County’s annual per capita fuel consumption in 2020 consisted of 266 gallons of gasoline and 31 gallons of diesel fuel per person.

According to the CEC, 1 gallon of gasoline is equivalent to approximately 109,786 Btu, while 1 gallon of diesel is equivalent to approximately 127,460 Btu (Schremp 2017). Based on this formula, and as shown in Table 4.5-3, each person in Alameda County consumed approximately 29 MMBtu of gasoline and 4 MMBtu of diesel in 2020.

Table 4.5-3 2020 Annual Gasoline and Diesel Consumption Fuel Type
Alameda County
(million gallons)
California
(million gallons)
Proportion of
Statewide
Consumption
County per Capita
Consumption
(gallons)
County per Capita
Consumption
(MMBtu)
Gasoline 442 12,572 3.5% 266 29
Diesel 51 1,744 2.9% 31 4
Total 493 14,316 − 298 33
Source: CEC 2020
Alternative Fuels
A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce petroleum-based fuel demand. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard and Health and Safety Code Section 38566 [Senate Bill (SB) 32]). Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced, depending on the capability of the vehicle, with many alternative fuels including the following:

Hydrogen is being explored for use in combustion engines and fuel cell electric vehicles. The interest in hydrogen as an alternative transportation fuel stems from its clean-burning qualities, its potential for domestic production, and the fuel cell vehicle's potential for high efficiency (two to three times more efficient than gasoline vehicles). Currently, 49 open hydrogen refueling stations are in California, with 12 currently in construction. One station is located in the City of Berkeley at 1250 University Avenue, which opened in January 2021 (California Fuel Cell Partnership 2021).

Biodiesel is a renewable alternative fuel that can be manufactured from vegetable oils, animal fats, or recycled restaurant greases. Biodiesel is biodegradable and cleaner-burning than petroleum- based diesel fuel. Biodiesel can run in any diesel engine generally without alterations. There are 18 biodiesel-only refueling stations in California, one of which is located in Berkeley at 1441 Ashby Ave (U.S. Department of Energy 2022).

Electricity can be used to power electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles directly from the power grid. The electricity grid usually provides electricity used to power vehicles, which store it in the vehicle's batteries. Fuel cells are being explored to use electricity generated on board the vehicle to power electric motors. Electrical charging stations are available throughout Berkeley and Alameda County. Berkeley currently has approximately 80 electrical charging stations spread around the city and there are multiple publicly-available EV charging ports at many stations (PlugShare 2022).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-5
Energy and Fuel Efficiency
Though the demand for gasoline and diesel fuel is rising because of population growth and limited mass transit, the increase in demand can be offset partially by efficiency improvements. Land use policies that encourage infill and growth near transit centers (e.g., following SB 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008), improvements to fuel efficiency, and gradual replacement of the vehicle fleet with new, more fuel-efficient and alternative-fuel as well as electric cars will all reduce fuel use.

4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Programs and policies at the state and national levels have emerged to bolster the previous trend towards energy efficiency, as discussed below.
a. Federal Regulations
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act is designed to improve vehicle fuel economy and help reduce U.S. dependence on oil. It expands the production of renewable fuels, reducing dependence on oil, and confronting global climate change. Specifically, it does the following:

Increases the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard that requires fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels Reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020 – an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent over those in 2007 Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule
The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicles Rule, issued March 31, 2020, sets fuel economy and carbon dioxide standards that increase 1.5 percent in stringency each year from model years 2021 through 2026. These standards apply to both passenger cars and light trucks and are a reduction in stringency from the 2012 standards which would have required increases of about 5.0 percent per year. This rule is anticipated to result in a 40.4 mile per gallon industry average for 2026.

Energy Policy and Conservation Act
Enacted in 1975, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act established fuel economy standards for new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States. The law placed responsibility on the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration for establishing and regularly updating vehicle standards.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is responsible for administering the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which determines vehicle manufacturers’ compliance with existing fuel economy standards. In 2012, the U.S. EPA and National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration established final passenger car and light-duty truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards for model years 2017 to 2021, which require a combined average fleet-wide fuel economy of 40.3 to 41.0 miles per gallon in model year 2021 (United States Department of Transportation 2014).

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-6
Energy Star Program
Energy Star is a voluntary labeling program introduced by U.S. EPA to identify and promote energy- efficient products to reduce GHG emissions. The program applies to major household appliances, lighting, computers, and building components such as windows, doors, roofs, and heating and cooling systems. Under this program, appliances that meet specifications for maximum energy use established under the program are certified to display the Energy Star label. In 1996, the U.S. EPA joined with the Energy Department to expand the program, which now also includes certifying commercial and industrial buildings as well as homes (U.S. EPA 2021).

Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard
The U.S. EPA sets emission standards for construction equipment. The current iteration of emissions standards for construction equipment are the Tier 4 efficiency requirements contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Emissions requirements for new off-road Tier 4 vehicles were completely phased in by the end of 2015.
b. State Regulations
Warren-Alquist Act
The 1975 Warren-Alquist Act established the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, now known as the CEC. The Act established a State policy to reduce wasteful, uneconomical, and unnecessary uses of energy by employing a range of measures. The CPUC regulates privately owned utilities in the energy, rail, telecommunications, and water fields.

Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on Petroleum
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 2076 (Chapter 936, Statutes of 2000; codified as Public Resources Code Sections 25720-25721), the CEC and CARB prepared and adopted in 2003 a joint agency report, Reducing California’s Petroleum Dependence. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030; significantly increase the efficiency of motor vehicles; and reduce per capita vehicle miles traveled (VMT). One of the performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand. Furthermore, in response to the CEC’s 2003 and 2005 Integrated Energy Policy reports, the Governor directed the CEC to take the lead in developing a long-term plan to increase alternative fuel use.

Integrated Energy Policy Report
SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to conduct assessments and forecasts of all aspects of energy industry supply, production, transportation, delivery and distribution, demand, and price to develop energy policies that conserve resources, protect the environment, ensure energy reliability, enhance the state’s economy, and protect public health and safety.

California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program
In 2018, the California Renewables Portfolio Standard (SB 100) was signed into law, which increased the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) to 60 percent by 2030 (i.e., that 60 percent of electricity retail sales must be served by renewable sources by 2030) and requires all the state's electricity to come from carbon-free resources by 2045.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-7
Senate Bill 350: Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 The Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (SB 350) requires the amount of electricity generated and sold to retail customers per year from eligible renewable energy resources to be increased to 50 percent by December 31, 2030. The Act also requires doubled energy efficiency savings in electricity and natural gas for retail customers through increased efficiency and conservation by December 31, 2030.

Assembly Bill 1493: Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 1493 (Chapter 200, Statutes of 2002), known as the “Pavley bill,” amended Health and Safety Code sections 42823 and 43018.5 and requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations that achieve maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from passenger vehicles, light-duty trucks, and other vehicles used for noncommercial personal transportation in California.

Implementation of new regulations prescribed by AB 1493 required the State of California to apply for a waiver under the federal Clean Air Act. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) initially denied the waiver in 2008, USEPA approved a waiver in June 2009, and in September 2009, CARB approved amendments to its initially adopted regulations to apply the Pavley standards that reduce GHG emissions to new passenger vehicles in model years 2009 through 2016. According to CARB, implementation of the Pavley regulations is expected to reduce fuel consumption while also reducing GHG emissions (CARB 2020).

Energy Action Plan
In the October 2005 Energy Action Plan (EAP) II, the CEC and CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding some important dimensions to the policy areas included in the original EAP, such as the emerging importance of climate change, transportation-related energy issues and research and development activities. The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February 2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.

Assembly Bill 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plan
AB 1007 (Chapter 371, Statutes of 2005) required the CEC to prepare a state plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California. The CEC prepared the State Alternative Fuels Plan (SAF Plan) in partnership with CARB and in consultation with other State, federal, and local agencies. The SAF Plan presents strategies and actions California must take to increase the use of alternative, nonpetroleum fuels in a manner that minimizes costs to California and maximizes the economic benefits of in-state production. The SAF Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuel use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan, Executive Order S-06-06
Executive Order (EO) S-06-06, April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The EO establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels in California

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-8
by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. EO S-06-06 also calls for the State to meet a target for use of biomass electricity. The 2011 Bioenergy Action Plan identifies those barriers and recommends actions to address them so that the State can meet its clean energy, waste reduction, and climate protection goals. The 2012 Bioenergy Action Plan updates the 2011 Plan and provides a more detailed action plan to achieve the following goals:

Increase environmentally and economically sustainable energy production from organic waste Encourage development of diverse bioenergy technologies that increase local electricity generation, combined heat and power facilities, renewable natural gas, and renewable liquid fuels for transportation and fuel cell applications
Create jobs and stimulate economic development, especially in rural regions of the State Reduce fire danger, improve air and water quality, and reduce waste Title 24, California Code of Regulations (CCR)
CCR, Title 24, Part 6, is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. The CEC established Title 24 in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. The standards are updated on an approximately three-year cycle to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new efficient technologies and methods. In 2019, the CEC updated Title 24 standards with more stringent requirements effective January 1, 2020. All buildings for which an application for a building permit is submitted on or after January 1, 2020 must follow the 2019 standards. The next update is expected in 2022 and will become effective January 1, 2023. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity; therefore, increased energy efficiency reduces fossil fuel consumption and decreases GHG emissions. The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those provided in Title 24.

Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency Standards)
Part 6 of Title 24 contains the 2016 Building Energy Efficiency Standards for new residential and CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The most current standards are the 2019 Title 24 standards (CEC 2018a). The 2019 Standards focus on four key areas: 1) smart residential photovoltaic systems; 2) updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to exterior and vice versa); 3) residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements; 4) and nonresidential lighting requirements (CEC 2018a).

The City of Berkeley has adopted amendments to the 2019 California Energy Code in BMC Chapter

19.36, which require more stringent energy measures including:
 Extending the solar PV requirement to multifamily residential and nonresidential buildings  Increasing EV charging readiness and installation in new buildings

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-9
 Providing two pathways to demonstrate compliance with the 2019 California Energy Code. New all-electric buildings must simply demonstrate compliance with the California Energy Code.

However, new mixed-fuel buildings (i.e., electricity and natural gas used within the building) must exceed the energy efficiency requirements of the California Energy Code by 10 percent for non-residential buildings, high-rise residential buildings, and hotels/motels or by 10 Total Energy Design Rating points for single-family or low-rise residential buildings, or meet a set of prescriptive requirements with equivalent efficiency savings.  Requiring electric-ready infrastructure for natural gas appliances in new mixed-fuel buildings to support future electrification
California Green Building Standards Code (2019), CCR Title 24, Part 11 California’s green building code, referred to as CALGreen, was developed to provide a consistent approach to green building within the State. CALGreen lays out the minimum requirements for newly constructed residential and nonresidential buildings to reduce GHG emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. The requirements pertain to energy efficiency (in excess of the California Energy Code requirements), water conservation, material conservation, and internal air contaminants. It also includes voluntary tiers to further encourage building practices that improve public health, safety, and general welfare by promoting a more sustainable design c. Regional and Local Regulations
Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan, known as a Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), that would support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (Metropolitan Transportation Commission/Association of Bay Area Governments [MTC/ABAG] 2021). Plan Bay Area 2050 builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on advancing equity and improving resiliency in the Bay Area by creating strategies in the following four elements: Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment. The Plan discusses how the future is uncertain due to anticipated employment growth, lack of housing options, and outside forces, such as climate change and economic turbulence. These uncertainties will impact growth in the Bay Area and exacerbate issues for those who are historically and systemically marginalized and underserved and excluded. Thus, Plan Bay Area 2050 has created strategies and considered investments that will serve those systemically underserved communities and provide equitable opportunities. The Plan presents a total of 35 strategies to outline how the $1.4 trillion dollar investment would be utilized. The strategies include, but are not limited to, the following: providing affordable housing, allowing higher-density in proximity to transit-corridors, optimizing the existing roadway network, creating complete streets, providing subsides for public transit, reducing climate emissions, and expanding open space areas. Bringing these strategies to fruition will require participation by agencies, policymakers, and the public. An implementation plan is also included as part of the Plan to assess the requirements needed to carry out the strategies, identify the roles of pertinent entities, create an appropriate method to implement the strategies, and create a timeline for implementation.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-10
City of Berkeley General Plan
The City’s General Plan Transportation; Environmental Management; Housing; and Urban Design Elements contain the following policies related to energy efficiency and renewable energy (City of Berkeley 2003):

Policy T-19: Air Quality Impacts. Continue to encourage innovative technologies and programs such as clean-fuel, electric, and low-emission cars that reduce the air quality impacts of the automobile.

Policy EM-5: “Green” Buildings. Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards.

Policy EM-8: Building Reuse and Construction Waste. Encourage rehabilitation and reuse of buildings whenever appropriate and feasible in order to reduce waste, conserve resources and energy, and reduce construction costs.

Policy EM-35: Energy Efficient Design. Promote high-efficiency design and technologies that provide cost-effective methods to conserve energy and use renewable energy sources.

Policy EM-41: Fossil Fuel. Encourage and support efforts to reduce use of fossil fuel and other finite, nonrenewable resources.

Policy H-30: Energy Efficiency and Waste Reduction. Implement provisions of Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan to improve building comfort and safety, reduce energy costs, provide quality housing, and reduce GHG emissions.

Policy UD-33: Sustainable Design. Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings
City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan
The City of Berkeley adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 with the goal of reducing communitywide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The core recommendation strategies and actions of the CAP center around the following topics (City of Berkeley 2009):

Sustainable Transportation and Land Use
Building Energy Use
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Community Outreach and Empowerment
Preparing for Climate Change Impacts
The CAP contains several recommended goals specifically related to energy efficiency and renewable energy, such as encouraging the use of low-carbon vehicles and fuels, promoting green building, reducing the costs of energy upgrades for existing residential properties, and increasing residential and commercial renewable energy use (City of Berkeley 2009).

Since publication of the CAP, the City has adopted several climate commitments in addition to those contained in the CAP:
 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035
 Net-Zero Carbon Emissions by 2045, in alignment with Gov. Brown’s Executive Order B-55-18  Declared a Climate Emergency and resolved to become a Fossil Fuel Free City

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-11
Berkeley Resilience Strategy
In 2016, the City released its Resilience Strategy to advance the City’s resilience, or the ability of the individuals, institutions, businesses, and systems within the community to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what chronic stress or acute shock it experiences. Berkeley’s interconnected resilience challenges include earthquakes, wildfires, climate change impacts such as drought and flooding, and racial inequity. The City’s Resilience Strategy emphasizes building community resilience by facilitation stronger connections between neighbors; between public, private, nonprofit, and academic institutions; between departments within the City government; and between Bay Area local and regional governments. The six goals of the Resilience Strategy are (City of Berkeley 2016):

Build a Connected and Prepared Community
Accelerate Access to Reliable and Clean Energy
Adapt to the Changing Climate
Advance Racial Equity
Excel at Working Together within City Government to Better Serve the Community Build Regional Resilience
Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings In 2019, the Berkeley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,672-N.S., which added Chapter 12.80 to the BMC prohibiting the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. In limited circumstances, the Ordinance allows the entitling body to grant an exception or a public interest exemption
Electric Mobility Roadmap
In July 2020, the City adopted its first Electric Mobility Roadmap, which outlines the City’s plan to implement its vision of a fossil fuel-free transportation system that integrates with and supports the City’s ongoing efforts to increase walking, biking, and public transportation use in Berkeley and ensures equitable and affordable access to the benefits of clean transportation. The Electric Mobility Roadmap includes strategies to increase electric vehicle charging stations in new and existing development, provide public electric vehicle charging on City properties, advance electric bus rapid transit routes, electrify shared transportation fleets and private fleets, and increase the share of electric vehicle charging powered by 100 percent renewable energy (City of Berkeley 2020).

4.5.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant energy impact would occur if new development facilitated by the proposed project would:

Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or Conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-12
Methodology
Public Resources Code Section 21100(b)(3) states that an EIR shall include “mitigation measures proposed to minimize significant effects on the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy.” The physical environmental impacts associated with the use of energy, including the generation of electricity and burning of fuels, are discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Energy consumption is analyzed herein in terms of construction and operational energy.

Construction energy demand for future development under the proposed HEU is evaluated qualitatively because project-specific information regarding construction is unavailable for individual projects proposed under the HEU. Construction energy demand accounts for anticipated energy consumption during construction of development facilitated by the proposed HEU, such as fuel consumed by construction equipment and construction workers’ vehicles traveling to and from the construction site. These construction activities would temporarily create a higher demand for energy supplies. The extent of energy use generated by construction equipment would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation for each project.

The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) version 2020.4.0 was used to approximate the operational natural gas and electricity consumption from development facilitated by the proposed HEU. This analysis then determined whether energy consumed during operation for full buildout of the project would be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. Operational energy demand accounts for the anticipated energy consumption from development facilitated by the project, such as fuel consumed by cars, trucks, and public transit; natural gas consumed for on-site power generation and heating building spaces; and electricity consumed for building power needs, including, but not limited to, lighting, water conveyance, and air conditioning. The estimate of total daily VMT associated with the proposed HEU is based on VMT data provided in Section 4.16, Transportation. b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold: Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Impact E-1 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION WOULD REQUIRE TEMPORARY AND LONG-TERM CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. HOWEVER, WITH ADHERENCE TO STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS, THE

PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT, OR UNNECESSARY CONSUMPTION OF ENERGY RESOURCES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Construction
Construction and demolition activities associated with future development under the proposed HEU would require energy resources primarily in the form of fuel consumption to operate heavy equipment, light-duty vehicles, machinery, and generators. Temporary power may also be provided for construction trailers and electric construction equipment. Construction resulting from development facilitated by the proposed HEU would also use building materials that would require energy use during the manufacturing and/or procurement of that material. However, as noted in the California Natural Resources Agency’s Final Statement of Reasons, “a full ‘lifecycle’ analysis that would account for energy used in building materials and consumer products will generally not be required” (California Natural Resources Agency 2018). Therefore, this analysis does not provide a

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-13
full lifecycle assessment of energy impacts for project construction, but considers impacts only of construction itself. It is reasonable to assume that manufacturers of building materials such as concrete, steel, lumber, or other building materials would employ energy conservation practices in the interest of minimizing the cost of doing business. It also is reasonable to assume that traditional building materials, such as drywall and standard-shaped structural elements, would have been manufactured regardless of the proposed project and, if not used for implementation, would be used in a different project. Therefore, the consumption of energy required for the manufacturing of building and construction material is not considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary in relation to the proposed project.

Energy use during demolit
ion and construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of construction projects in the region. In addition, the contractors that would typically be employed for development facilitated by the proposed HEU wou ld be
expected to comply with applicable CARB regulations that restrict the idling of heavy-duty diesel motor vehicles and govern the accelerated retrofitting, repowering, or replacement of heavy-duty diesel on- and off-road equipment. Construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of 13 California Code of Regulations Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes, which would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency which would minimize inefficient fuel consumption. These construction equipment standards (i.e., Tier 4 efficiency requirements) are contained in 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1039, 1065, and 1068. Electrical power would be consumed during demolition and construction activities, and the demand, to the extent required, would be supplied from existing electrical infrastructure in the region.

Overall, demolition and construction activities would not have a substantial adverse impact on available electricity supplies or infrastructure. Demolition and construction activities would be expected to use fuel-efficient equipment consistent with State and federal regulations and comply with State measures to reduce the inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements such as 2019 or later CALGreen and BMC Chapter 19.37, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction and demolition debris and to recycle and salvage 100 percent of excavated soil and land-clearing debris, concrete, and of asphalt during construction and demolition activities. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to implement the proposed project.

With required adherence to regional and local regulations as well as the BMC, demolition and construction activities associated with future development under the proposed HEU would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and impacts would be less than significant.

Operation
Energy consumption during project operation would consist of transportation fuels for vehicle trips by future residents, employees, and visitors and electricity and natural gas usage for exterior and interior lighting, appliances, and space and water heating. Minimal natural gas would be consumed under the proposed amendments because BMC Chapter 12.80 prohibits the use of natural gas infrastructure in all new construction with limited exemptions and exceptions. To provide a conservative estimate of project impacts, it was assumed that 10 percent of new development would include natural gas connections/appliances. To account for the increased electricity usage

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-14
that would occur in all-electric units, it was assumed that 90 percent of the natural gas demand estimated for the project in the GHG modeling would instead by supplied by electricity. Gasoline and diesel consumption would be associated with vehicle trips generated by residents. The project aims to provide housing sites along transit corridors, near BART, as well as Priority Development Areas, limiting the increase in travel required by new residents. This would limit the number and length of typical residential vehicle trips, and thus lower energy use.

As shown in Table 4.5-4, vehicle trips related to the project would require approximately 10.5 million gallons of gasoline (approximately 1.2 MMBtu) and 1.6 million gallons of diesel fuel (approximately 207,000 MMBtu) annually. This equates to an annual per capita transportation energy use of 29 MMBtu, or an average daily per capita transportation energy use of 0.08 MMBtu for the project.
1 This is lower than the County’s 2020 annual per capita transportation energy use of 33 MMBtu, or average daily per capita transportation energy use of 0.09 MMBtu (see Table 4.5-3).

Gasoline and diesel fuel demands would be met by existing gas stations in the vicinity of the housing inventory sites. Vehicles driven by future residents of development facilitated by the project would be subject to increasingly stringent State fuel efficiency standards, thereby minimizing the potential for the inefficient consumption of vehicle fuels. Furthermore, the project would facilitate development along transit corridors, near BART stations, and in Priority Development Areas, which would place residents in proximity to public transit and encourage walking and bicycling. Moreover, BMC Chapter 19.37 would require at least 20 percent of parking spaces at new multi-family residential developments to be capable of supporting electric vehicle chargers and raceway at the remaining 80 percent of parking spaces to facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment, which would support the use of electric vehicles by future residents. Policy H-13 of the HEU would ensure implementation of Berkeley’s CAP in order to reduce energy costs and GHG emissions, which would also aid the City in reaching its CAP goals of 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035, net-zero carbon emissions by 2045, and resolution to become a Fossil Fuel Free City. As a result, vehicle fuel consumption resulting from the project would not be wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary.

Table 4.5-4 Project Operational Energy Usage
Source Energy Consumption Energy Consumption (in MMBtu) Vehicle Trips
Gasoline 10,541,101 gallons 1,157,267
Diesel 1,627,311 gallons 207,417
Built Environment
Electricity 124,792,810 kWh 425,793
Natural Gas Usage 18,419,903 kBtu 18,420
Note: MMBtu = millions of British thermal units; kWh = kilowatt-hours; kBtu = thousands of British thermal units.

See Appendix E for CalEEMod default values for fleet mix and average distance of travel and Appendix D for energy calculation sheets.

As shown in Table 4.5-4, in addition to transportation energy use, development facilitated by the project would require permanent grid connections for electricity and natural gas. Development facilitated by the project would consume approximately 124.8 million kWh, or 430,000 MMBtu per year of electricity, and approximately 18.4 million kBtu, or 18,420 MMBtu per year of natural gas.

Electricity would be provided by EBCE, and future residential customers would be placed in their Renewable 100 Plan which utilizes 100 percent renewable and carbon free energy. Customers that

1 Calculation: Annual fuel consumption (1,364,684 MMBtu) divided by 365 days and divided by the total new residents (47,443 residents).

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-15
choose to opt out of the Renewable 100 Plan and be placed in the Bright Choice Plan which utilizes 40 percent renewable energy or a PG&E electricity product. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with all standards set in the latest iteration of the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24) and any locally adopted amendments, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources by the built environment during operation. California’s CALGreen standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 11) and BMC Chapters 12.80 19.36, and 19.36 require implementation of energy-efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects, limit the use of natural gas infrastructure in new development, and provide for electric-ready infrastructure for natural gas appliances in new buildings. Furthermore, the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC such as installing PV systems on all low-rise residential structures up to three stories equal to the expected electricity usage, and BMC Chapter 19.36 requires that new buildings exceed CEC energy standards. These standards for new buildings are designed for energy efficient performance, using clean electricity, so that the buildings do not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. In addition, per CALGreen, all plumbing fixtures used in the proposed buildings would be high- efficiency fixtures, which would minimize the potential for inefficient or wasteful consumption of energy related to water and wastewater.

Therefore, devel
opment facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would
not result in potentially significant environmental
effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. This impact would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required.

Threshold: Would t he project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact E-2 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE PLANS AND GENERAL PLAN POLICIES RELATED TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND UTILIZING RENEWABLE ENERGY. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As discussed in Section 4.5.2, several State plans as well as the City’s adopted General Plan include energy conservation and energy efficiency strategies intended to enable the State and the City to achieve GHG reduction and energy conservation goals. A full discussion of the proposed project’s consistency with GHG reduction plans is included in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. As shown in Table 4.5-5, the project would be consistent with applicable State renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-16
Table 4.5-5 Consistency with State Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Plans Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency Assembly Bill 2076: Reducing Dependence on
Petroleum. Purs
uant to AB 2076, the CEC and CARB
prepared and adopted a joint-agency report, Reducing
California’s Petroleum Dependence, in 2003. Included in this report are recommendations to increase the use of
alternative fuels to 20 percent of on-road
transportation fuel use by 2020 and 30 percent by
2030, significantly increase the efficiency of motor
vehicles, and reduce per capita VMT. One of the
performance-based goals of AB 2076 is to reduce
petroleum demand to 15 percent below 2003 demand.

Consistent. The proposed project would encourage housing development near transit corridors, BART stations, and in Priority Development Areas such as the Southside Plan Area, University Avenue Plan Area, South Shattuck Plan Area, and Berkeley’s Downtown Area, supporting Policy H-16 of the HEU for transit-oriented new construction and reducing
usage of single-occupancy vehicles. All housing units
constructed under the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the most recent iteration of CALGreen and locally adopted amendments, which include provisions for electric vehicle charging infrastructure, reducing
dependence on gasoline powered vehicles.
2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. The 2019 report
highlights the implementation of California’s innovative policies and the role they have played in establishing a clean energy economy, as well as provides more detail
on several key energy policies, including decarbonizing buildings, increasing energy efficiency savings, and
integrating more renewable energy into the electricity
system.

Consistent. Electricity provided for development facilitated by the proposed HEU would be supplied by EBCE, which
sources power from renewable sources under the
Renewable 100 program. Customers have the option to opt out of the Renewable 100 program and enroll in the Bright Choice Program which would be supplied by 40 percent
renewable energy. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy
resources. Additional, Policy H-13 of the proposed HEU aims to reduce energy use and costs.

California Renewable Portfolio Standard. California’s
RPS obligates investor-owned utilities, energy service
providers, and community choice aggregators to
procure 33 percent total retail sales of electricity from renewable energy sources by 2020, 60 percent by 2030,
and 100 percent by 2045.

Consistent. EBCE supplies electricity to Berkeley residents and businesses. As of 2021, EBCE’s base plan (Bright Choice) consisted of 40 percent eligible renewable energy resources (EBCE 2021). EBCE offers 100 percent renewable energy
services to member cities, and both residential and
commercial customers in Berkeley would be placed in the Renewable 100 Plan starting March 2022 and October 2022, respectively (EBCE 2021).

Energy Action Plan. In the October 2005, the CEC and
CPUC updated their energy policy vision by adding
some important dimensions to the policy areas
included in the original EAP, such as the emerging
importance of climate change, transportation-related
energy issues, and research and development activities.

The CEC adopted an update to the EAP II in February
2008 that supplements the earlier EAPs and examines
the State’s ongoing actions in the context of global
climate change. The nine major action areas in the EAP
include energy efficiency, demand response, renewable
energy, electricity adequacy/reliability/infrastructure, electricity market structure, natural gas
supply/demand/infrastructure, transportation fuels
supply/demand/infrastructure,
research/development/demonstration, and climate
change.

Consistent. Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments, which include requirements for the use of energy-efficient design and technologies as well as provisions for incorporating
renewable energy resources into building design.

Additionally, Policy H-13 of the HEU would ensure energy efficiency and waste reduction in all development facilitated under the project. Electricity would be provided by EBCE, which source all their power from renewable sources under the Renewable 100 program. Customers have the option to opt out of the Renewable 100 program and enroll in the
Bright Choice Program which would be supplied by 40
percent renewable energy or a PG&E electricity product.

Given these features, the project would facilitate
implementation of the nine major action areas in the EAP.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-17
Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan Proposed Project Consistency AB 1007: State Alternative Fuels Plans. The St ate
Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative
fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-State
production of biofuels without causing a significant
degradation of public health and environmental quality.

Bioenergy Action Plan, EO S-06-06. The EO establishes
the following targets to increase the production and
use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum
of 20 percent of its biofuels in California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050.

Consistent. The project would not interfere with or obstruct the production of biofuels in California. Vehicles used by future residents would be fueled by gasoline and diesel fuels blended with ethanol and biodiesel fuels as required by CARB regulations. Additionally, pursuant to BMC Chapter 19.37, 20 percent of parking spaces for new multi-family residential developments would be required to be capable of supporting electric vehicle chargers and the remaining 80 percent of parking spaces would be required to have raceways to
facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment.

Title 24, CCR – Part 6 (Building Energy Efficiency
Standards) and Part 11 (CALGreen). The 2019 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards move toward cutting
energy use in new homes by more than 50 percent and
will require installation of solar photovoltaic systems for single-family homes and multi-family buildings of
three stories and less.

The CALGreen Standards establish green building
crit
eria for residential and nonresidential projects. The
2019 Standards include the following: increasing the
number of parking spaces that must be prewired for
electric vehicle chargers in residential development;
requiring all residential development to adhere to the
Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance; and
requiring more appropriate sizing of HVAC ducts.

Consist
ent. Development facilitated by the project would be
required to comply with the City Code, Article IV, Division 1, which mandates the implementation of Title 24.

Furthermore, as described under Section 4.5.2c the City’s General Plan and CAP contains goals and policies related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. As discussed under Impact GHG-2 (Table

4.7-4) in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the proposed project would be consistent with recommended goals, policies, and actions in the City’s CAP related to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Table 4.5-6 summ arizes the project’s consistency with the applicable General Plan policies. As shown therein, the proposed project would be consistent with applicable General Plan policies and therefore would
not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant.

Table 4.5-6 Project Consistency with Applicable General Plan Policies Policies Project Consistency
Transportation Element
Policy T-19 Air Quality Impacts.

Continue to encourage innovative
technologies and programs such as
clean-fuel, electric, and low-
emission cars that reduce the air
quality impacts of the automobile.

Consistent: All housing units constructed under the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the most recent iteration of CALGreen and locally adopted amendments, which include provisions for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. For example, in 2022 BMC Section 19.37.040 requires 20 percent of parking spaces to be electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle chargers and 80 percent of parking spaces to include raceways to facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment at all new multi- family developments; and for new one- and two-family dwelling units to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for a future EV charger.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-18
Policies Project Consistency
Environmental Management Element
Policy EM-5 “Green” Buildings.

Promote and encourage compliance
with “green” building standards.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments, which include green building practices. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. Policy H-13 of the HEU would also ensure energy efficiency in new buildings in order to reduce energy costs and GHGs.

Policy EM-35 Energy Efficient
Design. Promote high-efficiency
design and technologies that
provide cost-effective methods to
conserve energy and use renewable
energy sources.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments, which include requirements for the use of energy-efficient design and technologies as well as provisions for incorporating renewable energy resources into building design.

Additionally, Policy H-13 of the HEU would ensure energy efficiency and waste reduction in all development facilitated under the project.

Policy EM-41 Fossil Fuel. Encourage
and support efforts to reduce use of
fossil fuel and other finite,
nonrenewable resources.

Consistent: New co
nstruction facilitated under the project would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. In addition, most housing inventory sites would be placed near transportation corridors in proximity to alternative transportation modes such as BART and buses, thereby supporting efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels by motor vehicles. In addition, implementation of the City’s Electric Mobility Roadmap (2020) and the electric vehicle charging infrastructure requirements of BMC Chapters 19.36 and 19.37 would facilitate future residents’ use of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy resources, which would further reduce consumption of fossil fuels.

Urban Design Element
Policy UD-33 Sustai nable Design.

Promote environmentally sensitive
and sustainable design in new
buildings.

Consistent: Future development projects facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, which include environmentally sensitive and sustainable design practices. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources.

Source: City of Berkeley 2003
Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. c. Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope for cumulative land use and planning impacts includes the geographic area of the City of Berkeley. Development that is considered part of the cumulative analysis includes development proposed under the University of California, Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) and Housing Projects #1 and #2 as described in the Draft EIR dated March 8, 2021 (University of California, Berkeley 2021).

Cumulative development would increase demand for energy resources, but those resources would not be consumed in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. New iterations of the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen would require increasingly more efficient

Environmental Impact Analysis
Energy

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.5-19
appliances and building materials that reduce energy consumption in new development. In addition, vehicle fuel efficiency is anticipated to continue improving through implementation of the existing Pavley Bill regulations under AB 1493.

As described under Impact E-1, development facilitated by the project would be constructed in accordance with the California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen. Additionally, development facilitated under the project in infill locations is presumed to lower VMT due to proximity to transit corridors, BART stations, and Priority Development Areas. Therefore, the project’s contribution to a significant cumulative energy impact is not cumulatively considerable.

Development facilitated by the project would not result in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and operation of the new residential structures would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact.

The geographic scopes for the cumulative impact analysis of consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans are the State of California and the City of Berkeley. Projects throughout the State of California are required to adhere to applicable renewable energy and energy efficiency laws, programs, and policies such as California’s RPS, AB 2076, and Title 24 standards. All other pending and future projects in the county would be required to adhere to General Plan policies and the BMC to mitigate energy impacts where feasible. In addition, all pending and future projects would be reviewed for consistency with the City General Plan and CAP. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant. As discussed under Impact E-2, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the energy-related goals, policies, and actions of the Statewide plans and the City’s General Plan; therefore, the project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to consistency with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.5-20

This page intentionally left blank

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-1

4.6 Geology and Soils
This section assesses potential impacts related to geologic and soil hazards associated with implementation of the proposed HEU.

4.6.1 Setting
a. Topography and Geology
Berkeley is located on the East Bay Plain (the Plain), a flat area that extends 50 miles from Richmond in the north to San Jose in the south. The Plain is about three miles wide in the Berkeley area. At its eastern edge, the plain transitions into hills, rising to approximately 1,683 feet at Barberry Peak, the highest point in Berkeley’s Claremont Hills neighborhood. On its western edge, the Plain slopes down to San Francisco Bay, the largest estuary on the California coast (City of Berkeley 2001c; Elevation.maplogs.com 2018).

The Plain is part of the larger Coast Ranges geomorphic province, one of the eleven geomorphic provinces of California (California Geological Survey 2002). The Coast Ranges extend along the majority of California’s coast from the California-Oregon border to Point Arguello in Santa Barbara County in the south and consist of northwest-trending mountain ranges and valleys. The Coast Ranges are composed of Mesozoic and Cenozoic sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic strata.

The eastern side is characterized by strike-ridges and valleys in the Upper Mesozoic strata. The Coast Ranges province runs parallel to and overlaps the San Andreas Fault in some areas, although not in Berkeley (California Geological Survey 2002).

Berkeley’s rich alluvial soils and temperate climate support a wide variety of plants and animals.

Wetlands in the western part of Berkeley provide habitat for the salt marsh harvest mouse and other special status species. Strawberry Creek and Codornices Creek remain two of the few waterways in the urbanized East Bay that retain their natural character along most of their respective courses (City of Berkeley 2001c).

Berkeley is located in the United States Geological Survey’s (USGS) Briones Valley, Richmond, Oakland East, and Oakland West 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles. The area is typified by low topographic relief, with gentle slopes to the west in the direction of San Francisco Bay. By contrast, the Berkeley Hills that lie directly east of Berkeley have more pronounced topographic relief, with elevations that exceed 1,000 feet above mean sea level (City of Berkeley 2001b). Geologic maps indicate that the Plain is underlain primarily by Quaternary alluvial deposits, and the eastern parts of Berkeley, in the Berkeley Hills, are underlain by Mesozoic and Cenozoic igneous and sedimentary rocks (Graymer 2000).

Additionally, Berkeley is located near the San Andreas and Hayward fault zones, one of the most seismically active regions in the United States. The San Andreas Fault is located approximately 15 miles west of Berkeley. There is one Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone within Berkeley for the Hayward Fault, as shown in Figure 4.6-1. The Hayward Fault trace passes through parts of the northeast Berkeley hills, the UC Berkeley campus and northeast to Tunnel Road (City of Berkeley 2001). Faults within Berkeley are discussed in greater detail below under part (c).

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-2
Figure 4.6-1 Fault Lines in the Vicinity of Berkeley

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-3
b. Soils
As mapped by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Berkeley features 12 soil types (USDA 2017). Figure 4.6-1 presents soil characteristics related to water holding capacity, permeability, shrink-swell potential, rate of surface runoff, and erosion hazard. Figure 4.6-2 shows soils In Berkeley.

Table 4.6-1 Berkeley Soil Parameters
Map
Unit # Name
Water Holding
Capacity (in.)
Permeability
(in/hr)
Shrink-Swell
Potential
Rate of
Surface Runoff
Erosion
Hazard
102 Altamont Clay, 30 to
50 pe
rcent slopes

3.5-7 Slow High Medium to
High
Moderate/
High
122 Los Osos-Millsholm
Complex, 9 to 30
percent slopes

3.5-6.5 Slow Moderate/
High
High High
126 Maymen Loam, 30 to
75 percent slopes
1-3 Moderate Low High High/Very
high
127 Maymen-Los Gatos
complex, 30 to 75
percent slopes
1-3 Moderate Low/
Moderate
Very High High/Very
high
146 Urban land-
Consociation
n/a Slow n/a High None
148 Urban Land-Clear Lake
Complex

7.0-9.5 Moderately low
to Moderately
high
High Medium None
150 Urban land-Tierra
Complex, 2 to 5
percent slopes

1.8 Very low/
Moderately low
High High Slight
151 Urban land Tierra
Complex, 5 to 15
percent slopes
6-8 Slow High Medium Moderate
158 Xerorthents-Los Osos
Complex, 30 to 50
percent slopes

3.5-6.5 Slow Moderate/
High
High High
159 Xerorthents-
Millsholm Complex, 30
to 50 percent slopes

1.5-3.5 Moderate Low High High
160 Xerorthents-
Millsholm Complex, 50
to 75 percent slopes

9.5-11 Moderate Low Slow None
GcF Gilroy Clay Loam, 30
to 50 percent slopes
3-6 Moderately
slow
Moderate Very high High
Sources: USDA 2017, USDA 1977

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-4
Figure 4.6-2 Berkeley Soils Map

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-5
c. Geologic Hazards
Similar to much of California, Berkeley is located in a seismically active region. The seismic hazards relevant to Berkeley are described below.

Faulting and Seismically Induced Ground Shaking
The USGS defines active faults as those that have had surface displacement within the Holocene period (about the last 11,000 years). Surface displacement can be recognized by the existence of cliffs in alluvium, terraces, offset stream courses, fault troughs and saddles, the alignment of depressions, sag ponds, and the existence of steep mountain fronts. Potentially active faults are those that have had surface displacement during the last 1.6 million years. Inactive faults have not had surface displacement within that period. Several faults are located near or within Berkeley (Figure 4.4-1). The major faults and fault zones are described in the paragraphs below.

San Andreas Fault
The San Andreas Fault, the most likely source of a major earthquake in California, is located approximately 15 miles west of Berkeley. The San Andreas Fault is the primary surface boundary between the Pacific and the North American plates. There have been numerous historic earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault, and it generally poses the greatest earthquake risk to California. In general, the San Andreas Fault is likely capable of producing a Maximum Credible Earthquake of 8.0.

Hayward Fault
The Hayward Fault, one of ten major faults that make up the San Andreas Fault Zone, runs directly beneath Berkeley and links with the Rodgers Creek Fault to the north. Although the last major earthquake generated by the Hayward Fault was in 1868, pressure is slowly building again and will begin to overcome the friction and other forces that cause the fault zone to stick. According to a study of earthquake probabilities by the USGS, the fault system that includes the Hayward and Rodgers Creek faults has a 31 percent probability of generating an earthquake with a magnitude greater than or equal to 6.7 on the Mercalli Richter Scale in the next 20 years (City of Berkeley 2014). The Hayward Fault would likely cause extensive damage in Berkeley due to its proximity to urban communities and infrastructure. The Hayward Fault and surrounding area is a designated Alquist-Priolo Zone (Figure 4.6-1).

Other active faults near Berkeley include the Calaveras Fault, the Rogers Creek fault, the Chabot Fault, the Moraga Fault, the Wildcat Fault, and unnamed secondary faults adjacent to these. There are few or no studies pertaining to these additional secondary faults, and it is unknown whether they may or may not experience secondary ground rupture during a large earthquake.

In addition to the primary hazard of surface rupture, earthquakes often result in secondary hazards that can cause widespread damage. The most likely secondary earthquake hazards within Berkeley are ground shaking, liquefaction, and settlement (City of Berkeley 2001).

Surface Rupture
Faults generally produce damage in two ways: ground shaking and surface rupture. Surface rupture is limited to very near the fault. As discussed above, the Hayward Fault runs directly beneath Berkeley. Since the fault zone is within Berkeley, there is potential for surface rupture (Figure 4.6-1).

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-6
Ground Shaking
Seismically induced ground shaking covers a wide area and is greatly influenced by the distance of the site to the seismic source, soil conditions, and depth to groundwater. The USGS and Associated Bay Area Governments (ABAG) have worked together to map the likely intensity of ground-shaking throughout the Bay Area under various earthquake scenarios. The most intense ground-shaking scenario mapped in Berkeley assumes a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Hayward Fault system.

The predicted ground-shaking from such an earthquake would be “very violent” or “violent” throughout Berkeley (ABAG 2016).

Hazards associated with seismically induced ground shaking include liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and earthquake-triggered landslides. Movement along any of the faults shown in Figure 4.6-1 could potentially generate substantial ground shaking in Berkeley leading to these secondary hazards, as discussed below.

Liquefaction and Seismically-Induced Settlement
Liquefaction is defined as the sudden loss of soil strength due to a rapid increase in soil pore water pressure resulting from seismic ground shaking. Liquefaction potential is dependent on such factors as soil type, depth to ground water, degree of seismic shaking, and the relative density of the soil.

When liquefaction of the soil occurs, buildings and other objects on the ground surface may tilt or sink, and lightweight buried structures (such as pipelines) may float toward the ground surface.

Liquefied soil may be unable to support its own weight or that of structures, which could result in loss of foundation bearing or differential settlement. Liquefaction may also result in cracks in the ground surface followed by the emergence of a sand-water mixture.

Seismically induced settlement occurs in loose to medium dense unconsolidated soil above groundwater. These soils compress (settle) when subjected to seismic shaking. The settlement can be exacerbated by increased loading, such as from the construction of buildings. Settlement can also result solely from human activities including improperly placed artificial fill, and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates.

Earthquake hazard maps produced by ABAG indicate that a large Hayward Fault quake would trigger violent shaking throughout Berkeley and a high risk of liquefaction across Berkeley (City of Berkeley 2001b). Berkeley is in an area identified by the California Geologic Survey, California Department of Conservation (2006), as having low to medium susceptibility and therefore is in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction potential. The identified seismic hazard zone is due to the area having historical occurrence of liquefaction, or where local geological geotechnical and ground-water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacements such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c). However, seismic hazard zones identified by the California Geologic Survey may include developed land where delineated hazards have already been mitigated to city or county standards. As Figure 4.6-3 shows, Berkeley has areas identified as having very low, low, medium, and high, and very high susceptibility to liquefaction.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-7
Figure 4.6-3 Berkeley Liquefaction Susceptibility

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-8
Landslides
Landslides result when the driving forces that act on a slope (i.e., the weight of the slope material, and the weight of objects placed on it) are greater than the slope’s natural resisting forces (i.e., the shear strength of the slope material). Slope instability may result from natural processes, such as the erosion of the toe of a slope by a stream, or by ground shaking caused by an earthquake. Slopes can also be modified artificially by grading, or by the addition of water or structures to a slope.

Development that occurs on a slope can substantially increase the frequency and extent of potential slope stability hazards.

Areas susceptible to landslides are typically characterized by steep, unstable slopes in weak soil/bedrock units that have a record of previous slope failure. There are numerous factors that affect the stability of the slope, including: slope height and steepness, type of materials, material strength, structural geologic relationships, ground water level, and level of seismic shaking.

According to the City’s General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element (2001b), landslide risk is low throughout the majority of Berkeley. However, localized areas of instability exist throughout the Berkeley Hills at the northeastern end of Berkeley. Figure 4.6-4 shows identified landslide hazard zones in Berkeley. While most of the city is generally flat, its eastern portion is located in the hills and is located at the western edge of the Earthquake Induced Landslide Zone.

Expansive Soils
Expansive soils can change dramatically in volume depending on moisture content. When wet, these soils can expand; conversely, when dry, they can contract or shrink. Sources of moistures that can trigger this shrink-swell phenomenon include seasonal rainfall, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, and/or perched groundwater. Expansive soil can develop wide cracks in the dry season, and changes in soil volume have the potential to damage concrete slabs, foundations, and pavement. Special building/structure design or soil treatment are often needed in areas with expansive soils. Expansive soils are typically very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of clay. The clay minerals present typically include montmorillonite, smectite, and/or bentonite. Within the City, soils with high shrink-swell potential such as Altamont Clay, Urban Land-Clear Lake Complex, and Urban Land Tierra-Complex 2 to 5 percent slopes and 5 to 15 percent slopes as listed in Table 4.6-1 and illustrated on Figure 4.6-1 have a high potential for expansiveness.

Erosion
Erosion is the wearing away of the soil mantle by running water, wind or geologic forces. It is a naturally occurring phenomenon and ordinarily is not hazardous. However, excessive erosion can contribute to landslides, siltation of streams, undermining of foundations, and ultimately the loss of structures. Removal of vegetation tends to heighten erosion hazards.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-9
Figure 4.6-4 Berkeley Landslide Susceptibility

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-10
d. Paleontological Resources
Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once-living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in “soil” but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVP] 2010). Fossils occur in a non-continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project.

The geology of the region around Berkeley was mapped at a scale of 1:50,000 by Graymer (2000), who identified 18 distinct geologic units underlying Berkeley. The geologic units underlying Berkeley are shown in Figure 4.6-5.

Paleontological Sensitivity
Paleontological sensitivity refers to the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. Direct impacts to paleontological resources occur when earthwork activities, such as grading or trenching, cut into the geologic deposits within which fossils are buried and physically destroy the fossils. Since fossils are the remains of prehistoric animal and plant life, they are considered to be nonrenewable. Such impacts have the potential to be significant and, under the CEQA Guidelines, may require mitigation. Sensitivity is determined by rock type, history of the geologic unit in producing significant fossils, and fossil localities recorded from that unit.

Paleontological sensitivity is derived from the known fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey.

The discovery of a vertebrate fossil locality is generally of greater significance than that of an invertebrate fossil locality based on the rarity of vertebrate fossils compared to invertebrate fossils, especially microvertebrate assemblages. However, the recognition of new vertebrate or invertebrate fossil locations could provide important information on the geographical range of the taxa, their radiometric age, evolutionary characteristics, depositional environment, and other important scientific research questions. Vertebrate fossils are almost always significant because they occur more rarely than invertebrates or plants, but in some instances, inveterate fossils can be scientifically important and considered a sensitive environmental resource. Geological units having the potential to contain vertebrate fossils are generally considered to be of high sensitivity, whereas units with a record of only invertebrate assemblages typically have lower sensitivity but can have high paleontological sensitivity.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-11
Figure 4.6-5 Regional Geologic Map

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-12
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) outlines in its Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010) guidelines for categorizing paleontological sensitivity of geologic units within a project area. The paleontological sensitivity of Berkeley has been evaluated according to the following SVP (2010) categories:
 High Potential (Sensitivity). Roc k units from which significant vertebrate or signific ant
invertebrate fossils or significant suites of plant fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing significant non-renewable fossiliferous resources. These units include but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcanic formations which contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. Sensitivity comprises both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, or botanical and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, or stratigraphic data. Areas which contain potentially datable organic remains older than recent, including deposits associated with nests or middens, and areas that may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as significant. Full-time monitoring is typically recommended during any project-related ground disturbance in geologic units with high sensitivity.
 Low Potential (Sensitivity). Sedimentary rock units that are potentially fossiliferous but have not yielded fossils in the past or contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils of well documented and understood taphonomic (processes affecting an organism following death, burial, and removal from the ground), phylogenetic species (evolutionary relationships among organisms), and habitat ecology. Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist may allow determination that some areas or units have low potentials for yielding significant fossils prior to the start of construction. Generally, these units will be poorly represented by specimens in institutional collections and will not require protection or salvage operations.
 Undetermined Potential (Sensitivity). Specific areas underlain by sedimentary rock units for which little information is available are considered to have undetermined fossiliferous potentials. Field surveys by a qualified vertebrate paleontologist to specifically determine the potentials of the rock units are required before programs of impact mitigation for such areas may be developed.
 No Potential. Rock units of metamorphic or igneous origin are commonly classified as having no potential for containing significant paleontological resources.

Paleontological Sensitivity of Geologic Units in Berkeley Rincon assessed the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units underlying Berkeley by reviewing published geologic maps, online fossil databases, and primary literature. The distribution, characteristics, and paleontological sensitivity, of each geologic unit is discussed below.

Artificial fill (af)
Artificial fill is found in large areas of western Berkeley bordering San Francisco Bay (Figure 4.6-5).

Artificial fill represents human-deposited materials used to shape the landscape (Graymer 2000).

Therefore, these sediments are removed from their original context, thus making any fossils

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-13
contained within them scientifically useless. Therefore, artificial fill has no paleontological sensitivity.

Artificial stream channels (Qhasc)
Artif
icia
l stream channel deposits underlie portions of Cerita and Codornices Creeks in Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5). These deposits represent stream channels which have been straightened, realigned, or confined by artificial dikes or levees (Graymer 2000). These areas are undergoing active deposition, and thus, the sediments are too young to preserve scientifically significant paleontological resources (SVP 2010). Therefore, artificial stream channels have low paleontological sensitivity.

Holocene-aged basin deposits (Qhb), natural levee deposits (Qhl), alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf), and beach ridge deposits (Qhbr) Holocene-aged basin deposits are found in small parts of southwestern Berkeley near San Francisco Bay (Figure 4.6-5) and consist of silty clay or clay that were deposited in flat-floored basins at the edge of alluvial fans (Graymer 2000). Holocene-aged natural levee deposits are found throughout western and central Berkeley and consist of loose, moderately to well-sorted, sandy, or clayey silt that becomes more clayey moving upward. Natural levee deposits formed on the edges of stream channels, some of which are now abandoned (Graymer 2000). Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits cover most of central and western Berkeley and consist of brown or tan, gravelly sand or sandy gravel that becomes finer grained moving upward. Holocene beach ridge deposits consist of well-sorted beach sand. All four sediment types are Holocene in age, and thus, are likely too young to preserve paleontological resources (SVP 2010). Therefore, Holocene-aged basin deposits, natural levee deposits, alluvial fan and fluvial deposits, and beach ridge deposits, have low paleontological sensitivity.

Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf) Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf) are found in central Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5) and consist of brown, dense, sand or gravel that grades upward to sandy clay. Pleistocene alluvial sediments have produced scientifically significant fossils throughout California, including Alameda County, yielding taxa such as mammoths (Mammuthus), ground sloths (Paramylodon, Megalonyx), bison (Bison), cats (Panthera, Smilodon), and bears (Arctodus) (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database [PBDB] 2022; Stirton 1939; University of California Museum of Paleontology [UCMP] 2022). Therefore, Pleistocene-aged alluvial fan and fluvial deposits have high paleontological sensitivity.

Moraga Formation, igneous rocks (Tmb)
Igneous rocks of the Moraga Formation underlie small parts of eastern Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5).

These rocks consist of basaltic and andesitic flows dated to the late Miocene (Graymer 2000).

Basaltic and andesitic rocks form from the cooling of lava at Earth’s surface, so they cannot preserve paleontological resources. Therefore, the Moraga Formation has no paleontological sensitivity.

Orinda Formation (Tor)
The Orinda Formation underlies parts of eastern Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5). The Orinda Formation consists of bedded or massive, pebble to boulder conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone (Graymer 2000). The Orinda Formation has produced significant fossil localities throughout Contra

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-14
Costa County, yielding taxa such as cats (Barburofelis), horses (Hipparion, Pliohippus), elephants (Gomphotherium), hares (Leporidae), tortoises (Testudines), and invertebrates (PBDB 2022; Poust 2017; Stirton 1939; UCMP 2022). Given this fossil-producing history, the Orinda Formation has high paleontological sensitivity.

Undivided rocks of the Great Valley Complex (Ku)
Undivid
ed rocks of the Great Valley Complex are found in eastern Berkeley (Figure

4.6-5) and consist
of brown-weathering, massively or distinctly bedded, sandstone, siltstone, or mudstone, that are late Cretaceous in age (Graymer 2000). Late Cretaceous rocks of the Great Valley Complex (some of which are assigned to named units such as the Moreno and Panoche formations) have produced fossils throughout California, including dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae), mosasaurs, sharks, ray-finned fish, bivalves, gastropods, and cephalopods (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). However, these rocks cannot be confidently assigned to these or any other named geologic unit of the Great Valley Complex.

Therefore, undivided rocks of the Great Valley Complex have undetermined paleontological sensitivity.

Knoxville Formation (KJk)
The Knoxville Formation is found in small parts of eastern Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5). The Knoxville Formation consists of dark greenish-gray silt of clay shale with thin sandstone interbeds and is early Cretaceous to late Jurassic in age (Graymer 2000). Many fossil localities are known from the Knoxville Formation, including Alameda County, yielding ammonites, bivalves, gastropods, and crinoids (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022; Woodring and Bramlette 1950). Given this fossil-producing history, the Knoxville Formation has high paleontological sensitivity.

Franciscan Complex: sandstone of Alcatraz terrane (Kfa), undivided sandstone (KJfs), chert (fc), and mélange (KJfm)
The Franciscan Complex is a group of sedimentary, igneous, and metamorphic rocks that are Cretaceous to Jurassic in age and found throughout the Coast Ranges. Sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan Complex underlie parts of eastern and northern Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5). Sandstone of the Alcatraz terrane consists of dark greenish-gray, weathering to yellowish brown, massively bedded, coarse-grained sandstone with biotite grains and shale chips and is Cretaceous in age (Graymer 2000). Undivided sandstone of the Franciscan Complex consists of dark gray, medium- to coarse- grained sandstone that is slightly metamorphosed in parts. Chert of the Franciscan Complex is white, grayish-green, yellowish-orange, or brown, brittle radiolarian chert that may contain shale interbeds. Franciscan Complex mélange consists of sheared blocks of the igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks, that comprise the entire Franciscan Complex (Graymer 2000). These blocks can range from millimeter- to kilometer-scale. Invertebrate fossils (mollusks and echinoderms) are known from the sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan Complex (PBDB 2022; UCMP 2022). Marine reptiles (Ichthyosauria, Plesiosauria) have been found at two localities in the Franciscan Complex south Alameda County (Camp 1942), which given these rocks’ extensive distribution, is quite rare.

Due to the rarity of scientifically significant fossils in the sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan Complex, sandstone of the Alcatraz terrane, undivided sandstone, chert, and mélange of the Franciscan Complex have low paleontological sensitivity.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-15
Great Valley Complex, keratophyre (Jsv)
Great Valley Complex kera tophyre underlies much of eastern Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5).

Great Valley
Complex keratophyre consists of metamorphosed igneous rocks that are late Jurassic in age (Graymer 2000). Due to the intense heat and pressure required for their formation, metamorphic rocks cannot preserve paleontological resources. Therefore, keratophyre of the Great Valley Complex has no paleontological sensitivity.

Coast Range Ophiolite: serpentinite (sp), basalt and diabase (Jb), and silica- carbonate rock (sc)
Serpentinite, basalt and diabase, and silica-carbonate rock, of the Coast Range Ophiolite underlie parts of eastern Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5). These rocks are part of the Coast Range Ophiolite, a package of igneous and metamorphic rocks that accreted onto the North American continent in the Jurassic (Graymer 2000). Serpentinite consists of metamorphosed ultramafic igneous rocks, and silica-carbonate rock is a further-modified version of serpentinite. Due to the intense heat and pressure required for their formation, metamorphic rocks cannot preserve paleontological resources. Basalt and diabase are igneous rocks that form from the cooling of molten rock at or below Earth’s surface, which also cannot preserve fossils. Therefore, serpentinite and basalt and diabase of the Coast Range Ophiolite have no paleontological sensitivity.

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the United States. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of point source and non-point source discharges to surface water. Those discharges are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit process (CWA Section 402). NPDES permitting authority is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). Berkeley is in a watershed administered by the Bay Area RWQCB.

Individual projects within Berkeley that disturb more than one acre would be required to obtain NPDES coverage under the California General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit). The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan describing best management practices (BMP) the discharger would use to prevent and retain stormwater runoff and to prevent soil erosion. b. State Regulations
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2 provides building codes and standards for the design and construction of structures in California. It requires, among other things, seismically resistant construction and foundation and soil investigations prior to construction. The CBC also establishes grading requirements that apply to excavation and fill activities and requires the

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-16
implementation of erosion control measures. The City is responsible for enforcing the 2016 CBC, or most current CBC version, within Berkeley.

The referenced codes and standards include requirements for evaluations of geologic conditions at future project sites and design and construction standards to address geologic hazards.

Geotechnical investigations are performed to identify the geologic conditions at a site and to evaluate whether a proposed project is feasible given the existing geological conditions. The Geotechnical report must be completed by a California licensed professional and must provide recommendations for foundation and structural design to address any geologic hazards. Such reports are required under the following conditions:
 New structures designed under the California Building Code in accordance with CBC 1803.5.11 and CBC 1803.5.12.
 New structures designed under the California Residential Code and located in a seismic hazard zone in accordance with CRC R401.4. This requirement does not apply to new accessory structures including utility sheds, garages and accessory dwelling units.  New structures within a delineated earthquake fault zone:
 A single-family wood-frame or steel-frame dwelling exceeding two stories or when any dwelling is part of a development of four or more dwellings. Public Resources Code Chapter 7.5  Multi-family and commercial of any kind.
 Alterations or additions to any structure within a seismic hazard zone which exceed either 50 percent of the value of the structure or 50 percent of the existing floor area of the structure.

Public Resources Code Chapter 7.8
 In accordance with CBC 1803.5.2 and CRC R401.4.1 where design values exceed the presumptive values or the classification, strength or compressibility of the soil is in doubt.  Where deep foundations will be used, a geotechnical investigation shall be conducted in accordance with CBC 1803.5.5.
 For new structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C, D, E or F, a geotechnical investigation shall be conducted in accordance with CBC 1803.5.11
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 M6.6 San Fernando earthquake. The Act provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent of the Act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or fault creep. This Act groups faults into categories of active, potentially active, and inactive. Historic and Holocene age faults are considered active, Late Quaternary and Quaternary age faults are considered potentially active, and pre-Quaternary age faults are considered inactive.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses geo-seismic hazards, other than surface faulting, and applies to public buildings and most private buildings intended for human occupancy. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act identifies and maps seismic hazard zones to assist cities and counties in preparing the safety elements of their general plans and encourages land use management policies and regulations that reduce seismic hazards. The Act mandated the preparation of maps delineating

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-17
“Liquefaction and Earthquake-Induced Landslide Zones of Required Investigation.” Berkeley contains land designated as liquefaction risk areas according to the California Geologic Survey (2003).

California Environmental Quality Act – Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are protected under CEQA, which states in part a project will “normally” have a significant effect on the environment if it, among other things, will disrupt or adversely affect a paleontological site except as part of a scientific study. Specifically, in Section VII(f) of Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Environmental Checklist Form, the question is posed thus: “Will the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.” To determine the uniqueness of a given paleontological resource, it must first be identified or recovered (i.e., salvaged). Therefore, CEQA mandates mitigation of adverse impacts, to the extent practicable, to paleontological resources.

CEQA does not define “a unique paleontological resource or site.” However, the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has defined a “significant paleontological resource” in the context of environmental review as follows:

Fossils and fossiliferous deposits, here defined as consisting of identifiable vertebrate fossils, large or small, uncommon invertebrate, plant, and trace fossils, and other data that provide taphonomic, taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, stratigraphic, and/or biochronologic information. Paleontological resources are typically to be older than recorded human history and/or older than middle Holocene (i.e., older than about 5,000 radiocarbon years) (SVP 2010).

The loss of paleontological resources meeting the criteria outlined above (i.e., a significant paleontological resource) would be a significant impact under CEQA, and the CEQA lead agency is responsible for ensuring that impacts to paleontological resources are mitigated, where practicable, in compliance with CEQA and other applicable statutes.

California Public Resources Code
Section 5097.5 of the Public Resources Code states:

No person shall knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.

Here “public lands” means those owned by, or under the jurisdiction of, the state or any city, county, district, authority, or public corporation, or any agency thereof. Consequently, public agencies are required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 for their own activities, including construction and maintenance, and for permit actions (e.g., encroachment permits) undertaken by others.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-18
c. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan
The following goal, policies, and actions in the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan relate to geology and soils:

Policy S-13: Hazards Identification. Identify, avoid and minimize natural and human-caused hazards in the development of property and the regulation of land use.

Action S-13A. Maintain and make publicly available up-to-date hazards maps identifying areas subject to heightened risk from potential seismic hazards (including fault rupture, ground failure, ground shaking, and liquefaction), and fire, flood, landslide, and other hazards, such as toxic contamination and radioactive release.

Action S-13B. Improve the understanding of identified hazards and mitigation needs via area-specific studies such as microzonation studies.

Policy S-14: Land Use Regulation. Require appropriate mitigation in new development, in redevelopment/reuse, or in other applications.

Action S-14B. Require soil investigation and/or geotechnical reports in conjunction with development/redevelopment on sites within designated hazard zones such as areas with high potential for soil erosion, landslide, fault rupture, liquefaction and other soil-related constraints.

Action S-14 C. Place structural design conditions on new development to ensure that recommendations of the geotechnical/soils investigations are implemented.

Action S-14 D. Encourage owners to evaluate their buildings’ vulnerability to earthquake hazards, fire, landslides, and floods and to take appropriate action to minimize risk.

Action S-14E. Develop criteria for disaster-resistant land use regulations to ensure that new construction reduces rather than increases risk of all kinds.

Policy S-15: Construction Standards. Maintain construction standards that minimize risks to human lives and property from environmental and human-caused hazards for new and existing buildings.

Action S-15A. Periodically update and adopt the California Building Standards Code with local amendments to incorporate the latest knowledge and design standards to protect people and property against known fire, flood, landslide, and seismic risks in both structural and non-structural buildings and site components.

Action S-15B. Ensure proper design and construction of hazard-resistant structures through careful plan review/approval and thorough and consistent construction inspection.

Policy S-17: Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program. Maintain existing program such as the Residential Seismic Retrofitting Incentive Program to facilitate retrofit of potentially hazardous structures.

Action S-17A. Expand public awareness of the program and take other actions to publicize and improve the effectiveness of the program.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-19
Policy S-19: Risk Analysis. Understand and track changes in seismic risk utilizing the best available information and tools.

Action S-19A. Make maximum use of new available information to update maps to depict seismic hazards.

Action S-19B. Encourage building owners (including public sector agencies and local jurisdictions) to install instruments to record earthquake shaking in conjunction with the State’s Strong Motion Instrumentation Program.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
Chapter 21, Section 40, Grading, erosion and sediment control requirements of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) requires projects to comply with all grading, erosion and sediment control regulations on file in the Public Works Department.

4.6.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds
In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed HEU would result in a significant impact if it would:

1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault
II. Strong seismic ground shaking
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction IV. Landslides;

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;

3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse;

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property;

5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater; or

6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-20
b. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, or landslides?
Threshold 3: Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Impact GEO-1 A PORTION OF BERKELEY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE HAYWARD FAULT ZONE. DEVELOPMENT

FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED HEU IS SUBJECT TO SEISMICALLY-INDUCED GROUND SHAKING AND OTHER

SEISMIC HAZARDS, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION AND LANDSLIDES, WHICH COULD DAMAGE STRUCTURES AND RESULT IN LOSS OF PROPERTY AND RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY. HOWEVER, IMPLEMENTATION OF

STATE-MANDATED BUILDING STANDARDS AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE ALQUIST-PRIOLO ACT EARTHQUAKE FAULT ACT, THE CBC, THE BERKELEY GENERAL PLAN’S POLICIES AND ACTIONS, AND THE BMC WOULD REDUCE IMPACTS TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.

Ground Rupture and Seismic Ground Shaking
The proposed HEU involves zoning modifications in the R-1, R-2, and R-2A districts, which are in the area near the Hayward fault. The area is currently developed and populated. Full build-out under the proposed HEU would increase the population of Berkeley, structural development, and infrastructure that would be exposed to these hazards. However, several applicable laws, regulations, and policies would reduce hazards related to rupture. Under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act, construction of development facilitated under the project would be restricted within 50 feet of an identified fault. Although the 50 feet restriction would not completely remove development from potential damage from a major seismic event, it would minimize potential for future development to receive the most direct damage potentially associated with the major seismic event (surface rupture).

Also as previously mentioned, this fault system has been assessed to have a 31 percent probability of generating an earthquake with a magnitude greater than or equal to 6.7 on the Mercalli Richter Scale in the next 20 years (City of Berkeley 2014). A seismic event with magnitude 6.7 or greater would have potential to damage structures and result in loss of property and risk to human health and safety. However, several applicable laws, regulations, and policies would reduce hazards related to ground shaking. New development that would occur within Berkeley would be required to conform to the CBC (as amended at the time of permit approval) as required by law. The City of Berkeley has adopted the CBC by reference pursuant to Title 19, Chapter 28 of the BMC. As described in the Regulatory Setting section above, the City of Berkeley Building Codes includes requirements for foundation and structural design to resist seismic hazards. In addition, the Building Codes outlines specific instances of when geotechnical investigations are required based on soil conditions and proposed construction methods, including for projects within Earthquake Fault Zones or Seismic Hazard Zones. New projects would be reviewed by the Building and Safety Division during the normal plan review process to confirm that the necessary geotechnical investigations are completed and that the structural design of the project is consistent with design measures recommended in the Geological report prior to issuance of required building permits. The City would therefore ensure that development would be designed and constructed consistent with

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-21
the current City of Berkeley Building Codes and with the findings and recommendations of the site- specific geotechnical reports to effectively minimize or avoid potential hazards associated with redevelopment and/or new building construction. Further, the proposed HEU would promote infill development, which may involve replacing older buildings subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects of strong ground shaking. Proper engineering, including compliance with the City of Berkeley Building Codes, would minimize the risk to life and property associated with potential seismic activity in the area. Impacts related to fault rupture and seismic shaking would be less than significant.

Liquefaction
As mentioned, liquefaction occurs when saturated or partially saturated and unconsolidated soils lose strength in response to a stress, typically on earthquake. This phenomenon can result in damage to infrastructure and foundations. Similarly, seismically-induced settlement, or the potential for the ground surface to lower/settle, is an existing geologic hazard that typically occurs where loose- to medium-density unconsolidated soils are located above groundwater; settlement can also be induced or exacerbated by the improper placement of artificial fill, or the placement of structures on soils or bedrock with differential settlement rates. The majority of the inventory sites, R-1, R-1A, R-2, R-2A, and MU-R districts, and Southside area, are in areas identified as having “Low” to “Moderate” liquefaction potential. The western-most portion of Berkeley does contain a small area with “High” liquefaction potential; however, no proposed inventory sites and the R-1, R-1A, R- 2, and R-2A districts and Southside do not overlay the “High” liquefaction zones. A small portion of the MU-R district is within a “High” liquefaction zone. Full build-out of the proposed project would increase population, structural development, and infrastructure that would be exposed to these hazards. However, as described above, proper engineering and required compliance with CBC and other City requirements would minimize the risk to life or property associated with liquefaction hazards. This impact would be less than significant.

Landslides
Landslide risk throughout the majority of Berkely is low; however, localized areas of instability exist throughout the Berkely Hills in the eastern portion of Berkeley as shown on Figure 4.6-4. Therefore, the increase in development potential allowed by the proposed HEU in these areas could result in impacts related to landslides. As described above, the Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 2690- 2699.6, Seismic Hazards Mapping Act and CBC requirements as adopted in the BMC would require site-specific geotechnical investigations for individual development projects within the landslide- susceptible portions of Berkeley to identify the degree of potential hazards, design parameters for the project based on the hazard, and describe appropriate design measures to address hazards.

Future development in Berkeley would be required to adhere to recommended design measures to ensure hazards related are adequately mitigated. Moreover, the proposed HEU could facilitate projects that would replace older buildings subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects associated with unstable soils and liquefaction. Compliance with the City of Berkeley Building Codes, PRC Section 2690- 2699.6, and the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that potential impacts associated with landslides would be less than significant.

Unstable Soils
Seismic hazards in Berkeley also include the potential for unstable soils to result in damage to existing or proposed infrastructure, and/or to introduce potential hazards to human health and

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-22
safety. Unstable soils may include any materials not capable of supporting a selected land use. The City requires site-specific geotechnical evaluations for individual development on steep slopes and unstable soils in accordance with the CBC. Compliance with CBC and other standards discussed in this section and under Impact GEO-2 would minimize potential adverse effects.

In addition, proj ects that require discretionary approval would be reviewed for their compliance with General Plan policies, including Policy S-13A: Haz ards Identification and Policy S-14B: Land Use
Regulation of the City’s General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. Future development in Berkeley in areas with identified hazards would be required to appropriately address and be designed to withstand associated hazards to the maximum extent feasible. In general, the proposed project could facilitate projects that would replace older buildings subject to seismic damage with newer structures built to current seismic standards that could better withstand the adverse effects associated with unstable soils.

Summary
Future development under the proposed HEU would be subject to the policies and actions of the Berkeley General Plan (listed in the Regulatory Setting) which would minimize the risks to lives and property due to seismic and geologic hazards. Compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Act Earthquake Fault Act, the CBC, PRC Section 2690-2699.6, General Plan policies, and the City’s Municipal Code would ensure that potential impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking, unstable soils, and potential liquefaction and landslides would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 2: Would t he project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact GEO-2 WITH ADHERENCE TO APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL SOIL EROSION OR THE LOSS OF TOPSOIL. THEREFORE, THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Soil types in Berkeley are shown in Figure 4.6-2. Table 4.6-1 lists soil characteristics related to water holding capacity, permeability, shrink-swell potential, rate of surface runoff, and erosion hazard.

Berkeley soils are characterized by having “moderate” or a “high” potential for erosion-related hazards. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would involve construction activities such as stockpiling, grading, excavation, paving, and other earth-disturbing activities that could result in erosion and loss of topsoil, particularly if soils are exposed to wind or stormwater during construction.

New development in Berkeley would be required to comply with the SWRCB’s General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ). Additionally, construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land surface are subject to the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) adopted by the SWRCB. Compliance with the NPDES permit requires each qualifying development project to file a Notice of Intent with the SWRCB. Permit conditions require the development of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, which must describe the site, the facility, erosion and sediment controls, runoff water quality monitoring, means of waste disposal, implementation of approved local plans, control of construction sediment and erosion control measures, maintenance responsibilities, and non-

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-23
stormwater management controls. Inspection of construction sites before and after storms is also required to identify stormwater discharge from the construction activity and to identify and implement erosion controls, where necessary. Compliance with the Construction General Permit is reinforced through the City’s Municipal Code in Chapter 21, Section 40, which requires applicants to comply with grading, erosion and sedimentation control plan regulations on file with the Public Works Department. Further, BMC Section 21.40.270 requires subdivision projects to comply with grading, erosion and sediment control regulations on file with the Public Works Department.

Required compliance with aforementioned policies, NPDES permit, an d other regulations would
ensure that
impacts associated with substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 4: Woul d the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Impact GEO-3 PORTIONS OF BERKELEY ARE LOCATED ON EXPANSIVE SOILS. HOWEVER, WITH REQUIRED

IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICES, IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH UNSTABLE OR EXPANSIVE SOILS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Figure 4.6-2 shows the soil types in B erk eley which include 12 different soil types. As indicated in Table 4.6-1, many of the soil types within Berkeley have “moderate” to “high” potential for shrink- swell behavior, or expansiveness. The presence of expansive soils throughout Berkeley would make it necessary to conduct geologic investigations for all future development projects and ensure that soils for foundation support are sound. Building on unsuitable soils would have the potential to create future subsidence or collapse issues that could result in the settlement of proposed project infrastructure, and/or the disruption of utility lines and other services.

Compliance with existing State and local laws and regulations, such as the CBC and General Plan Action S-14B, would ensure that the impacts from development associated with implementation of the proposed project on expansive soil are minimized by requiring the submittal and review of detailed soils and/or geologic reports prior to construction. Such evaluations must contain recommendations for ground preparation and earthwork specific to the site, which then become an integral part of the construction design. The CBC includes requirements to address soil-related hazards. Typical measures to treat hazardous soil conditions involve removal of soil or fill materials, proper fill selection, and compaction. In cases where soil remediation is not feasible, the CBC requires structural reinforcement of foundations to resist the forces of expansive soils. Additionally, Berkeley Building Codes and other City requirements require site-specific investigations for projects where there are soil-related hazards and implementation of design recommendations in the investigations. Compliance with Berkeley Building Codes and other City requirements would ensure that potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be minimized or avoided.

With adherence to CBC requirements and General Plan Action S-14B, potential impacts associated with expansive soils that could occur with implementation of future development under the proposed project would be minimized or avoided because specified studies and design considerations would be employed as relevant and feasible at the individual project level. Impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-24
Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 5: Woul d the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact GEO-4 THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD NOT INCLUDE SEPTIC TANKS OR ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

Future development under the proposed HEU site would be served by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District, which is responsible for wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from all residential and commercial sources within its sewer service area. The proposed Project would not include septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, there is no potential for adverse effects due to soil incompatibility. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.

Threshold 6: Would t he project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Impact GEO-5 DEVELOPMENT FACILITATED BY THE PROPOSED HEU HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED.

Rincon assessed the paleontological sensitivity of each of the 18 geologic units underlying Berkeley (Figure 4.6-5) and assigned a paleontological sensitivity to each unit (Table 4.6-2). The geologic units assigned a high sensitivity are shown on Figure 4.6-6
; these include Pleist
ocene alluvial fan and
fluvial deposits, Orinda Formation and Knoxville Formation. Ground disturbance in previously undisturbed portions of geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity may result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. However, potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources can only be determined once a specific project has been proposed because the effects are highly dependent on both the individual project site conditions and the characteristics of the proposed ground
-disturbing activity. Ground disturbi
ng activities associated with construction
facilitated by this project, particularly in areas that have not previously been developed with urban uses, have the potential to damage or destroy paleontological resources that may be present on or below the ground surface in areas of high paleontological sensitivity. Consequently, damage to or destruction of fossils could occur due to development under the proposed HEU. This impact is potentially significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-25
Table 4.6-2 Paleontological Sensitivity of Geologic Units in Berkeley Geologic Unit Age
Paleontological Sensitivity
(SVP 2010)
Artificial fill (af) Holocene None
Art
ificial stream channels (Qhasc) Holocene Low
Holocene basin deposits (Qhb) Holocene Low
Holocene natural levee deposits (Qhl) Holocene Low
Holocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qhaf) Holocene Low Holocene beach ridge deposits (Qhbr) Holocene Low
Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf) Pleistocene High Moraga Formation, igneous rocks (Tmb) Miocene None
Orinda Formation (Tor) Miocene High
Undivided rocks of Great Valley Complex (Ku) Cretaceous Undetermined Knoxville Formation (Kjk) Cretaceous to Jurassic High
Franciscan Complex, sandstone of Alcatraz terrane (Kfa) Cretaceous Low Franciscan Complex, undivided sandstone (Kfs) Cretaceous to Jurassic Low Franciscan Complex, chert (fc) Cretaceous to Jurassic Low Franciscan Complex, mélange (KJfm) Cretaceous to Jurassic Low Coast Range Ophiolite, serpentinite (sp) Jurassic None
Coast Range Ophiolite, basalt and diabase (Jb) Jurassic None Coast Range Ophiolite, silica-carbonate rock (sc) Jurassic None Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure is required.

GEO-1 Protection of Paleontological Resources
If ground disturbance below the level of prior disturbance and into native soils is proposed to occur in areas mapped as Pleistocene alluvial fan and fluvial deposits (Qpaf), Orinda Formation (Tor), or Knoxville Formation (Kjk), then the City shall require the following to be implemented:

Retention of Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) (2010), to determine the project’s potential to significantly impact paleontological resources according to SVP (2010) standards.

If underlying formations are found to have a high potential for paleontological resources, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall create a Paleontological Mitigation and Monitoring Program, which will be approved by the City and contain the following elements:

Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-26
Figure 4.6-6 Geologic Units with High Paleontological Sensitivity

Environmental Impact Analysis
Geology and Soils

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.6-27
Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during ground disturbing construction activities (i.e., grading, trenching, foundation work) in sediments assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a qualified Paleontological Resources Monitor, as defined by the SVP (2010). The duration and timing of the monitoring will be determined by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist based on the observation of the geologic setting from initial ground disturbance, and subject to the review and approval by the City. If the Qualified Professional Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring is no longer warranted, based on the specific geologic conditions once the full depth of excavations has been reached, they may recommend that monitoring be reduced to periodic spot- checking or ceased entirely. Monitoring shall be reinstated if any new ground disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension shall be reconsidered by the Qualified Professional Paleontologist at that time. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease. A Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find before restarting construction activity in the area.

If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall complete the following conditions to mitigate impacts to significant fossil resources.

Upon completion of ground disturbing activity (and curation of fossils if necessary) the Qualified Profe
ssional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts associated with the project. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations.

The report shall be submitted to the City.

If the monitoring efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the designated museum repository.

Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure procedures are in place to avoid destruction of paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c. Cumulative Impacts
All development in Berkeley is subject to geological hazards related to seismic activity, including strong ground shaking. Cumulative development in Berkeley as described in Section 3, Environmental Setting, would gradually increase population and therefore gradually increase the number of people exposed to potential geological hazards, including effects associated with seismic events such as ground rupture and strong shaking. However, conformance with the current CBC and City’s General Plan policies and the other laws and regulations, would ensure that project-specific impacts associated with geology and soils would be less than significant; thereby reducing the potential cumulative impact associated with any single development project to less than significant.

Development under the proposed HEU could also result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil which could result in cumulative impacts when combined with other development in Berkeley and the region that might also cause erosion. However, compliance with existing regulations would reduce potential erosion impacts associated with new development. Potential impacts associated with geology and soils would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts related to geologic hazards would be less than significant.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.6-28
Cumulative development in Berkeley would disturb areas that may contain paleontological resources. It is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual development projects would be addressed on a case-by-case basis and would be subject to local and state regulations regarding the protection of such resources. With compliance with existing policies and regulations, future development in Berkeley would be required to avoid or mitigate the loss of these resources.

The proposed HEU’s impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 described above. Therefore, significant cumulative paleontological resource impacts would not occur.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-1

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section analyzes impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including the potential for development under the proposed HEU to generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in excess of standards or for the proposed HEU to conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

4.7.1 Setting
a. Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period. The term “climate change” is often used interchangeably with the term “global warming,” but climate change is preferred because it conveys that other changes are happening in addition to rising temperatures. The baseline against which these changes are measured originates in historical records that identify temperature changes that occurred in the past, such as during previous ice ages. The global climate is changing continuously, as evidenced in the geologic record which indicates repeated episodes of substantial warming and cooling. The rate of change has typically been incremental, with warming or cooling trends occurring over the course of thousands of years. The past 10,000 years have been marked by a period of incremental warming, as glaciers have steadily retreated across the globe. However, scientists have observed acceleration in the rate of warming over the past 150 years.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO
2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2021). It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO 2 was emitted (IPCC 2021). It is likely that
anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO
2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have
increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (U.S. EPA 2021a). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth’s temperature.

Gases that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation in the atmosphere are called GHGs. The gases widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced climate change include carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxides (N2O), fluorinated gases such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs because it is short-lived in the atmosphere, and natural processes, such as oceanic evaporation, largely determine its atmospheric concentrations.

GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human activities. Of these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of CO2 are usually by-products of fossil fuel combustion, and CH4 results from off-gassing associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Human-made GHGs, many of which have greater heat-absorption potential than CO2, include fluorinated gases and SF6 (U.S. EPA 2021a).

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-2
Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e), which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (IPCC 2021).1 The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. Without the natural heat-trapping effect of GHGs, the earth’s surface would be about 33 degrees Celsius (°C) cooler (World Meteorological Organization 2022). GHG emissions from human activities, particularly the consumption of fossil fuels for electricity production and transportation, are believed to have elevated the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere beyond the level of concentrations that occur naturally.
b. Global Emissions Inventory
In 2015, worldwide anthropogenic total 47,000 million MT of CO2e, which is a 43 percent increase from 1990 GHG levels (U.S. EPA 2021b). Specifically, 34,522 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2e of CO2, 8,241 MMT of CO2e of CH4, 2,997 MMT of CO2e of N2O, and 1,001 MMT of CO2e of fluorinated gases were emitted in 2015. The largest source of GHG emissions were energy production and use (includes fuels used by vehicles and buildings), which accounted for 75 percent of the global GHG emissions. Agriculture uses and industrial processes contributed 12 percent and six percent, respectively. Waste sources contributed for three percent and two percent was due to international transportation sources. These sources account for approximately 98 percent because there was a net sink
2 of two percent from land-use change and forestry. (U.S. EPA 2021b).

United States Emissions Inventory
Total U.S. GHG emissions were 6,558 MMT of CO2e in 2019. Emissions decreased by 1.7 percent from 2018 to 2019; since 1990, total U.S. emissions have increased by an average annual rate of

0.06 percent for a total increase of 1.8 percent between 1990 and 2019. The decrease from 2018 to 2019 reflects the combined influences of several long-term trends, including population changes, economic growth, energy market shifts, technological changes such as improvements in energy efficiency, and decrease carbon intensity of energy fuel choices. In 2019, the industrial and transportation end-use sectors accounted for 30 percent and 29 percent, respectively, of nationwide GHG emissions while the commercial and residential end-use sectors accounted for 16 percent and 15 percent of nationwide GHG emissions, respectively, with electricity emissions distributed among the various sectors (U.S. EPA 2021c).

California Emissions Inventory
Based on the CARB California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000-2019, California produced 418.2 MMT of CO
2e in 2019, which is 7.2 MMT of CO2e lower than 2018 levels. The major source of GHG emissions in California is the transportation sector, which comprises 40 percent of the state’s total GHG emissions. The industrial sector is the second largest source, comprising 21 percent of the

1 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWPs from the Fourth Assessment Report.
2 Net sink refers to the taking in of more carbon than can be emitted.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-3
state’s GHG emissions while electric power accounts for approximately 14 percent (CARB 2021). The magnitude of California’s total GHG emissions is due in part to its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions as compared to other states is its relatively mild climate. In 2016, the State of California achieved its 2020 GHG emission reduction target of reducing emissions to 1990 levels as emissions fell below 431 MMT of CO
2e (CARB 2021). The annual 2030 statewide target emissions level is 260 MMT of CO2e (CARB 2017).

Local Emissions Inventory
Based on the Climate Action Plan Report presented by staff to the Berkeley City Council on February 8, 2022, Berkeley’s GHG emissions totaled approximately 540,000 metric tons in 2019, approximately 26 percent below 2000 levels. The major source of GHGs in Berkeley is associated with transportation, contributing approximately 60 percent. Residential natural gas and commercial natural gas is the second largest source, contributing approximately 32 percent to the City’s GHG emissions. The remaining 8 percent is made up by other sources such as commercial and residential electricity, landfill waste, municipal buildings, and water consumption and wastewater (City of Berkeley 2022).
c. Potential Effects of Climate Change
Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. Each of the past three decades has been warmer than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, 2013 through 2021 all rank among the ten-warmest years on record. It also marked the 45th consecutive year (since 1977) with global temperatures rising above the 20th century average (NOAA 2022).

Furthermore, several independently analyzed data records of global and regional Land-Surface Air Temperature (LSAT) obtained from station observations jointly indicate that LSAT and sea surface temperatures have increased.

According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, statewide temperatures from 1986 to 2016 were approximately 0.6 to 1.1°C higher than those recorded from 1901 to 1960. Potential impacts of climate change in California may include reduced water supply from snowpack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). In addition to statewide projections, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment includes regional reports that summarize climate impacts and adaptation solutions for nine regions of the state and regionally specific climate change case studies (State of California 2018). However, while there is growing scientific consensus about the possible effects of climate change at a global and statewide level, current scientific modeling tools are unable to predict what local impacts may occur with a similar degree of accuracy. A summary follows of some of the potential effects that could be experienced in California as a result of climate change.

Air Quality and Wildfires
Scientists project that the annual average maximum daily temperatures in California could rise by

2.4 to 3.2°C (36.32°F to 37.76°F) in the next 50 years and by 3.1 to 4.9°C (37.58°F to 40.82°F) in the next century (State of California 2018). Higher temperatures are conducive to air pollution formation, and rising temperatures could therefore result in worsened air quality in California. As a result, climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. In addition, as temperatures have

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-4
increased in recent years, the area burned by wildfires throughout the state has increased, and wildfires have occurred at higher elevations in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (State of California 2018). If higher temperatures continue to be accompanied by an increase in the incidence and extent of large wildfires, air quality could worsen. Severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and poor air quality could increase the number of heat-related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks throughout the state. However, if higher temperatures are accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains could tend to temporarily clear the air of particulate pollution, which would effectively reduce the number of large wildfires and thereby ameliorate the pollution associated with them (California Natural Resources Agency 2009).

Water Supply
Analysis of paleoclimatic data (such as tree-ring reconstructions of stream flow and precipitation) indicates a history of naturally and widely varying hydrologic conditions in California and the west, including a pattern of recurring and extended droughts. Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of climate change on future precipitation trends and water supplies in California.

Year-to-year variability in statewide precipitation levels has increased since 1980, meaning that wet and dry precipitation extremes have become more common (California Department of Water Resources 2018). This uncertainty regarding future precipitation trends complicates the analysis of future water demand, especially where the relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well understood. The average early spring snowpack in the western U.S., including the Sierra Nevada Mountains, decreased by about 10 percent during the last century.

During the same period, sea level rose over 0.15 meter along the central and southern California coasts (State of California 2018). The Sierra snowpack provides the majority of California's water supply as snow that accumulates during wet winters is released slowly during the dry months of spring and summer. A warmer climate is predicted to reduce the fraction of precipitation that falls as snow and the amount of snowfall at lower elevations, thereby reducing the total snowpack (State of California 2018). Projections indicate that average spring snowpack in the Sierra Nevada and other mountain catchments in central and northern California will decline by approximately 66 percent from its historical average by 2050 (State of California 2018).

Hydrology and Sea Level Rise
Climate change could affect the intensity and frequency of storms and flooding (State of California 2018). Furthermore, climate change could induce substantial sea level rise in the coming century.

Rising sea level increases the likelihood of and risk from flooding. The rate of increase of global mean sea levels between 1993 to 2020, observed by satellites, is approximately 3.3 millimeters per year, double the twentieth century trend of 1.6 millimeters per year (World Meteorological Organization 2013; National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2020). Global mean sea levels in 2013 were about 0.23 meter higher than those of 1880 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2020). Sea levels are rising faster now than in the previous two millennia, and the rise will probably accelerate, even with robust GHG emission control measures. The most recent IPCC report predicts a mean sea level rise ranging between 0.25 to 0 1.01 meters by 2100 with the sea level ranges dependent on a low, intermediate, or high GHG emissions scenario (IPCC 2021). A rise in sea levels could erode 31 to 67 percent of southern California beaches and cause flooding of approximately 370 miles of coastal highways during 100-year storm events. This would also jeopardize California’s water supply due to saltwater intrusion and induce groundwater flooding and/or exposure of buried infrastructure (State of California 2018). Furthermore, increased storm

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-5
intensity and frequency could affect the ability of flood-control facilities, including levees, to handle storm events.

Agriculture
California has an over $50 billion annual agricultural industry that produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of the country’s fruits and nuts (California Department of Food and Agriculture 2020). Higher CO2 levels can stimulate plant production and increase plant water- use efficiency. However, if temperatures rise and drier conditions prevail, certain regions of agricultural production could experience water shortages of up to 16 percent, which would increase water demand as hotter conditions lead to the loss of soil moisture. In addition, crop yield could be threatened by water-induced stress and extreme heat waves, and plants may be susceptible to new and changing pest and disease outbreaks (State of California 2018). Temperature increases could also change the time of year certain crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thereby affect their quality (California Climate Change Center 2006).

Ecosystems
Climate change and the potential resultant changes in weather patterns could have ecological effects on the global and local scales. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions as a result of higher temperatures, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Rising temperatures could have four major impacts on plants and animals: timing of ecological events; geographic distribution and range of species; species composition and the incidence of nonnative species within communities; and ecosystem processes, such as carbon cycling and storage (Parmesan 2006; State of California 2018).

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
a. Federal Regulations
Federal GHG Emissions Regulation
The U.S. Supreme Court determined in Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. ([2007] 549 U.S. 05-1120) that the USEPA has the authority to regulate motor vehicle GHG emissions under the federal Clean Air Act. The USEPA issued a Final Rule for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions in October 2009. This Final Rule applies to fossil fuel suppliers, industrial gas suppliers, direct GHG emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and off-road vehicles and vehicle engines and requires annual reporting of emissions. In 2012, the USEPA issued a Final Rule that established the GHG permitting thresholds that determine when Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency (134 Supreme Court 2427 [2014]), the U.S. Supreme Court held the USEPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source can be considered a major source required to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration or Title V permit. The Court also held that Prevention of Significant Deterioration permits otherwise required based on emissions of other pollutants may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-6
In the most recent West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (20-1530 [2022]), the U.S.

Supreme Court held that the USEPA may not regulate emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants using generation shifting3 that was implemented as part of the 2015 Clean Power Plan. The Court held that the USEPA is not permitted, under the Clean Air Act, to implement regulations for power plants that were allowed under the Clean Power Plan. However, the Court upheld EPA’s authority to continue regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector (Supreme Court 2021).

Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient Vehicle Rule
In April 2020, EPA and NHTSA issued the Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, which required automakers to improve fuel efficiency 1.5 percent annually from model years 2021 through 2026. The SAFE rule also upended State emission programs, and withdrew the waiver for California’s Advanced Clean Cars Program, Zero Emission Vehicle Program (ZEV), and Low-Emission Vehicle Program (LEV). In response, California and other states sued in federal court to challenge the final action on preemption of state vehicle standards. In April 2021, the Biden administration, USEPA, and Department of Transportation began the process of dropping limitations on California’s waiver. In December 2021, NHTSA issued a repealing of the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part One. In March 2022, USEPA did the same, thereby reinstating California’s waiver and the ability of other states to adopt the California standards (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions [C2ES] 2022). b. State Regulations
California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (Assembly Bill 1493) Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 (2002), California’s Advanced Clean Cars program (referred to as “Pavley”), requires CARB to develop and adopt regulations to achieve “the maximum feasible and cost- effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” On June 30, 2009, the U.S. EPA granted the waiver of Clean Air Act preemption to California for its GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, beginning with the 2009 model year, which allows California to implement more stringent vehicle emission standards than those promulgated by the U.S. EPA. Pavley I regulates model years from 2009 to 2016 and Pavley II, now referred to as “LEV (Low Emission Vehicle) III GHG,” regulates model years from 2017 to 2025. The Advanced Clean Cars program coordinates the goals of the LEV, Zero Emissions Vehicles (ZEV), and Clean Fuels Outlet programs and would provide major reductions in GHG emissions. By 2025, the rules will be fully implemented, and new automobiles will emit 34 percent fewer GHGs and 75 percent fewer smog-forming emissions from their model year 2016 levels (CARB 2011).

California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006
California’s major initiative for reducing GHG emissions is outlined in AB 32, the “California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006,” which was signed into law in 2006. AB 32 codifies the statewide goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and requires CARB to prepare a Scoping Plan that outlines the main State strategies for reducing GHGs to meet the 2020 deadline. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations to require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Based on this guidance, CARB approved a 1990 statewide GHG level and 2020 limit of 427 MMT CO 2e. The
Scoping Plan was approved by CARB on December 11, 2008 and included measures to address GHG emission reduction strategies related to energy efficiency, water use, and recycling and solid waste,

3 Switching electricity generation from fossil fuels to clean sources.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-7
among other measures. Many of the GHG reduction measures included in the Scoping Plan (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Advanced Clean Car standards, and Cap-and-Trade) have been adopted since approval of the Scoping Plan.

Senate Bill (SB) 32, si
gned into law on September 8, 2016, extends AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap-and-Trade Program, as well as implementation of recently adopted policies and policies, such as SB 350 and SB 1383 (see below).

The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development.

Instead, it recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with statewide per capita goals of 6 MT CO 2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050
(CARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State (CARB 2017).

The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan Update has been prepared to assess the progress towards the 2030 target as well as to outline a plan to achieve carbon neutrality no later than 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan Update focuses on outcomes needed to achieve carbon neutrality by assessing paths for clean technology, energy deployment, natural and working lands, and others, and is designed to meet the State’s long-term climate objectives and support a range of economic, environmental, energy security, environmental justice, and public health priorities (CARB 2022).

Executive Order S-3-05
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emission targets for the state. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80 percent below the 1990 level by 2050.

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program (Senate Bill 100) Adopted on September 10, 2018, SB 100 supports the reduction of GHG emissions from the electricity sector by accelerating the State’s Renewables Portfolio Standard Program, which was last updated by SB 350 in 2015. SB 100 requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045.

Senate Bill 375
SB 375, signed in August 2008, enhances the State’s ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. SB 375 directs each of the State’s 18 major Metropolitan Planning Organizations to prepare a “sustainable communities strategy” (SCS) that contains a growth strategy to meet these emission targets for inclusion in the Regional Transportation Plan. On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. ABAG was

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-8
assigned targets of a 10 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in GHGs from transportation sources by 2035. In the ABAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements.

PRC Division 30 Part 3 Chapter 13.1 and Health and Safety Code Sections 39730.5-8 (Senate Bill 1383)
Adopted in September 2016, SB 1383 requires the CARB to approve and begin implementing a comprehensive strategy to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. The bill requires the strategy to achieve the following reduction targets by 2030:

Methane – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Hydrofluorocarbons – 40 percent below 2013 levels
Anthropogenic black carbon – 50 percent below 2013 levels The bill also requires the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with CARB, to adopt regulations that achieve specified targets for reducing organic waste in landfills.

Executive Order B-55-18
On September 10, 2018, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-55-18, which established a new statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality by 2045 and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. This goal is in addition to the existing statewide GHG reduction targets established by SB 375, SB 32, SB 1383, and SB 100.

Executive Order N-79-20
On September 23, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-79-20, which established the following new statewide goals:
 All new passenger cars and trucks sold in-state to be zero-emission by 2035;  All medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in the state to be zero-emission by 2045 for all operations where feasible and by 2035 for drayage trucks; and
 All off-road vehicles and equipment to be zero-emission by 2035 where feasible.

EO N-79-20 directs CARB, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the CEC, the California Department of Transportation, and other state agencies to take steps toward drafting regulations and strategies and leveraging agency resources toward achieving these goals.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 341) The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, as modified by AB 341, requires each jurisdiction’s source reduction and recycling element to include an implementation schedule that shows: diversion of 25 percent of all solid waste by January 1, 1995, through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities; diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste on and after January 1, 2000; and diversion of 75 percent of all solid waste by 2020, and annually thereafter. CalRecycle is required to develop strategies to implement AB 341, including source reduction.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-9
California Building Standards Code
The California Code of Regulations, Title 24, is referred to as the California Building Code. It consists of a compilation of several distinct standards and codes related to building construction including plumbing, electrical, interior acoustics, energy efficiency, handicap accessibility, and so on. The California Building Code’s energy efficiency and green building standards are outlined below.

Part 6 – Building Energy Efficiency Standards
CCR Title 24, Part 6 is the Building Energy Efficiency Standards or California Energy Code. This code, originally enacted in 1978, establishes energy-efficiency standards for residential and non- residential buildings in order to reduce California’s energy demand. New construction and major renovations must demonstrate their compliance with the current Energy Code through submittal and approval of a Title 24 Compliance Report to the local building permit review authority and the California Energy Commission (CEC). The 2019 Title 24 standards are the applicable building energy efficiency standards for the project because they became effective on January 1, 2020 (CEC 2018). 2022 Building Energy Standards will become effective at the beginning of 2023 and improve upon the 2019 standards. It will include several amendments including revisions to residential energy efficiency standards for solar photovoltaic systems, establish requirements that mixed fuel buildings are electric ready, enhancements of requirements for duct sealing and ventilation, among others (CEC 2021).

Part 11 – California Green Building Standards
The California Green Building Standards Code, referred to as CALGreen, was added to Title 24 as Part 11 first in 2009 as a voluntary code, which then became mandatory effective January 1, 2011 (as part of the 2010 California Building Code). The 2016 CALGreen institutes mandatory minimum environmental performance standards for all ground-up new construction of non-residential and residential structures. It also includes voluntary tiers (I and II) with stricter environmental performance standards for these same categories of residential and non-residential buildings. Local jurisdictions must enforce the minimum mandatory Green Building Standards and may adopt additional amendments for stricter requirements.

The mandatory standards require the following practices:
20 percent reduction in indoor water use relative to specified baseline levels 50 percent construction/demolition waste diverted from landfills Inspections of energy systems to ensure optimal working efficiency Use of low pollutant emitting exterior and interior finish materials such as paints, carpets, vinyl flooring, and particleboards
Implementation of dedicated circuitry to facilitate installation of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in newly constructed attached garages for single-family and duplex dwellings Installation of EV charging stations at least three percent of the parking spaces for all new multi- family developments with 17 or more units
The voluntary standards require the following:

Tier I—15 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 65 percent reduction in construction waste, 10 percent

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-10
recycled content, 20 percent permeable paving, 20 percent cement reduction, cool/solar reflective roof
Tier II—30 percent improvement in energy requirements, stricter water conservation requirements for specific fixtures, 75 percent reduction in construction waste, 15 percent recycled content, 30 percent permeable paving, and 30 percent cement reduction, cool/solar reflective roof
Similar to the compliance reporting procedure for demonstrating Building Energy Efficiency Standards compliance in new buildings and major renovations, compliance with the CALGreen water-reduction requirements must be demonstrated through completion of water use reporting forms for new low-rise residential and non-residential buildings. Buildings must demonstrate a 20 percent reduction in indoor water use by either showing a 20 percent reduction in the overall baseline water use as identified in CALGreen or a reduced per-plumbing-fixture water use rate. c. Regional and Local Regulations
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
In 2013, the BAAQMD adopted resolution no. 2013-11, “Resolution Adopting a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goal and Commitment to Develop a Regional Climate Protection Strategy” that builds on state and regional climate protection efforts by (BAAQMD 2013):

Setting a goal for the Bay Area region to reduce GHG emissions by 2050 to 80 percent below 1990 levels
Developing a Regional Climate Protection Strategy to make progress towards the 2050 goal, using BAAQMD’s Clean Air Plan to initiate the process
Developing a 10-point work program to guide the BAAQMD’s climate protection activities in the near-term
The BAAQMD is currently developing the Regional Climate Protection Strategy and has outlined the 10-point work program, which includes policy approaches, assistance to local governments, and technical programs that will help the region make progress toward the 2050 GHG emissions goal.

The BAAQMD is responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources in its jurisdiction, including the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basins and the City of Piedmont. The BAAQMD regulates GHG emissions through specific rules and regulations, as well as project and plan level emissions thresholds for GHGs to ensure that new land use development in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin contributes to its fair share of emissions reductions (BAAQMD 2017).

Plan Bay Area 2050
Plan Bay Area 2050 is a state-mandated, integrated long-range transportation, land-use, and housing plan that would support a growing economy, provide more housing and transportation choices and reduce transportation-related pollution in the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area (MTC/ABAG 2021). The SCS builds on earlier efforts to develop an efficient transportation network and grow in a financially and environmentally responsible way. Plan Bay Area 2050 focuses on advancing equity and improving resiliency in the Bay Area by creating strategies in the following four elements: Housing, Economy, Transportation, and Environment. The Plan discusses how the future is uncertain due to anticipated employment growth, lack of housing options, and outside forces, such as climate change and economic turbulence. These uncertainties will impact growth in

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-11
the Bay Area and exacerbate issues for those who are historically and systemically marginalized and underserved and excluded. Thus, Plan Bay Area 2050 has created strategies and considered investments that will serve those systemically underserved communities and provide equitable opportunities. The Plan presents a total of 35 strategies to outline how the $1.4 trillion dollar investment would be utilized. The strategies include, but are not limited to, the following: providing affordable housing, allowing higher-density in proximity to transit-corridors, optimizing the existing roadway network, creating complete streets, providing subsidies for public transit, reducing climate emissions, and expanding open space area. Bringing these strategies to fruition will require participation by agencies, policymakers, and the public. An implementation plan is also included as part of the Plan to assess the requirements needed to carry out the strategies, identify the roles of pertinent entities, create an appropriate method to implement the strategies, and create a timeline for implementation (ABAG/MTC 2021).

City of Berkeley General Plan
The City of Berkeley’s General Plan, adopted in April 2001, includes the following applicable policies and actions as part of the Environmental Management Element and Transportation Element that support the goal of reducing GHG emissions (City of Berkeley 2001):

Policy EM-5: “Green” Buildings Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards
Policy EM-7: Reduced Wastes Continue to reduce solid and hazardous wastes.

Policy EM-8: Building Reuse and Construction Waste Encourage rehabilitation and reuse of buildings whenever appropriate and feasible in order to reduce waste, conserve resources and energy, and reduce construction costs.

Policy EM-18: Regional Air Quality Action Continue working with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and other regional agencies to:

1. Improve air quality through pollution prevention methods.

2. Ensure enforcement of air emission standards.

3. Reduce local and regional traffic (the single largest source of air pollution in the city) and promote public transit.

4. Promote regional air pollution prevention plans for business and industry.

5. Promote strategies to reduce particulate pollution from residential fireplaces and wood- burning stoves.

6. Locate parking appropriately and provide adequate signage to reduce unnecessary "circling" and searching for parking.

Policy EM-19: 15 percent Emission Reduction Global Warming Plan Make efforts to reduce local emissions by 15% by the year 2010.

Policy EM-35: Energy-Efficient Design Promote high-efficiency design and technologies that provide cost-effective methods to conserve energy and use renewable energy sources.

Policy EM-41: Fossil Fuel Encourage and support efforts to reduce use of fossil fuel and other finite, nonrenewable resources.

Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design. Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-12
Policy T-10: Trip Reduction To reduce automobile traffic and congestion and increase transit use and alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when appropriate require, programs to encourage Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce automobile trips, such as:

1. Participation in a citywide Eco-Pass Pr ogr
am (also see Transportation Policy T-3).

2. Participation in the Commuter Check Program.

3. Carpooling and provision of carpool parking and other necessary facilities.

4. Telecommuting programs.

5. "Free bicycle" programs and electric bicycle programs.

6. "Car-sharing" programs.

7. Use of pedal-cab, bicycle delivery services, and other delivery services.

8. Programs to encourage neighborhood-level initiatives to reduce traffic by encouraging residents to combine trips, carpool, telecommute, reduce the number of cars owned, shop locally, and use alternative modes.

9. Programs to reward Berkeley citizens and neighborhoods that can document reduced car use.

10. Limitations on the supply of long-term commuter parking and elimination of subsidies for commuter parking.

11. No-fare shopper shuttles connecting all shopping districts throughout the city.

Policy T-43: Bicycle Network Develop a safe, convenient, and continuous network of bikeways that serves the needs of all types of bicyclists, and provide bicycle-parking facilities to promote cycling.

City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan
The City of Berkeley adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2009 with the goal of reducing communitywide GHG emissions by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The core recommendation strategies and actions of the CAP center around the following topics (City of Berkeley 2009):

Sustainable Transportation and Land Use
Building Energy Use
Waste Reduction and Recycling
Community Outreach and Empowerment
Preparing for Climate Change Impacts
While the CAP is not considered a “qualified greenhouse gas reduction plan” for the purposes of streamlining GHG emissions analysis under CEQA, it is actively used by the City for guiding GHG emission reduction efforts. Since publication of the CAP, the City has outlined several additional climate commitments:
 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035
 Net-Zero Carbon Emissions by 2045, in alignment with Governor Brown’s Executive Order B-55- 18  Declared a Climate Emergency and resolved to become a Fossil Fuel Free City

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-13
Berkeley Resilience Strategy
In 2016, the City released its Resilience Strategy to advance the City’s resilience, or the ability of the individuals, institutions, businesses, and systems within the community to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what chronic stress or acute shock it experiences. Berkeley’s interconnected resilience challenges include earthquakes, wildfires, climate change impacts such as drought and flooding, and racial inequity. The City’s Resilience Strategy emphasizes building community resilience by facilitating stronger connections between neighbors; between public, private, nonprofit, and academic institutions; between departments within the City government; and between Bay Area local and regional governments. The six goals of the Resilience Strategy are (City of Berkeley 2016):

Build a Connected and Prepared Community
Accelerate Access to Reliable and Clean Energy
Adapt to the Changing Climate
Advance Racial Equity
Excel at Working Together within City Government to Better Serve the Community Build Regional Resilience
Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings In 2019, the Berkeley City Council added Chapter 12.80 to the BMC via Ordinance No. 7,672-N.S., which prohibits the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. In limited circumstances, the Ordinance allows the entitling body to grant an exception or a public interest exemption.

Electric Mobility Roadmap
In July 2020, the City adopted its first Electric Mobility Roadmap, which outlines the City’s plan to implement its vision of a fossil fuel-free transportation system that integrates with and supports the City’s ongoing efforts to increase walking, biking, and public transportation use in Berkeley and ensures equitable and affordable access to the benefits of clean transportation. The Electric Mobility Roadmap includes strategies to increase electric vehicle charging stations in new and existing development, provide public electric vehicle charging on City properties, advance electric bus rapid transit routes, electrify shared transportation fleets and private fleets, and increase the share of electric vehicle charging powered by 100 percent renewable energy (City of Berkeley 2020).

4.7.3 Impact Analysis
a. Thresholds of Significance
To determine whether a project would result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines requires consideration of whether a project would:

Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs.

Individual projects do not generate enough GHG emissions to create significant project-specific environment effects. However, the environmental effects of a project’s GHG emissions can

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-14
contribute incrementally to cumulative environmental effects that are significant, contributing to climate change, even if an individual project’s environmental effects are limited (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]). The issue of a project’s environmental effects and contribution towards climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards climate change is cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]).

CEQA Guidelines Sect
ion 15064.4 recommends that lead agencies quantify GHG emissions of projects and consider several other factors that may be used in the determination of significance of GHG emissions from a project, including the extent to which the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions; whether a project exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and the extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. CEQA G
uidelines Section 15064.4 does not establish a
threshold of significance. Lead agencies have the discretion to establish significance thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, and in establishing those thresholds, a lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, or suggested by other experts, as long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7[c]).

In the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, the BAAQMD outlines an approach to determine the significance of projects. The BAAQMD recommends that lead agencies determine appropriate GHG emissions thresholds of significance based on substantial evidence in the record. The BAAQMD has not established a quantitative significance threshold for evaluating construction-related emissions. Although the BAAQMD adopted new GHG thresholds on April 20, 2022, the Air District Board of Directors stated in the Board resolution that projects and plans with an issued Notice of Preparation (NOP) prior to the adoption of thresholds may continue to use the GHG thresholds included in the 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, with the caveat that the significance thresholds must be based on scientific and factual data and supported by substantial evidence. Since the NOP for this EIR was prepared and distributed prior to the adoption of the updated thresholds, the following significance thresholds established in the BAAQMD 2017 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines for operational GHG emissions from land use development projects within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are used in determining the significance of project-level or plan-level impacts (BAAQMD 2017):

Project-level
Compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy
Annual emissions less than 1,100 MT of CO2e per year
Annual emissions less than 4.6 MT of CO2e per service population (residents and employees) per year
Plan-level
Compliance with a qualified GHG reduction strategy
Annual emissions less than 6.6 MT of CO2e per service population (residents and employees) per year
However, the BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance were established based on achieving the 2020 GHG emission reduction targets set forth in the AB 32 Scoping Plan, and not the 2030 reduction targets of the SB 32 Scoping Plan or the 2045 carbon neutrality goal targets of EO B-55-18.

Therefore, with a project buildout year of 2031, this analysis develops an efficiency threshold for

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-15
2031 in order to determine the significance of the project’s GHG emissions. In the recently signed EO B-55-18, which identifies a new goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 and supersedes the goal established by EO S-3-05, CARB has been tasked with including a pathway toward the EO B-55-18 carbon neutrality goal in the next Scoping Plan update which is currently being drafted. While State and regional regulations of energy and transportation systems, along with the State’s Cap and Trade program, are designed to achieve most of the reductions needed to meet long-term targets, local governments can do their fair share toward meeting the State’s targets by siting and approving projects that accommodate planned population growth that are GHG-efficient. The Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) Climate Change Committee recommends that CEQA GHG analyses evaluate project emissions in light of the trajectory climate change legislation and assess their “substantial progress” toward achieving long‐term reduction targets identified in available plans, legislation, or EOs. Consistent with AEP Climate Change Committee recommendations, GHG impacts that would occur after codified targets are analyzed in terms of whether the project would impede “substantial progress” toward meeting the reduction goal identified in EO B-55-18 (AEP 2016). Avoiding interference with, and making substantial progress toward, these long-term State targets is important as these targets have been set at levels that achieve California’s fair share of international emissions reduction targets that will stabilize global climate change effects and avoid the adverse environmental consequences.

To establish a more appropriate threshold of significance, BAAQMD’s plan-level efficiency threshold of 6.6 MT CO
2e per service population per year was first reduced to the SB 32’s codified 2030 target of 40 percent below 1990 emissions, which would result in a threshold of 4.0 MT CO2e per service population per year. The 4.0 MT CO2e per service population per year threshold was then reduced by 0.27 MT CO2e per year to reach 2045’s goal of 0 MT CO2e population per year. Therefore, in the year 2031, this would equate to a 3.7 MT CO2e per service population per year threshold, which is applied to the project.
b. Methodology
GHG emissions for development facilitated by the project (operation) were calculated using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. The model calculates emissions of the following GHGs: CO2, N2O, and CH4, which are combined using each GHGs’ GWP and reported as CO2e. The calculation methodology and input data used in CalEEMod can be found in the CalEEMod User’s Guide Appendices A, D, and E (CAPCOA 2021). GHG emissions include water and solid waste sources and area, energy, and mobile sources. The input data and subsequent operation GHG emission estimates for development facilitated by the project are discussed below and in Section 4.2, Air Quality. Land use types used in the modelling reflect land use types described in Table 4.12-3 (HEU Population Estimates) of Section 4.12, Population and Housing. CalEEMod output files are included in Appendix E.

Construction Emissions
The BAAQMD has not established a quantitative significance threshold for evaluating construction- related emissions. Since construction information is site specific and varies from project to project, construction emissions cannot be qualitatively analyzed over the 8-year timeline of the HEU and therefore are not modelled or included in this EIR.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-16
Operational Emissions
Energy Sources
Emissions from energy use include electricity and natural gas use. The electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include the CEC-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies. CalEEMod currently incorporates California’s 2019 Title 24 building energy efficiency standards.

Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use times the carbon intensity of the utility district per kWh. East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) would serve development facilitated by the project. Because EBCE would be residents default electricity provider, the company’s specific energy intensity factors (i.e., the amount of CO
2, CH4, and N2O per kWh) were used in the
calculations of GHG emissions. Per SB 100, the statewide Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires electricity providers to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy sources to 60 percent by 2030, which EBCE is already in compliance with. EBCE has introduced a Renewable 100 option in 2022 which consists of 100 percent eligible renewable energy resources (EBCE 2022a). However, since customers have the option to opt out of the Renewable 100 program and enroll in the Bright Choice Program which would be supplied by 40 percent renewable energy, energy intensity factors were set to reflect 40 percent renewable energy for a conservative analysis.

Although customers also have the option to select PG&E as their electricity provider, this analysis assumes EBCE as the main provider since the Berkeley City Council voted to set the default electricity option for residents to EBCE’s Renewable 100 (EBCE 2022b). In accordance with Section 150.1(c)(14) of the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, development facilitated by the project would be required to install PV systems on all low-rise residential structures up to three stories equal to the expected electricity usage. As a conservative analysis, CalEEMod assumes that only single-family uses would include PV systems, even though solar PV systems will be required on most new residential structures.

Pursuant to Chapter 12.80 of the BMC, which prohibits the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings unless granted an exception or public interest exception, it was assumed that 10 percent of new development would include natural gas connections/appliances for a conservative estimate of the project’s impacts. To account for the increased electricity usage that would occur in all-electric units, it was assumed that 90 percent of the natural gas demand estimated for the project in the GHG modeling would instead by supplied by electricity.

Area Sources
Emissions associated with area sources, including space and water heating, consumer products, landscape maintenance, and architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and use standard emission rates from CARB, USEPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CAPCOA Software 2021).

Waste Sources
GHG emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste (CAPCOA Software 2021). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by CalRecycle.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-17
Water and Wastewater Sources
GHG emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the electricity intensity from the CEC’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California using the average values for northern and southern California. A 20 percent reduction in indoor potable water use was incorporated in the model in accordance with CALGreen standards.

Mobile Sources
Mobile source emissions are generated by the increase in vehicle trips to and from the housing inventory sites associated with operation of onsite development. Vehicle trips were calculated using default CalEEMod trip generation rates. Mobile emissions also assumed 2031 fleet mixes and emission factors, as this is the year in which the project’s development is analyzed against GHG reduction goals.
c. Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact GHG-1 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY GENERATE GHG EMISSIONS THAT WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE PROJECT WOULD NOT EXCEED BAAQMD 2031 INTERPOLATED THRESHOLDS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Table 4.7-1 shows the operational GHG emissions associated with development facilitated by the pro
posed HEU. As shown therein, annual emissions from full buildout of the project’s envisioned increase of 19,098 dwe
lling units over existing conditions would be 81,985 MT of CO2e per year.

With a project increase in population of 47,773 over existing conditions, this would result in an increase of 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year. The relatively low annual emissions from the project are mostly due to Berkeley’s natural gas ban and the electrification of buildings, coupled with EBCE’s sourcing of renewable energy under the Bright Choice and Renewable 100 programs, which would decrease GHG emissions from energy sources. The project’s 1.7 MT of CO2e per service population per year would not exceed the BAAQMD’s interpolated 2031 target of 3.7 MT CO2e per service population at the plan-level. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.7-1 Operational GHG Emissions
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
Operational
Area 237
Energy 8,506
Mobile 67,670
Waste 4,463
Water 1,109
Operational Total 81,985
Project Population Increase 47,443
MT of CO2e per Service Population 1.7

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-18
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT of CO2e)
BAAQMD Interpolated Plan-level 2031 T arget 3.7
Exceed BAAQMD Targets? No
Source: Appendix E
Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required.

Threshold: Woul d the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Impact GHG-2 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT CONFLICT WITH GHG REDUCTION GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE 2017 SCOPING PLAN, PLAN BAY AREA 2050, THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN, OR THE CITY’S CAP. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

The proposed HEU was evaluated for consistency with applicable State and local plans that were developed with the intent of reducing GHG emissions. Each applicable plan is discussed separately below.
2017 Scoping Plan
Development facilitated by the proposed HEU would be consistent with these goals through project design, which includes complying with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Efficiency Energy Standards. Development facilitated by the project would be required to install PV systems on all low-rise residential structures up to three stories equal to the expected electricity usage system per the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards and energy efficient design and construction per CALGreen. Policy H-16 of the HEU aims to encourage residential development in proximity to transit, jobs and services. As discussed in Impact AQ-1 of Section 4.2, Air Quality, the net percentage VMT increase associated with the proposed project (approximately 23 percent) would be less than the net percentage population increase (approximately 41 percent). Therefore, on a per population basis, it would have the effect of reducing vehicle trips and therefore GHG emissions associated with fossil fuel use. Further, most of the housing inventory sites are located near transit corridors, BART stations, and in Priority Development Areas such as the Southside Plan Area, which would reduce reliance on personal vehicles. This supports 2017 Scoping Plan goals for the encouragement of alternative transportation use and VMT reduction. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan.

Plan Bay Area 2050
The strategies from Plan Bay Area 2050 related to GHG emissions and applicable to the project are shown in Table 4.7-2. As shown in Table 4.7-2, the project would be consistent with the key goals and strategies of Plan Bay Area 2050.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-19
Table 4.7-2 Project Consistency with Plan Bay Area 2050 Measure Project Consistency
T8. Build a Complete Streets network. Enhan ce
streets to promote walking, biking and other
micro-mobility through sidewalk improvements,
car-free slow streets, and 10,000 miles of bike
lanes or multi-use paths.

Consistent. As shown in Figure 2-4 of the Project Description (Housing Element Update Sites Inventory Locations), most of the housing inventory sites are generally located along or near transportation corridors served by Class II and Class III bicycle lanes, which would encourage the usage of bicycles and reduce reliance of single-occupancy vehicles. Additionally, the City has over 2,660 short-term bicycle parking spaces as well as bike corrals, lockers, and a bike station adjacent to the Downtown Berkeley BART station which future residents could utilize (City of Berkeley 2017). Since the project would facilitate development mostly near transit corridors, BART stations, and Priority Development Areas such as the Southside Plan Area, University Avenue Plan Area, Adeline Corridor Plan Area, and Berkeley’s Downtown Area, it would place residents within walking distance to services (commercial, retail, restaurants) and transit, which would promote walking as one of the main forms of mobility.

EN4. Maintain urban growth boundaries. Using
urban growth boundaries and other existing
environmental protections, focus new
development within the existing urban footprint or
areas otherwise suitable for growth, as established
by local jurisdictions.

Consistent. The project would facilitate development of housing on vacant and/or underutilized sites within Berkeley’s urban footprint and mostly near transit corridors, BART stations, and Priority Development Areas such as the Southside Plan Area, University Avenue Plan Area, South Shattuck Plan Area, and Berkeley’s Downtown Area. By placing residents close to jobs and alternative methods of transportation, the project would reduce GHG emissions and other criteria pollutants associated with vehicle use to help communities stay healthy and safe.

EN8. Expand clean vehicle initiatives. Expand
investments in clean vehicles, including more fuel-
efficient vehicles and electric vehicle subsidies and
chargers.

Consistent. Future development facilitated by the project would be required to comply with EV requirements pursuant to BMC Section 19.37.040, which currently requires 20 percent of parking spaces to be electric vehicle charging spaces capable of supporting future electric vehicle chargers and 80 percent of parking spaces to include raceways to facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment at all new multi-family developments; and for new one- and two-family dwelling units to accommodate a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit for a future EV charger.

Source: ABAG 2021
City of Berkeley General Plan
The Environmental Management Element and Urban Design and Preservation Element of the Berkeley General Plan contains policies and actions aimed at reducing GHG emissions. As shown in Table 4.7-3, the proposed project would be consistent with these policies and actions.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-20
Table 4.7-3 City of Berkeley General Plan Consistency for GHG Emissions General Plan Policy or Action Consistency
Environmental Management Element
Policy EM-5 Green Buildings. Promote and encourage
compliance with “green” building standards.

Actions:

A. Encourage, and where appropriate require, new
construction and major remodel projects to be sited,
designed, constructed, and operated to enhance the
well-being of their occupants, and to minimize
present and future impacts on the community and
the natural environment
B. Encourage landscaping for water and energy
efficiency.

C. Encourage buildings to incorporate renewable
energy and energy- and water-efficient
technologies.

D. Encourage use of recycled-content construction
materials.

E. Encourage efforts to improve indoor air quality and
to provide a comfortable and healthy environment.

F. Encourage reduction of construction and demolition
waste.

G. Encourage construction of durable buildings.

H. Establish a green design assistance and green
building certification program.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments, which include green building practices. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric per the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and
exceptions), which would reduce consumption of
nonrenewable energy resources. HEU Policy H-13 would
also ensure energy efficiency in new buildings in order to reduce energy costs and GHGs.

Policy EM-8 Building Reuse and Construction Waste.

Encourage rehabilitation and reuse of buildings whenever appropriate and feasible in order to reduce waste,
conserve resources and energy, and reduce construction
costs.

Actions:

A. Encourage the reuse of demolition materials and
recycling of construction scraps.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed HEU would be required to divert at least 65 percent of
construction and demolition debris pursuant to the
requirements of CALGreen. In addition, projects would also be subject to BMC Chapter 19.37, which requires diversion of 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste, and recycling and salvage of 100 percent of excavated soil and land-clearing debris, 100 percent of concrete, and 100 percent of asphalt during construction and demolition
activities.

Policy EM-35 Energy-Efficient Design. Promote high-
efficiency design and technologies that provide cost-
effective methods to conserve energy and use renewable
energy sources.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments, which include requirements for the use of energy-efficient design and technologies as well as provisions for incorporating
renewable energy resources into building design. New
construction would be required to be all electric pursuant to the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited
exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce
consumption of nonrenewable energy resources.

Additionally, HEU Policy H-13 would ensure energy
efficiency and waste reduction in all development facilitated under the project.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-21
General Plan Policy or Action Consistency
Policy EM-41 Fossil Fuel. Encourage and support efforts to reduce use of fossil fuel and other finite,
nonrenewable resources.

Consistent: New construction facilitated under the project would be required to be all electric pursuant to the
requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited
exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce
consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. In
addition, most housing inventory sites would be located near transportation corridors in proximity to alternative transportation modes such as BART and buses, thereby
supporting efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels by motor vehicles. In addition, implementation of the City’s Electric Mobility Roadmap (2020) and the electric vehicle charging infrastructure requirements of BMC Chapters 19.36 and

19.37 would facilitate future residents’ use of electric vehicles powered by renewable energy resources, which
would further reduce consumption of fossil fuels.

Urban Design and Preservation Element
Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design. Promote
environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings.

Actions:

A. Promote compliance with green building standards
for solar accessibility and orientation, energy
efficiency, etc.

B. Encourage use of recycled building materials.

C. Establish guidelines that will help to integrate
environmentally sensitive and sustainable designs
into the built environment.

Consistent: Future development under the proposed HEU
would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen and the California Energy Code, which include environmentally sensitive and sustainable design practices. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric pursuant to the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and
exceptions), which would reduce consumption of
nonrenewable energy resources.

Source: City of Berkeley General Plan
City of Berkeley Climate Action Plan
The City’s CAP contains 30 goals to reduce communitywide and municipal GHG emissions in order to achieve the City’s target of reducing emissions by 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The measures included in the CAP cover the main sectors of GHG emissions including transportation and land use, building energy usage, and waste reduction and recycling. The measures applicable to the project are summarized in Table 4.7-4. As shown therein, the project would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction measures in the City’s CAP.

Table 4.7-4 Project Consistency with Applicable Climate Action Plan Measures Recommended Goals Project Consistency
Sustainable Transportation and Land Use
Goal 1: Increase density along transit
corridors.

Consistent: The project would facilitate increased housing density within housing inventory sites along the City’s major transit corri dors
such as Shattuck Avenue, Cedar Street, and San Pablo Avenue. The project also envisions dense residential development at BART stations and in Priority Development Areas such as the Southside Plan Area, University Avenue Plan Area, South Shattuck Plan Area, and Berkeley’s Downtown Area.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-22
Recommended Goals Project Consistency
Goal 2: Increase and enhance urban green
and open space, including local food
production, to improve the health and
quality of life for residents, protect
biodiversity, conserve natural resources,
and foster walking and cycling.

Consistent: The project would facilitate development in the existing urban footprint of Berkeley, targeting vacant and/or underutilized sites and the Southside Plan Area. By facilitating housing near transit corridors and Priority Development Areas, the project would also encourage reduced reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and promote walking and bicycling to services and transit. Therefore, the project would not adversely impact existing urban green and open space and would foster walking and bicycling.

Goal 8: Encourage the use of low-carbon
vehicles and fuels.

Consistent: Deve lopment facilitated under the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of the most recent iteration of CALGreen and the City’s associated amendments, which includes provisions for electric vehicle charging infrastructure. For example, as of 2020, BMC Chapter 19.37 requires 20 percent of parking spaces for new multi-family residential developments to be capable of supporting electric vehicle chargers and the remaining 80 percent of parking spaces to have raceways to facilitate future electric vehicle supply equipment.

Building Energy Use
Goal 1: Make green building business- as-
usu
al in the new construction & remodel
market.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be required to be constructed in accordance with the latest iteration of CALGreen, the California Energy Code, and any locally adopted amendments, which include green building practices. In addition, new construction would be required to be all electric pursuant to the requirements of BMC Section 12.80 (with limited exemptions and exceptions), which would reduce consumption of nonrenewable energy resources. HEU Policy H-13 would also ensure energy efficiency in new buildings in order to reduce energy costs and GHGs.

Goal 4: Increase residential and
commercial renewable energy use.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed project would be automatically enrolled in EBCE’s Renewable 100 service, which provides 100 percent of electricity from eligible renewable energy sources. However, customers have the option to opt out of the Renewable 100 program and enroll in the Bright Choice Program, which would be supplied by 40 percent renewable energy.

Waste Reduction and Recycling
Goal 1: Increase resi dential recycling,
composting, and source reduction.

Consistent: In accordance with the Alameda County Waste Manag
ement Authority Mandatory Recycling Ordinance 2012-01, new multi-family housing projects with five or more units facilitated by the proposed project would be required to provide recycling service for tenants. Furthermore, residents in new multi-family housing developments would be required to separate plant debris from garbage in compliance with the Alameda County Waste Management Authority Plant Debris Landfill Ban Ordinance 2008-01. Future tenants and residents would also have the opportunity to dispose of food waste through the City’s residential plant debris and food waste collection service, which
would ensure compliance with SB 1383.

Goal 3: Increase recycling of construction
& demolition (C&D) debris.

Consistent: Future development facilitated by the proposed HEU would be required to divert at least 65 percent of construction and demolition debris pursuant to the requirements of CALGreen. In addition, projects would also be subject to BMC Chapter 19.37, which requires diversion of 65 percent diversion of construction/demolition waste, and recycling and salvage of 100 percent of excavated soil and land-clearing debris, 100 percent of concrete, and 100 percent of asphalt during construction and demolition activities.

Source: City of Berkeley 2009

Environmental Impact Analysis
Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.7-23
Summary
As described above, the proposed HEU would be consistent with 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, City of Berkeley General Plan, and the City’s CAP. Therefore, the proposed HEU would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures
This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation measures would be required. d. Cumulative Impacts
The impact of GHG emissions generated by development facilitated by the proposed HEU is inherently cumulative. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from any project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions, which is the basis for determining a significant cumulative impact. This is determined through the project’s consistency with applicable GHG emission thresholds and applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. As discussed under Impact GHG-1, GHG emissions from development facilitated by the project would not exceed the BAAQMD interpolated 2031 plan-level threshold. In addition, development facilitated by the project would be consistent with the 2017 Scoping Plan, Plan Bay Area 2050, City General Plan, and the City CAP. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant cumulative impact related to GHG emissions.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.7-24

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-1

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section evaluates the potential impacts associated with exposure to hazards and hazardous materials from implementation of the proposed HEU. This analysis consists of a summary of the existing conditions in Berkeley, the hazard and hazardous materials regulatory framework, and a discussion of the potential hazardous impacts from development on inventory sites and throughout Berkeley. Potential hazards associated with wildland fires are discussed in Section 4.17, Wildfire.

4.8.1 Setting
a. Definition of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste The term “hazardous material” has different definitions for different regulatory programs. For the purpose of this EIR, the term “hazardous materials” refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The California Health and Safety Code Section 25501(n)(1) defines a hazardous material as any material that “because of its quantity, concentrations, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment.” Hazardous materials include but are not limited to hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material that a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or environment.

A material is hazardous if it exhibits one or more of the following characteristics: toxicity, ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. These types of hazardous materials are defined below:
 Toxic Substances. Toxic substances may cause short-term or long-lasting health effects, ranging from temporary effects to permanent disability, or even death. For example, such substances can cause disorientation, acute allergic reactions, asphyxiation, skin irritation, or other adverse health effects if human exposure exceeds certain levels (the level depends on the substances involved and is chemical-specific). Carcinogens, substances that can cause cancer, are a special class of toxic substances. Examples of toxic substances include benzene (a component of gasoline and suspected carcinogen) and methylene chloride (a common laboratory solvent and a suspected carcinogen).
 Ignitable Substances. Ignitable substances are hazardous because of their ability to burn.

Gasoline, hexane, and natural gas are examples of ignitable substances.  Corrosive Materials. Corrosive materials can cause severe burns. Corrosives include strong acids and bases such as sodium hydroxide (lye) or sulfuric acid (battery acid).  Reactive Materials. Reactive materials may cause explosions or generate toxic gases. Explosives, pure sodium or potassium metals (which react violently with water), and cyanides are examples of reactive materials.

Soil and groundwater can become contaminated by hazardous material releases in a variety of ways, including permitted or illicit use and accidental or intentional disposal or spillage. Before the 1980s, most land disposal of chemicals was unregulated, resulting in numerous industrial properties and public landfills becoming dumping grounds for unwanted chemicals. The largest and most contaminated of these sites became Superfund sites, so named for their eligibility to receive cleanup money from a federal fund established under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The National Priorities List (NPL) is the list of national

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-2
priorities among the known releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United States and its territories. The NPL is intended primarily to guide the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in determining which sites warrant further investigation. Sites are added to the NPL following a hazard ranking system.

Numerous smaller properties have been designated as contaminated sites. Often these are gas station sites where leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) were upgraded under a federal requirement in the late 1980s. Another category of sites that may have some overlap with the types already mentioned is “brownfields” – previously used, often abandoned, sites that due to actual or suspected contamination are undeveloped or underused. Both the USEPA and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) maintain lists of known brownfields sites. These sites are often difficult to inventory due to their owners’ reluctance to publicly label their property as potentially contaminated.
b. Existing Hazardous Materials Sites
The locations where hazardous materials are used, stored, treated and/or disposed of comes to the attention of regulatory agencies through various means, including licensing and permitting, enforcement actions, and anonymous tips. To the extent possible, the locations of these businesses and operations are recorded in database lists maintained by various State, Federal, and local regulatory agencies. In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies enforce regulations applicable to hazardous waste generators and users. The Alameda County Department of Environmental Health Hazardous Materials Division. This Division created the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) Program which is designed to prevent or minimize harm to public health and the environment from a release or threatened release of a hazardous material.

Permitted uses of hazardous materials include those facilities that use hazardous materials or handle hazardous wastes in accordance with current hazardous materials and hazardous waste regulations. The use and handling of hazardous materials from these sites is considered low risk, although there can be instances of unintentional chemical releases. In such cases, the site would be tracked in the environmental databases as an environmental case. Permitted sites without documented releases are, nevertheless, potential sources of hazardous materials in the soil and/or groundwater due to accidental spills, incidental leakage, or spillage that may have gone undetected.

Some facilities are permitted for more than one hazardous material use and, therefore, could appear in more than one database.

The potential to encounter hazardous materials in soil and groundwater in Berkeley is generally based on a search of Federal, State, and local regulatory databases that identify permitted hazardous materials uses, environmental cases, and spill sites. The DTSC EnviroStor database contains information on properties in California where hazardous substances have been released or where the potential for a release exists. The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database contains information on properties in California for sites that require cleanup, such as leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, which may impact, or have potential impacts, to water quality, with emphasis on groundwater.

According to databases of hazardous material sites maintained by the DTSC (EnviroStor) and the SWRCB (GeoTracker), Berkeley has the following types of hazardous sites that are still active or need further investigation: voluntary cleanup, corrective action, and tiered permit (DTSC 2022; SWRCB 2021). These sites are dispersed throughout Berkeley.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-3
Existing sites that may potentially contain hazardous land uses in Berkeley include large and small- quantity generators of hazardous waste, such as dry cleaners, gas stations and other industrial uses.

According to DTSC and SWRCB, there are 361 open sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination located within Berkeley, there are 60 open sites, including three sites in need of evaluation, forty-three cleanup program sites, and five active voluntary cleanup sites. Figure 4.8-1 shows the hazardous material sites within Berkeley.

Use, Transport, and Abatement of Hazardous Materials
The use of hazardous materials is typically associated with industrial land uses. Activities such as manufacturing, plating, cleaning, refining, and finishing, frequently involve chemicals that are considered hazardous when accidentally released into the environment.

To a lesser extent, hazardous materials may also be used by various commercial enterprises, as well as residential uses. In particular, dry cleaners use cleaning agents considered to be hazardous materials. Hardware stores typically stock paints and solvents, as well as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. Swimming pool supply stores stock acids, algaecides, and caustic agents. Most commercial businesses occasionally use commonly available cleaning supplies that, when used in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations, are considered safe by the State of California, but when not handled properly can be considered hazardous. Private residences also use and store commonly available cleaning materials, paints, solvents, swimming pool and spa chemicals, as well as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides.

If improperly handled, hazardous materials can result in public health hazards through human contact with contaminated soils or groundwater, or through airborne releases in vapors, fumes, or dust. There is also the potential for accidental or unauthorized releases of hazardous materials that would pose a public health concern. The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes are required to occur in accordance with Federal, State, and local regulations. In accordance with such regulations, the transport of hazardous materials and wastes can only occur with transporters who have received training and appropriate licensing. Additionally, hazardous waste transporters are required to complete and carry a hazardous waste manifest, which includes forms, reports, and procedures designed to seamlessly track hazardous waste. c. Asbestos Containing Materials
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was widely used in structures built between 1945 and 1978 for its fireproofing and insulating properties. Asbestos-containing materials (ACM) were banned by USEPA between the early 1970s and 1991 under the authority of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) due to their harmful health effects.

Exposure to asbestos increases risk of developing lung disease, such as lung cancer, mesothelioma, or asbestosis (USEPA 2021a). Common ACMs include vinyl flooring and associated mastic, wallboard and associate joint compound, plaster, stucco, acoustic ceiling spray, ceiling tiles, heating system components, and roofing materials. Pre-1973 commercial and industrial structures are affected by asbestos regulations if damage occurs, or if remodeling, renovation, or demolition activities disturb ACMs.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-4
Figure 4.8-1 Known Hazardous Material Sites in Berkeley

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-5
d. Lead and Lead-Based Paint
Lead is a naturally occurring metallic element. Because of its toxic properties, lead is regulated as a hazardous material. Excessive exposure to lead can result in the accumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because it is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Lead can affect almost every organ and system in the body. In children, lead can cause behavior and learning problems, lower IQ and hyperactivity, hearing problems, and anemia. In adults, lead can cause cardiovascular effects, decreased kidney function, and reproductive problems. In addition, lead can result in serious effects to the developing fetus and infant for pregnant women (USEPA 2021b). Among its numerous uses and sources, lead can be found in paint, water pipes, solder in plumbing systems, and in soils surrounding buildings and structures that are painted with lead-based paint (LBP). LBP was primarily used during the same time period as ACMs. Pre-1978 commercial and industrial structures are affected by LBP regulations if the paint is in a deteriorated condition or if remodeling, renovation, or demolition activities disturb LBP surfaces. e. Schools
School locations require consideration because children are particularly sensitive to hazardous materials exposure. Additional protective regulations apply to projects that could use or disturb potentially hazardous products near or at schools. The California Public Resources Code requires projects that would be located within a quarter mile of a school and might reasonably be expected to emit or handle hazardous materials to consult with the school district regarding potential hazards. There are 21 schools located within Berkeley. As shown in Figure 4.8-2, 122 sites that were identified as Housing Opportunity Sites in the Housing Element are within a 0.25 mile radius of existing schools and childcare facilities.

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials and waste can pose a potential hazard to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Federal, State, and local programs that regulate the use, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste are in place to prevent unwanted consequences. These regulatory programs are designed to reduce the risk that hazardous substances may pose to people and businesses under normal daily circumstances and as a result emergencies and disasters. a. Federal Regulations
Primary Federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the USEPA, U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). The major laws enforced by these agencies are described below.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-6
Figure 4.8-2 Hazardous Material Sites within 0.25 mile of a School

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-7
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
These acts established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. Among other things, the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes was specifically prohibited by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act.

Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations Governed by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development, regulations for LBP are contained in the Lead-Based Paint Elimination Final Rule 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 33, which requires sellers and lessors to disclose known LBP and LBP hazards to perspective purchasers and lessees.

Additionally, all LBP abatement activities must follow California and federal occupational safety and health administrations (California Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Cal/OSHA] and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA], respectively and with the State of California Department of Health Services requirements. Only LBP trained and certified abatement personnel can perform abatement activities. All lead LBP removed from structures must be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to transport this type of material at a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable Federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are contained in the CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. The management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:

1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (42 USC 6901 et seq.)

2. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act) (42 USC 9601 et seq.)

3. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et. Seq.)

4. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99 499) These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that generate, use, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. USEPA provides oversight and supervision for Federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions and treatment standards.

U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations
USDOT prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, including requirements for hazardous waste containers and licensed haulers that transport hazardous waste on public roads. The Secretary of the USDOT receives the authority to regulate the transportation of hazardous materials from the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended and codified in in 49 U.S. Code (U.S.C.) Section 5101 et seq. The Secretary is authorized to issue regulations to implement the requirements of 49 U.S.C. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-8
Safety Administration (PHMSA), formerly the Research and Special Provisions Administration, was delegated the responsibility to write the hazardous materials regulations, which are contained in Title 49 of the CFR Parts 100-180. Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the HMTA, specifies requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials.

It requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements.

Under the HMTA, the Secretary "may authorize any officer, employee, or agent to enter upon, inspect, and examine, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, the records and properties of persons to the extent such records and properties relate to: (1) the manufacture, fabrication, marking, maintenance, reconditioning, repair, testing, or distribution of packages or containers for use by any 'person' in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce; or (2) the transportation or shipment by any 'person' of hazardous materials in commerce.

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
The U.S. Department of Labor’s OSHA was created to assure safe and healthful working conditions by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.

OSHA provides standards for general industry and construction industry on hazardous waste operations and emergency response. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is implemented by OSHA, contains provisions with respect to hazardous materials handling. Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act requirements, as set forth in Title 29 of the CFR Section 1910, et. seq., are designed to promote worker safety, worker training, and a worker’s right-to-know. OSHA has delegated the authority to administer OSHA regulations to the State of California.

Title 49 of the CFR, which contains the regulations set forth by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1975, specifies additional requirements and regulations with respect to the transport of hazardous materials. Title 49 of the CFR requires that every employee who transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and become familiar with hazardous materials requirements. Drivers are also required to be trained in function and commodity-specific requirements.

Other Hazardous Materials Regulations
In addition to the USDOT regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, there are other applicable federal laws that also address hazardous materials:
 Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992  Clean Water Act
 Clean Air Act
 Safe Drinking Water Act
 Atomic Energy Act
 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) b. State Regulations
Department of Toxic Substances Control
As a department of the California Environmental Protection Agency, the DTSC is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-9
reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.

The DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) to regulate haza
rdous wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the USEPA approves the California program, both state and federal laws apply in California. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills.

Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the State Water Resources Control Board, and CalRecycle to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous waste sites throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an application for any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.

If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceeded specific criteria in Title 22 of the Cali fornia Code of Regulations.

Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority.

Cleanup requirements are determined on a case-by-case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.

California Occupational Safety and Health Act – California Labor Code, Section 6300 et seq.

The California Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1973 addresses California employee working conditions, enables the enforcement of workplace standards, and provides for advancements in the field of occupational health and safety. The Act also created CalOSHA, the primary agency responsible for worker safety in the handling and use of chemicals in the workplace. CalOSHA’s standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. Under the former, the employer is required to monitor worker exposure to listed hazardous substances and notify workers of exposure. The regulations specify requirements for employee training, availability of safety equipment, accident-prevention programs, and hazardous substance exposure warnings. At sites known or suspected to be contaminated by hazardous materials, workers must have training in hazardous materials operations and a Site Health and Safety Plan must be prepared, which establishes policies and procedures to protect workers and the public from exposure to potential hazards at the contaminated site.

California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Hazardous Waste Management At the State level, under Title 22, Division 4.5 of the CCR, DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code (HSC). The Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL), under CCR 22, Chapter 30, establishes regulations that are similar to RCRA but more stringent in their application and empowers the DTSC to administer the State’s hazardous waste program and implement the federal program in

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-10
California. The DTSC is responsible for permitting, inspecting, ensuring compliance, and imposing corrective action programs to ensure that entities that generate, store, transport, treat, or dispose of potentially hazardous materials and waste comply with federal and State laws. The DTSC defines hazardous waste as waste with a chemical composition or other properties that make it capable of causing illness, death, or some other harm to humans and other life forms when mismanaged or released into the environment. The DTSC shares responsibility for enforcement and implementation of hazardous waste control laws with the SWRCB and, at the local level, the LARWQCB, and city and county governments.

California Code of Regulations Title 23, Chapter 15 Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land Section 2511(b)
CCR 23, Chapter 15 Discharges of Hazardous Waste to Land Section 2511(b) pertains to water quality aspects of waste discharge to land. The regulation establishes waste and site classifications as well as waste management requirements for waste treatment, storage, or disposal in landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, and land treatment facilities. Requirements are minimum standards for proper management of each waste category, which allows regional water boards to impose more stringent requirements to accommodate regional and site-specific conditions. In addition, the requirements of CCR 23, Chapter 15 applies to cleanup and abatement actions for unregulated hazardous waste discharges to land (e.g., spills).

California Accidental Release Prevention (Cal ARP) Program The purpose of the Cal ARP program is to prevent accidental releases of substances that can cause serious harm to the public and the environment, to minimize the damage if releases do occur, and to satisfy community right-to-know laws. The Cal ARP requires any business that handles more than threshold quantities of an extremely hazardous substance per California regulations to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). The RMP is implemented by the business to prevent or mitigate releases of regulated substances that could have off-site consequences through hazard identification, planning, source reduction, maintenance, training, and engineering controls. The RMP contains the following elements:
 Safety Information
 A Hazard Review
 Operating Procedures
 Training Requirements
 Compliance Audits
 Incident Investigation Procedures
The RMP must also consider the proximity to sensitive populations located in schools, residential areas, general acute care hospitals, long-term health care facilities, and child day care facilities. The RMP must also consider external events such as seismic activity. The CUPAs determine the level of detail in the RMPs, review the RMPs, conduct facility inspections, and provide public access to most of the information. There are three program levels identified by Cal ARP and they are dependent on the type of business, potential impact, and accident history, among other factors.

If an accidental release occurs the owner/operator of a facility shall ensure that response actions have been coordinated with local emergency planning and response agencies.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-11
California Fire and Building Code
The 2019 Fire and Building Code establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare for the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of this code apply to the construction, alteration, movement enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout the State of California. c. Local Regulations
City of Berkeley General Plan
The Berkeley General Plan Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and Environmental Management Element includes goals and policies to reduce the risk of death, injuries, and property damage in the city. Relevant goals and policies are listed below:

Policy S-1 Response Planning. Ensure that the City’s emergency response plans are current and incorporate the latest information on hazards, vulnerability, and resources.

Policy S-10 Mitigation of Potentially Hazardous Buildings. Pursue all feasible methods, programs, and financing to mitigate potentially hazardous buildings.

Policy S-12 Utility and Transportation Systems. Improve the disaster-resistance of utility and transportation systems to increase public safety and to minimize damage and service disruption following a disaster.

Policy S-13 Hazards Identification. Identify, avoid, and minimize natural and human-caused hazards in the development of property and the regulation of land use.

Policy S-14 Land Use Regulation. Require appropriate mitigation in new development, in redevelopment/reuse, or in other applications.

Policy S-15 Construction Standards. Maintain construction standards that minimize risks to human lives and property from environmental and human-caused hazards for both new and existing buildings.

Policy S-21 Fire Preventative Design Standards. Develop and enforce construction and design standards that ensure new structures incorporate appropriate fire prevention features and meet current fire safety standards.

Policy S-22 Fire Fighting Infrastructure. Reduce fire hazard risks in existing developed areas.

Policy S-23 Property Maintenance. Reduce fire hazard risks in existing developed areas by ensuring that private property is maintained to minimize vulnerability to fire hazards.

Policy S-24 Mutual Aid. Continue to fulfill legal obligations and support mutual aid efforts to coordinate fire suppression in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, Oakland, the East Bay Regional Park District, and the State of California to prevent and suppress major wildland and urban fire destruction.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-12
Policy EM-8 Building Reuse and Construction Waste: Encourage rehabilitation and reuse of buildings whenever appropriate and feasible in order to reduce waste, conserve resources and energy, and reduce construction costs.

Policy EM-10 Materials Recovery and Remanufacturing: Support and encourage serial materials recovery and remanufacturing industries.

Policy EM-11 Biodegradable Materials and Green Chemistry: Support efforts to phase out the use of long-lived synthetic compounds, such as pesticides and vehicle anti-freeze, and certain naturally occurring substances which do not biodegrade. Encourage efforts to change manufacturing processes to use biodegradable materials, recycle manufactured products, reuse byproducts, and use “green” products.

Policy EM-12 Education: Work with other State and local agencies to educate business owners and residents regarding safe use, recycling, and disposal of toxic materials; reducing hazardous household wastes; and substitutes for these substances.

Policy EM-13 Hazardous Materials Disclosure: Continue to require the disclosure of hazardous materials usage and encourage businesses using such materials to prepare and implement a plan to reduce the use of hazardous materials and the generation of hazardous wastes.

Policy EM-14 Hazardous Material Regulation: Control and regulate the use, storage and transportation of toxic, explosive, and other hazardous and extremely hazardous material to prevent unauthorized and accidental discharges.

Policy EM-15 Environmental Investigation: When reviewing applications for new development in areas historically used for industrial uses, require environmental investigation as necessary to ensure that soils, groundwater, and buildings affected by hazardous material releases from prior land uses would not have the potential to affect the environment or the health and safety of future property owners, users, or construction workers.

Policy EM-16 Risk Reduction: Work with owners of vulnerable structures with significant quantities of hazardous material to mitigate potential risks.

Policy EM-17 Warning Systems: Establish a way to warn residents of a release of toxic material or other health hazard, such as sirens and/or radio broadcasts.

Berkeley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
Berkeley is exposed to several natural and human-caused hazards that vary in their intensity and impacts on the city. The LHMP addresses earthquake, wildland-urban interface, fire, flood, landslide, tsunami, and also hazardous materials releases, climate change, extreme heat events, and terrorism. Hazardous materials release is described as a cascading impact of a natural hazard.

The City of Berkeley’s 2019 LHMP serves three main functions:
 The 2019 LHMP documents the City’s current understanding of the hazards present in Berkeley, along with their vulnerabilities to each hazard – the ways that the hazard could impact buildings, infrastructure, community, and environment.
 The LHMP presents Berkeley City government’s Mitigation Strategy for the coming five years.

The Mitigation Strategy reflects a wide variety of both funded and unfunded actions, each of which could reduce the Berkeley’s hazard vulnerabilities.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-13
 By fulfilling requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, the 2019 LHMP ensures that Berkeley will remain eligible to apply for mitigation grants before disasters, and to receive federal mitigation funding and additional State recovery funding after disasters.

City of Berkeley Municipal Code
Title 15 of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) includes the Berkeley Hazardous Materials Code. The intent of this title to provide regulations and standards for certain operations, enterprises or activities which, if not regulated, may adversely affect the public health and safety.

Berkeley’s Toxics Management Division (TMD) is a Certified Unified Program Agency and implements Chapter 6.11 of Div. 20 of Cal Health & State code and Title 15 of the BMC. The TMD has created Berkeley’s Hazardous Materials Business Plan which is meant to satisfy federal and state Community laws. It provides detailed information for use by emergency responders. The Hazardous Materials Business Plan also assists residents in complying with the State requirements and provides emergency responders adequate information about the type, quantity of, storage location – and management practices regarding – hazardous materials that are stored at different facilities within Berkeley. A Hazardous Material Business Plan must be filed if the following occurs:
 At any time during the year hazardous materials or hazardous wastes are handled, stored or generated and are equal to or greater than
 55 gallons for liquids
 500 pounds for solids
 200 cubic feet (at normal temperature and pressure) for compressed gases  A facility handles any amount of perchlorate material, pursuant to California Health & Safety Code (CHSC) Section 25504.1.
 A facility has any quantity of radioactive materials pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Title 15.

Report the information on the Hazardous Materials Inventory.  A facility has any quantity of etiologic agents, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Title 15. You must report the agent name, quantity and storage location to the TMD

 A facility exceeds reportable thresholds for Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHSs), as defined in 40 CFR, Part 355, Appendix A
 A facility stores or handles manufactured nanoscale materials, pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Title 15. The City’s TMD must be contacted to determine if documentation is required.

4.8.3 Impact Analysis
a. Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
The following thresholds are based on CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. For purposes of this EIR, impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:

Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;
Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment;

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-14
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;
For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area; Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or
Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.

As described at the beginning of this section, an analysis of the risk of exposure to wildland fires resulting from implementation of the proposed HEU is contained in Section 4.17, Wildfire.

Therefore, threshold 7 is addressed in Section 4.17, Wildfire. b. Project Impacts or Mitigation Measures
Threshold 1: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Threshold 2: Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Impact HAZ-1 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD FACILITATE NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN BERKELEY. PROPOSED NEW RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD NOT INVOLVE THE ROUTINE TRANSPORTATION, USE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. HOWEVER, CONSTRUCTION OF NEW

RESIDENCES COULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN THE OVERALL ROUTINE, TRANSPORT, USE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN BERKELEY FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. NONETHELESS, REQUIRED COMPLIANCE

WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND COMPLIANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN POLICIES WOULD MINIMIZE THE RISK OF RELEASES AND EXPOSURE TO THESE MATERIALS. IMPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Although no specific development projects are proposed as part of the HEU, development facilitated by the proposed HEU could accommodate construction of an estimated 19,098 new residential units in Berkeley.

Construction Activities
The following discussion addresses the use of hazardous materials during construction activities; the potential for release of existing contaminated materials during construction; and the potential for release of lead-based paint or asbestos-containing materials (ACM) during demolition or construction.

Use of Hazardous Materials During Construction
Construction associated with future development in Berkeley may include the temporary transport, storage, and use of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, or

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-15
solvents. If spilled, these substances could pose a risk to the environment and to human health.

However, the transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is subject to various federal, state, and local regulations designed to reduce risks associated with hazardous materials, including potential risks associated with upset or accident conditions. Hazardous materials would be required to be transported under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations (U.S. DOT Hazardous Materials Transport Act, 49 Code of Federal Regulations), which stipulate the types of containers, labeling, and other restrictions to be used in the movement of such material on interstate highways. DTSC regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination, and looks for ways to control and reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. It does this primarily under the authority of RCRA and in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California H&SC Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Divisions 4 and 4.5). DTSC also oversees permitting, inspection, compliance, and corrective action programs to ensure that hazardous waste managers follow federal and State requirements and other laws that affect hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning.

Compliance with existing regulations would reduce the risk of potential release of hazardous materials during construction.

Release of Contaminated Materials During Construction
Porti
ons of Berk
eley are located in Environmental Management Areas (EMA) as identified by the City’s TMD that identifies areas known or suspected to have groundwater contamination (City of Berkeley 2010). Potential health and environmental concerns related to contaminated groundwater and soil may occur during excavation and dewatering for new construction. In addition, grading or excavation on sites with existing contamination may also result in the transport and disposal of hazardous materials if they are unearthed and removed from the site. However, future development under the project would be subject to regulatory programs such as those overseen by the RWQCB and the DTSC. These agencies require applicants for development of potentially contaminated properties to perform investigation and cleanup if the properties are contaminated with hazardous substances. In addition, development in the EMA requires project review by the TMD prior to issuance of permits. Finally, all projects requiring discretionary review (including all new construction of dwelling units), would be subject to the following City of Berkeley Standard Condition of Approval:

Toxics. The applicant shall contact the Toxics Management Division (TMD) to determine which of the following documents are required and timing for their submittal:

A. Environmental Site Assessments

1. Phase I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (lat est ASTM 1527-13). A recent
Phase I ESA (less than 6 months old*) shall be submitted to TMD for developments for:
 All new commercial, industrial and mixed-use developments and all large improvement projects.
 All new residential buildings with 5 or more dwelling units located in the Environmental Management Area (or EMA).
 EMA is available online at:
http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/ema.pdf

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-16

2. Phase II ESA is required to evaluate Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC) identified in the Phase I or other RECs identified by TMD staff. The TMD may require a third party toxicologist to review human or ecological health risks that may be identified. The applicant may apply to the appropriate state, regional or county cleanup agency to evaluate the risks.

3. If the Phase I is over 6 months old, it will require a new site reconnaissance and interviews. If the facility was subject to regulation under Title 15 of the Berkeley Municipal Code since the last Phase I was conducted, a new records review must be performed.

B. Soil and Groundwater Management Plan

1. A Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) shall be submitted to TMD for all non-residential projects, and residential or mixed-use projects with five or more dwelling units, that: (1) are in the Environmental Management Area (EMA) and (2) propose any excavations deeper than 5 feet below grade. The SGMP shall be site specific and identify procedures for soil and groundwater management including identification of pollutants and disposal methods. The SGMP will identify permits required and comply with all applicable local, state and regional requirements.

2. The SGMP shall require notification to TMD of any hazardous materials found in soils and groundwater during development. The SGMP will provide guidance on managing odors during excavation. The SGMP will provide the name and phone number of the individual responsible for implementing the SGMP and post the name and phone number for the person responding to community questions and complaints.

3. TMD may impose additional conditions as deemed necessary. All requirements of the approved SGMP shall be deemed conditions of approval of this Use Permit.

C. Building Materials Survey

1. Prior to approving any permit for partial or complete demolition and renovation activities involving the removal of 20 square or lineal feet of interior or exterior walls, a building materials survey shall be conducted by a qualified professional. The survey shall include, but not be limited to, identification of any lead-based paint, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyl (PBC) containing equipment, hydraulic fluids in elevators or lifts, refrigeration systems, treated wood and mercury containing devices (including fluorescent light bulbs and mercury switches). The Survey shall include plans on hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal procedures to be implemented that fully comply with state hazardous waste generator requirements (22 California Code of Regulations 66260 et seq). The Survey becomes a condition of any building or demolition permit for the project. Documentation evidencing disposal of hazardous waste in compliance with the survey shall be submitted to TMD within 30 days of the completion of the demolition. If asbestos is identified, Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 11-2-401.3 a notification must be made and the J number must be made available to the City of Berkeley Permit Service Center.

D. Hazardous Materials Business Plan

1. A Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) in compliance with BMC Section 15.12.040 shall be submitted electronically at http://cers.calepa.ca.gov/ within 30 days if on-site hazardous materials exceed BMC 15.20.040. HMBP requirement can be found at http://ci.berkeley.ca.us/hmr/

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-17
The removal, transport, storage, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be subject to federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, including those outlined in the Standard condition of approval above. Compliance with these requirements would assure that risks associated with hazardous materials would be minimized. Impacts would be less than significant.

Asbestos and Lead
Berk
eley contains numerous residential and commercial buildings that, due to their age, may contain asbestos and/or lead-based
paint. Structures built before the 1970s typically contained asbestos containing materials (ACM). Demolition or redevelopment of these structures could result in health hazard impacts to workers if not remediated prior to construction activities. However, future projects in Berkeley would be subject to the City of Berkeley Standard Conditions of Approval above, which includes a Building Materials Survey prior to approval of permits for complete or partial demolition. The condition of approval requires that a building materials survey be conducted by a qualified professional. The survey must include plans on hazardous waste or hazardous materials removal, reuse or disposal procedures to be implemented that fully comply with state hazardous waste generator requirements. Future projects in the Berkeley would also be required to adhere to BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2, which governs the proper handling and disposal of ACM for demolition, renovation, and manufacturing activities in the Bay Area, and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (CalOSHA) regulations regarding lead-based materials. The California Code of Regulations, §1532.1, requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead-based materials, such that exposure levels do not exceed CalOSHA standards.

With adherence to Standard Conditions of Approval, BAAQMD, and CalOSHA policies regarding ACM and lead-based paint, impacts at the program level would be less than significant.

Operation
Residential uses do not typically use hazardous materials other than small amounts for cleaning and landscaping. These materials would not be different from household chemicals and solvents already in wide use throughout the Berkeley. Residents and workers are anticipated to use limited quantities of products routinely for periodic cleaning, repair, and maintenance or for landscape maintenance/pest control that could contain hazardous materials. Those using such products would be required to comply with all applicable regulations regarding the disposal of household waste.

Therefore, operation of new residential uses pose little risk of exposing the public to hazardous materials.

The proposed project is anticipated and intended to expand housing capacity; the proposed HUE would not facilitate the establishment of new industrial, warehouse, auto-service, or manufacturing uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not introduce new manufacturing, warehouse, or industrial uses that would sell, use, store, transport, or release substantial quantities of hazardous materials
Hazardous Materials Transportation
New housing units would be located in areas near major transportation corridors and existing residential and commercial development. Hazardous materials may be transported into and throughout Berkeley on US-13, I-580, University Avenue, Cedar Street, Shattuck Avenue, Telegraph Avenue, Sixth Street, San Pablo Avenue, and collector and local streets. Accidents on these roadways could result in the release of hazardous materials. Development facilitated by the

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-18
proposed HEU would increase residential density near major arterial streets. Industrial and commercial uses on these arterials may require the routine transport of hazardous materials for their business operations. Therefore, development facilitated by the proposed HEU would increase the number of residents near transportation corridors where hazardous materials may be routinely transported. The expected development of housing in Berkeley would increase the number of people in Berkeley that could be exposed to a potential accidental release of hazardous materials.

However, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of Hazardous Materials Safety regulates the tr
ansportation of hazardous materials, as described in Title 49 of the CFR, and implemented by Title 13 of the CCR. The U.S. Documentation of compliance with hazardous materials regulations codified in Titles 8, 22, and 26 of the CCR, and their enabling legislation set fort h in Chapter 6.95 of
the California Health and Safety Code, is required for all hazardous waste transport. In addition, individual contractors and property owners are required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations pertaining to the transport, use, disposal, handling, and storage of hazardous waste, including but not limited to, Title 49 of the CFR. Adherence to applicable regulations and laws would reduce the potential hazards associated with the transport of hazardous materials, including accidental release of hazardous materials during transport.

In addition to mandatory adherence to laws and regulations, Policy EM-14 Hazardous Material Regulation of the 2003 General Plan controls and regulates the use, storage, and transportation of toxic, explosive, and other hazardous and extremely hazardous material to prevent unauthorized and accidental discharges. Following these laws and regulations reduces the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials in transport. Impacts to hazardous materials transport would be less than significant.

Hazardous Materials Use, Storage, and Disposal
The proposed HEU would facilitate residential development within areas of Berkeley where hazardous materials could be stored or used, such as near mixed-use or industrial areas. Facilitating housing in areas near existing commercial and industrial development would add additional residents where hazardous materials are used or transported or where there has been past use of hazardous materials. This would mean that the potential of residents being exposed to hazardous materials may increase due to the following:
 Potential soil/groundwater contamination due to past practices  The proximity of new residential development to ongoing activity involving the use of hazardous materials.

The introduction of residential components in these areas could potentially increase exposure to hazardous materials. Although the overall quantity of hazardous materials used and requiring disposal in Berkeley could incrementally increase as a result of implementation of the proposed HEU, all new development that uses hazardous materials would be required to comply with the regulations, standards, and guidelines established by the USEPA, the State of California, and City of Berkeley related to storage, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.

As described above in the Regulatory Setting discussion, CAL ARP, the Hazardous Materials Business Plan created by Berkeley’s TMD and the LHMP established by Alameda County and the City of Berkeley aim to minimize community exposure to hazardous and potentially hazardous materials by avoiding toxic cleaning and building materials and products in civic facilities and services; providing information, opportunities, and incentives to the community for proper disposal of toxic materials; encouraging non-toxic materials and products in homes and businesses as an alternative to

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-19
products containing potentially hazardous materials; and providing procedures to follow in the event of a spill. Compliance with these policies would further prepare the City, reduce the risk of spills, and protect the public in the event of an accidental spill or exposure.

In addition to mandatory adherence to laws and regulations, compliance with the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element and the Environmental Management Element policies from the General Plan, including Policy S-15 (Construction Standards), Policy EM-12 (Education), Policy EM-13 (Hazardous Materials Disclosure), and Policy EM-15 (Environmental Investigation), would reduce the potential for accidental exposure and hazards associated with the use and disposal of hazardous materials. The HEU includes policies and programs to mitigate environmental constraints and comply with the Disaster Preparedness and Safety Element. These policies and programs include the following:
 HEU Policy -10 Lead-Poisoning Prevention
 HEU Policy-12 Home Modification for Accessibility and Safety  HEU Policy-15 Seismic Safety and Preparedness Programs  HEU Policy-18 Building Emissions Saving Ordinance (BESO) The City has also included in their HEU annual property inspections, more restrictive local building code amendments, vegetation management and defensible space, improvement of access and evacuation routes, and infrastructure improvements.

Summary
Compliance with existing applicable regulations and programs would minimize risks from routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, including potential hazards from the accidental release of hazardous materials. Oversight by the appropriate federal, State, and local agencies and compliance by new development with applicable regulations related to the handling and storage of hazardous materials would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these materials.

Therefore, impacts from a hazard to the public or the environmental through routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials, or from accidental release or exposure to these materials would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 3: Woul d the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact HAZ-2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HEU MAY RESULT IN HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS OR HANDLING OF HAZARDOUS OR ACUTELY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, SUBSTANCES, OR WASTE WITHIN 0.25 MILE OF AN EXISTING OR PROPOSED SCHOOL. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS WOULD MINIMIZE RISKS TO SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS, RESULTING IN A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

The proposed project would facilitate residential and mixed-use development in Berkeley. There are 122 inventory sites within a 0.25-mile radius of Berkeley's existing schools and childcare facilities, as shown in Figure 4.8-2. Add itional sites in the Southside and in the middle housing rezoni ng districts
may be located within 0.25 mile of a school.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-20
As described above under Impact HAZ-1, the proposed HEU would not involve new industrial or manufacturing uses. Hazardous materials and waste generated from reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the proposed HEU would not pose a health risk to nearby schools or childcare facilities as a majority of these developments would be residential, which is a use that does not typically handle or emit hazardous materials or substances. They may involve use and storage of some materials considered hazardous, though primarily these would be limited to solvents, paints, chemicals used for cleaning and building maintenance, and landscaping supplies.

These materials would not be different from household chemicals and solvents already in general and wide use throughout the Berkeley. Uses in the Berkeley that sell, use, store, generate, or release hazardous materials must adhere to applicable federal, State, and local safety standards, ordinances, and regulations.

Additionally, if future housing projects under the HEU include mixed-use commercial, businesses developed as part of these developments that handle or have on-site storage of hazardous materials would be required to comply with the provisions of the California Fire Code and the HHMD CUPA requirements set forth in the California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter

6.95, Articles 1 and 2. As described in the Regulatory Setting above, all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials are required to submit a hazardous materials business plan to a regulating agency, in this case, the HHMD. Therefore, reasonably foreseeable development accommodated under the proposed HEU would not result in use of new hazardous material use within a quarter mile radius of existing schools and childcare facilities in Berkeley, and impacts would be less than significant.

As mentioned above under Impact HAZ-1, construction associated with future development under the HEU may include the temporary transport, storage, and use of potentially hazardous materials including fuels, lubricating fluids, cleaners, or solvents. Specifically, demolition of existing buildings and grading and excavation activities associated with new construction within Berkeley may result in emissions and transport of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of existing schools.

However, adherence to applicable requirements, including DOT and DTSC regulations and the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval regarding emission and transport of hazardous materials would ensure impacts at the program level would be less than significant.

Following the policies laid out by the Hazardous Materials Business Plan and the LHMP laid out by Berkeley and Alameda County would minimize risks associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials during operation of the residential and commercial spaces. Additionally, compliance with all other appropriate federal, State, and local agencies, such as CCR and CalOSHA, would minimize the risk of the public’s potential exposure to these materials. Therefore, impacts to the public or environment through the accidental release or exposure to hazardous materials as a result of project implementation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-21
Threshold 4: Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Impact HAZ-3 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT ON OR NEAR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES. HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS AND THE CITY’S STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL REQUIRING SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND CLEANUP WOULD MINIMIZE HAZARDS FROM DEVELOPMENT ON CONTAMINATED SITES. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

As noted in the Setting above, there are 361 documented open sites containing or potentially containing hazardous materials contamination in underlying soil and/or groundwater in Berkeley.

Further, contamination may be present on other sites not yet documented or listed on a regulatory database such as sites that are currently or have formerly used by gas stations, dry cleaners, and industrial uses. Development facilitated by the proposed HEU may involve ground disturbance on sites where soil, soil vapor, or groundwater contamination is present such that hazardous materials are released. This could expose construction workforce and or nearby occupants to hazardous materials. In particular, inventory sites in the western portion of the City may be exposed to hazardous materials from Cleanup Program sites off San Pablo Avenue and west of Sixth street as well as along University Avenue, among other locations.

Development near these locations would be preceded by investigation, remediation, and cleanup under the supervision of the City’s TMD, Regional Water Quality Control Board or DTSC before construction activities could begin. Therefore, the sites would be remediated in accordance with State and regional standards for residential and mixed uses.

It is also possible that underground storage tanks (USTs) in use prior to permitting and record keeping requirements may be present in Berkeley. If an unidentified UST were uncovered or disturbed during construction activities, it would be removed under permit; if such removal would potentially undermine the structural stability of existing structures, foundations, or impact existing utilities, the tank might be closed in place without removal. Tank removal activities could pose both health and safety risks, such as the exposure of workers, tank handling personnel, and the public to tank contents or vapors. Potential risks, if any, posed by USTs would be minimized by managing the tank according to existing standards contained in Division 20, Chapters 6.7 and 6.75 (Underground Storage Tank Program) of the California Health and Safety Code as enforced and monitored by the HHMD. Therefore, potential impacts associated with USTs would be less than significant upon required compliance with applicable regulations.

The extent to which groundwater may be affected by an underground tank, if at all, depends on the type of contaminant, the amount released, the duration of the release, and depth to groundwater.

If groundwater contamination is identified, characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination and remediation activities would be required by RWQCB prior to the commencement of any new construction activities that would disturb the subsurface. If groundwater contamination is identified, characterization of the vertical and lateral extent of the contamination and remediation activities would be required by the by the RWQCB prior to the commencement of any new construction activities that would disturb the subsurface. If contamination exceeds regulatory action levels, the developer would be required to undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the supervision of the RWQCB, depending upon the nature of any identified contamination.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-22
As discussed under Impact HAZ-1, future development would be subject to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval and the City’s TMD would evaluate projects to determine if Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments are required to characterize potential contamination and develop a soil and groundwater management plan to address hazards during construction and operation.

Compliance with existing State and local regulations as well as the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval listed under Impact HAZ-1 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 5: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact HAZ-4 THERE ARE NO AIRPORTS WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE BERKELEY, AND BERKELEY IS NOT WITHIN THE INFLUENCE AREA OF AN AIRPORT. NO IMPACT WOULD OCCUR.

There are no public or private airports within Berkeley. The nearest airport is the Oakland International Airport which is located 14 miles south of the City limits. The proposed HEU would have no impact related to a safety hazard or excessive noise hazards within airport land use plan areas or in proximity to airports.

Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required.

Threshold 6: Wou ld the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact HAZ-5 THE PROPOSED HEU WOULD NOT RESULT IN PHYSICAL CHANGES THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH OR IMPAIR EMERGENCY RESPONSE OR EVACUATION. THEREFORE, THE PROJECT WOULD NOT RESULT IN INTERFERENCE WITH THESE TYPES OF ADOPTED PLANS. THIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.

Figure 14 of the Berkeley General Plan identifies existing emergency access and evacuation routes in the City. Many of the proposed inventory sites are located along access and evacuation routes including Sacramento Street, Ashby Avenue, University Avenue, and San Pablo Avenue. General Plan Policy T-28 identifies actions for emergency access. These include not installing diverters or speed humps on streets identified as Emergency Access and Evacuation Routes. While traffic increases associated with the proposed rezoning may affect streets within the city, Sacramento Street, Adeline Street, Ashby Avenue, and Shattuck Avenue would still serve as evacuation routes in case of emergency.

As discussed in Section 4.13, Public
Services and Recreation, fut
ure development in the City would
be required to conform to the latest fire code requirements, including provisions for emergency access. With adherence to existing General Plan policies and other regulations, implementation of the proposed HEU would not impair or interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan.

This impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.8-23
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, mitigation is not required. c. Cumulative Impacts
As stated in Section 3, Environmental Setting, cumulative development would consist of development under the proposed HEU well as additional projects proposed within the City of Berkeley associated with the University of California’s LRDP. Cumulative development could contribute to an increase in hazards related to the use of, and exposure to, hazardous materials. As discussed in the impact analysis, development carried out under the HEU may increase the potential for community risk from hazards and hazardous materials. However, all individual developments carried out under the HEU would be subject to General Plan policies and existing laws and regulations which would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Since all projects carried out under the proposed HEU would be subject to these policies and regulations, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Plan would not combine with any other projects to substantially increase hazards and hazardous materials impacts, especially since other projects would also be subject to local, state, and federal regulations relating to hazards and hazardous materials. Overall, with implementation of the policies and actions included in the General Plan and compliance with existing laws and regulations, the Plan would not make a substantial contribution to cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts, and these cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.8-24

This page intentionally left blank.

Environmental Impact Analysis
Hydrology and Water Quality

Draft Environmental Impact Report 4.9-1

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section evaluates the potential environmental effects related to hydrology and water quality associated with implementation of the proposed Housing Element Update.

4.9.1 Setting
a. Hydrology
Regional Watershed
The California Department of Water Resources divides surface watersheds in California into 10 hydrologic regions. Berkeley lies in San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region (Bay Region), which contains 33 alluvial groundwater basins, covers approximately 4,500 square miles, and includes all of San Francisco County and portions of Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Contra Costa, and Alameda counties. The Bay Region comprises numerous watersheds that drain directly into San Francisco Bay, downstream of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and coastal creek watersheds in Marin and San Mateo counties that drain directly to the Pacific Ocean. Within the San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region, the Berkeley is in the Bay Bridges Hydrologic Unit, Berkeley Hydrologic Area, undefined Hydrologic Sub-Area, undefined CDFW Super Planning Watershed, and Point Richmond CDFW Planning Watershed.

Local Watershed
Berkeley is located on the eastern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay and extends east to the ridgelines of the East Bay Hills. There are 10 watersheds (not including the Marina) entirely or partially within City limits. The Potter Watershed is the largest watershed in the city, encompassing approximately one-third of the land area from the southern boundary of the Strawberry Creek Watershed in the north to roughly the Berkeley city limit in the south, and from Claremont Canyon in the east to the San Francisco Bay shore in the west. The watersheds in Berkeley eventually drain into the San Francisco Bay, with the exception of the Wildcat watershed which drains to the north on the eastern side of the ridgelines of the Berkeley Hills (City of Berkeley 2011).

Groundwater
Berkeley lies within the East Bay Plain Subbasin for which the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) serves as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA). Water supply in Berkeley is also provided by EBMUD. The majority of the water delivered by EBMUD originates from the Mokelumne River watershed, and the remaining water originates as runoff from the protected watershed lands and reservoirs in the East Bay Hills. Supplemental groundwater projects would allow EBMUD to be flexible in response to changing external conditions, such as single-year or multiple-year droughts.

Surface Water
Berkeley contains five principal creeks: Derby, Potter, Strawberry, Schoolhouse, and Codornices, all of which flow west from the Berkeley Hills into San Francisco Bay. In addition, there are eight other creeks that are at least partially within the city limits (City of Berkeley 2001). Figure 4.9-1 contains a map showing surface water in Berkeley.

City of Berkeley
City of Berkeley 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

4.9-2
b. Water Quality
The San Francisco Bay region’s immediate watershed is highly urbanized, resulting in contaminant loads from point and nonpoint sources. Stormwater runoff pollutants vary with land use, topography, and the amount of impervious surface, as well as the amount and frequency of rainfall and irrigation practices. Typically, runoff in developed areas contains oil, grease, litter, and metals accumulated in streets, driveways, parking lots, and rooftop. It also contains pollutants applied to landscaped areas. All stormwater runoff generated in Berkeley eventually discharges into San Francisco Bay. The runoff is conveyed by storm drains, open channel creeks, and culverted creeks to the Bay. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFBRWQCB) is the primary agency charged with protecting and enhancing surface and ground water quality in the region (City of Berkeley 2011).

The SFBRWQCB monitors surface water quality through implementation of the Basin Plan and designates beneficial uses for surface water bodies and groundwater. Since nearly all of the waterways within the Potter Watershed are underground, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has not designated beneficial uses for any of the waterways in the watershed (SFBRWQCB 2017). c. Flood Hazards
FEMA Flood Hazard Zones
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) establishes base flood elevations (BFE) for 100-year and 500-year flood zones and establishes Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). SFHAs are those areas within 100-year flood zones or areas that will be inundated by a flood event having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The 500-year flood zone is defined as the area that could be inundated by the flood which has a 0.2 percent probability of occurring in any given year, or once in 500 years, and is not considered an SFHA. Development in flood zones is regulated through the Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 17.12 Flood Development.

Portions of Berkely are located within the 100-year and 500-year flood hazard zones as mapped by FEMA and are defined by FEMA as flood prone. Figure 4.9-2 shows FEMA flood zones within Berkeley.

Most flooding in Berkeley is caused by (1) heavy rainfall and subsequent runoff volumes that cannot be adequately conveyed by the existing storm drainage system and surface water; or (2) flooding along the waterfront when flows out of the storm drainage system are limited by the backwater effects of the high tide. Areas subject to flooding are primarily found on the western side of Berkeley in the tidal basin areas south of Third Street between Codornices Creek and Gilman Street and between University Avenue and Ashby Avenue (Aquatic Park). Strawberry Creek poses a flood hazard for downtown Berkeley, immediately west of Oxford Street, and to portions of the central UC campus. The North Fork of Strawberry Creek in particular is subject to flash flood conditions in periods of intense rainfall (City of Berkeley 2001).